Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWatershed Management Advisory Board 20024k, 6*14rTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/02 February 8, 2002 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/02, was held In the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, February 8, 2002. The Chair Irene Jones, called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. PRESENT Lorna Bissell Ila Bossons Cliff Gyles Irene Jones Anthony Ketchum Jim McMaster Dick O'Brien Ian Sinclair Frank Scarpitti Tanny Wells REGRETS Pam McConnell Dave Ryan RES. #D1/02 - Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES Jim McMaster Ian Sinclair Vice Chair Member Member Chair Member Member Chair, Authority Member Member Member THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/01, held on November 16, 2001, be approved. Member Member CARRIED DELEGATIONS (a) Trevor D'Souza of 42 Royal Rouge Trail, Scarborough, speaking in regards to Erosion Control Projects. (b) Danielle Giggie of 48 Royal Rouge Trail, Scarborough, speaking in regards to Erosion Control Projects. 01 (c) Angelique Dias of 44 Royal Rouge Trail, Scarborough, speaking in regards to Erosion Control Projects. RES. #D2 /02 - Moved by: Seconded by: DELEGATIONS Lorna Bissell Ila Bossons THAT above -noted delegations (a) - (c) be heard and received. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Beth Williston, Etobicoke /Mimico Specialist, TRCA on item 7.6 - Authority Endorsement of Community Action Area Stewardship Groups. (b) A presentation by Gary Wilkins, Humber Specialist, TRCA on item 7.7 - Humber Watershed Community Action Sites. RES. #D3 /02 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Lorna Bissell Seconded by: Dick O'Brien THAT above -noted presentations (a) and (b) be heard and received. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) A fax dated February 7, 2002, in regards to the Ballycroy Resort proposal in the Township of Adjala- Tosorontio. RES. #D4 /02 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Anthony Ketchum Seconded by: Ian Sinclair THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received; AND FURTHER THAT at the Authority Meeting scheduled to be held on February 22, 2002, that staff report on the details of the proposed sediment control and water and sewage use by the proposed Ballycroy Resort and Golf Course, Including independent monitoring of their proposed water use, storage and sewage treatment. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (A) BALLYCROY RESORT A 290 acre development with hotel, conference centre, and 27 hole golf course on the Natural Core area of the Oak Ridges Moraine (the part of the Moraine which has been given the greatest protection by the govt.). The land is on the headwaters of the Humber River on an area designated as "Ecologically Sensitive" (ESA). It is at the junction of Hwy. 9 and Simcoe Co. Rd. #50 just west of Palgrave. (There are 15 golf courses in the immediate area with others planned.) The property was purchased in 1999 by Nancy and Mario Adamo, owners of the Hockley Valley Resort. In Oct. 2000 the Township of Adjala - Tosorontio passed amendment #1 to the Official Plan to change the land use from rural to open space /recreation to accommodate the developer. It appears that because of the municipal amendment (even though it has been appealed) the project will escape the protection of the new "Act to Conserve the Oak Ridges Moraine ". OMB hearings are scheduled to begin on March 4th. 2002 in Adjal a- Tosorontio unless the Minister. Chris Hodgson, uses his authority to stop this proposal. The Resorts water requirements will be entirely supplied by local groundwater. The developer estimates the daily requirements at 190,400 litres /day (41,910 gals.) In March, 2001, the County of Simcoe approved an irrigation system for the golf course which would use treated sewage effluent from the resort, storm water and seasonal overflow from the Humber. This will all be self - monitored by the Resort. Residents already complain of problems with the quantity and quality of their well water and golf courses are known to deplete acquifers and discharge chemicals. A great many trees will be cut down and there may wen be serious impacts on wildlife and fish in the Humber, a designated National Heritage River. In order to appeal this development, the Ballycroy Area Rural Conservation Alliance (BARCA) was incorporated by citizens in the area and beyond. It is part of the Save the Oak Ridges Moraine coalition. If nothing else, the warnings from Walkerton should be more than enough to persuade the government that it should stop such a clear contravention of the purpose of the Act. 3 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D5/02 - CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1997 -2001 Contributions towards remedial works from benefitting private property owners. Moved by: Ian Sinclair Seconded by: Tanny Wells THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the policy regarding the contribution by private property owners towards valley and shoreline regeneration works remains unchanged. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #7/01, Resolution #A186/01 was adopted: "THAT staff report back on the feasibility of getting financial contributions from land owners to assist in the cost of construction undertaken in the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997 - 2001." At Authority Meeting #5/81, Resolution #71/81 was adopted: "The following operational criteria for determining the benefiting owner(s) contribution under the Erosion and Sediment Control Programme be approved, (a) The Authority will require a minimum of a permanent easement over the private property for the work area and access rouges where it has been determined that title to the property is not required. A cash contribution in accordance with the approved scale will also be required, (b) Where the property involved would meet other Authority objectives, title to the lands must be transferred to the Authority as the owner contribution in lieu of a cash contribution; (c) Where agreement to policy (b) cannot be achieved, the benefiting owner(s) will be assessed 45% of the cost of the works, being the municipal share, (d) Where works are carried out on Authority -owned land for the protection of private property, the cash contribution will be waived; (e) In all cases, the Authority will require some form of binding indemnification agreement signed by the benefiting owner(s) which may be registered on title; (1) The benefiting owner(s) may make representation to the Authority, Executive Committee, or any Advisory Board with regard to any aspect of the erosion control programs in accordance with procedures adopted by Authority Resolution # 18180; n (g) Where required, the cash contribution from the benefiting owner(s) will be based on the following scales: PROPOSED OWNER CONTRIBUTIONS Residential Commercial /Industrial Max. 0 - 15,000 - 1,500 + 10% (Cost - 0) 3,000 15,000 - 30,000 - 3,500 + 10% (Cost - 15,000) 4,500 30,000 - 50,000 - 4,500 + 10% (Cost - 30,000) 6,500 50,000 - 75,000 - 6,500 + 10% (Cost - 50,000) 9,000 75,000 - 100,000 - 9,000 + 10% (Cost - 75,000) 11,500 100,000 - plus -11,500 + 10% (Cost - 100,000) Commercial /Industrial At Authority Meeting #8/97, Resolution #A193/97, Amendment Resolution #A194/97 and Amendment Resolution #A195/97 were adopted: "THAT the above -noted correspondence (a) from Mr. Trevor D'Souza be received, THAT staff be directed to prepare a report on the "formula" used in deciding the contribution of homeowners, when the Authority carries out slope stabilization or remedial work encroaching on the homeowners property, most specifically in the cases of Mr. Trevor D'Souza and Burgundy Court/Weston Road Project in the City of North York, AND FURTHER THAT after considerable discussion by the Members of the Board, that staff be directed to continue negotiations with Mr. Trevor D'Souza to work towards an agreement to carry out slope stabilization on his property." 5 Max. 0 - 15,000 - 2,200 + 15% (Cost - 0) 4,400 15,000 - 30,000 - 4,400 + 15% (Cost - 15,000) 6,600 30,000 - 50,000 - 6,600 + 15% (Cost - 30,000) 9,600 50,000 - 75,000 - 9,600 + 15% (Cost - 50,000) 13,350 75,000 - 100,000 -13,350 + 15% (Cost - 75,000) 17,100 100,000 - plus -17,100 + 15% (Cost - 100,000) At Authority Meeting #8/97, Resolution #A193/97, Amendment Resolution #A194/97 and Amendment Resolution #A195/97 were adopted: "THAT the above -noted correspondence (a) from Mr. Trevor D'Souza be received, THAT staff be directed to prepare a report on the "formula" used in deciding the contribution of homeowners, when the Authority carries out slope stabilization or remedial work encroaching on the homeowners property, most specifically in the cases of Mr. Trevor D'Souza and Burgundy Court/Weston Road Project in the City of North York, AND FURTHER THAT after considerable discussion by the Members of the Board, that staff be directed to continue negotiations with Mr. Trevor D'Souza to work towards an agreement to carry out slope stabilization on his property." 5 AMENDMENT #1 "THAT a sub - committee be formed to study the issue of erosion control, both past practices and future Authority policy, including fill regulations, building permits, and waivers; AND FURTHER THAT this sub - committee report to the Watershed Management Advisory Board." AMENDMENT #2 "THAT paragraph three of the main motion be deleted and replaced with the following: THAT staff be directed to prepare a final offer by February, 1998, including a waiver of liability, to Mr. Trevor D'Souza in accordance with the adopted cost sharing policy under the Authority's erosion control and slope stabilization program for the slope stabilization work at his property located at 42 Royal Rouge Trail, in the City of Scarborough ". In 1998, a sub - committee was formed which included Authority members Maria Augimeri and Lorna Bissell along with Authority staff Brian Denney, Director of Watershed Management Division; Nick Saccone, Manager of the Environmental Services Section and Jim Tucker, Supervisor Water Control Projects. The committee reviewed the existing policy passed under resolution dated October 9, 1981 as it relates to recent valley land and shoreline regeneration projects carried out by the Authority. It was concluded that the existing policy of obtaining contributions by benefiting private property owners is a fair and equitable method of receiving contributions towards valley and shoreline regeneration projects on or effecting private property. The sub - committee reported back to the Watershed Management Board at Meeting #1/98, held on May 15, 1998. At Authority Meeting #4/98, held on May 29, 1998, Resolution A91/98 was approved. "THAT the policy regarding the contributions by private property owners towards Valley and Shoreline Regeneration works remains unchanged. e Staff has again reviewed the existing policy and conclude that it is a fair and equitable method of receiving contributions towards valley and shoreline regeneration projects on or affecting private property. For Information contact: Jim Tucker, extension 5247 Date: January 24, 2002 RES. #D6/02 - RECEIPT OF FUNDING FROM THE GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY Etobicoke Creek Projects Proposal. Information regarding a presentation made to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and acknowledgment of funding support to the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto's Living City Campaign and to the Etobicoke Creek watershed Moved by: Ian Sinclair Seconded by: Tanny Wells THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the funding received by the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto's Uving City Campaign, from the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, for projects on the Etobicoke Creek watershed be received; THAT the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, and in particular Randy McGill, Manager of the Environment, be thanked for their support of the Uving City Campaign and for their support In Improving the health of the Etobicoke Creek watershed; THAT staff maintain their relationship with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority for work on the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds, and extend this relationship to the Duffins Creek watershed; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Board regarding completion status of the projects that have been agreed to as part of the funding negotiation. CARRIED BACKGROUND On September 13, 2001 staff received confirmation that the Greater Toronto Airports Authority would be interested in partnering with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (fRCA) to address environmental issues of mutual interest. The total project funds to be received over the next three years amount to $270,000. Projects include: • Aquatic Ecosystem Project: $125,000 • Terrestrial Natural Heritage Project: $75,000 • Stormwater Management Project: $50,000 • Business Outreach Project: $20,000 • City and Countryside Project: A Case Study of LBPIA Development: permission to publish information about the airport was given For details regarding the deliverables required for each of these projects, please see the attached letter. This funding is the result of over a years worth of discussion and negotiation with the Airport Authority. On September 29, 2000 at Authority meeting #2/00, Resolution #A193/00 was approved: VA- "THAT the attached report entitled "A Proposal to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority for Valley land Regeneration in the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds through the establishment of The GTAA Environmental Regeneration Fund" dated August 2000, be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Authority regarding the Greater Toronto Airports Authority's response to the proposal." While the initial report was not accepted by the Airports Authority, it lead to a presentation to Airports Authority staff, by staff of both TRCA and The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, and the re- submission of a funding request in the spring of 2001. It is this latter request that was approved. Since that time, staff have also met with the Airports Authority regarding the development of the Pickering Airport lands on the Duffins Creek watershed. This relationship is expected to grow. Potential funding for the Duffins Creek watershed may be possible when and if the Airports Authority is formally given responsibility for this development by Transport Canada. WORK TO BE DONE • Staff are currently preparing a detailed terms of reference and fee schedule for each of the above projects. • Discussions with GTAA staff regarding details will be held early this spring • Projects will be initiated early this spring For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5236 Date: January 30, 2002 Attachments: 1 E6111 Attachment 1 GTAA September 13, 2001 Mr. Craig Mather . Chief Administrative Officer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 Dear Mr. Mather. Greater Toronto Airports Authority Lester B. Pearson International Airport P.O. Box 6031, 3111 Convair Drive Toronto AMF, Ontario, Canada UP 1B2 Corporate Affairs and Communications Steve Shaw Vine President. Corporate Affairs and Communications Tel: (905) 676 -3364 Faxt (905) 676 -7566 I am writing to you with respect to the on -going discussions between the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) regarding the TRCA's Living City Campaign. As you know, the GTAA is very interested in partnering with the TRCA to address environmental issues of mutual interest. Below is our response to the funding requests, as outlined in the "GTAA Etobicoke Creek River Partner Initiative: Summary of Projects" proposal. Aquatic Ecosystem Project The GTAA is prepared to contribute $125,000.00 to assist the TRCA to undertake aquatic habitat studies to identify Department of Fisheries and Oceans habitat - banking re4uirements related to runway construction on airport lands. Terrestrial Natural Heritage Project The GTAA is prepared to contribute $75,000.00 to assist the TRCA to apply its Terrestrial Natural Heritage model for the development of a regeneration and wildlife strategy for the airport lands as part of the broader plan for the watershed. This contribution is conditional on the GTAA having input to the terms of reference for study and having the opportunity to review the study prior to publication, as it is important that the concerns and needs of the airport and its operations are a component of this study. ./2 N, Mr. Craig Mather September 13, 2001 Page 2 Stormwater Management Project The GTAA is prepared to contribute $50,000.00 to support the initiatives of the TRCA to conduct upstream stormwater retrofit studies to improve flow and water quality of the 1tobicoke Creek as it flows into and through the airport lands. It is important, however, that these studies focus on all aspects of stormwater management, including stabilization and quantity control and not solely on pollution. Business Stewardship Project The GTAA is prepared to contribute $20,000.00 to support outreach initiatives of the TRCA to improve watershed practices of local industry upstream from the airport, to reduce negative impacts on Spring and Etobicoke Creeks as they flow through the airport lands. City and Countryside Project: A Case Study of LBPL4 Development The GTAA would agree to provide information and consent to the TRCA to publish and profile the work of the GTAA at the airport in the Etobicoke- Mimico Management Strategy, provided that the information is used only in conjunction with other organizations that have made similar significant contributions or improvements. We would require the opportunity to review any documents in which the GTAA is profiled or referred. We believe this commitment of $270,000 for projects that the TRCA has identified is consistent with the GTAA's commitment to the environment and will help to address some short and longer -term needs related to Toronto Pearson International Airport. While we recognize the value of the Living City Campaign's overall vision for the GTA, the GTAA is not in a position to become the River Partner for the Etobicoke Creek. We look forward to building on our existing good working relationship with the TRCA and continuing to work together, particularly on the other projects noted above. Please contact Mr. Randy McGill at (905) 676 -5091 to discuss the details with respect to the GTAA's contributions. Yours very truly, GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY Steve Shaw Vice President, Corporate Affairs & Communications sAsnawMC-iv -tfCa 10 RES. #D7/02 - REGIONAL WATERSHED MONITORING PROGRAM Summary of 2001 monitoring activities related to the TRCA's Regional Watershed Monitoring Program. Moved by: Lorna Bissell Seconded by: Anthony Ketchum THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report summarizing the 2001 activities of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program be received for Information. AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to proceed with the Implementation of the monitoring activities associated with year two of this ongoing program, as well as to continue to pursue and foster partnerships under the Regional Watershed Monitoring Network. CARRIED BACKGROUND Despite budget reductions in recent years, there has been increased demand for monitoring data that can be used to measure performance and evaluate environmental health. In implementing watershed strategies through the watershed alliances and councils, the Authority has developed report cards for individual watersheds. The report cards have created a formal process for reporting on the health of individual watersheds and have increased the demand for monitoring data. Municipalities, as well, require environmental data to report on the state of the environment. Monitoring is an integral component of watershed management. Monitoring provides essential information that allows the establishment of quantitative targets for protection and rehabilitation, the evaluation of management actions, and inform management decisions. The Regional Watershed Monitoring Program is an ongoing program that has been developed by the TRCA to provide a comprehensive, integrated and coordinated approach to environmental monitoring in the Greater Toronto Area. The program will include the establishment of a Monitoring Network that will endeavour to bring together a group of like- minded, cooperative agencies and organizations to collect, store, distribute and report on environmental monitoring data that furthers the interests of all involved parties. This Monitoring Network will build on the existing local and project- specific monitoring efforts of its partners. PROJECT OBJECTIVES • To develop a program that provides the necessary information to assess the health of the watersheds, subwatersheds, waterfront ecosystems, and RAP area, spatially and temporally. • To identify a set of indicators that reflect ecosystem condition, integrate the monitoring requirements of the RAP with report cards for individual watersheds, and are compatible with municipal state of the environment reporting and other broad programs like SOLEC, for the Great Lakes basin, and the provincial policy performance indicators. • To develop an efficient program that builds upon existing monitoring activities, avoids duplication between agencies, municipalities, and organizations, is cost effective in allocating the best use of resources and informs management decisions. 11 • To identify ways to engage and involve the public, interest, and school groups in meaningful monitoring activities. • To develop and obtain agreement from stakeholders on a set of monitoring protocols for the collection, analysis, storage and distribution of data on the indicators that are identified. In 2001 the Authority initiated the year 1 implementation of the monitoring program. This program focused on four components; Aquatic Habitat and Species, Surface Water Quality, Flow and Precipitation, and Terrestrial Natural Heritage. The Monitoring Activities supporitng the Regional Program are implemented through the Authority and a network of partners. The network is comprised of agencies that collectively carry out environmental monitoring activities (Table 1). Table 1 - Regional•Monitoring Network MONITORING COMPONENT Aquatic Habitat & Species • Benthos • Fish Community & Habitat • Fluvial Geomorphology • AGENCY /PARTNER TRCA / MOE TRCA / MNR TRCA TRCA / City of Toronto Surface Water Quality • Routine Stream Sampling City of Toronto /TRCA • Routine Waterfront Water Chemistry City of Toronto • Tributary Toxics Monitoring MOE • Fish Biomonitoring MOE • Lake Partner Program MOE • Aesthetics Monitorina TRCA Flow & Precipitation • Stream Flow Gauges TRCA • Base Flow Monitoring TRCA • Precipitation Gauges TRCA / Environment Canada • Snow Course Monitoring TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage TRCA The following summarizes the monitoring activities carried out for each of the included program components during 2001: Aquatic Habitat and Species Aquatic organisms live, for the most part, their entire lives within the water. As a result, they are subjected to the many interacting physical, chemical and biological factors which surround them, and are dependent upon these factors for the maintenance of their health. Such factors include water temperature, water flow, nutrients, sediment or contaminants carried in water, channel form and types of in stream cover, to report a few. If an environment becomes degraded, often, the first clue is a change in the biotic community. WIA The sites selected for Aquatic Species and Habitat monitoring are indicated on the attached map, and the and monitoring activities undertaken under the Aquatic Species and Habitat component are summarized as follows: • Benth /c /nvettebrates were monitored at a total of 114 sites in the Humber, Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek, Don, Highland and Rouge watersheds in 2001. Samples of the invertebrate communities were obtained at each site using a modified kick and sweep netting technique. Samples were submitted to a qualified consultant for identification services and were identified to species. Based on the data collected in 2001 and future years, a variety of multi- metric and multi - variate approaches will be used to assess water quality and habitat conditions within the sample sites. Future use of the data will also include the identification of Regional Reference Sites that may be used to characterize the ecological integrity of various streams within the region. • Fish spec %s and Habitat Fishes and their community structure are often used as indicators of the health of an aquatic system for a number of reasons: 1) fish communities usually encompass all of the trophic levels present in a system from primary consumers (herbivores) to top predators (piscivores); 2) fish are generally easy to sample and identify; 3) there is a wealth of information available on their life- histories and various sensitivities to environmental degradation; 4) historical data exists regarding fish communities in many areas; 5) fishing is an important industry with economic value; 6) the general public and policy makers can relate more to fish than other aquatic organisms. In order to gain a regional understanding of fish species and habitat on a watershed basis, the monitoring program has targeted 150 sites throughout the nine watersheds within the TRCA jurisdiction. In 2001 a total of 52 of these sites (38 in the Humber and 14 in Etobicoke Creek) were monitored using the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol. The expectation is that all of the 150 sites identified can be surveyed within a 3 year period. • Fluvial Geomorphology Information on physical habitat is needed at fixed sites within each watershed in order to understand the normal variation that occurs in habitat and associated changes in the fish and benthic invertebrate community. The data is also needed to identify any long term trends in habitat that might affect stream health and productive capacity. Therefore, it has been recommended that a long -term monitoring program be established in partnership with interested agencies and organizations to track changes in physical habitat at the sites where fish and benthic invertebrate communities are surveyed. The physical component of aquatic habitat in a stream is closely related to the fluvial geomorphology. Studies of fluvial geomorphology are important components of works in and around watercourses and are often undertaken in association with these works. Previously, there have been few on -going monitoring activities associated with tracking changes in fluvial geomorphology, spatially and temporally. The importance of fluvial geomorphology in understanding the association between flow in a stream and the aquatic habitat present cannot be over stated. For this reason, it is has been recommended that 13 several aspects of fluvial geomorphological assessments (eg. long profiles, cross sections, pebble counts, bank full width and depth etc...) be incorporated into the Regional Monitoring Program that has been developed and is currently being implemented by the TRCA. A total of 150 stations across the nine watersheds within the TRCA's jurisdiction have been targeted as part of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program. For the 2001 field season a total of 50 of these stations were selected (Humber, Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek) and surveyed using standard fluvial geomorphology measurement techniques. The expectation is that all of the sites identified can be set -up and surveyed within a 3 year period. • Algae Marianne Douglas, an Assistant Professor of Geology from the University of Toronto outlined a case for algae as biomonitors at the 1999 IJC Water Quality Board workshop (Toronto and Region RAP 1999). In her presentation she identified that algae can be excellent biomonitors for environmental assessments because they are common and widespread throughout all watersheds, they form the base of the food chain, there are hundreds of different species, and they are sensitive to environmental conditions, especially water chemistry. Algae have been successfully used to monitor such things as nutrient surplus (ie. eutrophication), turbidity and siltation, organic enrichment, high salinity, contamination by metals, and acidification. At present there are several programs throughout the world that have utilized algae monitoring. The benefit of using algae as a biomonitor is its low cost relative to other traditional methods as well as the non - destructive collection methods of algae sampling. In addition, algae are often the first group of organisms to be impacted by shifts in physical and chemical conditions in a watercourse, including the introduction of pollutants at relatively low concentrations, because of their strong connection to basic water chemistry and their short life cycles. Thus algae can be an important component of an early warning system of change in a watershed. Algae sampling was conducted during the 2001 field season at 114 sites in the Humber, Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek, Don, Highland and Rouge watersheds as well as at the stream water quality monitoring sites surveyed by the City of Toronto. These samples will provide some of the data necessary to further evaluate the use of algae as a biomonitor for the GTA watersheds. Terrestrial Natural Heritage Terrestrial natural heritage monitoring was undertaken in support of the development of TRCA' s Natural Heritage Strategy. Approximately 6000 hectares of natural cover (forest, wetlands and meadow) were inventoried by staff biologists throughout the TRCA jurisdiction. The surveys involved mapping and describing vegetation communities, and mapping flora and fauna species. To date, approximately 45% of the natural cover in the TRCA jurisdiction has been digitized. This 2001 and earlier information has been combined into a regional inventory and will be used in the development of the Natural Heritage Strategy and in subsequent stages of its implementation. 14 Water Quality In 2001 the Authority continued to liaise and expand partnerships with our key program delivery agencies, including the City of Toronto (stream and waterfront routine water chemistry monitoring); Ministry of the Environment (Tributary Toxics Monitoring; Young -of- the -Year Biomonitoring; Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring; Lake Partner Program); and Municipal Health Units (Bathing Beach Monitoring). In addition, a new, community based program initiated in 2001 expanded opportunities for volunteers to participate in stream monitoring activities. The following summarizes the surface water quality monitoring activities that were carried out in 2001 through these partnerships: • Routine stream chemistry was tracked at 17 sites across TRCA watersheds, except the Duffins and Carruthers once per month throughout 2001. An additional 5 sites, 4 in the Duffins and one in the Carruthers, are planned to be added to the program in early 2002. Staff are also exploring the addition of metals analysis at routine stream chemistry sites in early 2002. • Routine waterfront chemistry was monitored at 16 sites across the Toronto area waterfront in 2001 from May to October. The addition of 3 additional waterfront sites, opposite the mouths of Petticoat, Duffins and Carruthers Creeks, will be explored with our network partners in the spring of 2002. • MOE's Tributary Toxics Monitoring (TTM) program monitors the full suite of water chemistry parameters (basic, metals and organics) in selected Lake Ontario tributaries once every three years. From June 2000 - June 2001, monthly composite samples were collected through this program near the mouth of Duffins Creek and the Humber and Don Rivers. The regional monitoring program has proposed an expansion of the existing MOE program in the next survey year (2003) to cover stations in every watershed, and in 2001 the Authority began putting resources aside to support this expanded program. • In 2001 only two of the 31 proposed young -of- the -year biomonitoring sites were included in MOE's fall survey (both in Etobicoke Creek as part of another ongoing project). Continued discussions and resource sharing of Authority field staff with MOE in 2002 is expected to result in at least 20 of the 31 core YOU sites being visited this year (2002). • MOE continued with their ongoing Sport Fish Contaminant program in 2001. Of the five additional recreational sport fishing sites recommended under the Regional watershed Monitoring Program, two have been monitored. Discussions are currently underway with MOE, including offering Authority field staff to assist with collections if necessary, to ensure the remaining three additional sites are visited in the fall 2002 survey of sport fish. • TRCA helped bring together community volunteers in the past year to participate in MOE's Lake Partner Program to track lake nutrient conditions. For the first time volunteers participated in the program at Seneca/Eaton Hall Lake, Palgrave Pond, Claireville Reservoir, Grenadier Pond and Heart Lake. TRCA field center staff monitored Lake St. George. Other recommended lakes for the program for which volunteers will be sought in early 2002 with the help of the Authority's community watershed councils and task forces include Mary Lake, Gibson Lake and Professor's Lake. 15 • Municipal beach monitoring continued throughout the swimming season at all public inland lake beaches as well as Toronto and Durham Region waterfront beaches. • A new community based monitoring program was launched in the fall of 2001 to track the visual aesthetic condition of streams and the waterfront in the TRCA watersheds. Community representatives assisted in the design and implementation of the survey. Volunteers visited any stream or waterfront site once in October 2001 and assessed water colour, odor, clarity and the presence of visual debris. Approximately 3000 surveys were sent out in September 2001. 110 surveys were returned to the Authority. Site scores will be determined in early 2002, as well as spatial analysis and mapping to assist in the interpretation of the results. The results will be shared with the watershed councils as they are expected to guide spring clean up activities. In addition, the results will provide quantitative baseline data for the status of the RAP impaired use "degradation of aesthetics ". Flow and Precipitation The monitoring activities undertaken under the flow and precipitation component of the watershed monitoring network provide both direct information about the state /condition of water quantity in the region's streams as well as supportive information to aid in understanding the current biological conditions of aquatic habitat and species. In addition, the amount of water flowing in the region's streams is also intrinsically linked to surface water quality, both because of the known correlation between high flow and high levels of several contaminants it can deliver and the power associated with high flows to scour stream banks and beds resulting in increased suspended sediment and degraded water quality conditions. The activities and monitoring carried out as part of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program are designed to augment the Authority's existing network of flow, precipitation and snow gauging locations throughout the region. The following summarizes the activities carried out in 2001: Stream Flow • Equipment purchased for 2 new stream flow gauge sites (gauges will be installed in spring 2002, one on the Markham Branch and one on the Malvern Branch in the Highland Creek Watershed). • New equipment was purchased to reactivate an old stream flow gauge site in the Humber River Watershed in Albion Hills CA (equipment to be installed in February 2002) • One new stream flow gauge was installed on German Mills Creek, in the Don Watershed (this was part of a cost -share agreement with the Town of Richmond Hill). Equipment consists of a Telog Level Tracker and a submersible Druck Pressure Transducer • Approximately 15 site assessments were carried out, throughout our jurisdiction to confirm gauge locations 16 Precipitation • Addition of 6 new precipitation gauging stations - locations still to be determined (equipment has been purchased and will be installed this spring - monitoring usually carried out May through October). All equipment consists of a 12 inch tipping bucket rain gauge and a TrendReader Logger Snow Course • Addition of 3 new snow measurement sites (G. Ross Lord Dam, Greenwood CA and Milne Reservoir) • currently monitoring at these locations 2 times monthly Data Management One of the key elements of the Regional Monitoring Program is the data that is collected on an annual basis. As such, the storage, security and retrieval of the data is extremely important. In 2001, the TRCA contracted a consultant to develop a relational database (TRCA Envirobase) to house all of the various environmental data collected through this and other programs of the Authority. This relational database also has the ability to link various data sets that are currently available. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE 2002 field work and data collection will commence in the spring accordingly, and will include additional fish, habitat, and water quality monitoring to be done in Region of Durham (Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek) subject to funding approval. Monitoring work will include: • Benthic Invertebrate sampling at 150 watershed stations and 22 waterfront sites • Fish community and stream habitat will be surveyed at 48 stations (total) in Don, Highland and Petticoat Creek watersheds, and at 22 sites along the waterfront • Detailed fluvial geomorphology surveys will be conducted at 50 new watershed sites • 5 additional water quality (stream sites) will be surveyed in Durham Region • Metals analysis will be added to the 22 (total) water quality sample sites Further updates to the TRCA's relational database will be forthcoming in the next few months as well as staff development and training on its use. A more detailed report outlining the Regional Monitoring Program and a summary of the data collected in 2001 will be prepared by staff over the next two months. This first year report will provide the basis for updating the Authority's marketing information for the program, including display materials, literature, and web page content. Analysis of the data collected in 2001 will be undertaken over the next few months in order to provide usable interpretation for the Authority's watershed report card process and to share with municipal partners. In addition, staff will continue to foster partnerships with community groups and other agencies involved in monitoring activities through the Watershed monitoring network. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the 2001 Regional Watershed Monitoring Program was made available from the following partners /sources: 3.7 City of Toronto $210,000 Region of Peel $200,000 Region of York $200,000 RAP MOU 2001/02 $40,000 Total $650,000 For the 2002 Monitoring Program funding has been requested as follows: City of Toronto $200,000 Region of Peel $200,000 Region of York $200,000 Region of Durham $50,000 RAP MOU $25,000 Total $675,000 Subject to budget approval, funds to support this program will be available in account 124 -01. Report Prepared by: Scott Jarvle, extension 5312 For Information contact: Scott Jarvle, extension 5312 Date: January 28, 2002 Attachments: 1 TRCA Aquatic Habitat and SpecleslFluvial Geomorphology Monitoring Sites QAk MOP • °'-.. onsOrva#ion D n RES. #D8/02 - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION HANDBOOK Completion of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Handbook. Moved by: Ian Sinclair Seconded by: Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff provide copies of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Handbook to member municipalities and continue to promote pollution prevention approaches throughout the operations of the Authority and Its watershed management partners. CARRIED BACKGROUND Under a Memorandum of Agreement between the Authority and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, originally covering the period December, 1997 to October, 1998 with subsequent renewals, the Authority agreed to provide administrative services for the development of a pollution prevention handbook. At meeting #11/97, the Executive Committee approved to hire Totten Sims Hubicki Associates and Don Weatherbe Associates to develop the handbook. The project was led by the Ministry of the Environment with the assistance of a Steering Committee including representation from Environment Canada, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Quinte Conservation, Municipal Engineers Association, and the cities of Toronto, St. Catharines, Mississauga, and Waterloo. The 240 page Stormwater Pollution Prevention Handbook is now available. It provides practical information to municipalities, conservation authorities, community groups, and businesses on pollution prevention and flow reduction programs related to stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows, such as: • pollution prevention (P2) and urban hydrology concepts; • flow reduction and P2 techniques; • implementation approaches at the municipal level; • preparing pollution prevention and control plans and developing environmental management systems; • resources on public consultation and outreach programs; and • fact sheets and case studies. The benefits of these programs include: minimizing or avoiding the creation of pollutants; using materials more efficiently; minimizing health risks; avoiding costly clean -ups; and enhancing the local environment. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE A half -day seminar presenting the handbook will take place on February 14, 2002 at Black Creek Pioneer Village. Invitations to the seminar have been sent to 118 municipalities in Ontario and to all 38 conservation authorities. Authority staff have obtained copies of the Handbook for distribution to each of its member municipalities and key watershed groups. Additional copies may be downloaded, free of charge, from the Ministry of the Environment's web site ( http: / /www.ene.gov.on.ca/ envision /water /stormwaterPPH.htm). 20 Staff will continue to review ways of employing pollution prevention approaches in its own operations, as part of its environmental management system, and promote pollution prevention within the watershed communities. FINANCIAL DETAILS Total project funding of $75,000 was provided by MOE ($35,000) and Environment Canada's Great Lakes Sustainability Fund ($40,000). For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Date: January 29, 2002 RES. #D9/02 - ENVIRONMENT CANADA'S DESIGNATION OF ROAD SALT AS A TOXIC SUBSTANCE Authority response to Environment Canada's designation of road salt as a toxic substance. Moved by: Ila Bossons Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to promote Information exchange among municipalities and seek opportunities to assist In research Into best practices concerning the use of road salt and its alternatives; AND FURTHER THAT staff review current road salt use practices on Authority properties and Identify ways to reduce salt use. CARRIED BACKGROUND Road salts were put on the priority substance list (PSL) under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) for an environmental assessment in 1995 because of concerns about the large quantities used in Canada and the potential effects of chlorides on the environment. What followed was a comprehensive science assessment under CEPA with full consideration of all environmental impacts. Since road salts are not dangerous to humans, the study focused on an ecological rather than human health assessment. The full assessment is posted on Environment Canada's website (www.ec.gc.ca/ccebl /eng /final /index e.html). Road salts, which contain inorganic chloride salts with or without ferrocyanide salts, are used as de -icing and anti -icing chemicals for winter road maintenance, with some use as summer dust suppressants. Road salts enter the environment through their storage and use and through disposal of snow cleared from roadways. Road salts enter surface water, soil and groundwater after snowmelt, and are dispersed through the air by splashing and spray from vehicles and as wind -borne powder. The chloride ions associated with road salt move through water without being retarded or lost, thus almost all chloride ions that enter the soil and groundwater can ultimately be expected to reach surface water. While highest concentrations 21 are usually associated with winter or spring thaws, high concentrations can also be measured in the summer, as a results of the travel time of the ions to surface waters and the reduced water flows in the summer. The CEPA assessment found that water bodies most subject to the impacts of road salt are small ponds and watercourses draining large urbanized areas, as well as streams, wetlands and lakes draining major roadways. The release of road salts into the environment leads to a variety of acute and chronic environmental problems. The assessment concluded: "Based on the available data, it is considered that road salts that contain inorganic chloride salts with or without ferrocyanide salts are entering the environment in a quantity or concentration that have or may have an immediate or long -term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity. Therefore, it is concluded that road salts that contain inorganic chloride salts with or without ferrocyanide salts are "toxic" as defined in Paragraph 64(a) of CEPA, 1999" (pp. 138). The report also indicated the importance of road salts in protecting roadway safety and is not proposing a ban on road salts or to put in place any measures that would compromise or reduce road safety. Over the two years, consultations will be launched by the government to develop management measures to reduce the impact of road salts on the environment, including improved application technologies, and better storage and handling techniques. Staff at the Authority have reviewed the scientific assessment during the 60 day public comment period and sent a letter indicating our support of Environment Canada's designation of road salts as a toxic substance, as well as an offer of our assistance during the next phase of the study. Current TRCA Conditions and Trends TRCA staff have evaluated chloride levels monitored in local streams over the past decade and recently compared them to toxicity thresholds suggested in the CEPA findings. Chloride levels in the TRCA watersheds are greatest in the urbanized portions where the road network is more dense. A large proportion of water samples from the urban watercourses exceed levels identified in the CEPA report as causing chronic effects ( >230 mg/I) on sensitive organisms, particularly from Black Creek in the Humber watershed, the lower Don River, Mimico Creek, Etobicoke Creek and Highland Creek. Average annual concentrations from these areas were in the order of 300 -500 mg /I, with maximum values observed at 4300 mg/I. Natural concentrations of chloride in GTA surface waters are generally no more than a few milligrams per litre. There has generally been an increasing trend in chloride levels over the last thirty years, with the exception of some areas that were urbanized throughout that time, such as Black Creek, which remained at high levels. TRCA Activities Related to Road Salt and /or Chloride Levels The Authority's Regional Watershed Monitoring Program continues to track chlorides throughout the TRCA's streams. Data collected will augment historical Provincial chloride data to establish any changing trends over time in stream chloride levels. 22 In May 1999, Authority staff held an information - sharing session on road salt impact's with staff from the City of Toronto, provincial and federal agencies, and the University of Toronto, and continue to offer any information we can to municipalities on this issue. Representatives from the Authority are currently participating in the City of Toronto's ongoing snow disposal study and have provided technical support in the analysis of chloride levels. Staff have also provided input on the monitoring component of the study and indicated an opportunity for the City to use some of the Authority's monitoring equipment at flow gauge stations. Current Authority road salt practices consist of the use of pickled sand that is assessed on a daily basis by individual maintenance staff at the head office, field centres and conservation areas. Only main roadways, parking lots and walkways are treated, with the exception of some trails at the Centre for Sustainable Living at Kortright and during the Maple Sugar Festival where public safety necessitates additional application on some public trails. The Authority's new Environmental Management System is planning to establish a Land Use Management subcommittee which will assess the Authority's road clearing methods, including the issue of storage practices. During the review of proposed developments on the Oak Ridges Moraine in Richmond Hill, TRCA raised concerns at the Hearing with respect to road salts and the potential impacts of outletting treated stormwater into internally drained kettle wetlands. Local Municipal Initiatives Municipalities have been taking substantial initiatives in better understanding and reducing their road salt use over the last few years. For example, the City of Toronto's Snow Disposal Feasibility Study identified a comprehensive, environmentally sound strategy for accommodating 150 000 loads of snow in a two week period and assessed the feasibility of relocating the current snow disposal sites located near rivers. Two years ago Brampton supplemented their existing road clearing equipment with five innovative road salt application machines that have cut salt use by 30 per cent, thus resulting in less impact on the environment. City officials have decided to convert their entire fleet within the next few years to these machines which grind rock salt into fine grains that are mixed with water to create a brine that evenly coats the road surface. Report prepared by: Debbie Scanlon, extension 5337 For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Date: January 28, 2002 RES. #D10/02 - AUTHORITY ENDORSEMENT OF COMMUNITY ACTION AREA STEWARDSHIP GROUPS The establishment of three local stewardship groups for implementing the Etobicoke & Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy through the local Community Action Area Plan. 23 Moved by: Lorna Bissell Seconded by: Dick O'Brien THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the South Mimico Community Action Area Stewardship Group be established to participate in the implementation of the South Mimico Community Action Area Plan; THAT the Heart Lake Community Action Area Stewardship Group, Volunteerl Heart Lake, be established to oversee the implementation of the Heart Lake Community Action Area Plan; THAT the Malton Community Action Area Stewardship Group be established to oversee the implementation of the Malton Community Action Area Plan; THAT the Stewardship Group develop annual implementation priorities and work plans, congruent with "Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks' subject to the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition's approval; THAT the Chair of the Stewardship Group be a member of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition and provide regular progress reports and seek approval for plan and project development; THAT the Stewardship Group provide copies of all meeting minutes, as well as an annual presentation on completed and proposed projects, to the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition; AND FURTHER THAT the Stewardship Group's Terms of Reference, dated November 2001, be approved. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Malton, Heart Lake, and South Mimico Community Action Areas were developed through a public consultation process beginning with Task Force meeting #10 /00 in October, 2000. The Task Force developed "Community Action Areas and Sites" as an indicator of watershed health in its Greening Our Watersheds Strategy. The Strategy proposes to designate 19 Community Action Areas over the next five years. These Community Action Areas will each have a local Stewardship Group implementing the Strategy. This report requests endorsement of the first three of these Community Action Area Stewardship Groups to be established: South Mimico, Malton, and Volunteerl Heart Lake. On November 22, 2001, the Task Force approved the attached Terms of Reference (Res. #H107 /01, Amendment Res. #108/01; Res. #H101 /01, Amendment Res. #102/01; and, Res. #H104 /01, Amendment Res. #105/01). Community Action Areas represent defined watershed reaches that provide an opportunity to educate and involve local residents, community groups, schools, and businesses in sustainable backyard practices on private properties as well as specific Community Action Sites on public lands. Community Action Sites are generally located on land owned by the local municipality, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), or a public utility and the project proposals are usually multi -year ecological restoration projects. The Stewardship Group's Terms of Reference (attached) outlines the mandate which is to make recommendations regarding priorities, implementation, and /or modifications to the Community Action Area plan. The Terms of Reference are based on Section 8.3.2 of the Greening Our Watersheds - Stewardship Strategy, Community Action Indicator. Approval of Community Action Area Plans and a Stewardship Group Terms of Reference sets the stage for active implementation of the watershed strategy. Attention is focused on local backyards, schools, businesses, and public lands and specific actions are taken at the local level. The Terms of Reference implements the watershed strategy at the local level and formally designates a group of dedicated individuals to actively develop plans, projects, events, partnerships, and Community Action Sites. While not yet formed, the future watershed coalition will be responsible for overseeing the work of these three stewardship groups and for developing the remaining 16 plans. The chair of each stewardship group will be a member of the future watershed coalition. Report prepared by: Paul Wlllms, extension 5316 For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5316 Date: January 28, 2002 Attachments: 3 25 Attachment 1 Volunteerl Heart Lake Stewardship Group Terms of Reference Btobtcakr snd Min \ Crane Volunteer! Heart Lake HEART LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION AREA STEWARDSHIP GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE K�Nlorservat MID R�: !(�N -y, on November 2001 26 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Heart Lake Community Action Area is located within the City of Brampton and the Town of Caledon. It is bounded by Kennedy Road North on the west, Bovaird Drive on the south, the fields east of Heart Lake Road on the east, and by the northern boundary of the wetland complex above Mayfield Road. The area encompasses residential communities, agricultural areas designated for development, a provincially significant wetland complex, headwaters tributaries to Spring Creek, the proposed Highway 410 extension route, and the Heart Lake Conservation Area. One objective in Greening Our Watersheds - Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks is the establishment of Community Action Areas throughout the watersheds, with the development of a core group of supporters in each area. The group focussed on the Heart Lake community will initially be called: Volunteerl Heart Lake. This group will implement the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds management strategy at the local level, providing a forum for public input, and helping the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to determine the specific needs and actions required for the development and implementation of the Heart Lake Community Action Area Plan. The Community Action Area Plan is being developed through an extensive public consultation process. At Task Force meeting #10 /00 (October 2000), Community Action Area Plans were discussed and the following resolution was endorsed: 'THAT the Task Force develop community action area plans as a tool for use in implementing the watershed management strategies at the community level; THAT community action area plans be developed by the Task Force for the following areas and incorporated in the watershed management strategy document that will be developed. Mimico Creek - Mouth to Bloor Street, Heart Lake, and Malton, as shown on the attached maps. THAT the Task Force's Working Groups develop draft community action area plans for the above areas, to illustrate how and what management strategies should be implemented at the community level, That the Working Groups report back to the Task Force in Spring 2001 with their draft community action area plans, and that a workshop be held during a subsequent Task Force meeting to integrate these plans. THAT opportunities for public consultation be provided and comments incorporated accordingly; THAT the final community action area plans be incorporated in the watershed management strategy document, with appropriate text to be developed by the writer. AND FURTHER THAT the Task Force be requested to continue to develop community action area plans within the watersheds to correspond with need, timing, and funding availability.' 27 1.1 STEWARDSHIP GROUP NAME Volunteer! Heart Lake: The stewardship group has the authority to change the name of the group, subject to approval from the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition. 2.0 DIRECTION At Task Force meeting #10/01 (November 2001), the following resolutions were endorsed: "THAT the Heart Lake Community Action Area Stewardship Group, Volunteer! Heart Lake, be established to oversee the implementation of the Heart Lake Community Action Area Plan; THAT Volunteerl Heart Lake develops annual implementation priorities and work plans; THAT Volunteer/ Heart Lake recommends modifications, updates, and Community Action Sites to the Community Action Area Plan congruent with Greening Our Watersheds - Revitalization Strategies for Etob /coke and Mim!co Creeks and subject to the Etob!coke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition approval; THAT the Chair of Volunteer! Heart Lake be a member of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition; THAT Volunteer! Heart Lake provides regular progress reports to, and seeks approval for project development from, the Etob!coke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition; THAT Volunteer/ Heart Lake provides copies of all meeting minutes, as well as an annual presentation on completed and proposed projects to the Etob!coke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition; AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Task Force approve the Volunteerl Heart Lake Terms of Reference dated November 2001. " 3.0 MANDATE Volunteer! Heart Lake will implement the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy at the community level; providing a forum for public input; and helping the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition to determine priority implementation actions as set forth in the Heart Lake Community Action Area Plan. Volunteer! Heart Lake will: 1. Make recommendations regarding the prioritization and implementation of the Heart Lake Community Action Area Plan. The recommendations must be consistent with the objectives of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy, and must assist the Coalition in reaching the prescribed targets, as set forth in that same document. 2. Make recommendations to the Coalition on modifications or updates to the Plan; 3. Identify and enhance relationships within the Heart Lake community through the development of public awareness and stewardship programs. These programs could include: • community action plans such as natural regeneration projects which foster community stewardship; • pilot or demonstration projects such as regeneration plots or interpretive programs which encourage community participation; • public information /educational projects, including displays; • pamphlets, direct mailings, signs, newspaper articles, television and radio coverage on special events, which increase awareness of Community Action Area issues; • community fund raising. 4. Develop partnerships and establish communication links with the community, the municipality, and the Coalition. Outreach activities should include, but not be limited to, the following: • Involve individuals, interest groups, communities, business, industry, and government agencies in the management and stewardship of the Heart Lake Community Action Area; • report progress, on a yearly basis, to the Coalition; and, • host local meetings with the community. 5. Plan and participate in regeneration activities such as: • natural area enhancements such as tree plantings and wetland buffers; • implementation of a backyard habitat campaign; • stormwater management controls; and, • park and neighbourhood cleanup events. 4.0 VOLUNTEER) HEART LAKE MEMBERSHIP Membership will be open to any interested party or individual. Membership will be based on individual or agency interest and with a commitment to the mandate of the group. Participation Will be voluntary, and as such there is no prescribed length of commitment or degree of commitment required. 4.1 GROUP AND AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES The following groups will be invited to join the Stewardship Group and provide one voting representative: • Local Community -based Groups • Local Businesses 29 • Local Councillors from Caledon, Brampton and the Region of Peel • Staff of the City of Brampton, Town of Caledon, and Region of Peel • Staff of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • Conservation Toronto and Region (TRCA) • Other groups identified by the Etobicoke & Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition The stewardship group members may designate an alternate to ensure attendance and representation at meetings. 4.2 MEMBERS AT LARGE Invitations to the public to join will be made periodically and membership is open. As new neighbourhoods develop, members will be sought. All interested members of the public will be invited to join. Each will have one vote. Members who do not wish to attend meetings cannot vote in proxy. 4.3 SELECTION OF CHAIR, VICE- CHAIR, AND SECRETARY The Chair will be elected by the voting members of Volunteerl Heart Lake. The appointment shall be for 2 years. The Chair should have at least one year experience as a member of the stewardship group (except during the inception year of the stewardship group in 2002). It is preferred that the Chair be a member of the public and not a representative from a public agency. The Chair will be appointed as a member of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition. The Stewardship Group will also elect a Vice -Chair and a Secretary under the same conditions as the Chair. The Vice -Chair will not be considered an automatic replacement for the Chair. The appointment shall be for 2 years (except during the inception year of 2002, during which the term shall be for 1 year). Elections for the Chair and for the Vice -Chair and Secretary positions will take place on alternate years. 5.0 RULES OF CONDUCT Volunteerl Heart Lake will follow the Rules of Conduct of the TRCA, as adopted by Resolution #3 of the TRCA Meeting #2/86, or as may be amended. Decisions should be made on the basis of group consensus as much as possible. If voting is necessary, a quorum will consist of half plus one of the Volunteer/ Heart Lake members in attendance. �X Volunteer! Heart Lake will meet a minimum of once per quarter. Meetings shall only be scheduled when there is sufficient business to justify the meeting. A meeting may be cancelled on the authority of the Chair for cause (e.g. a major snowstorm). The date of the next meeting should be set at each meeting, or at the call of the Chair. Volunteer! Heart Lake is not a formal commenting body of the TRCA. The group will develop and make recommendations to the Etobicoke & Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition that assist with the development and implementation of the Heart Lake Community Action Area Plan. TRCA staff will advise the Volunteer! Heart Lake stewardship group of TRCA projects being planned or undertaken within the Heart Lake Community Action Area or watershed, and of major planning initiatives or projects of other agencies where the TRCA may be a commenting or permitting body. 6.0 REPORTING RELATIONSHIP Volunteer! Heart Lake will communicate with the Coalition by providing copies of all meeting minutes and providing at least one formal presentation on project status each year. The Chair, with assistance from TRCA staff, will be required to coordinate communication reports to the Coalition. All Volunteerl Heart Lake project proposals and communications shall be submitted to the Coaltion for endorsement. Approval of the project may also be subject to TRCA and /or other public agency approvals. TRCA will provide assistance in obtaining these approvals. 7.0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT TRCA will not provide administrative support to assist in the operation of the Volunteer! Heart Lake stewardship group; rather, it is expected that the Chair, Vice - Chair, and Secretary of the stewardship group will provide this function. TRCA will provide a staff contact to act as a liaison between the TRCA, Coalition, and stewardship group. The TRCA liaison will also facilitate any technical reviews or formal approvals that are required before commencement of a project. Project support will be dependent on the limits of TRCA resources. 8.0 COMPENSATION Financial compensation for transportation to and from, and attendance at, meetings, functions, or events will not be provided. 31 Attachment 2 Malton Stewardship Group Terms of Reference 000p- ot I� Ewbicokt and 1awim Creeks / MALTON COMMUNITY ACTION AREA STEWARDSHIP GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE November 2001 $C�Nfoigervat MID RET :!(7fV'1r� on 32 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Malton Community Action Area is located within the City of Mississauga. It is roughly bounded by Airport Road on the west, the CN Rail tracks in the north, and Highway #427 on the east (the eastern watershed boundary extends northwest from the Hwy #427 / Derry Rd. junction in an uneven line to Finch Ave.). The area encompasses residential communities, an industrial commercial business park, Wildwood Park, and Malton and Derry Greenways along Mimico Creek. One objective in Greening Our Watersheds - Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks is the establishment of Community Action Areas throughout the watersheds, with the development of a core group of supporters in each area. The group focussed on the Malton community will implement the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds management strategy at the local level, providing a forum for public input, and helping the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to determine the specific needs and actions required for the development and implementation of the Malton Community Action Area Plan. The Community Action Area Plan is being developed through an extensive public consultation process. At Task Force meeting #10 /00 (October 2000), Community Action Area Plans were discussed and the following resolution was endorsed: "THAT the Task Force develop community action area plans as a tool for use in implementing the watershed management strategies at the community level; THAT community action area plans be developed by the Task Force for the following areas and incorporated in the watershed management strategy document that will be developed. Mimico Creek - Mouth to Bloor Street, Heart Lake, and Malton, as shown on the attached maps. THAT the Task Force's Working Groups develop draft community action area plans for the above areas, to illustrate how and what management strategies should be implemented at the community level, That the Working Groups report back to the Task Force in Spring 2001 with their draft community action area plans, and that a workshop be held during a subsequent Task Force meeting to integrate these plans. THAT opportunities for public consultation be provided and comments incorporated accordingly; THAT the final community action area plans be incorporated in the watershed management strategy document, with appropriate text to be developed by the writer. AND FURTHER THAT the Task Force be requested to continue to develop community action area plans within the watersheds to correspond with need, timing, and funding availability. " 33 1.1 STEWARDSHIP GROUP NAME The stewardship group has the authority to develop a name and change the name of the group, subject to approval from the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition. 2.0 DIRECTION At Task Force meeting #10/01 (November 2001), the following resolutions were endorsed: "THAT the Malton Community Action Area Stewardship Group be established to oversee the implementation of the Malton Community Action Area Plan; THAT the Malton Stewardship Group develops annual Implementation priorities and work plans; THAT the Malton Stewardship Group recommends modifications, updates, and Community Action Sites to the Community Action Area Plan congruent with Greening Our Watersheds - Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks and subject to the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition approval; THAT the Chair of the Malton Stewardship Group be a member of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition; THAT the Malton Stewardship Group provide regular progress reports to, and seeks approval for project development from, the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition; THAT the Malton Stewardship Group provide copies of all meeting minutes, as well as an annual presentation on completed and proposed projects to the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition; AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Task Force approve the Malton Stewardship Group Terms of Reference dated November 2001." 3.0 MANDATE The Malton Stewardship Group will implement the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy at the community level; providing a forum for public input; and helping the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition to determine priority implementation actions as set forth in the Malton Community Action Area Plan. The Malton Stewardship Group will: 1. Make recommendations regarding the prioritization and implementation of the Malton Community Action Area Plan. The recommendations must be consistent with the objectives of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy, and must assist the Coalition in reaching the prescribed targets, as set forth in that same document. 2. Make recommendations to the Coalition on modifications or updates to the Plan; KL] 3. Identify and enhance relationships within the Malton community through the development of public awareness and stewardship programs. These programs could include: • community action plans such as natural regeneration projects which foster community stewardship; • pilot or demonstration projects such as regeneration plots or interpretive programs which encourage community participation; • public information /educational projects, including displays; • pamphlets, direct mailings, signs, newspaper articles, television and radio coverage on special events, which increase awareness of Community Action Area issues; • community fund raising. 4. Develop partnerships and establish communication links with the community, the municipality, and the Coalition. Outreach activities should include, but not be limited to, the following: • Involve individuals, interest groups, communities, business, industry, and government agencies in the management and stewardship of the Malton Community Action Area; • report progress, on a yearly basis, to the Coalition; and, • host local meetings with the community. 5. Plan and participate in regeneration activities such as: • natural area enhancements such as tree plantings and wetland buffers; • implementation of a backyard habitat campaign; • stormwater management controls; and, • park and neighbourhood cleanup events. 4.0 MALTON STEWARDSHIP GROUP MEMBERSHIP Membership will be open to any interested party or individual. Membership will be based on individual or agency interest and with a commitment to the mandate of the group. Participation will be voluntary, and as such there is no prescribed length of commitment or degree of commitment required. 4.1 GROUP AND AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES The following groups will be invited to join the Stewardship Group and provide one voting representative: • Local Community -based Groups; • Local Businesses • Local Councillors from City of Mississauga and Region of Peel • Staff of the City of Mississauga and Region of Peel • Staff of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • Other groups identified by the Etobicoke & Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition The stewardship group members may designate an alternate to ensure attendance and representation at meetings. 35 1 4.2 MEMBERS AT LARGE Invitations to the public to join will be made periodically and membership is open. As new neighbourhoods develop, members will be sought. All interested members of the public will be invited to join. Each will have one vote. Members who do not wish to attend meetings cannot vote in proxy. 4.3 SELECTION OF CHAIR, VICE - CHAIR, AND SECRETARY The Chair will be elected by the voting members of the Malton Stewardship Group. The appointment shall be for 2 years. The Chair should have at least one year experience as a member of the stewardship group (except during the inception year of the stewardship group in 2002). It is preferred that the Chair be a member of the public and not a representative from a public agency. The Chair will be appointed as a member of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition. The Stewardship Group will also elect a Vice -Chair and a Secretary under the same conditions as the Chair. The Vice -Chair will not be considered an automatic replacement for the Chair. The appointment shall be for 2 years (except during the inception year of 2002, during which the term shall be for 1 year). Elections for the Chair and for the Vice -Chair and Secretary positions will take place on alternate years. 5.0 RULES OF CONDUCT The Malton Stewardship Group will follow the Rules of Conduct of the TRCA, as adopted by Resolution #3 of the TRCA Meeting #2/86, or as may be amended. Decisions should be made on the basis of group consensus as much as possible. If voting is necessary, a quorum will consist of half plus one of the Malton Stewardship Group members in attendance. The Malton Stewardship Group will meet a minimum of once per quarter. Meetings shall only be scheduled when there is sufficient business to justify the meeting. A meeting may be cancelled on the authority of the Chair for cause (e.g. a major snowstorm). The date of the next meeting should be set at each meeting, or at the call of the Chair. The Malton Stewardship Group is not a formal commenting body of the TRCA. The group will develop and make recommendations to the Etobicoke & Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition that assist with the development and implementation of the Malton Community Action Area Plan. TRCA staff will advise the Malton Stewardship Group of TRCA projects being planned or undertaken within the Malton Community Action Area or watershed, and of major planning initiatives or projects of other agencies where the TRCA may be a commenting or permitting body. 36 6.0 REPORTING RELATIONSHIP The Malton Stewardship Group will communicate with the Coalition by providing copies of all meeting minutes and providing at least one formal presentation on project status each year. The Chair, with assistance from TRCA staff, will be required to coordinate communication reports to the Coalition. All Malton Stewardship Group project proposals and communications shall be submitted to the Coaltion for endorsement. Approval of the project may also be subject to TRCA and /or other public agency approvals. TRCA will provide assistance in obtaining these approvals. 7.0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT TRCA will not provide administrative support to assist in the operation of the Malton Stewardship Group; rather, it is expected that the Chair, Vice - Chair, and Secretary of the stewardship group will provide this function. TRCA will provide a staff contact to act as a liaison between the TRCA, Coalition, and stewardship group. The TRCA liaison will also facilitate any technical reviews or formal approvals that are required before commencement of a project. Project support will be dependent on the limits of TRCA resources. 8.0 COMPENSATION Financial compensation for transportation to and from, and attendance at, meetings, functions, or events will not be provided. 37 Attachment 3 South Mimico Stewardship Group Terms of Reference Rtobk*ke and Mimko L Creeks J SOUTH MIMICO COMMUNITY ACTION AREA STEWARDSHIP GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE November 2001 IDROAM AND REGION'"� onserva tion �Ullel 1.0 INTRODUCTION The South Mimico Community Action Area is located within the City of Toronto. It is roughly bounded by the mouth of Mimico Creek at Lake Ontario (including Humber Bay Parks East & West), Bloor Street in the north, and by diagonal uneven boundaries following the watershed boundaries on the east and west. The area encompasses residential communities, some industrial commercial business areas, residential redevelopment areas near the waterfront, two large waterfront parks and many smaller municipal parks including Woodford, Berry Road, Reid Manor, and Spring Garden Park. One objective in Greening Our Watersheds - Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks is the establishment of Community Action Areas throughout the watersheds, with the development of a core group of supporters in each area. The group focussed on the South Mimico community will implement the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds management strategy at the local level, providing a forum for public input, and helping the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (fRCA) to determine the specific needs and actions required for the development and implementation of the South Mimico Community Action Area Plan. The Community Action Area Plan is being developed through an extensive public consultation process. At Task Force meeting #10 /00 (October 2000), Community Action Area Plans were discussed and the following resolution was endorsed: "THAT the Task Force develop community action area plans as a tool for use in implementing the watershed management strategies at the community level; THAT community action area plans be developed by the Task Force for the following areas and incorporated in the watershed management strategy document that will be developed. Mimico Creek - Mouth to Bloor Street, Heart Lake, and Malton, as shown on the attached maps. THAT the Task Force's Working Groups develop draft community action area plans for the above areas, to illustrate how and what management strategies should be implemented at the community level; That the Working Groups report back to the Task Force in Spring 2001 with their draft community action area plans, and that a workshop be held during a subsequent Task Force meeting to integrate these plans. THAT opportunities for public consultation be provided and comments incorporated accordingly; THAT the final community action area plans be incorporated in the watershed management strategy document, with appropriate text to be developed by the writer. AND FURTHER THAT the Task Force be requested to continue to develop community action area plans within the watersheds to correspond with need, timing, and funding availability.' 39 1.1 STEWARDSHIP GROUP NAME The stewardship group has the authority to develop a name and change the name of the group, subject to approval from the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition. 2.0 DIRECTION At Task Force meeting #10/01 (November 2001), the following resolutions were endorsed: "THAT the South Mimico Community Action Area Stewardship Group be established to oversee the implementation of the South Mimico Community Action Area Plan; THAT the South Mimico Stewardship Group develops annual implementation priorities and work plans; THAT the South Mimico Stewardship Group recommends modifications, updates, and Community Action Sites to the Community Action Area Plan congruent with Greening Our Watersheds - Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks and subject to the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition approval, THAT the Chair of the South Mimico Stewardship Group be a member of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition; THAT the South Mimico Stewardship Group provide regular progress reports to, and seeks approval for project development from, the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition; THAT the South Mimico Stewardship Group provide copies of all meeting minutes, as well as an annual presentation on completed and proposed projects to the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition; AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Task Force approve the South Mimico Stewardship Group Terms of Reference dated November 2001." 3.0 MANDATE The South Mimico Stewardship Group will implement the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy at the community level; providing a forum for public input; and helping the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition to determine priority implementation actions as set forth in the South Mimico Community Action Area Plan. The South Mimico Stewardship Group will: 1. Make recommendations regarding the prioritization and implementation of the South Mimico Community Action Area Plan. The recommendations must be consistent with the objectives of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy, and must assist the Coalition in reaching the prescribed targets, as set forth in that same document. �x 2. Make recommendations to the Coalition on modifications or updates to the Plan; 3. Identify and enhance relationships within the South Mimico community through the development of public awareness and stewardship programs. These programs could include: • community action plans such as natural regeneration projects which foster community stewardship; • pilot or demonstration projects such as regeneration plots or interpretive programs which encourage community participation; • public information /educational projects, including displays; • pamphlets, direct mailings, signs, newspaper articles, television and radio coverage on special events, which increase awareness of Community Action Area issues; • community fund raising. 4. Develop partnerships and establish communication links with the community, the municipality, and the Coalition. Outreach activities should include, but not be limited to, the following: • Involve individuals, interest groups, communities, business, industry, and government agencies in the management and stewardship of the South Mimico Community Action Area; • report progress, on a yearly basis, to the Coalition; and, • host local meetings with the community. 5. Plan and participate in regeneration activities such as: • natural area enhancements such as tree plantings and wetland buffers; • implementation of a backyard habitat campaign; • stormwater management controls; and, • park and neighbourhood cleanup events. 4.0 SOUTH MIMICO STEWARDSHIP GROUP MEMBERSHIP Membership will be open to any interested party or individual. Membership will be based on individual or agency interest and with a commitment to the group. Participation will be voluntary, and as such there is no prescribed length of commitment or degree of commitment required. 4.1 GROUP AND AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES The following groups will be invited to join the Stewardship Group and provide one voting representative: • Local Community -based Groups; • Local Businesses; • Local Councillors; • Staff of the City of Toronto; • Staff of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; • Other Groups identified by the Etobicoke & Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition. �v The stewardship group members may designate an alternate to ensure attendance and representation at meetings. 4.2 MEMBERS AT LARGE Invitations to the public to join will be made periodically and membership is open. As new neighbourhoods develop, members will be sought. All interested members of the public will be invited to join. Each will have one vote. Members who do not wish to attend meetings cannot vote in proxy. 4.3 SELECTION OF CHAIR, VICE - CHAIR, AND SECRETARY The Chair will be elected by the voting members of the South Mimico Stewardship Group. The appointment shall be for 2 years. The Chair should have at least one year experience as a member of the stewardship group (except during the inception year of the stewardship group in 2002). It is preferred that the Chair be a member of the public and not a representative from a public agency. The Chair will be appointed as a member of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition. The Stewardship Group will also elect a Vice -Chair and a Secretary under the same conditions as the Chair. The Vice -Chair will not be considered an automatic replacement for the Chair. The appointment shall be for 2 years (except during the inception year of 2002, during which the term shall be for 1 year). Elections for the Chair and for the Vice -Chair and Secretary positions will take place on alternate years. 5.0 RULES OF CONDUCT The South Mimico Stewardship Group will follow the Rules of Conduct of the TRCA, as adopted by Resolution #3 of the TRCA Meeting #2/86, or as may be amended. Decisions should be made on the basis of group consensus as much as possible. If voting is necessary, a quorum will consist of half plus one of the South Mimico Stewardship Group members in attendance. The South Mimico Stewardship Group will meet a minimum of once per quarter. Meetings shall only be scheduled when there is sufficient business to justify the meeting. A meeting may be cancelled on the authority of the Chair for cause (e.g. a major snowstorm). The date of the next meeting should be set at each meeting, or at the call of the Chair. 42 The South Mimico Stewardship Group is not a formal commenting body of the TRCA The group will develop and make recommendations to the Etobicoke & Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition that assist with the development and implementation of the South Mimico Community Action Area Plan. TRCA staff will advise the South Mimico Stewardship Group of TRCA projects being planned or undertaken within the South Mimico Community Action Area or watershed, and of major planning initiatives or projects of other agencies where the TRCA may be a commenting or permitting body. 6.0 REPORTING RELATIONSHIP The South Mimico Stewardship Group will communicate with the Coalition by providing copies of all meeting minutes and providing at least one formal presentation on project status each year. The Chair, with assistance from TRCA staff, will be required to coordinate communication reports to the Coalition. All South Mimico Stewardship Group project proposals and communications shall be submitted to the Coaltion for endorsement. Approval of the project may also be subject to TRCA and /or other public agency approvals. TRCA will provide assistance in obtaining these approvals. 7.0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT TRCA will not provide administrative support to assist in the operation of the South Mimico Stewardship Group; rather, it is expected that the Chair, Vice- Chair, and Secretary of the stewardship group will provide this function. TRCA will provide a staff contact to act as a liaison between the TRCA, Coalition, and stewardship group. The TRCA liaison will also facilitate any technical reviews or formal approvals that are required before commencement of a project. Project support will be dependent on the limits of TRCA resources. 8.0 COMPENSATION Financial compensation for transportation to and from, and attendance at, meetings, functions, or events will not be provided. 43 RES. #D11/02 - HUMBER WATERSHED COMMUNITY ACTION SITES Planning and implementation of new Community Action Sites to assist in achieving the objectives set out in "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber". Attachment 1 illustrates existing and recommended Community Action Sites. Moved by: Lorna Bissell Seconded by: Dick O'Brien THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on Community Action Sites in the Humber watershed, be received; THAT staff assist with the planning and Implementation of environmental management actions at the Eglinton Flats, Rexdale Park, West Humber Park, Hwy. 427 /Finch, Corridor, Woodbridge Expansion Area, and Seneca College Community Action Sites, subject to available funding; AND FURTHER THAT Authority officials be authorized to execute all necessary documentation Including, but not limited to, funding proposals and contribution agreements, to assist with the planning and Implementation of the Community Action Sites. CARRIED BACKGROUND The watershed management plan for the Humber River titled, "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber", used the model of Community Action Sites to demonstrate how partners could work together to improve the health of the watershed. The model helps focus interest and resources on specific areas to achieve results. Three Community Action Sites were profiled in Legacy. Several additional Community Action Sites have been adopted, including Claireville, Boyd North, Palgrave and Bolton. Many smaller, less complex, projects have been completed as well as part of the Humber Watershed Alliance's mandate to protect, restore and celebrate the Humber, a Canadian Heritage River, designated by the federal and provincial governments in 1999 because of its outstanding heritage and recreational resources. To date many accomplishments have been achieved as a result of the solid partnerships that have been established at each Community Action Site. A brief summary of some of the primary accomplishments is provided below: • Claireville - City of Brampton - wetland creation, trails, reforestation, community environmental awareness days • Boyd North, City of Vaughan - trails, reforestation, community environmental awareness days • Palgrave, Town of Caledon -water quality improvement, fishway, reforestation, trails and heritage interpretation • Bolton, Town of Caledon - wetland creation, trails, fishway, community environmental awareness days • Caledon East, Town of Caledon - wetland creation, trails, fish habitat improvements MA • Sun Row, City of Toronto - reforestation, community environmental awareness days, stream channel renaturalization /wetland creation to be completed in 2002. New Community Action Sites continue to be nominated by residents, interest groups and agency staff. Since the Community Action Sites mentioned above are well - established and, in some cases, nearing completion, several additional large sites can be adopted. Recommended new Community Action Sites are as follows: • Eglinton Flats, City of Toronto - wetland enhancement, water quality improvement and public access enhancements to the pond. • Rexdale Park, City of Toronto - riparian revegetation, wetland creation, reptile hibernaculae, and trails • West Humber Park, City of Toronto - reforestation, riparian revegetation, and wetland enhancement • Hwy. 427 /Finch Corridor, City of Toronto - reforestation, riparian revegetation, wetland creation and interpretive signage • Woodbridge Expansion Area, City of Vaughan - reforestation, riparian revegetation, trails, signage and wetland enhancement • Seneca College, King Township - wetland enhancement, bird nesting structures, reforestation, meadow naturalization to discourage geese, trails, signage and water quality monitoring RATIONALE Community Action Sites have proven to be an extremely valuable method for achieving the objectives and actions recommended in "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber" and our "Living City" campaign. They profile real locations and focus resources to achieve results. They encourage the involvement of like- minded individuals for a common cause, create friendships and leave a significant lasting legacy for participants. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Establish Community Action Site Steering Committees where they do not exist already; • Finalize action plans for each site; • Raise additional funds and in -kind services, from external sources, to complete the recommended tasks; • Host special events to officially recognize the accomplishments of the Humber Watershed Alliance, sponsors, and other partners. FINANCIAL DETAILS • The Humber Watershed Management budget provides staff support and small sums of seed money to plan and implement various components; • Generous donations of time are provided by Humber Watershed Alliance members, residents, interest groups, agency staff and elected representatives to plan and implement each project. 45 • Continue to apply for financial assistance from many external sources including the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, EcoAction, TD Canada Trust Friends of the Environment, Trillium Foundation, and other sources that become known. For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: January 30, 2002 Attachments: 1 EN 9 h� RES. #D12/02 - YORK PEEL DURHAM GROUNDWATER STUDY PHASE 2 - WORKPLAN, BUDGET, STATUS UPDATE Proposed work plan, budget and status of the York Peel Durham Groundwater Management Strategy Study. Moved by: Ian Sinclair Seconded by: Tanny Wells THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue developing the groundwater management program In cooperation with the Regions of York, Peel and Durham and the partner conservation authorities. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Meeting #5/01, held on June 22, 2001, by Res. #A111 /01, the Authority directed staff to proceed with a workplan for Phase 2 in the development of a groundwater management program for York, Peel and Durham (YPD) Regions. The study involves the development of a consistent groundwater management program and associated technical products to support its implementation by the study partners. The YPD Study partners include the Regions of York, Peel and Durham as well as their conservation authorities including Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC), Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA), Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA), Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (KRCA), and Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA). The Regions of York, Peel, and Durham and the City of Toronto have provided funding for this initiative to TRCA, who is administering the project on behalf of the study partners. In addition, the YPD study has been successful in acquiring funding from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for Aquifer Mapping studies across the YPD area. The granting of this MOE funding has allowed the YPD study to significantly move forward with a revised, strategic work plan aimed at addressing many of the key outstanding groundwater deficiencies across the study area. This report summarizes the current study status and outlines the strategic work plan and budget allocation. The workplan has taken into consideration the work required by the municipalities under the Oak Ridges Moraine Act and Conservation Plan. Status of Study A project manager, Steve Holysh, was hired in July 2001, to coordinate the project in collaboration with a Project Team, made up of technical staff from each partner agency. The project is guided by a Steering Committee comprised of Regional Planning and Works Commissioners and Chief Administrative Officers of each partner Conservation Authority. The YPD Study is currently very active with a number of ongoing initiatives. The YPD Team has met on a monthly basis since September 2001. At the staff level, all agency staff have worked extremely cooperatively in providing input to the overall YPD work plan. Staff from the Regional Municipalities and the Conservation Authorities have provided significant input, and dialogue at each meeting has been very positive and constructive. To date the YPD study has retained one consulting team to develop a data model for the YPD project and has purchased a WLiLn powerful hydrogeological software package for each partner agency to access, analyze, and map hydrogeological information across their respective jurisdiction. All agencies have been provided with a copy of the water well record data base and training is being planned to increase proficiency. Six "Calls for Proposals" have been sent out to a number of consultants. The YPD Team will be meeting during the week of February 18 - 22, 2002, to recommend the successful bidders on these projects and will be requesting approval from the TRCA Full Authority at their February 22nd meeting. Workplan The following YPD work plan lays out a roadway that will see a number of tasks carried out over the next several years. Data Management System In this time of enormous computer power, sound data management is not only prudent, it is indeed a responsibility of public agencies. We must start assembling comprehensive digital data bases that will stand the test of time and set the foundation for long term successful groundwater management. Towards this goal the YPD Team has already retained a top level consulting team to establish a solid data model framework that will be accessible to all partner agencies and eventually the public. This project will establish the base upon which all future work will be founded. The data model is considered to be quite comprehensive, and will be set up to include all water related data required for groundwater modelling studies; it therefore includes more than just groundwater data (i.e. stream data, climate data, etc.). Regional /Local Scale Hydrogeological Analysis The YPD work plan calls for hydrogeological analyses at two scales. Initially a regional -scale (on the order of the Oak Ridges Moraine) analysis will be undertaken to establish the overall groundwater flow system. This regional scale analysis will set the context into which more local -scale (wellhead, watershed, subwatershed) hydrogeological studies can be undertaken. The regional scale work will establish boundary conditions, set the overall geological framework, etc. Therefore, local studies that are undertaken in the future will have an established regional framework that will allow consultants, etc. to readily visualize established flow patterns and to determine the extent to which their local study will have to expand in order to answer the questions being posed. As local studies are conducted, the regional scale interpretation will be refined and improved as more detailed work is cycled back to the regional analyses. Hydrogeological modelling will be undertaken on both scales to provide long standing tools that can be used by Municipalities and Conservation Authorities to address questions of land use change. In the 2002 workplan, one such local study will include a hydrogeological analysis within the TRCA watersheds. C4-] Data Acquisition Despite the myriad of groundwater studies that have been undertaken over the years, it is surprising to find that in many ways hydrogeologists across the YPD area remain data poor. The YPD study calls for a number of strategic data acquisition programs that will provide the information required to set sound policies as discussed above. In the absence of groundwater chemistry data for example, it is difficult right now to determine the magnitude of the impact that urban development has on groundwater quality. This creates uncertainty when trying to establish and defend land use policy decisions. The YPD study calls for the following data acquisition programs across the entire YPD area: updating of the MOE's water well record data base across the entire YPD area stream baseflow information geophysical borehole logging information surface geophysics information water chemistry information static water level measurements strategic data mining from consultants long term monitoring of ground water levels and water quality. This information will be collected across the entire YPD area and will be directly input into the YPD data model framework so that it is accessible to all partner agencies. Planning Tool Development In the absence of strong Provincial guidance pertaining to groundwater management, a significant goal of the YPD groundwater study, is to provide consistency amongst the Regional Municipalities and the Conservation Authorities in how groundwater related policies, guidance documents, procedures, etc. are developed and implemented. Inconsistency in how developers and landowners are dealt with across similar geological terrains is a source of frustration for proponents of developments and provides a weakness that can than be used at tribunals such as the Ontario Municipal Board to undermine solid work being carried out by public sector agencies. The YPD study will build on examples from the Regional Municipalities of Halton and Waterloo to develop solid, defensible policy positions and guidance documents that will lead to the sound management of the groundwater resource, as well as all of the ecological functions that also rely on the groundwater resource. Education /Stewardship In addition to setting effective policies and guidelines for groundwater management, there is still a very significant need to convey information on the basics of groundwater to the public at large. The YPD project will evaluate means of effectively conveying basic groundwater information as well as the successes of the YPD program to the public through a variety of media types. Shortly, the YPD study will see the establishment of a central web site where basic groundwater related maps will be accessible to all partner agencies. The site will also 50 allow for cross - sections to be generated anywhere within the YPD area to evaluate the subsurface geology. Other communication tools will be produced that will convey consistent, simple, effective groundwater related messages to the public. Budget The above program is projected to cost on the order of $800,000/ year over the next 5 years. Attachment 1 presents the budget allocation for 2002 and estimates of the required funding for future years. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority secured a total of $400,000 in its 2001 budget to support ongoing work on the development of the York, Peel, and Durham Region groundwater management program, on behalf of the study partners. This total budget was made up of contributions of $100,000 from each of the Regions of Peel, York and Durham and the City of Toronto. Additional funds in the total amount of $200,000 are requested from these municipal partners in the Authority's 2002 budget. The Ministry of the Environment is providing $529,000 to the project from their Municipal Groundwater Protection Fund in 2002. Report prepared by: Steve Holysh, 905 - 336 -1158, extension 246 Date: January 29, 2002 Attachments: 1 51 Attachment 1 DRAFT YPD BUDGET 52 YPD 2002 YPD 2005 YPD 2004 YPD 2005 YPD 2006 YPD STRATEGIC WORK PLAN Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM $91,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 REGIONAL/LOCAL SCALE HYDROGEOLOGICAL $225,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 ANALYSES DATA ACQUISITION 1) Stream Baseflow Assessment Program $ 100, 000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 2) Well Logging Program $ 100, 000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 3) Static Water Level Measurements $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 4) Data Mining From Consultants $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 5) Updating of MOE Water Well Network $60,000 6) Groundwater Use Assessment Municipal/CA Munidpal/CA Municipal/CA Munidpal/CA Munidpal/CA 7) Contaminated Sites Inventory Munlcipal/CA Municipal/CA Munk#WCA Municipal/CA MunIdpal/CA 8) Now "Golden Spike' Boreholes/ Geophysics $50,000 $200,000 $200,OOQ $200,000 $200,000 9) Long Term Monitoring Program $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 PLANNING TOOL DEVELOPMENT $50,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 EDUCATION /STEWARDSHIP $50, 000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 ADMINISTRATION $150,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 TOTALS $916,000 1 $1,050,000 1 $1,000,000 1 $1,000,000 1 $1,000,000 52 RES. #D13102 - UPDATE - DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS CREEK STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORTS AND LAUNCH EVENT Approval of the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek State of the Watershed format and launch. Moved by: [an Sinclair Seconded by: Frank Scarpitti THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the format and launch of the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek State of the Watershed reports be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND State of the Watershed (SOW) reports for the Duffins Creek and the Carruthers Creek watersheds, providing summaries of the current environmental and social conditions, are going to be released in May of 2002. These reports represent the culmination of two years of research and hard work by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff and partners from the Federal, Provincial and municipal governments, the University of Toronto, York University, and the private sector. The release of the SOW reports is timely, given the recent Federal and Provincial governments' announcement concerning their land holdings in the Duffins Creek watershed. The publication of the State of the Watershed reports for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds completes Phase 1 of the TRCA's watershed management strategy process. The SOW preparation is a critical step in this continuum of planning, as it provides the basis for watershed strategy development, implementation and report carding. 53 70ROK O AVD REGION Y TRIGGER - '1 onservat►on 3SLIE8. _ PARTNER%HI S RE a SGURCE [)AlA Gc•LLECT'fp}I -PHASF_ V1- , REPORT CART; 'F'HdLgE 1- MCNIT! R CC NpIT1GN3 'STATE OF THE REPORT PROGRESS WATERSHED. RFi-ow ..,• 3g CONSTrruENCY-HURmtNo- S PIlasI V- IMP LEMCNTATION RESTORATION PRQJECT9 NATURAL HERITAGE PLA.N> RECt3FATI ON GULTURE AND HERITAGE • INPUT TO L. WLILJSE PLANS WATERSHED -PHASE IF ( ��� Pi.,��NING FSTABL riH PLA14NINR -PROCESS TASK FORCE:. �rti^ ISSUE A33E83MENT TS' ^ VISIONING REOQI4MENo*Tv1N3 Ti- -cHmcAL 4TLIDlES NTAnoo ��'�' 1���t�N•1?RIORITIES; 1:1M1It:INIr_ATE -.f SUURCES. PHASE III SrHE[J t11AfiA0VMEa4 I STRTT EGY L�- NCIPLE5 AND OBJECTIVES '*SWVATER5HED O- PORTUNITIES NAPS CONSTRIUEN Y @UII DING 1= ��IA7UNiTY AG.TI CNJ Sims In 1999, the TRCA formed a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to direct background technical studies necessary for the development of watershed management strategies for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds. Partners involved in the TAC included representatives from the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Environment Canada, York University and the University of Toronto. Once these particular background studies had been completed, TRCA staff proceeded with a subset of the TAC to complete the SOW reports. The Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Task Forces, as well as municipal staff, have played key roles in the development and review of these reports. For its size, the Duffins Creek watershed (284.7 square kilometres) is one of the most intensively studied watersheds in Canada. Since the 1990s, studies have been undertaken by the TRCA and various branches of the provincial government. The TRCA was fortunate to have this knowledge base upon which to work when compiling the SOW reports. Over the last 24 months, TRCA and its many partners have worked hard to fill in the information gaps which the TAC identified for the less- intensively studied Carruthers Creek watershed (38.1 square kilometres). The SOW reports have identified significant gaps in monitoring, and efforts have been made during the past two years to develop the partnerships required to include the Duffins and the Carruthers Creek watersheds in the TRCA's Regional Monitoring Program. The Duffins and Carruthers SOW reports differ from others due to the extensive studies that were undertaken prior to their compilation. While they are more comprehensive and detailed technical resource documents than their predecessors, the technical information has been translated into a more readable format for the general public. These are not single - purpose documents, as they meet the needs for both the technical and general reader. Thus, the audience for, and applications of, these SOW documents is wide - ranging, and includes: 54 general reference; educational reference material; the key reference documents for municipal, provincial and federal land use planning in these watersheds; and, the basis for the report card process and future research. Additionally, the SOW reports are being used by the members of the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces as a resource tool for making decisions regarding the development of a watershed strategy. These reports are intended to be companion documents for the Task Forces' Watersheds Strategy document, to be released in the Fall of 2002. This update pertains to the format of the reports and to the upcoming launch event that will engage the watershed community, setting the stage for public support for the Watershed Strategy. 1) State of the Watershed report format The SOW reports include chapters on the study area, archaeological sites and built heritage features, greenspace and public use, land use, air quality, climate change, surface water quality, surface water quantity, stormwater management, geomorphology, hydrogeology, aquatic habitat and species, and terrestrial habitat and species. The TRCA is embarking upon a new method of distribution for these SOW reports with a focus on electronic versions, namely CD -ROM and internet downloadable formats. Staff are diligently working through the required learning curve in order to produce these reports in this new format. Electronic (CD -ROM) versions of the reports will provide cost savings, a broader distribution, and quicker access to specific information. The documents will be available by chapter topics on the TRCA and municipal partners' websites. For selective audiences who are interested in a particular topic, individual chapters will be available for download, rather than the entire document. Building on the TRCA's sustainability themes, these electronic documents will save treesl A limited number of the traditional, full colour printed form will be made available to municipal planning departments and public libraries within the watersheds for their reference. The Carruthers Creek and the Duffins Creek SOW reports combine the appropriate scientific and social information with the latest in computer design and layout technology, providing attractive, easy - to-read and informative material. 2) Launch Events Two components of the launch of the SOW reports will be undertaken in May of 2002. A formal media launch involving our municipal partners will first occur. The municipal councillors who sit on the Duffins and Carruthers Task Forces and TRCA board members will be invited to participate in the launch, along with the Chair and CAO of the Authority. To reach a broader audience, a family- oriented event later that same day will combine the introduction of the SOW reports with a watershed- related activity, such as a Coyote Prowl and hike around the Duffins Marsh. Press kits will highlight the unique characteristics of these two watersheds and draw the attention of the media to these public events. 55 Report prepared by: Cathy Crinnion, extension 5392 For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385 Date: January 28, 2002 RES. #D14/02 - INLAND FILL QUALITY PROJECT Implementation of an inland fill quality program in conjunction with one or more municipal partners. Moved by: Ila Bossons Seconded by: Ian Sinclair 56 t f 3 r fill. i ii a ( v s } $ t .. , a� ik LEGEND rf p.. i t 5nmon two Report prepared by: Cathy Crinnion, extension 5392 For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385 Date: January 28, 2002 RES. #D14/02 - INLAND FILL QUALITY PROJECT Implementation of an inland fill quality program in conjunction with one or more municipal partners. Moved by: Ila Bossons Seconded by: Ian Sinclair 56 THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to initiate talks with municipal partners in order to present the findings of a 4 month pilot project, to discuss common concerns related to fill quality Issues and to assess the need to Implement an Inland fill quality program; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority with the results and recommendations. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority developed the Improved Lakefill Quality Control Program (ILQCP) in 1988 at the request of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to respond to a concern about the quality of soil being utilized in lakefill projects. The ILQCP provides environmental controls on the quality of soil to be deposited at lakefill locations. It is designed as a decision - making framework for assessing the acceptability of surplus excavated soil for placement at lakefill locations. The ILQCP has operated successfully for thirteen years and has pre - approved all soils prior to acceptability at such waterfront projects as Colonel Samuel Smith Park, Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Humber Shores, and Tommy Thompson Park (Leslie Street Spit). Pre - screening of sites; through the extensive review of soils reports, has resulted in the rejection of large volumes of excavated soil that do not meet the required fill quality criteria as set by the Ministry of Environment. It is known that a significant volume of this rejected material; some contaminated, is diverted to inland locations, where environmental controls may not be as stringent. Currently, fill quality issues; with the exception of dump sites operating under a Certificate of Approval issued by the MOE, are left to the discretion of the property owner. Property owners who accept earth fill may or may not be aware of the consequences of accepting fill of unknown origin or chemical composition. The MOE's role in regulating the quality of fill material that is disposed of at inland locations is limited. As a result, Authority staff in conjunction with the Town of Caledon implemented an inland fill quality pilot project over a four month period in order to monitor fill quality issues at selected sites. Chemical analysis of 44 random soil samples indicated that incoming soil exceeded the land use classification of the receiving sites. Laboratory analytical results were compared to the MOE "Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario ". In summary, 20% of all samples collected exceeded Table F (background), while 11 % exceeded Table A (residential land use). Organic and inorganic parameters which.exceeded one or both guidelines included; copper, lead, molybdenum, zinc, PCB's and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. In response, the Authority has taken the initiative and implemented its own fill quality program to ensure that soil accepted at the Boyd North Gravel Pit Restoration Project meets specific soil quality guidelines. The program in place is based on the LQCP and involves the review of soil reports, site inspections, bills of lading, policing and auditing. 57 Given the Authority's experience in managing soil quality programs and the findings of the pilot project, it is recommended that the Authority initiate talks with its municipal partners in order to discuss the implementation of an inland fill quality project. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Authority staff to contact MOE and municipal partners and present findings of the pilot project. • Authority staff to compile / document municipal concerns and expectations related to fill quality. • Develop in conjunction with MOE and municipal partners a regulatory framework to operate and enforce inland fill guidelines • Enter into agreement with municipal partner and begin process of creating a prototype inland fill quality program. • Apply principles and practices implemented at TRCA inland site (Boyd North Gravel Pit Restoration Project) at potential municipal sites. FUTURE BENEFITS The objective of this project is to provide a mechanism for the Authority and municipal partners to discuss soil quality issues and to determine whether a common goal of watershed protection through the implementing a fill quality program is viable. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds to implement the project are available in the lakefill account 242 -01. The estimated cost of the project is $20,000. For Information contact: Jim Wraith, 416- 392 -9731 Date: January 28, 2002 RES. #D15/02 - LOWER DON RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FUNCTIONAL DESIGN STUDY Appointment to Technical Advisory Committee. To appoint a member to the Technical Advisory Committee to assist TRCA staff and consultants in the development of the Lower Don River Environemntal Assessment and Functional Design Study. Moved by: Ian Sinclair Seconded by: Tanny Wells IT IS RECOMMENDED TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Cynthia Wilkey of the West Don Lands Committee be appointed as a Citizen Member to the Technical Advisory Committee. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #9/01 held on November 23, 2001, Resolution #A243/01 was passed: "THAT a Lower Don Environmental Assessment Technical Advisory Committee be established to provide effective agency and regulatory input into the Environmental Assessment and Functional Design Study for the Flood Protection and Naturalization of the Mouth of the Don; THAT the Terms of Reference, including the membership be approved; THAT the Terms of Reference be reviewed following the development of a contract between the Waterfront Revitalization Corporation /Interim Corporation and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to determine any changes; THAT any costs incurred by the TRCA as a result of the establishment of this committee be attributed to the Lower Don EA project; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Board as required." At that time, two citizen members were appointed leaving two vacancies. Cynthia Wilkey has been an active member of the West Don Lands for many years and has agreed to participate on the Technical Advisory Committee. For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: January 31, 2002 RES. #D16/02 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Minutes of Meeting #3/01 held on October 16, 2001. The minutes of Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #3/01, held on October 16, 2001, are provided for information. Moved by: Ian Sinclair Seconded by: Tanny Wells THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #3/01, held on October 16, 2001, as appended, be received. CARRIED 59 BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December 2000, and adopted by the Authority at meeting #11/00, held on January 5, 2001 by Resolution #A266/00, includes the following provision: 3.5 Reporting Relationship The Humber Watershed Alliance is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed Management Advisory Board. The Watershed Alliance Chair, will report, at least on a semi - annual basis on projects and progress. Report prepared by: Lla Lappano, extension 5292 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: December 04, 2001 RES. #D17/02 - ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS TASK FORCE Minutes of Meeting #8/01, #9/01, and #10/01. The minutes of Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force meetings #8/01, #9/01 and #10/01, held on September 27, 2001, October 25, 2001 and November 22, 2001, respectively, are provided for information. Moved by: Ian Sinclair Seconded by: Tanny Wells THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Etoblcoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force meetings #8/01, #9/01, and #10/01, held on September 27, 2001, October 25, 2001 and November 22, 2001, respectively, as appended, be received. BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy, dated June 1999, and adopted by the Authority at meeting #6/99, held on June 25, 1999 by Resolution #A166/99, includes the following provision: Section 6.1(c) Mandate The Task Force membership shall report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the TRCA, through the Authority's Watershed Management Advisory Board. Report prepared by: Lla Lappano, extension 5292 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: December 04, 2001 �1011 RES. #D18 /02 - DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED TASK FORCES Minutes of Meeting #2/01. The minutes of Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces meeting #2/01 held on September 12, 2001, are provided for information Moved by: Ian Sinclair Seconded by: Tanny Wells THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Task Forces meeting #2/01, as appended, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Draft membership selection, work plan, reporting procedures and Terms of Reference for the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces, dated October 1999, and adopted by the Authority at meeting #11/99 held on November 26, 1999 by Resolution #A298/99, includes the following procision: Section 4.5 Reporting Relationships "The Task Forces will communicate to the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. The Task Force Chairs will be required to coordinate communications to this Board with assistance of Authority staff." Report prepared by: Valerie Gust, extension 5330 For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385 Date: November 28, 2001 RES. #D19 /02 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting #5/01, and Meeting #1/02. The minutes of meeting #5/01 and meeting #1/02 held on November 15, 2001 and January 17, 2002 respectively, of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is provided for information. Moved by: - Tanny Wells Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, meeting #5/01 and meeting #1/02 held on November 15, 2001 and January 17, 2002 respectively, be received. AMENDMENT RES. #D20 102 Moved by: Tanny Wells Seconded by: Dick O'Brien 61 0/ THAT the following be inserted after the main motion: AND FURTHER THAT the Chair write a letter supporting the Don Council with respect to their position taken on the Eagles Glen Golf Course. THE AMENDMENT WAS THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration council are forwarded to the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report "Forty Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed. Report prepared by: Jennifer Bamford, extension 5305 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: January 31, 2002 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:37 a.m., on February 8, 2002. Irene Jones Chair /ks J. Craig Mather Secretary- Treasurer L�*N I OrTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/02 April 12, 2002 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/02, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, April 12, 2002. The Chair Irene Jones, called the meeting to order at 10:09 a.m. PRESENT Lorna Bissell Ila Bossons Cliff Gyles Irene Jones Anthony Ketchum Pam McConnell Jim McMaster Dick O'Brien Frank Scarpitti Ian Sinclair Tanny Wells REGRETS Dave Ryan RES. #D21/02 - Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES Lorna Bissell Dick O'Brien Vice Chair Member Member Chair Member Member Member Chair, Authority Member Member Member THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/02, held on February 8, 2002, be approved. PRESENTATIONS Member CARRIED (a) A presentation by Professor Walter Kehm, School of Landscape Architecture,, in regards to item 7.6 - Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Design Project - University of Guelph, Landscape Research Group Design Project 63 (b) A presentation by Allan Sparrow, Outreach Coordinator, Community A.I.R., in regards to the Toronto Island Airport Expansion Plans. RES. #D22 /02 - Moved by: Seconded by: PRESENTATIONS Pam McConnell Ila Bossons Y THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received; AND FURTHER THAT the presentation be shared with the City of Toronto's Waterfront Reference Group and the Ashbridges Bay Sailing Club. CARRIED RES. #D23 /02 - Moved by: Seconded by PRESENTATIONS Pam McConnell Dick O'Brien THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received; THAT Mr. Allan Sparrow be requested to make the same presentation at Authority Meeting #4/02, to be held on April 26, 2002; THAT the Board extend its appreciation to Mr. Allan Sparrow, Outreach Coordinator, Community AIR (Airport Impact Review) for the excellent presentation on the Toronto City Centre Airport General Aviation and Airport Feasiblity Study - Toronto Port Authority January 2002; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority staff work with the City of Toronto staff with regards to future opportunities to enhance the ecological functions and shoreline of the airport lands, and,report back at a future meeting. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) A letter dated April 11, 2002 from Mark Wilson, Chair, Don Watershed Regeneration Council to Mr. John D. Leach, City Clerk, City oNaughan, in regards to Committee of the Whole, Meeting date: April 8, 2002, Agenda Item 26.1 - Eagles Nest Golf Course. a Y RES. #D24/02 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Ian Sinclair Seconded by: Frank Scarpitti THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received. CARRIED 65 CORRESPONDENCE (A) .tbeDon DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL April 11, 2002 Mr. John D. Leach City Clerk City of Vaughan 2141 Major MacKenzie Drive Vaughan, ON L6A 1T1 Dear Mr. Leach: Re: Committee of the Whole, Meeting date: April 8, 2002 Agenda Item 26.1 - Eagles Nest Golf Course The Don Council is very disappointed in the staff report supporting the continued development of the golf course in the McGill ESA on a core area of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The report totally disregards the advice of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, supported by the Region of York and endorsed by the Don Council to not approve the current plan. There is virtually no provision in the Vaughan staff report that acknowledges the concerns expressed. The basic logic seems to be that because the rest of the ESA continues to exist and function, it is acceptable to destroy this part. We in no way oppose the overall plan for a golf course but see no reason why it must be designed to extend into the ESA. If in fact the lands chosen for the golf course portion of the overall project are inadequate then the developer should be asked to look at the overall plan to provide adequate space for the golf course elsewhere in the site. Otherwise what Vaughan Council will be in effect doing is providing additional high value commercial space to the developer elsewhere in the development at the expense of the destruction of an irreplaceable environmental resource. A development group that has shown total disregard for the planning and environmental approval process - and the law- is being rewarded. This is a dangerous precedent and not what the public expects from the political process. We must also draw to your attention the fact that the charges against the various parties resulting from the illegal clear cutting are now before the courts. The Don Council stands firm in its position that those charged should be ordered to replant the site and that suitable additional compensation be awarded to reflect the mature nature of the site that has been lost. If, indeed replanting, ordered by the court, is the outcome, then the City of Vaughan will have a golf course short a few holes, substandard in every way. The commercial block to the south will have been built and the community will then be faced with yet again a further disruption if the golf course is converted at that time to some other use or reconfigured. It appears that Vaughan Council, will take this risk of further disruption to the community rather than having the appropriate reconfiguration done now. We very much understand the concerns of the Vaughan community as expressed by Vaughan Cares and others who want the Landfill closed as soon as possible. While we support their position, there was no need to destroy a portion of the environmentally significant area to accommodate the development of the golf course. It could have been accommodated through an alternative layout. If the golf course proceeds as planned after the destruction that took place, there will forever be a stain associated with this project which time will not erase and the Don community will not forget. The McGill ESA provides high quality habitat for numerous plants and animals that are considered to be rare, endangered, threatened or vulnerable within the TRCA region, Ontario or Canada. This kind of area is rare in the Don Watershed - golf courses are not. We urge you today to reject the staff report and demonstrate to your constituents that developers must respect the environment and due process by asking for a reconfiguration of the plan to eliminate the intrusion into the ESA. Yours truly, original signed by: Mark Wilson Chair Don Watershed Regeneration Council cc: Scott Somerville, City Manager, City of Vaughan Councillor Bernie Di Vona, City of Vaughan Councillor Mario Ferri, City of Vaughan Councillor Susan Kadis, City of Vaughan Councillor Mario Racco, City of Vaughan Councillor Gino Rosati, City of Vaughan Bill Fisch, Chairman - Regional Municipality of York Alan Wells, CAO - Regional Municipality of York Regional Councillor David Barrow Mayor William F. Bell - Town of Richmond Hill Mayor Don Cousens - Town of Markham Regional Councillor Joyce Frustaglio Regional Councillor Michael DiBiase Deputy Mayor /Regional Councillor Brenda Hogg Regional Councillor Gordon Landon Regional Councillor Bill O'Donnell Deputy Mayor /Regional Councillor Frank Scarpitti Regional Councillor Tony Wong Dick O'Brien, Chair - TRCA Craig Mathers, CAO - TRCA Councillor Maria Augimeri, City of Toronto, TRCA Board Member 67 Councillor Bas Balkissoon, City of Toronto, TRCA Board Member Councillor Sandra Bussin, City of Toronto, TRCA Board Member Councillor Raymond Cho, City of Toronto, TRCA Board Member Councillor Rob Ford, City of Toronto, TRCA Board Member Councillor Suzan Hall, City of Toronto, TRCA Board Member Councillor Irene Jones, City of Toronto, TRCA Board Member Councillor George Mammolitti, City of Toronto, TRCA Board Member Councillor Pam McConnell, City of Toronto, TRCA Board Member Councillor Peter Milczyn, City of Toronto, TRCA Board Member Councillor Ron Moeser, City of Toronto, TRCA Board Member Ms. Ila Bossons, City of Toronto, TRCA Board Member Ms. Tanny Wells, City of Toronto, TRCA Board Member m SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D25/02 - TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem report. Format and results of the State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem report. Moved by: Cliff Gyles Seconded by: Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem draft report be received; THAT staff use the report findings to assist in the development of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy; AND FURTHER THAT the report be provided_ to various provincial, municipal, and public stakeholders. CARRIED BACKGROUND As part of the Natural Heritage Program, Toronto and Region Conservation has developed a State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem report. This document summarizes current conditions for terrestrial natural heritage in the TRCA region, sets the stage for future regional report cards and the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy, and prepares the public for the methodology used for evaluation and reporting. Terrestrial natural heritage includes flora and fauna species, vegetation community types, and the patterns and interactions of habitat patches across the landscape. The report introduces six indicators of terrestrial condition, all of which are based on principles of conservation biology and landscape ecology, and which evaluate the function of the entire terrestrial system, thus going beyond merely defining significance. The indicators include: 1) Quantity 2) Distribution 3) Matrix Influence 4) Size and Shape 5) Connectivity 6) Biodiversity A total of 20 individual measures are applied to achieve the indicator results, reflecting the status of biodiversity at the landscape, vegetation community, and species levels. The measures are organized into a grading system that will be used in the future as the inventory and monitoring continues. Future report cards will provide grades for each indicator. Because grades must be assigned in relation to targets (which will be set through the stakeholder consultations leading to the forth- coming Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy), the State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem report presents and interprets the results for current conditions. The report findings are: Wei • the current condition of terrestrial natural heritage within the TRCA region is only poor to fair, and is rapidly deteriorating. The state of the ecosystem is not healthy and requires immediate attention. • many species of flora and fauna that require quality habitat are disappearing as more of the landscape becomes urbanized • protected natural areas are becoming degraded • a substantial increase of forest and wetland habitat will be needed to improve ecosystem health to adequate levels v These results are the bad news story, and reinforce the suspicions of many who live and work in the GTA. The good news story is the development and application of the innovative new approach to evaluation, target setting, and tracking change, and the application of this approach to achieve the results outlined in the State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem report. The report itself is of vital importance because it: • introduces a reporting format that will form the basis for setting targets through the forthcoming Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy • provides a "snapshot' of current conditions under each indicator, creating a baseline upon which to measure changes over time • acts as an education tool by introducing the key issues and evaluation system to be used in the Natural Heritage Strategy DETAILS OF FINDINGS The following is a review of the results found in the State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem report under each of the six indicators, and an interpretation of these existing terrestrial natural heritage conditions: Quantity: The total cover of natural habitat cover (forest and wetland) in the TRCA jurisdiction currently amounts to only 16 percent. This is well below the RAP guideline of 30 percent, which in itself is a very conservative estimate of the amount of habitat required for healthy ecological function. Distribution: A healthy landscape requires not only a reasonable quantity of natural cover, but an even distribution of that cover. For example, a watershed with 30 percent natural cover that is all concentrated in the upper reaches would not be healthy because soil maintenance, water retention and filtration, air quality benefits, local climate regulation, and the support of species would be restricted to this area. Currently most of the natural cover in the TRCA jurisdiction is found in the upper reaches of the watersheds, with a higher concentration as one moves from west to east. 70 Matrix Influence: This is a measure of the type of external influences on a habitat patch based on the proportion of natural, agricultural, or urban habitat within a two kilometre radius of the patch. The average value for the region is in the middle range, reflecting the contrast between the highly urbanized landscape in the southern portion of the TRCA jurisdiction and the agricultural /natural matrix of the Oak Ridges Moraine. Values will be reduced as more urbanization replaces agricultural areas, or increased if natural cover is expanded throughout the region. The challenge will be to find a balance between the three major land use types. Size and Shape: The principles behind size and shape are simply that larger habitat patches are better than smaller ones, and more compact patches are better than long, thin, or convoluted ones. Currently the average patch size in the TRCA jurisdiction is only 3.01 hectares. This reflects a landscape with many very small patches and only a few very large ones, which is bad news for area - sensitive species, i.e. those that need conditions that only larger patches can provide. Shape is measured by the perimeter to area ratio of patches, yielding values between 1 and 2, the former being a perfect circle, which is the ideal. The average shape value for in the TRCA jurisdiction is 1.89, reflecting highly convoluted habitat patches, with a great deal of edge that is exposed to negative external influences, and relatively little protected interior habitat required by many sensitive species. Connectivity: This is an index of the proximity of forest or wetland patches to each other. Isolation of habitat patches can lead to loss of local wildlife populations due to lack of resources or dispersal opportunities. The more connected habitats are, the better the opportunities for wildlife movement. Currently the TRCA jurisdiction is characterized by a high degree of habitat fragmentation, leading to low connectivity values. This means that even where they occur, the long -term presence of many wildlife species may not be assured. Biodiversity: This indicator relates to the representation of vegetation communities and species within the TRCA region. Determining baseline conditions will be dependent on completing the regional inventory. In summary, in the TRCA region natural areas have been reduced to small fragments scattered across the landscape. Even these are disappearing rapidly and incrementally, as development decisions are made without regard for the broader impacts of individual site level habitat loss. It is obvious that the "traditional" approach of setting aside a few representative protected areas is inadequate for supporting populations of some species, and can no longer sustain the natural landscape patterns that are vital for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem health. A new approach is needed, one that evaluates natural features within the context of a functioning system across the landscape, and that works towards protection and restoration of those functions. In order to avoid the expense and risks involved in crisis management, such an approach must be pro - active rather than reactive. The TRCA's approach to terrestrial natural heritage is a bold attempt to meet this challenge while being consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. The State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem report not only provides the foundation for tracking and reporting progress in relation to targets set through the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy, it also acts as a call to action for making positive change. 71 WORK TO BE DONE Future report cards based on the State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem format will summarize gains and losses related to meeting the targets for each indicator as set by the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy which is to be completed by the end of 2002. The targets will be identified through a series of GIS -based modeling scenarios that are part of the TRCA's innovative approach to evaluating terrestrial natural heritage. The TRCA will continue to work closely with stakeholders throughout the process of developing the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy and in the production of future report cards for the region. Consultation with partners, stakeholders, and other organizations involved in natural heritage protection initiatives has been underway and will continue in order to promote compatibility between approaches. This project is part of a broader Natural Heritage Program that will integrate the terrestrial and aquatic habitat and water quality and quantity issues as well as cultural heritage and public use components of the TRCA mandate. This integrated approach to natural heritage protection represents a major step towards sustainability and will be a foundation for the Living City vision. Report prepared by: Ken Towle, extension 5205 For Information contact: Ken Towle, extension 5205 Date: March 20, 2002 RES. #D26/02 - THE YORK REGION NATURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PROJECT 2002 - 2006 Endorsement of the York Region Natural Heritage Management Project 2002 - 2006 Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 2002 York Region Natural Heritage Management Project be approved; THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the signing of a contribution agreement and other documents as may be necessary to give effect thereto; THAT a letter be sent to York Region expressing the Authority's gratitude for their continuing support and generous financial contribution to further the watershed management work of TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT staff provide regular progress reports to York Region on accomplishments, partnerships and future joint projects. CARRIED 72 BACKGROUND Over the last three years TRCA has worked with York Region to implement the York Natural Heritage Project. York Region contributed $600,000 towards the project components. This budget was used to generate additional funds from many other partners, including the Toronto RAP, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, TD Friends of the Environment Fund and the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto. funding from other sources totaled over $2.7 million, bringing the total value of projects in York Region to $3.3 million. In 2001, TRCA staff prepared a revised project with additional funds for environmental science studies and projects, subwatershed planning, natural heritage land acquisition and environmental education. The Authority endorsed the 2002 -2006 York Region Natural Heritage Management Project with RES. #D68/01, THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the reports entitled: "Peel Water Management Project, York Natural Heritage Project and Durham Watershed Resource Management Project" be endorsed; THAT staff continue discussions with Regional staff, as appropriate, regarding project requirements and priorities; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board regarding the final outcome of these submissions. The York Region Natural Heritage Management Project was designed to integrate and expand upon existing TRCA -York environmental initiatives. The general goal is to protect, restore and monitor the form and function of natural areas and connecting links in the Region. Through its implementation, the Region and TRCA will contribute to meeting their respective goals, objectives, strategic directions and priority actions as related to natural heritage protection and management. The program is ambitious and will produce measurable outcomes that will assist in reaching specified targets. The proposed programs and resulting environmental benefits of the York Region Natural Heritage Management Project are directly related to the goals, objectives, and policies stated in Regional Official Plans and Strategic Plans, where they exist, as well as TRCA's Business Plan; in the recommendations of Conservation Ontario to the Walkerton Inquiry regarding the municipal role in watershed management and drinking water quality; and in the draft recommendations on protecting the Oak Ridges Moraine. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The York Region Natural Heritage Management Project is intended to integrate and expand upon seven project initiatives, including: Natural Heritage Restoration Project, Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy, York -Peel- Durham Groundwater Management Study; Regional Watershed Monitoring Network; Natural Heritage Lands Protection and Acquisition Project; Land Stewardship Program; and Environmental Education Program. 73 The Natural Heritage Restoration program identifies key targets for improvement based on the Don and Humber Report Cards. Sixteen priority watershed restoration projects are recommended to address surface and groundwater quality and quantity; erosion and sedimentation; baseflow; forest and wetland habitat; and aquatic habitat restoration. See Figure 1 for locations. The York -Peel- Durham Groundwater Management Study will be entering the implementation phase, with continued work in the areas of database development, mapping and modeling that will be more efficiently carried out as part of the tri- region collaborative. The Water Monitoring Program will monitor and report on targets defined in the Regional Watershed Monitoring Network including water quality, flow and precipitation, terrestrial natural heritage, aquatic ecosystems, groundwater and air quality. Also included in this program are the targets identified in the watershed report cards including education, outreach, stewardship and acquisition. The Flood Plain and Regulation Mapping program will include the updating of existing flood plain and regulation mapping originally completed in the late 1970s. As part of TRCA's comprehensive mapping update program, the four basic components of this program include updating the watershed hydrology models to reflect current and future land use; updating the hydraulic models with the revised flows; plotting of the revised water level information on flood plain maps; and updating the regulation line to include the reassessed flood line. The Water Budgets program includes the development of a GIS based water budget tool to evaluate land use planning changes, impacts of water taking's, watershed strategy assessments, low/base flow assessment, ground water/ surface water analysis and climate change. The GIS version of the water budget tool will be developed at a watershed scale. Data/Information Technical Support includes the investment in infrastructure such as servers, workstations and software critical to ensure the management of high volumes of data, improve analysis capabilities and efficiently provide results and services. FINANCIAL DETAILS The York Region Natural Heritage Management Project has been granted funding approval from the Regional Municipality of York in the amount of $700,000 for 2002. See Table 1 for details. Table 1: York Region Natural Heritage Management Project Budget 2002 -2006 Project/Program Budget Natural Heritage Restoration $200,000 York/Peel/Durham Groundwater $50,000 Water Monitoring Program $200,000 Flood Plain Mapping $150,000 Water Budgets $50,000 Data/Information Technical Support $50,000 Total $700,000 74 OTHER DETAILS TRCA staff will confirm and pursue other funding sources to maximize the deliverables from each project component. TRCA staff will finalize any necessary approvals for proposed restoration projects. - Report prepared by: Connie Pinto, extension 5291 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211; Connie Pinto, extension 5291 Date: April 03, 2002 Attachments: 1 75 Attachment 1 +y..5}?', 76 t JI RES. #D27/02 - THE CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT - FISHLEIGH DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT To implement shoreline improvements for the Fishleigh Drive sector of the Scarborough Bluffs, City of Toronto. Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the 2002 construction program for the Fishleigh Drive shoreline improvement project, City of Toronto, under `The City of Toronto Valley Shoreline Regeneration Project 2002 -2006 at a total cost of $200,000. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project was approved under the Class Environmental Assessment process in 1988. Construction of the access road to the site was completed in 1989 followed by the construction of shoreline protection which commenced in 1990 and continued to 1998. To date approximately 375 metres of shoreline has been protected. Twenty -eight residential homes along Fishleigh Drive are included within this sector. At the present time, 190 metres of shoreline has interim protection consisting of broken concrete rubble. Final shoreline treatment is required to complete the stabilization within this sector of the Scarborough Bluffs. During 2001 W.F. Baird & Associates, Coastal Engineers was retained to complete the final design for 190 metres of the unprotected shoreline. The final design has been received, which includes the construction of 4 rock mound groynes and an armour stone revetment. DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE Staff will obtain the necessary approvals required under the Federal Fisheries & Navigable Waters Protection Acts, as they relate to the project. During 2002 it is proposed to construct 2 rock mound groynes as per W.F. Baird and Associates design. Construction and supervision will be carried out by TRCA field staff utilizing the annual heavy equipment supply contractof. Environmental monitoring will include fisheries surveys benthos and substrate analysis to document any changes to the aquatic environment. Monitoring of bluffs erosion and lakefill quality will be ongoing. Report prepared by: Joe Delie Fave 416- 392 -9724 For Information contact: Joe DeIIe Fave 416- 392 -9724 Date: April 03, 2002 77 RES. #D28/02 - PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF SMALL STREAMS AND INTERMITTENT WATERCOURSES Initiative by the Town of Markham to undertake a Policy update and develop implementing guidelines for the protection and management of small streams and intermittent watercourses. Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Anthony Ketchum THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the Town of Markham's initiative to undertake a policy update and develop implementing guidelines for the protection and management of small streams and intermittent watercourses be received; THAT staff be directed to continue to work with the Town and their consultants to complete the work plan; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back upon the results of the work and opportunities for application throughout the Authority's watersheds. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Town of Markham is comprised of parts of the Rouge, Don, Duffins and Petticoat watersheds. The Town's landscape, particularly in the northern reaches, consists of flat plains dominated by agricultural fields. The existing stream corridors are often ill defined in the landscape, i.e. without a defined valley landform. Many of them have been highly altered through the agricultural uses that dominate the landscape. The natural vegetation has been removed, the streams have been realigned or ditched and often their drainage characteristics have been altered by tile drains. This situation is not unique to Markham, and similar issues are found throughout our watersheds. In natural stream systems there are many more, low order, small headwater streams than high order, large streams. It has been estimated that, these small streams can represent 50% of the total stream length within a watershed. As recognized in the TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, small streams form a large and ecologically 'significant part of a watershed's drainage system. They are the principle water collection vehicles. Water flowing through them is in contact with the soil and vegetation thus contributing to the aquatic food web. This contact increases the time it takes before flows reach the larger streams reducing the risk of flooding and erosion and allowing natural infiltration. These stream corridors also represent opportunities for terrestrial habitat such as forests and wetlands. The loss of a single small tributary may seem reasonable, however, the cumulative impact of removing all the tributaries is the degradation of downstream system and the loss of species. The protection and management of small streams and intermittent watercourses when the adjacent lands are being urbanized continues to present challenges for both Authority staff and the municipalities. The study being undertaken by Markham will include the preparation of a "Best Practices" Guideline which would document opportunities and methods employed in the Town and elsewhere to best manage the form and function of small streams and intermittent watercourses. The guideline will function as an update to the Town's current Stormwater 78 Management Guidelines. It will also provide an opportunity to examine current Secondary Plans to identify opportunities within the existing approved development framework for further watercourse protection and enhancement. Staff has offered to explore opportunities to provide greater clarity and consistency to the evaluation process for small streams and intermittent watercourses. This staff input will contribute technical expertise and provide comments on the role of the TRCA in the watercourse evaluation process, and help ensure that the Town and TRCA provide consistent direction through the development review and approvals process. FINANCIAL DETAILS The study is being funded by the Town of Markham. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Town has prepared a Terms of Reference for the work and is in the process of selecting a consultant. It is anticipated that the work will being later this spring. Report prepared by: Dena Lewis, extension 5225 For Information contact: Dena Lewis, extension 5225 Date: March 27, 2002 RES. #D29/02 - KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING - DISPOSAL CELL ONE CAPPING AND WETLAND CREATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AT TOMMY THOMPSON PARK The Authority in partnership with the Toronto Port Authority is poised to start the construction of the wetland creation and capping project at Disposal Cell One, Tommy Thompson Park. Moved by: . Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to implement the capping and wetland creation project at Disposal Cell One, Tommy Thompson Park in partnership with the Toronto Port Authority upon receipt of final authorization from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; AND FURTHER THAT the Toronto Port Authority be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND The 1972 water quality agreement under the International Joint Commission banned the open water disposal of dredged sediments unless they met strict sediment quality guidelines. In response, many ports within the Great Lakes created Confined Disposal Facilities (CDF's) as containment areas for dredged contaminated sediments. Since the early 1980's, the three cells of the outer endikement at Tommy Thompson Park have been the repository for sediments 79 dredged from the Keating Channel and other locations in the vicinity of Toronto Harbour. These operations were approved under the Keating Channel Dredging Program Environmental Assessment and, subject to a number of terms and conditions. Condition number five states: Cell 1 shall be topped off and capped no later than December 31, 1992, in a manner which restricts biological uptake and mobility of contaminants. Disposal of dredged material in Cell One at Tommy Thompson Park was completed in 1987; and as required by the Environmental Assessment decision, capping options were developed in 1991 by the authority. The preferred capping option developed in the 1991 Capping Report proposed to place a clean -fill cap over the dredged material, followed by the creation of a wetland ecosystem on the clean fill. At the time of release, this capping scenario was not well received by the regulatory agencies and a sense of skepticism prevailed in the review of this project. Of initial concern was the impact to existing fish habitat and the need to quantify the measures taken to ensure a no net loss of fish habitat within the Cell. In response, in 1994 the TRCA developed a Wetland Concept Plan for Cell One which detailed a number of wetland and fish habitat creation techniques. This report documented in detail the various components that were to be developed on site, including our guiding principles for the creation of wetland and riparian vegetation communities and fish and wildlife habitats. This report became the benchmark of our thoughts on habitat creation techniques and has been utilized to the extent that we now have examples on the waterfront of every habitat type envisioned in this document. The Concept Plan appeased the DFO requirements but federal concerns about this project still existed. Concerns were expressed about monitoring requirements for this capping scenario and the potential for conditions like outbreaks of avian botulism, poor water quality, and potential toxicity. In response the TRCA resampled the sediment quality within the cell and found that there were no concerns for toxicity. In addition we developed an aggressive monitoring protocol for this project based on sediment quality conditions, toxicity, and risk assessment procedures. The TRCA also documented a variety of contingency plans for the various potential conditions that concerned the regulatory agencies. This was documented in a Cell One Monitoring report that was completed in 1997. Concurrent to this process staff developed and detailed a capping proposal for Triangle Pond in Tommy Thompson Park. Triangle Pond was created in 1974 as a full scale test of the concept of Confined Disposal Facilities. When the pond was created it was filled to capacity with dredged material from the Inner Harbour and subject to an array of initial testing to determine the effective containment of the dredged material. The Triangle Pond site was of concern to staff because of the elevated levels of contaminates in the sediment, and the use of this area by local wildlife. During 1998 and 1999 the Authority in partnership with Environment Canada completed a capping project for Triangle Pond based on the philosophy and monitoring requirements developed for Disposal Cell One. The Triangle Pond project became the full scale successful test model of our construction techniques, habitat efforts and monitoring protocols and set the stage for approval and implementation of the Cell One project. 80 In 2000, the TRCA was detailing the Port Union Waterfront Improvement project to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It was determined that this project would have a substantial impact on fish habitat and required the development of seven hectares of wetland habitat, to compensate for the on site Toss of fish habitat. The only possible location for such an extensive amount of wetland habitat was the Cell One project at Tommy Thompson Park. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans agreed with this approach as did our project partner the Toronto Port Authority and the two projects were linked and submitted for approval. We are now awaiting the DFO approval for the Port Union Fish Compensation Plan which includes CeII One Tommy Thompson Park. Staff have respectfully requested that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans review and approve the Cell One project in a quick and timely fashion. Late in 2001, the Toronto Port Authority approached staff with concerns about the final build out of Tommy Thompson Park, and that there was limited room for Iakefilling because the Park was at its approved boundaries. Staff directed the Port Authority to some suitable areas for grade enhancements and approached the Port with the concept of redirecting the Iakefilling material to CeII One. The Toronto Port Authority has agreed to redirect fill and oversee the coarse construction of the CeII One Wetland Cap. This will substantially reduce the cost of building CeII One because it will utilize the Iakefilling arrangement and not require additional equipment or labour. The Toronto Port Authority has agreed in principle to this arrangement and staff are now in the process of determining the role and responsibility of each agency. The Cell One Project has taken many years to get to this final stage of implementation and has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny. Initially this project was dismissed as unachievable, because many of the concepts were untested and new. The concept of capping was in contrast to Environment Canada's stance on sediment remediation. Environment Canada was critical of a few Great Lake locations in the United States that were heavily contaminated and depended on the cheaper option of capping rather than the expensive remediation and removal option. RATIONALE Staff had to prove the worth of this project by demonstrating over the years all of the proposed habitat compensation components at other locations across the waterfront. Staff developed a concise and practical monitoring protocol for this project with a number of contingency plans that were based on common practical knowledge about the potential problem conditions. The Triangle Pond Project finally proved that we could successfully implement all of the concepts around capping sediments and make them work on a large scale. The Triangle Pond Project was endorced by Environment Canada, which states in a letter dated October 4, 2001, "Environment Canada finds the initial monitoring results for Triangle Pond acceptable and has no concerns with the proposed wetland capping of CeII 1 as long as an appropriate monitoring plan is carried out." There is no more doubt about the utility and feasibility of capping Disposal Cell One at Tommy Thompson Park. This plan is now economically feasible with the funds available because of the willingness of the Toronto Port Authority to manage the construction of the project as normal Iakefilling operations. The implementation of the capping project benefits the Authority by allowing the site to be used for fish habitat compensation for the Port Union Shoreline Improvement Project, without which the Port Union Project faced a major redesign or inability to secure approval because of the lack of habitat compensation. 81 DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE The Cell one capping project has been submitted to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for approval. Staff will ensure that this final submission receives a prompt review and address any outstanding issues or concerns that may be raised. In partnership with the Toronto Port Authority staff are detailing the fill plan and construction scenarios for this projects. The logistics of controlling fill material to the site and overall construction control are important aspects of project implementation and will be detailed by both parties prior to construction. It is estimated that the project will require 205,000m3 of fill material and take approximately 11 to 18 months to construct, depending on the supply of suitable cap material. The lakefilling and coarse grading will be completed by the Toronto Port Authority and represents a substantial contribution to the project. The Authority will complete the habitat aspects of the project including plantings and habitat structures, as well as, conduct the environmental monitoring and provide site supervision for critical components of the cap. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Authority has $140,000 for this project in account number 210 -04. Our proposed budget will include $76,000 for planting and habitat structures, $20,000 for environmental monitoring, $30,000 for construction support and $14,000 for contingency, project administration. The Toronto Port Authority will construct the capping project as the primary lakefilling operation at Tommy Thompson Park. This arrangement allows the construction of the project as a revenue generating or revenue neutral operation, in contrast to the initial arrangement where the Cell One project would have to operate as an additional or secondary lakefilling location at the expense of the authority. The significance of this contribution is linked to the availability of fill. Construction costs are higher when fill material is in short supply and equipment and labour is unproductive and likewise, construction cost are lower when fill is abundant and equipment and labour is utilized at or near maximum efficiency. A rough estimation of this in -kind contribution is between $260,000 to $400,000 depending on the quantity of fill material. Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson For Information contact: Gord MacPherson ext. 5246 Date: April 03, 2002 RES. #D30/02 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK MASTER PLAN DESIGN PROJECT - UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH, LANDSCAPE RESEARCH GROUP DESIGN PROJECT Report on the completion of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Design Project with the University of Guelph, Landscape Research Group. Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons 82 l THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the final report (April 2002), its key findings and directions on the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Design Project as prepared by the University of Guelph - Landscape Research Group be endorsed; THAT staff be directed to take the appropriate steps to pursue incorporating the baselands (currently zoned GR) into the overall Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan, as part of Lake Ontario Park which is a key greenspace component in the City of Toronto's Central Waterfront Part II Plan, "Making Waves ", ensuring compliance with: the Environmental Assessment Act; previous environmental approvals; previous TRCA resolutions on "Making Waves"; current City waterfront planning initiatives; while exploring a cooperative partnership with current and adjacent landowners; THAT this report be utilized as a foundation for discussions with City staff, agencies and interest groups to develop and implement the various Park Master Plan components; THAT staff be directed to establish a Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Committee with broad representation of park users, interests groups, and the City of Toronto to assist Toronto and Region Conservation staff with the development and implementation of various Park Master Plan components; THAT the University of Guelph, Landscape Research Group within the School of Landscape Architecture be acknowledged for their hard work, and dedication to this project; AND FURTHER THAT Policy and Development staff and Parks and Recreation staff from the City of Toronto's Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, and the City's Waterfront Secretariat be so advised. BACKGROUND In 1959, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (now known as the Toronto Port Authority or TPA) began construction of a spit of land at the base of Leslie Street in the City of Toronto. From 1959 until present day, a combination of lakefilling and dredging activities created the current configuration of Tommy Thompson Park (TTP). Tommy Thompson Park extends 5 kilometres into Lake Ontario and occupies an area of approximately 260 hectares of combined land and water. CARRIED Tommy Thompson Park has evolved into a significant feature along the shoreline of Lake Ontario. It is home to numerous birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and vegetation communities, which have distinguished Tommy Thompson Park as an Important Bird Area (IBA), and as a significant portion of the North Shore Environmentally Significant Area (ESA #130). The IBA international designation demonstrates Tommy Thompson Park's significance nationally, as well as globally. As an ESA, Tommy Thompson Park is recognized as supporting an unusually high diversity of biological communities, including one provincially rare, seven regionally rare and six locally rare plant species. The Park has also established itself as a unique place for a variety of human activities, attracting well over 100,000 visitors a year. 83 The Master Plan for Tommy Thompson Park was completed in 1989, and then revised in 1992 through the Minister of the Environment's approval under the Environmental Assessment Act. While the rationale and main objectives of the Master Plan have not changed since 1992, Tommy Thompson Park and its users have evolved and changed over time. The original Master Planning process was a thorough and complete process, but it did not include detailed, site specific design information which could be easily implemented. Recently, there has been growing interest in the City of Toronto's waterfront. With this renewed interest, numerous waterfront plans have emerged. In an effort to ensure the future sustainability and ecological integrity of Tommy Thompson Park, the Park's Master Plan was revisited through a cooperative project between The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the University of Guelph, School of Landscape Architecture, Landscape Research Group. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority acted as the lead agency in the project under approval of Resolution #B210 /00 at Executive Committee Meeting #14/00, February 2, 2001 which was adopted as follows: THAT the Landscape Research Group at the University of Guelph, be authorized to undertake concept designs, additional studies, and research in cooperation with the Authority, City of Toronto staff, the Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Group, other interest groups and the public. THAT a Memorandum of Understanding for Research and Design be developed between The University of Guelph _Landscape Research Group and The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. AND FURTHER THAT A project Terms of Reference be developed for Tommy Thompson Park for the delivery of research and design services at a total cost not to exceed $75,000 plus GST. A Memorandum of Understanding between the TRCA and the University of Guelph, Landscape Research Group within the School of Landscape Architecture was developed. This partnership was designed to promote a strong connection between the Authority and the University of Guelph and to foster a collective interest in improving our abilities in research, resource management, landscape design and education. The first endeavor under this Memorandum of Understanding has centered around the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Design Project. This project had five specific objectives: 1 Updated Master Plan Presentation Drawings; 2 Development of Preliminary Concepts for a Park Interpretive Centre; 3 Park Gateway and Trail Design Standards; 4 A Habitat Design Option for Disposal Cell Two; and 5 Cooperative Research on the Biophysical Resources of the Site. 84 ) During the summer of 2001 students and faculty in the Landscape Research Group at the University of Guelph worked with staff of The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Environmental Services Section to carry out this five part study of Tommy Thompson Park. These various components of the Memorandum of Understanding were completed through consultation with other Toronto and Region Conservation staff, City staff and local stakeholders. This consultation was achieved through a staff workshop, on site meetings, park events, and through TRCA staffs' involvement in the City of Toronto's planning discussions and project meetings for the Toronto waterfront. A synopsis of the completed work is as follows: Updated Master Plan Presentation Drawings Significant data about the Park's plants, birds, fish and other animals had been collected over the years since the Master Plan was created. This information has now been plotted on new maps and the data stored in a digital format for easy reference. The updated plans now include the existing trail alignments, infrastructure and the current biological makeup of TTP, including the TRCA's habitat work to date, wildlife communities and vegetation communities. This baseline information has already been of great benefit to Toronto and Region Conservation staff involved with City of Toronto's decision making process for central waterfront planning. Staff will also be able to use this information to successfully implement the Interim Management Program for the Park, the Keating Channel Dredging and Disposal Program, ongoing habitat creation projects and the Approved Master Plan. Park Gateway and Trail Design Standards The most revealing and significant aspect of the work with the Landscape Research Group focused on their vision of a gateway for Tommy Thompson Park. Their insight and further site analysis led to the recognition of the baselands area of the Park as a keystone feature. Six alternative gateway plans were developed for this area which detailed many site specific attributes. These designs clearly articulate the importance of the baselands and demonstrate the potential opportunities for habitat enhancement, passive recreation and environmental education. The designs collate a combination of space, location, and park features that have the potential to serve the future waterfront community in a way that highlights the attributes of Tommy Thompson Park and the local Toronto shoreline. The initial draft gateway designs were used by Toronto and Region Conservation staff during early discussions with the City of Toronto, regarding the Central Waterfront Plan. Staff are very pleased to see that the park gateway concepts are reflected in the latest version of the Central Waterfront Plan for the City of Toronto, which supports the concept of a Lake Ontario Park from Cherry Street Beach to the Main Sewage Treatment Plant. These gateway concepts are currently assisting staff in discussions with the adjacent landowner and have provided some guidance and garnered support for initial habitat and park infrastructure works in this area. Details were also developed for trails alignments and trail standards. Consensus was achieved with major park user groups on the type of trails, location of various trail alignments and an implementation schedule which would facilitate ongoing park use during construction. A balance was achieved in trail types and locations in order to protect habitat, consolidate informal trails, promote future park development, and provide adequate trail facilities for future and potential park uses. 85 Development of Preliminary Concepts for a Park Interpretive Centre; The Landscape Research Group collaborated with the University of Waterloo and produced two conceptual designs (ecological and eco-cultural) along with a number of useful site specific design considerations. Many of the design considerations focused on utilizing sustainable and alternate energy /waste management systems. The concepts also detailed many aspects of this park feature including ideas for location, operational utility, construction techniques and programming /circulation. These concepts now can be used to assist in the development of a final detailed design. A Habitat Design Option for Disposal Cell Two The Approved TTP Master Plan provided the framework for Cell Two, however further work needed to be completed to satisfy the conditions of the EA approval. This work included the development of conceptual designs for CeII Two to provide the foundation for approval and implementation. These conceptual designs were completed by the University of Guelph, building on the success of the Triangle Pond capping project, and following the rationale of the Cell One Capping Project. Design details include a synopsis of existing conditions, grading plans, planting concepts, and a variety of habitat components. The plan for CeII Two focuses on establishing five key conditions within the CeII: a functional wetland community; increased aquatic and terrestrial structural habitats; increased shoreline diversity; provision of critical habitats for unique species (ie black terns, muskellunge); and varied wildlife viewing opportunities. This work is detailed in a CeII Two wetland design document. RATIONALE Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Design Project The design project now provides staff with a level of landscape design support that was not present at the TRCA. Staff now have the designs and reports that support and articulated our concept of the significance of TTP as a unique urban wilderness waterfront park. The project was timely in that it provided staff with documents and drawings that were useful in directing our wilderness park perspective for TTP to the central waterfront planning efforts of the City of Toronto and the new Waterfront Development Corporation. The conceptual work has fostered consensus among park users and groups, and has renewed interest and commitment to the development of Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan. These products not only help to improve staffs ability to administer the Interim Management Program, and Habitat Creation Projects, but will be invaluable in the implementation of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan. The level of detail needed to initiate Master Plan implementation did not exist prior to the design project. The project has engaged the Landscape Research Group with the Authority and relevant stakeholders, and has updated and developed details for the Master Plan which will be of great benefit in promoting Tommy Thompson Park as a unique urban wilderness waterfront park. This is of course very timely in Tight of the recent renewed interest into the Toronto waterfront. Pursuance of the Incorporation of the Baselands into the Tommy Thompson Park Plan This project has also articulated what park users, and staff have always believed, that the baselands or Park Gateway to TTP cannot be treated as a separate entity of TTP. The two are integrally tied, biologically, physically, and neither can function independently. The Biological significance of TTP, which has been recognized globally by its designation as an Important Bird Area, is dependent upon the baselands which have been recognized regionally as an 86 Environmentally Significant Area. This dependence arises from the baselands physical connection, habitat value, buffering potential, and its opportunity to service any future waterfront communities and recreational needs. The baselands also represent a critical component linking TTP to the City of Toronto vision for Lake Ontario Park, and the linkage to the Don River Valley through the Don Corridor. This connection represents not only physical and biological connectivity, but is also the practical connection for recreational and public use activities. Development and Implementation of the various Park Plan Components Tommy Thompson Park currently accommodates well over 100,000 park users a year, and these users only access the park only on weekends and holidays. The park users represent a very broad range of users which include; birdwatchers, naturalists, cyclists, in -line skaters, pleasure walkers, joggers, researchers, and students. There is therefore, a great variety of biological and physical constraints placed on the park, and these must not compromise the biological integrity of this globally significant area. The development of TTP, as originally detailed in the TTP Master Plan, must therefore reflect the current environment in which the park exists, and the work by the University of Guelph - Landscape Research Group is a critical component of this development. The report will be used as the foundation for discussions with city staff, various agencies and interest groups to ` develop and implement the various Park Plan Components in the current, and projected future environment. Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Committee The Master Plan was completed in 1989, and then revised in 1992. As part of that process the Metro Toronto and Regions Conservation Authority passes a resolution (Res. 197 and amended by Res. 198) that an Natural Area Advisory Committee be established with representation from a variety of governmental and non governmental groups, local universities, naturalist groups, Friends of the Spit, and the MTRCA. Its mandate was to prepare detailed implementation and management recommendations for the natural resource area of TTP. The group would be formally known as the Tommy Thompson Park Natural Area Advisory Committee (NAAC). Upon completion and approval of the Master Plan the NAAC meet very infrequently and had not been extensively utilized in the 1990's. The group has continued to meet with authority staff in an ad hoc manner to administer the Interim Management Program, and to address current issues related to TTP. The group was again formalized as the Important Bird Area Steering Committee which also ceased to meet regularly after the completion of the Leslie Street Spit Tommy Thompson Park Important Bird Area Conservation Plan. It is the opinion of the current ad hoc group and authority staff that the group should be formalized to best assist staff in the development and implementation of various park plan components of the Master Plan. The group could then be more effective and provide a great variety of expertise into the development and management of TTP. The group could be immediately utilized for the development and implementation for components of a prioritized park plan for 2002. 87 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Toronto and Region Conservation staff will now utilize the final report and its key findings as a foundation for discussions with City of Toronto staff, agencies, interest groups, and the NAAC, to develop and implement the various Park Plan components of the TTP Master Plan. Staff will also ensure that the TTP perspective as a unique urban wilderness waterfront park be brought forward to all the current waterfront and adjacent and owner planning and development initiatives. Staff will take the appropriate steps to begin the negotiations and the process of incorporating the baselands into the overall Tommy Thompson Park Plan, as part of Lake Ontario Park Outline in the City of Toronto's Central Waterfront Part II Plan (Making Waves). This will require direct discussion with, Policy and Development staff and Parks and Recreation staff from the City of Toronto's Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, and the Waterfront Secretariat. This will also require a strong representation in the City of Toronto Precinct Planning for the Toronto Port lands as part of the Central Waterfront Part!! Plan. _Staff will investigate and ensure that the process and the context is in compliance with the Environmental Assessment Act and any previous environmental approvals, and if any amendments are required, that the appropriate steps be taken to ensure compliance. Staff will also explore any opportunities for cooperative partnership with current and adjacent landowners. Staff will report further on the update to the Master Plan. Staff are currently in discussions with the current ad hoc Natural Area Advisory Committee, regarding the completion of the University of Guelph project, the formalization of the group, and the development and implementation of priority park plan components for 2002. Collectively, staff and the group, will develop designs and the implementation priorities for TTP, and assist in the participation of local waterfront planning and development initiatives. Staff will report back to the Authority on a yearly basis on the implementation priorities within the annual budget allocations. Negotiations are currently underway with authority staff and faculty and staff from the University of Guelph Department of Zoology, Toronto Ornithological Club, Toronto Bird Observatory, Friends of the Spit, and the Federation of Ontario Naturalists to initial a number of cooperative biophysical resources research initiatives targeting migratory songbird and waterfowl utilization of TTP and the baselands. The projects will commence in the Spring of 2002, and large scale field research utilizing students from the University of Guelph, will commence in the Fall of 2002, and the spring of 2003. Authority staff is currently developing a detailed project description on the for the studies aimed at detailing the ecological significance of the baselands and TTP in conjunction with the Don Valley corridor for migratory and residential avian species. FINANCIAL DETAILS Based on the completion of project milestones, adherence to the work plan, and the delivery of final documentation, the Landscape Research group has been paid a total of $55,000 as approved. Discussions around cooperative research on the biophysical resources of the site is ongoing, and until the development of a migratory songbird utilization project, $20,000 remains allocated for this research within the approved budget. 88 Yearly implementation priorities will be established around the annual Lake Ontario Waterfront Capital Budget allocations for the site. Report prepared by: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243, Gord MacPherson, extension 5248 Date: April 03, 2002 RES. #D31/02 - HUMBER WATERSHED STREAM WATCH PROGRAM Planning and implementation of the new "Humber Watershed Stream Watch Program ". Moved by: Pam 'McConnell Seconded by: Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to plan and implement the Humber Watershed Stream Watch Program with assistance from the Humber Watershed Alliance members and other project partners. BACKGROUND In May of 2000, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, in partnership with the Humber Watershed Alliance, initiated the "Clean the Humber" program with one year funding support from EcoAction, Environment Canada's community funding program. The program was designed to encourage participation from the surrounding community, and use their support to improve habitat and aesthetics throughout the Humber River watershed. The program received overwhelming interest and cooperation from local residents, schools, and community action groups. The project held 39 large clean -up events at key sites within the watershed. In addition to these large events, smaller scale clean -up events were also conducted at various sites with smaller groups of volunteers. These events generated a tremendous amount of volunteer support, and a significant amount of garbage and recyclable materials was removed from various locations throughout the Humber River watershed. In response to the overwhelming interest generated by the "Clean the Humber" program during its first year of implementation, and the need for further community stewardship and education regarding garbage problems in the watershed, a follow -up program has been developed. Humber Watershed Stream Watch The "Humber Watershed Stream Watch" program will be initiated in the year 2002 through a collaborative consisting of four organizations: Humber Creek Restoration Group, Humber Watershed Alliance, Action to Restore A Clean Humber, and the Toronto Humber Yacht Club. CARRIED PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The program will work toward achieving the following objectives: 89 • Encourage community involvement and support in activities that promote a healthy Humber River watershed. • Survey the Humber watershed and produce a map (with the assistance of the TRCA GIS staff) that identifies areas and indicates the levels of debris contained within these areas throughout the watershed. • List and contact the potential guardians (schools, community groups, and businesses) for each of the areas identified. • Reduce the amount of waste and litter being dumped at priority clean -up stations within each subwatershed. • Build excellent community outreach activities to encourage participation and support from multicultural community groups and new Canadians. RATIONALE The "Humber Watershed Stream Watch" program aims at improving the water quality and aesthetic condition of the watershed through debris removal and community education. It will provide information for the Humber Report Card and TRCA's regeneration database and assist with the implementation of the Regional Watershed Monitoring program. The "Humber Watershed Stream Watch" program complements the goals and objectives developed by the Humber Watershed Task Force in their report titled, "Legacy: A Strategy For A Healthy Humber", addresses the recommendations for action in the Report Card, and supports the Restoration Targets of the Toronto Remedial Action Plan titled, "Clean Water, Clear Choices." FINANCIAL DETAILS The total value of the "Humber Watershed Stream Watch" program is $127,870. The "Humber Watershed Stream Watch" program has confirmed in -kind support from various partners, and has requested funding support from the Ontario Trillium Foundation (approved with certain conditions), Environment Canada's EcoAction program, and TD Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation (approved). DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Obtain funds and finalize funding arrangements with funding agencies. • Establish a project advisory committee including members from each of the four groups in the collaborative. • Develop a project work plan. • Prepare implementation details. Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: April 03, 2002 90 Trillium Foundation EcoAction Friends of the Environment Foundation In -kind (TRCA and Partners) $30,000 Human Resources $30,940 $11,200 Supplies & Materials $3,000 $3,500 $10,500 $38,730 Total • $33,940 $14,700 • $10,500 $68,730 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Obtain funds and finalize funding arrangements with funding agencies. • Establish a project advisory committee including members from each of the four groups in the collaborative. • Develop a project work plan. • Prepare implementation details. Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: April 03, 2002 90 RES. #D32/02 - PEEL WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT 2002 -2006 Endorcement of Peel Water Management Project 2002 - 2006 Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT an endorsement of the Peel Water Management Protect be made; AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the signing of a contribution agreement and other documents as may be necessary to give effect thereto. CARRIED BACKGROUND Peel's strategic plan, Beyond 2000 - Directions for Peel's Future identifies the Region's environmental goals and strategic directions. Beyond 2000 - Directions for Peel's Future supports the need for Regional staff to draw up detailed business plans, annual budgets and set performance targets. It allows the Region to manage its resources cost - effectively to meet the needs of citizens in Peel. In developing the 2002 Peel budget, Peel staff requested that TRCA staff prepare the Peel Water Management Project for 2002 -2006. RATIONALE The Region of Peel Water Management Project was designed to integrate and expand upon existing TRCA -Peel environmental initiatives so that the Region and TRCA will be better equipped to meet their respective goals, objectives, strategic directions and priority actions over the next five years as related to water management and the environment. The general goal is to protect, restore and monitor the form and function of natural areas and connecting links in the Region. Through its implementation, the Region and TRCA will contribute to meeting their respective goals, objectives, strategic directions and priority actions as related to natural heritage protection and management. The program is ambitious and will produce measurable outcomes that will assist in reaching specified targets. The Region of Peel Water Management Project not only seeks to assist Peel in achieving its environmental goal, but provides opportunity to measure these changes. A letter to Peel staff thanking them for their support has been sent by Craig Mather, TRCA CAO. TRCA and Peel staff will be meeting on a regular basis to discuss progress in implementing the project. Staff will also provide updates to Peel Council as requested. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Funding for the Pee) Water Management Project was received for seven of the 15 recommended programs or projects. 1 The Hydrology component will include the updating of existing flood plain and regulation mapping originally completed in the late 1970s. As part of TRCA's comprehensive mapping update program, the four basic components of this program include updating the watershed hydrology models to reflect current and future land use; updating the hydraulic models with the revised flows; plotting of the revised water level information on flood plain maps; and updating the regulation line to include the reassessed flood line. Water budgets and low flow studies are also required. 91 2 The Monitoring and Reporting component will monitor and report on targets defined in the TRCA's Regional Watershed Monitoring Network including water quality, flow and precipitation, terrestrial natural heritage, aquatic ecosystems, groundwater and air quality. 3 The Hydro geology component is to enter the implementation phase Peel- York - Durham Groundwater Management Study, with continued work in the areas of database development, mapping and modeling that will be more efficiently carried out as part of the tri- region collaborative. 4 The Data Management component is for data and information technical support including the investment in infrastructure such as servers, workstations and software critical to ensure the management of high volumes of data, improve analysis capabilities and efficiently provide results and services. 5 The Terrestrial Natural Heritage Project component will-evaluate existing and potential conditions of terrestrial habitat based on a landscape analysis of patch characteristics combined with existing data on vegetation communities and flora and fauna species of concern. 6 The Natural Heritage Restoration Project will identify priority restoration projects to address surface and groundwater quality and quantity; erosion and sedimentation; baseflow; forest and wetland habitat; and aquatic habitat restoration. In the Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek and Humber River watersheds, in- ground projects are planned based on the recommended management strategies. The Stewardship Program provides technical and financial assistance to individuals or groups responsible for management of land and water resources. The Outreach Education includes the delivery of Watershed on Wheels (WOW) in Peel, including the aquatic Plants Program, Yellow Fish Road, Clean Water- Clear Choices, Water Past and Present, and Water Cents programs. 7 The Subwatershed Planning Program includes programs, studies and projects that are designed to support the development of watershed strategies. These subwatershed scale studies will provide the context and guidance within which the detailed, more issue specific studies, at a subwatershed scale, are conducted. The project components include: Watershed Planning & Integration; Groundwater Model; Rural Water Quality; Fluvial Geomorphology; Riparian Zones; Terrestrial Component; and Water Budgets: FINANCIAL DETAILS The Peel Water Management Project has been granted funding approval from the Regional Municipality of Peel in the amount of 1,643,000. In 2001, $675,000 in capital funding was received from Peel for the Natural Heritage Regeneration Project, The Regional Watersheds Monitoring Network, the York -Peel- Durham Groundwater Project, and the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Project. Table 1 provides budget details on the 2002 funding received. Table 1: Region of Peel Water Management Project Budget 92 REGION OF PEEL WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT BUDGET Hydrology 233,000 Monitoring and Reporting 200,000 York -Peel- Durham Groundwater Strategy 50,000 Data Management 50,000 Terrestrial Natural Heritage 75,000 Natural Heritage Regeneration 400,000 Stewardship 35,000 Outreach Education 30,000 Regional Watersheds Monitoring Network - 200,000 Subwatershed Planning . Watershed Planning & Integration 75,000 Groundwater Model 100,000 Rural Water Quality 15,000 Fluvial Geomorphology 10,000 Riparian Zones 40,000 Terrestrial Component 130,000 TOTAL 1,643,000 FUTURE FUNDING REQUESTS In 2003, staff will be requesting funding for four of the remaining seven projects: Watershed Report Cards; an increase to the Natural Heritage Regeneration Projects; a contribution to the Albion Hills residential education centre; and aquatic habitat and species management. The total dollar request will be an additional $455,000. Report prepared by: Connie Pinto extension 5291 For Information contact: Beth Williston extension 5263 Date: April 03, 2002 RES. #D33/02 - TORONTO AND REGION REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN The TRCA has been requested to enter into an agreement with Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment as the implementor of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan. The Waterfront Regeneration Trust, former co- implementor with the TRCA, has advised that it will not carry that role forward into 2002/2003 93 Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to develop, In conjunction with Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, a multi -year agreement for the implementation of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan with the TRCA; THAT senior staff be authorized to execute the agreement; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the agreement and the annual work plan when It is available. CARRIED BACKGROUND Since 1997, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust (WRT) and the TRCA have worked as co-leads in the implementation of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The funding for this work was provided through a multi -year memorandum of understanding undertaken by Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the WRT and the TRCA. Approximately $250,000, shared by the TRCA and WRT has been available for this work and has funded numerous initiatives including an annual Clean Waters Summit, the preparation of semi - annual progress reports, the preparation, in part, of the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Strategy, the development of the watershed monitoring network, delivery of the Watershed on Wheels Program, and the development of the terrestrial natural heritage stewardship. Over the past few months the WRT has reviewed its direction and determined a need to concentrate its work at this time on the Waterfront Trail. This necessitates withdrawing from the position as co -lead in the implementation of the Remedial Action Plan. The WRT will however, continue to represent the RAP on the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan until such time as the Plan is finalized and presented to City Council. Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment have requested the TRCA to assume the full role as lead implementor of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan. RATIONALE The implementation of the RAP work is entirely consistent with the vision and goals of the TRCA. The watershed strategies that the TRCA and its community task forces have developed and implemented are seen as a key element in the implementation of the RAP and its requirement for public involvement. The funding that has been available in the past has assisted in the furtherance of initiatives that are included within the TRCA's Living City Business Plan adopted by the TRCA in June of 2002. Additional reporting requirements, report preparation, printing and distribution, rely heavily on TRCA information, and secretariat support is funded through the memorandum of understanding. Staff recommend that the TRCA accept the request and become the lead for the federal government and the province in the leadership and co-ordination of the RAP. In so doing, the staff recognize the fundamental role of the regional and local municipalities, businesses, community and other agencies in this work. The task of the TRCA is in promotion of RAP objectives, co- ordination, and facilitation. 94 WORK TO BE DONE The decision of the WRT to change its role, was effective as of April 1, 2002. A three month extension to the last agreement has been drafted to enable the TRCA to continue working to minimize the disruption and provide for a transition period for the TRCA to assemble the resources required to effectively manage this assignment. During this period a five year work plan that was previously drafted will be reviewed and finalized, funding will be confirmed, and a new memorandum of understanding established. The TRCA had previously recommended to Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment that additional funds were required to enhance the delivery of specific aspects of the RAP delivery. Confirmation of the funds available are awaiting signing of the Canada Ontario Agreement on the Great Lakes. As well things are being delayed at this time due to the OPSEU strike currently in progress. Staff will report back on the content of the agreement, the annual work plan, and the funding level and its application when this information is available. Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: April 04, 2002 RES. #D34/02 - ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTER - REGIONAL WORKING GROUP ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Assist the Authority's member municipalities and adjacent Conservation Authorities through the co- ordination of a inter - regional working group on stormwater management Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to.develop a terms of reference for an Inter - regional Working Group on Stormwater Management to establish common vision and goals, promote the sharing of technical information and management approaches, and foster the implementation of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan; THAT staff consult with adjacent Conservation Authorities to determine their interest in participating and promoting this Working Group to their municipalities; THAT staff seek funding assistance for the co- ordination and management of this, working group from the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto staff be thanked for their recommendation that the TRCA assist with this co- ordinated effort. CARRIED 95 BACKGROUND The City of Toronto, as part of its consultation in the development of its Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan (WWFMP), requested the TRCA to co -host an information session for the 905 (upstream) municipalities to apprize them of the progress of the WWFMP. "Our Shared Watersheds II" was held on Wednesday February 27, 2002 at the Black Creek Pioneer Village. Senior staff in each of the upstream municipalities were invited to continue the dialogue concerning wet weather flow management that was initiated at a similar round table discussion held in November, 2000. This second session was designed to provide participants with a comprehensive update on the WWFMMP, to highlight "best practices" from upper watershed municipalities, and to enable a discussion on action and initiatives that could be included in the WWFMMP to assist Toronto and upstream watershed municipalities to work together and address common wet weather management goals. Councilor Irene Jones, Chair of the WWFMMP Steering Committee, and members of City of Toronto staff provided the update on the WWFMMP while staff from Town of Richmond Hill, City of Brampton and the TRCA addressed best management practices. The following ideas for cooperation and collaboration emerged from the discussion: • Establishing a common vision and goals for stormwater management at a regional /watershed level. • Identifying a list of shared interests and issues, and mechanisms for agreeing on inter - regional priorities and initiatives. • Continued information sharing to ensure that various municipalities do not have to re- invent stormwater initiatives and programs already accomplished by others. • Developing consistent messaging to communicate technical issues and best practices to the public and political decision - makers. • Ensuring that collaboration and cooperation extends beyond the TRCA's jurisdiction to include Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) and other adjacent watersheds. Other opportunities related to Stormwater Management discussed included: • Need to create a better link between groundwater management and stormwater - management, particularly with respect to modeling. • Need to foster community awareness and involvement through education. This is also a way to pursue funding and political support as wastewater management is a quality of life issue. • Need to decide "how clean" we want to be on a regional/watershed basis, and to create a process to set standards and targets and how to reach them. There was a suggestion made to encourage MOE involvement in setting targets. • Recognition of a growing desire to better integrate SWM concepts into urban settings, for example, through enhanced guidelines for developing and naturalizing stormwater ponds. Source: "Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, Our Shared Watershed - Draft Meetirig Summary February 22, 2002 96 RATIONALE The staff concur that the establishment of an Inter - regional Working Group on stormwater management would be a valuable mechanism to foster cooperative approaches to stormwater management both within the TRCA's jurisdiction and the GTA in general. This work would also support the TRCA's role in the implementation of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan. It is recommended that staff be directed to undertake this initiative and seek funding from the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund to assist in this work. Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 5328 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5382 Date: April 03, 2002 RES. #D35/02 - UPDATE - WHITEVALE DAM CONDITIONS AND ONTARIO REALTY CORPORATION ACTIVITY An update regarding the state of the Whitevale Dam and the Ontario Realty Corporation's land transfer of the West Duffins Creek lands to The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons THAT the staff report on the Whitevale Dam conditions and Ontario Realty Corporation activity be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Tim Rance (Ministry of Natural Resources) and Dr. Douglas Dodge examined the Whitevale Dam in the Fall of 2001 as a component of developing the Fish Management Plan for TRCA. They found the dam in a surprising state of disrepair, and felt that It is likely to fail and cause serious ecological damage. To invoke action, Dr. Dodge and Mr. Rance requested that the Duffins Creek Watershed Task Force encourage TRCA to approach the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) with a request to commission a structural and safety analysis of the dam before it is transferred into TRCA management as part of the West Duffins ORC land transfer. The Duffins and Carruthers Task Forces passed a resolution at meeting #1 /02 that this action be undertaken. As part of their due diligence the Property /Asset Management Section requested an Engineering Consultant to inspect the Whitevale Dam and they confirmed in writing that the dam is in poor shape. Ron Dewell, Manager of Property at TRCA, forwarded correspondence to Mr. Brad Searchfield at the ORC on February 18, 2002, which detailed the Task Force's concern, and outlined prior concern and discussions between TRCA and ORC staff. In the correspondence, Mr. Dewell advised that the dam should be excluded from the transfer of the West Duffins lands until such time that the structural issues with the dam have been resolved to the Authority's satisfaction. 97 The correspondence dated February 18 led to a resolution (Resolution #42/02) passed at the City of Pickering on that same date which stated: WHEREAS Duffins Creek Task Force has requested that the Toronto Regional and Conservation Authority (TRCA) request the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) to commission a structural and safety survey of the Whitevale Dam; and WHEREAS the letter of request make specific reference to the section of the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act which clearly identifies that the owner of the dam is responsible for structural and safety issues; and WHEREAS according to several TRCA staff, the Whitevale Dam has been in need of repair for quite some time; and WHEREAS The Ontario Realty Corporation, the current owner of the dam, has not taken action to correct the structural problems; and WHEREAS one solution to the situation might be to replace the structure with one that is less obtrusive, but which still prevents non - native migratory fish from invading the upstream habitats; and WHEREAS the informal historic and social importance of the dam within the hamlet will need to be taken into consideration; and WHEREAS the Whitevale Dam appears to be vulnerable to structural failure and the ramifications of such a failure could spell extensive ecological damage, including: • Massive loads of silt and clay suspended and settling in the lower reaches of West Duffins and the main stem downstream to the Duffins Marsh - loads that would damage aquatic habitat and constrict stream channels, • Potential for bank damage and downstream erosion caused by fast moving large woody debris which now rests in the sifted channel above the dam, • Opening upstream tributaries to anadromous fish invasions, including sea lamprey and • Loss of brook trout stocks displaced by invading salmonids. WHEREAS without some appreciation for the future of this structure, any fish management planning and the Duffins Creek Strategy are placed in jeopardy; NOW THEREFORE copies of this resolution be sent to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) District Office, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Toronto Regional and Conservation Authority, the Town of Ajax and the Region of Durham; and 98 THAT the City of Pickering requests the Ontario Realty Corporation to commission a structural and safety survey of the Whitevale Dam and take appropriate action to current structural problems in consultation with the TRCA, City of Pickering, MNR and residents. The same resolution was passed by the Regional Municipality of Durham on March 6, 2002. As a result of the above recommendations, action is now being taken by the ORC. Once their report is received, the results will be brought to the attention of the Watershed Management Advisory Board. Report prepared by: Cathy Crinnion, extension 5392 For Information contact: Ron Dewell, extension 5245; Gary Bowen, extension 5385 Date: April 02, 2002 RES. #D36/02 - MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STREAM GAUGE FUNDING Authority involvement in expansion of Provincial Stream Gauge Network Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report dealing with the TRCA's involvement in the Provincial initiative of expanding the Provincial stream flow gauging network be received for information AND FURTHER THAT the staff be directed to proceed with the implementation of the new stations. BACKGROUND The Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Natural Resources has entered into a multi year program focused upon expanding the Surface Water Monitoring system. This system which has undergone a significant downsizing on several occasions beginning in the late 1980's through the mid 1990's, has been deemed to fall short on meeting current flow and weather information needs. During the downsizing, within the TRCA watersheds, six gauging stations were closed during this period, including several within the Oak Ridges Moraine. In response to needs, both internal and external, the Ministries of Natural Resources and Environment have recognised the need to not only look at re- opening the majority of these closed sites, but also to develop new sites where gaps existed within the original network. This coordinated initiative reflects a renewed interest at the Province to develop a monitoring system which moves towards meeting the needs of the Province into the new century. It is currently proposed to expand the overall gauging network by an additional 147 water level and flow monitoring stations as well as increasing the number of rainfall stations at the same time. CARRIED 99 In year one of this initiative, the Ministry of Natural Resources through a co-operative effort with the Ministry of Environment, Environment Canada and several Conservation Authority representatives, identified 59 stations to be constructed or re- opened. Due to a recent spending freeze within the Province, the initiation of this project had been put on hold, but it has recently received approval and the Province is moving forward. Within this process, the conservation authorities have been recognised as the logical agency to implement the purchasing and in ground works needed to move this initiative forward and the Province has entered into Memorandums of Understanding with each conservation authority selected to receive a new monitoring station. In the case of the TRCA, out of a possible six stations submitted for consideration in year one of this project, we have received approval and funding to proceed with five, two re- openings and three new stations. The Province has set this project up to upon completion of the construction of these 59 new stations, turn them over to the Federal Ministry of Environment, Water Survey Branch to operate under an existing Canada Ontario cost share agreement. As such, the conservation authority will only be responsible to maintain and operate any precipitation gauges also installed under the program. All operational costs related to the new flow stations will be covered by the Province under its agreement. In the TRCA's case, we will also receive two precipitation stations as part of this process. Also included in this program are funds to undertake some necessary maintenance at several other existing gauging sites and an allocation of 10 % for our administration costs. The flow and precipitation stations to be implemented under this program are in fact fortuitous to the TRCA as we have recently entered into a long term monitoring project with our Municipal partners to add both streamflow gauges and precipitation gauging as part of our overall monitoring needs. Having a recent Network Plan adopted as part of our Monitoring Program allowed the TRCA to simply integrate the five streamflow and two precipitation gauges being paid for by the Province into our defined network. The only conflict which exists within this program relates to the fact that these stations, being part of the Federal / Provincial network have to comply to both the Provincial and Federal standards for both housing and equipment. The Province has adopted a process that has identified both the type of equipment and the suppliers that the Authority must deal with. This is due to issues related to ensuring a consistency of monitoring equipment within MNR funded stations, the need to meet Federal standards and the short time lines related to implementing the first phase of this project. The Province has requested that the Authorities strive to have the 59 sites operational by May 31, 2002, although some flexibility will be necessary in this date should equipment delivery become a problem. This process of having the Province identify the equipment and the suppliers will result in staff not being in a position to follow our purchasing policy related to much of the equipment and housing costs associated with this project. 100 FINANCIAL DETAILS The Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Natural Resources has allocated a sum of $146, 632.70 to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to implement our component of this Phase of the Project, including maintenance, administration, installation and equipment costs. For Information contact: Don Haley, extension 5226 Date: March 06, 2002 RES. #D37 /02 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meetings #2/02 and #3/02. The minutes of meetings #2/01 and #3/02, held on February 21, 2002, and March 21, 2002, respectively, of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, meetings #2/02 and #3/02, held on February 21, 2002, and March 21, 2002, respectively, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report "Forty Steps to a New Don and to regenerate the watershed. Report prepared by: Jennifer Bamford, extension 5305 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: March 22, 2002 RES. #D38 /02 - DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED TASK FORCES Minutes of Meetings #3/01, #1/02, and #2/02. The minutes of Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces meetings #3/01, #1/02, and #2/02, held on November 21, 2001, January 9, 2002, and February 27, 2002, respectively, are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell IIa Bossons 101 THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Task Forces meetings #3/01, #1/02, and #2/02, as appended, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Section 4.5 Reporting Relationships "The Task Forces will communicate to the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. The Task Force Chairs will be required to coordinate communitcations to this Board with assistance of Authority staff. Report prepared by: Valerie Gust, extension 5330 For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385 Date: March 28, 2002 RES. #D39/02 - CONTROL OF THE USE OF GROUNDWATER IN PEEL: TOWARDS A PROVINCIAL WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY /POLICY Support for the development of a Provincial Water Management Strategy and Provincial Water Policy for the protection of surface and groundwater. sources. Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority reiterate its support for the development of a Provincial Water Management Strategy and Provincial Water Policy for the protection of surface and groundwater sources and that any such strategy and policy framework must recognize and support the watershed as the most appropriate unit for managing water; THAT the administration of the Permit to Take Water system must be Improved and decisions must be based on good scientific, watershed based information which addresses the availability of the resource and the implications associated with additional water takings; AND FURTHER THAT the Region of Peel and Credit Valley Conservation be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND In February of this year, the Commissioners of Corporate Services and Regional Solicitor, Planning and Public Works and the Medical Officer of Health of the Region of Peel, took an In Camera Report to the General Committee of Peel Region on the issue of Control of the Use of Groundwater in Peel: Towards a Provincial Water Management Strategy /Policy. 102 Committee deferred consideration of this report pending a response from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The issues addressed in this report deal with the adequacy of the current Permit to Take Water System as administered by the Provincial Ministry of the Environment and the need for a Provincial Water Management Strategy and Provincial Water Policy to ensure the protection and appropriate allocation of ground and surface water. In a report to the Watershed Management Advisory Board at its meeting held on April 20, 2001 , staff reported on Conservation Ontario's research paper for the Walkerton Inquiry which was publicly released in March of 2001. This Report entitled 'The Importance of Watershed Management In protecting Ontario's Drinking Water Supplies" was submitted to the Walkerton Inquiry as part of Conservation Ontario's input to the Part 2 of the Inquiry. This Report was endorsed by Conservation Ontario and thus has the support of the thirty six Member Authorities including the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The Conservation Ontario Report provided recommendations to Justice O'Connor for improvements to the current practice of watershed management which would strengthen the protection and long term security of drinking water supplies in the province. The key recommendations are: 1. The protection of drinking water sources should be recognized as a permanent and integral part of a long term, secure water supply strategy. 2. The watershed should be recognized as the viable unit for managing water. 3. A provincial integrated water policy should be developed. 4. Adequate and stable source(s) of funding should be established to finance watershed management throughout Ontario. 5. The Province should encourage the Federal Government to develop a national framework for water policy and to strengthen co-operative agreements with provinces under the Canada Water Act. These recommendations support the Peel Region Commissioners' recommendations related to the need for a provincial integrated water management strategy supported by appropriate Provincial Policy. One of the key issues raised in the Commissioners' report was the concern about how the current water taking permit system was being administered by the Ministry of the Environment without the benefit of either a water management strategy or policy. Decisions are made on the allocation of water without the benefit of a clear understanding of how much water is available, how much is already allocated and the implications of approving additional water taking permits from either the surface or ground water sources. 103 There has been much discussion on the issue of who is best equipped to administer the water taking permit system. Perhaps this is not the first question to be asked, but rather who has the tools, information and skill sets that can provide good scientific advice on the advisability of approving additional water taking from either the surface or ground water sources. The actual issuance of the permit could be done at the watershed, municipal or provincial level as long as the appropriate information was provided in support of the agency's review. The Conservation Ontario submission states however, that the understanding of the surface and ground water systems, the modeling of current and future demands and the impacts of land use changes on these systems, must be done at the watershed level. Obviously in our opinion, the Conservation Authorities are best equipped to deliver such a program. SUMMARY In summary, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority supports the Peel Region Commissioners' recommendations made in their report dated February 14, 2002 to the General Committee and would join Regional Council in advocating for a Provincial Water Management Strategy and Water Policy. The Conservation Ontario Report to the Walkerton Inquiry also supports these recommendations. The Authority however would also include a recommendation which requires that such strategies and policies must be developed from a watershed based perspective rather than some other geo- political boundary. Finally the Authority supports the Region's concern about the inadequacy of the current administration of the Permit to Take Water system by the Ministry of the Environment and would support any change in responsibility for this important water management function as long as the decisions are supported by good scientific watershed based advice. Report prepared by: Craig Mather, 416 -667 -6289 For Information contact: Craig Mather, 416 - 667 -6289 Date: April 10, 2002 RES. #D40/02 - PORT UNION WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Highland Creek to Rouge River - City of Toronto. To secure direction to proceed with the pedestrian node component of the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project and request the City of Toronto to release the conditions requiring matching federal /provincial contributions on the previously approved $1 million under the Port Union Capital Project. Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons 104 THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the implementation of the pedestrian node component of Phase 1 (Highland Creek to Chesterton Shores) of the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project be approved subject to obtaining the appropriate capital funding from the City of Toronto; THAT the City of Toronto, on the basis of this report as required by the City Council resolution as part of the 2002 Capital Budget process,kbe requested to release the previously approved $1 million, without conditions, under the Port Union Capital Project in 2002 to the Authority to implement the Pedestrian Node Component; THAT the Authority continue to pursue the capital funding partnership (1/3 Federal Government, 1/3 Province of Ontario and 1/3 City of Toronto) through the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and its partners to implement the total Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project estimated in 1998 dollars at $12 million; THAT the City of Toronto be requested to advise the Federal and Provincial governments through the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation that the City anticipates receiving their respective shares of the total project capital costs (Phase I - $6 million [$2 million Federal Government and $2 million Province of Ontario] and Phase II - $6 million [ $2 million Federal Government and $2 million Province of Ontario]) in a timely manner to allow for the implementation of the total 3.6 km (Highland Creek to the Rouge River) Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto Waterfront Reference Group be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/98 held on June 26, 1998, Resolution #A126/98 was adopted: THAT the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project Concept Plan be endorsed and submitted to the Minister of Environment for approval under the Environmental Assessment Act; THAT staff be directed to prepare a "Project" based on the Concept Plan and including a funding partnership for approval by the Authority and the City of Toronto; AND FURTHER THAT staff continue with acquisition efforts to achieve the objectives of the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project Concept Plan." The Authority initiated the Port Union Waterfront project with the establishment of the Port Union Waterfront Working Committee with representatives from all three Community . organizations, including the City Councillor, the provincial member and the federal member in 1997. 105 On January 21, 1999, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) submitted an Environmental Assessment seeking approval for the implementation of waterfront improvements along the shoreline of Lake Ontario between the Highland Creek and the Rouge River. This Environmental Assessment underwent a concurrent public and government agency review. The Ministry of Environment (MOE) prepared a Government Review document summarizing all public and agency comments as well as the TRCA response to the comments. The Government Review evaluated the Environmental Assessment (EA) submitted by the TRCA and has determined that the EA has fulfilled the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and the Terms of Reference for this EA, which were approved June 9, 1998. On May 2, 2001, the Minister of Environment issued a Notice of Approval to Proceed with the Port Union Waterfront Improvements Project. The Notice of Approval included the reasons for the decision and the conditions of approval. These conditions were attached to Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/01. The approved undertaking is the development and implementation of a plan for waterfront improvements in an area adjacent to Lake Ontario, between Highland Creek and the Rouge River - 3.6 km. The waterfront improvements would include Iakefilling for a waterfront corridor to accommodate two pedestrian tunnels, while providing safe public access to the waterfront for the surrounding community and future regional users. The configuration of the shoreline would include two series of headland beach systems, a larger headland to function as a pedestrian node south of the CN Railway lines as an extension to the Port Union Village Common and two existing dynamic beaches at the western and eastern ends of the project. The EA proposed that the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project be implemented in two components: Phase I from Highland Creek to Chesterton Shores which will be constructed first, and Phase II from Chesterton Shores to the Rouge River. Phase I will focus on property acquisition, land creation and erosion protection for 1.44 km, the creation of the Port Union pedestrian node and its connection to Chesterton Shores, the Village Common underpass, and fisheries compensation activities. The waterfront trail from Highland Creek to Chesterton Shores will also be completed and landscaped. Phase II will focus on the section of shoreline from Chesterton Shores to the Rouge River. This will involve: land acquisition; the creation of the land base east of Chesterton Shores for 2.36 km; improvements to the Chesterton Shores shoreline to make it safe and aesthetically pleasing for the public; fisheries compensation activities at the mouth of Adams Creek which include the creation of a wetland; and the establishment of a lookout and interpretive centre on the Port Union node. The construction of the waterfront trail between Chesterton Shores and the Rouge River, the completion of landscape elements along the trail, and the establishment of a pier feature on the Port Union node will also be undertaken as part of Phase II. The timing for the completion of each phase will depend upon when the shoreline properties are acquired and when funding is secured from each partner. It should be noted that all lands required for Phase I have been secured. At Authority Meeting # 5/01, Resolution #A103 /01 was approved: 'THAT staff proceed expeditiously in obtaining the outstanding regulatory approvals required for implementation; 106 } THAT staff be directed to investigate the merits and alternatives of proceeding with the implementation of the Pedestrian Node at the foot of Port Union Road to support other City of Toronto initiatives in advance of finalization of the funding partnership; THAT the Federal Government, Provincial Government and City of Toronto partners be advised through the Interim Waterfront Agency of the Port Union Waterfront Project EA approval and that the TRCA and its partners including the community groups are ready to implement the project as part of Toronto's Waterfront Revitalization Initiative; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority acknowledge the significant support and assistance in formulating the Port Union Concept Plan and achieving approval under the Environmental Assessment Act by the Port Union Waterfront Working Committee.' Since receiving EA approval, the Authority has undertaken a number of activities in preparation of initiating Phase I (Highland Creek to Chesterton Shores) which has included: • approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Coast Guard) and the Fisheries Act (Fisheries and Oceans Canada), including the completion of a fisheries compensation agreement (pending); • finalization of approval under the Public Lands Act (Ministry of Natural Resources) and request for a work permit in the interim; • preparation of detailed design drawings - Highland Creek to Rouge River; • acquisition of two lots with one house along Chesterton Shores immediately east of the access off Lawrence Avenue; • investigating opportunities in the Scarborough East area for sources of construction rubble and fill including the utilization of the existing fill stockpile at East Point Park. As directed by the Authority, staff have investigated the merits of proceeding with the implementation of the Pedestrian Node component of Phase 1 of the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project. The key points are as follows: • the pedestrian node as shown on the attached plan can be constructed as a logical first initiative within the fill phasing plan and Phase I of the project; • fill and rubble material would be brought from the Lawrence /Chesterton Shores access point utilizing the existing landbase and roadway; • the estimated costs to construct the pedestrian node to a basic public safety and functional level is $1,300,000 - $1,650,000. Other waterfront activities in this area are as follows: • the construction of access improvements to the Rouge Hills Go- station in 2001 including the provision of, at our request, public access to the future waterfront trail from the south platform; 107 • Construction of the Port Union pedestrian tunnel by the City of Toronto at a cost of $1.2 million linking the Village Common to the Pedestrian Node. Construction was completed in late fall 2000. • In 2000 -2001, the City of Toronto undertook the design of the Village Common park (8 acres) north of the CN Railway. The consultant was requested to prepare a concept plan for the Pedestrian Node consistent with the plans for the Village Common in an integrated fashion. The results of this effort are illustrated on the attached plan. • The City of Toronto has recently awarded a contract ($1.64 million) for the Village Common (8 acres) with construction scheduled to start by the end of April 2002. It should be noted that a substantial portion of the housing component of the community has already been constructed with the builders advising the new homeowners of the pending public amenities - waterfront park, pedestrian node, waterfront trail and the Village Common. In the fall of 2001, the City of Toronto released the Central Waterfront Park 11 Plan: "Making Waves ". The plan is based on four core principles of: • Removing Barriers Making Connections • Building a Network of Spectacular Waterfront Park and Public Spaces • Promoting a Clean and Green Environment • Creating Dynamic and Diverse New Communities It is our view that the Port Union Waterfront Project supports the statements and core principles of the "Making Waves" document. Significant effort has been undertaken to pursue the funding partnership as outlined in the Environmental Assessment. In considering the "Making Waves" document, the Authority at its November 23, 2001 meeting adopted Res. #A229/01 which in part stated: "THAT the implementation and completion of major projects on the eastem and westem portions of the waterfront will enhance and are critical to the overall implementation of the Central Waterfront Plan;" At the same meeting, the Authority approved Resolution #A230/01, which stated in part: "THAT waterfront projects located along the Eastern and Westem portions of the Toronto Waterfront be funded from the tri-party funds administered by the Waterfront Reference Group and the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporations To date, the timing in obtaining an agreement to a funding partnership as originally conceived for the Port Union Waterfront Project is unknown. City of Toronto Council, at its Special Meeting held on March 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 2002, adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 3 of The Policy and Finance Committee, headed "City of Toronto 2002 -2006 Recommended Capital Budget and Program ". Under Recommendation Z. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Council adopted the following relating to the Port Union Project: 108 ) "(166) The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority report back to the City's Waterfront Committee by June 2002 on the status of the Port Union Project detailing what has been completed to date, what should be completed in 2002 and 2003 and the possible implications of further deferrals on this project." RATIONALE The Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project having received EA approval in May 2001, supports on a Toronto waterfront level the following: • the over 30 years of public access improvements and public /private investment along the Toronto Waterfront; • the statements and core principles in the "Making Waves" - Central Waterfront Plan; • the key directions of the Toronto Waterfront Reference Group and the new Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation; • the resolutions of TRCA related to the Central Waterfront Plan and the waterfront initiatives in the east and west sectors. On a specific basis, initiation of the Pedestrian node component of Phase 1 of the Port Union Waterfront Project with the City's capital funding support would achieve the following: • initiation of the Port Union Waterfront Project which is supported by the three community associations and would partially alleviate their frustration with the lack of progress and achievement of a funding partnership; • protect the City's investment in the already constructed pedestrian tunnel from potential flooding and wave action; • address the current public safety issue of public accessing the unimproved waterfront through the pedestrian tunnel; • provide the waterfront component of the Village Common public park currently under construction in a timely manner; • take advantage of construction rubble/fill being generated from construction projects in the area as well as the existing stockpile at East Point Park; • realize cost savings from the utilization of stockpiling appropriate fill /rubble from the Village Common construction and other public projects in the area; • take advantage of the $16,000. being held by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust for Port Union Trail development. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff of the Authority are continuing to undertake the following with the existing capital funds and in anticipation of the additional City funding for the Pedestrian Node with a construction start date of July 1, 2002. • continue to finalize the last details of any regulatory approvals; • secure sources of available construction rubble/fill from construction projects in the area and stockpile at Chesterton Shores for construction of the pedestrian node; • initiate preparations for construction access along Chesterton Shores; • co-ordinate efforts with the City of Toronto in the construction of the Village Common; • undertake pre - construction surveying and monitoring as required under the EA approval. 109 The Authority will continue to pursue with the assistance of the City of Toronto, the capital funding partnership through the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and its partners. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project as approved by TRCA in 1998 has a total project cost of $12 million (1998 dollars). Funding of the Project is to be phased with Phase I totalling $6 million: $2 million from the Federal Government, $2 million from the Province and $2 million from the City of Toronto. The capital costs of Phase II is $6 million: $2 million from the Federal Government; $2 million from the Province of Ontario and $2 million from the City. The City approved the project and their share of the phase one funding on the basis that $1 million would be made available in 1998 and the balance of their share, $1 million when the matching funds from the Province and Federal Governments were secured. The City allocated the initial $1 million to the TRCA in 1998 and $675,000 has been spent to do technical studies, surveys, engineering design and acquisition of one property at Chesterton Shores. The balance of about $325,000 is available in the TRCA approved 2002 capital budget. The City of Toronto has included previously in its capital budget the additional City portion of $1 million as an amount to which the City is committed subject to the matching funds noted above. In the 2002 Budget Process, this $1 million was deferred to 2003. Also, the matter of matching funds and the remaining City portion of $1 million was referred to the Waterfront Revitalization Initiative for consideration. Formation of the new Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation has delayed this consideration. As noted in the Rationale Section, the Pedestrian Node Implementation is feasible and now is ready to proceed for the reason's outlined. The City is requested to allocate to the TRCA the $1 million remaining balance of the City's $2 million commitment to the implementation of Phase One of the Port Union Project. The City and TRCA will continue to rely on and actively pursue the Province and the Federal Governments through the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation to provide matching funds. Also, The Waterfront Regeneration Trust is holding about $16,000 received from Brookfield Developments in the early 1990's for the Waterfront Trail in the Port Union area. For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243 Date: April 09, 2002 Attachments: 1 110 Attachment 1 111 NEW BUSINESS RES. #D41/02 - PROPOSED BALLYCROY GOLF /HOTEL DEVELOPMENT Moved by:' Ian Sinclair Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the TRCA support a motion by Counsel for the Ballycroy Area Rural Conservation Alliance to the OMB Hearing on the matter of OPA #1 of the Township of Adjala- Tosorontio OP, to consolidate the Planning Act Appeals with hearings that may be required for permits and approvals required under the Ontario Water Resources Act for necessary water takings and sewage works and any other hearings that may be required for the proponents undertaking. CARRIED TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:44 a.m., on April 12, 2002. Irene Jones Chair /ks J. Craig Mather Secretary- Treasurer 112 THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/02 June 14, 2002 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/02, was held in the Victoria Room, Head Office, on Friday, June 14, 2002. The Chair Irene Jones, called the meeting to order at 10:14 a.m. PRESENT Lorna Bissell Vice Chair Ila Bossons Member Cliff Gyles Member Irene Jones Chair Anthony Ketchum Member Jim McMaster Member Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority Dave Ryan Member Ian Sinclair Member Frank Scarpitti Member Tanny Wells Member REGRETS Pam McConnell RES. #D42/02 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Anthony Ketchum THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/02, held on April 12, 2002, be approved. PRESENTATIONS Member CARRIED (a) A presentation by Jo -Lynn Hoffmann, Chair and Chamber Past President of the Environment Committee, Vaughan Chamber of Commerce, in regards to the West Don /Bartley Smith Advisory Group. (b) A presentation by Gord Macpherson, Waterfront Specialist, TRCA, in regards to Sediment Quality in the Keating Channel. 113 (c) A presentation by Lisa King, Sustainability Specialist, TRCA, in regards to item 7.3 - Earth Charter RES. #D43 /02 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by Seconded by Cliff Gyles Dave Ryan THAT above -noted presentations (a) and (c) be heard and received. RES. #D44 /02 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by Seconded by. Tanny Wells Ian Sinclair THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received; AND FURTHER THAT the report be forwarded to Lake Keepers. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D45 /02 - Moved by Seconded by. CARRIED CARRIED TORONTO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 2000 -2004 Keating Channel Dredging, City of Toronto Continuation of annual maintenance dredging of Keating Channel Tanny Wells Ian Sinclair THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with coordinating the dredging of Keating Channel; THAT the Toronto Port Authority be requested to continue maintenance dredging of the Keating Channel in 2002 and to fund one third of the cost for the dredging ($160,000); THAT the City of Toronto be requested to fund one third of the cost for the dredging ($160,000); THAT the Authority contribute its one third share of the cost of dredging ($160,000); AND FURTHER THAT the Authority continue with the associated environmental monitoring program. CARRIED 114 BACKGROUND The Toronto Port Authority (TPA) (formerly the Toronto Harbour Commissioners) dredged Keating Channel from the time of its construction in the 1920's to about 1974 As the dredging became more expensive and disposal of the dredged material more difficult, the TPA sought partners in the work. Transport Canada initially agreed to participate on the basis that if the Channel was not dredged, eventually the delta would spread into the north east corner of the Inner Harbour and affect shipping channels where the federal government was responsible to maintain safe navigation depths. The TRCA also agreed to participate on the basis that if the Channel was not dredged, the threat of flooding in the lower Don River valley was increased. The TRCA's participation was the subject of an environmental assessment between 1980 and 1986 which was subsequently approved. Hence, a three party agreement was struck which saw the cost of dredging shared three ways during the period 1986 to 1991 i.e. TPA, Transport Canada and TRCA. The cost sharing agreement which began in 1986 was to fund the cost of dredging the material which had accumulated between 1974 and 1986. It did not specifically address the funding of the maintenance dredging which is required annually. The channel will fill in over time if annual dredging is not maintained. The federal government has not contributed any funds towards the annual maintenance dredging. During the past ten years of maintenance dredging (1992 - 2001), the TPA, City of Toronto and the TRCA participated in the cost sharing. RATIONALE There is a continuing need for dredging of the Keating Channel. Recent studies for the City of Toronto on Ataratiri confirmed the connection between the dredged channel and Lower Don River flood risks. In addition, some navigation interests still exist in the north east corner of the harbour. TPA has estimated an annual siltation rate of between 30,000 to 40,000 cubic metres. DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE The TPA will coordinate and carry out the dredging program. It is estimated that up to 40,000 cubic metres of material would be dredged this year from the channel and disposed of in CeII Three of the Endikement (Tommy Thompson Park). TRCA staff will continue the environmental monitoring program for the dredging and disposal operations. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total cost of the Keating Channel dredging for 2002 is $480,000. This is to be shared equally by the Authority, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Port Authority. The Authority has budgeted a total of $160,000 for 2002 under the Toronto Waterfront Development Project Phase 2000 -2004 with funding available under Account No. 207 - 01. The Province's share (1/2) of the TRCA contribution was raised in prior year's and is available. Report prepared by: Jim Berry, 416 -392 -9721 Date: June 05, 2002 115 RES. #D46/02 - LOWER DON RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Synopsis of Keating Channel and Inner Harbour Sediment Quality. The synopsis of the Keating Channel and Inner Harbour Sediment Quality, prepared by Golders Associates, is provided for information. Moved by Seconded by Lorna Bissell Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the attached report on the Lower Don River Environmental Assessment, Synopsis of Keating Channel and Inner Harbour Sediment Quality, prepared by Golders Associates be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, in partnership with the Ministry of the Environment and the Toronto Port Authority, has conducted investigations of the sediment chemistry of the Inner Harbour and the bedload sediment of the Keating Channel To facilitate a comprehensive understanding of sediment quality, the Authority retained the services of Golders Associates to prepare a synopsis of the Keating Channel and the Inner Harbour sediment data, as approved at Executive Meeting #5/01, July 6, 2001, Resolution #E79. The Keating Channel has required routine maintenance dredging since its construction in the early 1900's. Since 1988, the quality of sediment removed from the channel has been determined under a cooperative program of the TRCA and the Toronto Port Authority. The dredged material is primarily the accumulated bedload sediments of the Don River. In 1995, the TRCA in cooperation with the Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada, conducted a detailed investigation of sediment quality conditions within the Toronto Harbour This investigation focused on obtaining samples from historical collection sites, as well as detailing sediment toxicity, benthic invertebrate communities and contaminants in benthos. This sediment data from the Inner Harbour provides a comprehensive insight into the environmental conditions and influencing factors affecting the Harbour Sediment quality data is an important component of the Environmental Assessment for the Lower Don River area Understanding and documenting the sediment quality within the Keating Channel and Harbour will provide this important background information on the Environmental Assessment. RATIONALE The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority retained the services of Mr. Rein Jaagumagi to conduct this project Mr Jaagumagi has over twenty years experience as a sediment quality scientist with the Ministry of the Environment and is currently the Senior Aquatic Scientist with the consulting firm Golders Associates Mr Jaagumagi was the principal author and directed the development of the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines. His expertise and understanding of the sediment quality conditions within the harbour are the product of his direct involvement in the development and delivery of many investigations and scientific reports into the Toronto waterfront. His knowledge and experience has enabled him to provide a clear and concise synopsis of the sediment quality conditions within the harbour and Keating Channel 116 Overview of Executive Summary Since the 1960's a number of investigations on both water and sediment quality have been undertaken in the Inner Harbour. These have identified not only the Don River and Keating Channel as sources of contaminants, but have also identified storm sewer and combined sewer overflow discharges as significant sources of contamination. Previous studies have identified only a limited number of elements and compounds as concerns in suspended and deposited sediments. Since the 1970's when the Ontario Ministry of the Environment began investigating conditions in the Inner Harbour, lead, copper, cadmium, chromium, zinc and PCB's have been identified as concerns in sediments. More recently, PAH compounds have also been noted in some areas, most notably the ship channel in the port industrial area. Despite the elevated levels of some contaminates, there were only localized exceedences of the Ministry of Environment's Severe Effect Level guidelines for a limited number of parameters• lead and copper Sediment quality studies have noted that since then, concentrations in sediments have decreased in some areas, particularly in the boat slips Currently, many of the storm and combined sewer overflows that serve much of the City of Toronto discharge to these slips. In the open waters of the Inner Harbour however, sediment concentrations of only a limited number of these contaminants (lead and phosphorus) have shown any reduction since the 1970's Sediments at the mouth of the Don River/ Keating Channel in the late 1960's showed significant organic enrichment, which had resulted in impacts on the sediment - dwelling organisms. The stresses exerted by additional organic material (primarily reduced oxygen due to decomposition) had reduced the benthic community to one comprised of just a few species of aquatic worms (oligochaetes) that were present at very high densities (in some cases more than 200,000 per m2 ) Investigations 26 years later (in 1995) showed little change. Since there had been little change in the suspended sediment loading to the harbour during this period, the lack of improvement in the benthic community is not surprising. The conditions that existed in the 1960's continued to exist in 1995. Despite these effects on benthic organism communities, effects on individuals were generally lacking Bioaccumulation of metals from sediments was generally low, and sediment bioassy testing found chronic effects (growth reduction) in only one of the species tested. Acute toxicity was not apparent in any of the test sediments. The MOE has noted that the need for sediment remediation should be based on both the concentrations of contaminants, and the biological effects they exert. Since the effects on organisms were relatively few, and appeared to be related primarily to organic enrichment, rather than contaminants, there is little need for direct intervention. This is particularly significant in those areas near continuing sources of suspended sediment, such as the Don River and sewer discharges, where cleanup would have little long- lasting effects. Nevertheless, despite the overall reduction in contaminant levels in most of the channels and slips, a few areas of elevated levels of some contaminants warrant further evaluation of biological effects. 117 Compared to the Inner Harbour as a whole, the lower Don River /Keating Channel, appears to be among the least contaminated areas Since much of the finer suspended sediment load from the Don River appears to pass through the channel, and since the channel is dredged frequently, there is little opportunity for the finer sediments (which typically carry a greater contaminant load) to accumulate The studies investigated for this report identify source control, both along the Toronto Waterfront, as well as within the watersheds of the major tributary, the Don River, as the most effective means of improving conditions in the sediments within the Inner Harbour. DETAILS OF WORK COMPLETED Staff compiled the sediment quality data and forwarded this information as well as all other pertinent information of the site to Golders Associates The data was summarized and developed into a detailed report that. • provides a detailed look and summarization of the Inner Harbour and Keating Channel sediments which provides a synopsis of current and historical conditions including a comparison and evaluation to the Provincial Sediment Quality Guideline; • discusses and describes the relationship between sediment quality within the Inner Harbour, Keating Channel and the Don River, and • identifies sediment quality issues that will need to be addressed during the Environmental Assessment of the Lower Don River/ Keating Channel. FINANCIAL DETAIL Funds were available in the Waterfront Monitoring Account No 240 -01 to complete this task. For Information contact: Rick Portiss, extension 5302 Date: June 04, 2002 RES. #D47/Q2 - EARTH CHARTER We stand at a critical moment in the Earth's history, a time when humanity must choose its future. We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace reflected in the principles of the Earth Charter. Moved by Seconded by Anthony Ketchum Frank Scarpitti 118 THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority endorse the Earth Charter as a statement of our commitment to the spirit and alms of the document. In so doing, we pledge to join the global partnership for a just, sustainable, and peaceful world and to work for the realization of its values and principles. We pledge to promote and apply its principles in our programs, policies and other activities. AMENDMENT RES. #D48/02 Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Scarpitti Tanny Wells THAT the following be inserted after the main motion: AND FURTHER THAT this report be forwarded to TRCA's Member Municipalities, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), and the Association of Municipalities In Ontario (AMO), for their endorsement. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND The Earth Charter was one of the expected outcomes of the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It was to have formed the ethical foundation upon which Agenda 21 and the other Rio documents were to have been based. The call for such a document caught the imagination of individuals and organizations around the world, as well as some governments. During the two years leading up to and including the Earth Summit, NGOs and government delegations from around the world worked on elements of the Charter. Still, governments could not reach agreement on an Earth Charter and instead adopted the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which valuable, as it was, did not meet the expectations of a Charter. Following the Earth Summit, two international NGOs, the Earth Council and Green Cross International, with the support of the Dutch Government, joined forces with others to pursue the development of an Earth Charter. Over the past decade the international Earth Charter Initiative conducted a world wide, cross cultural dialogue on common goals and shared values. Hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals participated. Guided by this global conversation, the Initiative drafted the Earth Charter as a people's declaration that gives expression to an emerging global consensus on fundamental values and principles for a just and sustainable world. 119 The Earth Charter seeks to promote awareness of the major challenges and choices facing humanity It recognizes that in the midst of great diversity we live in an increasingly interdependent world and that a global partnership involving civil society, business, and government is essential It is an urgent call for the changes in life style, institutional practice, and public policy required to protect the larger living world and to ensure a better future for all. In September of 2001 the Board of the Authority recommended that TRCA staff be directed to explore the Earth Charter as a framework for sustainability, including discussions with the Authority's municipal partners and constituents as appropriate, and report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board. On this basis, a cross - organizational staff team was formed to explore the Earth Charter principles and their relevancy and applicability to the TRCA's programs and activities. The team included Anthony Ketchum, Lisa King, Tim Feher, Brian Byrnes, Bernie McIntyre, Adele Freeman, Ken Towle, Brian Dundas, David Green, Chandra Sharma and Allan Foster. Over a period of six meetings, staff engaged in meaningful discussion and debate about the principles and clauses that particularly guide the Living City vision and TRCA programs. The benefits of undertaking this process were in the consideration of a wider notion of sustainability values and principles that inform our work and in identifying clearer linkages between local and global issues Some examples of particularly relevant Earth Charter principles and clauses are provided below Principle 1: Respect Earth and life in all its diversity. A) Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has a value regardless of its worth to human beings. Meaning: The Living City vision recognizes the intrinsic value of all beings as part of the web of life The TRCA's terrestrial natural heritage program values biologically diverse habitat as the support system for diverse life forms, rather than focussing on rare or endangered species. It recognizes the interdependence between many species and natural elements that comprise coniplex ecosystems. Principle 6: Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection, and when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary principle. A) Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive Meaning: Serious and complex issues such as global climate change are difficult to accurately model and predict However, we must make sound decisions with future generations in mind, and take immediate action using the best information available to prevent drastic changes to the earth's climate The TRCA uses and applies environmental science as a cornerstone of its work. We recognize that ecological information is complex rather than finite, and we rely on a combination of traditional wisdom, community opinion and science. When information is limited or complex we apply a precautionary environment -first approach. 120 Principle 8: Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired. C) Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and environmental protection including genetic information, remains available in the public domain Meaning: The TRCA understands that a healthy natural environment is the fundamental basis for the health and well being of all living creatures including humans and their communities On this basis our work helps to advance public knowledge about the links between health and the environment, central to a Living City Region. Principle 12: Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities. A) Eliminate discrimination in all of its forms, such as that based on race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national ethnic or social origin. Meaning: This principle and clause provide a code of conduct for actively ensuring and pursuing diversity and equity both within the TRCA human resources policies towards staff and in terms of outreach to the community. Our multi - cultural stewardship education program is an active implementation example. Principle 14: Integrate into formal education and life -long learning the knowledge, values and skills needed for a sustainable way of life. B) Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities, as well as the sciences in sustainability education. Meaning: Not only do the arts and humanities provide different modes of learning e.g. story telling, arts and drama, they also are essential to interdisciplinary education. Interdisciplinary education is the basis of education for sustainable living because it encourages a deeper understanding and awareness of issues across economics, science, environment etc. The TRCA will continue to use the Earth Charter as a framework for action towards sustainability. As described in the examples above, the Earth Charter principles help us to reflect on our accomplishments and identify new directions. The Earth Charter can be used in many valuable ways as described below. • an educational tool for developing understanding of the critical choices facing humanity and the urgent need for commitment to a sustainable way of life • an invitation to individuals, institutions, and communities for internal reflection on fundamental attitudes and ethical values governing behaviour • a catalyst for multi - sectoral, cross - cultural, and interfaith dialogue on global ethics and the direction of globalization • a call to action and guide to a sustainable way of life that can inspire commitment, cooperation, and change 121 • an integrated ethical framework for creating sustainable development policies and plans at all levels • a values framework for assessing progress towards sustainability and for designing professional codes of conduct and accountability systems • a soft law instrument that provides an ethical foundation for the ongoing development of environmental and sustainable development law As a soft law document, the Earth Charter in no way obligates any group, organization or individuals to it in any legal fashion to adhere to it, but rather should be used to spur dialogue and reflection about our situation on Earth. The Earth Charter has been endorsed by 5314 organizations thus far. In Canada these include the City of North Vancouver and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (includes Toronto office), United Nations Association in Canada, Transformative Leaning Centre of Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE Toronto), Moose Deer Point First Nations, L'Education au service de la terre and others Global cities include Berkeley, California; Melbourne, Australia; Urbino, Italy; Glasgow, UK; and others. Seventeen cities in the state of Vermont recently endorsed the Earth Charter with an overwhelming positive response RATIONALE The Earth Charter supports and enhances the Conservation Foundation's Living City Vision: TRCA is a leader in making a Living City Region with healthy rivers and shorelines, biodiversity supported by a network of greenspace and people committed to sustainable living. Sustainable Living Through Education is identified as one of the three primary objectives of the Living City campaign and the 2001 business plan. The Living City vision recognizes that achieving sustainability will depend ultimately on changes in behaviour and lifestyles, changes that will need to be motivated by a shift in values and rooted in the cultural and moral precepts upon which behaviour is predicated This greater understanding joins the Earth Charter and the Living City in a universal approach to achieving sustainability in the Greater Toronto Area and abroad. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Following the Board's endorsement of the Earth Charter the following Next Steps will be undertaken: 1. The TRCA will inform the Earth Council in Costa Rica of this endorsement. 122 2. The Earth Charter will be circulated among TRCA business units for further internal discussion about its sustainability values and principles, about ways that the Earth Charter could assist and inform their work and about opportunities to disseminate the charter externally Members of the staff team will be available to help facilitate these sessions. The purpose will be to promote further dialogue and dissemination of the Charter principles in- house. 3. The Earth Charter will be disseminated to watershed councils and alliances for their consideration for both education and endorsement for their own uses. 4. TRCA staff will be available upon request to facilitate sessions or speak to other partners including ember municipalities about the Charter 5. The TRCA will incorporate the Earth Charter onto its web site as a link Examples of TRCA's application of the Charter may include Education for Sustainable Living programming, the Environmental Management System and Employee Code of Conduct. Other opportunities will be identified through further internal review. FUTURE BENEFITS The Earth Charter provides one example of a linkage to the international sustainability agenda to inform local and regional issues and solutions. Public dialogue around sustainability principles is the primary intent of the Earth Charter and is encouraged by the TRCA to make full use of this important document. The principles inform the underlying assumptions and intent of the Living City objectives and TRCA programs. By using the Earth Charter as a framework and a resource, it creates a common foundation to move towards a more sustainable society. FINANCIAL DETAILS There are no financial impacts. Report prepared by: Lisa King, extension 5386 For Information contact: Lisa King, extension 5386 Date: June 3, 2002 Explore the Earth Charter web site for more information: http: / /www.earthcharter.org RES. #D49/02 - THE CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 3015 - 3017 Queen Street, East Slope Remedial Works. To complete the Class Environmental Assessment process, and implement slope remedial works at 3015 - 3017 Queen Street East, Fallingbrook Drive sector of the Scarborough Bluffs, City of Toronto. Moved by: Seconded by: Lorna Bissell Jim McMaster 123 THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the Class Environmental Assessment process, and 2002 construction program for 3015 -3017 Queen Street East project, City of Toronto, under "The City of Toronto Valley Shoreline Regeneration Project 2002 - 2006 ", at a total cost of $190,000. CARRIED BACKGROUND The properties 3015 - 3017 Queen Street, East are located on the Scarborough Bluff adjacent to the Lake Ontario shoreline. These properties have experienced severe erosion along the bluff face as a result of overland flow of water from storm events, which occurred in the year 2000. The property owner, Burton - Lesbury Holdings Limited approached the TRCA for assistance with the slope remediation work and indicated a willingness to convey ownership of affected slope and water lots as their contribution towards the remediation work. During 2001 the TRCA and property owner retained Terraprobe Limited to conduct a geotechnical review to assess the potential risk, and also to develop alternative designs for the purpose of remediating the affected area Terraprobe has recommended that slope stabilization measures should be undertaken. The preferred option being, toe stabilization with armour stone and free draining gravels and rubble fill material for the slope. This option would protect the slope from wave action from the lake while allowing drainage on the slope in the event of further water run -off. TRCA staff evaluated the factors associated with public safety and property risks and have concluded that the remedial works should be undertaken in order to maintain the parking lot and two garages of the apartment complex, which are now at risk The TRCA recently entered into an agreement with Burton - Lesbury Holdings Limited to carry out remediation of the bluffs in return for slope properties and water lots, subject to receiving all the necessary approvals DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE During the summer of 2002, staff will proceed with the Class Environmental Assessment process, and obtain all of the necessary approvals to commence construction of the slope stabilization works later in the year. Construction and supervision will be carried out by TRCA field staff utilizing the annual heavy equipment supply contractor. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project is available within "The City of Toronto, Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 2002 - 2006 ", under account number 168 -01. Report prepared by: Joe Delle Faye, 416- 392 -9724 Date: June 05, 2002 124 RES. #D50/02 - DURHAM REGION CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET 2002 Implementation of the Regional Municipality of Durham Capital Projects Budget 2002 Moved by Seconded by: Lorna Bissell Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 2002 Regional Municipality of Durham Capital Projects be implemented; THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the signing of contribution agreements and other documents as may be necessary to give effect thereto; THAT a letter be sent to the Regional Municipality of Durham expressing the Authority's gratitude for continuing support and financial contribution to further the watershed management work of TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT staff provide regular progress reports to Durham Region on accomplishments, partnerships and future joint venture projects. CARRIED BACKGROUND This is the second year that the five Conservation Authorities within the Regional Municipalityof Durham have submitted a consolidated budget proposal which outlined operating and capital costs. On the basis of this request, the Region of Durham is contributing $528,919 towards watershed and waterfront projects in 2002. This budget will be used to generate additional funds from many partners, such as Ontario Power Generation, Ducks Unlimited, TD Friends of the Environment and watershed /waterfront partners and municipalities. Because the Petticoat, Frenchman's Bay, Duffins and Carruthers watersheds and the Pickering -Ajax waterfront are not included within the International Joint Commission's designated Toronto Area of Concern, TRCA or our partners are not eligible to apply for Federal funds under the RAP or Great Lakes Sustainability Program. In addition, there are very few Provincial funding programs for our region. Funding from the Region of Durham, is therefore critical to the delivery of Authority Programs. The Durham Region 2002 funding covers three components of Watershed Management Division's work plan • (1) Protection, (2) Public Use, and (3) Regulation. The general goal of these three programs is to protect, restore and regenerate the watersheds and waterfront. DETAILS OF WORK TO DONE The approach in the Authority's Business Plan takes into consideration the interrelationship and connectivity of sensitive resources. Our goal is to ensure healthy streams and lakes, and waterfront, to this end funds were requested to : 1. Protect and enhance the high quality resources in Durham Region, 2. Meet regulatory requirements, 3. Foster pubic use, and 4. Acquisition. 125 Durham will benefit from this approach in several ways: • increased efficiency of current programs • lower costs over the long term • smarter approach • enhance the Region's decision making capability • integration into Official Plan process will enable proactive rather than reactive planning (i e. smart growth). As identified in the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Strategy it is not optimal to deal with resources independently Rather, it is better to understand the interrelationship and connectivity of the earth's resources to better enable us to address groundwater issues, watershed health, the Oak Ridges Moraine, and the waterfront together - comprehensively. This integrated focus will prepare TRCA and our partners to address the future role external pressures have on the health of the environment, including urban development, transportation, etc. Our work compliments municipal responsibilities for planning and helps the Region and local municipalities meet its environmental objectives related to public use and public health. PROJECT DETAILS Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Strateay Implementation The Duffins and Carruthers Task Forces have been working on their watershed management strategies for the two watersheds and are on schedule to complete their work, later this month. This watershed strategy will identify specific measures that will protect, enhance and, where required, regenerate the natural functions of the two watersheds. Once completed, the watershed strategies will be implemented by linking key directions and recommendations with the municipal and regional planning process. Significant progress has been achieved during this period, with the completion of the State of the Watershed Reports, community awareness events and public consultations. Durham Region capital funding support will enable the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the task forces to begin to implement their work. The requested funding will also contribute the needed resources for public consultation and the production and distribution of State of the Watershed Reports and final management plans. The development of the watershed management strategies is being undertaken on a partnership basis, with funding provided from local and regional governments, the TRCA and the Authority's Conservation Foundation. Because Durham Region is located outside the " Great Lakes Areas of Concern ", little Federal or Provincial funding support is available to support environmental programs of the TRCA and Durham Region municipalities. Stormwater Retrofit Study TRCA is proposing to undertake a Phase 1 and Phase 2 Stormwater Retrofit Study for each of the Durham Watersheds. These studies will be completed in 2002 and will identify existing end -of -pipe facilities which have the potential to be retrofitted for water quality and erosion control These studies will also identify existing, uncontrolled storm sewer outfalls for which there is sufficient space to construct new water quality /erosion control facilities. 126 Following completion of this work, a Phase 3 study be carried out as a screening and prioritization process for the retrofit opportunities identified in Phases 1 and 2 The screening and prioritization will be based on estimated cost to retrofit, logistical constraints and the following environmental factors: ecological significance of the receiving stream; potential erosion control benefit; and potential water quality benefit Work carried out as part of the Phase 3 study will be coordinated with the erosion control modeling exercise. The Phase 3 study should also assess opportunities for retrofitting within the conveyance system (storm sewers /roadways) and at the lot level (downspout disconnect, etc ), through an examination of soil types, slopes, built form, road reconstruction scheduling, etc Sediment and Erosion - Control Modeling The intent of this study is to utilize continuous flow modeling and a geomorphic assessment to identify in stream flow thresholds that control channel form The results of this study would be used to assess the impacts of changes to existing land use practices and to evaluate future growth scenarios. The approach will focus on the Seaton Land subwatersheds This study will be linked with the Phase 3 Stormwater Retrofit Study as described below. The continuous flow model would be used to optimize storm flows to achieve the best possible protection for receiving reaches. For areas where there is relatively little urban development, this component will focus on better characterizing the existing system in terms of flow regime and in stream erosion thresholds. This will involve similar field work and stream assessment, and the preparation of a continuous model This work will ultimately provide direction, in terms of defining mitigative measures, for future urban growth scenarios (storage volumes and release rates). Aquatic Resource Management The Duffins and Carruthers Watersheds Fisheries Management Plan is an important tool that will be used along side the Watershed Strategy to guide the management of aquatic resources in these watersheds. Information on the historic function of the aquatic system has been combined with current conditions and impacts to derive a management direction The Durham Region funds will be applied to specific implementation projects that will improve the quality and quantity of the resource, and provide recreational opportunities to residents of Durham Region. Groundwater Management Tri Region Strategy The York/Peel /Durham (YPD) Groundwater Management Study Phase 2, begun in 2001, involves tri- regional scale mapping, policy and overall program development for the three Regions. The present study is funded until June 2002, following which the study will move into an implementation phase. There will be an ongoing role for the tri- region partnership to oversee coordination and information sharing among the individual conservation authority and Regional partnership. It is also expected that there will continue to be further technical work in the areas of database development, mapping and modelling that will be more efficiently carried out as part of the tri- region collaborative. The 2002 Durham Capital Budget will support the implementation phase. 127 Integrated Duffins/ Carruthers Groundwater Management Plan This project involves the development of a groundwater management plan for the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watersheds The project will draw on the detailed inventory, mapping, and modelling data that were produced to support the Task Force The resulting plan will provide more specific direction for local land use and resource management decisions affecting groundwater source protection. The plan will include. a) a source protection program - described below; b) a remediation program for areas of existing contamination; c) guidelines, information and tools to support land use and resource management decisions (e.g stormwater management criteria, water taking guidelines, delineation of sensitive recharge and discharge areas, etc.); d) education and awareness programs; and e) monitoring recommendations The groundwater management plan will be coordinated and implemented with other aspects of the overall Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Plans. The project will be coordinated with other related initiatives, including the York /Peel /Durham (YPD) Groundwater Management Strategy Project and the Durham C A's Groundwater Project. The groundwater plan will support implementation of the YPD groundwater program by focusing on groundwater at the local watershed scale, while the YPD Study will provide the broader regional context of groundwater flow systems. The project will complement the Durham work, by serving as a model for the development of other groundwater management plans, at such time as inventory and mapping work is available for other Durham watersheds. Drinking Water Source Protection Program Development in partnership with new MOE funding for municipalities A significant component of the overall Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds groundwater management plan will be the development of a source protection plan to address anticipated new standards post - Walkerton. Work will involve an inventory of potential contaminant sources and an assessment of groundwater vulnerability, based on hydrogeological mapping and modelling information being assembled in 2001. In the upper two - thirds of the watershed residents rely on groundwater resources for domestic, agricultural and commercial (e.g. golf course) water supplies Groundwater makes up a significant component of stream baseflow, and therefore supports a high quality cold water fishery and influences nearshore water quality in Lake Ontario where the communities of Pickering and Ajax obtain their drinking water. There is a need to ensure adequate water supplies for a range of existing and growing water use demands, while ensuring protection of baseflow for aquatic resources 128 Post - Walkerton investigations of private wells in the Duffins Creek Watershed, within lands held by Transport Canada and the Ontario Realty Corporation, have revealed significant groundwater contamination problems. Contamination involves bacteria, nitrates, trace metals, and chlorides to varying degrees in all aquifer complexes There is the potential for this contamination to become more widespread. The source protection program will also identify mechanisms for correcting the identified groundwater contamination problems. A background State of the Watershed Report has been completed Based on information in this report, the Task Force has identified contamination of private rural wells on and off the Oak Ridges Moraine to be a significant issue. Watershed Monitoring Network Despite budget reductions in recent years, there has been increased demand for monitoring data that can be used to measure performance and evaluate environmental health In implementing watershed strategies through the watershed alliances and councils, the Authority has developed report cards for individual watersheds. The report cards have created a formal process for reporting on the health of individual watersheds and have increased the demand for monitoring data. Municipalities, as well, require environmental data to report on the state of the environment. Monitoring is an integral component of watershed management. Monitoring provides essential information that allows the establishment of quantitative targets for protection and rehabilitation, the evaluation of management actions, and inform management decisions. The Regional Watershed Monitoring Project is a five -year program (initially) that has been developed by the TRCA to provide a comprehensive, integrated and coordinated approach to environmental monitoring in the Greater Toronto Area. The program will include the establishment of a Monitoring Network that will endeavour to bring together a group of like- minded, cooperative agencies and organizations to collect, store, distribute and report on environmental monitoring data that furthers the interests of all involved parties. This Monitoring Network will build on the existing local and project- specific monitoring efforts of its partners. Project objectives include: • To develop a project that provides the necessary information to assess the health of the watersheds, sub - watersheds, waterfront ecosystems, and RAP area, spatially and temporally • To identify a set of indicators that reflect ecosystem condition, integrate the monitoring requirements of the RAP with report cards for individual watersheds, and are compatible with municipal state of the environment reporting and other broad programs like SOLEC, for the Great Lakes basin, and the provincial policy performance indicators. • To develop an efficient project that builds upon existing monitoring activities, avoids duplication between agencies, municipalities, and organizations, is cost effective in allocating the best use of resources and informs management decisions. • To identify ways to engage and involve the public, interest, and school groups in meaningful monitoring activities. • To develop and obtain agreement from stakeholders on a set of monitoring protocols for the collection, analysis, storage and distribution of data on the indicators that are identified. 129 Waterfront Monitoring The Waterfront Monitoring project includes a variety of lake based investigations of the fish and wildlife communities, general environmental conditions, wetland habitat, shoreline area and specific habitat surveys. Specific efforts are directed at Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek wetlands, Frenchman's Bay and the Ajax Pickering shoreline. Waterfront monitoring activities provide baseline environmental conditions that help direct and track restoration and shoreline management activities. This monitoring project is part of TRCA's ongoing contribution for conducting our portion of the Durham Coastal Marsh Monitoring Program Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy Implementation The TRCA's Regional Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy that is on going for 2002 will focus the analysis down to the watershed scale. Additional resources will permit coverage of field level information (e g. vegetation communities and species of flora and fauna) and provide a more localized application of the modeled regional natural system. This work is critical for assisting the TRCA in their deliverables with Transport Canada and their recent designation of Greenspace Lands in the Duffins watershed, as well as to local councils who have stipulated including a public use component in greenspace areas. The application of the natural heritage strategy integrates knowledge about environmental features and functions with management plans for the greenspace resources while ensuring the integrity of the resources remain intact. This type of approach is currently being applied in the Glenn Major Complex where planning for the wise and strategic placement of public trails in this headwater area is under way. Waterfront Specific Projects Millennium Square Millennium Square represents a significant revitalization effort within the City of Pickering. In addition to creating an important urban waterfront feature, this project created the largest habitat restoration project to date within Frenchman's bay. This naturalization of the Hydro Marsh shoreline will provide an important natural habitat for the resident fish and wildlife communities within the bay. Funds will be directed at monitoring, maintenance and signage on the site Efforts will also be directed at tracking the health and function of the newly created habitat, encouraging and improving the plant communities, as well as, interpreting the significance of these habitats to the residents of Durham. Rouge Gateway On the border of Durham and Toronto the waterfront trail will enter Durham through the Rouge Gateway This trail feature will celebrate the strong linkages of the Ajax Pickering waterfront trail and act as a trail head feature for the Ajax Pickering communities. Signage naturalization and pathway improvements are key components of the Rouge Gateway project. Pickering -Ajax Waterfront Trail The Ajax Pickering waterfront trail is a major recreational success story. Used by thousands of Durham Region residents this pathway infrastructure not only links Ajax and Pickering together but forms a strong connection with the City of Toronto. Efforts will be focused at supporting the Petticoat Creek bridge and connective link. 130 Frenchman's Bay Project Habitat restoration, conservation education and community outreach are critical aspects of the Frenchman's Bay Project. This project in its current form has been the catalyst for a groundswell of community support and interest surrounding the environmental health of Frenchman's Bay Efforts will be focused on community stewardship programs, community monitoring activities, and habitat restoration activities Duffins Marsh Restoration Developed with the assistance of interest groups, agencies and the general public the TRCA has developed a habitat restoration plan for the Duffins Creek Wetland Complex This plan will be completed by 2002 and the requested funds are for the required implementation activities. Restoration is centered around improving the ecological functions of the wetland an surrounding terrestrial habitats. Efforts will be directed at reforestation, fish and wildlife management, and wetland enhancement. Stream Gauging Duffins & Carruthers The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority currently operates a total of 10 stream flow gauges in the Region of Durham. Six stream flow gauges are located in the Duffins Creek Watershed, one gauge is located in the Carruthers Creek Watershed, two gauges in the Frenchman's Bay Watershed and one in the Petticoat Creek Watershed . An additional three stations will be added this fall, two in the Duffins watershed and one in the Carruthers Watershed, for a total of thirteen gauging stations. Accurate stream flow data is required to develop effective tools for water management purposes. The TRCA has recently initiated a comprehensive program to update its watershed hydrology and hydraulic models and the associated flood plain mapping. The Duffins hydrology model is currently being updated and the Carruthers Creek model is scheduled to be updated in 2003. Continuous stream flow data will be required to calibrate and verify these models to ensure that they accurately represent watershed conditions. The updated modeling and flood plain mapping will be made available to municipalities and private consultants to support studies associated with development applications or other relevant studies initiated by the local municipalities ( groundwater studies). Since the early 1990's, local conservation authorities, including the TRCA, have taken on the responsibility for stream flow gauging as a result of Provincial and Federal funding cuts. Over the last 10 years, TRCA has managed to maintain a number of stream flow stations and has recently developed a monitoring program which identifies areas for expansion within the existing network. TRCA has made every effort to reduce the capital and operating costs, per gauging station, through modifications to the existing process (i.e. change in equipment type, change in housing structure, etc.) while maintaining the same level of quality data. These efforts have enabled the TRCA to reduce the overall gauging costs to a fraction of the cost under the Provincial /Federal Cost Share Agreement. Funding is required to cover the following costs associated with stream flow monitoring: routine inspection and maintenance of the gauging stations; site visits carried out in conjunction with wet weather events in order to undertake velocity measurements at each of the sites (these measurements are required for the development of the stage discharge -curve and to verify the stability of the hydraulic control); purchase of data logger and sensing equipment; routine visits to download the collected flow data from the logger, and; staff time for data processing, quality control and data transfer. 131 Floodplain Mapping - Duffins. Carruther. Petticoat The intent of this study is to update the current hydraulic model using the flows from the updated hydrology model and to convert the current Hec -2 model to Hec -Ras. Digital floodplain mapping will also be completed, which will include vectorization of the map sheets. Digital base mapping for Miller's Creek in the Duffins watershed (approximately 2 sheets), the West branch of Petticoat Creek (approximately 1 sheet), and the lower portion of Carruthers Creek (approximately 3 sheets) will be required Deliverables will include updated digital base mapping, hydraulic model and floodplain mapping. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Regional Municipality of Durham provided strong financial support for the 2001 TRCA capital budget In total, $352,489 was received from Durham Region for a variety of environmental initiatives including. • Waterfront Development • York -Peel- Durham Groundwater Management • Regional Watershed Planning and Monitoring • Terrestrial Natural Heritage • Public Use Infrastructure The following chart provides the complete outline of projects in the approved 2002 Durham Region funding Table 1: Durham Region Capital Budget 2001 and 2002 Project /Program 2002 Budget 2001 Budget Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Strategy Implementation $50,000 $20,000 Duffins and Carruthers Stormwater Retrofit $20,000 - Duffins and Carruthers Sediment and Erosion Modelling $15,000 - York Peel Durham Groundwater Strategy $100,000 $100, 000 Duffins and Carruthers Groundwater Management Plan $50,000 $35, 000 Duffins and Carruthers Drinking Water Source Protection Program $15,000 - Terrestrial Natural Heritage Mapping $25,000 $50,000 Waterfront Projects $23,500 $54, 000 Watershed Monitoring Network $50,000 - Waterfront Monitoring $10,000 - Flood Plain Mapping Duffins Creek $65,000 - 132 Implementation Duffins and Carruthers Fisheries Management Plan $25,000 - Flood Warning - Stream Gauging $25,000 $39, 500 SUB -TOTAL $473, 500 $298,500 Additional Amounts Under General Levy - Waterfront $50,060 $48,630 Additional Amounts Under General Levy - Public Use Infastructure $5,359 $5,359 TOTAL $528,919 $352,489 OTHER DETAILS TRCA staff will use the Durham Capital funding to pursue other funding sources to maximize the deliverables from each project component. TRCA staff will finalize any necessary approvals for these projects. Report prepared by: Gary Bowen, extension 5385 For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385 Date: June 04, 2002 RES. #D51 /0Z - ENVIRONMENTAL VOLUNTEER NETWORK PROJECT Endorsement of the Environmental Volunteer Network Project Moved by: Seconded by: Lorna Bissell Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Environmental Volunteer Network Project be endorsed; AND FURTHER THAT appropriate officials be authorized to execute any documents as required to give effect thereto. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and its partner agencies and groups, rely heavily on volunteer support to implement their programs. TRCA benefits from the dedication, knowledge and enthusiasm that volunteers bring to a variety of Authority programs ranging from education to habitat restoration activities. We enjoy volunteer assistance at the Black Creek Pioneer Village and the Kortright Centre, as part of our Environmental Services and Resource Science Sections, as well as on our volunteer watershed task forces, alliance and councils. 133 The need for a strategic volunteer management program has been recognized for many years. It would help to maximize human resource benefits and reduce turnover of volunteers by effective placement, training and recognition. In addition, such a program would contribute to meeting the watershed Report Card targets and other TRCA program goals as related to community stewardship and education on conservation issues. The proposed volunteer management program would also recognize environmental volunteerism within the private sector The TRCA, in collaboration with the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI), has received a two -year grant from the Ontario Trillium Foundation to initiate an Environmental Volunteer Network Project. The proposed Environmental Volunteer Network Project aims to promote environmental volunteerism, capacity building and skill development for long term social and environmental benefits. The overall objectives of this project include • to provide a rewarding and challenging community- oriented volunteer experience for all those interested in the goal of promoting sustainable natural systems; • to promote new and meaningful opportunities for training, skill development, and access to resources and employment for youth; • to promote better understanding of 'volunteerism' and promote environmental management as a way to gain valuable work skills, as well as contribute to the local community; • to increase the capacity of the environmental sector to better coordinate and communicate with volunteers from diverse backgrounds; and • to cultivate environmental leadership within the new Canadian population to produce increased job opportunities and representation on environmental agency boards and committees. Since the project is corporate in nature, it best resides in the Human Resources Department of the TRCA. Program direction will be provided by an advisory committee, comprised of TRCA staff and partner agency representatives The advisory committee will be supervised and coordinated, on a daily basis, by Humber watershed staff Staff is presently working on program details and recruitment of a program coordinator. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Set up Advisory Committee; • Hire and train a Project Coordinator, • Work in consultation with TRCA's Stewardship and Education Supervisors, Regional Watershed Monitoring Coordinator, Watershed Specialists, BCPV staff, Kortright Centre staff, Conservation Area staff, and Resource Science staff such as archaeology, to develop specific tasks, • Develop a detailed work plan, • Pursue other funding sources to augment the project for a period longer than two years FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the Environmental Volunteer Network Program (2002 -2004) has been granted from the Ontario Trillium Foundation in the amount of $124,300. OCASI will manage the overall budget TRCA will manage staff salaries and benefits The following table provides budget details. 134 Total project budget Yearsl & 2: $175,400 Trillium Foundation Contribution: $124,300 Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: June 04, 2002 RES. #D52/02 - MILNE DAM FISHWAY Construction of the Milne Dam Fishway Moved by: Seconded by. Lorna Bissell Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the update on the construction of a Denil fishway at the Milne Reservoir Dam be received for information. CARRIED BACKGROUND In November 1997, the Authority passed Resolution #A278/97 that directed staff to participate in the preparation of a Letter of Intent to Implement Compensation Measures related to the design and construction of a fish ladder at the Milne Reservoir Dam. In September 1998, the Authority passed Resolution #B140/98 directing staff to enter into an agreement with the Ministry of Natural Resources, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ontario Streams and Law Development Group (Cornell) Limited, now Cornell Partners (successor to Law), for the design and construction of a fish ladder at the Milne Reservoir. At the time, Law Development Group (Cornell) Limited was prepared to fund the costs for construction. In a letter dated February 13, 2002, Cornell Partners are still committed to fund 100% of the cost of the construction of the fishway as it is currently designed, less the small portion that is to be funded by Ontario Streams. The design is now in the final approval stages and the implementation phase of the project is beginning. To that end, TRCA and the Town of Markham felt the need to provide the public with an update on the status of the fishway and the proposed construction schedule. A public meeting was held on June 3 to provide implementation details and address any concerns from residents Ten people attended the meeting, with everyone in support of the project and pleased to see it at the implementation stage. 135 Trillium TRCA (Cash) Other (Cash) Partner In -kind Total Year 1 66,400 2,000 17,500 85,900 Year 2 57,900 2,000 8,000 23,600 89,500 Total project budget Yearsl & 2: $175,400 Trillium Foundation Contribution: $124,300 Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: June 04, 2002 RES. #D52/02 - MILNE DAM FISHWAY Construction of the Milne Dam Fishway Moved by: Seconded by. Lorna Bissell Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the update on the construction of a Denil fishway at the Milne Reservoir Dam be received for information. CARRIED BACKGROUND In November 1997, the Authority passed Resolution #A278/97 that directed staff to participate in the preparation of a Letter of Intent to Implement Compensation Measures related to the design and construction of a fish ladder at the Milne Reservoir Dam. In September 1998, the Authority passed Resolution #B140/98 directing staff to enter into an agreement with the Ministry of Natural Resources, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ontario Streams and Law Development Group (Cornell) Limited, now Cornell Partners (successor to Law), for the design and construction of a fish ladder at the Milne Reservoir. At the time, Law Development Group (Cornell) Limited was prepared to fund the costs for construction. In a letter dated February 13, 2002, Cornell Partners are still committed to fund 100% of the cost of the construction of the fishway as it is currently designed, less the small portion that is to be funded by Ontario Streams. The design is now in the final approval stages and the implementation phase of the project is beginning. To that end, TRCA and the Town of Markham felt the need to provide the public with an update on the status of the fishway and the proposed construction schedule. A public meeting was held on June 3 to provide implementation details and address any concerns from residents Ten people attended the meeting, with everyone in support of the project and pleased to see it at the implementation stage. 135 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Negotiations are underway for the preparation of a management agreement involving TRCA, MNR and the Town of Markham. Tendering for the project is scheduled to start in July, with implementation anticipated to begin shortly after Labour Day. At this time, the reservoir will be drawn down to allow for construction of the upper portion of the fishway It is expected that the reservoir will be drawn down for approximately one month to allow for construction. The entire project is scheduled to be completed by early December. This schedule has been discussed and approved by MNR and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. FUTURE BENEFITS Fish passage at the Milne Reservoir will complement the passage that has already been achieved at Toogood Pond in Unionville, several kilometers upstream. In fact, mitigation of the Milne Dam is the final step in achieving passage of migratory rainbow trout into Bruce Creek where suitable spawning habitat exists. FINANCIAL DETAILS The project will be funded by Cornell Partners and Ontario Streams. Report prepared by: Dave Dyce, extension 5250 For Information contact: Dave Dyce, extension 5250 Date: June 05, 2002 RES. #D53/02 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Minutes of Meeting #2/02, April 16, 2002. The minutes of Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #2/02, held on April 16, 2002, are provided for information Moved by Seconded by Lorna Bissell Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #2/02, held on April 16, 2002, as appended, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December 2000, and adopted by the Authority at meeting #11/00, held on January 5, 2001 by Resolution #A266/00, includes the following provision: 136 3.5 Reporting Relationship The Humber Watershed Alliance is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed Management Advisory Board. The Watershed Alliance Chair, will report, at least on a semi - annual basis on projects and progress Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: June 06, 2002 RES. #D54/02 - BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY - WEST DON WATERSHED To develop a terms of reference for the establishment of a Friends of the West Don /Bartley Smith Greenway Group. Moved by Seconded by: Cliff Gyles Dave Ryan THAT the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce and the members of the Langstaff Ecopark Steering Committee be congratulated on their successful application to the Ontario Trillium Foundation which will result in a five year program of stewardship outreach for the West Don; THAT staff be directed to develop and sign an appropriate agreement with the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce with respect to the staffing and related issues for the five year period commencing July 1, 2002; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed, in partnership with the staff of the City of Vaughan, and the members of the Langstaff Ecopark Steering Committee, to develop a terms of reference for the establishment of a Friends of the West Don /Bartley Smith Greenway Group to continue the stewardship activities within the Don watershed and, in particular, the regeneration and trail access developments for the West Don /Bartley Smith Greenway. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Bartley Smith Greenway is a 15 kilometre valley corridor that follows the Don River through the center of the City of Vaughan, the most rapidly expanding urban community within the Greater Toronto Area. In the early 1990's, the Estate of Ann Bartley Smith approached the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto with the offer to provide over $400,000 to assist in the regeneration of the valley corridor. This funding has been substantially augmented through contributions of the City of Vaughan, Great Lake Sustainability Funds, EcoAction and the TD Friends of the Environment. 137 Over the past ten years there have been numerous accomplishments and activities undertaken consistent with the Upper West Don Subwatershed proposals included in the Don Watershed Strategy Forty Steps to a New Don. These include- • the establishment of a continuous trail from Steeles Avenue to Langstaff Road including linkages under Highway 407 and Highway 7, • the creation of the Keffer Marsh at Audia Court within the Langstaff Ecopark, • extensive riparian and valley land plantings through the Langstaff Ecopark; • the construction of a new stormwater management pond that provides water quantity and quality treatment for a 30 hectare portion of commercial and industrial lands; • the near completion of the retrofit of the Killian Lamar stormwater quantity pond to provide both water quality and quantity treatment the design and planning of a natural stream, wetland complex, and trail system for Rupert's Pond /Routley Park, a concept site established in Forty Steps to a New Don scheduled for completion in 2002 -2003; • outreach activities to local schools, community groups and the business community. The work that has taken place within the Langstaff Ecopark has also spawned a number of important partnerships. On June 12, 2001, the Langstaff Ecopark Steering Committee, the City of Vaughan and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) hosted the official opening of the Greenway, trail system, and stormwater management facility. The partners in this work have been numerous, including the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce, Landscape Planning Ltd , Quebecor, CNR, Region of York, Topax, Metrus, TD Friends of the Environment and other local communities. Following the opening, the Langstaff Ecopark Steering Committee, comprised of local business representatives, the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce , and staff of the TRCA and the City of Vaughan, agreed to expand the stewardship efforts to the entire West Don subwatershed with a particular focus on the Bartley Smith Greenway. A Business and Community Outreach Initiative proposal was prepared for the Ontario Trillium Foundation, and was approved with a projected start date of July 1, 2002. The project includes $280,000. that can be used for costs associated with employing, for a period of 5 years, a Stewardship Outreach Coordinator. This position will assist in co- ordinating and promoting stewardship activities consistent with the TRCA's business plan, environmental initiatives of the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce, and the development of green corridors within the City of Vaughan. The Stewardship Outreach Coordinator will become a TRCA employee. The Vaughan Chamber of Commerce will provide the funding for the position derived from the Ontario Trillium Grant Given the 5 year length of this program, staff have determined that in the best interests of all parties, an agreement should be established between the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce and the TRCA. This provides a tremendous opportunity for the TRCA to continue to work in partnership with the City of Vaughan within the West Don, the community and local businesses. To further enhance this partnership, the staff recommends that a Friends of the West Don /Bartley Smith Greenway Advisory Committee be established to assist in the evolution of the stewardship outreach activities, identify regeneration opportunities, and work with the City of Vaughan on the development of further trail and access linkages through the corridor. 138 FINANCIAL DETAILS The accounting of funds is in account number 111 -36 Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: June 10, 2002 RES. #D55/0Z - CANADA'S URBAN STRATEGY - A VISION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Authority comments on the Prime Minster's Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues Interim Report, April 2002. Moved by. Seconded by: Frank Scarpitti Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Government of Canada be commended for the invitation to establish the Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues and urged to put implementation plans in place; THAT the Task Force be particularly commended for recognizing and supporting that urban Infrastructure must include "green infrastructure"; THAT the TRCA express its desire to work with all levels of government to create more sustainable communities; THAT the staff be directed to establish liaison with the Ontario Federal Council to achieve stronger coordination between federal initiatives and the programs and projects of TRCA; THAT the Task Force on Urban Issues be requested to place particular emphasis in its final report on the need for direct federal financial participation In the key environmental management Issues of ecologically important land securement evaluation, protection, restoration and monitoring of ecological systems and functions not simply protecting remnant features; provision of incentives of various types, including tax -based initiatives to encourage good long term stewardship practice sand sustainable community design and development; AND FURTHER THAT the Task Force be requested to support the Living City Campaign of the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto as a model mechanism for enabling the active participation of individuals, communities, organizations, businesses and industries in comprehension efforts to provide an even higher quality of life for Canadians In urban regions while enhancing the environment for all living things. 139 AMENDMENT RES. #D56/02 Moved by: Seconded by Frank Scarpitti Cliff Gyles THAT the following be inserted after the main motion: AND FURTHER THAT the report be sent to all municipalities in the GTA, Toronto Dominion Bank, the Board of Trade, and the Trillium Foundation. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND The most important public agenda issue in the Toronto Region is a new arrangement between the federal, provincial and municipal governments. The Interim Report of the Prime Minister's Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues is an important step towards crafting this new arrangement The TRCA's vision, programs, policies and projects are vital components of the emerging concepts for sustainable communities. In order to present the connections between the recommendations contained in the draft report of the Task Force, we have extracted the various following recommendations and matched them with examples of corresponding TRCA activities and initiatives 140 The Task Force recommends that the Government of Canada: Examples of TRCA connection and contribution to these recommendations: A New Approach 1. Develop An Urban Strategy for Canada which includes. • An integrated approach to policy and program development in order to deliver a cohesive, effective urban strategy, • Examining the effect and impact of federal policies and programs on urban regions (i.e. urban Tens), • A strong urban partnership developed in collaboration with all orders of government, the community, the private sector, and citizens through • bilateral, trilateral and multilateral agreements and initiatives; • Priority initiatives that include. - A National Affordable Housing Program - A National Infrastructure Program - A National Transportation Program - An advisory body to provide on -going consultation and advice on urban policy to the Government of Canada, and, - Fostering research on best practices, providing intelligence on trends and conditions, and communicating the Government of Canada's activities related to urban issues. 2. Initiate further dialogue and debate on the mechanisms required to design and implement an Urban Strategy. • Leadership for implementation of the Remedial Action Plan. • The Living City Vision and Campaign • Mechanisms to deliver key components of a "green infrastructure" program • Natural Heritage Program approach Challenges & Opportunities ECONOMIC CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES 3. Continue to collaborate with other orders of government and support development of regional economic growth strategies that establish priority action plans. 4 Continue to work with the Provinces towards the harmonization of interprovincial professional qualifications and trade certification. • TRCA is anxious to be part of these discussions related to the Remedial Action Plan and the growth of the Living City Campaign Innovation and Research 5. Build on the success of the Sustainable Cities Initiative and continue to brand and support Canadian urban centres as sources of innovation and sustainability. • The Living City Centre at Kortright will promote regional expertise in sustainable community design and development 141 6. Build on existing partnerships with universities and the public /private sectors to support and facilitate research and development, and innovation. 7 Continue to invest in e- government programs • TRCA is working with University of Toronto, University of Guelph, York University, Ryerson Polytechnic, Seneca College, Humber College and others. Integrated, Mulit -modal Transportation 8 Establish a long -term National Infrastructure Program that will build on current programs to provide stable, reliable funding (i e 15 years) • TRCA programs require Municipal capital commitments that are difficult to obtain in the absence of federal support for capital infrastructure including "green" infrastructure SOCIAL CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES Adequate Shelter for All 9 Establish A National Transportation Program that would • Provide long -term sustainable funding for public transportation systems; • Invest strategically in integrated multi-modal transportation systems; and • Invest in high -speed rail service to connect major centres 10 Ensure that unused railway rights -of -way and corridors are preserved and made available at net salvage value or at no cost for future transit or be developed into recreational trails. • TRCA has commented directly to the Province of Ontario on the essential needs for improved transportation not just roads TRCA is extensively involved in regional trail networks. 11 Review the federal income support systems to ensure they are meeting the needs of Canada' s most vulnerable population. 12 Continue to work with all orders of government and childcare agencies to ensure that all children have access to quality childcare and early education, and reaffirm our commitment to eliminating child poverty. 13. Implement a National Drug Strategy that will involve all orders of government, community agencies and the voluntary sector. • TRCA Enforcement work closely with other enforcement authorities. 142 14. Establish A National Affordable Housing Program that could include • Strengthening the mandate of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to develop A National Affordable Housing Program in collaboration with all orders of government, and housing providers, • Building on existing federal housing programs; • Changes to CMHC mortgage underwriting criteria to allow a more customized and flexible system; • Providing additional resources and flexibility in the RRAP program to rehabilitate existing properties; • Examining the federal tax environment related to rental housing and creating appropriate incentives, • Establishing grants against the cost of CMHC mortgage insurance, • Providing targeted mortgage insurance for brownfield redevelopment in areas where there is a shortage of affordable housing; • Facilitating agreements with municipalities to transfer small tracts of surplus land, owned by the Canada Lands Company, to community groups; and, • Offering grants to community housing groups to support the restoration and conversion of heritage properties for affordable housing. 15. Extend the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI) beyond three years in order to meet its objectives to eliminate homelessness Urban Aboriginal People 16. Review the policy and planning process for funding of programs for urban Aboriginal people, and develop a more collaborative and coordinated approach with other orders of government to strategically fund and better deliver services and programs to Aboriginal people in urban areas. 17. Partner with other orders of government and community Aboriginal groups to find ways to lower poverty levels, provide employment opportunities and expand the stock of affordable housing for urban Aboriginal population, especially among youth. • Spiritual and cultural centres are being considered at the Rouge Park and as part of the Living City Centre at Kortright 143 18. Work with our urban partners to increase the number of pilot projects in selected urban centres as currently included in the Urban Aboriginal Strategy 19 Encourage cooperation between Urban Reserves and surrounding urban regions. 20. Examine current policies and develop ways to target the special needs of the Urban Aboriginal population, including Metis and non - Status Indians. 21 Strengthen educational supports, in cooperation with First Nations, Metis and non - status Indians at post secondary levels to better meet the needs of Aboriginal peoples in urban centres Canada: A Country Built on Immigration 22 Develop a cohesive approach that involves the coordination between orders of government, and non - governmental organizations that offer settlement services, language training and cultural resources to better meet the needs of the immigrant population. 23. Review with provincial and municipal governments the formula for funding settlement, integration programs and services in urban centres 24 Consult and work with urban regions on immigration policies /programs. 25 Increase the resources to non - government organizations and community groups to provide additional support services for families, particularly language classes for women and their children. 26 Inform prospective immigrants and new arrivals about conditions and services in Canada BEFORE they leave their country of origin, and include a well developed and up -to -date "Welcome to Canada" package listing the various services available to newcomers. 27 Streamline the Immigration and Refugee Board process in order to ensure that all claims are processed with maximum efficiency and as expeditiously as possible 28. Provide access to appropriate upgrading /training programs for newcomers, as well as assessment of credentials and access to trades and professions • • TRCA is developing broader volunteer programs with new Canadians to assist with language skills, employment experience and community involvement in environmental initiatives. ESL Programs are offered at TRCA facilities. 144 29. Encourage Human Resources Development Canada to enter into more sectoral agreements to facilitate the quick and efficient entry of temporary foreign workers to fill national and regional labour shortages. 30. Convene a bi- annual Conference on Immigration with all orders of government. This will assist provinces and urban regions with declining populations to benefit from national expertise and resources to attract newcomers. 31. Continue negotiations with provincial governments that have not yet signed the bilateral agreement on immigration policies. Safe Communities - Healthy Neighbourhoods 32 Continue to provide resources and cooperate with all orders of government and communities to ensure that police and emergency services have sufficient resources to adequately protect Canadians 33. Continue to support innovative community- driven initiatives through our crime prevention program. • TRCA is extensively involved in Emergency Planning with Toronto, Peel, York and Durham. Preserving our Heritage and Culture 34. Continue to strengthen our investment in the arts and cultural sector in our urban communities. 35. Provide grants to support the restoration and conversion of heritage properties and develop mechanisms to encourage redevelopment and restoration for both commercial and residential uses. • BCPV is the Authority's showcase facility with plans in development with York University to enrich the program and strengthen the connection to the local York /Finch community. 36. Consider mechanisms to encourage more investments and donations to Community Foundations, philanthropic and charitable organizations, and community groups. 37. Facilitate the sharing of best practices among the voluntary sector and charitable organizations. 38. Continue to acknowledge and recognize the important contribution of the volunteer sector to building a nation of strong communities. • • Living City Campaign is a successful model with great growth potential A volunteer coordinator is in place to expand on the already successful utilization of volunteers across TRCA 145 ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES 39 Ensure that any infrastructure program includes the opportunity to focus efforts on municipal water infrastructure by providing • Traditional tripartite contributions for communities which do not have the revenue - generating capacity to support full -cost pricing, and • Revolving funds offering low- and no- interest loans for larger urban communities that can, over time, move to full -cost pricing. 40. Continue to consult with all orders of government and encourage existing federal guidelines to be used as a standard for drinking water quality. • TRCA and all Conservation Authorities continue to emphasize the need to provide for source protection as part of water infrastructure planning and investment 41. Support the redevelopment and cleaning of • TRCA implements joint initiatives with the ports and harbours. Toronto Port Authority, Don Watershed Regeneration initiatives and Toronto Bay initiatives are directly related. 42 Consider creating A National Budding Retrofit • The Living City Centre at Kortright is already Strategy to encourage and facilitate energy a leading national demonstration of efficiency This could involve: renewable energy technology. • Providing tax credits to homeowners and businesses that undertake energy efficiency retrofits, and • Supporting a national community-based home retrofit advisory service network. 43 Set higher fuel economy standards for new • TRCA is implementing a "greening the fleet" vehicles and support innovation, research and development leading to more sustainable urban transportation systems. program. 44 Encourage Government of Canada employees • TRCA is commencing an employee trip to reduce vehicle use by locating government buildings and services along existing public transit service and make bus pass purchases easy through programs like ECOPASS. reduction program. 45 Support the development of new renewable fuel and GHG reduction technologies. 46. Support minimum efficiency standards for new power generation facilities 42. Consider creating A National Building Retrofit Strategy to encourage and facilitate energy efficiency. This could involve • Providing tax credits to homeowners and businesses that undertake energy efficiency retrofits; and • Supporting a national community-based home retrofit advisory service network. 146 47. Encourage innovation in ecological design by creating incentives for the private sector and municipalities to incorporate ecologically sound and smart growth principles, and to acknowledge successful private - public partnerships on smart growth • The Natural Heritage Program of TRCA is providing a new framework for ecological design in new communities 48. Adopt and showcase sound urban design practices by incorporating ecologically sustainable landscape practices on government lands, and incorporate smart growth principles by budding and locating government services in urban cores and along transit corridors. 49 Support the acquisition of critical urban green space by assisting community partnerships such as land trusts and conservation organizations and provide incentives to allow land donations for conservation purposes. • TRCA is supportive of community acquisition programs and work with ORM Land Trust, Evergreen, and others. 50. Work with our partners in government to create an integrated risk assessment and liability management framework that harmonizes federal and provincial regulations. 51. Consider targeted mortgage insurance and appropriate tax incentives for brownfield redevelopment. 52. Continue to provide support for completion of brownfields inventories, risk assessments and community consultations. • TRCA is extensively involved in brownfiled redevelopment in projects like the Lower Don and the waterfront. Report prepared by: Brian Denney, extension 6290 For Information contact: Brian Denney, extension 6290 Date: June 13, 2002 Attachments: 1 147 Attachment 1 Canada's Urban Satra egy AVision for the 21st Century Prime Minister's Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues Chair: Judy &gra, MP Interim Report. .ApriI2002 148 Executive Summary The Prime Minister's Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues presents its interim report recommending a plan of action to devebp Canada's Urban Strategy. This Urban Strategy will assist the Government of Canada b wtark more collaboratively with aVl our partners to enhance the qualky of life and strengthen the ec nornic competitiveness of our urban centres in the list Century. On May 9th. 2001. the Prime Minister announced the creation of the Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues. The recom- mendations and ideas in this interim report emerged from the consultations arising from our mandate. We were directed to consider certain issues such as: • Key opportunities for Increasing economic competitiveness in our cities; ■ Environmental Issues such as air, water quality, and land use: ■ Approaches to strengthening cultural assets; ■ Urban transit; ■ Effective approaches to settlement and integration services for new- comers to Canada, bearing in mind existing agreements with provinces; • The specific needs and circum- stances of at risk populations such as urban Aboriginal people. recent immigrants, persons with disabili- ties and the homeless; and ■ Crime - related issues facing large urban centres including substance abuse and sustainable prevention responses. Members of the Task Force visited eight urban regions - Halifax. Montreal, The National Capital Region, Toronto. Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. The Task Force met with provincial ministers and officials. civic politicians and administrators. community leaders, business people, presidents of local and national organizations. experts in the field and volunteer groups. In all. the Task Force members met with more than 700 participants Inc addi- tion, the Task Force met weekly in Ottawa to consult with Cabinet Ministers and departmental staff. Our consultations painted a picture of urban Canada that revealed a proud nation struggling with signifi- cant growth and an ageing infra- structure. Ever- increasing demands for services and programs are becoming progressively more difficult for municipal governments to manage on their lirnited property tax base. As the economic engines of the country, it is critical that our urban regions sustain their levels of growth and continue to contribute to Canada's high quality of life. Canada's Urban Strategy would provide a strategic franuwork for a collective approach, with the Government of Canada acting as the catalyst within a strengthened urban partnership. It offers an opportunity to establish a foundation for sustain- able growth for a strong and healthy nation in collaboration with provin- cial, municipal and community part- ners. Given that the Government of Canada has a significant investment 149 EACUT1VE SUMMARY v vi CANADA'S URBAN STRATEGY A VISION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY In urban regions. Canada's Urban Strategy could facilitate itnndauncntal changes to our current methods of program planning Canada's Urban Strategy should provide the Government of Canada with an opportunity to actively and directly participate in community building through strategic policies and programs. The Task Force recom- mends that the Government of Canada develop appropriate strategies to ensure that resources and pro- grams are strategically invested, accu- rately reflect the needs and maximize all available opportunities in our urban centres. Canada's Urban Strategy would encourage all omens of government to coordinate resources, and consult and collaborate on a new approach to the challenges in Canada's urban regions Within this framework. we have shown that there needs to be opportu- nities to develop a housing and transportation program as well as a long -term infrastructure program. The Task rorce believes that it has presented a plan for action that reflects the 21st century. A Strategy that addresses the economic, social, environmental and cultural challenges but at the same time provides a unique opportunity for the Govern- ment of Canada to ensure our urban regions are in a strong position to lead the future health and wealth of our nation. This interim report is by no means the end of the debate. 'Rather. it con- cludes the first phase of the mandate and is meant to be the focus of further dialogue which wW be com- pleted with the release of a final report later this year. We hope that the ideas and recommendations presented here will stimulate much debate and discussions among our colleagues and Canadians in every region The full interim report is available on The Prime Minister's Caucus Task Fbrce on Urban Issues Web site: www.liberal.parl.gc.ca /urb. 150 7 A New Approach 1 Why Canada Needs An Urban Strategy Developing Canada's Urban Strategy Four Pillars of Canada's Urban Strategy Measuring Effectiveness and Efficiency of Canada's Urban Strategy Canada's Urban Strategy for the 21st Century 2 Challenges & Opportunities 7 ECONOMIC CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 9 Economic Growth and Development Innovation and Research Sustainable Infrastructure Integrated, Multi -modal Transportation SOCIAL CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 16 Canada: A land of Opportunity Adequate Shelter for All Urban Aboriginal People Canada: A Country Built on Imnrilration Safe Communities - Healthy Neighbourhoods Preserving our Heritage and Culture Building Communities ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 29 Safe Water Clean Air Healthy, Well- Planned Conununities Brownfields and Contaminated Sites 3 The Next Stage 37 4 Appendices 39 SUMMARIES OF REGIONAL ROUNDTABLES PRESENTERS AT TASK FORCE MEETINGS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS NEW BUSINESS RES. #D57 /02 Moved by Seconded by: Ila Bossons Tanny Wells THAT staff report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board's July Meeting on the environmental issues associated with the proposed expansion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, including the affect on shorelines, habitats, water quality and human enjoyment along the entire Great Lakes system; AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario be asked to comment on the issue. CARRIED RES. #D58 /02 Moved by. Seconded by: Frank Scarpitti Jim McMaster THAT staff of the TRCA, including Adele Freeman, Ron Dewell, Mike Fenning and Chair Dick O'Brien, be thanked for their efforts with respect to the Jessamyn Holdings property. CARRIED TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:38 a.m., on June 14, 2002. Irene Jones Chair /ks 152 J. Craig Mather Secretary- Treasurer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/02 July 12, 2002 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #4102, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, July 12, 2002. The Chair Irene Jones, called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. PRESENT Cliff Gyles Member Irene Jones Chair Anthony Ketchum Member Jim McMaster Member Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority Joe Pantalone Member Dave Ryan Member Ian Sinclair Member Frank Scarpitti Member REGRETS Lorna Bissell Vice Chair IIa Bossons Member Pam McConnell Member Tanny Wells Member RES. #D59/02 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Cliff Gyles THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/02, held on June 14, 2002, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Ron Holiway, River Keeper from Hampsire, England, in regards to item 7.1 - Paulynn Park Bank Stablization Project. 153 RES. #D60 /02 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by Jim McMaster Dave Ryan THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received. CARRIED SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D61 /02 - PAULYNN PARK BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT A Bank Stabilization Project at Paulynn Park in the Town of Ajax Moved by: Seconded by: Jim McMaster Ian Sinclair THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the implementation of the bank stabilization project be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT Authority Members be encouraged to come out and participate in the family activites planned and see the bank stabilization project in progress CARRIED BACKGROUND Paulynn Park is located on the East Duffins Creek south of Taunton Road on the west side of Ravenscroft Road in the Town of Ajax. For many years, it has been managed as a manicured park with a minimum amount of vegetation along the streambanks. The lack of streamside vegetation has led to exaggerated bank erosion, which given enough time, will jeopardize an existing parking lot and trail. Additional benefits of riparian vegetation include stream shade, contribution of woody material to the stream channel, food source for insects and instream cover for fish. This project will stabilize 55 m of streambank within Paulynn Park. The work is scheduled for the weekend of July 12 - 14. In addtion to the bank stabalization project, three other activities are planned. On Friday, July 12 at 2 p.m. Members of the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Task Force will host a media launch in Paulynn Park to celebrate their accomplishments over the past two years, showcase the bank stabalization as one implementation action of their fish management plan and formally release the State of the Watershed documents to the public. 154 On Friday evening at 9 p.m., River Keeper Ron Holloway from Hamshire England will give a slide presentation under the stars at Paulynn Park related to his stream rehabilitation work. Ron is the senior field consultant for The Wild Trout Trust, an organization in Great Britain which specializes in assisting agencies and landowners in rehabilitating and managing trout waters. He recently retired from river keeping a portion of the Itchen River in Hampshire, a stretch considered the best trout fishing in Britain Ron has experience with Ontario streams, having consulted and done work throughout Southern Ontario His methods were adapted by Ministry of Natural Resources for its use in the Community Fisheries Involvement Programs (CFIP). On Saturday, July 13, the public will be encouraged to bring a picnic to Paulynn Park and participate in guided nature walks and a tour of the rehabilitation works in progress. Children will be interested in the environmental crafts, fly fishing demonstrations, a fish check up and meeting Duffy the Duck from the Town of Ajax Environmental displays, stewardship literature and refreshments will also be available DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE This project proposes to stabilize approximately 55m of streambank through the use of natural materials including logs, branches, mulch and where necessary, t -bars and medium gauge wire. T -bars will be pounded into the edge of the bank and the area between the existing bank and the t -bars filled in with logs, branches and mulch. In places, the Togs will be wired to keep them in place. On the top of the bank, t -bars will be driven into the ground and the logs secured to them through the use of the wire In the fall, the site will be planted with native trees and shrubs. Saturday will be the first workday and will begin at 8am. Additional events include electroshocking demonstrations, environmental displays and guided walks. These will run from 10 am - 2 pm. Sunday's focus will be the completion of the bank stabilization project. FUTURE BENEFITS This project will be beneficial to the fish in the watercourse by providing shade, instream habitat, and a food source from the insects living and feeding on the vegetation. The site itself is expected to be a demonstration site for others interested in revegetating stream banks and improving habitat for fish and other aquatic inhabitants. FINANCIAL DETAILS Most of the materials for this project, including logs, mulch and brush, are being donated by the Town of Ajax. The Aggregate Producers of Ontario will be donating some rock to be used as fill. The actual work will be done mostly by volunteers from three local gun and angling clubs, as well as members of the community. Some materials will be purchased using money available through the Duffins and Carruthers Creeks Fisheries Management Plan project. Report prepared by: Jon Clayton, extension 5353 For Information contact: Jon Clayton, extension 5353 Date: June 26, 2002 155 RES. #D62 /02 - WALKERTON INQUIRY PART 2 REPORT IMPLICATIONS Release of the Walkerton Inquiry Part 2 Report and its implications for future workplans and annual budgets of TRCA Moved by Seconded by Ian Sinclair Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to participate in discussions with Conservation Ontario and the Province regarding the requirements of watershed -based source protection plans and the specific role of conservation authorities; THAT staff confirm the status of source protection plan components with regional municipal partners and coordinate with them on the development of workplans for the completion of these plans; THAT staff incorporate in the Authority's 2003 -2007 budget, the anticipated work program elements of watershed -based source protection plans for which TRCA would be responsible; AND FURTHER THAT staff pursue provincial funding sources to provide matching dollars in support of source protection planning initiatives. AMENDMENT RES. #D63 /02 Moved by Seconded by Joe Pantalone Ian Sinclair THAT the following be inserted after the last paragraph of the main motion: AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the Conservation Ontario budget submission to Superbuild, with further clarification of TRCA's portion of this submission. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND Part 2 of the Walkerton Inquiry, A Strategy for Safe Drinking Water, was released by the Ontario Government on May 23, 2002 The Walkerton Inquiry was established in June 2000 to investigate the E. Coli. contamination of the water supply in Walkerton, Ontario in May 2000. The Hon. Justice Dennis O'Connor, Commissioner was charged with leading the Inquiry. Part 1 of the Inquiry, released in January 2002, reported on the events that occurred in Walkerton and the causes of the tragedy itself. Part 2 focused on recommendations for improved public policy and programs that will ensure the safety of Ontario's drinking water supply 156 Part 2 Report Recommendations The Part 2 Report's recommendations reflected virtually all of the recommendations made by Conservation Ontario. Staff from TRCA participated in the Conservation Ontario team that prepared written submissions to the Inquiry and took part in the expert meetings and public hearings. Justice O'Connor focused considerable attention to the importance of protecting drinking water sources as the first step in a multi- barrier approach to drinking water supply management. He identified the need for source protection plans to be prepared on a watershed basis, and the conservation authorities role in this effort. Out of Justice O'Connor's 93 recommendations, the following summary provides an overview of those areas that are particularly relevant to conservation authorities. • Watershed -based source protection plans should be prepared and recognized for all watersheds in Ontario. Ideally they should form part of a broader watershed management plan Provincial permitting and regulatory decisions that affect drinking water sources must be consistent with the approved source protection plan - Municipal Official Plans and decisions must be consistent with the plan, where potential significant direct threats to drinking water sources exist, and have regard to the plan in all other areas MOE should be the lead agency for all aspects of drinking water, including oversight responsibility for source protection plans - A Watershed Management Branch should be formed within the MOE MOE should establish the framework for developing source protection plans, help fund and participate in their development, and approve the completed plans MOE should also have oversight responsibility for the protection of drinking water, under a Drinking Water Branch Source Protection Planning should be done at a local watershed level by those most directly affected. The CA model was recognized as an existing watershed -based planning body that operates with the full participation of its watershed municipalities CAs should coordinate the plans' development, where possible, otherwise the MOE should take on this coordination role CA role in managing the local consultation process is explicitly identified CA role in local implementation activities that promote education and stewardship is noted O'Connor does not believe that the CAs need to be moved from MNR to MOE to fulfill their new responsibility, but leaves this decision with the Province All large or intensive farms and all farms in areas designated as high risk in the source protection plan should develop binding individual farm water protection plans. - MOE should take the lead in regulating the potential impacts of farm activities on drinking water sources 157 • The Province should ensure sufficient funding for the planning and adoption of source protection plans Funding should be derived from a combination of sources, including the provincial tax base, user pay and polluter pay sources The province should develop guidelines to determine what is appropriately charged where • MOE, on behalf of the Province, should develop a comprehensive "source to tap" drinking water policy covering all elements of the provision of drinking water. • Private well owners are recognized as having responsibility for the security of their own water supplies. - The Province should provide and disseminate information to raise awareness and make water testing accessible. The Part 2 Report also provides estimated costs of implementing all of the recommendations as well as the costs that have resulted from the steps that the provincial government has already introduced since the tragedy: • One -time cost of implementing the Inquiry's recommendations* $99 million to $280 million. • Ongoing annual cost of implementing the Inquiry's recommendations: $17 million to $49 million per year. • One -time cost of steps taken by the provincial government since the Walkerton tragedy: $100 million to $520 million. • Ongoing annual cost of steps taken by the provincial government since the Walkerton tragedy: $41 million to $200 million per year. • The total cost of implementing the Inquiry's recommendations including the one -time costs amortized over 10 years at 7% interest would amount to an average of between $7.00 and $19.00 per household. Response to the Report In a May 27, 2002 statement to the Ontario legislature, the Honourable Chris Stockwell, Minister of the Environment committed to address all 93 of Commissioner O'Connor's recommendations. He noted the proposed Nutrient Management Act as an initiative that was already underway to address agricultural related sources of contamination. That Act was subsequently passed on June 27, 2002. It will lead to the development of standards for agricultural operations and the management of land - applied materials containing nutrients (e.g. fertilizers, biosolids). Full utility of the Act will still require base knowledge of local water systems to support effective implementation. 158 The Minister also referenced six watershed pilot projects that were funded in 2002 with the aim of demonstrating implementation of recommendations from the Val Gibbon's report, Managing the Environment TRCA is a partner in two of the pilot projects, one concerning the development of a water allocation model for Ontario and the other documenting "lessons learned" in the implementation of watershed plans On June 13, 2002, the Province announced funding for new training programs through Sir Sandford Fleming College for well contractors and technicians, as well as an 18 -month community -based education program for private well owners to be led by Green Communities. Conservation Ontario has formed a team of CA staff who will develop a proposed framework for the preparation of watershed -based source protection plans. This outline will form the basis for discussions with the Province, regarding requirements of the plans and agency roles and responsibilities. The framework will also serve as a guide for individual CAs, as they review the status of work in their jurisdiction in conjunction with their member municipalities. TRCA staff will participate in this Conservation Ontario committee. The Conservation Authorities Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition (CAMC) and provincial government staff have related intiatives underway, as part of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act implementation. TRCA staff are involved in a CAMC sub - committee charged with the responsibility of preparing an outline for the completion of watershed plans that would fulfil the requirements of the ORM Act, and the committee is also considering how source protection plans could be integrated into this process. Provincial staff are preparing a "Guide to Implementing the Water Policies of the ORM Conservation Plan ", which will provide guidelines for water budgets and groundwater and surface water modeling, among other things. TRCA staff will promote consistency among the ORM and Walkerton initiatives, wherever appropriate. Source Protection Plan Requirements The Part 2 Report recommended that, as a minimum, watershed -based source protection plans should include the following: • a water budget for the watershed, or a plan for developing a water budget where sufficient data are not yet available, • the identification of all significant water withdrawals, including municipal intakes; • land use maps for the watershed, • the identification of wellhead areas; • maps of areas of groundwater vulnerability that include characteristics such as depth to bedrock, depth to water table, the extent of aquifers, and recharge rates; • the identification of all major point and non -point sources of contaminants in the watershed; • a model that describes the fate of pollutants in the watershed; • a program for identifying and properly decommissioning abandoned wells, excavations, quarries, and other shortcuts that can introduce contaminants into aquifers; • the identification of areas where a significant direct threat exists to the safety of drinking water (in such cases, municipal official plans and zoning decisions must be consistent with the plan); and 159 • the identification of significant knowledge gaps and or research needs to help target monitoring efforts Further to the Inquiry's list of plan components, there are at least three additional tasks that require a dedicated effort: • Integration of source protection planning with the overall watershed management planning process (this integration is an important aspect of managing the overall water supply for all other uses and is a benefit that CAs bring to the process to complement the municipal expertise in the drinking water area); • Compilation of the component study results into the overall source protection plan itself; and • Public and stakeholder consultation. As noted above, a Conservation Ontario committee is developing a proposed framework for watershed -based source protection plans for discussion with and ultimate endorsement by the Province Implementation of the source protection plan may be achieved through similar means as the watershed plan, but additional effort will be required initially to establish appropriate and streamlined review and approval processes for the provincial government and municipalities. This effort would assist in fulfilling the O'Connor's call for provincial permitting and regulatory decisions to be consistent with the source protection plan, and for municipal land use planning and other decisions to be consistent with the plan in sensitive areas (or otherwise have regard for). Program enhancements will likely be required to implement the source protection plans, such as in the area of rural stewardship programs. Status of Source Protection Planning in TRCA Drinking water sources within TRCA include both Lake -based and groundwater -based supplies. The groundwater -based supplies represent the most vulnerable and locally controllable sources, for which the development of source protection plans might be considered a high priority from both a quality and quantity standpoint. Ongoing local efforts at improving water quality of area streams and preventing groundwater contamination will have a direct benefit on Take -based supplies, which are also influenced by activities in the upper Great Lakes basin. Within the TRCA jurisdiction, many of the source protection plan components listed above have been completed or begun by either the Regional Municipalities or TRCA. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, local commitment to the York/Peel /Durham Groundwater Management Program, and the MOE Groundwater Protection Funding Program have provided the additional impetus that has accelerated this work in the past year. 160 Within the Durham Region watersheds, all study components and a source protection plan (integrated with the watershed plan) are either complete or could be completed by early 2003 for the Duffins Creek Watershed, if adequate funding were secured. A source protection plan could be completed for the Carruthers Creek watershed by 2004. More gaps exist in the knowledge base for the Petticoat Creek watershed, therefore a plan for this watershed would not be available until 2006. For the Humber River, Etobicoke Creek and Rouge River Watersheds, most study components are either completed (e.g. Peel Region wellhead studies) or underway and set for completion by early 2003 (e.g. Peel Region's groundwater vulnerability mapping and point /non point contaminant source inventory, York Region's wellhead study, TRCA's water budgets and groundwater flow modeling, and the City of Toronto's surface water quality modeling). The biggest gaps in these watersheds include: updates of the water taking database (focus in 2002 is on the upper Humber, Rouge and Etobicoke watersheds will be the focus in 2003), point/non point contaminant source inventory in York Region, pollutant fate modeling, and the actual preparation of source protection plans that are integrated with the overall watershed plan. This work would normally take place over 2003 and 2004. There would be cost implications of accelerating this work Groundwater - related source protection studies are not a high priority in the Highland, Mimico, and Don Watersheds, as these watersheds are almost completely serviced by Lake Ontario based municipal supply. Adequate groundwater modeling information, surface water quality modelling, and water budget studies are well underway and will be completed by 2003. The City of Toronto already has a lakefront receiving water model set up and running. Integration with the other watershed plan components and with the nearshore lake environment, and preparation of source protection plans could be completed by 2005, if adequate funds were available. The preparation of a source protection plan for those watersheds that are predominantly served by Lake Ontario may require a slightly different approach than areas influenced almost completely by local sources. Although the local Toronto Region watersheds affect the nearshore Lake Ontario environment, contaminant sources also arise from upstream in the Great Lakes basin and from "imported" sources, such as atmospheric deposition and the discharge of ballast water from ships. TRCA's participation in the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, the International Joint Commission's Water Quality Board, and other advocacy initiatives will continue to be important means to promote action in jurisdictions outside of the geographic mandate of the TRCA. TRCA will seek clarification from the province on the requirements for source protection plans associated with surface water supplies. In summary, most of the initial list of components of source protection plans is completed or will be completed by mid 2003 by either the Regional Municipalities or TRCA. The biggest effort will involve drawing these studies together, integrating them with findings of the broader watershed management plan, and coordinating the preparation of the source protection plans. This additional work would normally extend until at least 2005 to complete all TRCA watersheds 161 FINANCIAL DETAILS Many of the component studies, such as water budgets and groundwater flow models, and a schedule for the completion of overall watershed management plans had been identified in TRCA's five year business plan and capital budgets as of last year In order to implement the Walkerton Report's call for the preparation of watershed -based source protection plans, additional studies that would be required would include update of water taking databases, land use mapping updates, pollutant fate modeling, the preparation of source protection plans in conjunction with overall watershed management plans, and appropriate consultation The estimated cost of completing these additional projects over a five year period is in the order of $2 million to $2.5 million for all watersheds TRCA staff will meet with Regional staff to coordinate the development of workplans for the completion of source protection plans, and will proceed to include in the Authority's budget additional requests as necessary to fulfill the Walkerton Inquiry's recommendations for the completion of source protection plans within four years. TRCA staff will also pursue provincial funding sources to contribute to budgetary needs Additional funding requirements to support enhancements of TRCA's education and stewardship programs, that could also support implementation of the Walkerton Part 2 Report have not been estimated at this time. Further discussions are required with appropriate TRCA, municipal, and provincial staff The costs of implementing source protection plans have not been addressed in this report. This exercise is felt to be premature until further direction from the Province becomes evident and agency roles are clarified Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Date: July 03, 2002 RES. #D64/02 - REGION OF PEEL, CALEDON EAST WELLFIELD TRCA Participation in Region of Peel's Monitoring Program for Caledon East Wellfield Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Anthony Ketchum THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to provide assistance to the Region Of Peel in the implementation of its Caledon East Wellfield Monitoring Program. CARRIED 162 BACKGROUND The Region of Peel has requested a renewal to it's Permit to Take Water from the Ministry of the Environment and Energy related to the Caledon East Wellfield and to investigate an expansion of the wellfield in order to meet the demands for potable supply to the area. The Region currently operates four existing wells within the community to supply its potable needs, however additional water supplies are being investigated to service both existing and future needs. The Region submitted its request to the Ministry in February of this year, and was granted a temporary permit The temporary permit was issued with a number of conditions, one being that a comprehensive monitoring program be developed and submitted to the Ministry for review and approval. The intent of the program was to ensure that a better understanding of the impacts of the wellfield on both ground water and the surface water systems, and to clearly define the zone of influence of the wellfield Staff from the Region approached the Authority to request assistance in developing the monitoring program needs and to assess what, if any existing data the Authority had available to assist them. In discussions with Regional staff, it was apparent that the Authority had a great deal of existing information, from GIS data to historical flow data that was available. In addition, we indicated that a number of ongoing Authority projects, such as components of our Regional Monitoring Program, Low Flow Mapping project, York Peel Durham Groundwater work and our stream gauging work through MNR would all support and supply information that the Region will need to fulfill its obligations to MOEE. To date, meetings have been held with staff from the Region and the Authority has provided some preliminary data, GIS mapping products and input to their proposed monitoring program. The program has now been submitted and approved by the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Region has been directed to begin the implementation and monitoring process. As the majority of works required from Authority staff fall within ongoing projects which have been funded either wholly or partially through the Regional budget allocation, only a very limited amount of staff time will be necessary to work with the Region and its Consultants to assist in the implementation of the Monitoring Program. Report prepared by: Don Haley, extension 5226 For Information contact: Don Haley, extension 5226 Date: June 25, 2002 RES. #D65/02 - ROTARY FRENCHMAN'S BAY WEST PARK - MASTER PLAN A Park Master Plan has been developed by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority in partnership with the City of Pickering, the Rotary club of Pickering, and the local residents for the Frenchman's Bay West property 163 Moved by: Seconded by Dave Ryan Joe Pantalone THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Master Plan for Rotary Park Frenchman's Bay West be approved; THAT staff be directed to seek and assemble financial partnerships for the implementation of the various park components; AND FURTHER THAT The City of Pickering Council be notified of the Authority Approval of the Park Plan. CARRIED BACKGROUND Frenchman's Bay is one of a series of large coastal wetlands along the north shore of Lake Ontario. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owns 60 hectares of this important habitat in various parcels that extend from Bayly Street south to the shores of Lake Ontario. Due to its size, the diversity of vegetation communities and a long list of significant features, the Frenchman's Bay has been designated as an Environmentally Significant Area by the TRAC This designation includes the includes the entire Frenchman's Bay West property The bulk of Frenchman's Bay West was purchased by the TRCA in the late 1960's and a number of additional properties have been acquired along various sections of the spit. In the early 1990's the TRCA, with assistance from the local community, developed a park plan for this area. Recent on -site improvements include additional parking, trails, and numerous wetland buffer plantings. The vision for this property is that the Frenchman's Bay West Wetland Complex represents a major ecological component of the Lake Ontario shoreline and Pickering waterfront We envision Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park as a special place of outstanding natural features in an urban setting, protected, managed and fostered by the local community and service groups as a flourishing ecosystem The objective of this park plan is to preserve, protect, and enhance the valuable ecosystem components of the site; develop park infrastructure that will maintain and improve the carrying capacity of the site by providing enhanced trails, formal parking and passive interpretive opportunities; and develop innovative resolution to community issues. This Plan was developed with extensive public consultation and included an initial meeting (November,2001) to discuss park uses and development, a community workshop (february, 2002) to solicit community input into park features and a Open House ( April 2002) to confirm the goals, objectives and feature as of the park. Major Park Plan Components The Rotary Park Frenchman's Bay West Plan focuses on the following major components. 164 Wetland Restoration /Creation To improve the inland wetland function and preserve the habitat function of the Coastal wetland. Establish adequate buffers around the existing wetlands, create wetland pockets within the park for habitat and improve onsite drainage. Forest Improvements Enhance the quality of forested areas through a variety of management techniques. Typically the existing forest cover is moderate age early successional forest that has a variety of invasive species. Like the original plan our efforts will include: additional planting (trees & shrubs); removal of non - native invasive species; under planting of climax species (like pine, beech and oak), buffer and perimeter planting Meadow Enhancements Coastal meadows are important for a wide variety of wildlife including nesting and migratory birds, butterflies, and numerous mammals The plan includes management techniques like perimeter planting and planting of native wildflowers and grasses to improve ecosystem function and habitat quality of these areas Western Spit of Frenchman's Bay Limit vehicle access to the spit and provide a vehicle terminus that facilitates small boat launching, windsurfing access and a traffic turnaround. Provide a combination of trail types, including boardwalk, restored beach dunes, facilitated beach access, and regenerate the north shoreline. Trail Improvement/Alignments Provide a hierarchy of trail types and experiences including The waterfront trail (3m paved path), Major Park Trail (2.4m natural surface), Minor Trail (1.2m natural surface), boardwalk, and nature /beach trails Interpretive Kiosk Develop a small scale washroom, information kiosk, and park shelter that facilitates passive educational and interpretive opportunities through informational displays. Parking Consolidate parking and provide additional lay by spaces (50 to 75 cars) along main access road. Remove vehicle parking on the spit and provide a vehicle turnaround at the beginning of Beachfront Promenade . DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE In 2001, the TRAC and the City of Pickering entered into a management agreement for this parcel of property As required under the point management agreement this park plan has been developed for approval by the Authority and the City of Pickering Council. With appropriate approvals in place the partners have agreed to actively seek funding and additional support for this project Work this fall will continue to focus on tree planting and habitat improvement 165 FINANCIAL DETAILS Preliminary financial details, costing, and park phasing have been determined and is estimated at 3 2 million dollars This cursory estimate is based on retail costs and private contracting and does not take into account substantial saving realized through a cooperative implementation arrangement between the City the Authority. Based on a review of the costing and phasing staff believe that this project could be delivered under 2 million dollars Efforts will be directed at finalizing the cost estimate, securing project partners, and soliciting support from other agencies and service groups Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 Date: July 02, 2002 RES. #D66 /0Z - THIESS SERVICES INTERNATIONAL RIVERPRIZE Brisbane, Australia. TRCA's nomination for the Thiess Services International Riverprize, Brisbane, Australia Moved by: Seconded by: Dave Ryan Joe Pantalone THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be authorized to attend the Fifth International River Management Symposium between September 3 -6, 2002. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Thiess Services International Riverprize is presented each year as part of the week -long Riversymposium in Brisbane, Australia. The prize is valued at $100,000 (Australian currency) and is open to organizations or individuals who demonstrate outstanding achievement in river management. The primary judging criteria is the ability of the organization to demonstrate achievement with respect to • organizational capacity and partnerships or alliances that enable the on- the - ground outcomes to be achieved; • watershed sustainability with actions and outcomes inclusive of ecological, social and economic indicators; • innovations in watershed management; and • public accountability and reporting of achievements. 166 TRCA's 2001 submission on Community -Based Watershed Management was selected as one of the four finalists for the award. This year, the Fifth International River Management Symposium will be held between September 3 -6, 2002. The grand prize winner will be notified in early August Once again, the TRCA's watershed nomination document has been selected as one of the five finalists The other finalists include. Kissimmee River in USA; Fu -Nan River in China; Mekong River in Cambodia and the Danube River in Europe. Authority representatives are encouraged to be present to accept the award and to make a presentation regarding the submission. We have also been asked to contribute display material regarding the Humber nomination for viewing at the Queensland Museum. FINANCIAL DETAILS The per person cost for airfare, one week of accommodation and meals is approximately $3,000 which is available in the Watershed Management Division budget. Report prepared by: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: July 3, 2002 RES. #D67/02 - FLOODPLAIN MAPPING UPDATE FOR THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED Approval of the updated Rouge River Watershed hydrology, hydraulics and 1.2,000 scale digital floodplain mapping. Moved by: Seconded by: Dave Ryan Joe Pantalone THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the updated hydrologic and hydraulic information and 1:2,000 scale digital floodplain mapping be used In managing the regulatory floodplain within the Rouge River Watershed. THAT the standardized channel and floodplain roughness coefficients (Attachment 1) be adopted for use in all future hydraulic floodplain mapping updates within TRCA watersheds. CARRIED BACKGROUND One of the main objectives identified within the TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program ( VSCMP) is 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 In keeping with the intent of the VSCMP, and in order to continue to provide accurate information, the Watershed Management Division has completed the digital conversion of TRCA's analogue 1:2,000 scale floodplain mapping, update of the watershed hydrology and hydraulic models and plotting of the updated regulatory floodline for the Rouge River Watershed. 167 Base Mapping Key tasks involved in completing the mapping component included the following Existing 1:2,000 scale analogue TRCA floodplain map sheets for the Rouge River Watershed were screened to confirm changes to topographic and /or planimetric information Approximately seventy -five (75) sheets with no significant changes were scanned and vectorized by QSP Geographics Inc. in order to create digital mapping Five (5) new digital map sheets were prepared by J D Barnes in cooperation with the Town of Markham to reflect changes that have occurred within the main branch of the Rouge through the municipality. Additional digital design drawing information was also obtained for valley and stream reaches where base information has undergone recent modifications (eg., channel realignment, etc.). Resulting mapping information completed through the above noted tasks was then reviewed by TRCA staff and integrated into consolidated 1.2,000 scale digital base mapping for the purposes of plotting updated regulatory floodlines and managing future updates to base mapping and floodplain information Hydrologic Update The engineering consulting firm Marshall Macklin Monaghan Ltd. was retained by TRCA in order to update the Rouge River Watershed hydrology. Key changes and/ or revisions to the previous watershed hydrology included the following: • The original QHROUGE model, prepared in the 1980's, was converted to the newer Windows -based VisuaIOTTHYMO model which will enable more efficient data management and improved integration of hydrologic information Original model calibration was validated in the new VisuaIOTTHYMO model using updated climate and flow information from the May 12th - 13th, 2000 storm event collected throughout the watershed. The watershed design storm distribution was revised to reflect the Atmospheric Environment Service's (AES) 12 hour duration storm in order to provide consistency between TRCA watersheds and given that it is most representative for use over the entire watershed Existing, future committed and ultimate land use condition scenarios were prepared in order to assess peak flows throughout the watershed and confirm quantity control requirements currently used for stormwater management Existing condition information was confirmed using 1999 digital orthophotography and available development information. Future committed development was based on both Regional and Municipal Official Plans. An ultimate development scenario was also tested assuming completed development beyond future committed conditions (i e , average of 50 % impervious) to assess potential impacts to flood flows within the watershed 168 Updated return period (i.e., 2 -year to 100- year) and Regional Storm peak flows were calculated based upon the above -noted information and summarized for each land use condition at various points within the Rouge River Watershed. Peak flow information was then used as input to the Rouge River Watershed hydraulic update. Hydraulic Update The engineering consulting firm Clarifica Inc. was retained by TRCA in order to update the Rouge River Watershed hydraulic modelling. Key changes and/ or revisions to the previous watershed hydraulics included the following: The original HEC -2 model prepared for the Rouge River Watershed was converted to HEC -Ras, an updated Windows -based software program that enables more efficient data management and improved integration of hydraulic information. Hydraulic structure information was collected and additional field surveys were carried out by TRCA staff in order to confirm both existing and new bridge and culvert crossing data for input to the hydraulic model. In order to provide consistency with TRCA Natural Heritage Strategies and proposed regeneration initiatives throughout the watersheds, a higher roughness coefficient value has been assumed for non -urban uses that are not presently maintained (eg., idle field, etc.) to account for both planned and natural regeneration within floodplain areas. A table of standardized channel and floodplain roughness coefficients (Manning's "n ") has been developed for input to the updated Rouge River HEC -Ras model and will be required for all future hydraulic analyses and floodplain mapping updates completed within all TRCA watersheds (Refer to Attachment 1). Peak flow information obtained from the updated Rouge River Hydrology was used as input to the HEC -Ras model Regulatory flood levels obtained from the updated Rouge River HEC -Ras model were then used as input to preparation of updated 1:2,000 scale digital floodplain mapping. Updated Digital Floodplain Mapping Regulatory flood levels, obtained from the Rouge River hydraulic update were used to delineate updated floodlines on TRCA's 1:2,000 scale digital mapping for regulatory purposes. Updated regulatory floodplain information will also serve as input to the Generic Regulation Work Plan currently being completed by TRCA FINANCIAL DETAILS Not applicable Report prepared by: Glenn MacMillan, Extension 5212 For Information contact: Glenn Farmer, Extension 5351 Date: July 02, 2002 Attachments: 1 169 Attachment 1 Land Use Description and Conditions fin„ Value 1 Channel Component Watercourse/ Channel low flow channel (natural condition) extends typically from bank to bank 0 035 Floodplain Component Urban Uses (Impervious) Road crossings, existing parking lots or any large impervious surfaces etc typically located within valley and stream corridors Does not include structures or buildings (to be modelled using available ineffective flow area 2 options) 0.025 Urban Uses (Pervious) Existing uses including municipal parks, playing 0.050 fields, golf courses etc. typically located within valley and stream corridors Regular maintenance of area is rquired Natural Areas Pasture, meadow, agricultural, riparian vegetation, brush and forest located within urban and /or rural land use setting typically located within valley and stream corridors Not subject to regular maintenance 0.080 Assumes regeneration of open space type uses including pasture, meadow and agricultural uses within floodplain areas (Consistent with TRCA's VSCMP and Natural Heritage Strategies) Flood Control Works 2 Channel and /or Floodplain Flood control channels and associated works designed specifically for flood flow conveyance (eg , trapezoidal lined and un -lined channels etc.) "n" value based on original design or maximum allowable value determined through a sensitivity analysis Regular maintenance of area is required Variable Notes: 1 Manning's "n" values represents average values based on literature data assuming flooding conditions. 2 Refer to HEC -2 and /or HEC -Ras User's Manual for further detail. 170 j3ES. #D68/02 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meetings #4/02 and #5/02. The minutes of meetings #4/02 and #5/02, held on April 18, 2002 and May 16, 2002, respectively, of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Dave Ryan Joe Pantalone THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council of meetings #4/02 and #5/02, as appended, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report "Forty Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed. For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: July 03, 2002 NEW BUSINESS RES. #D69/02 - STATE OF THE CITY REPORT Moved by: Seconded by: Anthony Ketchum Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to compile an inventory of all organizations and municipalities in the GTA that prepare state of the environment reports or report cards on how governments, business or Industries are doing with respect to the environment; AND FURTHER THAT staff report on the potential of joining with these organizations in the development of one regional environmental state of the environment report. CARRIED 171 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10 55 a m , on July 12, 2002. Irene Jones Chair /ks 172 J. Craig Mather Secretary- Treasurer «THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/02 September 13, 2002 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #5102, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, September 13, 2002. The Chair Irene Jones, called the meeting to order at 10:09 a.m. PRESENT IIa Bossons Member Irene Jones Chair Jim McMaster Member Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority Dave Ryan Member Frank Scarpitti Member Ian Sinclair Member REGRETS Loma Bissell Vice Chair Cliff Gyles Member Anthony Ketchum Member Pam McConnell Member Joe Pantalone Member Tanny Wells Member RES. #D70/02, - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Jim McMaster Dave Ryan THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/02, held on July 12, 2002, be approved. PRESENTATIONS (a) CARRIED A presentation by Bob Murray, President of the Ajax Rod and Gun Club on item 7.1 - Paulynn Park Bank Stabilization Project. 173 RES. #D71 /ee - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Jim McMaster Dick O'Brien 1 THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D72 /02 - PAULYNN PARK BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT Completion of project in Paulynn Park Moved by: Seconded by: Jim McMaster Dick O'Brien CARRIED THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the implementation of the bank stabilization project be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT the Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario, Lafarge Inc., the Ajax Rod and Gun Club, the Pickering Rod and Gun Club, Metro East Anglers, Unilever, Lynn Hodgson, Ron Holloway, and the Duffins Creek Task Force Members, be sent letters of appreciation. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Meeting #4 of the Watershed Management Advisory Board, an initial report on the events at Paulynn Park on the weekend of July 12 -13 was received. This is a follow up to that report summarizing the success of the weekend. On the afternoon of July 12, the Duffins and Carruthers Creeks State of the Watershed reports were released. Presentations were made by representatives from the TRCA, municipalities and members of the Task Forces. In the evening Lynn Hodgson, whose parents owned the property before it was purchased by the Authority, gave a very informative presentation on the history of the property. This was followed by an excellent presentation on trout stream management in the United Kingdom by Ron Holloway. More than 60 people attended the evening presentations. The stream rehabilitation project began on Saturday moming. Volunteers from the Ajax Rod and Gun Club, the Pickering Rod and Gun Club, Metro East Anglers, Unilever, Duffins Task Force and members of the public all helped out to ensure the speedy completion of the project. Of note is the help from Ron Holloway and Doug Dodge. They provided technical advice on the design of the project and were also on -site during implementation to provide supervision, direction and physical labour. Staff from the Town of Ajax were also integral in ensuring the project was completed. They were very enthusiastic and provided heavy equipment and material for the work. Thanks must also go out to the Aggregrate Producers of Ontario and Lafarge Inc. who supplied rocks for the project. 174 This project will be beneficial to the fish in the watercourse by providing shade, instream habitat, and a food source from the insects living and feeding on the vegetation. The site itself is expected to be a demonstration for others interested in revegetating stream banks and improving habitat for fish and other aquatic inhabitants. FUTURE WORK TO BE DONE Additional streambank planting and stabilization in this same location are anticipated next year. Signage will be developed and installed to identify the benefits of this type of project. Report prepared by: Jon Clayton, extension 5353 For Information contact: Jon Clayton, extension 5353 Date: September 03, 2002 RES. #D73/02-- BONAR WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT Endorsement of restoration project Moved by: Seconded by: Dave Ryan Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Bonar Wetland Restoration project workplan be endorsed; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to seek partnerships with the City of Toronto, local residents and Interested groups for the environmental assessment of the site, demolition of the treatment plant, creation of design options, and final development and restoration of the site. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA staff recently submitted a proposal to the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation for partial funding of the restoration of the Bonar wetland project that included a preliminary cost estimate and workplan timeline. The project proposes to re- create the historic Mimico Creek wetland, meadow and associated forest buffer and to improve Bonar Creek itself through natural channel design techniques and a stormwater facility, on a portion of public land owned by the City of Toronto. The project also proposes to provide recreational connections to the site from both the waterfront and to the watershed via an extension of the waterfront trail in Humber Bay Park northward to Bloor Street and beyond. 175 Location and Historical Context The Bonar Wetland project site is located on the west side of Mimico Creek in the flood plain. The site is east of Legion Road, north of Lake Shore Boulevard West and south of the CNR tracks. Historically, the site was the wetland marsh that formed the mouth of Mimico Creek. Beginning in the early part of the 20th century, Lake Shore Boulevard was constructed, the wetland was filled, and the now - decommissioned Etobicoke Sewage Treatment Plant was built. The mouth of the creek is now located south of Lake Shore Boulevard in Humber Bay Park, built by TRCA in the 1970s. Project Design Summary Bonar Wetland will be approximately 1.78 hectares in size, (with a total park area of almost 5 hectares) providing an excellent opportunity to re- create critical wetland habitat within the Mimico Creek watershed, which currently has 0% wetland coverage. The wetland will include a stormwater catchment area, sediment forebay, cattail thickets, hemi- marsh, lowland and upland riparian zones. The wetland design will promote the growth of submergent aquatic plants to improve the settling capability and nutrient removal within the wetland. Substrate flow will cool the water, facilitate nutrient removal and force storm flows through the cattails which provides a further degree of mechanical filtering. The wetland outfall will consist of a seasonal pike spawning area. Native aquatic and terrestrial vegetation will be used throughout the project, and large stones and rocks will provide loafing and basking areas for reptiles and other wildlife. The fill that is currently restricting the movement of Bonar Creek will be removed, and Bonar Creek will be repositioned using natural channel design techniques to create a natural meander pattern and healthy aquatic habitat. A stormwater management facility is also proposed, and it is anticipated that this design will support the recommendations of the City's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, once complete later this year. Adjacent to the wetland and naturalized Bonar Creek will be meadow and forest edge habitats, as well as improved riparian habitats. Through these areas there will be pedestrian and cycle trails, interpretive signage, heritage artifacts representative of the site, and rest spots. 176 The trail connection to the south will include a link through property owned by TRCA adjacent to Mimico Creek to Humber Bay Park. Pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Lake Shore Boulevard at the existing lights, or potentially a new crosswalk, will be available. Construction of the trail will also involve enhancements to the 'riparian zone. The trail connection to the north will include a Zink either under the CNR tracks via the proposed extension of Legion Road, or under the CNR bridge that traverses Mimico Creek. Connections through the hydro corridor on the east side of Mimico Creek, north of the tracks, are incorporated in the Mimico Estates project that the TRCA is leading, and to which the City is a partner. These trail connections are part of the City of Toronto's Trail MaSter Plan for Mimico Creek. Project Objectives The project is supported by Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks(2002); Remedial Action Plan goals in Clean Water Clear Choices, a report for the Toronto Area Remedial Action Plan that supports the Canada - Ontario Agreement respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (1994); the City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow Master Plan (draft 2002); and Trail Master Plan for Mimico Creek (draft 2001). The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force identified the area as Bonar Creek Community Action Site and produced a Master Plan design in 2000. The Bonar Wetland Project is identified as a priority in Our Toronto Waterfront, Gateway to the New Canada, March, 2000. Short -Term Site Plan Initiatives On site, the TRCA has conducted water quality, sediment quality, bio-monitoring (clams), and temperature recordings as well as Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments. The Phase II site assessment concluded that the Sewage Treatment Plant, industrial uses, and deposition of fill on the site have had a potentially adverse impact upon soil conditions. The results of the site investigations for the portion of City property outside the treatment plant boundary indicate that approximately 55,000 cubic metres of fill have been placed on this site, and most of the material exceeds the Ministry of Environment Table B criteria (primarily for heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons). Additional contaminated fill is anticipated within the treatment plant boundary, but these soil tests have not been undertaken to date. The two options for remediating the site are covering the impacted fill with clean material or excavation and off -site disposal of impacted material. Excavation is preferred at this time. Further site investigations will be required to delineate the extent of the impacted fill and to determine the exact quantity of fill to be removed. 177 PHASE /YEAR DETAILS PROPOSED BUDGET Phase 1: Demolition of Treatment Plant Soil Remediation Transfer of ownership from City Works to City Parks 2002 -2003 - excavation and disposal of fill - demolition of treatment plant - soil remediation - monitoring - site grading $5 million Phase 2: Wetland, Boner Creek and Meadow Construction 2003 -2005 - final site design - construction, final grading and contouring - placement of materials - planting $250,000 Phase 3: Stormwater Pond Construction 2003 -2005 - Class'EA for stormwater facility - final site design - wetland & stormwater facility - construction, re- grading, contouring - placement of materials - planting $500,000 Phase 4: On-sfte trail construction Heritage components Interpretive signage 2003 -2004 - construct trails and soft park components - install heritage components - install Interpretive signs $50,000 Phase 5: Off -site trail connections to waterfront 2004 - trail connection to waterfront either along Mimioo Creek or a crosswalk at Legion Road and Lakeshore Blvd. $100,000 Phase 6: Off -site trail connections north 2005 -2006 trail connections northward: - tunnel through CN embankment - trail extension through Legion Rd. extension $1 million TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 2002 -2008 $8.9 million Funding Partners (unconfirmed): City of Toronto Environment Canada Great Lakes Sustainability Fund Local developers TD Friends of the Environment Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto Local community fund- raising Ministry Natural Resources Community Fisheries Improvement Program Evergreen Foundation Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Report prepared by: Paul Wilims, extension 5316 For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5263 Date: August 23, 2002 178 RES. #D74f02 - MONITORING OF AESTHETIC CONDITIONS IN WATERCOURSES IN THE TORONTO REGION Results of 2001 Stream Aesthetics Pilot Survey and administration of 2002 Survey. Moved by: Seconded by: Dave Ryan Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to administer a second annual visual aesthetics survey throughout the TRCA jurisdiction; AND FURTHER THAT the Watershed Councils be asked to assist in promoting community participation in the survey. CARRIED BACKGROUND Aesthetics conditions in Toronto Region streams and waterfront are one of the impaired beneficial uses, which contribute to the region's designation as an Area of Concern. To fulfill Remedial Action Plan (RAP) reporting requirements, the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program included 'aesthetics' as an indicator and recommended an associated monitoring approach involving an annual community based survey. The first pilot survey of aesthetic, conditions for Toronto region watercourses and the waterfront was conducted during the month of October 2001. The watershed councils and community volunteers led the assessment, with technical support from TRCA staff. The exercise attracted media attention, with features in both print media and cable television. Based on a method developed for the Rouge River AOC in Michigan and input from the watershed councils, the survey evaluated aesthetic conditions using four indicators: water colour, water clarity, water odour and the presence of visible debris and litter. Each of the indicators was scored separately (out of 10) and the average of the four indicator scores provided the overall site score. Among the 94 sites surveyed in 2001, 57 were ranked as good (score between 7.5 and 10), 26 were ranked as fair (score between 5 and 7.4) and 11 were considered to be poor (score of less than 5). Average watershed scores were highest in Duffins Creek (8.5), followed by Highland Creek (7.9), Humber River (7.4), and finally the Etobicoke Creek and Rouge River watersheds (6.1). However, the sample size in some watersheds was very small ( <10), and there were no surveys returned for Carruthers and Petticoat Creek watersheds, or for the Waterfront. Modifications to the survey form and expansion of the geographical scope of monitoring activities were recommended for future visual aesthetics monitoring in the Toronto Region. The final report from the 2001 survey will be available on the TRCA website. Improvements have been made to the survey form and plans are in place to administer a second annual survey in October 2002. TRCA's watershed councils will again be asked to assist in promoting and participating in the survey. 179 RATIONALE • Continued monitoring of aesthetics will help to better characterize areas previously not monitored and improve confidence in earlier results. • Aesthetics monitoring data will be used in future watershed report cards, assist with evaluating the status of beneficial use impairments of the Toronto and Region RAP, and provide direction for future /clean -up activities. • Community participation in monitoring is expected to help foster community stewardship. • Aesthetics monitoring helps to fulfill objectives of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program. FINANCIAL DETAILS Staff resources for the aesthetics program data analysis are supported by funding available in account #124 -15. Report prepared by: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337 For Information contact: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337 Date: August 28, 2002 RES. #D75/02 - DON MILLS BARRIER MITIGATION ON THE EAST DON RIVER AT DON MILLS ROAD Mitigation of the existing dam. Moved by: Seconded by: Dave Ryan Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff proceed with the mitigation of the existing dam located northwest of York Mills Rd /Don Mills Rd, on the East Don River. CARRIED BACKGROUND The DRAFT Don River Fisheries Management Plan recommends the removal or mitigation of instream barriers throughout the watershed to allow fish passage. The aim of this particular project is to improve passage for migratory species and to reestablish passage for resident fish species. Other than the two remaining barriers located on the Donalda Golfcoure property, all remaining barriers downstream have been mitigated to allow for migratory salmonid passage. Discussions with members of the Don Council have taken place, with a site visit occurring in Fall 2001 to evaluate mitigation options for the barrier located northwest of York Mills Rd /Don Mills Rd, City of Toronto. Removal of the dam is not an option because it is acting as an energy dissipator. Mitigation of the structure through the construction of a rocky ramp was therefore considered the preferred option. An additional meeting with the Don Council - Projects and Stewardship Team will be held in late September 2002 to discuss implementation plans for this barrier. 180 RATIONALE One of the recommendations of the DRAFT Don Fisheries Management Plan is to establish a self sustaining run of rainbow trout in the Don River. This objective has been impeded by the presence of instream barriers. Furthermore, resident fish communities have been fragmented over time by the presence of instream barriers. This leads to a segregation and reduced health of fish communities within the watershed, as well as an inability to recolonize areas where fish have disappeared. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE finalize approvals from DFO (permit not required from MNR) implement design in the Fall of 2002 FINANCIAL DETAILS Implementation of this work is anticipated to be $ 90, 000. The current budget is as follows: FUNDING AGENCY BUDGET 2002 C' of Toronto RAP 90,000 sea Resource Great Lakes Sustainability Fund 30,000 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 9,000 TOTAL 129,000 Report prepared by: Kate Hayes, extension 5350 For Information contact: Kate Hayes, extension 5350 Date: August 23, 2002 RES. #D76/02 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT - US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS "DRAFT RECONNAISSANCE REPORT: GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION SYSTEM REVIEW" The US Army Corps of Engineers has released a draft "Reconnaissance Report: Great Lakes Navigation System Review which will explore the possibility of major modifications to the St. Lawrence Seaway infrastructure to support the passage of Panamax size shipping . Moved by: Seconded by: IIa Bossons Ian Sinclair THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Honourable BIII Graham Minister of Foreign Affairs be advised that the Toronto Region Conservation Authority does not support the direction of a study to determine the feasibility and costs associated with major deepening, and modifications to the width and length of locks and channels within the Great Lakes ports to accommodate Panamax sized ships; 181 THAT our perspective Is based on the potential environmental effects of these modifications and our desire to see future commercial shipping that functions in a sustainable fashion within the Great Lakes ecosystem; AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario be advised of the TRCA' s position. AMENDMENT RES. #D77/02 Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Scarpitti Ila Bossons THAT the last paragraph of the main motion be amended to read: AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario, Toronto MP's, the Minister of Natural Resources, and GM /CAO's and Chair's of Conservation Authorities who's jurisdiction abuts the St. Lawrence, be advised of the TRCA's position. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND Panamax vessels are defined as the largest ships that can pass through the Panama Canal, and are commonly used for bulk and container shipments across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. These ships typically carry a range of 55,000 to 65,000 dwt. Smaller ocean going vessels are commonly known as "Handysize" and are used in shallow waters and in other lower- volume trade routes around the world. Handysize vessels range between 20,000 to 40,000 dwt. Within the Great Lakes, lake (lakers) and ocean going freight vessels, fall into the Handysize vessel category and convey interregional bulk goods, container stock or specialty loads from harbours throughout the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway to ports around the world. These vessels are limited to about 25,000 to 29,000 tonnes of cargo due to the configuration of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The bulk of the Great Lake lakers are a captive fleet, that rely almost completely on grain as a main haul and iron ore as a backhaul. The US Army Corps of Engineers have released a initial report that sets the stage for a comprehensive feasibility study on the modification required to the St. Lawrence Seaway system and the benefits associated with allowing Panamax sized shipping into the Great Lakes. The premise for this study is the fact that only 10% of the worldwide fleet of ships can gain access to the Great Lakes and increased shipping capacity ( bigger ships or more ships) could significantly improve the economic vitality of Great Lakes cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Toronto. This study is estimated to cost 20 million dollars with 10 million being requested from the Canadian Government . The feasibility study will look at five options: 182 • Option 1 includes replacing the Lake Erie -Lake Ontario Welland Canal and St. Lawrence Seaway locks at current dimensions and allowing movement of larger commercial lake vessels above the Welland Canal by deepening connecting channels and ports to 10 m depth; • Option 2 would perform the same modifications as Option 1 plus constructing deeper (12 m) channels and wider locks in the Welland Canal, which would allow larger commercial lake vessels to penetrate into Lake Ontario; • Option 3 builds on Option 2 and also replaces portions of the St. Lawrence Seaway with deeper channels (13 m) and wider locks. The Detroit River would be dredged up to 13 m as well, allowing for larger foreign vessels to enter the lakes . • Option 4 builds on Option 3 and also proposes extensive dredging and dramatic deepening of the entire St. Clair/ Detroit River system (the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River, which connect Lake Erie to Lake Huron). This option would allow larger foreign vessels access to Lakes Huron and Michigan. Under this option the Corps would construct "compensating works" to prevent deeper channels from causing increased water outflow. • Option 5 builds upon Option 4 and deepens channels in the St. Marys River and modifies the depth of the Sault Ste. Marie locks. This option would grant larger foreign ships access to all of the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River system. All of theses modifications will have substantial ecological effects on the Great Lake systems . Principally, the major points of concern are cost/benefit associated with the modification; the extensive amount of dredging, impacts of Panamax ships within the systems, and the water level and flow implications of any major works. RATIONALE Staff are of the opinion that this initiative should not be supported because of the potential negative environmental effects the use of the Great Lakes by Panamax ships could bring. Outlined below are some of our principal concerns: COST BENEFIT Panamax shipping is ideally suited for deep water sea ports and is supported world wide by a series of harbours and shipping points that are at the hub of transportation and distribution networks. Container and bulk shipping requires specialized facilities and benefit from the cost savings associated with utilizing these major port facilities. Port are not equipped within the Great Lakes with the infrastructure needed to tend these large vessels in a cost effective way. Considering the additional traveling time required to navigate through the Great Lakes. The attraction of loading and off loading bulk and container goods at Thunder Bay Ontario, does not compare to the utility of using any number of deep water ports along the eastern seaboard. The true value of the Great Lakes system is the economic and sustainable use of inter regional shipping within the Great Lakes, not the global utilization of port within the Great Lakes. 183 DREDGING To change the operational depth, (currently at 8 m) of the harbours and interconnecting channels Great Lakes to 10 m or 13 m to accommodate Panamax vessels would generate millions of cubic metres of dredged spoils. Commonly harbours and channel have poor sediment quality and the ecological consequences of disturbing polluted sediments and finding proper confined disposal facilities for the sediments is prohibitive. IMPACTS OF PANAMAX SHIPS Panamax ships will increase dramatically the effects of shoreline erosion in connecting channels by increasing wake and surge waves on the shoreline. Larger ships have substantial propwash and the scouring and resuspension of bottom sediments is a concern. The introduction of additional non native invasive species (like the zebra mussel) is always a threat with increased international shipping. WATER LEVELS AND FLOWS The widening and deepening of the interconnecting channels within the Great Lakes will require additional control structures to manage both water levels and water flows. The long term effects of the existing managed water conditions are noted from within many areas of the Great Lakes. Wetland loss and shoreline erosion are two critical conditions that have resulted from regulated water conditions associated with the construction of the seaway in 1958. Further controls will have the potential to intensify these affects within the system. Based on the above noted concerns staff would recommend that a study be undertaken to determine the feasibility and costs associated with major deeping and modifications to the width and length of locks and channels within the Great Lakes ports to accommodate Panamax sized ships not be undertaken. Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 Date: September 4, 2002 RES. #D78/02 - TORONTO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 2000 -2004 Franklin Children's Garden - Phase I. To implement the earth workt, grading, installation of servicing required for the base preparation of the Franklin Children's Garden, Toronto Centre Island. Moved by: Seconded by: Dave Ryan Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the 2002 construction program for the Franklin Children's Garden, Toronto Centre Island under `The Toronto Waterfront Development Project 2000 - 2004". CARRIED 184 BACKGROUND The Franklin Gardens project is an initiative of the City of Toronto. TRCA is a partner and contractor for this project. During 2001 the TRCA completed the initial phase of the wetland component of the project. The wetland was constructed to attract and provide habitat to turtles on the island. The project will be completed this year and will include additional environmental enhancements. Schollen & Company was retained by the City of Toronto to provide the landscape design services for the Franklin Gardens project. DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE During 2002, construction of the Franklin Gardens project will consist of the following major items: • Earthworks and plantings - rough grading and preparation of land base for pathways and planting beds • Site Servicing - electrical and water servicing to the area for the wetland water level control system • Rock Work, - installation of shoreline habitat features and structures, terrace seating stone and swale lining • Site Drainage - installation of culvert pipes and perforated PVC subdrains Construction and supervision will be carried out by TRCA staff utilizing the annual heavy equipment supply contractor. The expected completion date of this entire project is December 2004. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total budget to complete the 2002 construction activities is $360,000. The City of Toronto's portion is $300,000 (subject to final approvals) and the TRCA's portion is $60,000. Funds have been budgeted under the "Toronto Waterfront Development Project 2000 -2004" in account number 213 -20. Report prepared by: Joe DeIle Fave, 416- 392 -9724 Date: August 30, 2002 RES. #D79/02 - ETOBICOKE-MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION Appointment of Members. The formal appointment of watershed residents, regional and local municipalities and community council representatives, public agency representatives, representatives from community groups, businesses and business organizations, academic institutions and the Authority's member to the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition 185 Moved by: Seconded by: Dave Ryan Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the appointments, as set out in the staff report, be approved, effective September, 2002 to June, 2005; AND FURTHER THAT the Etoblcoke- Mlmico Watersheds Coalition report to the Authority's Watershed Management Advisory Board, at least, on a seml- annual basis on projects and progress. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, dated May, 2002, were approved at Authority meeting #5/02 held on May 24, 2002. Letters were sent to watershed residents, regional and local municipalities and community council representatives, public agency representatives, representatives from community groups, businesses and business organizations, and academic institutions requesting that they appoint delegates to the Coalition. Advertisements for watershed resident positions were placed in local newspapers and on the Internet. Two public information sessions were held in strategic locations within the watershed. An overview of the Coalition was provided and questions from participants answered. New applicants were interviewed by a Selection Committee comprised of Irene Jones, Chair of the Watershed Management Advisory Board; Brian Denney, Director of Watershed Management and Beth Williston, Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Specialist. To date, the following individuals are recommended for appointment to the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition. Additional appointments will be brought to the attention of the Authority members once they are confirmed by their respective Councils, business associations, agencies and groups. TRCA Chair Dick O'Brien MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL MEMBER STAFF LIAISON Regional Municipality of Peel Lorna Bissell and Cliff Gyles A. Warren, A. Korniluk Town of Caledon tbd tbd City of Mississauga No appointment E. Furgiuele, M. Gusche City of Brampton Dick Metzak J. McMahon City of Toronto, Etobicoke Community Council tbd L Von Z.ittwitz, R. Averill, V. Miladinovic 186 Residents: NAME MUNICIPALITY WATERSHED Chris Barnett Toronto Mimico Creek Suzanne Barrett Toronto Mimico Creek Karen English Toronto Mimico Creek Janice Etter Toronto Mimico Creek Gerry Gorman Toronto Mimico Creek Marilyn Hagerman Toronto Mimico Creek Susan McClure Toronto Mimico Creek Doug McRonney Toronto Mimico Creek David Switzer Toronto Etobicoke Creek Stephen Cliffe Mississauga Etobicoke Creek Boris Swedak Mississauga _Etobicoke Creek Bette -Ann Goldstein Brampton Etobicoke Creek Chris McGlynn Brampton Etobicoke Creek Bob Noble Brampton Etobicoke Creek Sean Stuart Brampton Etobicoke Creek Community Groups: GROUP REP ALTERNATE Citizens COncerned about the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront tbd tbd Peel Federation of Agriculture Nick deBoer n/a Credit River Anglers Assoc. John Kendell n/a Toronto Field Naturalists Diana Karrandjas Robert Powell Brampton Environmental Community Advisory Panel Robert Jamieson EcoSource Mississauga Louise Allen Public Agencies: AGENCY REP _ALTERNATE Environment Canada tbd tbd Ministry of Natural Resources John Pisapio n/a Ministry of the Environment No appointment n/a 187 Businesses: NAME BUSINESS Chris Nelson Markland Wood Golf Club Randy McGill Greater Toronto Airports Authority Academic institutions: NAME(S) ACADEMIC INSTITUTION Steve Rutherford /Cleve Battick Lincoln Alexander Secondary School Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292 For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5263 Date: September 3, 2002 RES. #D80/02 - A MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHEDS - PROGRESS REPORT Progress report regarding the municipal council review and endorsement of the Management Strategy for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watersheds Moved by: Seconded by: Dave Ryan Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the progress report regarding the municipal council review and endorsement of the Management Strategy for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watersheds be received; THAT following presentations to municipal council, staff will report back to the Watershed ,Management Advisory Board on December 13, 2002; THAT following review at the December 13, 2002 Watershed Managment Advisory Board, staff prepare a final report to the Full Authority for their approval in January 2003 that summarizes the comments received during the municipal review and endorsement of the Management Strategy for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watersheds; THAT staff meet with the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Task Forces to receive input Into a Terms of Reference for an Implementation Committee; AND FURTHER THAT the members of the Duffins Creek Task Force and the Carruthers Creek Task Force be thanked for their time commitment and dedication over the past two years In producing this report. CARRIED 188 BACKGROUND On June 28, 2000, the first joint meeting of the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Task Forces was held at the City of Pickering in the Council Chambers. Over the past two years, the Task Force members divided themselves into working groups, held monthly meetings, attended workshops, hosted numerous public open houses and met with representatives from the golf course industry, Aggregate Producers of Ontario, Urban Development Institute and the agricultural community in the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds to receive input in developing a management strategy. At their final meeting on June 26, 2002 the Task Force members approved the Management Strategy for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds with the understanding that staff would continue to work with municipal planning staff over the summer to fine tune the wording of the management strategy and to assist municipal staff, where necessary, in preparing reports to their council. Municipal staff have been asked to provide their editorial comments to Toronto Region Conservation by September 15, 2002 in order to finalize the document prior to Council presentations. At this time, it is anticipated that the Management Strategy for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watersheds will be presented to Planning Committees where appropriate and then to municipal and regional councils on the following dates: Municipality Presentation to Council Township of Uxbridge November 18, 2002 Town of Markham November 12, 2002 City of Pickering November 18, 2002 Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville November 19, 2002 York Region November 21, 2002 Town of Ajax November 25, 2002 Durham Region December 4, 2002 Following the presentations to municipal council, staff will report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board on December 17, 2002 and the Full Authority on January 10, 2003 for their endorsement to proceed with implementation and the Terms of Reference for an Implementation Committee. Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5392 For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385 Date: August 21, 2002 189 RES. #D81 /02 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting 6/02. The minutes of meeting #6/02, held on June 20, 2002, of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Dave Ryan Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council of meeting #6/02, as appended, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report "Forty Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed. Report prepared by: Jennifer Bamford, extension 5305 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: September 04, 2002 RES. #D82 /02 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Minutes of Meeting #3/02, July 17, 2002. The minutes of Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #3/02, held on July 17, 2002, are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Dave Ryan Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #3/02, held on July 17, 2002, as appended, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December, 2000, and adopted by the Authority at meeting #11/00, held on January 5, 2001 by Resolution #A266/00, includes the following provision: 190 3.5 Reporting Relationship The Humber Watershed Alliance is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed Management Advisory Board. The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, at least on a semi - annual basis, on projects and progress. Report prepared by: Ua Lappano, extension 5292 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: September 04, 2002 RES. #D83/02 - DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED TASK FORCES Minutes of Meetings #3/02, #4/02, and #5/02. The minutes of Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces meetings #3/02, #4/02, and #5/02, held on March 27, 2002, May 29, 2002, and June 26, 2002, respectively, are provided for information Moved by: Seconded by: Dave Ryan Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces meetings #3/02, #4/02, and #5/02, as appended, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Section 4.5 Reporting Relationships "The Task Forces will communicate to the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. The Task Force Chairs will be required to coordinate communications to this Board with assistance of Authority staff." Report prepared by: Michelle Zynwala, extension 5330 For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385 Date: August 08, 2002 191 Res. #D84 /02 Moved by: Seconded by: Dick O'Brien Iia Bossons THAT staff report to the September 27th Authority Meeting with a recommendation on the Home Depot Site: Proposal for "temporary' housing, and it's affect on the proposed work on the Lower Don and the Waterfront Plan. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:48 a.m., on September 13, 2002. Irene Jones Chair /ks CARRIED J. Craig Mather Secretary- Treasurer 192 THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/02 December 13, 2002 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #6/02, was held In the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, December 13, 2002. The Chair Irene Jones, called the meeting to order at 9:37 a.m. PRESENT Lorna Bissell Vice Chair Ila Bossons Member Cliff Gyles Member Irene Jones Chair Anthony Ketchum Member Pam McConnell Member Jim McMaster Member Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority Dave Ryan Member Frank Scarpitti Member Ian Sinclair Member Tanny Wells Member REGRETS Joe Pantalone RES. #D85/02 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Cliff Gyles Anthony Ketchum Member THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/02, held on September 13, 2002, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Melanie Hare of Urban Strategies Inc., representing the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, in regards to item 7.2 - Our Waterfront: Gateway to a New Canada. 193 RES. #D86 /02 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Ila Bossons Seconded by: Tanny Wells THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received. CORRESPONDENCE (a) CARRIED An email dated December 10, 2002, from Madeleine McDowell, Chair, Humber Heritage Committee, in regards to item 7.7 - Harmonized City -Wide Ravine Bylaw. RES. #D87 /02 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Seconded by: Dave Ryan Anthony Ketchum THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received and referred to staff. CARRIED 194 CORRESPONDENCE (A) "Madeleine McDowell" <m.mcdowell @sympatico.ca> on 12/10/2002 12:53:56 AM Please respond to 'Madeleine McDowell" <m.mcdowell@sympatico.ca> To: Kathy Stranks /MTRCA©MTRCA cc: Subject: RAVINE BY LAW December 9th 2002 Re Agenda item #7.7 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD The Humber Heritage Committee has over the past several years expressed its concern over damage to ravine land by both private owners and by the City. We have also, in the Metro era, expressed concern about the loss of mixed forest due to split jurisdictions. At the time of the passage of the new Toronto Official Plan we indicated our strong support of the new Ravine By -law, in conjunction with the new O.P. It is our expectation that this By -law will protect and preserve the slope remnants which define our watersheds as an environmental feature and provide habitat and corridors for urban wildlife. We are pleased that they are not necessarily directly associated with surface water courses . We have, in the past been horrified by Works Department depredations. We are most pleased to see the Authority's involvement and have the highest expectations for future protection. We would like to see the designation of some of these features under the Ontario Heritage Act on historical grounds. Thank you for your kind attention. Yours sincerely, Madeleine McDowell Chair, Humber Heritage Committee 195 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D88/02 - CANADIAN - ONTARIO AGREEMENT RESPECTING THE GREAT LAKES BASIN ECOSYSTEM (COA) 2002 AND THE TORONTO AND REGION REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. The Governments of Canada and Ontario announced the signing of the 2002 COA. Subsequently the TRCA has signed the Memorandum of Understanding with Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Environment to coordinate the implementation of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to carry out the 2002/2003 activities as approved by the Federal and Provincial representatives; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to provide annual updates on RAP Implementation activities to the Authority. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Canadian - Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA) came into effect on March 22nd, 2002, with a five year commitment from both the Governments of Canada and Ontario. The vision of "healthy, prosperous and sustainable Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem for present and future generations' requires the cooperation of residents, aboriginal peoples, industries, businesses, NGOs and all levels of government in Canada and the eight bordering states, in order to be successful. The implementation of this agreement will contribute to meeting Canada's obligations under the Canada - United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The COA Agreement establishes four Annexes that address environmental issues or management functions which are priorities to the COA Parties and will benefit from co- operative and co-ordinated action. These Annexes are: • Areas of Concern; • Harmful Pollutants; • Lakewide Management; and • Monitoring and Information Management. Each of these Annexes: • Have 5 -year societal goals (reasonable and desirable); • Identify results the COA Parties will pursue to achieve the goals; • Are a clear articulation of commitments COA Parties will deliver to meet goals; and • Have a management structure with time frames, quantitative and measurable outcomes, along with the names of COA Parties responsible for the actions and monitoring. 196 Each Annex will establish a Management Subcommittee which will be governed by the COA Management Committee. These subcommittee's will be made up of a co -chair each from the Ontario and Canadian Governments and representation from agencies that are responsible for the delivery of commitments and achievements of the annexes goals. For COA to achieve its vision, it is necestary to restore environmental quality in eleven Canadian and five shared Canadian -US Areas of Concern. The "Areas of Concern" Annex applies directly to the Toronto Area which was designated as one of the original 44 Areas of Concern. A copy of the COA can be found electronically at: http: / /www.on.ec.gc.ca/coa. The signing of the COA agreement has enabled Environment Canada (EC), the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) and TRCA staff to finalize a five -year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the coordination of the Toronto and Region RAP. At Authority meeting #2/02 on April 12, 2002 staff advised members that the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, formerly one of the co-leads in the implementation of the Toronto and Region RAP, had reviewed its direction and determined a need to concentrate its work on the Waterfront Trail. With the Waterfront Regeneration Trust completing its involvement with the Toronto and Region RAP, Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment requested the TRCA assume the full role as lead implementor of the Toronto and Region RAP. At this meeting, the Authority approved Res. #D33 /02 as follows: THAT staff be directed to develop, in conjunction with Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, a multi year agreement for the implementation of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan with the TRCA; THAT senior staff be authorized to execute the agreement; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the agreement and the annual work plan when it is available. Initially an extension from April 1st to June 30th, 2002 was executed providing $100,000, enabling the TRCA to continue with RAP projects. During recent months the five year work plan that was previously drafted was reviewed and a "5 Year Strategy to Move Towards Restoring Beneficial Uses" document was created outlining the TRCA's responsibilities under the RAP MOU. An important feature of the 5 Year Strategy is support for the TRCA's "Living City". On the basis of the 5 Year Strategy, the TRCA recommended to Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment that additional funds were required for the delivery of the strategy. The previous funding commitment on an annual basis was $200,000 from the Federal Government and $50,000 from the Provincial Government. The MOU, reflecting the current 3 -party agreement, was signed on November 1, 2002. With its signing, the need for additional funding has been addressed; subject to funding being available on an annual basis from the Federal and Provincial Governments . 197 2002/2003 Approved Funding: Environment Canada: $200,000 Ministry of the Environment: $200,000 TOTAL for 2002/2003 = $400,000 In subsequent fiscal years until 2006/2007 the funding will be: Environment Canada: $250,000 Ministry of the Environment: $250,000 TOTAL for each fiscal year = $500,000 Projects proposed for funding under the 2002/2003 RAP MOU were submitted to EC and MOE. The following is a list of those projects that have been approved by both parties for 2002/2003. PROJECTS RECEIVING FUNDING CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER THE 2002/2003 RAP MOU • Greenroofs for Stormwater Management • Rural Stewardship Program • Rural Water Quality Management Program • Erosion and Sediment Control Project • Leithcroft Farm Pond 2 Retrofit • Technology Transfer Project Planning • Regeneration Projects • Fisheries Management Plans • Waterfront Restoration Strategy • Community Stewardship Program • Watershed on Wheels • Regional Watershed Monitoring Program • Regional Reference Site Project to Assess Impacts to Aquatic Habitats • Addressing the "Needs Further Assessment" Items (listed in "Clean Waters, Clear Choices - Recommendations for Action") • Watershed Strategy Implementation • Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy • Sustainable Communities Projects funded under the 2003/2004 budget and subsequent years are to be confirmed and reported to the Board on an annual basis. The "RAP Team ", which is comprised of EC, MOE and TRCA representatives will now embark on the creation of a "Public Engagement Strategy" as one of its next key activities. This strategy will be used to address communication related planning. 198 WORK TO BE DONE • 2003 -2004 work plans to be developed • Annual report to be prepared • Public Engagement Strategy to be developed Report prepared by: Lisa Turnbull, extension 5241 and Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: September 03, 2002 RES. #D89/02 - OUR WATERFRONT: GATEWAY TO A NEW CANADA The Development Plan and Business Strategy for the Revitalization of the Toronto Waterfront - Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation - October 17, 2002. To report on the Development Plan and Business Strategy for the Revitalization of the Toronto Waterfront released on October 17, 2002 by the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT it support In principle the Development Plan and Business Strategy for the revitalization of the Toronto waterfront prepared by the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation dated October 17, 2002; THAT the Authority support the TWRC's Inclusion of the $25 million for strategic waterfront projects outside of the Central Waterfront and the $5 million within the Year 1 (2003 -2004) activities and expenditures for strategic projects; THAT the Authority request the three levels of govemment confirm the Port Union (Scarborough) and Mimico (Etobicoke) projects are the key strategic projects outside the Central Waterfront; THAT the Authority staff be directed to work with the TWRC to develop a work plan and necessary contracts for the implementation of the Port Union project and completion of the Environmental Assessment and Implementation of the Mimico project; THAT the Authority requests the TWRC confirm Tommy Thompson Park as part of Lake Ontario Park and make provision within the financial plan for implementation of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan; THAT staff be directed to provide comments on the Development Plan and Business Strategy directly to the Corporation and the City of Toronto on any specific details, including the details of the proposed development limit adjacent to the entrance to Tommy Thompson Park In an effort to secure the greenspace limit along the south side of the existing alignment of Unwin Avenue; 199 AND FURTHER THAT the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario and Government of Canada be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority meeting #11/00 held on January 5, 2001, Resolution #A268/00 was approved: 'THAT the status report on the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force and the City of Toronto report - "Our Toronto Waterfront: Building Momentum" be received; THAT Authority staff work with the City of Toronto on the key waterfront /watershed initiatives outlined in the City of Toronto report - "Our Toronto Waterfront: Building Momentum" including but not limited to: 1. the Central Waterfront Official Plan and Rezoning By -law; 2. the further detailed studies on the parks and open space; 3. re- location of the mouth of the Don River; 4. resolution of the flood risk issue for the West Don Lands and Port Lands; 5. water quality; and, 6. the preparation of the detailed "Master Plan" as the implementing framework for the new waterfront goveming body; THAT the Authority reiterate the position of the vital connection between the quality of the waterfront and the health of the adjacent watersheds and the urgent need to accelerate watershed restoration efforts concurrent with waterfront specific initiatives; THAT the Authority indicate its willingness to continue as the implementation agent for the eastem and westem waterfronts including Tommy Thompson Park; THAT the Authority indicate the importance of proceeding concurrently with the watershed regeneration initiatives in partnership with the City to ensure a healthy waterfront; THAT the Authority support the westem and eastem waterfront initiatives proceeding in their own timeframes along with a commitment of funding from the overall waterfront goveming body in the same timeframes; THAT the Authority endorse the principles set out in the Building Momentum report including the additional principles added by Council for the proposed waterfront goveming body; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto, the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, the Rouge Park Alliance, the Humber Watershed Alliance, and the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watershed Task Force be so advised." Authority staff have had the opportunity to work with the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation on an Open Space Framework Subgroup, the negotiations with the Lower Don Naturalization and Flood Protection Environmental Assessment agreement and the public consultation component of the Development Plan and Business Strategy as participants, staff resources and resource panel members. The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation is the creation of the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario, and the City of Toronto. As stated on page 7 of Our Waterfront: 200 Gateway to a New Canada - The Development Plan and Business Strategy for the Revitalization of the Toronto Waterfront: "TWRC is mandated to oversee an estimated $17 billion redevelopment of the Toronto waterfront. The three levels of govemment have committed $1.5 billion for the initiative, including $300 million for four priority projects that are now under way. The Corporation's principal focus is on the Central Waterfront, an area that extends from Dowling Avenue in the west to Coxwell Avenue in the east. It should be noted that the TWRC's Development Plan and Business Strategy budgets $25 million for strategic waterfront projects outside of the Central Waterfront over the 30 -year build out period. Allocating funding for such projects must be approved by the three levels of govemment as well as TWRC. Projects currently under consideration are the Mimico waterfront initiative in Etobicoke and the Port Union project in Scarborough." The Development Plan and Business Strategy is made up of three highly interdependent parts - a Development Plan, and Implementation Plan and a Financial Plan. The TWRC Development Plan is founded on the following four goals: • An accessible, attractive and enjoyable waterfront for the benefit of Toronto, Ontario and Canada. • A waterfront of dynamic and diverse new communities. • A waterfront with a globally recognized Portlands District for Creativity and Innovation. • A waterfront with a cleaner and healthier environment. The attached Development Plan (Exhibit 1) provides for the following primary development areas and major elements: Primary Development Areas 1. Exhibition Place and Ontario Place district. 2. East Bayfront District 3. West Donlands District (Note: TRCA undertaking environmental assessment of flood protection works) 4. Portlands District Major Elements A. Continuous public lakefront promenade with parks and plazas (new Lake Ontario Park, naturalized Don River mouth and Don Roadway Corridor are key components) B. Front Street Extension (Priority Project) C. Union Station - new platform (Priority Project) D. Central Harbour Waterfront Improvement Zone (Harbourfront) E. Portlands Initiatives including the Portlands Preparation Project (Priority Project) and the District for Creativity and Innovation. F. Channel District (Ship Channel) G. Lake Ontario Park - 250 acre park on the Outer Harbour complimenting Cherry Beach and the natural habitat of Tommy Thompson Park. 201 H. The Mouth of the Don River (Priority Project - TRCA is finalizing an agreement with TWRC to undertake the environmental assessments for the naturalization and flood protection project). The Financial Plan is based on the Development Plan and estimates: • Investments for land assembly, remediation, and infrastructure development. • Revenues that will be generated from the sale or lease of remediated and serviced land parcels to private sector developers. • Funding in addition to the already committed $1.5 billion by the three levels of government required to carry out waterfront revitalization. • Economic activity generated through the implementation of waterfront revitalization including direct revenues to government and employment. The Financial Plan also includes $2 million for the Lower Don Environmental Assessments, $74 million for the Naturalization and Flood Protection for the mouth of the Don, $12 for flood protection of the West Don lands and adjacent lands, $330 million for water quality and $50 million to develop an integrated energy program. The TWRC indicates the Development Plan implementation will occur over the next 30 years. The Corporation is proposing the following activities and expenditures in the fiscal year 2003/2004: • Port lands Preparation - $15.5 million • Front Street Extension - $76 million • Parks and Public Places - $7.5 million • Precinct Planning - $5 million • Strategic Projects outside Central Waterfront - $5 million (Note: consideration of Port Union and Mimico) • Transit Improvements including Union Station Subway Platform - $4.2 million • Gardiner Expressway Corridor - $4 million • Integrated Energy - $2 million • Improving Water Quality - $1 million • Don River Environmental Assessment - $750,000 (Note: being undertaken by TRCA through agreement with TWRC) RATIONALE The basis of the Development Plan and Business Strategy is the proposed Central Waterfront Secondary Plan and the input through the integrated discussions with the TWRC, City of Toronto, TRCA, other agencies and the public. Staff support in principle the Development Plan and Business Strategy, subject to modifications to reflect the final Central Waterfront Secondary Plan. The Authority supported the Secondary Plan at its meeting of November 29, 2002. 202 Previous Authority resolutions clearly requested the inclusion of the east and west waterfronts as part of Toronto's 46 km waterfront revitalization. Staff support the $25 million strategic waterfront funding outside of the Central Waterfront including the $5 million in Year One (2003 - 2004). Staff would suggest that the three levels of government confirm the Port Union and Mimico projects as the key strategic projects outside the Central Waterfront. Staff have been advised by representatives of the Corporation that funding for the implementation of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan is not included within the Financial Plan. Staff are concerned that the vision for Lake Ontario Park will be compromised if funding is not secure for the Master Plan implementation of this internationally significant feature. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff have various detailed comments on the TWRC document which will be provided to the City of Toronto Waterfront Secretariat as requested and incorporated into the City's response. Other details will get finalized through the Lower Don River Naturalization and Flood Protection Environmental Assessment and through the City's precinct planning efforts. Assuming acceptance by the three levels of government of the Strategic Projects budget which includes provision for the continued implementation of the Port Union project and the E.A. / implementation of the Mimico project, staff is prepared to develop work plans and negotiate contracts with TWRC. The Authority is willing to work with the TWRC on a Habitat Management Plan and comprehensive approach to habitat banking to ensure implementation of the Federal Fisheries compensation requirements of the lakefilling component of the Development Plans. The Habitat Management Plan is critical to ensure a healthy natural environment and the framework for the federal fisheries approval of fish compensation plans for the lakefilling component (i.e. Lake Ontario Park). FINANCIAL DETAILS For the major central waterfront parks and environmental initiatives, this funding partnership is critical in realizing the Authority's vision in a timely manner. The Strategic Projects funding is critical for the Port Union /Mimico projects contribution to Toronto's 42 km revitalization and the continuation of over 30 years of investment to increase public access and the enjoyment of Toronto's waterfront. Without the TWRC funding, implementation of these community supported projects will be jeopardized or at best lag in their implementation and contribution to the quality of life. For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5238 Date: December 02, 2002 Attachments: 1 203 Attachment 1 204 RES. #D90/02 - DEVELOPMENT OF A PROVINCIAL FRAMEWORK FOR WATERSHED -BASED SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING Update on Conservation Ontario involvement in the development of a provincial framework for watershed -based source protection plans. Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to participate in discussions with the Conservation Ontario technical team on a watershed -based source protection planning framework and report back to the Authority on a regular basis. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #7/02, held on July 26, 2002, staff reported on the anticipated implications of the Walkerton Inquiry's Part 2 Report recommendations on the TRCA, particularly with respect to the call for watershed -based source protection plans to be prepared. Subsequent to that meeting, staff have worked with other members of Conservation Ontario's technical team to develop a draft discussion paper entitled, Conservation Ontario Perspective on Implementing Watershed Based Source Protection Planning (attached). The paper will serve as the basis for discussion with conservation authority, provincial and municipal staff. On November 15, 2002, the Province announced the formation of a 17 member Advisory Committee to guide the development of a provincial framework for source protection planning by early in 2003. The framework is to define the minimum requirements to be included in a source protection plan and the process for developing the plans. It appears that the framework may be developed as a series of modules including: Roles and Responsibilities; Plan Development Process; Information Needs; Funding; Assessing Threats to Drinking Water; Development of Plans; Implementation; and Monitoring /Reporting. Advisory Committee members represent a range of interests, including municipal, NGO, and academic. The committee will be chaired by Bill Calvert. The committee includes three Conservation Ontario representatives: Peter Krause (Chair CO), Dick Hunter (GM CO), and Don Pearson (GM, UTRCA). The three representatives from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario include: Ken Boschoff (President), Mike Garrett (CAO, York Region), and David Oliphant (Warden, Oxford County and Mayor, East Zorro/Tavistock). The committee will meet weekly and aims to develop a draft framework by the end of January 2003. 205 The Provincial Advisory Committee will be supported by a Technical Working Group, including Conservation Ontario representatives Charley Worte of CVC and Lorrie Minshall of GRCA, who will continue to use the existing Conservation Ontario technical team as a resource group. One of the next tasks will involve additional work on estimating the costs of source protection plan programs. As this work unfolds, TRCA staff will be in a better position to report back to the Authority on expected costs of completing and implementing source protection plans, including the educational programs component, and on any potential provincial funding sources. Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Date: November 29, 2002 Attachments: 1 206 Attachment 1 Conservation Ontario Perspective on Implementing Watershed Based Source Protection Planning DRAFT FOR REVIEW - November 21, 2002 Background The purpose of this paper is to provide the conservation authorities' interpretation of Source Protection Planning as proposed in the Part 2 Report of the Walkerton Inquiry. This report expands on the Inquiry recommendations using the collective CA experience in watershed planning. This report confines itself to the development of a watershed level source protection planning process. However implementation of source protection will require a number of actions at the provincial level. It is assumed that the provincial government will act on the following: • Determination of provincial agency roles /relationships Process for developing legislative amendments, policy, standards, and guidelines Process for undertaking necessary research in areas of common interest. Implementation of core database development (WRIP) Funding model development to support source protection planning Source Protection Planning in a Watershed Context The starting point for the development of a drinking water source protection planning process is the recommendations contained in the Part 2 Report of the Walkerton Inquiry. There are a number of recommendations that speak to both the process for plan development and the subsequent implementation of source protection plans. Appendix 1 contains a listing of the recommendations relevant to source protection. From a conservation authority perspective the key recommendations related to the source protection planning process include: • Source protection plans be completed on a watershed basis Plans mandatory for all watersheds in Ontario That conservation authorities coordinate plan preparation That there be local consultation in plan preparation That the plans be approved by the Ministry of the Environment Conservation authorities along with our municipal partners and provincial ministries have extensive experience in planning on a watershed basis going back more that 50 years. Some of the highlights in the development of watershed planning practice in recent years include: Basin Water Management Plans, 1971 Water Management on a Watershed Basis, 1993 Evaluation of Watershed Management in Ontario 1997 Watershed Action Guide, 1998 Ontario Low Water Response, 2000 ORM Conservation Plan, 2002 Watershed Management Pilot Studies, 2002 207 While the focus of the Part 2 Report was on drinking water protection it was recognized that source protection needed to be integrated with the planning and management of other environmental concerns. The protection of drinking water sources cannot be achieved on the landscape without putting source protection planning in context with overall watershed planning and water management. Source protection plans should be considered as components of watershed plans (along with flood protection, natural heritage, etc.) and development should follow the generic watershed planning process. Figure 1 provides a schematic of the generic watershed planning process and figure 2 expands on the plan development phase, which is the focus of this discussion paper. The concept of source protection planning should be considered a continuation in the evolution of watershed planning. Figure 1: Generic Watershed Planning Process WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROCESS 208 11 WATERSHED PLANNING STEPS Scoping Characterize the system Set goals, objectives and working targets Develop management alternatives Evaluate management alternatives Select preferred management alternatives Finalize Targets Develop implementation and monitoring plans Figure 2 - WATERSHED PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS PLANNING STEPS QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Scoping Characterize the System I Set goals, objectives and working targets i i Develop management alternatives Evaluate management alternatives I Select preferred management alternatives Finalize targets Develop implementation and monitoring plans • What arc the issues of concern? • What information exists and where are the gaps? • What additional work needs to be done to fill gaps? • What are the resource needs (ie. time, expertise, funds, etc.) to complete a watershed/subwatershed study? • What information do we already have? • What are the information gaps? • What are the resources? • What are the functions & linkages between environmental resources? • What are the key management issues? • What are the goals for the watershed? • What are the objectives? • What are the potential targets? • What arc the stressors? • What arc the opportunities? • What are the management alternatives? • How will impacts/watershed response be evaluated (i.e. what tools? which targets/measures will be used in the evaluation ?) • What are the impacts /watershed response associated with each management alternative? • What are the pros and cons of each alternative? • Whal are the criteria for selecting the preferred management alternatives? • What is the preferred plan? • What are the final targets? • What management actions and nnniloring plans are recommended? • Where are the recommendations applicable? • Who is responsible for addressing the recommendations? • When should the recommendations be implemented? • How much will implementation cost? Source Protection Planning and Watershed Scale Usually the term watershed applies to whole river basins (eg. Maitland River watershed), but depending on the issue this can be scaled down to tributary watersheds (subwatersheds) or scaled up (Lake Huron watershed, Great Lakes basin). In fact there many different scales of watersheds nested within each other. Watershed planning in Ontario is presently carried out principally at the watershed and subwatershed scales, with the level of detail increasing as the size of the planning area decreases. The Phase 2 Report recommends that source protection plans be completed at the scale of conservation authority jurisdiction watersheds. While the conservation authorities agree with this there will be situations where different scales will have to be considered. First there will be situations where watershed complexity or intensity of land use will require scaling down to the subwatershed level to achieve the necessary detail in the source protection plan. Generally the need for subwatershed level analysis will be identified through the scoping process or characterization phase of the source protection plan. The second situation, which is more difficult to address, is where the drinking water source is derived from outside the normal boundaries of a jurisdictional watershed (e.g. inter -basin transfers, Great Lake Basin). In these situations there will need to be a process to scale up from the watershed to the Great Lakes basin or sub -basin scale. This will require federal and increased provincial involvement in the source protection planning process. 209 Source Protection Planning Definition Watershed based source protection planning requires a holistic approach that recognizes the linkages between water quantity and water quality and between surface water and ground water. Successful source water protection requires that these linkages be respected in the development and implementation of source protection plans. Conservation authorities are interpreting drinking water source protection to include protection of both the quality and quantity of all current and future drinking water sources (both public and private). In addition we have interpreted that source protection includes the remediation of existing source water impairment. The following is our working definition of source protection planning: A Source Protection Plan protects and enhances all surface and ground water sources for all current and future water uses. This means that the management of drinking water supply sources (current and future) should be considered in the context of all other water uses, such as environmental, commercial or other needs. Source Protection Plan Deliverables The technical content of source protection plans will be driven by specific watershed characteristics and issues and also by the requirements of various implementation tools. The Part 2 Report of the Walkerton Inquiry recommendations provide a basic list of anticipated implementation tools including the following: Provincial decisions must be consistent with SPP (PTTW, C of A, etc) Municipal OPs must be consistent with or have regard for SPP CAs should implement local education initiatives Farm water protection plans should be consistent with SPP Regulation of industries should be consistent with SPP At minimum each source protection plan must provide guidance for implementing these recommendations. In most situations there will be a number of additional implementation tools, such as remediation, that will expand the list of deliverables beyond these minimums. Table 1 provides a fairly complete listing of potential source protection plan deliverables. 210 Table 1 Source Protection Plan - Summary of Potential Deliverables The following Is a 'long list' of potential deliverables from a source protection plan. Actual deliverables will be dependent on specific watershed characteristics and Issues. Water Quantity Management Water budget. Major recharge areas, areas vulnerable to water takings, thresholds for natural environment needs. Future water needs based on scenarios of population growth, agricultural intensification, other uses. Updated municipal water supply master plans (to 2051). Acceptable ranges of water allocation among competing uses in certain areas. Strategies to reduce water consumption. Drought contingency plan. Evaluation of the effectiveness of remedial work (forestation, wetland, municipal drain restoration) to increase water capacity. Groundwater Protection Groundwater vulnerability maps detailing wellhead areas (current and future), sensitive areas, land uses and areas of high risk. Designated areas where the plan would govem municipal land use and zoning decisions, where farmers must make water protection plans. Minimum standards for individual farm water protection plans in certain areas. A biosolids and septage disposal master plan. Strategies to address areas of particular concem for pollution from septic systems. A program for decommissioning abandoned wells and excavations. Water Quality Management Identification major point and non -point sources of contaminants (current and future). Nutrient budget. Evaluation of maximum total loading to meet water quality objectives (assimilative capacity). Acceptable ranges of total contaminant loading. Future pollutant loads, cumulative impacts, based on scenarios of population growth and servicing, agricultural intensification, other. Evaluation of the effectiveness of remedial work (wetlands, riparian restoration) to improve water quality. Evaluation of means to reduce pollutant loads and improve water quality. Identification of priority sources and areas. Allocation of assimilative capacity among competing uses. Updated municipal wastewater management strategies and plant discharge targets, municipal sewer use bylaws. A plan for controlling urban storm water. Priorities and targets for rural water quality improvement. Limits on the potential for road salt, forestry, mining, urban development and industrial plants to contaminate water. Operational limits for Certificates of Approval for water - related contaminant releases. Designation of other types of provincial decisions where consistency with the source protection plan is required. General Surface water and groundwater monitoring plan. Data model. Provision for ongoing maintenance. Identification of significant knowledge gaps and research needs. Research program and partnerships. Programs to educate about the value of the resource, reasons for restrictions, best practices. Programs encouraging community-based stewardship and best management practices. 211 Principles of Source Protection Planning There are a number of principles that are important for the successful implementation of source protection planning. These include: • Continuity of plan, information, and relationships is critical. Source protection planning is not a one time project but an ongoing process that requires continuous support to ensure successful implementation, monitoring and evaluation and reporting. Implementers must be involved in plan development and must be co-owners of the plan to ensure successful implementation. This includes municipalities, provincial agencies, conservation authority and representatives of other affected groups. Resources, both resources and expertise, must match the work plan. Technical information must be robust and defensible to ensure the plan will stand up to scrutiny and potential challenges (OMB, etc.) • The source protection planning process must have flexibility to adjust to the diversity of watershed characteristics and issues that exist across Ontario (no two watersheds are the same). Communications and consultation with plan implementers, stakeholders and the public is key to a successful plan. Plan Development Process (Roles and Relationships) Development and implementation of watershed based source protection plans will require a process that ensures local stakeholder participation and public consultation. Conservation authorities have already developed watershed planning practices that are consistent with the needs of source protection planning and these should be the basis of a local process. The roles of the various players should be as follows: Ministry of the Environment • Set standards for source protection plans Approve plans Conservation Authority Calls Steering Committee together Coordinates plan development Maintains Plan (monitors, reviews, evaluates) Municipalities Key participants on steering committee and co-owners of the source protection plans One of the main implementers of the plan results 212 Steering Committee • Made up of representatives from municipalities, conservation authority, provincial agencies, and relevant interest groups Directs plan development Agrees to local draft plan Technical Working Groups • Develop information, models, and mapping Undertake analysis and evaluation Core Team Concept One of the fundamental principles is continuity of the planning cycle from scoping, plan development, implementation, monitoring, reporting, review and evaluation. Source protection planning is not a one time project, but requires ongoing support. This requires access to a number of different disciplines on a permanent basis. This is best achieved by establishing a core team of expertise to oversee the development and monitoring of watershed based source protection plans. Core teams can be dedicated to a single watershed or shared between a group of watersheds, depending on watershed size, population, complexity, issues, etc. The proposed core team complement should include the following disciplines: Project Coordinator Water Resources Engineer Water Resources Technician(s) Hydrogeologist Water Quality Specialist Planner GIS /Database Applications Specialist Education /Consultation Coordinator Depending on the watershed, plan development may also require limited access to other disciplines such as ecologist, forester, aquatic biologist, but these would not be on a dedicated permanent basis. Note that implementation of source protection plans may require additional /different staff resources. Scoping the Source Protection Plan One of the more difficult challenges in developing a source protection planning process is finding a way to give the process the flexibility to deal with differing watersheds, while maintaining the necessary consistency and integrity. Conservation authority experience in watershed planning is that the scope, focus and cost can vary significantly from watershed to watershed and that a standardized template or terms of reference for source protection planning is not appropriate. What is required is a scoping process to guide the development of the work plan for each source protection plan. The scoping process should ensure that the technical complexity and scale of the subsequent source protection plan matches the characteristics and issues of each watershed. ' 213 The scoping process should provide answers to the following basic questions: What watershed information exists? Who are the key stakeholders? What are the issues of concern? Where are the information gaps and what additional work needs to be done to fill gaps? What are the resource needs (i.e. time, expertise, funds, etc.) to complete the plan? Most of the watershed information required for scoping is consistent with the data sets proposed in the provincial Water Resource Information Project (WRIP). In fact acceleration of the implementation of WRIP by the province would significantly speed up and reduce the cost of source protection planning. Identification of issues should be based on both the assembled watershed information and consultation with local stakeholders and the public. Possible issues could include agricultural intensification, urban development, water taking, waste assimilation, etc. Issue identification is the critical step in the scoping process since issue resolution drives the source protection plan. Source Protection Plan Detailed Content Once scoping is complete and the workplan established the detailed source protection plan would follow the process outlined in figure 2. The characterization and goals and objective steps set the stage for the balance of the plan and may result in refinements to the workplan. Appendix 2 gives an outline of the possible technical components of a source protection plan and corresponds to the steps in figure 2. Note that actual requirements for a specific watershed will flow from the scoping and characterization steps and will not necessarily include all elements. Some of these components are straight forward but many will require the development of guidelines and standards in order to ensure consistency of application across the province. Some of these standards are already under development through the watershed pilot process. Summary The Part 2 Report of the Walkerton Inquiry presents a comprehensive approach for drinking water source protection for Ontario. While implementation of source protection presents many challenges, the collective watershed planning experience of conservation authorities and their municipal and provincial partners provides a strong basis for development of watershed based source protection plans. 214 Appendix 1 Appendix 1: Walkerton Inquiry Recommendations on Water Source Protection The following recommendations from the Part 2 Walkerton Inquiry Report are relevant to source protection planning. Recommendations 1 to 5 and 7 provide direction on the source protection planning process and recommendations 8, 10, 13, and 17 speak to source protection plan implementation. Recommendation 1 Drinking water sources should be protected by developing watershed -based source protection plans. Source protection plans should be required for all watersheds in Ontario. Recommendation 2 The MOE should ensure that draft source protection plans are prepared through an inclusive process of local consultation. Where appropriate, this process should be managed by conservation authorities. Recommendation 3 Draft source protection plans should be reviewed by the MOE and subject to ministry approval. Recommendation 4 Provincial government decisions that affect the quality of drinking water sources must be consistent with approved source protection plans. Recommendation 5 Where the potential exists for a significant direct threat to drinking water sources, municipal plans and decisions must be consistent with the applicable source protection plan. Otherwise, municipal official plans and decisions should have regard to the source protection plan. The plans should designate areas where consistency is required. Recommendation 7 The provincial government should ensure that sufficient funds are available to complete the planning and adoption of source protection plans. Recommendation 8 Conservation authorities (or in their absence, the MOE) should be responsible for implementing local initiatives to educate landowners, industry, and the public about the requirements and importance of drinking water source protection. Recommendation 10 The MOE should not issue Certificates of Approval for the spreading of waste materials unless they are compatible with the applicable source protection plan. Recommendation 13 All large or intensive farms, and all farms in areas designated as sensitive or high -risk by the applicable source protection plan, should be required to develop binding individual water protection plans consistent with the source protection plan. Recommendation 17 The regulation of other industries by the provincial government and by municipalities must be consistent with provincially approved source protection plans. 215 Appendix 2 WATERSHED PLANNING PROCESS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH SOURCE PROTECTION PLANS WATERSHED PLANNING STEPS SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS Characterize the System - Describe water resources (e.g. stream flows, groundwater levels, flow direction, linkages between ground and surface water, and interdependencies with environmental features) - Identify the amount of water sustainably available, including consideration for climate variability and climate change - Develop hydrology and groundwater models - Define water budget - Identify water uses and volume of use (current and future) - Identify all significant water discharges (current and future) - Describe water quality and identify point and non point sources of contamination (current and future) - Develop water quality simulation models. - Assess the cumulative impact of all loadings and determine the system's assimilative capacity. - Identify areas of vulnerability and wellhead areas - Consolidate land use maps and population projections (current and future) - Identify information gaps Set goals, objectives, and working targets - Develop and /or adopt previously established watershed goals, objectives and targets/thresholds for water quality and water use, including those for water supply, natural environment needs, recreation, navigation, and other uses. Develop management alternatives - Define future land use and water needs /use scenarios. - Define water supply management alternatives (e.g. sensitive areas protection, SWM, wetland/forest regeneration), demand management alternatives (e.g. conservation), and allocation scenarios. - Define alternative means of reducing pollutant loads, increasing assimilative capactiy, and allocating assimilative capacity. Evaluate management alternatives - Employ models and other assessment tools to predict the watershed response to each alternative land /water use and management scenario. - Evaluate findings according to watershed goals, objectives, working targets, and levels of risk. - Describe pros and cons of each alternative. 216 WATERSHED PLANNING STEPS SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS Select preferred management alternatives - Establish criteria for selecting the preferred alternatives. - Describe the preferred set of management alternatives. Finalize targets - Define the final targets. Develop implementation and monitoring plans - Define acceptable water allocation strategies, operational limits for water withdrawals, and a drought contingency plan. - Define supply management strategies to increase the capacity to sustain demand, and demand management strategies to reduce consumption. - Identify strategies for reducing contaminant potential and pollutant loads to surface and ground water and for allocating assimilative capacity. - Recommend operational limits for Certificates of Approval for water - related contaminant releases. - Recommend updates to municipal long term water supply plans. - Designate areas where the plan would govern municipal land use and zoning decisions and where farmers must prepare water protection plans. - Outline a program for identifying and decommissioning abandoned wells and excavations. - Recommend stewardship and education programs. - Identify surface and ground water monitoring needs. - Identify further study needs. - Delineate where all recommendations apply - Designate responsibility for each implementation action. - Set timelines for implementation. - Estimate costs of implementation. 217 RES. #D91/02 - CENTREVILLE CREEK SUBWATERSHED PLAN Development of the work program, formation of the Steering Committee, and status of the Centreville Creek Subwatershed Plan Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff proceed with the preparation of the Centreville Creek Subwatershed Plan in consultation with the Steering Committee, according to the schedule set out In the work program; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the completion of Phase 1 in Spring 2003. CARRIED BACKGROUND As part of the Region of Peel Water Management Project, the TRCA has initiated the development of a subwatershed plan for Centreville Creek, in partnership with the Region of Peel, the Town of Caledon, and the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Centreville Creek is a headwater tributary of the Humber River and has been identified as an important area to focus watershed planning efforts based on its location within the boundaries of both the Oak Ridges Moraine and Niagara Escarpment planning areas, the quality and quantity of the natural features within the subwatershed, and in anticipation of future changes to land and water use associated with the implementation of municipal Official Plans. The Centreville Creek Subwatershed Plan will provide enhanced direction to municipalities and private landowners with regard to environmental protection, conservation and restoration within the contexts of existing land and water use, and the planning of future development, to ensure long -term ecological sustainability of the natural features and functions of the subwatershed. The Centreville Creek Subwatershed Plan will support the broad goals and objectives of the Humber Watershed Strategy, Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber, completed in 1997, and will provide the opportunity for detailed scoping and examination of local land and water management concerns. The initial work to establish the administrative framework that will be responsible for organizing and managing the subwatershed planning process has been completed. A Steering Committee has been established to direct the organization and management of the planning process. The Steering Committee is made up of representatives from the Public Works and Planning Departments of the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, which represent the core agencies involved in land use planning and watershed management in the study area. The TRCA will act as the coordinating agency for the study. A Subwatershed Planning Coordinator has been hired by the TRCA to manage the project. A work program has been prepared that provides a breakdown of the work to be undertaken and a schedule for completing all phases of the planning process. The work program has been reviewed and notwithstanding minor revisions, is agreed upon by Steering Committee members. 218 Subwatersheds represent a scale that is well - suited for enhanced public involvement in watershed planning initiatives. Several approaches will be used to inform local residents and stakeholder groups about the subwatershed planning process and to seek pubic input on defining key issues, preparing subwatershed goal and objective statements that reflect local management concerns, and identifying and evaluating management alternatives. A Stakeholder Focus Group will be established to provide an effective forum for local residents, agency representatives and special interest groups to become involved in shaping the subwatershed plan. Planning workshops will be held to solicit input at key points during each phase of the planning process. Information updates will be made available to all interested parties through special mailings, articles in the Humber Advocate newsletter, postings on the TRCA website, and public information sessions. The first public information session on the Centreville Creek Subwatershed Plan was held on November 6, 2002, in association with the Region of Peel and the Credit Valley Conservation Authority. This event was held to inform the public of the Region of Peel's groundwater management studies and subwatershed planning initiatives that are currently underway. Input was sought from local residents and stakeholders with regard to land and water management issues and opportunities of local concern in the Centreville Creek subwatershed. RATIONALE Specifically, the subwatershed planning process has been initiated to provide guidance with regards to: • on -going implementation of the environmental policies of the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon; • planning future development in urban and countryside settlement areas; • reviewing and updating Official Plans for the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon; • on -going implementation of the recommendations of the Humber Watershed Strategy, Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber; and, • the Region of Peel's application for a new Permit to Take Water from an existing groundwater well and renewals of permits for operating wells in the Caledon East area that provide the local potable water supply. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Centreville Creek subwatershed planning process will involve three phases that will occur over a two year time period. Progress reports will be prepared during each phase of the planning process: Phase 1 - Subwatershed Characterization, June 2002 to May 2003 The purpose of this phase of the planning process is to establish current conditions on the subwatershed through a review of existing information and the initiation of technical component studies that address critical information needs related to the following disciplinary divisions: • Hydrogeology • Surface Water Quantity • Surface Water Quality • Fluvial Geomorphology • Aquatic Communities and Habitat • Terrestrial Natural Heritage • Cultural Heritage 219 • Recreational Use • Land Use • Water Use Technical component studies will be conducted to fill information gaps and to develop new modelling tools or refine existing models that will be used to predict the response of the natural system to future resource use scenarios. Based on a review of current conditions and input from Steering Committee members and Stakeholder Focus Group participants, subwatershed - specific goals, objectives and targets will be developed which reflect local management concerns. Phase 2 - Analysis and Integration, May 2003 to November 2003 This phase will focus on defining scenarios of future land and water use and management alternatives. Computer modelling techniques and expert analysis will be utilized to predict the response of the natural system to future scenarios of resource use and management measures. At least three scenarios will be evaluated: • Existing conditions; • Future conditions associated with full implementation of Municipal Official Plans with no management measures; and, • Future conditions associated with full implementation of Municipal Official Plans with full implementation of TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy targets. Based on an integrated evaluation of these scenarios and input from Steering Committee members and Stakeholder Focus Group participants, preferred management strategies will be identified and specific targets for key indicators of watershed health and integrity will be established. Phase 3 - Developing the Plan, November 2003 to May 2004 This phase of the study involves building consensus among all participants in the planning process on a preferred management strategy, and preparing the final subwatershed plan which integrates and communicates the outcome of the process. Input from Steering Committee members, Stakeholder Focus Group participants, and the general public will be solicited through meetings, workshops, the technical peer review process, and questionnaires distributed at Open House events. The key components of the final subwatershed plan will include: 1. A description of existing conditions; 2. Subwatershed - specific goals, objectives and targets related to the protection, rehabilitation and enhancement of the features and function of the natural system and the ecological linkages between these features and functions; 3. Evaluations of the predicted response of the natural system to future resource use scenarios associated with implementation of municipal Official Plans and alternative management strategies; 4. Recommendations for best management practices; 5. Strategies for implementing the recommendations of the plan; and, 6. A monitoring program required to assess whether the goals, objectives and targets are being achieved by all stakeholders. 220 FINANCIAL DETAILS Development of the Centreville Creek Subwatershed Plan has been granted funding approval from the Regional Municipality of Peel through the Peel Water Management Project. Report prepared by: Dean Young, extension 5662 For Information Contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Date: December 02, 2002 RES. #D92/02 - TOWN OF MONO RESOLUTION ON COMMERCIAL PERMITS TO TAKE WATER Endorse call for moratorium on new commercial permits to take water (PTTW) until watershed based source protection plans are in place. Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority endorse the Town of Mono's call upon the Provincial Government to invoke an Immediate moratorium on the Issuance of permits to take water for commercial ventures so as to permit a comprehensive review of the process by which all permits to take water are Issued and monitored, and to permit the creation of comprehensive source water protection plans by watershed; THAT the Minister of the Environment be asked to undertake the review of the permitting process in consultation with and direct participation of affected stakeholders including the public, municipalities, conservation authorities, and the Niagara Escarpment Commission; THAT Authority staff continue to collect and analyse watershed data and work with the Ministry of the Environment to improve the existing water taking database, as necessary to provide a sound basis for making water use decisions within a watershed context, and promote the need to Include this work as a component of study in watershed plans and source protection plans; THAT Authority staff discuss with the Ministry of the Environment's Central and London Regional Offices opportunities for increasing Authority staff involvement In the review of permit applications and improving use of the Authority's watershed information for this purpose; THAT Authority staff report back in February 2003 on the recommendations of the Provincially funded Watershed Pilot Protect "A Framework for Watershed Based Water Allocation in Ontario ", led by CVC, GRCA, and TRCA; 221 AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Premier Ernie Eves, the Minister of the Environment, the Central and London Region Offices of MOE, the Town of Mono, Niagara Escarpment Commission, and Credit Valley Conservation. CARRIED BACKGROUND On July 23, 2002, following a discussion regarding a temporary permit to take water application, the Town of Mono Council passed a resolution: "...to call upon the Provincial Government to invoke an immediate moratorium on the issuance of permits to take water for commercial ventures so as to permit a comprehensive review of the process by which all permits to take water are issued and monitored, and to permit the creation of comprehensive source water protection plans by watershed; AND that such a review involve consultation with and direct participation of affected stakeholders, including the public, municipalities, conservation authorities and the Niagara Escarpment Commission; AND that copies of this resolution be submitted to MPP and Premier Emie Eves, the Ontario Minister of the Environment, local conservation authorities, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, all municipalities in Ontario and the Association of Ontario Municipalities..." Subsequently, the Town of Caledon Council and the Credit Valley Conservation have endorsed the Town of Mono's council resolution. Based on emerging information and experience within the TRCA jurisdiction, Authority staff recommend support for Mono's direction. Potent/a /Implications ofPTTW /n TRCA A preliminary assessment of permitted surface water withdrawals in relation to baseflows in selected TRCA watercourses indicates potential areas of concern. The following table summarizes the estimated percent of total annual stream baseflow that could be withdrawn if all water takers pumped at their maximum daily taking rate. At a watershed scale the withdrawals represent about 5 -15% of total annual baseflow, except for the Carruthers Creek watershed takings which amount to about 138% of the baseflow (staff are looking into this issue). When considered on a subwatershed basis, withdrawals may represent up to 75% of baseflow in the Little Rouge River. The withdrawals may be more of a concern when considered on a seasonal (i.e. April to Sept.) basis. For example, staff have reviewed data available within the Upper Humber Watershed, where withdrawals are estimated to represent about 14% of summer baseflow and in the Centreville Creek subwatershed about 7% of summer baseflow. 222 Estimated Surface Withdrawals* as a Proportion of Total Annual Baseflow Watershed Percent of annual baseflow withdrawn Range of annual withdrawals by subwatershed Rouge River 15.0 1.2 - 75.2 % Duffins Creek 5.0 _ 11.0 - 19.0% Carruthers Creek 138.0 N/A Upper Main Humber N/A 9.4% Centreville Creek N/A 3.2% Etobicoke Creek 15.3 0.24 - 15.3 % Mimico Creek 12.7 N/A *based on available PTTW database These estimates were based on numerous assumptions, and therefore the numbers need to be verified once more reliable data are available. There are limitations in the accuracy of the PTTW database (eg. blank data records were filled in with estimates of volume usage; expired permits were assumed active unless a new permit was issued or the cited permit holder was known to be no longer operational; etc.). There are limited baseflow data in certain subwatersheds. This analysis focused only on surface water takers, but a more thorough investigation should also undertake a water budget and groundwater modelling to understand the impacts of groundwater withdrawals. This preliminary review underscores the need for verification of the water taking database and a more thorough study of other water uses, overall surface and ground water budgets, and allocation patterns on a watershed and subwatershed basis within the TRCA jurisdiction. MOE staff are aware of problems with the PTTW database and have studies underway to look at means of improvement. MOE staff recognize the need to review water takings in the context of watershed and subwatershed scale water budgets and the cumulative effects of all takings. Related TRCA Watershed Studies As part of its ongoing watershed management work, TRCA has been developing several environmental databases and studies that will provide a better basis for preparing better watershed plans, water allocation strategies, and reviewing water taking proposals in an overall watershed context. This work includes: • baseflow monitoring in most watersheds • expanded network of stream gauges • completion of surface water budgets for the Duffins Creek watershed, and ongoing water budget development for most other TRCA watersheds • development of groundwater flow models for all TRCA watersheds • working with the Regions and MOE on efforts to improve the water taking database 223 A more thorough review of the implications of current water use and anticipated future demands on other watershed systems is planned to be an integral component of study in the next watershed plan developed for the Rouge Watershed (hoped to begin in 2003) and an update to the Humber Watershed Strategy (also hoped to begin later in 2003 or 2004). These initiatives will be conducted in cooperation with the Regional municipalities and other stakeholders, and are in part requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Act and the anticipated requirements of Source Protection Plans coming out of the Walkerton Inquiry recommendations. TRCA Participation In MOE PTTWReviews For the past two years, TRCA staff have had an informal agreement with Central Region MOE staff regarding the circulation and review of permit to take water applications. Central Region administers most of TRCA's jurisdiction. That Regional Office has circulated a number of surface and ground water applications, primarily golf course related uses, for Authority comment. In other cases, MOE directs the proponents to contact TRCA directly to discuss their proposal. A couple of years ago, Central Region proactively developed review guidelines and defined an ecological flow criteria for protection in reviewing water taking proposals. The Region has worked with TRCA staff over the past year to develop a method to define the level of acceptable water withdrawals for each proponent. The same agreement has not yet been established with London Region MOE, which administers the remaining small part of TRCA's jurisdiction north of Highway 9 and west of Highway 50. Staff are working on establishing a similar process. Framework for Watershed Based WaterAilocatlon As one of seven Watershed Pilot Projects, MOE and MNR commissioned a study from conservation authorities (Credit Valley Conservation, Grand River Conservation Authority, and Toronto Region Conservation) on how other jurisdictions allocate source water and which recommends an allocation system for Ontario. TRCA staff look forward to the Province implementing the recommendations that arise from this work. A full report on that work and recommendations for appropriate Authority actions will be brought to the Board at its February 2003 meeting. TRCA Participation in Source Protection Plan Framework The Provincial Government has invited conservation authority representation on an advisory committee charged with the responsibility of developing a framework for source protection planning in Ontario. TRCA staff participate in a Conservation Ontario working group that supports this committee. A key recommendation of Conservation Ontario is that source protection plans should protect and enhance all surface and ground water sources for all current and future water uses. A source protection plan is a component of an overall watershed plan. Justice O'Connor stated, "Part 11 parties suggested that the MOE should be responsible for developing a comprehensive water management strategy that would address all aspects of water management on a watershed basis. As I have already said, it would be very difficult to develop a meaningful drinking water source protection plan without a broader strategy. The recommendations I make in this Chapter (4) assume that a broader system will be in place." 224 O'Connor's remarks are consistent with a TRCA resolution A106/02, passed at Authority meeting #4/02 on April 26, 2002 which stated THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority reiterate its support for the development of a Provincial Water Management Strategy and Provincial Water Policy for the protection of surface and groundwater sources and that any such strategy and policy framework must recognize and support the watershed as the most appropriate unit for managing water; THAT the administration of the Permit to Take Water system must be improved and decisions must be based on good scientific, watershed based information which addresses the availability of the resource and the implications associated with additional water takings ". As part of the source protection planning framework discussions and discussions with Regional municipal partners regarding the scope of watershed plans, TRCA staff will continue to advocate the need for a review of the implications of current and future water uses in the context of other watershed based information and management objectives and will promote the need for a provincial water management strategy to guide allocation decisions. For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253, or Don Haley, extension 5226 Date: December 02, 2002 RES. #D93/02 - APPEALS TO THE CITY OF VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT (OPA) 600 Participation by TRCA at the Ontario Municipal Board. Several appeals have been made to the City of Vaughan's OPA 600, including appeals regarding policies and schedules related to matters of Authority interest. Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to maintain party status in front of the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to referrals 1 and 4 as they relate to policies defining valley lands and buffers, and referrals 5 and 6 as they relate to the Identification of the Pine Valley Drive Link through the significant natural habitat at the east end of the Boyd Conservation Area; THAT staff be directed to continue to work with affected parties to resolve these appeals through the Block Planning Process and the Pine Valley Drive Environmental Assessment process; 225 AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to retain legal services for any necessary representation on these matters. CARRIED BACKGROUND Seven appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) have been received as a result of the approval of the City of Vaughan's Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 600. Appeals 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 relate to matters of Authority Interest, specifically as follows: Appeal 1 (Block 11 Landowners Group) and Appeal 4 (Block 33 West Landowners Group) The Block 11 and Block 33 West Landowners Groups have appealed portions of OPA 600 related to policies regarding valleyland definition and buffering requirements. At the request of TRCA staff, the Region of York modified OPA 600, prior to their approval of the same, to include valleyland and buffer policy wording more consistent with the policies of the TRCA. Specifically, requiring that valleylands were to include a buffer, the size and treatment of which would be determined through the Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP). Prior to this modification, the wording approved by the City of Vaughan required a 10 metre structural setback adjacent to valley corridors, the modified wording would allow for a greater setback and /or a portion or all of the buffer to be protected outside of the lot fabric if environmental studies deemed it necessary. Official Plan Amendment 600 requires the completion of MESP's on a Block Plan basis. Blocks 11 and 33 West are currently completing MESP's for their respective planning areas. Through these studies, TRCA and City staff, along with the Block consulting teams will be working to address the valley land and buffer policies (along with numerous other technical requirements). Given that the nature of the appeals is to obtain greater clarity around the application of these policies, it is staffs understanding that resolving these appeals through the Block Plan process is desired by all parties. Appeal 5 (National Golf Club of Canada) and Appeal 6 (Loopstra Nixon) The National Golf Club of Canada and Loopstra Nixon have appealed the identification of the Pine Valley link through the unopened road allowance at the east end of the Boyd Conservation Area due to significant impacts to the natural environment. The TRCA has also expressed significant concerns about this road opening through Resolution A33/01: 'THAT the City of Vaughan be advised that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has significant concem with the environmental impacts of opening the Pine Valley link between Clubhouse and Rutherford Roads; THAT the City of Vaughan be requested to thoroughly consider traffic planning solutions that do not require the opening of Pine Valley Drive between Clubhouse and Rutherford Roads; 226 AND FURTHER THAT the City of Vaughan be requested to initiate a full Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) as opposed to a Municipal Class EA for the Pine Valley Drive link due to significant potential environmental impacts, if they choose to pursue this option over another transportation strategy." Although apprised of the above noted recommendation made by the TRCA, the City is currently embarking on a Municipal Class EA for the Pine Valley Drive link. Staff are working closely with the City and other stakeholders to identify the Authority's concerns with the proposed routing. Appeal 7 (Rizmi Holdings Ltd. and Lucia Milani) Staff has been provided direction by the Authority to maintain party status on Appeal 7 through Resolution #B137/02: "THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue to object to any Rizmi Holdings or Lucia Milani applications that include intrusions into, or impacts on, the McGill Area ESA; THAT staff be directed to represent the Authority with party status at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in the matter of Rizmi Holdings Limited and Lucia Milan's objections to OPA 600, and to any subsequent consolidated hearings that may result regarding these lands; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to retain legal services for representation on these matters." On November 4th, 2002 a prehearing conference was held by the OMB dealing with all of the referrals to OPA 600. At this prehearing conference, TRCA staff, through a solicitor, requested party status on the above noted appeals. A second prehearing conference has been Scheduled for April 11, 2003 to further discuss appeals 1,4,5 and 6, and potentially set a hearing date. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE In light of the potential implications on matters of Authority Interest with these appeals, staff recommend that the TRCA maintain party status, as requested at the November 4th, 2002 prehearing conference. Staff further proposed to continue to work with the Block 11 and Block 33 West Landowners groups in an effort to resolve their valleyland and buffer policy concerns while appropriately addressing Authority Policy. Additionally, staff will continue to work with the City and other stakeholders as they proceed through the Municipal Class EA for Pine Valley Drive, advising of our significant concerns. 227 In the event that these matters are dealt with in front of the OMB legal representation is required. Staff are seeking to coordinate our case for the valleyland and buffer policies with the Region of York, sharing resources to the extent possible. Likewise, staff will seek to minimize duplication of effort with respect to evidence of environmental impact of the Pine Valley Link with other parties objecting to the identification of the road in OPA 600. For Information contact: Sandra Malcic, extension 5217 Date: December 02, 2002 RES. #D94/02 - HARMONIZED CITY -WIDE RAVINE BYLAW Staff status report regarding the new harmonized ravine by -law, approved by City Council on October 3, 2002, and on the ongoing discussions with City of Toronto staff regarding implementation of the by -law and enforcement procedures. Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Tanny Wells THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the ravine by -law be received, and that the board endorse the Implementation of the ravine by -law and Its associated working relationship between the City and TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to work with the City of Toronto staff to ensure that all implementation components of the by -law are addressed over the coming months, and that a transition process be put in place for successful implementation Including training for City and TRCA staff, and an urgently needed public education effort. CARRIED BACKGROUND On February 13, 2002, City of Toronto Council adopted a report which recommended that: the City Solicitor and the Commissioners of Economic Development and Culture and Tourism, Urban Development Services , and Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), prepare a new harmonized city -wide ravine control by -law under the Municipal Act and bring it forward to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at its meeting September 9, 2002, or sooner." City of Toronto staff from Planning and Urban Forestry Services and staff from TRCA have been working together since February to establish the scope of the by -law, the criteria for mapping and the description of lands identified for protection under the Ravine By -law, as well as, by -law implementation and enforcement procedures. 228 A draft by -law report was submitted to Planning and Development Committee late summer, and a subsequent report was made to the Policy and Finance Committee assessing the implications of implementation of the by -law in terms of additional staff, equipment resources, and general budget items. After some minor refinement of the draft bylaw and related mapping, the Ravine Protection By -law was adopted by Council (City of Toronto Muncipal Code Chapter 658) on October 3, 2002. At the same time the bylaws from the former municipalities respecting ravines, filling and grading and destruction of trees were repealed. Discussions are still ongoing between TRCA and the City Policy and Planning, and the Urban Forestry Services to further the implementation process for the Ravine By -law, and identify work tasks for effective planning transition and improved communications. A future report is required by Council which addresses the regulation of structures such as swimming pools, retaining walls and tennis courts in ravines during the new Zoning By -Law project process at the city. The Need of a Harmonized Ravine By -law The City staff report to Council of August 19, 2002, clearly articulates the value of ravines and their ecology within the city in the following report excerpt: The visual imagery of the city's ravines is powerful, and Torontonians have a strong emotional attachment to the many rivers, streams and creeks that form the network of watercourses that wind their way to Lake Ontario. But ravines are more than watercourses, the ravines are the foundation of our natural heritage, a preserve where the majority of our native plants and animals reside. Municipalities can use their authority under the Municipal Act to protect trees and landforms, and by protecting these features, help to achieve protection of all the ecological features and functions that comprise the ravine ecosystem. Toronto and its surrounding region are ecologically healthier and more beautiful because the municipalities and the Conservation Authority placed great value on the ravines and were able to protect the trees, landforms and watercourses through policy and regulation. However, many of the smaller ravines in the City remain unprotected, and there are inconsistencies among the three existing by -laws of the former Cities of Toronto, Scarborough and the former Borough of East York. A new harmonized city -wide Ravine By -law is necessary to provide consistency in the approach to ravine protection across the City. Complementary Legislative Framework Currently, the Conservation Authorities Act provides for the passing of regulations controlling the placement of fill, construction within the floodplain and alteration of a watercourse. The purpose of the Conservation Authority regulations is to prevent development that could have an impact on flooding, pollution or the conservation of land. 229 Under the Municipal Act, the new city wide Ravine By -law, however, will complement and support the powers of the City under the Planning Act and the powers of TRCA under the Conservation Authorities Act. Under the Planning Act, official plan policies will provide the policy foundation and rationale for protecting the ravines. Zoning regulations may be the only way to restrict development on privately held land where interests of protecting the ravine are critical. The City and TRCA will still have site plan control areas that will permit review of development adjacent to ravines, and will require site design conformity. Purpose of Ravine By -law Proposal The City will now be able to protect trees in ravines from destruction and injury, and will be able to regulate the dumping of litter, and refuse including garden waste. For some time, TRCA and the City have had concerns about the unregulated "fill extension areas" within the city, vulnerable shoreline lands, and the many remnant ravines and natural heritage areas that weave through older communities. The Ravine By -law now allows the City to regulate the placing of fill or dumping of fill or the alteration of grade in ravines not subject to the TRCA fill regulation. With the goal of helping to protect the natural character and integrity of ravine systems, the new city -wide Ravine By -law assists staff to foster good stewardship of the ravine network, and to minimize damage to features. It should be noted, however, that conflicts between development rights issues and the intent of the Ravine By -law will only be resolved through zoning by -law changes. Identification of Lands protected under the Ravine By -Law City staff under took an extensive mapping exercise which built on existing mapping from the municipality. The mapping included existing information on ravine lands, and included mapping from TRCA on major valley corridors that are fill regulated. A large amount of data related to definition of the ravines was included in the mapping using three - dimensional geographically referenced air photo images. City staff and TRCA staff conducted several working sessions to examine the draft mapping, check the mapping using the by -law criteria, and assess areas of special interest. Maps are attached for review. Note that attention has been paid to overlaying the ravine by -law areas, TRCA screening boundaries and the natural heritage system areas from the new Official Plan document. The City and TRCA staff work group developed a criteria for identifying ravine features and mapping the ravine by -law limits using the following criteria: • All ravine limits currently protected by ravine by -laws (Scarborough - including waterfront, East York, Toronto) and all lands included under the TRCA's fill regulation will be covered by new harmonized ravine by -law. Ravine areas to be added based on the following criteria: Discemible landform • top of bank and /or adjacent to TRCA fill line "extension areas" • "discernible" defined as where slope differential is 2.5 m or greater • top of bank may cut across privately -owned houses and parking lots • may contain watercourse 230 Remnant feature • where within and /or adjacent to TRCA fill line "extension areas" and can be considered remnant of a former ravine or valley landform Vegetative cover • where within and /or adjacent to TRCA fill line "extension areas" and /or contiguous to top of bank and considered supportive of ravine Public Ownership • where within and /or adjacent to TRCA fill line extension areas and ravine corridor is primarily owned by TRCA or City, ravine line will be property boundary and not top of bank It is also proposed that Natural Areas and Woodlots not contiguous to fill regulated or fill line extension areas will be included: Significant forests and woodlots (2 ha or more in size) Adjacent ESA's and ANSI's All of the Rouge Park The ravine portions of existing adjacent golf courses. It should be noted that an up- to-date legal boundary is needed for the Rouge Park (Phase 1 and 2) for by -law mapping purposes. Roles. Responsibilities and Enforcement A property owner must apply to the Commissioner of Economic Development Culture and Tourism (EDCT) for a permit to injure or destroy a tree and place or dump refuse for any site within the ravine protection areas. They must also apply for a permit now to place or dump fill, or alter grade of land in ravines that are not currently regulated by TRCA. Any violation of these by -law requirements may end up with orders to restore a site to its original condition, or may end up with prosecution with resulting fines of up to $10,000 for a first offence or $20,000 for a subsequent conviction. Responsibilities will include: • Permits for tree removal or injury and the dumping of fill will be the responsibility of the City's Foresters Office; • TRCA will continue to issue permits for the placing of fill or alteration to grade in areas that they currently regulate; • In areas identified for ravine protection that are not currently subject to TRCA regulations, TRCA will review applications for placing fill or alteration of grade to assist the City, and at the applicant's cost. When the Conservation Authority has their new regulation in effect in 2004, TRCA will assume responsibility for regulating new fill regulation areas. 231 TRCA and City staff are currently reviewing our Memorandum of Understanding to update the agreement to include Ravine By -law practices and procedures. A more effective protocal is required in administering this by -law, and establishing the planning and technical services to provide effective service delivery. Improvements for application circulation and commenting procedures have been discussed between the municipality and TRCA. Ongoing discussions will be needed to refine issues related to fee collection, and development application review. Internal communications and training The importance of having staff, both at the Authority and City offices, that understand the issues related to implementing the Ravine by -law can not be under - estimated. A mutually beneficial communications approach for internal review has been discussed between the City and TRCA to not only improve dialogue about an applications' specifics, but to discuss applications in relation to broader environmental issues facing the city and its watershed lands. Both City and TRCA staff foresee the need to train development review staff (within the downtown and district offices) and engage TRCA staff as well. A family of information and application documents are being designed to accommodate the ravine by -law application procedure. Communications related to the Value of Ravines The City of Toronto staff are formulating a communications strategy to engage all ravine landowners and inform them of the new harmonized city -wide Ravine By -law. Staff has begun to produce a brochure, with future newsletter communications, to embark on a education progam . The program will include information on best management practices for ravines, restoration approaches and the importance of stewardship bf our ravines and Natural Heritage areas. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA anticipates that their new regulation will be in place sometime in 2004/2005. TRCA staff is currently ready to conduct a significant mapping exercise in establishing a new regulation line inclusive of updated flood mapping, river and stream valley corridors, waterfront lands, hazard lands and wetlands. The Ravine By -law "line" mapping will require updating incorporating this information once TRCA's fill regulation line is finalized. On January 1, 2003, the new Municipal Act will come into effect allowing single tier municipalities to pass by -laws respecting drainage and flood control (except storm sewers) in addition the authority to pass by -laws respecting trees and site grading. It is anticipated that this change will allow the City to more fully address water functions related to ravines especially those areas that feed the headwaters of the watercourses which support ravine features and functions. CONCLUSIONS The new harmonized Ravine By -law represents a significant initiative for the protection of ravines and associated natural area protection, through an approach of enforcement, stewardship and education. This approach is built on a renewed partnership between TRCA and the City of Toronto. 232 The by -law will be reviewed again when TRCA's new regulation and the new Municipal Act are in place to assess their impact on this by -law content and application. City staff are continuing internal dialogue about the procedural and financial implications of implementing and enforcing this ravine by -law. TRCA also needs to look at the implications of the by -law on planning /regulation review workloads, and on enforcement response. Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Date: December 04, 2002 RES. #D95/02 - NATURALIZATION POLICY AND PROGRAM STATUS The Authority's Board request to report on the status of naturalization policies and programs within the City or Toronto and TRCA, with particular attention to opportunities to address planting /naturalization of utility easements and rights -of -way. Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to support Joint partnership projects for naturalization with the City of Toronto staff, and to pursue with the City the development of a protocol for each river system related to easement and right -of -way naturalization and management. Over time, each utility group should be approached at the District level to review site by site opportunities for naturalization, incorporating site specific conditions, maintenance requirements and constraints. CARRIED BACKGROUND In June 2002, the Authority Board approved the request from Enbridge Consumers Gas to provide a permanent easement across TRCA lands located south of Lakeshore Boulevard West, and west of Park Lawn Road. At the time of the approval, Board members queried our current policies and those of the City to determine if TRCA could pursue requiring native plantings over the easement as a condition of approval. Staff has reviewed the matter of policy content, and provide the following commentary. 233 Existing Policies and Naturalization Issues There are no specific policies within TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program or the City's Urban Forestry and Natural Environment Sections' Program that provide specific direction to naturalize (existing or new) utility easements and right -of -ways. Many of the valley and river corridors have a long history of overhead and buried service lines, with each utility company having their own requirements for maintenance and access to their lines. One of the great difficulties in re- vegetating these areas is that the lines can all be so different in terms of their site conditions. Requirements for maintenance and access over lines can differ from district to district, even within the same utility company. Hydro lines, for instance, have different maintenance regimes for cutting woody trees and cutting areas for clearance under overhead wires. Gas lines, even new lines, often have constraints of heat from the underground line which destroys trees overtime. Other utilities have loading constraints and many in the ravines must be kept open for maintenance lanes. In discussions with the City's Natural Environment Section, it was generally felt that although policies do need to be undated to include general direction related to planting over easements and utility lines particularly in valley corridors, that what may be more practical would be the establishment of a protocol with the utility companies related to site by site conditions. This approach might allow TRCA and the City to target some restoration /naturalization projects in existing utility corridors when opportunity and need exists in landscape /habitat rehabilitation of the corridor. New proposals and planning applications, such as the Enbridge Consumers Gas approval, offer new opportunities for private sector investment in naturalization /restoration works. Naturalization is probably best obtained on a site specific and best efforts negotiation basis under new applications. Updating of TRCA's program document Valley and Stream Management requires inclusion of a new policy statement related to utility lines and the need to restore disturbed landscapes when implementing their new lines through the valley system. A new protocol could also be established for different utility conditions. Existing lines should also receive a proactive restoration effort under the skillful review and targeting of TRCA and the City 's Urban Forestry and Natural Environment Sections. However, it is quite possible from my discussion with the staff at the City of Toronto Natural Environment Section that in scoping each year's projects for naturalization works that some targeted priority sites could be established for budgeting program purposes. Program Overview The City and TRCA have a significant history of commitment to planning for naturalization and implementing planting programs through volunteer and professional assistance. The Natural Environment Section of the City of Toronto has a program structure that includes five main areas of activity: • Flagship Restoration Sites - large scale restoration projects involving several partners for planning, funding and volunteer effort; 234 • Naturalization Program - small scale projects involving volunteer and stewardship groups • Advisory Group to Parks and Recreation - help develop new program across the City • Intergovernmental and Inter departmental initiatives • Tree Advocacy Planting Program The City Urban Forestry Services implement forest management on public lands in ravines as part of a city -wide urban forest program. Their restoration works primarily focus on existing habitat/ vegetation communities and streetscapes throughout the City. The implementation of the new ravine by -law, and its associated community stewardship program will include many small to medium scaled restoration /naturalization projects in the future. TRCA is involved in projects involving watercourse management, riparian restoration, and wetland development or restoration. TRCA specialists provide support and advise to the City on site- specific management decisions relating to land protection, acquisition, ecological restoration through their policies, regulations and studies. Much effort is included in the Corridor Regeneration Plans in view of naturalization /restoration, and through site plan applications where naturalization is negotiated on a site by site basis as best efforts. Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Date: December 04, 2002 RES. #D96/02 - POROUS PAVING FOR RAVINE PARKING AREAS The Authority Board's request to report on the status of policies related to requiring porous paving in parking Tots within the ravine parks and open space system. Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to capture opportunities, as applications come forward, to alter asphalt paving in ravine parks and open space locations and replace paving with porous materials, on a best efforts basis. Practical applications of this direction will be applied to suit specific site conditions. CARRIED BACKGROUND Earlier this year, Authority Board members were asked to approve a parking area proposal within a ravine park. Concern was expressed that in view of the environmental sensitivity of the ravine that construction materials should be changed from asphalt to a more porous material, thus promoting greater ground infiltration of surface water. 235 There are no existing policies in TRCA'S Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program that specifically require the use of porous paving materials on ravine parking areas. Use of porous materials for parking areas and works are established on a site by site basis, as deemed appropriate. Many TRCA properties do maintain porous surfaces for parking areas, as a matter of practice. Similarly, in discussing the matter with the City of Toronto's Parks and Recreation Division there are no policies or programs that specifically cover these issues. In fact, in most cases these decisions are made at the local district level, and are generated from park maintenance concerns. Opportunities exist to further the incorporation of porous paving materials on a project by project basis both within the City parks and open space system and through TRCA's development application review. However, this issue needs to be addressed at a conceptual level of design and site planning as a policy direction. Appropriate consideration of each site's unique characteristics needs to be incorporated to make reasonable decisions on the feasibility of using porous paving materials. Sometimes consideration of whether the parking area should remain in the ravine at all is necessitated. Ravine sites are often physically constrained with poor drainage conditions, requiring thoughtful site planning on a case by case basis. In view of TRCA's forthcoming groundwater management policies, and the recent Wet Weather Flow studies, a change in policy should be considered in updating TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program related to the use of porous paving in valleyland development. In the meantime, staff should capture opportunities through watershed planning initiatives and through development application review, to alter asphalt paving in ravine parks and open space locations and replace paving with porous materials, on a best efforts basis. Where asphalt paving is chosen as the best material for cost, safety and maintenance considerations, efforts will be made to ensure that surface drainage is directed through grass swales to provide every opportunity for infiltration. Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Date: December 04, 2002 RES. #D97/02 - BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Terms of Reference. The approval of the Terms of Reference for the Bartley Smith Greenway Advisory Committee. Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Dave Ryan THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Bartley Smith Greenway Advisory Committee Terms of Reference be approved; 236 THAT the Advisory Committee's primary responsibility be to provide advice to the City of Vaughan and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on the future development of the Bartley Smith Greenway; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Vaughan, Vaughan Chamber of Commerce and the Ontario Trillium Foundation be advised that this committee is being convened. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Bartley Smith Greenway (BSG) is a 15 kilometre valley corridor that follows the Don River through the centre of the City of Vaughan, the most rapidly expanding urban community within the Greater Toronto Area. In ten short years, the population in Vaughan surged from 25,000 to over 200,000. The lands surrounding the BSG on the West Don River, will soon be fully developed, representing increased demands for recreational trails and scenic natural open spaces. The regeneration of this strategic valley corridor was sparked by a generous donation from the estate of Anne Bartley Smith, for whom the BSG was named. When complete, the BSG will provide recreational trails linking the southern portion of the city to the historic Village of Maple and north to Teston Road. The valley lands, once agricultural fields, will be restored to provide a healthy, diverse mosaic of natural habitats and areas of interest and attractions for adjacent residents and trail users. At Authority Meeting #6/02, held on June 21, 2002 Resolution #A169/02 was approved as follows: THAT the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce and the members of the Langstaff Ecopark Steering Committee be congratulated on their successful application to the Ontario Trillium Foundation which will result in a five year program of stewardship outreach for the West Don; THAT staff be directed to develop and sign an appropriate agreement with the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce with respect to the staffing and related issues for the five year period commencing July 1, 2002; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed, in partnership with the staff of the City of Vaughan, and the members of the Langstaff Ecopark Steering Committee, to develop a terms of reference for the establishment of a Friends of the West Don /Bartley Smith Greenway Group to continue the stewardship activities within the Don watershed and, in particular, the regeneration and trail access developments for the West Don /Bartley Smith Greenway." RATIONALE It is proposed that the present Langstaff EcoPark Advisory Committee be reconstituted into the Bartley Smith Greenway Advisory Committee to provide an advisory function to the City of Vaughan and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to support the completion of the trail and restoration activities throughout the entire Bartley Smith Greenway. 237 MANDATE The mandate for the Bartley Smith Greenway Advisory Committee is to provide input to the BSG Program Coordinator regarding future regeneration and development of the valley corridors associated with the.West Don River for the purposes of enhancing natural area management, water management, community involvement and to provide access for trail and related recreational uses. FINANCIAL DETAILS With the Trillium Grant in place, it will provide the opportunity for the Bartley Smith Greenway Advisory Committee to proceed with its function as outlined in the Terms of Reference. Report prepared by: Greg Sadowski, extension 5668 Date: December 2, 2002 Attachments: 1 238 Attachment 1 BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE DECEMBER, 2002 1.0 Background The Bartley Smith Greenway (BSG) is a 15 kilometre valley corridor that follows the Don River through the centre of the City of Vaughan, the most rapidly expanding urban community within the Greater Toronto Area. In ten short years, the population in Vaughan surged from 25,000 to over 200,000. The lands surrounding the BSG on the West Don River, will soon be fully developed, representing increased demands for recreational trails and scenic natural open spaces. The regeneration of this strategic valley corridor was sparked by a generous donation from the estate of Anne Bartley Smith, for whom the BSG was named. When complete, the BSG will provide recreational trails linking the southern portion of the City to the historic Village of Maple and north to Teston Road. The valley lands, once agricultural fields, will be restored to provide a healthy, diverse mosaic of natural habitats and areas of interest and attractions for adjacent residents and trail users. It is proposed that the present Langstaff EcoPark Advisory Committee be reconstituted into the Bartley Smith Greenway Advisory Committee to provide an advisory function to the City of Vaughan and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to support the completion of the trail and restoration activities throughout the entire BSG. 2.0 Relationship to the Langstaff Ecopark Advisory Committee The Langstaff EcoPark Advisory Committee, a citizen inspired concept was formed in 1995 to develop an ecological restoration plan for a portion of the West Don. Representatives from local businesses, the Evergreen Foundation, the City of Vaughan, Rotary Club of Vaughan, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Don Watershed Task Force, the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce, Urban Forests Associates undertook to plan and implement activities in a 2 hectare section of the valley owned and managed by the TRCA. Since the inception of the committee, many important steps have been taken including: the creation of a 2 hectare constructed wetland and 2,700 metres of walking trail that comprise the mid - portion of the Bartley Smith Greenway. The Langstaff EcoPark Advisory Committee will be replaced by the Bartley Smith Greenway Advisory Committee. 3.0 Mandate The mandate of the BSG Advisory Committee is to provide input to the City of Vaughan and the TRCA regarding future regeneration and development of the valley corridors associated with the West Don River for the purposes of enhancing natural area management, water management, community involvement and to provide access for trail and related recreational uses. To this end, the Advisory Committee will on do the following on an ongoing basis: a. Identify opportunities for regeneration, trail location and supportive public amenities. b. Participate in planning processes and comment on planned changes to the corridor. 239 c. Comment upon management, operations and public use issues. d. Promote, in cooperation with others, broad -based community and political support for the regeneration of the BSG. e. Facilitate partnerships with other groups and individuals to help realize the BSG's potential. f. Encourage and assist in promoting special events and other measurers that will serve to raise citizen awareness of the values of the BSG and encourage appropriate use. g. Comment on budget priorities to the City of Vaughan, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and others as appropriate. 4.0 Membership 4.1 The BSG Advisory Committee shall be comprised of up to 20 members in which six hold quorum. Members are to be appointed for a three year period. Two local Councillors and two Regional Councillors will be ex- officio voting members. Mechanisms to remove members and rules of quorum will be governed by the TRCA Rules Of Conduct. The TRCA Meeting Rules of Conduct will be followed. Members who are unable to participate fully in meetings will be requested to resign to enable the involvement of others. 4.2 Membership on the Advisory Committee will be open to all residents and /or business persons working within the West Don Catchment area of the City of Vaughan. Members may be chosen such that the following skills or areas of interest are represented: a. natural heritage / environmental management b. outdoor recreation c. education and interpretation d. business interests that reside in the Subwatershed e. fundraising f. communications g. stewardship h. community involvement 4.3 One representative from the Don Watershed Regeneration Council may be appointed to the Advisory Committee to provide a liaison function between the Don Council and the Advisory Committee. This person may or may not reside in the Vaughan area. 4.4 One staff representative and alternate from the City of Vaughan and staff representative and alternate from the TRCA will be appointed. Alternatives and additional staff may attend as required. 4.5 Membership will be reviewed every year. Persons who are unable to attend three consecutive meetings will be contacted by a co-chair. 4.6 Membership will be officially appointed to the Committee by the TRCA. 240 4.7 The process for appointing members will be: Candidates will be recommended by a nomination panel comprised of the Ward Councillors, two citizen members currently (December 2002) active in the Langstaff Ecopark Advisory Committee and one staff member each from the City of Vaughan and the TRCA. 5.0 Co -Chair The Advisory Committee shall elect from among its members two citizen co-chairs or two co-chairs of which one can be an agency representative. The appointment shall be for 3 years. 6.0 Meeting Frequency The Advisory Committee will meet a minimum of 4 times per year and more often if determined by the co-chairs. 7.0 City of Vaughan/TRCA Support The Committee will be established for a period of 3 years. TRCA will review with the City of Vaughan and confirm the desirability of continued commitment and if so, make any changes as required to the Terms of Reference. The Advisory Committee's primary responsibility is to provide advice to the City and TRCA on the future development of the BSG. To facilitate the work, the TRCA will provide administrative support for the preparation and distribution of minutes and other information relevant to the BSG. In addition, the City and TRCA will provide status reports on planning and development works appropriate to their respective roles in the implementation of plans. The TRCA's provision of support is based on its having an active management role in the development and regeneration of the BSG and the continuation of the excellent partnership which has been established between the City of Vaughan and the TRCA. The TRCA will continue to seek funding in addition to that provided within the City of Vaughan's capital budget to undertake the regeneration of the BSG and related education opportunities. The City of Vaughan will continue to budget for works within the BSG consistent with city priorities determined by Council. The Advisory Committee will report to the Commissioner of Community Services, City of Vaughan, through the appointed staff member on the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee will report to the Director of Watershed Management of the TRCA through the appointed staff member of the Advisory Committee. 8.0 Additional Community Ualson The BSG Advisory Committee is one mechanism for the City of Vaughan and the TRCA to receive community input. The Advisory Committee may be requested from time to time to liaise with other community associations or ratepayer groups to provide broader input. The Mayor and members of Vaughan Council will be advised of all these consultations. The members of the Advisory Committee may respond to requests for information from the medial or local organizations. 241 RES. #D98/02 - DUFFINS CREEK MARSH RESTORATION ACTION PLAN A wetland Restoration Action Plan for Duffins Creek Marsh has been prepared and is ready for public and agency review and implementation. Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority seek support of this plan with the pertinent local and regional municipalities, provincial and federal government agencies, Interest groups and the general public; AND FURTHER THAT an additional public meeting be held to highlight the implementation aspects of this plan. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) along with a number of partners has developed a comprehensive Marsh Restoration Action Plan for the Duffins Creek Coastal Marsh. The overall degradation of habitat within the Duffins Creek Marsh complex is apparent, in a quick comparison of historical and recent air photography for the site. A combination of land use changes, high water levels, flooding, abundance of carp, poor water clarity, and the colonization of purple loosestrife have all accounted for the substantial changes within this valuable wetland complex. Staff are in the process of finalizing an action plan for the restoration of the entire Duffin's Marsh Area and have set out the following goals and objectives: The goal of the Duffins Creek Marsh Restoration Action Plan is to: Develop and implement management directions andpry /ects that w// /provide ecological Improvements /n the Duffins CreekMansh Complex The plan has five main objectives, as follows: • Wetland Restoration and Expansion • Meadow Enhancement and Diversification • Reforestation and Forest Enhancement • Creation of Critical Fish and Wildlife Habitat • Trail Alignment and Managing Public Access The restoration of Duffins Creek Marsh will improve the biodiversity, habitat health, and ecosystem function of the wetland and surrounding area. Coastal estuary wetlands and their adjacent riparian areas are extremely productive systems which support a great diversity of fish and wildlife habitats. Coastal wetlands play a vital role in mitigating the erosive effects of lake and river fluctuations, improving water quality, and providing excellent recreation and educational opportunities. Coastal wetlands have steadily been lost and are degrading within the GTA area. The Duffins Creek Marsh represents one of the single largest opportunities to make major improvements in this significant type of Lake Ontario habitat. 242 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Duffins Creek Marsh Restoration Plan represents a management scheme that will improve the environmental quality of this significant TRCA property. Various activities have been implemented during the development of this restoration Action Plan. Specifically, work to date has focussed around the following activities; • monitoring environmental attributes of the marsh in cooperation with the Durham Coastal Marsh Monitoring Program; • the establishment of a waterfowl banding station; • the development of a wildlife corridor along the TRCA property perimeter on the west side of the creek, south of Bayly Street; and • the deployment of a test scale carp barrier in the north east lagoon. In anticipation of the completion of this plan, the TRCA has also secured the design and engineering services of Ducks Unlimited Canada to develop options for wetland management of the largest lagoon within the complex. Plans are underway to implement the meadow restoration activities in the spring of 2003, post the perimeter of the property with signage, and conduct some additional wildlife plantings. Staff have also been active in assembling support for this project with potential funding partners. The Town of Ajax and Ontario Power Generation - Pickering Nuclear have supported our current activities and have expressed further interest in this project. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding has been obtained from the Region of Durham, Ontario Power Generation - Pickering Nuclear, Ministry of Natural Resources (CWIP Program), Enbridge Gas, and the Conservation Foundation . Funding is available in the Duffins Creek Wetland Restoration Account #230 -55 For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 Date: 2 December 2002 RES. #D99/02 - MILNE DAM FISHWAY Construction of the Milne Dam Fishway Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the update on the construction of a Denll flshway at the Milne Reservoir be received for information. CARRIED 243 BACKGROUND In June 2002, the Watershed Management Advisory Board passed Resolution #D52/02 which provided an update on the status of the fishway at the Milne Dam on the Rouge River. At the time, discussions on a construction and management agreement between Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) were ongoing, the tendering process was to begin in July, with construction of the fishway anticipated to begin in the fall of 2002. The delay was primarily the result of the costs received from the tendering process being substantially higher than the initial costs, necessitating a review of the design and opportunities to reduce costs. It is still anticipated that Cornell Partners (successor to Law) and Ontario Streams will wholly fund the project. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE OMNR, TRCA and Markham officials will be finalizing the construction and management agreement within the next three weeks. Results of the cost reduction analysis need to be completed and changes to the design reviewed by Authority staff. Approval of a new timeline. Approval of contractor. Implementation of the project. It is now anticipated that the construction will begin in late December or early January, 2003. FUTURE BENEFITS Fish passage at the Milne Reservoir will complement the passage that has already been achieved at Toogood Pond in Unionville, several kilometers upstream. In fact, mitigation of the Milne Dam is the final step in achieving passage of migratory rainbow trout into Bruce Creek where suitable spawning habitat exists. FINANCIAL DETAILS The project will be funded by Cornell Partners and Ontario Streams. For Information contact: Jon Clayton, extension 5353 Date: November 25, 2002 RES. #D100/02 - KROSNO CREEK FLOODPLAIN MAPPING STUDY To support and participate with the implementation of the recommendations identified in the Krosno Creek Floodplain Mapping Study. 244 Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority support the recommendations of the Krosno Creek Floodplain Mapping Study; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue working with the City of Pickering to facilitate implementation of the recommendations. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Krosno Creek Watershed is located within the City of Pickering. The watershed drains an area of approximately 6.5 km2, outletting to Frenchman's Bay at Liverpool Road. In the early 1960s, development within the watershed centred around the Bay Ridges Community south of Bayly Street. Further urbanization occurred north of Highway 401 as a result of improved transportation corridors and the expansion of the GO Transit system into the Pickering area. In the north, the Town Centre and Liverpool Communities were developed and expansion in the east occurred within the Brock Industrial Area. As a result, approximately 71 % of the Krosno Creek watershed has been urbanized to date. The absence of stormwater control within the Krosno Creek watershed, has contributed to the degraded state of water quality within the existing Krosno Creek and the downstream receiving Hydro Marsh and Frenchman's Bay. In addition, local flooding problems and streambank erosion continue to pose problems for area residents. Upon request from the City of Pickering, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) was commissioned to undertake a floodplain mapping study for the Krosno Creek watershed. The purpose of the study was to define the limits of the floodplain associated with Krosno Creek. The Floodplain Mapping Study was approved under Recommendation #6 by the City of Pickering Finance and Operations Committee Meeting held on October 28, 2002. Floodline Delineation A hydrologic model was set up for the watershed to determine design flows for existing and future land use scenarios at critical locations within the watershed and to evaluate the impact of projected future land use changes on peak flows. A stream flow gauge was installed in the watershed in December 2000. Stream flow data from this gauge was used to calibrate the hydrologic model. In addition, a tipping bucket rain gauge was installed at the City of Pickering Municipal Offices in May of 2001. This data was also used for calibration purposes. The flow information generated from the hydrology model was then used to undertake a hydraulic analysis to derive the Regulatory water surface elevations. The Regulatory Floodplain was plotted on 1:2000 scale, digital maps in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Natural Resources' Rivers and Streams Performance Standards and Technical Guidelines (2001). 245 Conclusions 1. Given the limited capacity of the existing watercourse, a total of 79 existing buildings will experience flooding, up to 2.1 meters in depth, under the Regulatory event. 2. All of the water course crossings exhibit some flooding under the five year rainfall event with the exception of Reytan Boulevard which overtops at the ten year and Liverpool road which overtops under the Regional event. 3. Peak flows are expected to increase by 17% under future development conditions and water surface elevations will also rise by 0.5 m without stormwater controls in place. Recommendations It is recommended that: 1. A Flood Remediation Strategy, through a Class Environmental Assessment process, be carried out to assess a number of flood remediation alternatives (i.e. diversions, stormwater controls, channel improvements, etc.) to reduce or eliminate the existing flooding problem in the watershed. 2. Additional monitoring data (streamflow and precipitation) be collected and used to further validate and refine the hydrologic model 3. City staff carry out an inspection of existing crossings and remove any debris or sediment build up. In addition, a regular inspection and maintenance program should be developed to prevent build up of sediment and debris upstream of any hydraulic structures. 4. The TRCA and the City of Pickering adopt a water management policy which states that any future development (i.e., Greenfield and Infill) within the watershed must provide 2 through100 year, post to pre - development water quantity control. 5. A Regulation Line, pursuant to Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, be added to the floodline mapping. The registration of this regulation line will proceed in accordance with the Conservation Authorities Act and the approved Generic Regulation. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff continue to work with the City of Pickering to implement the recommendations of the study. For information contact: Glenn MacMillan, extension 5212 or Marilee Gadzovski, extension 5362 Date: December 3, 2002 RES. #D101/02 - SOUTH CENTRAL ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES NATURAL HERITAGE DISCUSSION GROUP Background, purpose, and principles of the South Central Ontario Conservation Authorities Natural Heritage Discussion Group Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Pam McConnell 246 THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue to participate In the South Central Ontario Conservation Authorities Natural Heritage Discussion Group. CARRIED BACKGROUND Early in the development of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program the issue of compatibility with other natural heritage programs was a noted concern. Recognizing that natural heritage issues span watershed (and therefore Conservation Authority) boundaries, there was a desire to provide TRCA's regional municipal partners with natural heritage programs that were relatively consistent regardless of which Conservation Authorities were involved. In order to address this concern, TRCA hosted a meeting in October 2001 with the Conservation Authorities with which it shares regional municipalities - Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, Credit Valley Conservation, and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority - to discuss the issue of compatibility among natural heritage programs. At this meeting it was noted that it is important to strive for compatibility among natural heritage programs in order to improve efficiency, defensibility and clarity for the benefit of Conservation Authorities; regional municipal partners, and stakeholders, while still recognizing that the unique situations of each Conservation Authority may be a challenge to complete consensus among all participants. Follow -up meetings included representatives from all of the nine authorities involved with the Oak Ridges Moraine, and at a meeting of the group in July 2002 at Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, it was agreed that there was a need to formally establish a Terms of Reference and a set of Guiding Principles for natural heritage planning and stewardship within the Greater Toronto Area and along the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Guiding Principles are included as an attachment to this report. As the group now included all of the Conservation Authorities involved with the Conservation Authority Moraine Coalition (CAMC), it was decided that the group should pursue a formal relationship with the CAMC. After the Sept. 17, 2002 meeting of the CAMC, the South Central Ontario Conservation Authorities Natural Heritage Discussion Group (SCOCA Group) was formalized as a subcommittee of the CAMC. Although SCOCA Group is formally recognized by the CAMC as a technical advisory body, a dvising the CAMC on natural heritage issues of the Oak Ridges Moraine will be just one of many topics of discussion for the group. As new natural heritage issues emerge elsewhere in South - Central Ontario, SCOCA Group will continue to discuss how the Conservation Authorities involved can work together for their own mutual benefit, and for the benefit of the regional municipalities that they share. 247 As a result of CAMC's recommendation to nominate a Chair to represent the group as needed, Mike Puddister, Senior Planner at Credit Valley Conservation, was elected to a one year term starting January 1, 2003. The group was also encouraged by the CAMC to interact with other groups involved with natural heritage issues, such as the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Nature Conservancy of Canada. In addition to working with these groups, SCOCA Group proposed that Conservation Authorities across Ontario should meet regularly to share information on natural heritage issues and discuss emerging trends in order to strive for compatibility among natural heritage programs. This issue was raised as part of a session at the 2002 A.D. Latornell Symposium where SCOCA Group outlined its history, purpose and aspirations. The suggestion to session participants was that regional groups, similar to SCOCA Group, be created in other parts of Ontario where Conservation Authorities operate. These groups would meet frequently at a regional level to discuss natural heritage issues, and meet with the other regional groups on an annual basis at the A.D. Latornell Symposium. Participants, who represented many of the Conservation Authorities in Ontario, responded well to the idea of forming a network of Natural Heritage discussion groups - one in South- Western Ontario, one in South- Eastern Ontario, in addition to the one already established in South Central Ontario. Setting up these regional natural heritage discussions would be the joint responsibility of the Conservation Authorities in these areas; however, information was shared on what SCOCA Group had done to organize itself, and participants were encouraged to contact SCOCA Group representatives with any questions. Representatives from SCOCA Group would continue to take the lead during the initial start-up period for the other regional groups, pursuing a formal commenting relationship on natural heritage issues with Conservation Ontario, and likely releasing a series of discussion papers over the coming months. These two topics will be discussed in more depth at the next meeting of SCOCA Group in January 2003. Report prepared by: Scott Jones, extension 5383 For Information contact: Scott Jones, extension 5383 Date: November 18, 2002 Attachments: 1 248 Attachment 1 BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION With so many organizations and governments of all levels defining and evaluating natural heritage systems using a diversity of approaches there is a real need to identify basic principles related to conservation biology and landscape ecology that are common to all programs to act as a basis for comparison and to demonstrate compatibility. The following is an attempt to describe these principles under basic issue - related categories. The first two are strategic considerations, while the others are more specific to system design and habitat patch qualities. These are not necessarily presented in order of importance, rather it should be recognized that there is some overlap between principles, and the interrelation between them is important. Following each principle is an explanation of why it is relevant. 1. Approach A comprehensive approach to natural heritage addresses ecosystem form and function based on a landscape perspective. There is a difference between maintaining the health of a defined terrestrial natural heritage system occupying a portion of the landscape, and maintaining the health of the landscape itself. If terrestrial natural heritage conservation is to be integrated with aquatic ecosystems and geophysical elements such as hydrology and soils, then the condition of the entire landscape, including human land use, must be considered. Land -water interactions are especially important in the protection of headwaters. Ecological and evolutionary processes function at a landscape scale and therefore must be addressed within a landscape context. Ecosystems are not limited by the boundaries of individual habitat patches; they interact with each other and the surrounding landscape. The movements of wildlife such as migratory birds elevate this function to a global scale. There is a danger in assessing patches only at the site scale, which can lead to cumulative loss. A systems approach must be used in determining their relative importance within a landscape and the interrelationship of all the principles in this document need to be considered. Furthermore, natural disturbance patterns such as erosion or fire are necessary for the continuance of some ecosystem types. Because ecological systems and processes are so complex and damage cannot always be repaired, the Precautionary Principle should apply when defining, managing, and defending the natural heritage system. Demographic trends and their potential impacts should be considered in the design of the system, and adaptive management should be applied to ensure long -term ecological health. Actions that have the potential to negatively impact the natural heritage system should be avoided unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there will be no serious ecological harm. Protection of existing features and expansion of the natural heritage system are generally better than mitigative action. 249 2. Scale A natural heritage system that is defined and evaluated at a small local scale should be compatible with a system defined at the larger regional or provincial scale. To the greatest degree possible it should also be compatible with neighbouring natural heritage systems across local jurisdictional borders. Consideration of temporal scale is also important. For example, although some decisions may be made based on short term targets, these may be increments towards a larger vision that can only be fulfilled over the longer term. We should also recognize the evolving nature of ecosystems, and make provision for the continuation of successional processes. 3. Cover /Distribution More natural cover is better. The more natural cover on the landscape, the greater the ecological health. Natural cover improves soils, retains and filters water, improves air quality and regulates climate. It also promotes biodiversity by allowing for greater representation of genes, community types and species, as well as natural disturbance cycles. Even distribution of this natural cover ensures that these functions occur across the landscape. 4. Size In general, large habitat patches are better for biodiversity conservation. This is because they provide more resources to support more species and more individuals of those species, promoting population viability and internalizing connectivity and the values that corridors are designed to provide. They also support more vegetation community types and more age classes of vegetation. They provide a better buffer against negative external impacts, and greater opportunities for natural disturbance cycles to occur. In short, size is perhaps the most important patch measure and overriding principle because the larger the size, the less important the other landscape issues become (i.e. a single patch covering the entire landscape would make consideration of distribution, shape, connectivity, and surrounding land use irrelevant). Another issue is minimum size of a patch to be considered for evaluation, for part of a defined natural heritage system, or to be considered functionally significant. Decisions about minimum size are often based on the habitat type in question, and the total cover and distribution of natural habitat within the study area. 5. Shape For forest habitat in a fragmented landscape compact patch shapes are generally better than convoluted shapes. This is particularly the case in uplands as opposed to riparian habitats which may naturally be thin and convoluted. Many forest species of concern - in particular birds - are known as "forest interior" species because they require the dark, cool habitat that can only be found in deep forest. Forest interior is also considered to be that area of the patch that is beyond most negative edge effects, that is from negative external influences. According to literature, these edge effects penetrate at least 100 metres into a forest, and up to over 400 metres. Typically, forest interior is mapped as the area that is more than 100 metres from the edge. Interior is a function of both size and shape of the patch. The shape with the least amount of edge is a perfect circle. Long, slender, convoluted or perforated patches have the highest amount of edge. Shape of patches may become less important with increasing size. 250 There may be value in defining interior, or "core "area for non - forest habitats, or combinations of habitats, although the literature to support this seems to be limited, with the exception of defining core areas in large reserves that are off limits to human use. 6. Matrix Size and shape may determine the degree to which a patch is exposed to negative external influences, but what ultimately affects the quality of the habitat is the specific types of influences resulting. from the character of the surrounding landscape, known as the matrix. Human land uses such as agriculture and urbanization have different degrees of impact, while other nearby habitat patches may have a positive effect by providing additional resources for species that can move between the patches and by providing support services such as pollination. 7. Connectivity Landscape connectivity refers to the functional relationship among habitat patches based on their spatial proximity and the movement responses of organisms. Plants need adjacent habitats to support pollination and seed dispersal. Animals must move or disperse to find suitable resources and to mate. Small populations that have become isolated in a fragmented landscape are at risk of extinction due to resource depletion or inbreeding and the associated loss of genetic vigor. Two main types of connectivity have been defined: structural connectivity refers to the physical adjacency of habitat patches, and functional connectivity refers to the ability of species to traverse the landscape between the patches. Theoretically functional connectivity must be defined differently for each species because each has a different movement capacity. However, structural connectivity, whatever its form, will not meet the needs of all species. Provision of wildlife corridors, although popular, is only one way in which connectivity can be provided. These issues illustrate the difficulty in finding one measure that suits all circumstances. Based on potential positive or negative impacts of linkages, to connect or not to connect is an important consideration. 9. Diversity /Quality Native species and vegetation communities should be a focus of conservation and restoration efforts. Species evolve together over time to create ecosystems. Non - native, or exotic species are those which have been introduced deliberately or accidentally from distant areas. Although the impacts of some species may be relatively benign, those which become invasive can have catastrophic impacts. It is therefore appropriate to focus conservation on native species and ecosystems, and this may in fact involve the control of exotic species or to maintain the conditions that favour native species. The quality or condition of natural areas is also important. For example, areas that are close to pristine are likely to be more valuable than areas that are heavily degraded. Special features such as excellent representation of biodiversity, rare species or community types, old growth, etc. are also important considerations. 251 RES. #D102/02 - WHITEVALE DAM Undertaking of emergency works at the Whitevale Dam, West Duffins Creek by the Ontario Realty Corporation. Moved by: Seconded by: Irene Jones Tanny Wells THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report concerning the emergency works being undertaken by the Ontario Realty Corporation at the Whitevale Dam be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Meeting #3/97 the Authority adopted Resolution #A58/97 as follows: "THAT 395 acres, more or less, consisting of the valley corridor lands of the West Duffin Creek and Petticoat Creek, be purchased from the Ontario Realty Corporation as they become available through their disposal process, said lands being in Town of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham within the Duffin -Rouge Agriculture Preserve; THAT permanent easements containing 430 acres, more or less, consisting of stream corridors and contiguous forested areas and wetlands connected with Petticoat Creek and the West Duffin Creek, be purchased from the Ontario Realty Corporation as they become available through their disposal process, said lands being in the Town of Pickering, Regional Municipality Durham, within the Duffin- Rouge Agriculture Preserve; THAT consideration is to be the nominal sum of $2.00; THAT the land being acquired in fee simple be free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements and that the lands over which permanent easements; THAT Gardiner Roberts, Barristers and Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs and disbursements are to be paid; THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed to execute all documentation required; THAT where improvements /buildings are found within the valley corridors staff be directed to negotiate the purchase of them on the basis of depreciated market value of buildings with land being valued at nominal consideration of $2.00, subject to Authority approval of individual parcels and purchase prices; AND FURTHER THAT the staff be directed to negotiate the extension of current residential or commercial leases associated with the various parcels with improvements as a part of the transactions involving individual parcels." 252 The Whitevale Dam located upstream of the Village of Whitevale is part of the proposed land transfer. The dam was originally constructed in the late 1800's to supply a water power source to a milling operation within the Village. Authority staff had serious concerns that the structure had not seen any maintenance for decades and that little was known regarding the construction or condition of the dam and requested that ORC undertake the appropriate studies to determine the status of the dam. In addition to the TRCA's requests , the Duffins and Carrurthers Creek Task Force and the City of Pickering also passed resolutions in support of the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC ) undertaking such a study. Following these requests, ORC initiated a process to begin the investigation of the Whitevale Dam. A report on the Ontario Realty Corporations actions was taken to the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Force at its November meeting. The Ontario Reality Corporation consulted with the Ministry of Natural Resources, Engineering Section to obtain advice prior to authorizing that a study be undertaken. The study was carried out by the firm of Totten Sims Hubicki Ltd. (TSH) and addressed both the earthen and concrete components of the dam. Prior to the study being started, initial assessments indicated that the dam had immediate structural problems associated with the number and size of trees which had been allowed to grow on the upstream and downstream faces of the earthen portions. Consequently ORC on the advice of the Ministry Of Natural Resources arranged for the removal of the vegetation, which had already begun to cause failures along sections of the earth fill, where trees had fallen. The TSH report on the dam was completed in September of this year and noted many problems with the dam and recommended that immediate works be undertaken to stabilize the structure. Based upon the structural stability of the dam, ORC authorized TSH to develop a detailed design and tender for construction to deal with the most significant emergency repairs required. Based on the need to undertake emergency works, ORC called for and let a contract to undertake works on the earth fill sections of the dam, with construction beginning in mid - November. A completion date of December 20th, is currently anticipated. The works entail additional clearing of vegetation and preparing the site for construction, and the construction of earth support works including armouring of the upstream and downstream face of the fill embankments. These works will include the installation of a new drainage system along with the installation of a series of monitoring wells and monuments requested by the TRCA to allow for inspection and monitoring to be carried out. The decision to undertake works to stabilize the structure as opposed to removal was based upon economic and ecological factors. The dam currently creates a barrier to fish migration on the West Branch of the Duffins Creek, separating the migratory species such as salmon and rainbow trout from the resident brook and brown trout species found upstream. The Duffins Creek Fish Plan has identified a need to maintain this separation as introduction of the migratory species upstream of the dam would harm the resident species ability to survive. In addition to the fisheries need to maintain the barrier, a significant amount of sediment exists upstream of the existing structure which creates a risk in terms of downstream impacts. Retaining the sediment and the wetland / wet meadow ecology which now exists upstream of the dam is considered as more beneficial than trying to remove the sediments and create a new ecology. The cost in stabilizing the dam rather than removal is also a key consideration as removal would be much more expensive. 253 The Ontario Realty Corporation advertised the commencement of these works in the local paper and held a Public Information Session on November 14, to outline the works and inform local residents. The works associated with the concrete section of the dam will have detailed design and tender packages prepared with the intent to undertake repair works in the late spring of 2003. For Information contact: Don Haley, extension 5226 Date: November 05, 2002 RES. #D103 /02 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meetings #7/02, #8/02 and #9/02. The minutes of Meeting #7/02 held on July 18, 2002, Meeting #8/02 held on September 19, 2002 and Meeting #9 held on October 17, 2002 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council of Meeting #7/02, Meeting #8/02 and Meeting #9/02 as appended, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report "Forty Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed. Report prepared by: Jennifer Bamford, extension 5305 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: November 21, 2002 RES. #D104 /02 - CANADA'S URBAN STRATEGY - A BLUEPRINT FOR ACTION November 2002. The final report of the Prime Minister's Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues entitled "Canada's Urban Strategy - A Blueprint for Action" released November 2002. 254 Moved by: Seconded by: Jim McMaster Dick O'Brien THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT it support "Canada's Urban Strategy - A Blueprint for Action" and urge the Prime Minister of Canada to act quickly on the final report at this critical time in the growth and challenges facing Canada's urban regions; THAT the Authority reiterate its desire to work with all levels of govemment to create more sustainable communities within the context of healthy watersheds in the Greater Toronto Area; THAT the Authority indicate that Canada's Urban Strategy under Sustainable Infrastructure, should identify sufficient funding for land acquisition to ensure the protection of "green Infrastructure", i.e. ecologically Important land and features including tax -based Initiatives to support long -term stewardship practices; THAT the Authority offer as a mechanism for the implementation of Canada's Urban Strategy, 'The Living City', the strategic plan of the TRCA and the vision for the campaign of the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto as a framework for enabling the active participation in the "urban partnerships" by individuals, communities, charitable foundations, organizations, businesses and industries to provide an even higher quality of life for Canadians In urban regions while enhancing the environment for all living things; THAT the Prime Minister of Canada and Judy Sgro, MP, Chair of the Prime Minister's Caucus Task Force Urban Issues be so advised; AND FURTHER THAT Judy Sgro, MP be invited to attend the Authority's meeting on January 10, 2003 to address her report and Identify how the Authority can be of assistance. BACKGROUND At Authority meeting #6/02 held on June 21, 2002, Res. #A170/02, below, was approved: "THAT the Govemment of Canada be commended for the initiative to establish the Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues and urged to put implementation plans in place; THAT the Task Force be particularly commended for recognizing and supporting that urban infrastructure must include "green infrastructure"; THAT the TRCA express its desire to work with all levels of government to create more sustainable communities; THAT the staff be directed to establish liaison with the Ontario Federal Council to achieve stronger coordination between federal initiatives and the programs and projects of TRCA; 255 THAT the Task Force on Urban Issues be requested to place particular emphasis in its final report on the need for direct federal financial participation in the key environmental management issues of ecologically important land securement evaluation, protection, restoration and monitoring of ecological systems and functions not simply protecting remnant features; provision of incentives of various types, including tax -based initiatives to encourage good long term stewardship practices and sustainable community design and development; THAT the Task Force be requested to support the Living City Campaign of the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto as a model mechanism for enabling the active participation of individuals, communities, organizations, businesses and industries in comprehension efforts to provide an even higher quality of life for Canadians in urban regions while enhancing the environment for all living things; AND FURTHER THAT the report be sent to all municipalities in the GTA, Toronto Dominion Bank, the Board of Trade, and the Trillium Foundation. The Authority had circulated the recommendations to the member municipalities and received support from: The Town of Ajax Council The Township of Scugog Council INTERIM REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS In November 2002, the Prime Minister's Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues under Chair Judy Sgro released its final report - "Canada's Urban Strategy - A Blueprint for Action ". The report highlighted part of the 2002 Speech from the Throne which stated "Competitive cities and healthy communities are vital to our individual and national well- being. They require new partnerships; a new urban strategy; a new approach to healthy communities for the 21st century." Canada's Urban Strategy is based on two critical elements as follows: • Coordination and cohesive strategic decision - making to ensure funds are spent in areas and on projects that ensure maximum social, economic and environmental benefits. • Collaboration and consultation with stakeholders at all levels to develop new strong urban partnerships and tripartite agreements. The report recommends that "a designated Minister be given responsibility to coordinate the Government of Canada's efforts in urban regions and to provide a "voice" for the urban regions in Cabinet." The final report has brought forward the Interim Report's proposed three priority programs as the major pillars of Canada's Urban Strategy. These three national programs will form the foundation for urban revitalization and provide the basis for sustainable Tong -term funding for major projects: • Affordable Housing 256 • Transit/Transportation • Sustainable Infrastructure The Task Force recommends the Government of Canada commit to a National Affordable Housing Program that should include: • A Cabinet review of CMHC's mandate to allow more flexible arrangements with housing providers, non-profit corporations, the volunteer sector and other orders of government to seek creative and flexible solutions in regions where there are pressures; • Changes to CMHC mortgage insurance to allow greater flexibility; • Opportunities for exploring partnerships with private and corporate pension funds such as the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System; • Reinvesting a portion of CMHC Insurance profits into grants against the cost of CMHC mortgage insurance to assist non-profit housing groups; and • Recognition and promotion of building methods that go towards meeting targets on greenhouse gas emissions, and encouraging the use of Canadianmade environmentally " green" building materials and construction methods. The Task Force recommends the Government of Canada: • Consider financing initiatives that include: - Accelerated depreciation on rental properties; - Defer capital gains and capital cost allowance on the sale of rental property when the proceeds are reinvested as affordable housing units (rollovers); - Revise the rate and method used to calculate capital -cost allowance (CCA) against any losses and restore pooling provisions; - Expand the definition of 'soft costs' for the first year of operations to allow investors the ability to deduct these from new rental properties; - Change capital gains tax to encourage redevelopment of underused and derelict urban properties and lands; - A housing tax -credit program that recognizes some private investors and owners may take a loss of revenue on the low - income rental market; and - Tax incentive programs similar to the U.S. (e.g. Low Income Housing Tax Credit) as well as other housing subsidy programs. Tax changes are crucial to create incentives for more and enhanced public /private partnerships. The role of govemment is essential to support lower income earners, particularly those who are paying more than 30% of their net income on rent. [CMHC target.] The Task Force recommends the Government of Canada: • Consider forgetting initiatives in urban areas that include: - Renewing the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) due to expire in March 31, 2003 -for at least a further 3 years. Both the RRAP and Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative Program (SCPI) have been well received and are excellent examples of successful bipartite partnerships between federal and municipal governments and individual homeowners; - Incorporating a degree of flexibility into the RRAP program to include consideration of the value of the home as well as the income level of the owners; 257 - Linking housing targets to policies through an "urban lens" as a direct impact of federal legislation. The Urban Aboriginal Strategy could be used as a model for interdepartmental groupings; - Giving special consideration to the critical need for housing among the urban aboriginal community and senior population; - Providing targeted mortgage insurance for brownfield redevelopment and revitalization in areas where there is a shortage of affordable housing; and - Offering grants to non-profit housing groups to support the restoration and conversion of heritage properties to affordable housing. The Task Force recommends the Government of Canada commit to a National Transit /Transportation Program that will: • Consolidate current federal transit /transportation programs into a National Transit /Transportation Program; • Create further tax incentives to aid the construction and use of public transit; • Amend the Income Tax Act to permit employers to provide transit benefits to employees on an income tax exempt status. A personal income tax exemption gives employers the incentive to offer transit benefits to their employees. This in turn, motivates drivers to use public transit; • Encourage the expansion of the 'Ecopass' and 'Passe Partout' Programs, currently a federal pilot program in the National Capital Region, to other federal employees to allow payroll deductions for the purchase of transit passes; • Treat employer - provided free parking in large urban centres as a taxable benefit where there is readily accessible public transit. Taxes collected under this method should be dedicated to transit programs; • Consider tax incentives to Canadian companies that implement traffic reduction programs such as shuttle services from main transit intersections to places of work; and • Invest in a high -speed inter -city rail network with upgraded railway infrastructure, including grade separations and traffic control systems. A National Transit/Transportation Program will have specific criteria, performance measures, rigorous evaluation and monitoring of all projects funded under this program. The Task Force recommends the Government of Canada commit to a National Sustainable Infrastructure Program that will include: • Stable capital investment so that provinces and municipalities can plan for long -term funding over a longer period of time, thus taking into consideration the fiscal capabilities of governments; • Mechanisms for long -term planning to manage local needs and priorities; • A focus on long -term strategies, while targeting regions on an as needed" basis rather than on a per capita basis; • Cost -shared funding to support projects that comprise part of a longer -term municipal development plan; • Public/private partnerships essential to the goals of sustainable communities; • A strong "green" component in all projects; • A portion of funding for innovative sustainable communities that are conceived and built according to the principles of integrated sustainable development; • Criteria to take into account ecological fiscal measures to ensure sustainability; 258 • Incentives for district energy systems; • A central inventory of federally owned lands and buildings, their current and future use that could have the potential for strategic urban redevelopment; and • Removal or reduction of the capital gains tax on the restoration, preservation and adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. A National Sustainable Infrastructure Program will have specific criteria, performance measurements, rigorous evaluation and monitoring of all projects funded under this program. RATIONALE Staff are recommending that the final report on "Canada's Urban Strategy - A Blueprint for Action" be supported as it provides for a coordinated and cohesive strategic decision- making framework through the building of strong urban partnerships. The final report highlights the concept of "sustainability" through building sustainable communities and providing sustainable and strategic funding to achieve the quality of life in our urban regions. It is suggested that the "Sustainable Infrastructure" program needs to include sufficient acquisition funding to ensure the protection of ecologically important land and features including tax -based initiatives to support long -term stewardship practices. The vision of TRCA's The Living City' and the campaign of the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto provides a model mechanism for enabling the active participation by a wide range of interests in the new "urban partnerships." The final report of the Caucus Task Force emphasizes action. TRCA is well positioned as an implementation mechanism for several aspects of the reports' recommendations. WORK TO BE DONE The Authority needs to indicate and maintain its interest to participate in the details and implementation of Canada's Urban Strategy. Staff will report back to the Authority as the Government moves quickly on the final report "Blueprint" for Canada's Urban Strategy. For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243 Date: December 11, 2002 259 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:03 a.m., on December 13, 2002. Irene Jones Chair /ks J. Craig Mather Secretary- Treasurer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/02 February 14, 2003 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #7/02, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, February 14, 2003. The Chair Irene Jones, called the meeting to order at 10:11 a.m. PRESENT Lorna Bissell Vice Chair Ila Bossons Member Cliff Gyles Member Irene Jones Chair Anthony Ketchum Member Pam McConnell Member Jim McMaster Member Ian Sinclair Member Tanny Wells Member REGRETS Joe Pantalone Member Dave Ryan Member Frank Scarpitti Member RES. #D105/02 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Anthony Ketchum THAT the Minutes of Meeting #6/02, held on December 13, 2002, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Steve Holysh, Senior Hydrogeologist, Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition, in regards to item 7.1 - YPD Study Team Update. 261 RES. #D106 /02 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received. CARRIED SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D107 /02 - YPD STUDY TEAM UPDATE AND 2003 WORKPLAN Implementation of the 2003 Workplan and future direction of the YPD Groundwater Study. Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to Implement the attached work plan of the YPD Groundwater Management Strategy Study in 2003; THAT staff be directed to complete and report back on a long term work plan to address the future direction of the YPD Groundwater Study beyond the completion of Phase 2 In the summer of 2003; THAT an agreement be established with the Ministry of Natural Resources to develop a standardized methodology for delineating hummocky topography and to map the hummocky topography areas across the Oak Ridges Moraine area; THAT an agreement be established with the Geological Survey of Canada to provide ongoing geoscience services In 2003; THAT an agreement be established with Gerber Geosciences to provide ongoing groundwater flow modelling support in 2003; AND FURTHER THAT staff extend an offer to the Planning and Public Works Committees at the Regions of York, Peel, Durham and the City of Toronto, as well as the Boards of the partner Conservation Authorities, to make a formal presentation of the study progress. CARRIED 262 BACKGROUND The York Peel Durham Groundwater Management Strategy Study was initiated in 2000 as a partnership between the Regions of York, Peel, and Durham, the City of Toronto, and the associated six Conservation Authorities (Credit, Toronto and Region, Lake Simcoe Region, Kawartha, Ganaraska, and Central Lake Ontario) to ensure consistency in groundwater management, both from a technical, analytical perspective as well as from a policy and management perspective. The study has progressed significantly, initially through a Phase 1 program that looked at existing groundwater conditions across the area, and more recently through a second phase of work that was more technical in nature. This latter phase of work was tailored to take advantage of the MOE's groundwater funding initiative and was therefore largely funded by the Ministry of the Environment through a grant of over $500,000 to the York Peel Durham study. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the work completed in 2002 and to obtain approval for the recommended components of the 2003 work plan that the YPD Steering Committee recommended at its December 2002 meeting. DATA MODEL 2002 was a very busy year for this study with the launch of several strategic initiatives. A first step in the second phase of work was the construction of a common data model that was to house a comprehensive water related database, encompassing the geographic extents of each of the partner agencies. The data model is now complete and the database has been populated with a significant amount of varied data including: 135,000 Ministry of the Environment well records; 13,000 geotechnical and monitoring wells; 250 surface water stations; 520 climate stations; 200 municipal supply wells; 3,000,000 meteorological readings (post 1980); 290,000 pumping rates; 2,000,000 surface water flow measurements; 1,800,000 well water levels; and 600,000 geological descriptions. This component of the study was very successful. Over 1000 geological and hydrogeological reports were scanned in 2002 and are available to the partner agencies through a private web site. The database has been circulated to each of the partner agencies for use, and a comprehensive training program was provided in December. The YPD Steering Committee, consisting of hydrogeologists and planners from the various partner agencies is pleased with the progress on this component of the study and is recommending additional work for 2003. Although Earthfx has developed tools to synchronize the central YPD database with updated databases at each of the partner agencies, the partners have not yet had the opportunity to feed information back to Earthfx. Therefore, the process of database synchronization still has to be rigorously tested. In addition, the study partners anticipate that more geological and water related data will be made available through consultant data mining and other initiatives. These data will have to be incorporated into the database in 2003. It is proposed that data mining and integration be a major focus for 2003. 263 MODELLING STUDIES Two significant modeling studies were launched in the spring of 2003; a more focused regional study, encompassing the watersheds of the TRCA, and a second effort that extended the length of the ORM. Both studies have made significant use of the geological model developed by the Geological Survey of Canada to build a hydrostratigraphic framework for input into the numerical hydrogeological modelling process. The studies will be completed in the summer of 2003. These studies will provide partner agency staff with an initial solid understanding of the regional groundwater flow system and its linkage to the surface water system. In addition to the continuation of the core and regional modelling, initiatives there are two related study components that have been highlighted for further progress in 2003. Firstly, Rick Gerber, who was on contract with TRCA through to November 2002 has been instrumental in moving the modeling studies forward by providing his insight into the behaviour of the groundwater flow system from his previous work at the University of Toronto. With the completion of his contract with the TRCA, Dr. Gerber has established his own practice, Gerber Geosciences. The steering committee has agreed that Dr. Gerber's insight is invaluable to the partnership and that he should be retained by the YPD study on a contract basis through 2003 to continue providing his services to the team. Secondly, the Geological Survey of Canada is nearing completion of their work on the ORM. Dr. Dave Sharpe and his colleagues from the GSC have been instrumental to the modeling and geophysical study teams, freely attending meetings with the study team to assist in conveying the GSC geological interpretation to the YPD team. Although there is internal pressure within the GSC to have their staff focus on other areas across Canada, they are willing to make some of Dr. Sharpe's time available to the YPD team provided there is some level of financial support. The YPD Steering committee has agreed that this should be a priority for the study during 2003. HUMMOCKY TERRAIN Previous infiltration studies by the TRCA and others on the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM), as well as work undertaken by Halton Region and the Grand River Conservation Authority on the Paris Moraine to the west, have demonstrated that hummocky terrain has a significant impact on groundwater infiltration. To date the mapping of hummocky topography has been sporadic and has been undertaken through the Quaternary mapping series produced by the Ontario Geological Survey. No rigorous standard methodology has been developed to date for mapping hummocky topography terrain, in which all drainage is directed inwards to closed depressions. The MNR is willing to partner with the YPD study to develop a methodology, based on the digital elevation model (DEM), for standardizing the mapping of hummocky topography, and to map these areas of hummocky topography across the Oak Ridges Moraine. This will ensure consistency of approach amongst all of the partner agencies. 264 GEOPHYSICS STUDY Another significant component of the YPD work plan in 2002 was the completion of a borehole geophysics program, carried out by Quantec Logging Services. The program has resulted in the logging of 15 boreholes with up to seven different geophysical tools being run in each borehole. The boreholes are geographically spread out from just outside of Durham Region in the east to the vicinity of the Niagara Escarpment in the west. The project constituted the first fully integrated attempt to quantify the geological framework across the ORM using borehole geophysics data. The study has revealed that several key elements of the stratigraphy can be correlated across significant distances. As an example, the geophysical response from the lower part of a borehole drilled in east Durham, correlates with the response observed in a borehole in the Nobleton area, a distance of some 75 kilometres. The YPD Steering Committee believes that this information will prove essential in furthering our understanding of the geological framework, and therefore in understanding the groundwater flow system across the YPD area. BASEFLOW PROGRAM Conestoga Rovers and Associates (CRA) was selected to undertake a baseflow monitoring program across the YPD area during the summer of 2002. The program was very successful with approximately 300 sites characterized and surface water flows measured across the ORM. In addition, baseflow data from TRCA and other partners has been incorporated into the dataset. These values will be essential in calibrating the groundwater models. The Report has been completed in draft format and is now being reviewed by the YPD Steering Committee. At this time no further baseflow work is recommended to be undertaken through the YPD study in 2003. WELL RECORD UPDATE The firm of Beatty and Associates was selected to carry out a program to update the Ministry of the Environment's Water Well Record database. This project met with success in that over 5400 private wells were visited to obtain geographical coordinates. This has enabled these well records to be incorporated into the database. The YPD Steering Committee will be meeting with the MOE to determine how many additional wells need to be located and whether or not this will be undertaken in 2003. OTHER INITIATIVES In addition to the above projects, the YPD team has also spearheaded several other initiatives. During 2002, each partner agency was delivered software products for the three dimensional interpretation of geological and hydrogeological information. Three days of focused training was also provided to the YPD partner agencies. The YPD study has also produced a suite of maps that are now being finalized for delivery to the Ministry of the Environment as part of the funding arrangement for the 2002 work program. This mapping has already been distributed to the partner agencies for use in day to day decision making. A series of groundwater policy papers on topics ranging from wellhead protection for municipal supply wells to addressing aquifer vulnerability in the planning process are also being completed as part of the YPD study. As a result of the success exhibited by this unique YPD partnership, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has approached the YPD team to deliver groundwater mapping products and reports to the Province as a part of a Provincial groundwater initiative. 265 SUMMARY The York Peel Durham Groundwater Management Strategy study is an example of a successful partnership initiative between the Province, Municipalities, and Conservation Authorities. Through the initiative, the partner agencies have managed to capitalize on the economies of scale to all benefit from undertaking collective initiatives only once rather than taking different approaches at each agency. The ORM provides a common physiographic link to all of the partner agencies. Staff will be coming forward in the near future with a long term work plan for the continuation of the groundwater management study. FINANCIAL DETAILS The initiatives described above can be implemented within the current 2003 budget for YPD study, upon the final approval of the YPD budget from the Regions of York, Peel and Durham and the City of Toronto. No agreements will be signed with consultants or partner agencies until the finances are in place in the YPD account and the appropriate approvals have been obtained from the Executive Committee. Report prepared by: Steve Holysh, 905 -336 -1158, extension 246 For Information contact: Steve Holysh, 905- 336 -1158, extension 246 Date: February 04, 2003 RES. #D108/02 - ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING FOR NORTH LESLIE SECONDARY PLAN AREA WITHIN THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED, TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL Confirmation of Party Status at the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing for the North Leslie Secondary Plan Area, Town of Richmond Hill and the participation in a three party agreement between the Region of York, the Town of Richmond Hill and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to share costs for consultants required to facilitate a resolution to issues at the Ontario Municipal Board and /or provide evidence to the Ontario Municipal Board in the event that issues are not fully resolved. Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to maintain party status in front of the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to an appeal made by the Bayview Land Owners Group as ft relates to the Town of Richmond Hill and Region of York's refusal to approve on Official Plan Amendment Including a proposed Secondary • Plan and Environmental Master Servicing Plan for the North Leslie Planning Area, in the Town of Richmond Hill; 266 THAT staff be directed to continue to work with the affected parties to resolve TRCA Issues related to this appeal; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to retain legal services, and consultant services through a cost sharing arrangement (25 %) with the Region of York and Town of Richmond Hill for any necessary representation on these matters. BACKGROUND The North Leslie Area is bounded by Elgin Mills Road East to the south, 19th Avenue to the North, Bayview Avenue to the West and Highway No. 404 to the east. A proposed Official Plan Amendment including a proposed Secondary Plan and Master Environmental Servicing Plan has been submitted for the North Leslie Area. The proposed amendment would expand the Town's urban boundary between Bayview Avenue and Highway No. 404 north to 19th Avenue. The site is approximately 577 hectares(1426 acres).The northern portion of the site is within the Oak Ridge Moraine Boundary. The lands are traversed by tributaries of the Rouge River, contain several woodlots, a Provincially Significant Wetland Complex, significant groundwater recharge and, various habitat patches(ie. meadows habitats) which require protection, enhancement and buffering. The applicant has prepared a Secondary Plan and Master Environmental Servicing Plan(MESP) which shows the elimination of some of the features which TRCA staff consider to be worthy of protection and enhancement through the development process. The Town and the Region of York concur with the need to protect the natural features and their functions on site and on the surrounding lands. This includes the recognition of Rouge Park North Management Plan, recognition of the hydrogeologic conditions, recognition of the requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Authority's program objectives. Jointly, the Town, TRCA and the Region support the need to have consultants participate in the process of defining, protecting, and enhancing the natural features through the site and assist in the provision of evidence to the Ontario Municipal Board if necessary. To date the Town has retained consultants including North South Environmental, Schollen and Associates and Rick Gerber to assist in the review of the MESP document supporting the Secondary Plan. These consultants have participated with Authority staff in meetings to resolve matters with this application. A formal request has been made by the Town to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and the Region of York to share the cost of the consultants whereby the Town would pay 50% of the cost with the remaining 50% shared equally between the Region of York and the TRCA. On Wednesday October 30th, 2002, TRCA attended the first prehearing conference on the above noted matter in support of the Town of Richmond Hill and the Region of Yorks opposition to the Official Plan Amendment for the North Leslie Secondary Plan Area. TRCA staff requested party status at this preharing conference. Also in attendance were Save the Rouge Valley System (SRVS), various landowners within the secondary plan area who are not part of the Bayview Landowners Group but also which to develop and, representatives of adjacent landowners who which to be added to the North Leslie Secondary Plan Area. At the prehearing the Ontario Municipal Board directed that an issues list be prepared and that all parties hold a series of experts meeting to scope the issues. To date TRCA staff and consultant 267 representatives have been involved in the experts discussions on terrestrial and aquatic habitat protection and of groundwater recharge. A second prehearing is scheduled for February 21st, 2003 and a hearing date has been set for May 26th, 2003. Staff will continue to meet with the experts representing the landowners group in an effort to resolve issues before the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE In light of potential implications on matters of Authority interest with this appeal, staff recommend that TRCA maintain party status, as requested at the October 30th, 2002 prehearing conference. Staff further propose to continue to work with the Bayview Landowners Group, other property representatives and interested parties in an effort to secure the protection of natural features and their functions within and adjacent to the North Leslie Secondary Plan Area. In the event that these matters are dealt with in front of the Ontario Municipal Board legal representation is required. Staff is seeking to coordinate our case with the Region of York and the Town of Richmond Hill as is represented through our shared consultants, however separate legal representation is required given the variance of issues (ie transportation, land use issues, etc.) that are still outstanding with the Town and the Region. FINANCIAL DETAILS The processing of the Official Plan Amendment, Secondary Plan and MESP is destined to be heard at the Ontario Municipal Board on May 26th, 2003. There will be significant staff time devoted to the review and processing of the applications and funding for legal and environmental experts will have to be included in the 2003 budget. To assess costs we have required that the consultants provide a conservative estimate of costs to be incurred to the time and during the hearing. The costs to the TRCA at 25% of the total costs to hire consultants is not anticipated not to exceed $40,000. The extent of legal costs is difficult to assess at this time and will be dependent on the extent of issues resolution prior to the scheduled hearing date. Report prepared by: Russel White, extension 5306 For Information contact: Russel White, extension 5306 Date: January 30, 2003 Attachments: 1 268 Attachment 1 0 \\- • _ '■::‘-', :•,\\1‘:\:‘1-1,TV. ':-N-„\---I'ra-2 :1----"--\\-1 - -:--- - \ \ \ \ -i •1,-..."...,, , 4-,:k,v,.,1.5„-----._1 „,:,_, ,,(:;(; ,A,, ,, : ,,4\''' .__-'. I '. -1‘1. 1 \ \ , t• )1.?' \ .. \ ) A 1,-.--C.\\:,......-c-A1:\\?, , \-\, ...t- \, \2_,;•\ \---- \ \ . ■ \ t/ \ \ \ \ \ \ , ‘ \ \ \ _.r.,___. \,„ \ \ '` ''''' \ ' \ \ ■ \ "\......-..., 1\ k \ \ .-- , ' ' \ ,•''''', \ \ \ l', i £91- ZO OdZ1S -II > 0 zZ Z O 0 71 90 (-3 r- 0 0z 00 M Z —1 CO 0 r- Cathedral Community Secondary Plan „,ocos"4 269 RES. #D109 /02 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT PROCESS Proposed Highway #427 Extension. Status update on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff input into the EA for the Proposed Highway #427 Extension Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Anthony Ketchum THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the Environmental Assessment Act process regarding the Proposed Highway #427 Extension be received. AMENDMENT RES. #D110 /02 Moved by: Ila Bossons Seconded by: Anthony Ketchum THAT the following be Inserted after the main motion: THAT staff report back on April 11, 2003 with a more comprehensive report on the proposed Highway #427 extension, Including relevant information from the soon to be released report from the Smart Growth Secretariat and outlining the process by which all the Conservation Authorities affected by the proposed extension can coordinate their comments on the project; AND FURTHER THAT staff examine and report on the Issue of Increased Infrastructure costs to the taxpayer of new development which may follow the extended highway, including sewage treatment and water taking. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND In June 2002, the Ministry of Transportation announced the completion of the Simcoe Area Transportation Network Needs Assessment study and the initiation of the environmental assessment process for a new Highway #427 transportation corridor from Highway #427 to Highways #400 and #11 north of Barrie. A Transportation Needs Assessment report has been prepared by URS Cole Sherman in support of the EA process. The study area, as identified in the aforementioned Transportation Needs Assessment within the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) area of jurisdiction extends from the western edge of our jurisdiction in the Town of Caledon to approximately Bathurst Street on the east (see attached Study Area map). At this time, staff is providing input to the study team through both the Municipal Advisory Group and the Stakeholders Advisory Group. When providing input on a transportation focused study of this size and scale, staff have regard for the following TRCA Policy and Program areas of interests: 270 • The Humber River watershed strategy and objectives, • The Don River watershed strategy and objectives, • Protecting and enhancing a healthy natural heritage system, • Managing natural hazards, • The Oak Ridges Moraine, • TRCA Land Management Objectives, and • Water management objectives including both surface and groundwater resources and their contribution to the natural heritage system. The planning Alternatives identified in the Transportation Needs Assessment are as follows: • Do Nothing Alternative - represents a continuation of current trends, with no significant infrastructure or operational improvements or changes due to demand management Air /Rail/Transit/Marine Improvements - capital and service improvements of alternative modes to increase the capacity and attractiveness of modes other than auto and truck within the corridor • Provincial Highway Improvements - new highway facilities and improvements to existing facilities, considering a variety of operating/funding scenarios • Municipal Road Improvements - new road facilities and improvements to existing facilities Transportation Demand Management - include incentives and other initiatives affecting land use and transportation decisions, to reduce, shift or eliminate demand • Transportation System Management - cost- effective approaches to make more efficient use of existing facilities such as through the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies • Combinations of the above. When considering the aforementioned alternatives staff must consider the broader smart growth and ecosystem management objectives along with more site specific impacts on the natural environment. Specifically, some alternatives have broader impacts or spin off effects associated with them. Providing for new, large scale transportation corridors (highways, new rail lines etc.) may increase the demand and marketability of new urban development in areas currently more natural or rural in character. Typically, these types of projects lead to more private car traffic, longer commuting distances and higher energy consumption and emissions. Alternatively, these same larger scale alternatives provide more opportunity to protect and mitigate impacts on the natural environment while accommodating projected travel demands. The design standards for Rail lines and Provincial highways provide more opportunity to cross over existing valley systems that may be providing significant linkage functions with wider and higher span structures. Alternatively, new and improvements to existing municipal infrastructure may further fragment natural features. Traditionally, TRCA has confined its comments to issues of the direct expected impacts of proposals and programs opposed to challenging the needed assessment and broader aspects of sustainable planning on a provincial or regional basis. 271 The Transportation Needs Assessment report concludes that in order to satisfy the study goals and objectives, including basic transportation demand (the movement of people and goods), it was apparent from the traffic analysis and the evaluation process, that several of the planning alternatives implemented in concert will be required to address future transportation needs within the analysis area. It was also concluded that the only planning alternative that could practically accommodate a significant amount of increased demand for travel is the road network alternative. The road alternative has been identified as the most effective at addressing the transportation goals and mobility demands and provides the highest overall level of support to the economic development assessment criteria. In light of the aforementioned conclusions, part B of the report is an assessment of Roadway Alternatives, including North -South improvement options, East -West improvement options and Highway #11 improvement options. The East -West and Highway 11 options are outside of the area of jurisdiction of the TRCA and will not be discussed further in this report. The North -South alternatives considered include the following: _ 1. Widening of Highway #400 and Highway 11 from Crown Hill (junction of Highways #400 and #11) to Gravenhurst 2. Widening of Highway #400, Extension of Highway #427 to Highway #400 at Highway #93 3. Widening of Highway #400, Extension of Highway #427 to Crown Hill, widening of Highway #11 from Crown Hill to Gravenhurst 4. Widening of Highway #400, Extension of Highway #404 from Herald Road to Gravenhurst and Bradford Bypass 5. Widening of Highway #400, Barrie Bypass, widening of Highway #11 from Crown Hill to Gravenhurst 6. Widening of Highway #400, Barrie Bypass, Extension of Highway #404 from Herald Road to Gravenhurst, Bradford Bypass With respect to a North-South alternative, the report concludes that alternative 3 is the preferred solution. The basis for this conclusion is that Goods Movement, Commuters, Recreational Traffic and Incident Management are all best addressed by providing a corridor parallel to the existing Highway #400. The report indicates that a widening of Highway #400 is a feasible solution but does not allow the strategic development of a second corridor between the GTA and the north. The north is served by two major facilities: Highway #69 and Highway #11. These facilities, however, connect to a single facility in the south: Highway #400. The opportunity to develop a second corridor exists now, prior to completion of a major widening of Highway #400. The second facility would allow north -south traffic to divert around major accidents on Highway #400, lane closures due to construction, and winter storm related closures. The new facility could be designed to a higher safety standard than is feasible on an improved Highway #400. The latest safety standards could be applied, such as an enhanced clear zone, wide grassed median, improved sight distances, improved lighting etc.. Additionally, the proposed Highway #427 extension study area is within the corridor of highest travel desire lines as determined though the origin - destination survey. In addition to the proposed Highway #427 extension, the preferred altenative includes a possible new link to Highway 400 south of Highway #89, a new connection to Highway #400 south of Barrie, protection of transit lanes in the corridor, possible increased commuter rail service to Barrie and commuter parking lots in the corridor. 272 The Highway #427 extension, in accordance with the preferred North -South alternative, has fixed end points of the existing north terminus of Highway #427 in the City of Vaughan, and the proposed north tie-in to Highway #11 at Crown Hill. The alignment of a new Highway #427 between these two points has not been determined. Although a precise study area has not yet been determined, staff has been assured by the study team that no alternatives have been ruled out at this time. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff is currently providing input to the study team through the Municipal and Stakeholder Advisory Committees. Through these forums staff is provided with the opportunity to comment on the work undertaken to date (the Transportation Needs Assessment Study) and future studies. At this time, staff does not anticipate the need to indicate any major concerns with the work undertaken to date and will continue to work with the project team to ensure that our Program and Policy interests are addressed. Report prepared by: Sandra Malcic, extension 5217 For Information contact: Sandra Malcic, extension 5217 Date: February 04, 2003 Attachments: 1 273 Attachment 1 Major tourir clostlnation For illustration purposes only Does not toptesend or preclude any possible alignment tfiticant envitotvtental constraint (Oak Ridges Moraine) H ghwciy 427 C rrridc Needs Assessment Study 274 RES. #D111/02 - UPDATED PLAN REVIEW & TECHNICAL CLEARANCE PROTOCOL WITH REGION OF PEEL To advise Board members of the recent review of and changes to the protocol for planning services between the Region of Peel and the 3 Conservation Authorities serving Peel. Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the updated Plan Review and Technical Clearance Protocol with the Region of Peel be approved and that staff be authorized to execute any necessary documents and that staff commence a similar process to update protocols with the Regions of York and Durham. CARRIED BACKGROUND A Partnership Agreement for Plan Review and Technical Clearance between the Regional Municipality of Peel and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) and Halton Region Conservation Authority (HRCA) was signed in August, 1997. The agreement responded to the transfer of various planning responsibilities from the Provincial government to regional and local municipalities by clearly defining roles and responsibilities for each partner in the planning and development review process. In the spring of 2002 senior staff of the four parties to this agreement initiated a series of meetings to begin the review of the agreement to respond to recent initiatives and determine what amendments may be required to the document. An updated agreement was completed to the satisfaction of all parties in December, 2002 and is currently being circulated to each of the four parties for signatures by senior staff. Amendments to the Protocol Initial discussions among the parties concluded that the agreement was still fundamentally sound and that only minor amendments were required to respond to new initiatives such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan or to better define the context of the agreement to reflect new programs of the conservation authorities and to recognize that Peel had their draft official plan approved subsequent to signing the original agreement. Examples of changes made in various sections of the document are presented in chronological order below. A new "Context" section has been added to the beginning of the protocol that establishes Peel's commitment to the protection of the environment as documented in the Region's Strategic Plan and the goals and policies of their Official Plan. To quote from this section, "This Protocol serves to guide the Conservation Authorities in assisting the Region of Peel to carry out their shared responsibility to foster an ecosystem approach to sustainable living and thereby achieve the goals set out in Peel's official plan ". 275 Existing text under the section Roles and Responsibilities of the original agreement has been amended and incorporated into a new section titled Statement of Principles. The first paragraph in this new section sets out examples of statutory and municipal planning documents that conservation authorities will consult or rely upon in carrying out their review of planning applications. The paragraph has been amended to include the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan as well as conservation authority policy documents and (sub)watershed studies. The second paragraph in this new section sets out the parameters of effective watershed management and has been amended to include the word "enhancement" in addition to protection, and to incorporate new parameters from TRCA's Living City program such as "healthy rivers, biodiversity and sustainable living ". The section titled Roles and Responsibilities has been further amended in several ways: • to establish specifically that the review of planning applications by conservation authorities may include comments on restoration and enhancement opportunities; • to include additional features or functions in the list of our commenting interests such as baseflows, landform conservation, sand barrens, savannahs and tall grass prairies; and • the deletion of the modifier "significant" in front of features such as wetlands, woodlands, valleylands, etc. These changes address features or functions identified in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, conservation authorities' interest in groundwater protection and the approved official plan of the Region of Peel. The original agreement was drafted to respond to the transfer of certain provincial responsibilities for planning issues to Peel and thus applied primarily to those "significant" features as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement. Peel now has an approved official plan which contains policies that set out a Greenlands System for the Region, with that system comprised of local, regional and provincially "significant" features. By deleting the word "significant" the protocol formalizes conservation authorities' desire for greater latitude to comment on a broader range of environmental features and functions, thereby assisting Peel to implement one of the primary themes of their official plan, that of taking an ecosystem approach to planning. CONCLUSIONS The Protocol for Plan Review and Technical Clearance sets out guiding principles, establishes clear roles and responsibilities and seeks opportunities to streamline the plan review process for providing comments on development applications. The just - completed 5 -year review of this agreement between Peel, TRCA, CVC and HRCA has strengthened and made current the role that conservation authorities will play in protecting the natural environment through the planning process. Planning staff of the Regions of Durham and York have also expressed an interest in updating the planning services agreements that they have with their conservation authorities. TRCA staff believe that the current revised protocol with Peel Region will serve as a good basis for updating those agreements. Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361 For Information contact: David Burnett, Date: January 30, 2003 Attachments: 1 276 Attachment 1 PROTOCOL FOR PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL (The Region) AND CREDIT VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY THE HALTON REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (The Cense/vat /onAuthorli /esj December, 2002 1. Context Directions for Success: Investing in Peel's Future, the Strategic Plan of the Region of Peel recognizes the importance of the natural environment through Promoting the efficient and sustainable use of land and through the identification and protection of important natural features and environmentally sensitive areas, (Strategic Directions 2.1 and 3.4). Furthermore, it is a goal of the Region of Peel Official Plan, To create and maintain a system of viable, well - functioning environmental features to ensure a healthy, resilient and self - sustaining natural environment within Peel Region ". These documents also impose a responsibility to ensure the prevention of loss of life and minimization of property damage in natural hazard areas. The protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment, and the safety of persons and property, is carried out in part through the review of, and preparation of comments on development applications, is a shared responsibility with the Region of Peel, its Area Municipalities and the Conservation Authorities. This Protocol serves to guide the Conservation Authorities in assisting the Region of Peel to carry out their shared responsibility to foster an ecosystem approach to sustainable living and thereby achieve the goals set out in the Region of Peel Strategic Plan and Official Plan. 2. Definitions a) Plan Review means: i) reviewing development applications under the Planning Act, and the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act objectives in a timely manner: ii) identifying the need for and review of technical reports; and, iii) specifying conditions of approval. b) Technical Clearance means: i) assessing technical reports submitted by the proponent to determine if the reports satisfy the conditions specified; and, ii) clearing the conditions. 3. THE PURPOSE of thls protocol is to: i) establish the parameters of the plan review and technical clearance expertise that the Conservation Authorities will provide to assist the Region of Peel, (the Region) to make decisions on planning applications and, ii) streamline the municipal planning process where opportunities exist. 278 4. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES For the purposes of this protocol it is understood and agreed by the parties that: i) the Conservation Authorities will review and provide comments on development applications and provide advice in the context of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Conservation Authorities Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Planning Act, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Region of Peel Official Plan and the policies and land use designations of approved Area Municipal official plans, other strategic municipal documents, (sub)watershed plans and conservation authority policy documents and other applicable legislation as may from time to time be enacted; ii) the goals of effective watershed management and environmental protection and enhancement, including, air quality, healthy rivers, biodiversity and sustainable living require the consideration of provincial, regional and local scale natural resources as identified in official and secondary plans, or through municipal studies, watershed and sub - watershed studies, or area specific studies; iii) the Conservation Authorities will provide comments and recommendations as outlined in 5(iii), on planning matters circulated by the Region such as amendments to the Region of Peel Official Plan, Area Municipal official plans and amendments, and municipal studies, including planning applications submitted to the Region by the Peel Area Municipalities and other agencies; and iv) nothing in this protocol precludes the Conservation Authorities from providing comments to the Region in accordance with their powers under the Planning Act , the Conservation Authorities Act or other applicable legislation. 5. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Region and the Conservation Authorities agree that: i) the Region is responsible for having regard for Provincial interests and the Regional Official Plan policies with respect to any planning applications for which it has approval authority or otherwise comments on; ii) any information or data sources provided by the Province or generated through municipal or watershed studies will be shared where possible; 279 , iii) the Conservation Authorities will provide the Region with plan review and technical clearance services for all development applications under the Planning Act, the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and Niagara Escarpment Plan and having regard to the Region of Peel Official Plan, Provincial Policy Statements and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan in a timely fashion, and will make recommendations to the approval authority on development applications on behalf of the Region and copy the Region on all correspondence. The Conservation Authorities agree to provide to the Region the following services: (a) define features/functions, establish requirements and conditions to determine the need for and adequacy of studies (including environmental impact studies) to assess impacts and propose mitigation restoration and /or enhancement measures related to: Surface water, including: flood and erosion watercourse and valleyland hazards flood and erosion dynamic beach hazards kettle lakes permanent and intermittent streams seepage areas and springs shorelines wetlands surface water quantity and quality baseflows Ground water including: groundwater recharge and discharge areas groundwater quantity and quality headwaters underground aquifers Terrestrial features/functions including: biodiversity within terrestrial features ecosystem linkages and corridors environmentally significant areas landform conservation sand barrens, savannahs and tall grass prairies species of interest/species of conservation concern valley land areas of natural and scientific interest woodlands Habitats including: fish habitat habitats of vulnerable, threatened, rare and endangered species wildlife habitat wildlife corridors 280 (b) identify need for a permit to take water (groundwater or surface water) (c) identify the need for an application to be processed under the Federal Fisheries Act, the Conservation Authorities Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, the Public Lands Act or any other applicable legislation; (d) assist in the technical aspects of applying sustainable development standards and smart growth principles; 6. TERM AND IMPLEMENTATION The Region and the Conservation Authorities agree: i) to review and amend this protocol periodically to reflect changes in programs of the parties or as a result of changes in provincial policies or as a result of subsequent discussions; ii) to continue to explore further opportunities to streamline the plan review process as it relates to Provincial and regional/local interests; iii) to make provision for Conservation Authorities' staff to attend Ontario Municipal Board Hearings to represent the Region's interests, upon the request of Regional staff, with respect to the plan review and technical clearance services provided pursuant to this agreement, at no extra cost to the Region. Nothing in this Protocol shall limit the Conservation Authorities from independently appealing a decision to the Ontario Municipal Board; iv) that the Region will collect the Preliminary Analysis Fee for applications to amend the Region of Peel Official Plan and remit any fees collected upon circulation of the application to the Conservation Authorities; fees for plan review and technical clearance services will be set by the Conservation Authorities; v) that the Conservation Authorities will be responsible for collecting any further Processing /Approvals and /or Final Clearance Fees as required; and, vi) that the Conservation Authorities will provide the Region with an approved Schedule of fees and updates thereto in a timely manner. 281 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL Nick Tunnacliffe Date Commissioner of Planning CREDIT VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Rae Horst Date General Manager TORONTO & REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Craig Mather Date Chief Administrative Officer THE HALTON REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Theresa Maguire -Garber Date C.A.O./Secretary- Treasurer 282 RES. #D112/02 - NATURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy - Toronto Waterfront. The Authority, in partnership with various agencies under the direction of an advisory panel, is developing a comprehensive Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy for the Toronto Waterfront under the Natural Heritage Program. Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConnell Tanny Wells THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the development of an Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy for the Toronto Waterfront under the Natural Heritage Management Program at this critical stage in the revitalization plans for Toronto's Waterfront; THAT staff be directed to establish an Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy Advisory Panel chaired by Dr. Doug Dodge and comprised of key aquatic habitat experts; THAT staff be directed to establish a stakeholder committee, chaired by the TRCA, consisting of selected representatives from the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, the City of Toronto, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Toronto and Region Conservation, Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment Canada, Ministry of Environment, and the Toronto Port Authority and other stakeholders as required; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board at Meeting #4103, on September 12, 2003 or at the earliest meeting thereafter upon completion of the Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has initiated the preparation of a comprehensive Natural Heritage Program throughout its jurisdiction. This Natural Heritage Program has identified numerous restoration areas and significant terrestrial habitats within a bio-regional context. The Toronto Waterfront initiative will build on this bio- regional framework and deliver a pair of strategies (aquatic and terrestrial) specifically directed at the Lake Ontario shoreline and the interface with the watersheds within the City of Toronto. The restoration strategies will focus on the aquatic ecosystem and nearshore terrestrial ecosystems with the first phase of this work concentrating on the development of an Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy. 283 Historically, the Toronto waterfront was a rich mosaic of aquatic habitats. Complete forest cover within the watersheds provided a stable foundation of aquatic habitats that allowed for the development of extensive coastal marshes, migratory and spawning areas for fish, and the important connection between Lake Ontario and the adjacent shore lands. Along Lake Ontario, natural shorelines, the extensive marshes and lagoons of Toronto Bay, river mouth marshes and pristine water quality conditions were all significant elements that contributed to this healthy aquatic ecosystem. These historical watershed and waterfront aquatic habitats supported a vibrant ecosystem and a robust fish community. Over the last 200 years, the pressures of urbanization, port expansion and the degradation of water quality-conditions within the watersheds associated with the expanding needs of a growing city have reduced the natural integrity of the waterfront ecosystem. The changes associated with the Toronto Harbour mirror similar changes in metropolitan areas throughout the Great Lakes. Recently, a collective and concerted effort has been directed at repairing the damaged ecosystems and improving the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes. The 1972 bi- national Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement acted as an early catalyst for remediation within these degraded systems. Utilizing the ecosystem approach, this Agreement led to the delineation of 48 Areas of Concern within the basin and the subsequent development of Remedial Action Plans for each area. The Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan - Clean Waters, Clear Choices set the following specific actions related to the Toronto Waterfront - Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy. • Action 21: Protect and Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitat • Action 46: Continue Long -Term Fish Community Monitoring • Action 52: Encourage Research on Protection and Rehabilitation of Aquatic Habitats In the 2001 Progress Report of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan - Clear Waters Healthy Habitats, six key areas of priority action to remove Toronto from the list of Areas of Concern were listed: 1. Wet Weather Flow Management 2. Pollution Prevention 3. Habitat Restoration 4. Smart Growth 5. Education 6. Monitoring Specifically, the Toronto and Region RAP (2001) Progress report set the following priority action for healthy habitats: • Complete implementation of the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project, the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan: Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay, A Living Place, the Coastal Wetlands Rehabilitation Plan and other plans for maximizing habitat (including a wetland at the mouth of the Don River). Partners: City of Toronto, TRCA, MNR, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, other federal and provincial agencies and community groups such as Toronto Bay Initiative and Task Force to Bring Back the Don. 284 • Complete and implement watershed fish management plans. Partners: TRCA, DFO, MNR, EC and municipalities • Continue woody riparian vegetation planting and the mitigation of priority barriers. Partners: TRCA, MNR, Ontario Streams, EC, municipalities and community groups. • Complete and implement the Natural Heritage Strategy to protect, restore and create terrestrial habitats in all watersheds. Partners: TRCA, DFO, MNR, MMA, EC and municipalities This body of work complements the direction and activities of local municipalities, the provincial government and many federal departments. Fish management planning and activities coupled with the development of environmental legislation and improved environmental protection have made significant improvements to Lake Ontario. The Toronto waterfront has benefited dramatically from the City of Toronto's support for integrated shoreline management, aggressive water quality remediation and the inclusion of habitat creation within the waterfront parks system. More recently, the City's efforts with the preparation of the Waterfront SCAN and Wet Weather Flow Plan will dramatically improve the opportunity for a sustainable aquatic system on Toronto's Waterfront linked to watershed aquatic communities. Recently, three levels of government (federal, provincial, and municipal) agreed to cooperate and support the redevelopment of the Toronto Waterfront. The formation of the Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and its mandate to revitalize the Toronto Waterfront will also set the stage for opportunities to continue and maximize the ecological improvements gained over the last few decades along the waterfront. Coupled with the needs of other agencies, this collective and renewed interest in the waterfront and the development of an Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy will provide a significant blueprint for the overall improvement of aquatic habitats along the shoreline. To this end, the Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy has been designed to provide a synopsis of existing aquatic habitat conditions, a compendium of restoration techniques, and a habitat plan that includes suggestions for agency implementation. The overall goal of the strategy is to: "develop and achieve consensus on an aquatic habitat restoration strategy that will maximize the potential ecological integrity of the Toronto waterfront ". To achieve this goal, the following strategic objectives have been formulated: 1. Identify the potential for self - sustaining aquatic communities in open coast, sheltered embayments, coastal wetlands and estuaries. 2. Identify limiting factors, evaluate opportunities and propose actions to protect and enhance nearshore habitats and restore ecological integrity. 285 3. Develop sustainability indices to evaluate the success of the strategy, taking into account changes in land use and policy context. 4. Develop an implementation plan to restore aquatic habitats on the Toronto waterfront, including targets, actions, roles and responsibilities, public education, regular reporting and plan review. The development of this strategy will be directed and guided under the auspices of an Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy Advisory Panel. This Panel is comprised of leading fisheries and habitat and shoreline design experts and will provide verification, direction, and mentoring to the process. This Advisory Panel will also validate the utility of the strategy and provide the stakeholders with an independent and collective opinion on habitat restoration techniques and their applications on the Toronto waterfront. Staff recommend that the Advisory Panel consist of the following people with Dr. Doug Dodge as its Chair: Dr. Doug Dodge, Chair (retired, Ministry of Natural Resources) Dr. Al Christie (retired, Ontario Hydro) Professor Walter Kehm (University of Guelph) Corresponding Members Dr. John Hartig (Presidential Appointee, Detroit River Navigator) Professor Tom Willhans (tentative - Trent University) Additional corresponding members may be contacted to ensure experts advice is available on componenets of this strategy. To oversee the development of the strategy, the Advisory Panel will develop a set of guiding principles for the project. These principles will address and reaffirm the importance within the strategy on the concepts of ecological diversity and integrity, self- sustaining communities, native and naturalized species, conservation by design, connectivity, human uses, consensus and consultation. The protection, enhancement and long term management of waterfront aquatic habitats is the interest of many agencies, groups and the general public. Critical to the success of this strategy is the cooperation, involvement and support of these major stakeholders. The TRCA proposes to form a Stakeholder Committee with Larry Field - Waterfront Specialist as Chair. Initially, the major stakeholders on this committee include: Toronto and Region Conservation; Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation; City of Toronto - Works and Emergency Services, City of Toronto - Parks and Recreation; Ministry of Natural Resources - Aurora District; Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Environment Canada; Ministry of Environment; and the Toronto Port Authority. The development of a Waterfront Habitat Restoration Strategy will set the strategic direction for aquatic habitat restoration on the Toronto waterfront, as well as provide the framework for future directions and /or regulatory approvals from these agencies. It is critical to gain consensus on the Strategy by this stakeholder group. 286 In addition, the TRCA is planning to hold a public forum to solicit input and support from the general public /special interest groups on the restoration strategy. RATIONALE This Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy will be of great benefit to many agencies with interest in the Toronto waterfront. In essence, this strategy will provide consensus on how best to improve the aquatic habitats in an integrated manner along the waterfront. In addition, this strategy will guide and direct the location of additional compensatory habitat. It will also detail specific techniques used to create aquatic habitat and be useful in other locations as a guiding document for habitat practitioners. Shoreline management agencies will also benefit by this comprehensive and integrated strategy. Faster review and approval of projects that affect aquatic habitats is expected as a major outcome of this effort. This project will further the goals and objectives of long standing programs like the Toronto Remedial Action Plan, City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, the Watershed Strategies and more specifically, the Lower Don Naturalization Initiative, Lakewide Management Plans, and the interests of the supporting agencies. It will also be a valuable tool for the many community groups that are working to improve environmental health and public enjoyment of the waterfront (such as the Citizens for the Future of Etobicoke's Waterfront, Toronto Bay Initiative, Friends of the Spit, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, and others). Specifically, the Strategy is a critical and important conservation component to ensure the success and sustainability of a revitalized waterfront under the new Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, the City of Toronto waterfront plans and the TRCA Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE On Authority approval, the project will commence with an inaugural meeting of the Advisory Panel and the Stakeholder Committee. A series of Advisory Panel and Stakeholder Committee meetings are planned, as well as a habitat workshop and a public forum. These meetings are focused on providing comment and direction to the development of the three principle products of the Strategy which include a: • Synopsis of Existing Conditions The TRCA has conducted investigations into the nearshore ecosystem for over 25 years. Efforts have been made at delineating the quality and changes in the fish community, understanding coastal processes, delineating and classifying shoreline habitat conditions. Recently, a substantive amount of effort has led to the modeling of water quality conditions along the waterfront. Collectively, this and additional bodies of work help provide the foundation for a comprehensive understanding of bio-physical shoreline conditions and act as an important foundation for directing the Habitat Restoration Strategy. 287 • Compendium of Habitat Restoration Techniques Many successful restoration techniques have been developed and deployed in areas across the Toronto waterfront. Wetlands, spawning areas, structural features, woody debris, shoals and reefs have all been built within the waterfront. These habitat features are ecologically appropriate to their location, provide critical habitat and have a broader application to many other areas. Achieving consensus on the type, function and size of various habitat components is critically important and a compendium of techniques will illustrate the key elements of many types of habitats. • Habitat Plan The Habitat Plan will match habitat restoration techniques with the appropriate biological and physical characteristics of the shoreline. Critical to implementation, this plan will provide direction and detail the type and location of suitable habitat enhancement projects. The plan will target essential habitats that foster and promote the aquatic rehabilitation of the shoreline ecosystem. Emphasis will be placed on habitat structures, enhancing Community function improving centres of organizations within the system. The overall goal of this plan is to address limiting factors, restore system integrity, and enhance the characteristics of the near shore habitats. It is proposed later in 2003 to build on this intensive effort and extend the Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy along Lake Ontario shoreline within our jurisdiction in the Region of Durham (City of Pickering and Town of Ajax). We anticipate this work to be initiated later in 2003 at the direction of the Authority in conjunction with the preparation of a 2004-2008 Durham Waterfront (Pickering /Ajax) capital project. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds will be used to secure the assistance of a coastal engineer, a public consultation /strategy writer consultant and a graphic illustrator, and cover the cost of project materials and report production. In addition, in accordance with our Purchasing Policy, approval of the Executive Committee will be required for per diems for members of the Advisory Panel and associated costs for Mr. John Hartig to travel to Toronto for the Public Forum, and other consultant expenditures. In total $60,000 is available in the Toronto Remedial Action Plan Accounts (account code 113 -51). Staff is exploring other funding sources (i.e. Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation). Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 and Larry Field, extension 5243. Date: February 03, 2003 288 RES. #D113/02 - TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (TRCA) REQUIREMENTS FOR MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICING PLANS Draft TRCA Generic Requirements to guide the preparation of Master Environmental Servicing Plans (MESPs) and subsequent Functional Servicing Plans (FSPs). Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Ila Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff use the draft TRCA Generic Requirements for Master Environmental Servicing Plans attached to this report to provide direction/input Into the preparation of MESP's; THAT staff work with municipalities to Incorporate the requirements into their guidance documents; THAT staff consult with neighboring Conservation Authorities to Improve consistency with their policies and guidelines; AND FURTHER THAT staff update the requirements as needed based on feedback from the municipalities and to reflect advancements in the Authority's Natural Heritage and Water Management Programs. CARRIED BACKGROUND Master Environmental Servicing Plans (MESPs) in support of secondary plans followed by Functional Servicing Plans (FSPs) in support of draft plans are becoming the standard for directing development activities. Staff routinely input into and review these plans to ensure the Authority's policy and program objectives are being met. Given the large scope and complexity of these studies, it was felt that the TRCA requirements needed to be consolidated and provided in a format that would be of greater assistance to those preparing MESPs. The TRCA generic MESP requirements are an articulation and consolidation of what staff currently look for in an MESP document. Until now the requirements have not been compiled in one place. This has led to confusion on what is needed to satisfy TRCA and has frequently led to the need for substantial and numerous revisions to the MESP based on TRCA comments. The requirements in the attached document reflect advancements that have occurred over the last few years in both the TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage and Water Management programs. In terms of terrestrial natural heritage, the major focus is ensuring that the inventory and analysis methodologies are consistent with those used by TRCA. As well, the inventory and analysis is required early on in the process to ensure that decisions on the scale and design of land use changes are made with a sound understanding of the existing terrestrial natural heritage system. The analysis needs to consider the impacts of the proposed changes in the land use matrix on the habitat functions and recommend the necessary buffering and restoration required to mitigate impacts and maintain the health of the natural system post development. 289 In terms of water management, it also must be ensured that the scope and analysis methodologies are consistent with the requirements of the TRCA. More rigorous erosion analyses are now required to better assess erosion impacts in receiving watercourses, and flood control criteria are evolving as watershed -scale hydrology and hydraulic studies are updated. As the impacts of development on groundwater and baseflow have become better understood, water balance and other hydrogeological studies are required to develop measures to maintain groundwater recharge. The MESP needs to assess all impacts on the quality and quantity of surface and ground water and ensure sufficient area is set aside to implement the measures needed to mitigate impacts. It is hoped that articulating and consolidating the Authority's current practices and standards in this document, will assist municipalities in providing a consistent and comprehensive approach to addressing the Authority's objectives in MESPs. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE There is still work to be done to provide similar guidance in situations where Functional Servicing Plans are being prepared in the absence of an overall MESP. Staff will monitor feedback from the municipalities on the use of these generic requirements for future updates. Report prepared by: Dena Lewis, extension 5225 For Information contact: Dena Lewis, extension 5225 Date: February 04, 2003 Attachments:1 290 Attachment 1 DRAFT TRCA GENERIC REQUIREMENTS FOR MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICING PLANS February 2003 Draft TRCA Generic Requirements for Master Environmental Servicing Plans (MESP's) in support of Secondary Plans Phase 1- Existing Conditions Report Study Area - The environmental and drainage study limits to be confirmed with TRCA prior to undertaking activities. Identify participating and non - participating landowners (map) 1. Compile and review existing studies, reports and plans etc. 2. Summarize existing policies, guidelines, legislation applicable to study area. 3. Complete an existing conditions assessment of the study area (as outlined below) Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Identify, map and inventory all the natural heritage features on and adjacent to the subject site including Iandforms such as valley and stream corridors and areas of steep topography. Vegetation Communities • All on -site vegetation communities must be mapped to the Vegetation Type level based on the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario (Lee et al, 1998). Adjacent off site vegetation communities and those on non - participating lands should be mapped to the Community Series level. Fauna • Both breeding birds and amphibians must be inventoried using recognized methods (to conform with the inventory methodology employed by the TRCA) • Other fauna should be inventoried based on incidental observations and other signs such as browse, scat, tracks, dens, nests etc. Flora • A botanical inventory for all natural areas (to conform with the inventory methodology employed by the TRCA) Landforms • An inventory of all significant Iandforms including surface features and springs 291 Note: Existing inventory data can be used if the information is Tess than 3 years old. In many cases existing information can help focus the scope of additional inventory needs. Aquatic Natural System Identify, inventory and map all existing aquatic ecosystems on and adjacent to the subject site. All watercourses must be identified and evaluated regardless of size. Information must be collected on : • Fish community • Habitat characteristics (including areas of groundwater discharge) • Channel Morphology (detailed meander analysis may be required where crossings, servicing or other infrastructure are proposed) • Extent of connection to upstream and downstream reaches of the watershed. • Areas of groundwater recharge and discharge Note: Existing information may be used if the information is Tess than 3 years old. In many cases existing information can help focus the scope of additional inventory needs. Analysis of Natural Heritage The purpose of this analysis is to identify and /or design a natural heritage system that maintains and enhances the features and functions (values) on and surrounding the subject site, increases the amount and improves the distribution of natural cover, taking into consideration the proposed change in the land use matrix. This analysis must include habitat patch size, shape and matrix values following the TRCA landscape analysis methodology as well as: Connectivity • The current level of connectivity between habitat patches on and off site must be identified and protected or enhanced. This includes connectivity both at the site level and the broader landscape level. Sens/tivities • All vegetation communities as well as flora and fauna species must be evaluated. These evaluations must be based on Provincial, regional, and local perspectives. The TRCA vegetation communities and species of concern lists should be used to provide the local perspective. The inventory information and the analysis above helps determine the existing and potential values of the natural heritage system. This system must enure; • The key features and functions of the natural system on the site are maintained and improved with consideration for vegetation communities of concern and habitat for significant flora and fauna and species of conservation concern. • Connectivity within and off site is maintained 292 Direction or criteria must also be provided on: • The establishment of development limits including top of bank, floodplains, limits of features, geotechnical reporting (when required), meander analysis (when required). • Improvements required to the size and shape of habitats to offset the negative impacts of proposed changes in the land use matrix and improve the amount and distribution of natural cover in the landscape. • Buffers between natural areas and new land uses. • Crossings of Natural features (locations and minimum design criteria) • Protection of groundwater recharge and discharge areas • The degree and extent of public use (eg; trails) that can be supported within or adjacent to the natural system. • Requirements for monitoring and management (including restoration) Defining the natural heritage system must be closely related to the surface and ground water studies to ensure that any changes in the hydrologic cycle will not degrade the natural system. For example; seasonal water balances for wetlands (may require a minimum 1 year of measured water level data), baseflow contributions to streams, recharge /discharge areas, vulnerable aquifers etc. All of the above information should be provided on a map that can be used to identify non - developable and potentially developable areas. This Phase 1 report must be reviewed and approved with written sign off from TRCA before Phase 2 can be initiated. Note: A Public Information Session may be recommended at this point to present " existing conditions" and recommendations. Phase 2 - Natural Heritage This phase of the study will provide a framework and /or direction on the following items: • An edge management plan detailing how the interface between development limits and natural boundaries will be managed. This will include hazardous tree removal and locations and general restoration and management requirements for buffers. • Locations and general restoration and management guidelines for areas required to improve the function of the natural system. • Conceptual master plans for public uses such as trails. • Additional recommendations or mitigation strategies identified in Phase 1. Phase 2 - Conceptual Level Stormwater Management Plan Once Phase 1 has been approved and the development area has been established: Stormwater/ Site Servicing • Evaluate stormwater management options and select a preferred stormwater strategy (ie. source, conveyance and end of pipe) 293 • Alternative stormwater options should be discussed with TRCA before selecting the preferred option • Identify major system and minor system flow routes • Identify proposed road crossing locations and design criteria • Provide an implementation strategy (eg; phasing, interim works, roles etc.) • Identify general erosion and sediment control requirements Stormwater Pond Design Criteria: • Water quality • Flood flow • Frequent flow Hydrogeo/ogy • Water balance • Source protection • Level 1 protection required based on the MOE SWM manual (Draft 1999) • Watershed /subwatershed specific (eg; 2 -100 year post to pre - control may be required depending on site location. • Must update the Authority's watershed post - development hydrology model • If proposed development is beyond the existing Official Plan, a regional storm analysis is needed to determine if regional control is required. • Must be completed on a subwatershed basis • Identify subwatershed and limits of continuous simulation erosion studies that have to be completed in support of draft plan approval • Minimum 25mm rainfall runoff criteria with 24 hour detention • If a watershed water balance study has been completed by TRCA, identify that existing infiltration will be maintained • If watershed water balance study has not been completed, undertake a calibrated water balance study to the satisfaction of TRCA • Must document vulnerable aquifer zones as identified by TRCA and the CAMC, and provide measures to ensure that these aquifer zones are not impacted by the proposed development Note: the vulnerable zones should be identified in Phase 1 294 • Potential Impacts from servicing • A set of criteria must be outlined to be used in determining if any required servicing will impact groundwater flow and /or volume. This framework will be used at the detailed design stage to insure that any predicted impacts will be mitigated. Future Study Requirements • Identify future needs (eg; FSP's in support of draft plan - floodplain mapping using TRCA standards, continuous simulation erosion analysis using TRCA standards etc.) Report Requirements • Prepare a MESP report documenting the work and summarizing findings etc. Note: Numerous addendums should be avoided. Binder documents are appreciated to allow for "adding" or "replacing" sections as new work is undertaken. Public Consultation Process • Public Information Session - present alternative strategies and the preferred strategies • Finalize Report - review comments, revise draft report as required and circulate final reports to all parties for written approval 295 Draft TRCA Generic Requirements for Functional Servicing Plans (FSP's) in support of Draft Plan Approval Natural Heritage Direction must be provided on the following: • Development setbacks from all components of the identified natural heritage system. • An edge management plan detailing how the interface between development limits and natural boundaries will be managed or restored. • Locations and general planting guidelines for any proposed restoration areas required to maintain or improve the function of the natural system. • Additional recommendations or mitigation strategies identified in the secondary plan or other previous relevant planning documents. • Details on the trails as they relate to the natural heritage system (locations and design criteria). Stonmwater Pond Criteria • Water quality- Level 1, refine permanent pool volume based on specific draft plan details (ie. imperviousness based on lot layouts etc.) • Flood flow - Refine hydrology model to specific draft plan details and refine volumes and release rates for pond design • Frequent flow - Complete a continuous simulation erosion analysis on a subwatershed basis using the following criteria: Phase 1: Characterization (to be undertaken by a qualified fluvial geomorphologist) • Characterize the existing channel form to define representative reaches and classify the stability of the active channel (ie. determine the most sensitive reaches). • Establish the erosion thresholds for the entire study area based on field measurements (ie. determine critical discharge, velocity and depth of flow for the most sensitive reaches based on both bed and bank assessment - the most critical values should be used) Phase 2: Erosion Analysis Modelling • Establish a continuous simulation model using Qualhymo version 2.2. or equivalent The modeling will include converting the existing watershed hydrology model to Qualhymo to assess the instream erosion potential. The continuous model should have a minimum of 6 years of hourly data (ie. preferably this data set of 6 years should include a wet year, a dry year and an average year). • Run the existing conditions scenario, which will set up the targets. • Run the future scenario (which would include the proposed developments) with and without SWM controls (ie. all SWM ponds need to be modeled) to determine the necessary storage volume and release rates to maintain the existing erosion potential. 296 • Perform a sensitivity analysis to determine how a 25% variation in the erosion thresholds stated above will affect the design of the stormwater management facilities (ie. pond volumes and release rates). If the design of the stormwater management facility is shown to be sensitive, then the size of the facility will have to be increased to account for this sensitivity. • Stormwater facility • Confirm source and conveyance controls to be implemented • Identify drainage boundaries and major and minor system flow routes for each facility • Size, type (eg;. wetland, wet pond etc.), exact location should be determined for each facility to set the block size • Provide a plan of each facility which outlines pond grading, side slopes, inlet and outlet inverts, preliminary road grades, minimum 3:1 length to width ratio as well as a cross - section through each facility to ensure that the block size is sufficient • Prepare preliminary design for all proposed road crossings of valley and stream corridors or other natural areas. Hydrogeology Water balance • Verify the soil type (ie. by literature review and site visits) • Complete at least 3 percolation tests (ie. Guelph Permeameter, double ring infiltrometer, etc.) for each soil type to assess the infiltration capacity of the on -site soils and how the data compare to the values from the watershed /subwatershed Water Balance Study • Update post - development water balance scenario based on actual draft plan details • Investigate alternative measures for SWM to demonstrate how existing infiltration rates will be met under post - development conditions (ie. conceptual designs and preliminary numbers are required to set any necessary block sizes etc.) Source protection • Demonstrate how protection of vulnerable aquifers (if present) will be incorporated into the draft plan Potential Impacts from servicing • Outline criteria to be used in determining if any required servicing will impact groundwater flow and /or volume. This framework will be used at the detailed design stage to insure that any predicted impacts will be mitigated. Floodplain Mapping • Complete digital fpm to TRCA standards • New base mapping will be required for areas that currently do not have floodlines to TRCA standards • Any new floodplain mapping must tie into existing mapping 297 Implementation Strategy • Identify the participating and non - participating land owners • Outline the anticipated phasing of development and identify any required interim measures • Prepare a sediment control plan for the entire study area, showing all required measures (eg; temporary pond locations, cut -off swales, silt fences, mud mats, stockpile locations etc.) • If the ultimate stormwater facility is not built out at the construction phase then temporary facilities must have an active volume based on 125 m3/ha and a permanent pool volume based on 125 m3 /ha, with minimum 24 hour detention. • Demonstrate how the defined Natural heritage system is being protected and restored. • Identify future study requirements to complete detailed design. Geotechnical • Undertake a geotechincal investigation as required in order to construct an appropriate management system 298 RES. #D114/02 - NATURAUZATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION FOR THE LOWER DON RIVER Appointments to Technical Advisory Committee. To appoint members to the Technical Advisory Committee to assist TRCA staff and consultants in the development of the Environmental Assessments for the Naturalization and Flood Protection of the Lower Don River. Moved by: Seconded by: Pam McConell Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Ron Fletcher of the South Riverdale Community and Queen Broadview BIA be a Citizen Member to the Technical Advisory Committee; THAT the following government agencies be invited to appoint representatives for participation on the Technical Advisory Committee: National Energy Board, Public Works and Government Services, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Culture, and Waterfront Secretariat; THAT the following stakeholders be invited to appoint representatives for participation on the Technical Advisory Committee: Toronto Terminals Corporation, Unilever, Kodex, and Home Depot; AND FURTHER THAT Mark Wilson be removed as a Citizen Member of the Technical Advisory Committee due to his appointment as a Director to the Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Board. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Meeting # 9/01 held on November 23, 2001, the Members of the Authority Board adopted Resolution #A243/01: "THAT a Lower Don Environmental Assessment Technical Advisory Committee be established to provide effective agency and regulatory input into the Environmental Assessment and Functional Design Study for the Flood Protection and Naturalization of the Mouth of the Don; THAT the Terms of Reference, including the membership be approved; THAT the Terms of Reference be reviewed following the development of a contract between the Waterfront Revitalization Corporation /Interim Corporation and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to determine any changes; THAT any costs incurred by the TRCA as a result of the establishment of this committee be attributed to the Lower Don EA project; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Board as required." 299 At that time, two citizen members were appointed leaving two vacancies. At Watershed Management Meeting #1102, February 8, 2002, Cynthia Wilkey was later appointed as a Citizen Member of the Technical Advisory Committee. Ron Fletcher is very involved in the South Riverdale Community. He was the Chair of the Queen Broadview BIA, is an active volunteer, and is involved in cooperative community ventures, including the South Riverdale Art Walk. Ron authored a book entitled Over the Don, released in the spring of 2002. He has extensive historic and environmental knowledge of the Don River. Prior to his seemingly early retirement, Ron was a schoolteacher. Following discussions with Laurie Bruce representing Transport Canada, it was identified that the National Energy Board, and Public Works and Government Services may review the Lower Don Environmental Assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. As such, their participation on the Technical Advisory Committee is requested. Following discussions with Ariane Heissey of the Ministry of Environment, it was identified that the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Culture may review the Lower Don Environmental Assessments under the provincial Environmental Assessment Act. As such, their participation on the Technical Advisory Committee is requested. Following discussions with the City of Toronto, it was identified that a representative of the City' s Waterfront Secretariat be asked to join the Lower Don Technical Advisory Committee Mark Wilson was appointed as a Director to the Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Board. Mark has resigned his appointment to the Lower Don Technical Advisory Committee for this reason. FINAL MEMBERSHIP Federal Agencies: Transport Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans Environment Canada National Energy Board Canada Transportation Agency Public Works and Government Services Provincial Agencies: Ministry of Environment Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of Health Ministry of Culture Ontario Superbuild City of Toronto: Works Department Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Planning Department Waterfront Secretariat 300 Other Agencies and Land Owners: Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Toronto Port Authority Canada Lands ORC TEDCO CN Railroad GO Transit Toronto Terminals Corp. Unilever & Kodex Home Depot Citizen Members: Cynthia Wilkey (West Don Lands Committee) John Wilson Ron Fletcher (South Riverdale) Report prepared by: Ken Dlon, extension 5230 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: February 06, 2003 RES. #D115/02 - NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ACT UPDATE Update on the Nutrient Management Act and the consultation process, specifically Stage 2 Draft Nutrient Management Act Regulations. Moved by: Seconded by: Ian Sinclair Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the status of Bill 81, the Nutrient Management Act Regulations and a summary of Stage 2 comments from a Conservation Ontario working group, be received for Information. CARRIED BACKGROUND Ontario's Nutrient Management Act (NMA) is a new law that will set clear, consistent standards for nutrient management on lands producing or receiving organic or synthetic nutrients, to protect the environment. The draft NMA will be subject to three stages of consultations in an effort to test the strengths and weaknesses of the legislation, its enforcement and criteria for implementation by landowners through a Nutrient Management Plan. To date, interested parties affected by the legislation have had reasonable access to information and consultation sessions across Ontario to voice concerns and make recommendations to the draft. Stage 1 reviewed the criteria and categories for phasing in the NMA legislation over the next five years. Stage 2, completed January 31, 2003, has been designed to provide a means to implement the NMA and regulate nutrient management activities by farmers, municipalities and the non -farm 301 industry. It addresses key water protection issues, manure and bio-solid management issues, basic nutrient management and the details of the regulations. Stage 3 is very specific to the regulations dealing with livestock access to waterways, manure haulage and transfer, milkhouse washwater, dead animal disposal and other recommendations related to the adoption of Best Management Practices. TRCA staff have been part of a working group of C.A.'s to establish an effective role in the consultation process for Stages 1, 2 and 3. The focus of the group is to develop solutions, based on our collective expertise in agriculture and water resource management, to improve water protection within the NMA regulations and our respective watersheds. A formal list of comments on Stage 1 was provided on behalf of Conservation Ontario's 36 member C.A.'s on October 18, 2002, and a follow up meeting with Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) was held on November 8, 2002. Incorporation of the recommendations from these two communications have been, for the most part, incorporated into the new draft. The group met most recently on January 16, 2003, to discuss Stage 2, to again review the regulations in detail and identify the collective concerns of the C.A.'s These concerns include, but are not limited to consideration for incorporating available resource data, enforcement of the legislation, compliance, implementation and research. As well the group has identified concerns related to livestock access, application and spreading of manure, definitions as they relate to technical terminology, 'monitoring, financial assistance and integration of Nutrient Management Plans and Environmental Farm Plans with Source Water Protection Plans. A draft summary of the comments compiled from that meeting is attached. TRCA staff have participated in Nutrient Management Plan workshops, conducted an NMA Information Night in partnership with Ontario Ministry of Food and Agriculture, developed a Nutrient Management Plan fact sheet, and provided a workshop for landowners to promote local funding sources for agricultural Best Management Practices (BMP) projects on their lands. RATIONALE Overall the NMA Legislation is a tremendous step in recognizing the need for effective and enforceable legislation to address the environmental and public health impacts of agricultural operations in Ontario, in relation to nutrient management. As we are currently in Stage 2 of a three -stage regulatory plan, it is important to ensure that the final version is comprehensive in its outcomes and supports other water policy initiatives taken by the province to better protect our waters. Staff request support from the Board, to continue their current role in review of the NMA and the consultation process established through Conservation Ontario and continue with our current extension efforts to the farm community. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • The TRCA, Conservation Ontario and their partners continue to work with municipalities and the Province to review the requirements of the Nutrient Management Act Legislation. 302 • The TRCA, Conservation Ontario and their partners continue to work with municipalities and the Province during the phasing in of the various regulations, particularly related to private landowners contracted through the TRCA Rural Clean Water Program, development of the Agricultural Non Point Source Model, preparation of watershed based Source Protection Plans, extension and outreach education services, the Stewardship Resource Centre and the preparation of Nutrient Management Plans for existing and future leased farm lands owned by TRCA. • The TRCA develop a detailed review of the final NMA legislation to provide a working knowledge of each of the five one year phases and their impacts to current and future water resource protection programs on private lands, approvals and design considerations for Rural Clean Water Program projects and other private land stewardship initiatives. • The TRCA determine the responsibility for the preparation of Nutrient Management Plans for existing and future leased lands. • Consider the benefits of training TRCA staff to review, prepare and or approve Nutrient Management Plans for various land uses including farms, golf courses and recreational sports fields, municipal sewage treatment facilities and nurseries. • Upon final passing of the NMA legislation, TRCA staff explore the need for the expertise of an agricultural consultant to assist with the Authority's obligations as they pertain to Bill 81. FINANCIAL DETAILS Not applicable at this time. Report prepared by: Patricia Lowe, extension 5365 For Information contact: Patricia Lowe, extension 5365 or Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Date: January 22, 2003 Attachments: 1 303 Attachment 1 CONSERVATION ONTARIO WORKING GROUP Comments on the Stage 2 NMA January 16, 2003 Please accept the following comments on behalf of Conservation Ontario on the Stage 2 Nutrient Management Regulations. First of all we would like to congratulate the Ministry for all of its efforts in the writing of this document, these regulations are extremely comprehensive and cover off a wide spectrum of issues which will hopefully not only provide the necessary protection of our environment but will also aid in the efficient use of nutrients for more cost effective agricultural production. Since this is such a comprehensive Act it needs to be read and digested thoroughly in order to get a complete understanding. While comments are offered based on specific sections of the regulations there are some over - riding themes /issues which we have identified. These include: i) a need for agreement on surface and ground water quality objectives amongst agencies in order to provide a plan to a farmer with the aim of achieving acceptable levels; ii) distance separation from potential contaminant sources such as storage or spreading locations should recognize all potentially sensitive areas including all local wells, groundwater and surface water conditions and wetlands; iii) ensuring that the protection of both surface and ground water are the key factors used when enacting each regulation; iv) elimination of winter spreading should be phased in to allow small operators on a site -by -site basis, to comply. These farms should have a plan in place for future compliance; v) ensure there are no conflicts with Conservation Authority Regulations (CA Act) with respect to nutrient storage and spreading within floodplains. To begin there are many sections throughout the regulations which we feel are excellent initiatives and will help provide necessary environmental protection, these include: • provisions for the creation of vegetated buffer zone along adjacent surface water; • the establishment of minimum setbacks from top of bank of surface water and the conditions of Best Management Practices in order to reduce the minimum setback; • certification of operations as outlined in Part IV of the regulations Approval and Certification; • the banning of high trajectory irrigation guns; • regulations for winter applications; • the proposed strategy for the phase out of the land application of untreated septage. 304 Some of the more specific comments with respect to the regulations include: Part 1 Definitions "Contaminated" - it is our feeling that new definitions for the water quality contamination are being created in this document ie. that a nutrient in a concentration that is ten times the ambient background water quality concentration. Also the definition with respect to E coli density is also very unclear. It is understandable that it is difficult to use provincial water quality objectives since many streams across the province do not meet these conditions. Monitoring completed by Conservation Authorities in conjunction with the Ministry of the Environment and through other programs are setting baselines for many watercourses and this information should be used when determining high levels of contamination. "Permanent water table" - use of test hole data or permanent monitoring wells data (where available) should be the main source for determining local permanent water tables. In many instances water well record data is not accurate due to the temporal changes of water levels and inconsistency of accurate measurements based on drilling techniques. Part 2 through 4 Strategies and Plans Under the section outlining when a plan is required, there needs to be some clarification on what some of the non -farm operations requiring strategies or plans are such as golf courses or potentially sports fields /recreational areas (which could be based on a minimum size). There also needs to be clearer definitions of what constitutes a new and expanding operation this should also include what triggers an NMP. This is especially true where the expansion of an operation moves it from one category to the next (ie Category 3 to 4) and ensuring that the operation is following all requirements found within that category. Category 1 and 2 farms should be required to register a simple one page summary form of their non - certified NMP with either their local OMAF /MOE/Municipal or Conservation Authority office on a three year basis. This information would allow for municipalities and local resource agencies to keep up to date on total nutrient loadings within various regions. This information would assist with the analysis of an overall regional or watershed nutrient loading and would assist with reviews for determining siting of new and expanding operations. Part 6 Land Application Standards Under Liquid Prescribed Material Table 1 identifies runoff potential, it seems that there may also be some benefit to creating a table that indicates impact potential to groundwater resources. This table should be based on soil types, depth to water table, depth of overburden which would provide a more comprehensive effort towards protecting vulnerable groundwater zones. The maximum rates for single applications as identified in Table 2 are simply not restrictive, especially when it allows for the spreading of over 13,000 gallons per acre in a single application. These rates are simply too high and there is no indication of any science which supports spreading at these rates. 305 Setbacks from wells and other landuses is a good basic standard, however it is difficult to use set distances as this does not take into account individual site characteristics. Setback distances may meet current provincial minimum standards but may not reflect current state of knowledge. Need to address conditions such as soil type, hydraulic conductivity, etc. As the province moves forward with Source Water Protection Planning (SPP), standards from these efforts (which may be more rigorous) will need to be incorporated with Nutrient Management Planning. While these regulations have tried to address some of the issues with winter application (spreading between December 1 and March 31) it is felt that some of the regulations outlined for this spreading period could be put into place under a "post harvest heading ". Since groundwater recharge rates are at there highest beginning in the fall season, reduction in application rates (which are already outlined in section 6.13.1 paragraph 7) may be prudent beginning once crops have been harvested and nutrient uptake is no longer taking place. With the various categories of farms being phased over the next five years there should be the opportunity for the phasing in of winter application restrictions to coincide with the NMP requirements. However, until such time as each farm category has adopted the regulations a minimum 50 m setback from top of bank should be required. With respect to application to land with tile drainage, it must be stated if soil moisture is such that it is causing flow at a tile outlet then land application should not be done. Subsequently in areas where there are permanently flowing drainage tile then these areas need to be red flagged and further investigation completed to determine the source of this flow in order that applications are not made within the area of this preferential flow. In areas of permanent tile flow where nutrients are to be applied end of pipe treatments must be mandatory. Through the provinces municipal groundwater studies valuable groundwater resource information is being identified and mapped for the entire province. This information includes recharge and discharge areas, aquifer vulnerability and municipal wellhead capture zones. When NMP's are being developed for all farms this resource information must be made available so things such as high recharge areas, vulnerable aquifers etc. can be identified in the plan. During the Plan development it is hoped that these key areas are red flagged for further discussion and management plans on how to best deal with them in order to protect our groundwater resource. In order that this information is available during the development of initial NMP's for all four category farms a workshop setting whereby all available resource information is available and therefore could be identified on all plans. This could also be done in connection with the Environmental Farm Plan workshops which should also be mandatory when completing Nutrient Management Plans. Part 8 Siting and Construction Standards The main concern identified in this section was with respect to the requirement of a minimum 50 meter flow from a nutrient management facility to top of bank of the nearest surface water source. While there are concerns that berms created between the facility and along the surface water course may contradict floodplain policy, it is hoped that through section 8.7 (which identifies that no facility is constructed within the regional or 1 in 100 year flood line) of the regulations these concerns will be addressed. 306 General There is a need for allowance and further research into more cost - effective treatment solutions for smaller farms such as the use of artificial wetlands. With respect to livestock, allowing open access of livestock to watercourses is not an option. However there remains concerns with fencing being inadequate to sustain spring flood flows and ice as well as pastures which contain low intensive livestock numbers that it is difficult to justify the cost of fencing. As has been outlined with nutrient application along open watercourse the use of a formula whereby the practice of certain BMP's can reduce the need for fence has merit. Therefore if no management practices such as rotational grazing or alternative watering sources are used then complete fencing restrictions should be required. If the best management practices mentioned above are used then some leniency towards fencing could be provided based on the fact that access would be limited. To ensure that the Nutrient Management Act results in protecting Ontario's water resources there is a need to do effectiveness monitoring to determine if Nutrient Management Planning is working over the long term. The province needs to set goals and objectives for the program and collect data to document if the Nutrient Management Plans are resulting in the desired effect. To that end ministry staff reviewing Nutrient Management Plans and completing audits should liaise closely with Municipal and Conservation Authority staff who are monitoring watershed and subwatershed health. This information would help to identify priority areas within the watershed with respect to Nutrient Management and other Best management Practices. Financial assistance to farmers is required for implementation of these regulations. 307 RES. #D116 /02 - 2002 CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Egg Oiling. The 2002 Canada Goose Management Egg Oiling Program Progress Report and details of the 2003 Program. Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Tanny Wells THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 2002 Goose Management Program Report be endorsed; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue to pursue the program with area municipalities. AMENDMENT RES. #D117 /02 Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Tanny Wells THAT the following be Inserted after the main motion: AND FURTHER THAT TRCA send a letter to local waterfront businesses In the area affected by significant goose populations advising them of the goose oiling program and requesting their financial assistance with the program. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND From 1998 to 2002 a comprehensive approach to locating and oiling Canada Goose eggs within the City of Toronto, the City of Pickering, and the City of Vaughan was implemented. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff implemented this program with support from the City of Toronto, the City of Pickering, Seneca College, and the City of Vaughan. The objective of the 1998 to 2002 programs was to specifically manage reproduction of nesting Canada Geese (specifically through egg oiling) on lands in the GTA. This technique also compliments other management strategies that are being developed by various municipalities along the north shore of Lake Ontario. Other Management Techniques Used by Various Regions • Relocation of Canada Geese: Adult and juvenile geese are rounded up while molting and relocated to another area. • Habitat modification: Intense plantings along shorelines, fencing off large manicured lawn areas where geese will tend to feed, etc. 308 • Deterrent tactics: Pyrotechnics (screamers, bangers and noise bombs), the use of dogs to chase and scare geese away, etc. • Legal Hunting: early and regular goose hunting seasons is an effective technique in reducing the local goose population. • Education: The use of signs and information pamphlets in educating the public on the negative effect on feeding waterfowl. • Goose camp: Geese are rounded during molt and taken to a goose camp where they will reside until their molt is complete. • Egg addling: This technique involves vigorous shaking of eggs until a slush sound is heard, thus ensuring destruction of the embryo. • Nest destruction: This technique includes the destruction of a nest and eggs. Canada Goose nests were searched out by actively patrolling the designated areas using TRCA Environmental Technicians. Designated areas include: - coastal wetlands; - golf courses; - water treatment plants; and - industrial areas adjacent to wetlands. In cases where it was not possible to access areas by foot, a small aluminum boat equipped with a 15 HP outboard was used to search the shoreline from the water. This was particularly useful in the coastal marshes and rivers. Active nests were identified with flagging tape and given an identification number. Eggs were treated with 50-90 ml of Daedol 50 in order to thoroughly coat the egg as well as the nest material. The eggs were turned over in the nest to ensure complete coverage of the egg with the oil. Once an egg has been oiled the pores become clogged and the undeveloped embryo suffocates. Oil was not applied to any nests with eggs that were pipped or starred indicating that hatching had started. Daedol 50 is a chemically inert, non - poisonous, 100% pure, USP (United States Pharmacopoeia), white mineral oil that is essentially colourless, odourless and tasteless. The product is registered under the Federal Pest Control Products Act and is used in the food industry rendering chicken eggs inert. Nest locations were noted on appropriately scaled field maps, and the data was later transferred into a Geographic Information System database and the results were plotted on a georeferenced colour aerial photographs. This is an important method to track and archive nest location and egg density. 309 Each location was monitored on three dates in order to locate new nests and to ensure the effectiveness of the oiling program by determining the fate of each nest treated. The cost of this program on a annual basis is approximately $9,000.00. As in previous years the egg oiling was found to be effective in preventing treated eggs from hatching. There was no incidence of eggs, within a treated nest, successfully hatching. Mute Swan eggs were also included in the program using the same methods. The Mute Swan has become a target for the egg oiling campaign for two reasons. • The Mute Swan is a voracious eater of wetland plants, and often uproots entire clumps of plants while feeding on their roots. This seriously impedes restoration work and damages existing habitat. • These birds are very aggressive, disrupting waterfowl which are less common and more sensitive to disturbance. Although some concern has been expressed by members of the public in this regard, the ecological benefits of stabilizing the Mute Swan population must be considered. An annual swan egg oiling program will not'affect the existing opportunities for public viewing or appreciation, however, it will slow the population increase and distribution of this species into waterfront habitats. All regulatory requirements and permits for the egg oiling program have been secured from the Canadian Wildlife Service. A permit under the Migratory Birds Regulations, Section No. 26(1) - 26.1(1) allows TRCA staff to conduct this egg oiling program with a number of special conditions that control the location and constraints of these activities. RATIONALE Increasing numbers of resident and migrant Canada Geese within the parklands of the GTA have become both a problem and a nuisance. Documented impacts range from habitat destruction and water quality impairment to agricultural crop damage and fouling of public lands. Egg oiling has been identified as an effective technique (on a site specific level) that reduces the population of young birds into a specific area. Oil is applied to the eggs on three separate occasions. Once eggs are oiled, the pores are clogged thereby causing the embryo to die of asphyxiation insuring that incubation does not occur. Geese will tend to stay on the nest past estimated hatch date ensuring that re- nesting will not occur due to the lateness in the season. Since the program started in 1998, over 3000 Canada eggs have been oiled. With further population growth calculations we can assume that the Canada Goose egg oiling program has currently prevented 5500 Canada Geese from entering the resident goose population. 310 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Details of work to be done is the undertaking of egg oiling in 2003 and in the future as a means of managing local resident geese. Egg oiling has been identified as an effective technique that would reduce the recruitment of young birds into specific areas in the short-term and may reduce the number of nesting adults that return to the Toronto waterfront in the long -term. Staff will continue to work with the City of Toronto, the City of Pickering, the City of Vaughan and Seneca College and build our partnership on this management issue. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding has been obtained from the City of Toronto, the City of Pickering, the City of Vaughan, and Seneca College in past years. TRCA staff will seek additional financial support from the Federal Government. Funding is available in the Canada Goose Management Program Account No. 225 -75. Report prepared by: Danny Moro, extension 5372 For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 Date: February 03, 2003 RES. #D118/02 - UPDATE ON LOW FLOW MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Reporting on the status of low flow management in TRCA watersheds. Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the Update on the Low Flow Management Program be accepted for information, and that the staff of the Authority continue In the development of the program and discuss the findings related with surface water taking's with appropriate MOE staff as analysis of the data directs. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #2/01, the Board adopted Resolution #D37/01, outlined below, which authorized staff to develop a management program to deal with low flows within our watersheds. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the development of a Low Flow Management Plan be accepted for information, and that the Authority continue to collect the data necessary to accomplish the development and implementation of the Plan. Since the time of the above meeting, staff of the Authority have continued to collect summer baseflow data with the intent towards completing an understanding of our low flow systems, the development of a Low Flow Plan, and integrating this data within our watershed management strategies. 311 Data Collection In 2001, funds were available to hire staff for one field crew. Given the limited resources, our efforts centered on the Upper East Humber River, portions of the Upper Main Humber River and within the Centreville Creek due to the need for information related to the Oak Ridges Moraine. In addition, as part of a pilot project, data was collected within the Reesor Creek sub - watershed of the Duffins Creek at sites previously measured by the Geologic Survey of Canada in 1995. With one crew of summer staff collecting data in 2001, approximately 70 sites were measured, with many of these sites visited on several occasions throughout the summer period. In 2002, funds from both Peel Region and from The Rouge Park were received, which allowed for three field crews to be hired. In addition to an increase in low flow staff, portable computer systems were employed that allowed for data to be collected, analyzed and input directly to data bases. This change allowed us to improve the efficiency of data gathering, quality control of the data and increase the number of sites visited. As a consequence, with three crews collecting data during the summer of 2002, data was collected at 597 sites. In 2002, data was collected within the entire West Humber sub - watershed, the Upper Etobicoke Creek watershed, the upper Main Humber, Cold Creek and Centreville Creek in the Humber watershed (as input to the Regions of Peels Caledon Permit to Take Water monitoring ). Base flow measurements were also collected within the Rouge River watershed at 184 sites. The Rouge River had a number of previous measurements taken by the Geologic Survey of Canada in 1997. Data Analysis To date, analysis of the collected data is ongoing, and has focused on the information collected within the Duffins and Carruthers Creek's and the Rouge River watersheds. Mapping products have been produced which identify the distribution of base flows on both an overall watershed and sub - watershed basis. Detailed reports are in the process of being completed for the Duffins and Carruthers Creek basins. The reports will describe the baseflow distributions and assess the impacts of permitted water taking's based upon the MOE Permit to Take Water data base and assess potential impacts to the baseflow systems by integrating information on land use change reflected in both water budget and groundwater modeling. To date, initial analyses have indicated both existing issues related to water taking's impacting baseflow and potential future impacts related to pending permit applications. Land use changes also indicate moderate potential impacts to baseflow which will assist in justifying a need for additional runoff and infiltration targets to be met through future development. Initial analysis of base flows to water taking's on the Carruthers Creek flagged a potential problem where an application for taking's would exceed the baseflow. This issue has led to discussions with both MOEE and the water taking proponent in order to develop a specific water taking protocol to protect the baseflow. 312 In the Duffins Creek, water taking's represent Tess of a problem, with overall taking's representing closer to 5% of the baseflow discharges. The most impacted watershed is the Reesor Creek where up to 19% of the baseflow is allocated to water taking. Analysis of baseflow impacts related to future land use changes being studied in the Duffins Creek Watershed Plan indicate a potential for local watershed impacts of up to a 26 % reduction in baseflow input, but overall, the watershed baseflows will experience only minimal impacts. The baseflow data and the detailed analysis is also being integrated into the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan as well as the development of the Duffins and Carruthers Creek's Fish Management Plans. Initial analysis of Rouge River data is only just getting underway, however, the data is indicating significant issues related to water taking's within the Little Rouge, where the data reflects a loss of almost 50 % of the basin's baseflows due to water taking's. A comparison of data collected by the GSC in 1997 and the data collected by TRCA staff in 2002 reflects similar impacts. In 2003, funds have been received from the Regions of York and Peel, as well as from the City of Toronto to allow for the completion of data collection on the Humber River and to collect flow data on the Don River and Highland Creeks, Report prepared by: Don Haley, extension 5226 For Information contact: Don Haley, extension 5226 Date: November 07, 2002 RES. #D119/02 - URBAN AGRICULTURE PROJECT Endorsement of the Urban Agriculture Project for a TRCA property located at Black Creek Pioneer Village Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the concept of developing an Urban Agriculture Project at Black Creek Pioneer Village be endorsed; THAT staff be authorized to take such action as is necessary to implement the project, Including the signing and execution of any documents; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority with a program report on the project by the end of 2003. CARRIED 313 BACKGROUND In keeping with The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) commitment to Canada's Urban Strategy, the Sustalnability Roundtable and the recommendations of the City of Toronto's Environments/ Plan, the Authority has actively begun to seek opportunities for local Sustainable Community Development. TRCA's 'Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program', initiated in 1998, also emphasized the need for new community engagement strategies that meet the needs of this community, while fulfilling TRCA's goals and objectives of community -based watershed management. Providing 'value added' opportunities such as community gardens was identified as an important need of the community. Initiating opportunities to reach out to the local "Jane and Finch" community is another reason for TRCA to investigate the feasibility of developing an urban agriculture market farm on approximately six acres of land located within the Black Creek Pioneer Village boundaries. URBAN AGRICULTURE PROJECT The proposed site for the Urban Agriculture Project is located on TRCA property near the south -east corner of Steeles Avenue West and Jane Street (see attached map). The site was acquired by the Authority in 1952. It was used as agricultural land in the first half of the 20th century. However, there has been no intensive farming for the past 20 years. It is anticipated that the City of Toronto through its Parks and Recreation Division, will lead this project in partnership with the TRCA. The project will be coordinated on a day -to -day basis by a local community church group known as Agape Ministries (a member organization of the Jane and Finch Family and Community Center), in partnership with other local and regional agencies listed in this proposal. The project would involve a combination of activities such as organic farming, on -site demonstrations of conservation practices, and environmental education and training for youth and community members. Programming for youth will focus on work and fife skills through physical labor and environmental workshops, the value of a healthy environment and community, and the opportunity to start their own enterprise with value added products such as salsa and relish, or herb - infused vinegars, or even selling worm castings from a vermi - compost as organic fertilizer! In so doing, the suggested model for the BCPV Urban Agriculture Project would meet not only environmental goals, but social and economic goals as well. Project Objectives The proposed Black Creek Urban Agriculture project will aim to achieve: 1) Local youth employment 2) Organic food production 3) Demonstration of sustainable living practices in the City 4) Youth- centered programming (farm training, life and work skills, community service, and counseling) 5) Promotion of community consciousness and strengthening of linkages within the social fabric for improvement of social conditions. 6) Financial viability through enterprise 314 Partner Roles and Responsibilities The project idea has been developed through a wide ranging stakeholder consultation process. Some of the groups that have agreed to partner with the project are listed below: PARTNER CONTRIBUTION OUTCOME City of Toronto, Community Gardens Program site management, coordinating staff, proposal writing support, community mobilizing, strategic planning, infrastructure: financing and installation, and vegetation management the City will have the opportunity to exemplify urban agriculture on a larger scale than before; the City will meet recommendations laid out in the Environmental Plan and the Growing Season; the C.G.P. will continue to build upon experience already gained in youth at risk programming; participants will benefit from experienced project managers TRCA and Black Creek Pioneer Village land, staff support, training workshops, archaeology and soil test, tree relocation, tree and shrub plantings, some construction, fundraising and assistance with volunteer management TRCA will have the opportunity to exemplify urban agriculture as a means to building a Living City; TRCA will have an opportunity to reach out to the community in a 'socially innovative' way; participants will benefit from experiential environmental learning, and meaningful work opportunities administrative support, technical expertise, meeting space, heritage seeds (for demonstration garden, if required), composted manure (a portion of what is required for the project- quantity to be determined), straw, pioneer farming demonstrations BCVP will have opportunity to reach out to the community in new ways; participants will learn sustainable farming practices from a historical perspective; project will be well supplied with organic materials for mulching and growing special varieties of vegetables Food Share urban agriculture expertise and networks, site design, proposal writing support (information sharing), Advisory Committee project will be well connected to an innovative network of people and initiatives; project can glean from Food Share's 'lessons learned'; site will be attractive and illustrate the tenets of ecological design Afri -Can Food Basket community mobilization, farming participants, Advisory Committee project will be well connected to the African Canadian community; project can glean from expertise on growing hot - climate crops in cold climates; project will have dedicated group of volunteers Jane / Finch Community and Family Centre social and educational programming support community outreach and mobilization, Advisory Committee project will be well connected to the community from onset of planning; project will not need to replicate programming to meet social needs of participants; project can piggy -back on youth leadership and community development programs already in existence 315 Agape Ministries (Jane and Finch) Project coordination and leadership Community outreach and program development. Advisory Committee Toronto Food Policy Council policy counseling project will meet Toronto Food Policy standards; project will benefit from latest in food security research City of Toronto Councilors in the communities effected by the project have been /will be consulted and involved as the project goes forward. Other potential partners who will be contacted are the North York Harvest Foodbank, and the Centre for Sustainability at York University, Faculty of Environmental Studies. Informal discussions have also been initiated with Ontario Association of Food Banks (Grow a Row Program) by Conservation Foundation staff. Once approved, a copy of this proposal will be forwarded to these potential partners for follow -up discussions. RATIONALE At the foundation of the TRCA's Strategic Plan is the IJving City's vision which speaks to "community partnerships to encourage environmental stewardship ", and "innovative thinking about environmental health, social responsibility and sustainable economies." It is anticipated that TRCA's upcoming Living City Centre at Kortright will address issues such as housing design and construction, renewable energy, waste water treatment, transportation, landscaping and food. Although an experiential education centre such as this will reach thousands of people every year, an urban agriculture project at BCVP could also be considered a practical example of the principles demonstrated at Kortright in an urban context and, thus, have a powerful impact on those who work and visit the site. An urban agriculture project would be The Living City In action! At present, there is no similar opportunity in the City to demonstrate the potential for large scale urban agriculture and urban food sustainability. A project of this kind could be a catalyst and model for urban farms in Toronto's future. The location for the project is ideally situated near Jane Street and is, therefore, TTC accessible. It is in proximity to numerous high -rise apartment buildings, Black Creek Pioneer Village, and a local mall and community center (which could host a farmers' market for selling produce). These factors, in combination with the opportunity to partner with local community and other organizations such as Food Share, Jane and Finch Family and Community Centre , African Canadian Food Basket, and Toronto Food Policy Council give this project its exciting potential! 316 FUNDING Community partnerships will be pursued in this regard, as they will already have funding in place, or be willing to take the lead in assisting other partners to obtain funding from external sources. Funding for different aspects of the program may come from a variety of funding partners with different areas of concentration, Partners will be required to provide funds or in -kind support for items such as office space, administration and outreach, materials and supplies etc. TRCA has no specific funding in 2003 for this project. However, in addition to supplying the land base, TRCA will provide staff time to help implement this project. A brief description of resource requirements for the project is provided in the chart below. These figures reflect total budget costs including one time project set up costs and partner in -kind contribution. Item Details In -Kind and Cash Set -Up Costs phase I only $62,350 Human Resources phase I only $135,198 Administration and Outreach phase I only $24,400 Materials and Supplies phase I only $29,350 Capital (5 %) $13,850 Total Expenses $265,148 A detailed proposal with a breakdown of costs and a proposed time table for implementation is available of the members require it. DETAILS OF WORK TO.BE DONE - Complete rezoning requirements and /or approvals. - Finalize management agreement between TRCA and the City of Toronto. - Develop a Terms of Reference for the Advisory Committee. - Establish a Steering Committee with stakeholder representation - Secure funding - Undertake archaeological investigation, soil testing and stakeout of utilities -Host Public Meetings - Initiate site set up and construction.- water hook up, grass and shrub clearing, access, parking lot, lighting, and shed. Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Date: February 06, 2003 Attachments: 1 317 Attachment 1 318 RES. #D120/02 - CHANGES TO MEMBERSHIP , Humber Watershed Alliance. Changes to the membership of the Humber Watershed Alliance. Moved by: Seconded by: Lorna Bissell Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the resignation of Mr. Derek Doyle, resident of the City of Toronto, be received; THAT the resignation of Mr. Jeff Hathaway, resident of the City of Toronto, be received; THAT the resignation of Ms. Barbara Nagy, resident of the City of Toronto, be received; THAT the resignation of Ms. Christine Tu, resident of the City of Mississauga, be received; THAT the resignation of Ms. TIJa Luste, representing the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, be received; THAT the resignation of Ms. Angela Pumputis, representing the Toronto Montessori Academy, be received; THAT the resignation of Ms. Jackie Fraser, representing Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario, be received; THAT the resignation of Ms. Cheryl Gonsalves, representing the Emery Creek Environmental Association, be received; THAT the resignations of Ms. Shelley Petrie and Ms. Janet May, representing the Toronto Environmental Alliance, be received; THAT Mr. Richard Hoffmann, representing Trout Unlimited, be appointed to the Humber Watershed Alliance; AND FURTHER THAT Mr. Kale Pandit, resident of the City of Toronto, be appointed to the Humber Watershed Alliance. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Humber Watershed Alliance consists of 60 members and alternates, including residents, interest groups, business associations, academic institutions and elected representatives. Alliance members and their alternates are appointed for a three -year term. Over this period, some members find they are unable to continue with their commitment and hence, need to resign. To ensure the vitality of the Alliance, members are added. The above recommendations reflect the current status of the Humber Watershed Alliance membership. 319 On an annual basis, the membership of the Humber Watershed Alliance, in accordance with the Terms of Reference - Section 3.2, is reviewed by TRCA staff to ensure it is up -to -date. Report prepared by: Ua Lappano, extension 5292 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: January 09, 2003 RES. #D121 /02 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALUANCE Minutes of Meeting #4/02, October 22, 2002. The minutes of Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #4/02, held on October 22, 2002, are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #4/02, held on October 22, 2002, as appended, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December 2000, and adopted by the Authority at meeting #11/00, held on January 5, 2001 by Resolution #A266/00, includes the following provision: 3.5 Reporting Relationship The Humber Watershed Alliance is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed Management Advisory Board. The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, at least on a semi - annual basis, on projects and progress. Report prepared by: Ua Lappano, extension 5292 For Information contact: Ua Lappano, extension 5292 Date: January 15, 2003 RES. #D122 /02 - ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COAUTION Minutes of Meeting #1/02 and #2/02. The Minutes of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition Meeting #1/02, held on September 26, 2002 and #2/02, held on November 28, 2002, are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Ila Bossons Pam McConnell 320 THAT the Minutes of the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition Meeting #1/02, held on September 26, 2002 and #2/02, held on November 28, 2002, as appended, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, dated May 2002, and adopted by the Authority at Meeting #5102, held on May 24, 2002 by Resolution #A124/02, includes the following provision: Section 3.5 - Reporting Relationship The Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed Management Advisory Board. The Watersheds Coalition Chair will report, at least, on a semi - annual basis on projects and progress. Annual work plans will be developed and submitted prior to the end of the first quarter of each year. For Information contact: Kristin Geater, extension 5667 Date: January 15, 2003 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:07 p.m., on February 14, 2003. Irene Jones Chair /ks J. Craig Mather Secretary- Treasurer 321