HomeMy WebLinkAboutWatershed Management Advisory Board 2003t■
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/03
April 11, 2003
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/03, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, April 11, 2003. The Chair Ian Sinclair,
called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m.
PRESENT
IIa Bossons Member
Cliff Gyles Member
Anthony Ketchum Member
Joe Pantalone Member
Dave Ryan Member
Frank Scarpitti Member
Ian Sinclair Member
Tanny Wells Member
REGRETS
Lorna Bissell Vice Chair
Irene Jones Chair
Pam McConnell Member
Jim McMaster Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
RES. #D1 /03 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Cliff Gyles
Anthony Ketchum
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #7/02, held on February 14, 2003, be approved.
BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
RES. #D2 /03 - PROPOSED HIGHWAY #427 EXTENSION
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joe Pantalone
IIa Bossons
1
CARRIED
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff report back at Watershed
Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/02, to be held on June 13, 2003, on what
TRCA's policies and requirements are for restoration works along highways and other
major road systems, and on our naturalization objectives for new and proposed
transporation corridors.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Robert (Bob) Metcalfe, Member, International St. Lawrence River
Board of Control, in regards to Lake level conditions and Regulation Strategy, 2003.
RES. #D3 /03 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Anthony Ketchum
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D4 /03 - 2003 PEEL, YORK, DURHAM, AND TORONTO CAPITAL PROJECTS
Endorsement of the 2003 Peel, York and Toronto Capital Projects.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 2003 Peel, York, Durham,
and Toronto Capital Projects, be endorsed.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Over the last several years, the Regions of Peel, York, and Durham, and the City of Toronto
have been providing capital funding to assist with the implementation of environmental
rehabilitation, stewardship and infrastructure projects.
In 2002, an even more comprehensive budget was prepared for the Regions of Peel, York, and
Durham, and the City of Toronto to help deal with the preparation of Watershed Management
Plans and Source Protection Plans, as required by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
and Walkerton Inquiry recommendations.
2
Over the course of developing the capital project proposals, staff has met with municipal staff
to discuss previous years' accomplishments and to confirm projects and associated budgets
for 2003. The City of Toronto and the Regions of Peel and York have recently confirmed their
funding allocations for the agreed -upon priority projects. Approval of the Durham capital
budget is expected in the very near future.
The following table lists the projects and allocated budgets:
Project
Peel
Durham
York
Toronto
Total
Watershed Report Cards
Strategy Implementation
50.0
85.0
100.0
235.0
Surface Water Quantity
hydrology; hydraulic;
floodplain base map;
flood/fill lines
50.0
65.0
150.0
180.0
445.0
Stream Gauging - Duffins
and Carruthers Creeks
25.0
25.0
Low Flow
flow distribution database;
baseflow mapping;
baseflow inventory; SWM
criteria;
map updates
38.0
38.0
35.0
111.0
Fluvial Geomorphology
Erosion /Sediment Control
Study
55.0
10.0
65.0
Water Budgets
HSPF Analysis
60.0
80.0
60.0
93.0
200.0
93.0
Surface Water Quality
Rural Water Quality
60.0
20.0
25.0
105.0
Groundwater Quantity
Water Use Inventory
PTTW Assessment
8.0
7.5
7.0
22.5
Groundwater Model
50.0
20.0
60.0
130.0
Humber Groundwater
Model
15.0
15.0
Y -P -D Groundwater
Strategy
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
400.0
Groundwater Quality
Source Protection Plans
15.0
35.0
50.0
Aquatic Habitat &
Species
Riparian Zones
40.0
40.0
Condition of Communities
20.0
20.0
Thermal Conditions of
Stream Habitat
30.0
30.0
60.0
Aquatic Fish Plans
45.0
15.0
25.0
35.0
120.0
3
Land Use Impact Model;
Aquatic Impact
15.0
15.0
30.0
Terrestrial Habitat &
Species
Terrestrial Natural Heritage
75.0
10.0
50.0
75.0
210.0
Identify Sites/Wetland
Creation
20.0
25.0
45.0
Regional Monitoring
Program
Watershed Monitoring
Network
200.0
50.0
200.0
200.0
650.0
Waterfront Monitoring
10.0
10.0
Subwatershed Plans
Subwatershed Planning &
Integration
100.0
100.0
Terrestrial Component of
Subwatershed Planning
130.0
130.0
Conservation Land
Management
50.0
50.0
Stewardship
RAP /Natural Heritage
Restoration #1
400.0
200.0
433.0
1,033,000
Stewardship
35.0
17.5
30.0
82.5
Outreach Education
30.0
17.0
35.0
82.0
Business Outreach
10.0
10.0
Living City Centre
50.0
50.0
Infrastructure
Info Technology
30.1
8.3
48.3
188.0
274.7
Public Use Infrastructure
30.1
8.3
4$.3
188.0
274.7
Major Facilities Retrofit
46.5
12.9
74.6
291.0
425.0
CA Campgrounds /Pool
250.0
250.0
Chlorination
Systems /Drinking Water
System Upgrades
80.0
34.8
114.8
Washroom Upgrades
96.0
96.0
Total
2,218.7
404.5
1,236.0
2,195.0
6,054.2
The City of Toronto and Peel, York, and Durham Region capital projects were developed to
integrate and expand joint environmental initiatives so that municipalities and TRCA will be
better positioned to meet their respective goals, objectives, strategic directions and priority
actions.
4
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• finalize approvals for specific projects;
• seek additional partners and other funding sources to complement the municipal
contributions;
• prepare mid -year and final progress reports for all projects and present to staff at the City
of Toronto and Peel, York, and Durham Regions.
• prepare updated five -year budget forecasts and present to municipalities
Report prepared by: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: April 1, 2003
RES. #D5/03 - OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 124/161
ENVIRONMENTAL/AGGREGATE POLICIES
Town of Caledon, Region of Peel. Participation by TRCA at the Ontario
Municipal Board. Request for support of Settlement Proposals related to
the appeals of Official Plan Amendments 124/161, the Environmental and
Aggregate policies for the Town of Caledon currently before the Ontario
Municipal Board.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ila Bossons
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT as a Participant, the TRCA
advises the Ontario Municipal Board and the Town of Caledon that the TRCA endorses
the OPA 124 Settlement Proposal based on the settlement of March 26, 2003, as it
satisfies the Authority's interests in the Hearing related to the Town of Caledon Official
Plan Amendment 124 (Environmental policies) and 161 (Aggregate policies);
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to monitor any further revisions that are
negotiated through the settlement process.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Town of Caledon's environmental policies are set out in Official Plan Amendment 124,
which was adopted by the Town in the early 1990's. A portion of OPA 124, as it applies to
designated settlement areas within the Town of Caledon, was approved by the Ontario
Municipal Board on July 1, 1997. Official Plan Amendment 161, the Aggregate policies, were
adopted by the Town of Caledon on March 7, 2000. This amendment was appealed to the
Ontario Municipal Board. At a Prehearing on August 3, 2000, the OMB issued a provisional
order for the consolidation of the remaining portion of OPA 124 and OPA 161. The Hearing has
been scheduled in two phases with Phase 1 dealing with the overall policies of both the
Aggregate and Environmental Policies. Phase 2 pertains to site specific applications, all of
which are within the Credit Valley Conservation Authority's watershed. The CVC has Party
status in Phase 2 of the Hearing.
5
Staff have been directed by the Authority to maintain Participant status on the appeals of OPA
124/161 through Resolution #D66/00:
"THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
AUTHORITY staff be authorized to seek participant status before the Ontario Municipal
Board related to a hearing on the Town of Caledon Official Plan Amendment 124
(Environmental policies) and 161 (Aggregate policies."
The TRCA's role in the OMB proceedings to date has been that of support and assistance to
the Town of Caledon. Authority staff ccmmented on both Official Plan Amendment 124 and
161 and indicated our support of the environmental protection policies within the Amendments
at the time of their approval by the municipality. The Environmental polices set out an
eco- system planning and management approach with an emphasis not only on the protection
of the ecosystem but also the enhancement and restoration of the ecosystem. The policies
deal with the ecosystem as a whole and recognize the interdependence between the various
features and functions. The Ecosystem Framework identifies four components: Natural Core
Areas; Natural Corridors, which are designated as Environmental Policy Area, and the
Supportive Natural Systems; and Natural Linkages. The Aggregate policies also incorporate
the Ecosystem Planning and Management Objectives in balancing the aggregate resource
areas within the Town.
OPA 124 (Environmental Policies) Settlement Proposal:Over the course of the last year, the
TRCA and Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) have been consulted in the process of the
settlement discussions between the Town of Caledon and the Aggregate Producers
Association of Ontario (APAO) with respect to the APAO appeal of OPA 124. The TRCA's
participation in this process included a detailed peer review of the Town's technical review of all
EPA designations that overlap with High Potential Mineral Aggregate Resource Area
(HPMARA) as shown in the Region of Peel Official Plan in order to confirm and /or identify
modifications to the EPA designations in these areas. The TRCA provided updated TRCA
mapping to the Town for purposes of this review exercise and to assist with any revisions to the
Official Plan schedules. In addition, TRCA had the opportunity to provide input on the
proposed policy modifications that form part of the Settlement proposal.
Under OPA 161, new or expanded mineral extraction is prohibited in the Core Areas of the
Greenland System in Peel designation in the Region of Peel Official Plan, the EPA designations
in the Town of Caledon Official Plan, natural lakes and their shorelines and kettle lakes and
their catchments with catchments being defined as lands adjacent to kettle lakes that due to
their topography and /or geology, provide surface and /or groundwater contributions to the lake
that are necessary to maintain the lake's ecological functions, attributes and features. The key
components of the additional policies to OPA 161 that will be added through the OPA 124
Settlement are summarized as follows:
• policies and performance measures for mineral aggregate operations proposed adjacent or
within areas that do not meet the above noted exclusionary criteria (valley and stream
corridors Tess than 125 ha, other wetlands (not evaluated), other woodlands (not core),
groundwater recharge and discharge areas, potential ESA's. These areas are essentially
the headwater areas in the municipality.
6
• the performance measures include an assessment of the ecological attributes, functions
and linkages to ensure that it does not satisfy any of the criteria of designation as Core
Area; that significant attributes, functions and linkages will either be maintained or replaced
with an equal amount or net gain in progressive rehabilitation; that alteration or elimination
will not result in any immediate or longer term negative impacts on the adjacent Core Areas
or the Environmental Policy Areas; and the quality, quantity and location of the aggregate
resource warrant the alteration or elimination of the feature.
• a policy committing the Town to undertake a Woodlands Policy Review and that
implementation of this review may result in the adoption of revisions to the provisions of
OPA 161 as it relates to woodlands.
• through these policies and Part C of the Settlement Agreement, wetlands evaluated as
locally significant on or before the date of the Settlement are excluded from aggregate
extraction.
• clarification of interpreting "negative impacts"; relates to any Toss in area or loss of
significant ecological function or attributes of Core Area or EPA areas.
• a policy that where a subwatershed study or comprehensive, broader scale environmental
study has been completed, the recommendations of these studies will be implemented in
the context of the performance measures in considering mineral aggregate extraction
operations.
OPA 161 (Aggregate Policies) Settlement Proposal:
To date, the CVC has led the negotiations on behalf of both Conservation Authorities for all
other settlements related to OPA 161. It had been previously agreed between staff of the TRCA
and CVC that given their interests in Phase 2 of the Hearing, the CVC would be the lead
agency. CVC staff have kept TRCA staff informed of these negotiations and are satisfied that
our interests are protected in the current Settlement Proposal.
CVC staff are also in the process of preparing a similar report for their Board of Directors on the
OPA 124 and 161 Settlement Proposals with a recommendation for endorsement
Report prepared by: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281
For Information contact: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281
Date: March 31, 2003
RES. #D6/03 - OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONSERVATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
UPDATE
To update the Board regarding the involvement of TRCA and the
Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition in the implementation of the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Tanny Wells
7
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the activities of the
TRCA and Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition regarding implementation of the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) was released publicly and filed as a
Minister's regulation (0. Reg. 140/02) almost one year ago on April 22, 2002. Since that time
the TRCA, individually and through the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC),
has been involved in a variety of implementation issues and projects on the Oak Ridges
Moraine. This report provides details of conservation authority involvement in these activities
including municipal official plan and zoning by -law conformity exercises, the development of
Provincial ORMCP guidelines, updating of the Plan Review agreements with our Regional
partners, undertaking of watershed plans and groundwater studies, the submission of a
stewardship proposal to the ORM Foundation and the organisation of a symposium to
celebrate the one year anniversary of the ORMCP.
Municipal Official Plan and Zoning By -law Conformity
Several requirements of the ORMCP have specific timelines associated with them. The Regions
of York, Peel and Durham (YPD) are required to amend their official plans in conformity with the
ORMCP within one year. Development Services staff have been involved in the review and /or
formulation of the three Regional amendments. Staff provided comments on several draft
amendments by York and Durham prior to their recent adoption by Councils. TRCA staff was
invited to play a more active role in the Peel process and participated on a technical working
committee comprised of staff from Peel, Caledon, CVC and TRCA, reviewed and commented
on draft amendments and attended at two public meetings. The amendments have now been
adopted by Regional Councils and forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
(MMAH) for approval. Staff anticipate that the local municipal official plan and zoning by -law
conformity amendments will be similarly circulated for review. The Town of Caledon has
followed Peel's lead and invited authority staff to help steer the process and formulate the
amendments through our participation on a technical working committee.
Provincial Guidelines and Other initiatives
The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is developing eight technical guidelines to provide
advice on implementing the ORMCP. Through the CAMC, various TRCA staff members have
reviewed the draft guidelines, provided input at several peer review committee meetings and
submitted detailed written comments. The guidelines are currently being finalised internally at
MNR prior to being posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry for public consultation.
The Ministry of Environment (MOE) is also producing ten guidelines to assist with ORMCP
implementation. The CAMC has been contracted by the MOE to produce one guideline for
preparing water budgets and has been invited to sit on a peer review committee to review and
provide comments on drafts of the remaining guidelines.
MMAH is formulating a further regulation under the ORMC Act which will provide guidance to
municipalities and require them to adopt tree preservation and site alteration by -laws for the
ORM. Through the CAMC, staff of several conservation authorities, including TRCA, have been
active on the technical working committee to research and formulate the required documents.
8
Updating of Plan Review and Technical Clearance Protocols
This partnership agreement with each of the YPD Regions was initiated in 1997 to respond to
the provincial transfer to municipalities of various planning responsibilities. The agreement set
out clearly defined roles and responsibilities and established streamlining protocols for each
agency in the development review process. The agreement between Peel, CVC and TRCA has
been recently updated to incorporate new requirements from the ORMCP and other initiatives.
Staff reported to the WMAB on this update at meeting #7/02 in a report dated February 14,
2003. As identified in that report, the update to the agreement with Peel has been completed
and a similar process has now begun to update the agreement with Lake Simcoe Region CA
(LSRCA), TRCA and York Region. Central Lake Ontario CA will soon lead the process to
update the agreement with the five CAs in Durham Region, including TRCA.
In addition to updating the agreements with the Regions, staff have also been seeking to clarify
planning roles and responsibilities for ORMCP implementation with our local municipal
partners. TRCA staff have held several meetings in this regard with Town of Caledon staff and
will be meeting with Richmond Hill planning staff soon to ensure a coordinated and
streamlined approach to processing planning applications on the ORM is achieved.
Watershed Plans, Water Budgets and Conservation Plans
The ORMCP contains a requirement that watershed plans, water budgets and conservation
plans for all watersheds whose streams originate on the Oak Ridges Moraine must be
commenced within one year (by April 22, 2003). Further, these plans must be completed and
relevant results incorporated into municipal official plans within five years or major
development will not be permitted (two years for lands served by the Yonge Street aquifer).
Through the CAMC a detailed list of the component requirements of a watershed plan has
been developed and completion status tables drafted for each ORM watershed. (Watershed
plan requirements are subject to change depending on the contents of MOE guidelines). The
individual CAs within the CAMC are working with their municipal partners to ensure the
appropriate studies are being undertaken to meet the requirements of both the ORMCP and
the specific needs of the watershed, given the relative development pressures within each
municipality and watershed. TRCA watersheds rising from the ORM include the Humber, Don,
Rouge and Duffins. The completion status tables drafted for each of these watersheds shows
that watershed plans have been commenced in all four watersheds and that they are most
advanced, indeed nearly complete, in the Duffins. A subwatershed study is currently being
undertaken on Centreville Creek (Humber subwatershed) in Peel /Caledon. TRCA, LSRCA and
York Region staff are currently completing a work plan to ensure the ORMCP watershed
planning requirements will be budgeted for and completed within the prescribed timelines.
9
YPD Groundwater Studies
The York, Peel, Durham groundwater studies project was initiated in 2000 in partnership with
the City of Toronto and the six conservation authorities within the YPD Regions. This project
has been the subject of several reports to the Board /Executive /Authority with the most recent
report being at Meeting #1 /03 of the Executive Committee on March 7, 2003. Although broader
than the ORM, many aspects of this project are directly related to the ORM and will be
instrumental in fulfilling certain requirements for watershed plans and water budgets. Specific
project components relevant to the ORM include the development of a standardised
methodology for delineating and mapping ORM hummocky topography, geophysical logging
of boreholes, updating water well records, the development of a comprehensive database for
hydrogeological and geophysical data, groundwater modeling studies and a basefiow
monitoring program.
Stewardship Proposal to the ORM Foundation
The CAMC, in conjunction with Ontario Stewardship and Wildlife Habitat Canada, recently
submitted a two -part funding proposal to the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation (ORMF). The
ORMF was established by the Province and endowed with $15 million to help preserve, protect
and restore the environmental integrity of the ORM. The formulation of a Stewardship strategy
and the funding of stewardship projects is one of the objects of the Foundation. The CAMC
and its two partners, under the umbrella of the ORM Stewardship Partners Alliance, submitted
a two -part proposal to request funding to formulate the stewardship strategy for the Foundation
and to carry out eleven on- the - ground stewardship projects in 2003. Two of the projects
submitted are within TRCA watersheds: Preston Lake shoreline restoration and completion of
the rehabilitation of the former Timber Brothers aggregate pit. A decision by the Foundation on
this proposal is expected by mid May.
ORM Symposium
The CAMC, in conjunction with several partners, is presenting a Symposium on May 1, 2003
titled One Year Later - Perspectives on the ORM Conservation Plan, to be held at Seneca
College, King Campus. The purpose of the event is to share experiences on ORMCP
implementation with a view to improving and strengthening the Plan implementation, as
appropriate, to ensure continued broad public support for and recognition of the environmental
importance of the Oak Ridges Moraine. A diverse array of speakers, including municipal,
private sector, conservation authority, provincial and NGO representatives will present their
perspectives and experiences, highlighting case studies and emerging best practices. The
Symposium notice and registration form is appended.
Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361
For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361
Date: April 01, 2003
Attachments: 1
10
Attachment 1
Conservation Authorities
Moraine Coalition
Credit Valley Couervatran
Nettawasaga Valley Cons rv4Uon
Toronto and Region Conservation
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Kawarlha Consarvation
Gaaaraaloa Region Conservation
Urination Conservation
Loses Trent Comervation
One Year Later - Perspectives On
The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
Thursday, May 1, 2003
9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
King Campus, Seneca College
Since 2001, articles on the Oak Ridges Moraine have frequently appeared in the headlines. The
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan was Introduced in April 2002 to largely positive accolades.
The moraine fell off the public radar screen a short time later. The ORM Conservation Plan,
depending on one's perspective, provided exciting new opportunities to be seized or onerous
restrictions and new requirements to be undertaken — several with an associated one -year time
frame.
Presented by the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition in partnership with Seneca College, the
International Association of Hydrogeologists and the Canadian Water Resources Association, this
one -day symposium will be of interest to municipal and conservation authority planners and technical
staffs, provincial ORM staff, water resources planners, environmental consultants and the NGO
environmental community. A diverse array of speakers will present their perspectives and experiences
regarding the implementation and effectiveness of the ORM Conservation Plan to date. Examples, case
studies, emerging best practices and topics to be presented include:
Watershed Plans and Groundwater Studies
Regional OP Conformity Amendments
Local OP and Zoning By -law Conformity Pilot Project
Follow Up Provincial Initiatives
Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation
Private Sector Perspectives
MOE Guidelines Update
Municipal and Conservation Authority Implementation Experience
Non - Governmental Conservation and Trails Organizations
Display Booths, Q & A Discussion Forum
During lunch break enjoy the scenic trails and wetlands on the Seneca grounds and the view
of the historic Eaton Hall across the kettle lake. A detailed schedule of speakers and map
directions to Seneca will be emailed to registrants. Proceeds of the symposium will go
towards ORM land stewardship, securement and educational initiatives.
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON, M3N 1S4 Tel: (416) 661 -6600 Fax: (416) 661 -6898
email: dbumett@trca.on.ca
11
CWRA At7ll1
F. . �
ORM Symposium Registration
1
The "early bird" cost of this symposium is $50.00 per person (if you register by April 4, 2003) or
$65.00 per person after April 4th. The fee includes lunch and breaks and a handout package.
For more information, please contact David Burnett at TRCA 416 -661 -6600, ext. 5361.
To Register: Please complete this form (please print) and submit with cheque or money
order payable to "LSRCA" to the following address:
By Mail: Attn: Sandra Hanson
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Box 282, Newmarket, ON, L3Y 4X1
Name:
Address:
Business Phone: Cell Phone:
Fax: Email*
With which organization are you affiliated?
If you prefer to pay by credit card, please provide the following authorization information and FAX
this form to (905) 853 -5881, attention Sandra Hanson:
VISA: 0
Cardholder Name*
Card #:
Expiry Date:
Signature:
Date:
IP
ilkate." r.aw
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON, M3N 1S4 Tel: (416) 661 -6600 Fax: (416) 661 -6898
email: dbumett@trca.on.ca
12
RES. #D7/03 - KROSNO CREEK PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY
To support and participate in the implementation of the
recommendations of the Krosno Creek Preliminary Stormwater
Management Strategy.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Krosno Creek Preliminary
Stormwater Retrofit Study be received;
THAT the Authority support the recommendations of the study;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue working with the City of Pickering to
facilitate Implementation of the recommendations.
BACKGROUND CARRIED
The Krosno Creek tributary is located within the City of Pickering. The watershed drains an
area of approximately 6.5 km2, ultimately outletting to Frenchman's Bay at Liverpool Road.
Urban development within the Krosno Creek Watershed began in the early 1960s with the
construction of the first planned communities such as the Bay Ridges area located south of
Bayly Street, between Frenchman's Bay and the Hydro Corridor to the east. With the
construction of new and improved transportation networks (Highway 401, GO- Transit etc.) a
rapid increase in urbanization occurred which included the Liverpool and Town Centre
Neighbourhoods north of Highway 401 and Brock Industrial Development to the east. As a
result, the existing watershed has become almost completely urbanized.
In the early 1980's the City of Pickering prepared a Master Drainage Study (MDP) to provide a
town -wide strategy to address flooding and erosion. The study resulted in the adoption of
urban drainage policies to guide future development in the areas of pollution control,
major /minor system drainage, subdivision planning and sediment and erosion control. Given
that a majority of urban development within the Krosno Creek Watershed preceded the
completion of the MDP, implementation of the recommendations were limited. The absence of
stormwater controls within the Krosno Creek Watershed, has resulted in the existing flooding
situation, streambank erosion and degradation of water quality within the creek and within the
downstream receiving Hydro Marsh and Frenchman's Bay. Two studies were undertaken to
address the flooding problems and the streambank erosion and water quality issues; the
Krosno Creek Floodplain Mapping Study and the Krosno Creek Preliminary Stormwater
Management Strategy.
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 Regional Floodline and to identify flood
hazard areas associated with Krosno Creek. A key recommendation of the Krosno Creek
Floodplain Mapping Study included:
13
• A full Environmental Assessment be carried out to assess a number of alternative flood
remediation strategies (i.e. diversions, stormwater controls, channel improvements) to
alleviate or eliminate the existing flooding problem in the watershed.
The Krosno Creek Preliminary Stormwater Management Strategy was commissioned by the City
of Pickering and Ontario Power Generation in response to the recommendations identified
within the Biodiversity Study and Natural Areas Management Plan completed by The Ontario
Power Generation (OPG) - Pickering Nuclear Site. The OPG report identified six goals which
addressed the need for environmental enhancement and improvements, effective
environmental monitoring and community involvement and education. In addition, in 1997,
Mayor Arthur's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront published Waterfront 2001. This
document provided an in -depth vision of the evolution of Pickering's waterfront and outlined
impacts to local watercourses and the Frenchman's Bay ecosystem as a result of urban
development initiated in the 1960's and 70's. The document also described the need for more
stringent regulations and greater public awareness regarding stormwater management issues.
Recommendations of this study included the need for a watershed management plan given
that the viability of Frenchman's Bay and associated watercourses are dictated by urban
activities within the contributing watershed areas.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the Krosno Creek Preliminary Stormwater Management Strategy was to
develop a set of erosion and water quality remediation strategies for the Krosno Creek
Watershed building upon the findings and recommendations outlined in the OPG and in the
Mayor's Task Force studies. The Stormwater Management Strategy was divided into the
following three components: Stormwater Management, Natural Feature Restoration and
Enhancement, and Watershed Monitoring.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Stormwater Management Strategy
Based on the results of the study, end -of -pipe stormwater management facilities
complemented with a series of lot level and conveyance SWMPs were recommended as the
primary means to mitigate surface water related impacts from existing and proposed urban
development.
Key recommendations of the strategy include:
Implementation of Level 1 water quality control (80% Total Suspended Solids removal
based on Ministry of the Environment Guidelines) and a minimum of 25 mm -24 hour
detention for erosion control (or more appropriate erosion control as determined
through a detailed erosion analysis) for all new development, or redevelopment,
applications to the extent practical.
Initiation of a full environmental assessment to address the water quantity/flooding
component (results of this assessment will be used to update the current water quantity
criteria within the watershed which currently is 2 through 100 year, post- to
pre - development control).
14
< Implementation of a select group of stormwater management practices that are
recommended within specific areas of the watershed to mitigate water quality and
erosion impacts to surface runoff from existing and proposed urban development.
< The City of Pickering adopt new policies that support alternative conveyance measures
and alternative development standards.
< Detailed assessment and associated design of four, new end -of -pipe stormwater
management facilities. Preliminary target levels, treatment and control requirements,
available volumes, area requirements and preliminary costs were developed for the
proposed facilities.
< Adoption of a stormwater fee -in -lieu policy to address special situations where it has
been demonstrated that it is impractical to meet the required stormwater criteria.
< Implementation of a number of local stewardship programs to promote public
awareness and participation in environmental projects. Recommended activities
include a down spout disconnection program, demonstration projects, a hands -on
watershed monitoring program for watershed residents and continuation of the Yellow
Fish and Aquatic Plants Program.
< Recommendations to undertake regular inspection of the channel and culvert
crossings, within the watershed, as a preventative measure to reduce erosion, structural
and flood impacts resulting from debris accumulation and culvert blockages.
Recommended Natural Feature Restoration and Enhancement Strateay
< Culvert replacement in location of existing sanitary sewer to facilitate fish passage and
to improve hydraulic conditions.
< Implementation of restoration measures to improve natural stream cover and to achieve
a continuous linkage between the Hydro Marsh and the hydro transmission easement.
< Enhancements to the Hydro Marsh and adjacent park lands to increase the size,
biodiversity and buffer distances.
Recommended Watershed Monitoring Strateay
< Continuation of rainfall and stream flow monitoring at existing locations to assist with
future study requirements.
< Initiation of water quality monitoring within the watershed. Results to be integrated with
monitoring programs within the Hydro Marsh and Frenchman's Bay areas.
< Initiation of fluvial geomorphic assessments to record observations of streambank
erosion conditions, debris accumulation or blockages, general water quality
characteristics and the presence of fish or wildlife.
15
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff will continue to work with City of Pickering staff to implement the recommendations
of the study.
For information contact: Glenn MacMillan, extension 5212
Marilee Gadzovski, extension 5362
Date: March 31, 2003
RES. #D8/03 - ORGANIZING INTER - REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
WORKSHOPS
To organize a series of Inter - Regional Stormwater Management
Workshops.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joe Pantalone
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to organize a
series of Inter - Regional Stormwater Management Workshops to promote the sharing of
technical information and management approaches, to foster the implementation of the
Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, and to assist in establishing a common vision
and goals related to stormwater management;
THAT staff consult with adjacent Conservation Authorities to determine their interest in
participating in these Inter - Regional Stormwater Management Workshops;
THAT staff proceed with the first workshop scheduled for May 7, 2003 on Sediment
Control;
AND FURTHER THAT staff discuss the establishment of an Inter - Regional Working Group
on Stormwater Management at the May 7th workshop.
CARRIED
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 inform 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.
16
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
regarding cooperation and collaboration emerged from the discussion:
• Establishment of a common vision and goals for stormwater management at a
regional /watershed level.
• Identification of a list of shared interests and issues, and mechanisms for agreeing
on inter - regional priorities and initiatives.
• Continuation of information sharing to ensure that various municipalities do not have
to re- invent stormwater initiatives and programs already accomplished by others.
• Development of consistent messaging to communicate technical issues and best
practices to the public and political decision - makers.
• Collaboration and cooperation extending beyond the TRCA's jurisdiction to other
adjacent watersheds.
Other opportunities related to Stormwater Management discussed included:
• Development of a better link between groundwater management and stormwater
management, particularly with respect to modelling.
• Encouragement of community awareness and involvement through education.
• Creation of a process to set standards and targets (i.e. "how clean" we want to be
on a regional /watershed basis) and the means 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 design guidelines for stormwater management
ponds.
Source: "Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, Our Shared Watershed - Draft
Meeting Summary" February 22, 2002
At Authority Meeting #4/02 Resolution # A101/02 was adopted:
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;
17
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto staff be thanked for their recommendation that
the TRCA assist with this co- ordinated effort
RATIONALE
Based on recent discussions with various municipal staff across the TRCA's jurisidiction, it was
decided that holding a series of technology transfer workshops related to stormwater
management issues would prove more beneficial initally than establishing an Inter - regional
Working Group on Stormwater Management to facilitate the sharing of technical information
and management approaches and the implementation of the Toronto and Region Remedial
Action Plan. The TRCA will discuss the opportunity to establish an Inter - Regional Working
Group at the Sediment Control Workshop on May 7, 2003.
An on -going series of workshops will be held over the next four to five years allowing staff to
follow -up on implementation. The following site specific Stormwater Management (SWM)
issues were identified for the Inter - Regional Stormwater Management Workshops:
• Erosion and Sediment Control
• Maintenance of SWM Ponds
• Pest Control for SWM Ponds (e.g. West Nile Virus, etc.)
• Legal Aspects of SWM
• Water Budgets
• Water Allocation and Water Use
• Source Protection Plans
• Intergrated Watershed /Subwatershed Management Plans
• Nutrient Management
• Spills Management
• Greenroofs for Stormwater Management
• Performance Monitoring of SWM Practices
• Final Outcomes of the City of Toronto WWFMMP
Through this initiative, the TRCA is fulfilling its role under the RAP MOU, namely raising
municipal and public awareness of the priority actions of the RAP; facilitating the exchange of
information; undertaking regional scale intiatives appropriate for the implementation of the
Living City and sustainability principles; and encouraging the necessary monitoring, planning,
design and construction of projects in association with municipalities. Under the new RAP
agreement, funding is available for outreach projects. Establishment of Inter - Regional
Stormwater Management Workshops will foster cooperative approaches to stormwater
management both within the TRCA's jurisdiction and the GTA in general.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
On May 7, 2003 the first Inter - Regional Stormwater Management Workshop on Sediment
Control will take place at Black Creek Pioneer Village. Municipal, adjacent Conservation
Authority, Environment Canada, DFO, MOE, MNR and MTO staff will be invited to discuss
Erosion and Sediment Control initatives. Included below is a draft agenda for the Sediment
Control Workshop. During this workshop, the TRCA will discuss the establishment of a
Working Group and future workshops.
18
Sediment Control Workshop
Wednesday May 7th, 2003
Black Creek Pioneer Village
Proposed Agenda
1. Introduction
2. Overview of Sediment Control Initiatives
3. Federal Fisheries Act
4. Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act
5. Fisheries Habitat Management - Enforcement
6. Ontario Water Resources Act
7. Sediment Controls - Consultant Perspective
8. Town of Richmond Hill Sediment Monitoring
9. Sediment Pond Monitoring Study
10. Development of Improved Design Criteria
for Construction Sediment Ponds
11. Benefits of Vegetative Buffers
12. Environmental Standards Project
13. Siltation and Erosion Control
Environemental Management Project
14. Legal Perspective
15. Water Quality Standards Discussion Paper
16. Wrap Up
19
Adele Freeman, RAP Team
Glenn MacMillian, TRCA
Derrick Beach, DFO
Warren May, MNR
Tim Boyd, MNR
To be confirmed, MOE
Alan Kimble, Sabourin Kimble
John Nemeth, Richmond Hill
James Li, Ryerson
Ed Graham, Clarifica
Bahram Gharabaghi, University of
Guelph
Clarke Gunter, MTO
Alec Scott, Barrie
Diane Saxe, Saxe Law
Anne Mitchell, CEILAP
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding to development the Inter - Regional Stormwater Management Workshops has been
granted through the Toronto RAP
(Account # 118 -03 ).
Report prepared by: Grace Tesa, extension 5659
For Information contact: Glenn MacMillan, extension 5212
Date: January 31, 2003
RES. #D9/03 - CITY OF PICKERING STORMWATER RETROFIT STUDY
To support and participate in the implementation of the
recommendations of the City of Pickering Stormwater Retrofit Study
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the City of Pickering Stormwater
Retrofit Study be received;
THAT the Authority support the recommendations of the study;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue working with the City of Pickering to
facilitate Implementation of the recommendations.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Urbanization has grown rapidly within the City of Pickering. In the early 1980's the City of
Pickering prepared a Master Drainage Study (MDP) to provide a town -wide strategy to control
flooding and erosion and to improve water quality, environmental, aesthetic and recreational
potential for the watercourses and the valley and stream corridors within the City of Pickering.
The study resulted in the adoption of urban drainage policies to guide future development in
the areas of pollution control, major /minor system drainage, subdivision planning and
sediment and erosion control. Since that time, various levels of stormwater management
control have been implemented throughout the City. However the majority of urban
development within the City of Pickering preceded the completion of the MDP,and therefore
the implementation of the recommendations was limited. The absence of stormwater controls
has resulted in flooding problems, streambank erosion and degradation of water quality within
the City of Pickering's Watersheds.
20
A number of factors and studies have contributed to the decision to undertake the City of
Pickering Stormwater Retrofit Study, including Waterfront 2001 published by the Mayor Arthurs'
Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront and The Krosno Creek Preliminary Stormwater
Management Strategy prepared by the TRCA in 2002. Both reports provided recommendations
regarding a watershed management strategy to address streambank erosion and water quality
degradation within Frenchman's Bay Watershed and its subwatersheds. Also identified were
various stormwater management practices, required to preserve and enhance the long -term
ecological sustainability, natural diversity, and viability of the Frenchman's Bay and associated
watercourses which are affected by urban developments within the contributing watershed
areas.
The study area includes the existing urban areas within the City of Pickering. The City of
Pickering is located within the Regional Municipality of Durham. Portions of the Rouge River,
Petticoat Creek, Duffins Creek, Carruthurs Creek, and Frenchman's Bay Watersheds and Lake
Ontario's Waterfront are included in the study area.
Purpose of the Study
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, in partnership with the City of Pickering
initiated the City of Pickering Stormwater Retrofit Study as a framework for a long term strategy
to implement stormwater quantity and quality controls within the existing uncontrolled
urbanized areas of the City. It was recognized that the continuation of development review on a
site by site basis, for infill development, would lead to a proliferation of small facilities
throughout the City and ultimately to an increase in construction and future maintenance costs.
This comprehensive approach will result in a more efficient stormwater management system.
The City of Pickering Stormwater Retrofit Study is a broadly- based, planning level study which
addresses the issue of stormwater management on a city -wide basis, using an ecosystem
approach.
The purpose of this study is to provide the City of Pickering with a stormwater management
strategy that not only identifies opportunities to optimize the benefits of existing stormwater
management facilities and opportunities for potential new facilities within the existing urban
areas, but also provides implementation strategy.
Approach
This study was undertaken using a three - phased approach. The Phase !component focused
on the collection and review of existing background information. A number of GIS -based maps
were produced which provide information regarding the existing status of stormwater
management within the City of Pickering.
Phase II involved assessing opportunities for implementing alternative stormwater
management practices, including source, conveyance, end -of -pipe and special purpose
controls. The end -of -pipe assessment included both the retrofit potential of existing stormwater
management ponds and existing uncontrolled storm sewer outfalls within the City of Pickering.
Phase III included the development of an implementation strategy based on the following
steps:
21
1. Produce a Short List of Retrofit Opportunities
2. Determine the Environmental Benefit
3. Determine the Retrofit Priority Based on the Environmental Benefit
4. Prepare a Preliminary Cost Estimate
5. Determine the Ranking Based on Environmental Benefit and Cost Estimates
6. Combine the ranking in Step 3 with the cost estimates to determine a final ranking of
ponds and outfalls in this retrofit study
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Various stormwater practices, including lot level, conveyance, end -of -pipe and special purpose
controls were identified to improve water quality within the urbanized areas of the City of
Pickering. Based on the preliminary investigations including field verification, it was concluded
that there are three existing stormwater management ponds with the potential to be retrofitted
and seven locations where new stormwater management facilities could potentially be
constructed to provide stormwater quality and quantity control. The two proposed new facilities
within the Pine Creek Subwatershed were omitted from the Phase III portion of this study since
additional studies and information are required to determine the land area available. As such,
the findings of this report provide direction with respect to the feasibility of retrofitting the three
existing facilities and creating new ponds at five storm sewer outfalls. The final prioritization of
retrofit was based on environmental and economic factors. Further detailed studies will be
required at all sites prior to implementing the recommendations of this study. The existing
quantity control function of the existing SWM ponds must be maintained as part of any retrofit
modifications.
Some key recommendations of the study include:
• Three existing quantity control ponds in the City of Pickering (Dixie Estates Pond, JDS
Investment Pond, and Stroud's Pond) be considered as possible retrofit SWM facilities.
Also, six potential new SWM facilities may be created in the Frenchman's Bay Watershed
(KC1, KC2, KC3, KC4, PC1 and PC2) and one potential new SWM pond in the Waterfront
drainage area (WF1). The summary table below outlines the retrofit priority for these
facilities.
22
CITY OF PICKERING PRIORITY FOR RETROFIT AND NEW SWM PONDS
Pond / Outfall
No.
Pond Name/ Outfall
Location
Cost Estimate
($)
Priority
Notes
WF 1
Rodd Ave
260,000
1
New Pond
KC 1
Wharf St
200,000
2
New Pond
KC 2
Alderwood PI
450,000
3
New Pond
KC 3
Feldspar Ct
950,000
4
New Pond
263.0
JDS Investment
550,000
5
Retrofit Pond
264.0
Stroud's
1,040,000
6
Retrofit Pond
KC 4
Quigly St
1,800,000
7
New Pond
160.1
Dixie Estates
500,000
8
Retrofit Pond
PC 1
Hwy 401 /IGngston Rd
See Note*
See Note*
Retrofit Pond
PC 2
Douglas Park
See Note*
See Note*
Retrofit Pond
* Note: Insufficient data is available and further studies are required to assess the Pine Creek Outfalls as
part of the Implementation Strategy
• • A downspout disconnection survey should be undertaken for the remaining areas within the
City of Pickering.
• Prior to undertaking the design and construction of the retrofits a number of steps must be
followed. These steps include undertaking a Class Environmental Assessment process,
further hydrologic /hydraulic modelling together with topographic and geotechnical
investigations. Typically stormwater retrofit projects fall under Schedule B of the Municipal
Class Environmental Assessment process. In addition, local drainage and flooding issue
should be addressed.
• Further discussions should be carried out with City staff with respect to municipal plans
regarding trailways, parkland, etc., where projects are in conflict with retrofit opportunites
and that consultation is undertaken with residents where retrofit projects are proposed in
residential areas.
• City of Pickering staff should review their development standards to allow for alternative
SWM measures (i.e. downspout disconnection).
• Funding sources and partnerships be established to ensure implementation of the
stormwater management strategy.
• The City of Pickering adopt a stormwater fee -in -lieu policy to facilitate the implementation
of retrofit programs and the development of overall watershed management.
23
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff will continue to work with City of Pickering staff to implement the recommendations
of the study.
Report prepared by: Grace Tesa, extension 5659
For information contact Glenn MacMillan, extension 5212
Marilee Gadzovski, extension 5362
Date: March 17, 2003
RES. #D10/03 - 6 & 18 HARDWOOD GATE SLOPE STABILIZATION PROJECT
Implementation of the proposed slope stabilization works at 16 & 18
Hardwood Gate, in the City of Toronto.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Joe Pantalone
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
the slope stabilization project at 16 & 18 Hardwood Gate.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Staff were contacted in 2001 by the residents at the above noted properties and notified of the
slope failure. Staff performed a site inspection to assess the conditions and reported back to
staff with their findings. Subsequently, Soil Eng geotechnical engineering consultants were
retained to undertake a preliminary site investigation, including installation of boreholes and to
report back to staff with preliminary recommendations. Based on the site inspections and
analysis of the boreholes it was apparent that the original valley slope was over steepened in
part due to placement of surplus fill from the original site development. Additionally, the
residents constructed retaining walls in an effort to address the slumping of the slope which
may have factored in the acceleration of the slope failure. Staff initiated a Class Environmental
Assessment in 2002 for this project and organized a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) with
the local residents. Soil Eng was retained to assist in the preparation of design alternatives
and to participate in the public consultation component of the Class E.A. process. The Class
E.A. was completed in February 2003 with a final preferred design for the proposed slope
stabilization.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The final preferred design for the slope stabilization includes, the removal of the surplus fill
material and failed crib wall structures at the rear of both properties. Restoration of the existing
slope to the original valley wall, installation of a reinforced earth wall along a portion of the top
of slope and final site restoration and planting. Work is scheduled to start in the Spring of
2003, weather permitting and pending suitable site conditions. The total estimated cost for this
work is $80, 000.
24
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Staff are presently negotiating a cost sharing agreement with the affected homeowners for this
work.
Funds for this project are available under Account 170 01.
Report prepared by: Mark Preston 416- 392 -9722
For Information contact: Mark Preston, 416- 392 -9722
Date: March 31, 2003
Attachments: 2
25
Attachment 1
1
1
I
1
1
t
4.
26
Attachment 2
27
RES. #D11/03 - FRENCHMAN'S BAY WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
An update of the Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project and
an outline of the 2003 work priorities
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Frank Scarpitti
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the status of the Frenchman's
Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project and the 2003 priorities be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue with this important watershed project (City of
Pickering in the Region of Durham) in cooperation with PESCA (Pickering East Shore
Community Association), the City of Pickering, Ontario Power Generation Pickering
Nuclear and the Ontario Trillium Foundation.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project began in September 1998 as a
two -year community driven environmental initiative when EcoAction 2000 granted funds in the
amount of $69,000. Since that time the project received additional funding from EcoAction to
extend the project until September 31st, 2002. With the overwhelming success of over 4 years
of this project, a new partnership with PESCA (Pickering East Shore Community Association)
was formed and a proposal submitted to the Ontario Trillium Foundation.
At Authority meeting #8/02, Res. #A224/02 was approved:
"THAT the collaborative agreement with PESCA (Pickering Eastshore Community Centre
Association), the City of Pickering, Ontario Power Generation - Pickering Nuclear and
the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for the period of October 1, 2002
- September 31, 2007 as required by the Ontario Trillium Foundation be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to take the necessary actions to implement the
agreement including the signing of documents subject to PESCA receiving written
confirmation of Ontario Trillium Foundation funding."
In October 2002, the Trillium Foundation approved funding in the amount of $125,000 to allow
the Frenchman's Bay project to continue until December 31st, 2007.
Since that time the project began implementation of its' 2003 deliverables, as agreed upon by
all project partners, which includes:
- Engage 375 individuals;
Enhance 1 hectare of forest;
Plant 250 trees, shrubs, wildflowers and aquatics;
Install 15 Wildlife Habitat Structures (bird boxes, snakes hibernaculums, etc.);
Develop 20 plans (energy/ natural ways audits, property plans and stream plans);
Deliver 7 educational workshops (recognition night and garbage clean -ups);
Complete 6 monitoring programs.
28
These deliverables will be achieved through the following program components:
HOEP (Hands -on- the - Earth - Program)
Delivery of 1 Woodlot Management Workshop and 4 public events
Assist co -op students with development of 2 stream management plan
Construct and install 1 public viewing platform
VEW Monitoring Program
Delivery of 2 training workshops
Completion of 8 'Watch' programs
Analyze monitoring data and prepare 2 VEW newsletters
Natural Alternative Program
Delivery of 1 Naturalization Workshop, 1 SEAP workshop and 1 Action Recognition Program
Publish 5 Environmental Corner Articles
Develop 10 property naturalization plans and 10 SEAP plans
Through the development of a Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), which has already had its'
second meeting, project partners will receive quarterly updates with regards to the progress of
successful completion of the deliverables discussed above, program changes and funding
updates.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The project has a five year term, beginning January 1st, 2003 and ending December 31st,
2007. The original budget of $467,245 (in -kind support and cash) over five years has been
secured including $125,000 Trillium funding.
Funding for this project in 2003 is in account #225 -94.
The following fund raising and project partnership development initiatives have also been
taken:
1. Two submissions to the OMNR for funding under the CFIP and CWIP programs.
2. One submission to the TD Friends of the Environment Foundation for funding.
Report prepared by: Angela Porteous, 905 - 420 -4660, extension 2212
For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243
Date: April 02, 2003
29
RES. #D12/03 - ACQUISITION OF ABANDONED HYDRO CORRIDOR LANDS
Taylor Massey Creek Watershed, City of Toronto. Receipt of a request
from the Don Watershed Regeneration Council to explore the acquisition
of lands bordering that section of the Taylor Massey Creek stream
corridor lands within the north -south hydro corridor located east of
Pharmacy Road and running from the Terraview Willowfield concept site
to south of Lawrence Street as it is a major green corridor within the
Taylor Massey Creek watershed
Moved by: Ila Bossons
Seconded by: Frank Scarpitti
WHEREAS the TRCA is in receipt of a request from the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council to explore acquisition of the lands bordering that section of the Taylor Massey
Creek stream corridor lands within the north -south hydro corridor located east of
Pharmacy Road and running from the Terraview Willowfield concept site to south of
Lawrence Street as it Is a major green corridor within the Taylor Massey Creek
watershed;
THAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff explore the
acquisition of the valley and stream corridor lands associated with the subject surplus
Hydro lands;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto be requested to consider the acquisition of the
remaining portion of the hydro corridor lands not containing the Taylor Massey Creek
stream corridor lands.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #3/03, held March 20, 2003, the Council
approved the following resolution:
THAT the Don Watershed Regeneration Council request the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority pursue acquisition of the lands bordering that section of the
Taylor Massey watercourse within the north -south hydro corridor located east of
Pharmacy Road and running from the Terraview Willowfield concept site to south of
Lawrence Street as it is a major green corridor within the Taylor Massey watershed;
THAT the Don Watershed Regeneration Council recommends that the City of Toronto
pursue acquisition of the rest of the same hydro corridor lands not containing the Taylor
Massey watercourse;
THAT these lands be purchased for the purposes of habitat regeneration, aquatic
regeneration and recreation uses appropriate for the community;
AND FURTHER THAT this recommendation be brought forward to the Water and Related
Advisory Board at their Meeting #1/03 being held on April 11, 2003."
30
The Friends of the Don East (FODE) and Nancy Penny, member of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, have identified that the future use of the abandoned hydro corridor land
east of Pharmacy Avenue that runs from Highway 401 to south of Lawrence Avenue, is
currently under a six month assessment with respect to its future use. The northern portion of
the corridor parallels the Taylor Massey Creek, a tributary of the Don River. The site is also
directly south of the award winning Terraview Willowfield Park Regeneration Project that was
implemented based on the preliminary concept work published in "Forty Steps to a New Don."
The regeneration of Terraview Willowfield included the development of two large wetlands,
innovative stormwater management facilities, trail and habitat regeneration, and provision for
outdoor education and recreation. Preliminary designs were also developed for the adjacent
abandoned hydro corridor. The Taylor Massey Creek flows through a trapezoidal channel
similar to the area that has now been naturalized in the Terraview Willowfield area. Acquisition
of the hydro corridor will protect the opportunity to continue the process of naturalization, and
development of a community amenity for the area and future trail linkages.
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: April 01, 2003
RES. #D13/03 - CANADIAN RIVERS DAY - JUNE 8, 2003
Announcement of a Canadian Rivers Day.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on Canadian
Rivers Day be received;
THAT staff work with TRCA volunteer task forces and other partners to coordinate annual
events to celebrate watershed management accomplishments as part of Canadian Rivers
Day;
AND FURTHER THAT staff send a letter to municipalities requesting they formally
proclaim June 8, 2003 as Canadian Rivers Day.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2002, the Minister for Canadian Heritage, Sheila Copps, signed a Ministerial
Proclamation to "declaire that the second Sunday of June will be celebrated henceforth as
Canadian Rivers Day ". The idea of an annual Canadian Rivers Day was unanimously endorsed
at the Canadian Rivers Heritage Conference in 2001. In British Columbia, BC Rivers Day has
been celebrated for more than two decades and is the largest rivers - related event in North
America.
31
Canadian Rivers Day will promote the natural, cultural and recreational values of Canada's
rivers. It is hoped that Canadians will take an active part in Canadian Rivers Day and that it will
bring Canada's river communities closer together on tangible projects for conservation,
interpretation and enjoyment. Nationwide activities are being coordinated by Rivers Canada, a
non -profit organization. However, no details are known at this time.
A number of years ago, TRCA, with the assistance of municipalities and other partners,
coordinated watershed -wide events under the banner of "Celebrate Your Watersheds Week ". It
was successful but lost momentum due to other projects and priorities.
To help rekindle a celebration of rivers and watersheds, several of the TRCA community -based
task forces have been considering ideas to promote Canadian Rivers Day. A number of ideas
are currently being considered by the Humber Watershed Alliance including: a large flotilla of
boats in the lower Humber River; a canoe race; First Nations participation; demonstrations; and
exhibitors. To date, the City of Toronto has offered to work with the Humber Watershed
Alliance and The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to organize the above - mentioned
activities. Other partners have expressed a desire to take part in watershed -wide activities.
The popular Mill Pond Splash will be hosted again this year by the Don Regeneration Council
in partnership with the Town of Richmond Hill.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Confirm activities and partners for 2003 activities;
• Encourage municipalities, other agencies and groups to promote Canadian Rivers Day;
and
• Work with TRCA volunteer task forces and other partners to coordinate annual events that
celebrate watershed management accomplishments.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
• Existing TRCA staff will assist with the planning and implementation of Canadian Rivers Day
events; and
• Proposals for funding will be prepared to support future activities related to the Canadian
Rivers Day celebrations.
Report prepared by: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: March 11, 2003
RES. #D14/03 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #10/02, Meeting #01 /03 and Meeting #02/03. The
minutes of Meeting #10/02 held November 21, 2002, Meeting #1/03 held
on January 16, 2003 and Meeting #2/03 held on February 20, 2003
32
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council of Meeting #10/02, Meeting #1/03 and Meeting #2/03
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 memebers 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: April 01, 2003
RES. #D15/03 - DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED TASK
FORCES
Minutes of Meetings #6/02 and #1/03.. The Minutes of Duffins Creek and
Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces meetings #6/02 and #1/03,
held on November 20, 2002 and February 26, 2003, respectively, are
provided for information.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Duffins Creek
and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces meetings #6/02 and #1/03, 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: March 31, 2003
33
RES. #D16 /03 - ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION
Minutes of Meeting #1/03, held on January 23, 2003. The minutes of the
Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting #1/03, held on January
23, 2003, are provided for information
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the
Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting #1/03, held on January 23, 2003, 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 #5/02, held on May 24, 2002 by resolution #A124/02,
includes the following provision:
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.
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Kristin Geater, extension 5263
Date: March 31, 2003
RES. #D17 /03 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #1/03, January 21, 2003. The minutes of Humber
Watershed Alliance meeting #1/03, held on January 21, 2003, are
provided for information
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber
Watershed Alliance meeting #1/03, held on January 21, 2003, 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:
34
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: March 31, 2003
RES. #D18 /03 - ROUGE PARK NORTH DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Endorsement of the Town of Markham's draft Rouge Park North Official
Plan Amendment and supporting Implementation Manual, and Urban
Design and Infrastructure Guidelines.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Scarpitti
Dave Ryan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Town of Markham's draft
Rouge Park North Official Plan Amendment, and supporting technical documents be
endorsed subject to the recommended policy refinements provided by TRCA staff within
this report;
THAT the Authority direct staff to continue to provide technical review and support to the
Town of Markham, and the Rouge Park North consulting team to complete the
Implementation Manual revisions, and to address issues related to stakeholders queries;
THAT the Town of Markham be commended for its initiative to advance environmental
planning within the Rouge Watershed;
THAT the Town of Markham be requested to ensure that the final version of the Official
Plan Amendment be structured so that the ecological criteria for the middle reaches area,
and the 600 meter corridor for Little Rouge Creek, as described in the Official Plan
Amendment, represent the minimum Rouge Park boundary that can maintain ecological
function and reasonable biodiversity, in a near urban and urbanizing region, as proposed
by the Rouge Park North Management Plan.
AND FURTHER THAT the resolution be forwarded to the Rouge Alliance for information.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D19 /03
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joe Pantalone
Ila Bossons
35
THAT the following be inserted after the main motion:
AND FURTHER THAT Brian Denney be authorized to appear as a deputant to represent
the TRCA's position if the TRCA's recommendations are not incorporated into Markham's
final draft Official Plan Amendment.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On July 28, 2000, the Authority adopted the following resolution:
THAT the Rouge North Management plan be endorsed;
THAT the Authority support the Rouge Alliance's initiatives in obtaining Provincial
endorsement of the Rouge North Management Plan and the recognition of the Rouge
Park within the Provincial Policy Statement;
THAT the Rouge Alliance prepare and adopt an Implementation Program and Acquisition
Strategy to ensure the intent of the Plan is achieved. As part of this program
municipalities of Richmond Hill, Whitchurch- Stouffville, Markham and the Region of York
will need to consider amendments to the Official Plan as one of the implementation
strategies;
THAT the Authority recommend that municipalities within the Rouge Watershed consider
undertaking, with technical assistance from the TRCA, subwatershed plans prior to
considering urban expansion.
In addition, resolutions were also received from all members of the Alliance which
recommended that the completion of an Implementation Strategy was necessary to achieve
the objectives set out in the Rouge North Management Plan.
Since this time, Authority staff have actively participated on the Rouge Park Alliance, and in
various technical sub - committees to formulate the park implementation strategies. For the
interim, Authority staff have used the policies of the Rouge North Management Plan as a guide
to explore opportunities to achieve the Plan's vision wherever possible. However, the
achievement of the plan's intent has been limited by the current planning policies.
Markham Council endorsed the RNMP (2001) on July 10, 2001, and subsequently initiated the
formal amendment process on May 28, 2002, authorizing Town staff to prepare an Official Plan
Amendment to implement the Rouge Park North Management Plan (2001). The purpose of the
Draft Amendment is:
• To recognize existing public lands, identified as Rouge Park, along the Rouge River
tributaries as Rouge Park lands,
36
• To incorporate ecologically -based criteria as a means of delineating future Rouge Park on
the non -urban lands of Markham,
• To incorporate policy direction for the long -term management of the Park lands within
Markham.
Extensive public consultation and stakeholder review has occurred during the amendment
planning process.
The draft OPA includes three (3) key supporting documents including an Implementation
Manual (Boundary Delineation Criteria), Urban Design and Infrastructure Guidelines and a
Rouge Park map. It is the intention that the Rouge Park North be designated through the
application of the Boundary Delineation Criteria and the policies outlined in the OPA.
TRCA have had several occasions to comment on the park boundary delineation process, and
since the distribution of the draft OPA amendment, and draft supporting documents, have been
actively working with the Town, and the Park's consultant Schollen & Company Inc. to refine
the Implementation Manual (Boundary Delineation Criteria), and park mapping. TRCA has met
with the Rouge Park staff, and has, at the request of the Town of Markham, reviewed several
letters /submissions of comment from the following:
• Friends of the Rouge Watershed, Jim Robb, March 21, 2003
• City of Toronto, Community Planning, East District Office, P. Hamilton, February 14,
2003
• Save the Rouge Valley System Inc., Glenn De Baeremaeker, February 18, 2003
• ESG INTERNATIONAL INC., Tom Hilditch, January 28, 2003
• Urban Development Institute (UDI), Ont., York Chapter, F. Nelson, January 29, 2003
RATIONALE
The Toronto Region Conservation Authority appreciates the extensive effort that the Town of
Markham has made to formulate this draft Official Plan Amendment (OPA), and to conduct a
constructive dialogue with Alliance members and stakeholders to resolve issues of concern
and clarification.
TRCA, Schollen & Associates, and Town staff have conducted lengthy discussions over the last
two months related to technical concerns associated with the Implementation (Boundary
Delineation Criteria) Manual from the Urban Development Institute (UDI) and their consultant,
Tom Hilditch from ESG International Inc. TRCA has worked with the participants to address
detailed queries related to:
• confirming the science associated with the boundary delineation criteria, inclusive of the
TRCA's field protocol's;
37
• clarifying the manual terms, and the process associated with application of the boundary
criteria and delineation;
• verifying the compatibility and support given to the boundary criteria from the TRCA
Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy.
A revised implementation manual document is still forthcoming for final approval reflecting
these adjustments and clarifications.
TRCA and Schollen & Company Inc. jointly prepared detailed comments, specific to each
concern and question, and forwarded them, under separate cover, to Town staff for
incorporation into a set of technical responses associated with the Rouge North
Implementation Manual. This letter will be finalized and will be forwarded through the Town as
a formal response to comments from UDI and ESG International Inc., and any other technical
concerns raised during this OPA process.
It must be noted that modifications/ clarification to the terminology and criteria included in the
Implementation Manual must be brought forward into the final OPA document. It was agreed
that Schollen & Company Inc. will provide those refinements to the Town for final editing
purposes.
TRCA supports the creation of this Official Plan Amendment that sets the implementation stage
for the Rouge Park North, with the foundation to activate negotiations for land securement and
park management. It is important that the full intent of the Rouge Park North Management Plan
is carried forward into the Official Plan, while setting the appropriate steps in place to ensure
success in the planning arena.
TRCA offers the following comments regarding the draft Official Plan Amendment. A letter
incorporating these recommendations has been sent to the Town of Markham for their April 8,
2003 deadline for comments.
Park Vision. Goals and Objectives
The OPA should include consistent wording associated with the park vision, goals and
objectives as per the Rouge Park North Management Plan (RPNP);
Manual as a Technical Supporting Document
The TRCA supports keeping the Rouge North Implementation Manual as a supporting
technical document to the OPA, in view of the evolving science and technical work that is
developing at the Authority. The Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program of the Authority, and
upcoming watershed and groundwater studies will be completed over the next year or two.
Studies will be open to technical review and refinement as needed.
Public Process for Change
To ensure an open process for any anticipated change to the OPA and Park implementation
documents, a public review and commenting process should be ensured.
38
Watershed Strategy (k)
TRCA will be initiating their Watershed strategy process in 2003, with an anticipated completion
over the next two years. Policy (k) needs to be strengthened to state that "development
applications must be consistent with the Watershed Strategy for the Rouge River watershed ".
TRCA would support no further OPA's to expand the urban boundary in the Rouge Watershed
should be adopted until the plan water budget is determined and the watershed strategy is
completed.
All tributaries within the Rouge Watershed will be subject to application of the ecological
criteria, to determine park boundary and development limits.
Monitoring (j)
TRCA would support a monitoring program that is implemented with the Town, the Rouge Park
Alliance and other government agencies to report on the progress towards the goals and
objectives (and ecological health) of the Rouge Park North in the Town of Markham. This work
needs to be linked to the TRCA's existing monitoring program with the watershed.
Urban Policy Area (e) Existing Approvals Apply (f) Enhancement Opportunities
TRCA would support the inclusion of a "best efforts" policy for applying the ecological criteria
within the Urban Policy Area of Markham's Official Plan, where opportunities exist to re -open
development limit dialogue with landowners.
Little Rouge Creek Policy Area (e) Urban Open Space
It is the intention of the plan to keep public park uses located contiguously to the outer portions
of the creek corridor, however, site - specific assessment will need to be conducted to determine
the appropriate integration of open space uses and Rouge Park corridor lands. Policy (e)
should read that Urban Open Space uses may be permitted within the outer 100 metres of the
Little Rouge River Corridor, including stormwater management facilities, subject to the goals
and objectives of the RPNP approval of stormwater management studies (and Master
Environmental Servicing Plans - MESP's) and consistency with the Rouge Park North
Infrastructure Guidelines.
As per the RNMP, extensive open space uses that alter the landscape (except reforestation),
shall not be permitted within 200 metres of the centreline of the Little Rouge Creek, except as
approved on a case by case basis in the context of the Rouge North Management Plan (2001)
and the Little Rouge Creek Master Plan.
Stewardship Options
In keeping with the TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program, the policy should include not
just the protection of identified natural and environmental features in private ownership but the
enhancement of environmental features and /or functions on private lands.
Management and Restoration Plans
The wording should be strengthened to be consistent with the RNMP.... Management and
Restoration Plans will recognize the unique attributes of Special Management Sites and strive
for consistency with the goal. purposes and objectives of the Rouge North Management Plan
(2001).
39
The restoration and management of vegetation communities within the Rouge Park North lands
is encouraged, and is consistent with the TRCA's policies and Terrestrial Natural Heritage
Program.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
As a member of the Rouge Alliance, and as an agency partner in the implementation of the
park policies, TRCA staff will continue our dialogue with the Town and stakeholders on the
Rouge Park North OPA and the technical implementation manual. Staff will assist the Town of
Markham in preparing the final edited version of the OPA and Rouge North Implementation
Manual.
Report Prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
Date: April 08, 2003
Attachments: 1
■
40
Attachment 1
41
NEW BUSINESS
RES. #D20/03 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
URBAN FORESTRY
Joe Pantalone
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT all future staff reports Include
comments and factual Information as to how the subject matter deals with the
enhancements of urban forests and natural corridors, Including trees and shrubs.
CARRIED
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:05 p.m., on Friday, April 11, 2003.
Ian Sinclair J. Craig Mather
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
/ks
42
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/03
June 13, 2003
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/03, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, June 13, 2003. The Chair Irene Jones,
called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
PRESENT
Lorna Bissell Vice Chair
Ila Bossons Member
Irene Jones Chair
Anthony Ketchum Member
Pam McConnell Member
Jim McMaster Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Joe Pantalone Member
Frank Scarpitti Member
Ian Sinclair Member
Tanny Wells Member
REGRETS
Cliff Gyles Member
Dave Ryan Member
RES. #D21/03 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joe Pantalone
Ila Bossons
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/03, held on April 11, 2003, be approved.
CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
(a) Tony Paginton of 3 Lakeshore Drive, Toronto, in regards to item 7.1 - Nuisance Algae
and Recent Shoreline Protection Works.
43
RES. #D22 /03 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ila Bossons
Lorna Bissell
THAT above -noted delegation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) Ian Sinclair, Member, in regards to Caledon's Healthy Horticultural Landscapes By -law.
(b) Doug Dodge, Duffins Creek Task Force, in regards to item 7.2 - A Watershed Plan for
Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek.
(c) Nancy Gaffney, Watershed Specialist, speaking in regards to item 7.3 - Mimico
Waterfront Linear Park Project.
RES. #D23 /03 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT above -noted
PRESENTATIONS
Ila Bossons
Tanny Wells
presentation (a) be heard and received;
AND FURTHER THAT the Members express their appreciation to all those involved in
developing Town of Caledon's Healthy Horticultural Landscapes By -Law.
RES. #D24 /03 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT above -noted
RES. #D25 /03 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT above -noted
PRESENTATIONS
Dick O'Brien
Jim McMaster
CARRIED
presentation (b) be heard and received.
PRESENTATIONS
Irene Jones
Anthony Ketchum
CARRIED
presentation (c) be heard and received.
CARRIED
44
f
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A letter dated June 13, 2003, from Debbe Day Crandall, STORM Coalition, in regards to
item 7.2 - A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek.
(b) A letter dated June 6, 2003 from Andrew McCammon, Chair, Friends of the Don East, in
regards to Creating a City of Toronto Environmental Commissioner.
RES. #D26/03 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joe Pantalone
Lorna Bissell
THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received;
AND FURTHER THAT above -noted correspondence (b) be referred to staff for a report
back. CARRIED
45
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
Save the Oak Ridges Moraine
Box 533 Bolton ON L7E 5R7
Tel: (905) 880 -3465 Fax: (905) 880 -3466
E -Mail: info@stormoo.org Web site: www.stormco.org
STORM Coalition
Presentation to the Toronto and Region Conservation Water Board Meeting
Friday, June 13, 2003
Good Morning,
It is my pleasure to be he on behalf of the Save the Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition.
I would first like to say that both STORM think the Duffins Creek, State of the Watershed Report
is comprehensive in all respects; socially, politically, scientifically and historically. We congratu-
late Gary Bowen and the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Task force for the insight and the hard
work it took to bring these areas of knowledge together fluidly and holistically.
We would also like to commend the Terrestrial Natural Heritage approach implemented through-
out the report. This relational approach has successfully recognized the interconnectedness of all
parts of the natural system within the whole of the watershed, and recommends that any develop-
ment decisions made at the site level should take into consideration the watershed as whole. This
`big picture"perspective, be it Moraine or watershed -wide, has always been the mantra of
STORM.
Finally, as you are aware STORM Coalition has worked hard over the years to protect the Oak
Ridges Moraine. We knew that provincial legislation was the only way to stop piecemeal devel-
opment from fragmenting the Moraine to the point of ecological failure. We would very much
like to see the recommendations of Gary Bowen and the Task Force fully implemented into the
Regions, and municipalities policy framework governing land use planning We feel that this
very important and comprehensive work, if incorporated into municipal official plans, will
indeed protect the integrity of the Duffns and Carruthers Creek watersheds in perpetuity.
Thank you,
Debbe Crandall
STORM Coalition
46
SECTION 1- ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D27 /03 - NUISANCE ALGAE AND RECENT SHORELINE PROTECTION
WORKS
2 - 4 Sand Beach Road, Etobicoke. Staff report on the deputation of Mr.
Tony Paginton (2 Lakeshore Ave, Etobicoke) in regards to nuisance
algae and recent shoreline protection works at 2 - 4 Sand Beach Road,
Etobicoke.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ila Bossons
Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report in response to
the deputation of Mr. Tony Paginton (2 Lakeshore Ave, Etobicoke) regarding nuisance
algae and recent shoreline protection works at 2 - 4 Sand Beach Road, Etobicoke be
received;
AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this reporting be provided to Mr. Paginton and the
Zannini Development.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D28 /03
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ila Bossons
Lorna Bissell
THAT the following be inserted after the main motion:
AND FURTHER THAT staff prepare a report on algae growth across the TRCA waterfront,
incorporating what actions the appropriate municipalities are taking to address the issue.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Excessive growth of Cladophora sp within the Great Lakes has caused and created serious
nuisance conditions which affect the use of shorelines and water for recreational, industrial,
and municipal purposes. The Etobicoke shoreline is an area that historically and currently has
favourable conditions conducive to algal growth. Over the past fifty years this prolific growth
has caused many local problems and concerns.
47
Cladophora is a branched filamentous green algae that is found throughout the world in both
fresh and saltwater environments. This species of algae is generally confined to the littoral and
nearshore profoundal zones in freshwater systems. Early records, dating back to the 1930s,
indicate that this algae species was present in selected and isolated areas within the Great
Lakes. The Humber Bay area and the Etobicoke shoreline is a location of long term '
colonization and occurrence of Cladophora.
The growth and abundance of Cladophora is controlled by nutrient levels, suitable substrates,
and water clarity.
During the late 1960's and throughout the 1970's this green filamentous algae was at the
highest abundance and biomass within the Great Lakes. This peak in algal abundance was
directly correlated to high phosphorus concentrations and the increased eutrophication of the
Great Lakes. This eutropication was the result of system wide influx of nutrients (poor sewage
treatment and phosphate based detergents) that have since been reduced due to better
sewage treatment controls and changes to consumer products. Nearshore point sources of
nutrients are now one of the most critical limiting factors controlling the abundance and
colonization of algae. Discharges from storm sewers, sewage treatment plants and the
backwash water from the R.L. Clark water filtration plant are all significant sources of nutrients
that affect the Etobicoke shoreline. Also, the Etobicoke shoreline is heavily influenced by the
nutrient loadings from the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks, as well as, the Humber River.
Cladopohra grows from a perennial rhizoidal holdfast that can only attach to a hard surface.
Therefore the presence or absence of suitable substrates typically determines the range and
extent of algal growth and colonization. Claodphora readily attaches to boulders, bedrock,
dockwalls, and concrete and cannot attach to sand, gravel, or cobble substrates. Nearshore
algae is also less abundant in areas of emergent and submergent vegetation because of direct
competition.
The Etobicoke shoreline adjacent to Mr. Paginton's property is uniformly comprised of deposits
of shale that form an extensive bedrock shelf. This outcrop is typically composed of a thin
veneer of broken shale slabs on top of bedrock forming what is often called "boulder
pavement ". This combination of boulder pavement/ bedrock outcrop extend to depths that are
in excess of the normal range of cladophora growth and therefore suitable substrates are not a
limiting factor along this section of the Etobicoke shoreline. This nearshore geology is also the
principal reason why chladophora historically existed within study area.
Water clarity is a very important condition that promotes or limits the nearshore growth of
algae. The recent colonization of zebra mussels has improved water clarity to the point that
sunlight is penetrating into deeper water and increasing the area of near shore that algae can
attach to suitable substrates and flourish.
48
This combination of high nutrients and ideal substrates account for the extensive growth of
algae along this shoreline. Compounding the problem is the exceptionally hot and dry weather
we have experienced during August 2001 and 2002. Filamentous algae by nature grows into
long strands and clumps. The longer the algae grows the bottom cells become shaded from
the sunlight, die and cause the long strands to break free from the lake bottom. These
detached strands of algae are the floating scum that is prevalent along the entire Etobicoke
shoreline. Staff assessment of the Etobicoke shoreline concludes that the current algae
problem is widespread along the near shore area with suitable substrates, local nutrients and
shorelines of concave bays. All of these are prevalent along the Sand Beach Road Area of the
shoreline.
The major concern raised by Mr. Paginton at his deputation to the Executive Committee
(#11/02) focused on the increased accumulation of detached algae on his shoreline because
of the shoreline modifications caused by the construction of an armour stone revetment at 2 -4
Sand Beach Road.
A brief chronology of this issue is as follows:
• August 2002, the TRCA was notified of nuisance algae conditions along the shoreline.
• September 2002, Environmental Services Section staff used the RN Night Heron to survey
the Etobicoke shoreline between Royal York Road and Prince of Wales Park. Detached
algae was found throughout the shoreline. Overall, the staff assessment of the site
concluded that Mr. Paginton's shoreline is similar to adjacent properties and conditions
along the shoreline. Recent shorelines works would have little impact on the abundance
and occurrence of this nuisance algae. And further noted in correspondence dated
September 19, 2002 ... " your property is situated along a concave shoreline bordered by
the points associated with Royal York Road and the Prince of Wales Park. These shoreline
features and the location of the property are the principal reasons that detached algae is
accumulating on the shoreline ".
• October 2002, staff visited with Mr. Paginton to review conditions and the effects of the
adjacent shoreline protection structures on the property. After reviewing the site conditions
staff concluded that the presence or absence of any shoreline works will not change the
occurrence of algae along the shoreline. Staff also instructed Mr. Paginton on how to make
a deputation to the board
• December 2002, Mr. Paginton presented his concerns to the Executive Committee and staff
were directed to report back to the board.
• February 2003 Staff retained the services of Shoreplan Engineering to review the site and
constructed works form a coastal engineering perspective.
• March 2003, TRCA staff, Shoreplan Engineering and Mr. Paginton met on site to discuss
the issues and concerns about the Shoreline Protection works and possible remedial
measures.
49
• April 2003 , Shoreplan Engineering- concluded that:
the constructed works did not increase the production of algae;
the new protection works may be aggravating an existing condition in a very
minor way rather than creating a new one;
Two potential remedial measures were discussed:
1. To fill in the void additional cobble and gravel material be placed in the small
area that collects algae. The stability and long term behavior of this cobble
gravel cannot be predicted and there is a potential for this material to move
along the shoreline with wave action.
2. Removal of the western section of the revetment and replacing this structure
with a vertical seawall. Potential concerns with this remedial option included
increase in wave reflection and wave run up, and poor wall anchoring because
of the presence of bedrock.
It was also determined that these two methods would not eliminate the algae problem and
it is possible that the methods will not produce a noticeable reduction in the amount of
algae deposited on the shoreline.
• May 2003, staff notified Zannini Developments of the issues surrounding the shoreline
protection works and based on the request for revision and minor modification to the
approved plan, facilitated a meeting with the two landowners. At a meeting on site, the
issues, concerns and potential remedial measures were discussed.
• The placement of cobble and gravel along the shoreline was unacceptable to Mr. Paginton
and the removal of a portion of the revetment and replacement of the seawall was equally
unacceptable to Zannini Developments. Unfortunately, there was no resolution to the
issues and consensus could not be reached amongst the two parties.
RATIONALE
The TRCA reviewed the shoreline protection structure from the basis of shoreline hazard
protection. Typically this review includes the determination of any potential impacts of the
works on the adjacent properly. The structure is of sound design and functions as a shoreline
protection works with (other than Mr. Paginton's concerns) nominal impacts to the adjacent
neighbors. The deposition of detached algae is more dependent on meteorological conditions
than the presence or absence of this shoreline protection.
With no remedial measure that clearly addresses the problem and that will satisfy both parties,
there is no clear course of action to resolve this issue between these two landowners. Staff will
continue to monitor algae conditions along Lake Ontario Shoreline.
Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
Date: June 03, 2003
50
RES. #D29/03 - A WATERSHED PLAN FOR DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS
CREEK
Adoption and direction to proceed with implementation of the Watershed
Plan
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Jim McMaster
WHEREAS Transport Canada, as a major land owner in the Duffins Creek Watershed, has
a Sustainable Development Strategy in place that supports watershed management
principles;
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario have enacted the Oak Ridges Moraine Act and
Conservation Plan that Includes the requirement for the preparation of watershed plans;
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has initiated a land exchange for lands on the Oak
Ridges Moraine (Richmond Hill) for provincial lands (Seaton) in the Duffins Creek
watershed;
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario is advancing their Smart Growth initiatives and have
an opportunity to demonstrate these principles on provincial lands in the Duffins Creek
watershed;
WHEREAS the Ontario Planning and Advisory Committee to the Province of Ontario on
Source Protection supports Conservation Ontario's recommendation to the Walkerton
Drinking Water Inquiry for the preparation of Source Protection Plans on a watershed
basis;
WHEREAS the City of Pickering has recognized the need for watershed protection in their
Growth Management Study;
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report entitled "A Watershed
Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek" Final Draft, May 2003 be received;
THAT the schedule of presentations to local Municipal Councils and Regional Planning
Committee and the feedback to date be received;
THAT staff report back to the Authority regarding the steps required to implement this
"Plan" into Authority practices and policy;
THAT staff consult with the watershed municipalities to finalize a Terms of Reference for
an "Implementation Team";
THAT the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Task Force members be thanked for their
outstanding work in preparing the Watershed Plan;
51
THAT the Province of Ontario be requested to provide resources to develop a Source
Protection Plan for the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watersheds that will serve to
identify the methodology and costs for developing these plans;
THAT the provincial and federal governments, as major land owners in the Duffins Creek
watershed be requested to provide resources to implement this Watershed Plan; and
AND FURTHER THAT this Watershed Plan be distributed to local MP's and MPP's in the
study area, federal and provincial Ministries of Environment, Transportation and
Agriculture, Municipal Affairs and the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, and
watershed municipalities.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At their final meeting on June 26, 2002 the Task Force members approved A Watershed Plan
for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek with the understanding that staff would continue to
work with municipal planning staff over the summer and fall to fine tune the wording of the Plan
and to assist municipal staff, where necessary, in preparing reports to their council.
At Meeting #5/02, September 13, 2002 the members of the Watershed Management Advisory
Board approved the recommendations from staff to seek municipal endorsement of the
Watershed Plan and meet with the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Duffins and Carruthers Creek
Task Forces to receive input into a Terms of Reference for an Implementation Committee.
While municipal staff were generally supportive of the Task Forces efforts, it was understood
based on the comments received during the fall of 2002, that the recommendations in the
report needed to be backed up by technical studies and that more detailed discussions were
required for implementation. Based upon those meetings a decision was made to delay going
before Council until June of 2003 in order to complete the Watershed Plan and its supporting
technical studies to the highest standard possible.
All supporting technical studies were completed by February 2003 and the Watershed Plan
was updated to reflect the completed work. Following that, a Peer Review Workshop was
conducted to receive input from neighboring Conservation Authorities, and scientists who had
conducted work in the study area in the past. Both the Watershed Plan and its supporting
reports received praise for its state of the art approach to integrated watershed management.
The following Council and Planning Committee dates were arranged and staff worked closely
with municipal staff to assist in preparing their staff reports to Council.
Municipality
Presentation Date
Town of Ajax - Council
May 26, 2003
Township of Uxbridge - Council
June 9, 2003
City of Pickering - Council
June 16, 2003
Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville - Council
June 17, 2003
York Region - Planning Committee
June 18, 2003
Durham Region - Planning Committee
June 24, 2003
Town of Markham - Council
July 8, 2003
52
Presentations to the Town of Ajax and the Township of Uxbridge were well received by Council.
Once all presentations are complete staff will proceed to publish and print the report for
distribution in August 2003.
Staff will continue to consult with municipal staff and stakeholders in the watershed to finalize
the mandate and Terms of Reference for an Implementation Team. The final Terms of
Reference and membership for implementation of the Watershed Plan will be reported back to
the Authority.
Although the "footprint" of the proposed Pickering Airport and the Seaton land development
was not available during the time this Plan was written, we know these two watersheds will
face pressure from this future urban growth, road widening and construction. The
Management Actions contained within the Watershed Plan and its associated technical reports
provide a watershed perspective and clear direction for these undertakings. These
watersheds also hold the potential for innovative management associated with their extensive
public land holdings and position relative to the protection afforded by the newly enacted Oak
Ridges Moraine Act (2001).
This Watershed Plan is a blueprint for action. The Plan includes a brief summary of current
watershed conditions and identifies the issues to be addressed and the opportunities that exist.
It sets out a vision for the future, a management philosophy, and a framework of management
strategies including watershed management goals, objectives and the required actions. It
outlines a set of effective implementation mechanisms, and provides guidance for
implementation priorities at a subwatershed scale. The Executive Summary and four maps
from the Watershed Plan are attached as an Appendix to this report.
Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5392
For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385
Date: May 29, 2003
Attachments: 1
53
Attachment 1
Executive Summary
The Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds lie to the east of Toronto and drain into the north
shore of Lake Ontario. These two river systems connect communities across Durham Region
and York Region including the City of Pickering, the Towns of Ajax, Markham and
Whitchurch- Stouffville, and the Township of Uxbridge. They are among the healthiest of
watersheds in the Greater Toronto Region, yet they are also exhibiting signs of stress from land
use activities.
Although the "footprint" of the proposed Pickering Airport and the Seaton land development
was not available during the time this Plan was written we do know these two watersheds will
face pressure from this future urban growth, road widenings and construction. The
Management Actions contained within the Watershed Plan and its associated technical reports
provide a watershed perspective and clear direction for these undertakings. However, these
watersheds also hold the potential for innovative management associated with their extensive
public land holdings and position relative to the protection afforded by the newly enacted Oak
Ridges Moraine Act (2001).
This Watershed Plan is a blueprint for action. The Plan includes a brief summary of current
watershed conditions and identifies the issues to be addressed and the opportunities that exist.
It sets out a vision for the future, a management philosophy, and a framework of management
strategies including watershed management goals, objectives, and the required actions. It
outlines a set of effective implementation mechanisms, and provides guidance for
implementation priorities at a subwatershed scale and areas within the watershed where initial
implementation activities should focus.
This Watershed Plan comes from a commitment by the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) in its 1989 Greenspace Strategy to guide the preparation of a watershed
management strategy for each of the nine watersheds in its jurisdiction. Building upon
commitments made in the Greenspace Strategy, and with over 45 years experience in
protecting and restoring the environmental health of one of the most rapidly expanding city
regions in the world, TRCA has defined a new vision for its work, The Living City:
The Living City Vision
The qualify of life on Earth is being determined in the rapidly expanding city regions. Our
vision is for a new kind of community, The Living City, where human settlement can
flourish forever as part of nature's beauty and diversity.
The Living City is a way of living in city regions that promotes a healthy coexistence between
economy and nature. In a Living City, the ecosystem is seen as the foundation for the City
Region. Nature is protected and enhanced for its ability to sustain the health of its important
functions in the regional ecosystem, a system in which all living things are interdependent and
exist in a delicate balance.
54
The Living City vision has three objectives: healthy rivers and shorelines, regional biodiversity
and greenspace, and sustainable living through education. In support of the Living City vision
and building upon the experience gained from previous watershed planning initiatives, TRCA
has advanced its community -based process and technical approaches in the development of
this Watershed Plan.
TWO TASK FORCES AND ONE PLAN
The TRCA continued its very successful model for empowering watershed stakeholders and
formed two Watershed Task Forces in 2000. Membership of the two Task Forces included
elected municipal representatives, watershed residents, and representatives from key
stakeholder groups and agencies.
The Task Forces were charged with the responsibility of developing this Watershed
Management Plan. Despite their difference in size, the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek
watersheds are diverse and contrasting landscapes that share many of the same opportunities
and challenges. Therefore, the Task Forces prepared one management plan for the two
watersheds.
VISION
The Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watersheds Task Forces hold the following vision for the
future of these watersheds:
The Vision
Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds will be healthy, dynamic and
sustainable watersheds that continue to have clean, safe water. These watersheds will
have functioning wetlands and be diverse with self - sustaining communities of native
plants, fish and wildlife, where natural and human heritage features are protected and
valued. Residents will recognize the watersheds as essential community resources that
enhance their quality of life. All stakeholders will participate in the stewardship of the
watersheds and growth and development will reflect this vision and the importance of
protecting and enhancing this priceless legacy.
MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY
The vision for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds is supported by a
management philosophy that promotes five key elements.
55
Net Gain
• Improve upon existing features and functions throughout the watersheds.
• Use the unique opportunities provided by extensive public land holdings in the
watersheds.
Environment First
• Manage the watersheds as a "system," considering the environmental function first.
• Protect and enhance the natural features and functions as a first step in a hierarchy of
other management approaches.
• Emphasize prevention over remediation, recognizing that prevention is more cost efficient
than remediation.
Balance Land Use
These watersheds, adjacent to one of the largest cities in Canada, must support a
combination of natural, urban and agricultural land uses and systems.
Apply the principles of Smart Growth.
Recognize through land use actions, the concept of balance, thus ensuring integrity of
watershed functions.
Human Health & Safety
Recognize linkages between human health and the health of the environment.
Minimize risk to human health and safety.
Everyone Counts — Ownership, Commitment and Follow Through
• Demonstrate sustainable living and sustainable community design.
Build upon existing leadership, stewardship and good decision making practices.
Strengthen existing and develop new partnerships.
• Make the appropriate lifestyle choices, change behaviours and encourage innovation in
thoughts words and actions.
TECHNICAL FOUNDATION FOR THE PLAN
State -of -the -art watershed management today not only addresses a broader range of issues
than previous initiatives, but also considers the interrelationships among these issues. Issues
are considered in both the current and future planning context, in order to take a more
proactive approach to management. Given the rich information base existing within the Duffins
and Carruthers Creek watersheds, and the extensive experience of TRCA and its partners with
watershed planning, the Task Forces were able not only to employ, but advance,
state -of- the -art methodologies for watershed planning.
56
To understand key functions and issues operating within the watersheds, the Task Forces and
the technical support team defined and evaluated three land use scenarios in terms of the
effects they would impose on watershed health. The three scenarios included: existing land
use; future land use (as per the approved Official Plans); and future land use with enhanced
natural cover. These scenarios reflected the primary drivers of change expected in the
watersheds, including urban growth and opportunities for natural area protection. The results
of the evaluation enabled the Task Forces to benchmark the watersheds' response along a
continuum.
Recognizing that the watershed ecosystem is a complex network of inter - related features and
functions, the task forces reduced the watershed ecosystems to a set of simpler component
systems in order to understand the response to each of the three land use scenarios. Studies
were undertaken within the following technical areas:
1) Surface Water Quantity
2) Groundwater Quantity and Quality
3) Surface Water Quality
4) Aquatic Habitat and Species
5) Terrestrial Habitat and Species
6) Human Heritage
7) Public Use — Outdoor Recreation
An innovative aspect of this work was the degree to which the findings of each technical study
component were integrated and interpreted from the perspective of other inter - related
components. A watershed response model guided the integration and interpretation of results
arising from each individual technical component study. For example, increases in vegetative
cover predicted changes in groundwater levels and stream baseflow, which in turn predicted
an effect on the aquatic community composition in certain stream reaches. Details of this
approach and each of the technical component studies are summarized in the Technical
Analysis and Integration Process Summary Report (TRCA, 2003) and in the full set of supporting
technical reports. These reports build upon information previously published in the Duffins and
Carruthers Creek State of the Watershed Reports (TRCA, 2002).
MANAGEMENT APPROACH
The Task Forces have recommended that the most effective approach for managing the
Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds involves achievement of an enhanced natural
heritage system, together with the application of best management practices in all aspects of
land use activities. The concept of an enhanced natural heritage system at a watershed scale
is described in the "Future Land Use (as per Official Plans) with Enhanced Natural Heritage
Cover" scenario.
Implementation of this management approach will involve a review and realization of
opportunities for achieving an enhanced natural heritage system at subwatershed and site
scales.
57
The selection of this approach was based on the following considerations:
• its consistency with the Task Forces' Management Philosophy;
• its effectiveness for meeting multiple watershed management benefits;
• its ability to provide the foundation for a sustainable watershed;
• its feasibility; and
• its consistency with other provincial and federal basin management objectives.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND BASELINE REPORT CARD
A set of eight goals and twenty -five objectives make up the overall management strategy of this
Watershed Plan (Table E -1). A rating has been assigned to each goal and objective, based on
an evaluation of the state of current watershed conditions in relation to the management
direction provided by the specific goal and objectives. These ratings form a baseline "
Watershed Report Card" from which the effectiveness of implementing the Watershed Plan can
be measured. Details of the rating analysis are documented in the Ratings Report for the 2003
Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watersheds Report Card (TRCA, 2003).
MONITORING AND REPORTING
A formal, coordinated multi- agency monitoring program is not intended to be the sole form of
watershed monitoring in the Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds. Many of the
recommendations tabled in Chapter 6 of this Plan are in fact initiatives that require frequent
performance assessments. These performance assessments are considered to be elements of
watershed monitoring. It is also recognized that observations of stream and terrestrial
ecosystem health by residents, stakeholders and non - government organizations are important
metrics of the effectiveness of this Watershed Plan.
Periodic reviews of this Watershed Plan are an integral component of TRCA's watershed
management process and allow for: systematic improvements to the plan, the incorporation of
new scientific understandings of the watersheds and emerging initiatives such as
"sustainability". At the same time, the original assumptions of the watershed plan can if
necessary be adjusted. Timing of major reviews should be coordinated with the preparation of
a Watershed Report Card, in advance of major land use changes in the watershed.
58
Table E -1: Summary of Management Goals, Objectives and Ratings
TOPIC
GOAL
OBJECTIVES
RATINGS
Duffins
Carruthers
Duffins
Carruthers
Surface Water
Quantity
Overall Rating:
Good Good
To maintain the existing
hydrologic function of the
watershed.
Objective #1 Maintain the existing water
balance within the watershed.
Objective #2 Maintain or enhance baseflows.
Objective #3 Minimize or reduce risks to
human life and property due to
flooding.
Objective #4 Maintain or restore natural
stream channel stability.
Good
Good
Good
Further
study
required
Good
Fair
Good
Further
study
required
Groundwater
Quality and
Quantity
Overall Rating:
Good Fair
To protect groundwater
quality and quantity
Objective #5 Maintain or enhance
groundwater levels and
discharge for watershed
functions.
Objective #6 Protect groundwater quality to
ensure provision of safe water
supplies and ecological
functions.
Objective #7 Ensure sustainable rates of
groundwater use.
Good
Good
Further
study
required
Fair
Good
Further
study
required
Surface Water
Quality
Overall Rating:
Fair Fair
To protect and improve
surface water quality
Objective #8 Manage the quality and quantity
of run -off from rural and urban
areas to maintain in- stream
uses.
Objective #9 Minimize in- stream sediment
associated with construction
activity.
Objective #10 Reduce water quality
contamination associated with
wastewater discharges.
Good
Poor
Poor
Good
Poor
Not
applicable
59
Aquatic
Habitat and
Species
Overall Rating:
Good Fair
To protect aquatic habitat
and species
Objective #11 Protect and restore native
aquatic species and
communities.
Objective #12 Protect and restore the riparian
zone and associated functions.
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Objective #13 Maintain or restore the natural
Further
Further
variability of annual and
study
study
seasonal stream flows.
required
required
Terrestrial
Overall Rating:
Objective #14 Increase the percent natural
Good
Fair
Habitat and
Species
Good Fair
To protect and enhance
terrestrial habitat and
cover to a quantity which
provides targeted biodiversity
and supports recreational uses.
species
Objective #15 Protect the natural system
quality and function from the
influence of surrounding land
uses.
Fair
Fair
Objective #16 Protect and restore all native
Further
Further
vegetation community types
study
study
and species to targeted levels.
required
required
Public Use -
Overall Rating:
Objective #17 Create continuous watershed
Fair
Fair
Recreation
Good Poor
trails in the greenspace system
linking Lake Ontario and the
To provide appropriate
sustainable public use
Oak Ridges Moraine.
which promotes
environmental awareness
and enhancement
Objective #18 Manage the greenspace system
for sustainable uses and public
enjoyment.
Good
Poor
Objective #19 Improve greenspace
accessibility while ensuring
compatibility between social
benefits and ecological health.
Good
Poor
60
Human
Heritage
Overall Rating:
Fair Fair
To preserve and interpret
our evolving human
heritage resources
Objective #20 Identify and document human
heritage resources for
protection.
Objective #21 Increase awareness and
appreciation of the inherent
value of human heritage
resources.
Objective #22 Apply a standardized approach
to protecting human heritage
resources at all levels of
government .
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
Sustainable
Overall Rating:
Objective #23 Increase awareness of
Further
Further
Communities
Fair Fair
watershed issues and use of
study
study
To achieve a behavioral
shift in lifestyles,
community design and
resource use in keeping
available watershed knowledge
in decision making to foster
sustainability and sustainable
lifestyle practices.
required
required
with the environmental
Objective #24 Promote lifestyles that are
Further
Further
objectives for the
ecologically sustainable.
study
study
watersheds
required
required
Objective #25 Use sustainable urban design
approaches to guide urban
growth and development.
Fair
Fair
TEN INTEGRAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The task forces recommended a detailed set of management activities for the achievement of
each objective. A number of these actions are common, in that they contribute toward the
fulfillment of numerous objectives. Certain benefits are considered especially important
because they can happen well beyond their site of application. These particular management
actions are so important that they are integral to the overall health of the watersheds and
should be afforded top priority for implementation. The Integral Management Actions are:
1. Protect existing meadows, wetlands, and forests identified in the enhanced terrestrial
natural heritage system and secure lands to be restored.
2. Actively restore areas within the enhanced natural heritage system, which contribute
multiple watershed benefits, and allow passive restoration to occur in the remaining
areas.
3. Provide stormwater quantity and quality controls for new and existing development,
including transportation corridors.
61
4. Manage land uses and water withdrawals to maintain or enhance infiltration patterns,
groundwater pathways, and resultant baseflows.
5. Eliminate the remaining point source of pollution (i.e. Stouffville Water Pollution Control
Plant) and manage non -point sources of pollution, in particular stormwater runoff and
infiltration from urban land uses, transportation corridors, and rural contributions.
6. Enforce stringent erosion and sediment controls for construction and infrastructure
maintenance activities.
7. Protect and restore natural streams and stream processes by managing runoff and
sediment Toss at source, and protecting valley and stream corridors, and naturalizing
altered streams.
8. Remove and /or mitigate human -built barriers to fish passage and sediment transport,
including on -line ponds, where recommended by the Fisheries Management Plan.
9. Maintain self - sustaining, resident/migratory fish and wildlife populations as barometers
of a healthy natural heritage system
10. Identify and raise awareness of past and present human influences on the watersheds
and the strong Zink between human heritage, watershed recreation and human and
environmental health.
MULTIPLE BENEFITS OF NATURAL COVER
The protection and enhancement of terrestrial natural heritage cover through the achievement
of the enhanced natural heritage system is central to the Task Forces' management approach.
Technical analysis of the watersheds' response to the "Future Land Use (as per the Official
Plans) with Enhanced Natural Heritage System" scenario repeatedly demonstrated the multiple
watershed benefits that can be realized by achieving an enhanced natural heritage system. In
addition to benefits associated with terrestrial habitat and species objectives, a natural heritage
system would contribute to the management of hydrological, hydrogeological, water quality,
aquatic resource, recreation and human heritage concerns.
At a watershed scale, the protection of a viable natural heritage system will provide the
foundation for a sustainable watershed. By protecting the ability of natural systems to carry out
watershed functions there will be less need for costly maintenance of infrastructure, less risk
with unproven technological solutions to watershed management and cost savings in taking a
preventative approach rather than a reliance on remedial or "end -of -the- pipe" solutions. In
addition, choices made at the community and site scales within the watershed will contribute to
overall watershed sustainability.
62
IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
A Too/ Kit of Implementation Mechanisms
Common to many watershed plans in Ontario, the key implementation mechanisms include:
policy and planning, regulations and permits, stewardship and regeneration activities, land
acquisition /securement; and education and awareness.
Both the Province, under the Oak Ridges Moraine Act (2001) and Conservation Plan (2002),
and Justice O'Connor in his Part 2 Report of the Walkerton Inquiry (2002) have endorsed the
important role municipal land use planning and other government permitting processes play in
implementing a watershed plan. The Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Task Forces have also
recognized the importance of developing a model policy framework to assist in the transition
between the watershed plan and its implementation through these other planning and policy
tools. Initial work has been completed in developing model policy framework; further work is a
priority implementation activity.
GIS -based mapping has been prepared for each watershed to identify the areas targeted for
active stewardship, regeneration, and /or land acquisition /securement.
Subwatershed Scale Direction
A more detailed identification of key management considerations and actions has been
provided at the subwatershed level. For this purpose, the Duffins Creek watershed was
divided into six drainage areas including: West Duffins Creek, East Duffins Creek,
Ganatsekiagon Creek, Urfe Creek, Millers Creek, and the Lower Duffins Creek. The Carruthers
Creek Watershed makes up the seventh area. Opportunities have been illustrated on a map
for each subwatershed.
Community Action Sites
The task forces have identified six sites within the watersheds as potential "Community Action
Sites ". Sites were selected to demonstrate the implementation of many aspects of the
watershed plan; the expected interest, enthusiasm, and support of implementation partners;
and the feasibility of design and implementation at the site level. Community Action Sites have
been successful in other watersheds as a means of facilitating the transition from plan to
ground level action and in providing a sense of early accomplishment for partners
implementing the plan.
Roles and Responsibilities
Implementation of the Watershed Plan requires the involvement of everyone, including:
residents, businesses, schools, and all levels of government. Specific recommendations are
provided as to a role for each partner.
63
TOWARD FULFILLMENT OF NEW PROVINCIAL DIRECTIONS
The release of this report could not come at a better time as it complements recent
recommendations of the Walkerton Inquiry, the Oak Ridges Moraine Act and Conservation
Plan, and the proposed North Pickering Land Exchange and its principles for development of
the Seaton lands. These decisions, combined with planning for the extensive federal
government land holdings for a proposed regional airport in the Duffins watershed, suggest
that we are at a point in time when critical decisions concerning the protection and
enhancement of these areas need to be made.
Walkerton Inquiry Call for Source Protection
The Walkerton Inquiry's Part 2 Report, A Strategy for Safe Drinking Water, was released by the
Ontario Government in May 2002 and contains 93 recommendations for improved public
policy and programs that will ensure the safety of Ontario's drinking water supply. The
Report focuses considerable attention on the importance of protecting drinking water sources
as the first step in a multi- barrier approach to drinking water supply management.
Specifically, the Report calls for the preparation of watershed -based source protection plans
and outlines the role of conservation authorities in this effort.
Drinking water sources within the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds include
both lake -based (urban portions of the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax) and
groundwater based supplies. The regional municipalities of Peel, York and Durham have
been assembling information to address components of groundwater source protection, and
the TRCA is committed to a program of coordinating the integration of all of this information
within an integrated watershed management and source protection plan.
The preparation of source protection plans for watersheds that are predominantly served by
Lake Ontario may require a slightly different approach than areas influenced mostly by local
sources. Although the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek 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.
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is working with Conservation Ontario and its
representatives on the Provincial Advisory Committee that has been established to
recommend a framework for the preparation of Source Protection Plans in Ontario.
64
Oak Ridges Moraine Act and Conservation Plan
After a six month moratorium that froze development on the Oak Ridges Moraine, and during
which time a strategy was developed and public consultation undertaken, (Bill 122, The Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Act) was passed in the Ontario Legislature and received Royal
Assent on December 14, 2001. On April 22, 2002 the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
was approved and filed as a Ministers Regulation (0. Reg. 140/02). The purpose of the Plan
is to provide land use and resource management planning direction to ensure the protection
and ecological and hydrological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
The Conservation Plan provides for four land use designations. The first two are Natural Core
Areas and Natural Linkage Areas, where very limited new land uses are being permitted. The
Countryside Areas are largely identified for agricultural, rural, recreational and resource areas
and finally the Settlement Areas are restricted to existing urban or settlement area
boundaries.
Municipalities are directed in the plan to recognize these land use designations, setbacks,
and further study requirements in their Official Plans and zoning by -laws within set
timeframes. In addition, it requires that detailed water management studies (i.e., watershed
plans, water budgets and conservation plans) be completed and their results be incorporated
into municipal Official Plans before any major development proposals may be approved.
In summary, the Conservation Plan was written and designed to be implemented by
municipal governments. Many of the requirements of the Plan involve tasks or studies that
Conservation Authorities have traditionally undertaken for their member municipalities.
Prior to the enactment of the Oak Ridges Moraine Act and Plan, the nine Conservation
Authorities with watersheds on the Oak Ridges Moraine formed a coalition to advocate for the
protection of the Moraine. This Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition has prepared a
proposal to be submitted to its member municipalities outlining the aspects of the
Conservation Plan which could be delivered by Conservation Authorities. The preparation of
watershed plans like this one, water budgets and mapping of environmental features are
among the items being proposed by the Coalition.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE FUTURE DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHEDS
This Watershed Plan will be successful if it remains a living document, one that is revisited and
implemented when and where appropriate. We will know that we have made a difference if we
strive to meet multiple objectives during implementation and continue to further understanding
of the technical work that supports management strategies and their direction.
65
What is Success?
As we move forward and evolve with the times and the places that are unique to these two
watersheds we should be able to look back and say that we have:
Protected and enhanced the natural systems and sustainability of communities within
the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds;
Strengthened foundations for managing the watersheds using a formal monitoring and
reporting system in place;
• Improved water quality in Carruthers Creek and Duffins Creek for improved habitats and
the provision of safe drinking water;
Increased our knowledge of human and natural heritage resources in these watersheds
and developed educational and outreach programs that support and apply this new
knowledge base in the two watersheds and beyond;
• Provided opportunities for watershed residents and stakeholders to have a greater say
in how these watersheds are used and managed;
•
Expanded our knowledge and refined our planning and management practices to
sustain these river systems.
.Built on existing and established new watershed partnerships that reflect the
importance of the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds in the Regional
Municipalities of Durham and York and beyond;
• Encouraged private landowners to manage and exercise good stewardship of their
lands to promote watershed sustainability.
Good decision making is based on sound science and an accurate, reliable knowledge base.
This Watershed Plan identifies a series of actions that are based on sound science. These
actions have emerged as a result of detailed analysis and consultation. For practical purposes,
these management strategies are to be initiated and monitored over the next five years. Many
of these actions will be completed during this time. For those actions that require
implementation over a longer time period, significant progress will be made during the next five
years and a foundation established for continued action.
Periodic reviews of this watershed plan are an integral component of TRCA's watershed
management process allowing for: systematic improvements to the plan, the incorporation of
new scientific understandings of the watersheds and emerging initiatives such as "
sustainability". At the same time, the original assumptions of the watershed plan, if necessary
can be adjusted. Timing of major reviews should be coordinated with the release of Watershed
Report Cards, or advanced, if unanticipated major changes in land use occur.
66
Many individuals and groups have collaborated to develop this strategy. Many more will be
involved in its implementation. But its success hinges on the vigor with which each partner
pursues the vision, management philosophy and accompanying management strategies. Two
healthy, dynamic and sustainable watersheds are attainable for Duffins Creek and Carruthers
Creek.
67
Attachment 2
68
Attachment 3
City of .'
Pickerin
Federal and Provincial Land Holdings
Legend
A/ Railways
N Watershed Boundary
N Local Municipal Boundary
NRcgional Municipal Boundary
N Oak Ridges
69
IL,OOSfrVdtlon
fr iM!Mee tJ ,
CI(v of`
Pickimng
Durham
Region
T
Existing Land Cover
(1999 Aerial Photography)
Magri Arno (broe weti ni meadow)
r♦ YAnrMaiet
- Gall Ceen
A/ reamed bemi.y
— 1.1,M4 t1�.r Y.lM1e�.44Me.�
11Fl>i e W P/WY Gyro WY.
Figure 6.4
City or
Pick:ring
Geer:
Dum
Region
Future Land Cover
Copt
▪ Aysaar,irw.i
N•od Arta (totes wean& maim)
i tkkeaMnolee
- Gulf Cameo
^/ weret eoeadop
I a
Mslrelea—' W- Mee- 4Ywaa.m
1.'1MM6eamaxa w•••lW6
Figure 6.5
r• re1.e\24.Yn•e1.aaarar tf.Y
1- IOM eneepl[YM.YUO
Figure 6.6
Note: The urban lands outlined In Figures 6.5 and 6.6 were evaluated as part of the modelling exercise and do not represent the Ajax & Pickering Urban
boundary as outlhied to their Official Plans.
The "Enhanced' Natural Heritage System as depicted In Figure 6.6 Is a concept only. It illustrates the benefits of an increase In natural cover. It does not
define the exact location for the increase or does It limit an Increase in natural cover to only those areas In dark green.
b ;uauiyoenv
Attachment 5
71
RES. #D30/03 - MIMICO WATERFRONT LINEAR PARK PROJECT
Environmental Assessment. To obtain endorsement of the Mimico
Waterfront Linear Park Preferred Concept Plan and direction to submit
the Concept Plan to the Ministry of the Environment under the
Environmental Assessment Act.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Irene Jones
Anthony Ketchum
IT IS RECOMMENDED TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park
Preferred Concept Plan be endorsed and submitted to the Minister of the Environment for
approval under the Environmental Assessment Act;
AND FURTHER THAT the Members of the Mimico Linear Park Working Group be
congratulated and thanked for their dedication and commitment to the Project resulting
in a Preferred Concept Plan that will bring opportunity for revitalization to the Mimico
community and Its adjacent neighbours.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/99 held on April 30, 1999, Resolution #A119/99 was adopted:
THAT staff proceed with the 1999 Work Plan for the Mimico Apartment Strip Waterfront
Access /Trail in coordination with the City of Toronto representatives and the community.
In the fall of 2000, the Authority initiated the planning process for improvements to the Mimico
Waterfront. The waterfront improvements would include lakefilling to accommodate a multi -use
recreational trail from Norris Crescent Parkette to Grand Harbour, designed to provide safe
public access to the waterfront for the local community and future regional users. The
configuration of the shoreline would include habitat (aquatic/terrestrial) and formalized
shoreline protection. It was envisioned that the proposed linear park would achieve the
following objectives:
a) Improve public access:
b) Establish east/west linkages via an extension of the Waterfront Trail between Humber
Bay Park West and Norris Crescent Parkette.
c) Enhance streetscape linkages from Lake Shore Boulevard West and the Mimico
Business Community to the waterfront.
d) Provide boater access to the Mimico Business Community through a day -use moorage
facility at the foot of Superior Avenue Parkette.
e) Enhance links to Amos Waites Park Beach.
f) Enhance terrestrial and aquatic habitat along the waterfront.
g) Provide a multi -use amenity and ensure public safety within the Waterfront Linear Park.
h) Provide a safe and defined harbour entrance into Humber Bay Park West.
i) Provide a variety of shoreline protection measures that will best achieve the desired
natural and social objectives of the preferred concept, while minimizing the volume of
lakefill.
j) To help complete the Lake Ontario Greenway through this section of Toronto (formerly
Etobicoke), in cooperation with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the City of Toronto,
the local community and environmental groups.
72
As part of TRCA's approval of the Work Plan for the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Study,
direction was given to staff to initiate a Working Group to help guide the Project. Local
residents and community groups, agencies and politicians were invited to participate in the
Working Group to ensure that the views of the community were adequately represented. The
Working Group was established in November 2000.
The Working Group has met eleven times to review the existing conditions of the shoreline,
identify all Project stakeholders and potential issues, review the public consultation process,
assist with the public meetings, and provide discussion regarding the proposed Terms of
Reference, range of shoreline treatments and the Environmental Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
The Authority was given direction by the Ministry of Environment to pursue a full individual
Environmental Assessment for the proposed improvements to the Mimico Waterfront. The first
task was to develop a proposed Terms of Reference for the project, which provided
descriptions of the project location, the proposed undertaking, the existing environment, the
potential effects on the environment, the five different waterfront corridor design options, and
the process for consulting with the public. Two public meetings were held to discuss the
proposed Terms of Reference and to gather information about issues, concerns and
preferences for the waterfront linear park. Some common themes arose during discussions:
• Strong support for the extension of a natural waterfront trail and enhancement of
passive areas in the location;
• Development of a multi -use trail system, with water access;
• Acquisition of private land vs lakefill as the land base for the Project;
• Trail standards (eg. trail width, user types, appropriate materials, signage, amenities,
fencing and landscaping);
• Identify opportunities for enhancement and restoration to aquatic and terrestrial habitat;
Prevention of erosion from wave and ice action; and
• Development of a day- mooring facility at the foot of Superior Avenue.
The proposed Terms of Reference was submitted to the Ministry of Environment on July 18,
2001. It was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights for a 30 day public review period, and
underwent a concurrent government agency review. On November 13, 2001, approval for the
Proposed Terms of Reference for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment with
respect to the undertaking consisting of the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Project, was
granted by the Minister of the Environment.
The Environmental Assessment study process was initiated once the Proposed Terms of
Reference was submitted for approval. Three public meetings were held for the purpose of
having members of the community evaluate the five proposed waterfront linear park options
and identify a preferred concept plan. Concurrently, meetings were held with representatives
from government agencies. Ministry of Natural Resources staff provided input into the five
options and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans began evaluating the potential impact of
the project on fisheries habitat by running data through their Defensible Methods Model.
73
Formulation of Options for Shoreline Improvements
To assist in the development of the Terms of Reference for the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park
Study, the Authority invited stakeholders, agencies, and members of the public to a number of
public meetings in Fall 2000 to identify a number of issues regarding the opportunity for
shoreline improvements. The Authority prepared three alternatives for these waterfront
improvements. The first alternative was to follow a "Do Nothing" approach (Option 1). This
alternative maintains the existing shoreline treatment, maintaining the existing local parks and
acquisition.of lands when they became available on the market. The second alternative
(Option 2) was to develop the "Mimico Waterfront Linear Park" which involves the active
acquisition of riparian and waterlot rights from private landowners, the establishment of a
waterfront trail, and the enhancement of cultural, recreational and natural features throughout
the park. Three alternative methods to the undertaking were then developed which established
the "Mimico Waterfront Linear Park With Boat - Mooring Facilities" (Options 3, 4, and 5). These
three alternative methods were developed to reflect the range of comments and issues raised
by the public, and established an appropriate Scope of Project as required under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act . In September 2001, Option 4 was modified in the Central
Section only, to better reflect public comments made during a detailed discussion and
evaluation of the original design options in June 2001. The modified option was then referred to
as Option 4a and was evaluated along with Options 1 through 5.
The following design alternatives and alternative methods have been evaluated and assessed
in this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the provincial Environmental Assessment
Act (EAA).
Option 1 - Do Nothing - Existing Conditions
• Continue acquiring land along the Mimico Waterfront as properties are redeveloped or
come on the market;
• Public access to the waterfront limited to Amos Waites Park, Superior Avenue Parkette,
and Norris Crescent Parkette;
• Greening of publicly owned land (at local parkettes, along Superior Avenue from Lake
Shore Blvd. West to the waterfront, and between Lake Shore Blvd. West and Amos
Waites Park); and
• No formal public access from the community to the Waterfront Trail.
Option 2 - Mimico Waterfront Linear Park
• Comprehensive shoreline protection along the entire length of the Mimico waterfront;
• Improved public access from Lake Shore Blvd. West to the shoreline, and from Humber
Bay Park West, along the shoreline to Norris Crescent Parkette;
• Greening of publicly owned land (at local parkettes, along Superior Avenue from Lake
Shore Blvd. West to the waterfront, and between Lake Shore Blvd. West and Amos
Waites Park);
• Enhanced streetscape along Superior Avenue;
• Beach enhancement at Amos Waites Park;
• Terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancement; and
• Lakefilling is necessary to carry out this alternative.
74
Option 3 - Waterfront Linear Park and Day- Mooring Facilities
• Develop a day- mooring facility at the foot of Superior Avenue for boaters to access the
Mimico businesses along Lake Shore Blvd West;
• Shoreline protection along the entire length of Mimico waterfront;
• Improved public access from Lake Shore Blvd. West to the shoreline, and from Humber
Bay Park West along the shoreline to Norris Crescent Parkette;
• Greening of publicly owned land (at local parkettes, along Superior Avenue from Lake
Shore Blvd. West to the waterfront, and between Lake Shore Blvd. West and Amos
Waites Park);
• Enhanced streetscape along Superior Avenue;
• Beach enhancement at Amos Waites Park;
• Terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancement;
• Access for emergency and maintenance vehicles; and
• Lakefilling is necessary to carry out this alternative.
Option 4 - Waterfront Linear Park, Day- Mooring Facility and Node Enhancement
• Develop a day- mooring facility at the foot of Superior Avenue for boaters to access the
Mimico businesses along Lake Shore Blvd. West;
• Shoreline protection along the entire length of Mimico waterfront;
• Improved public access from Lake Shore Blvd. West to the shoreline, and from Humber
Bay Park West along the shoreline to Norris Crescent Parkette;
• Greening of publicly owned land (at local parkettes, along Superior Avenue from Lake
Shore Blvd. West to the waterfront, and between Lake Shore Blvd. West and Amos
Waites Park);
• Enhanced streetscape along Superior Avenue;
• Further beach enhancement at Amos Waites Park;
• Creation of a larger public open space node linking Norris Crescent Parkette to Amos
Waites Park;
• Softer shoreline treatment to the east of Summerhill Road and offshore island
protection;
Terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancement;
Access for emergency and maintenance vehicles; and
• Lakefilling is necessary to carry out this alternative.
Option 5 - Waterfront Linear Park with Focal Parkette, Day Mooring Facility and Node
Enhancement
• Develop a day- mooring facility at the foot of Superior Avenue for boaters to access the
Mimico businesses along Lake Shore Blvd. West;
• Create a local parkette, waterfront promenade and observation areas;
• Improved public access from Lake Shore Blvd. West to the shoreline, and from Humber
Bay Park West along the shoreline to Norris Crescent Parkette;
• Greening of publicly owned land (at local parkettes, along Superior Avenue from Lake
Shore Blvd. West to the waterfront, and between Lake Shore Blvd. West and Amos
Waites Park);
• Enhanced streetscape along Superior Avenue;
• Further beach enhancement at Amos Waites Park;
• Enhancement of the public open space node linking Norris Crescent Parkette to Amos
Waites Park;
75
• Terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancements;
• Access for emergency and maintenance vehicles; and
• Lakefilling is necessary to carry out this alternative.
Options 2 through 5 involve lakefilling to create waterfront improvements, reduce shoreline
erosion, improve coastal habitat features, and support native species.
Development of a Preferred Concept Plan
Option 4a - Waterfront Linear Park with Boardwalk, Fair Weather Mooring Facility, Coastal
Marsh Treatments and Beach Creation
Sixty-five members of the public participated at two community workshops held at Storefront
Humber on June 12th and 16th, 2001 to evaluate the above 5 Options for the undertaking.
During the two workshops, nearly 100 per cent of the survey respondents supported or
strongly supported the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Study Objectives. Furthermore, Option 4
was overwhelmingly selected as providing the most satisfactory waterfront design. Workshop
participants, however, provided several suggestions to improve Option 4, which resulted in the
development of Option 4a in September 2001. The project components and features of Option
4a were based on the objectives stated in the EA Terms of Reference, and the Scope of Project
as defined by the extent of lakefill in Options 4 and 5. Option 4a maintained all components of
Option 4, with a modification of a proposed wetland feature and boardwalk.
When Option 4a was presented to the Working Group and the public, some concern was
raised in regards to loss of the beach at Amos Waites Park and potential West Nile Virus issues
with the introduction of a wetland. A Design Charette was held to further discuss the wetland
concept, integration with other components of Amos Waites Park, and to address the concerns
raised. A revised wetland /boardwalk design was put forward and there was general
agreement from the Charette participants. This Preferred Concept Plan (Option 4b) was then
presented to the Working Group on January 28, 2003. The Working Group endorsed Option
4b as the Preferred Concept Plan.
The Preferred Concept Plan for the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park was developed through a
project evaluation process involving members of the public, local politicians and staff from
governing agencies such as MNR, MOE and DFO. The Working Group provided guidance and
input into what the local community would like to see in terms of waterfront improvements and
assisted with the evaluation and selection of the Preferred Concept Plan. Technical studies
were undertaken to better understand the existing conditions in the Study Area and to
determine the potential effects that the proposed undertaking might have on the natural, social,
cultural and economic environments. The technical evaluation of all of the options was
undertaken from aquatic, coastal and terrestrial perspectives. The terrestrial perspective
includes plants and wildlife which may be impacted; the aquatic perspective primarily
addresses fish and fish habitat; and the coastal perspective addresses how the shoreline
modifications will affect such things as sediment transport and wave erosion rates. Public and
agency consultation was a critical component of the evaluation and selection of the Preferred
Concept Plan.
76
On March 5, 2003 the public was asked to endorse the Preferred Concept Plan (Option 4b) as
presented by TRCA. Approximately 100 members of the public attended this meeting and
provided input through questionnaires and comments in the public forum. While there was
substantial support for the Project as a whole there were several members of the public that
spoke of their concern with the loss of the beach at Amos Waites Park and usability of the
cobble beaches to the west of Amos Waites. As of April 30, 2003 a total of 133 questionnaires
were received by the TRCA. In total, 85% of survey respondents were in favour of
implementing the Preferred Concept Plan as presented by the TRCA. On April 30, 2003, the
Working Group reconfirmed that Option 4b is the Preferred Option which will be submitted as
part of the Environmental Assessment.
RATIONALE
The Preferred Concept Plan provides a waterfront linear park extending for 1 km between
Norris Crescent Parkette and Grand Harbour Condominiums. The Preferred Concept includes:
• A 250 metre long cantilevered boardwalk connecting 2 small constructed headlands,
providing pedestrian access out over the water, and extends the existing Waterfront
Trail at Grand Harbour to just east of Superior Avenue Parkette;
• A separate trail located along the shore provides cyclist and inline skating access along
the waterfront, adjacent to the boardwalk to the north;
• Small pockets of wetland habitat are located between the boardwalk and shoreline
which provides fish and wildlife habitat, and softens the shoreline treatments.
• A small, rounded, and less intrusive shoreline at the foot of Superior Avenue, instead of
the proposed protective harbour outlined in Options 3 through 5. This rounded node
would provide parallel boat moorage (during fair - weather conditions only) for
shallow - keeled vessels;
• A partially submerged berm across the entrance of the Amos Waites Beach embayment
will reduce wave impact energy in order to transform the beach into a open -water
wetland feature An interpretive boardwalk will provide pedestrian access to the edge of
the wetland feature;
• Enhanced recreation and leisure facilities provided at Amos Waites Park, including
water play facilities;
• Two cobble beaches created at Norris Crescent Parkette will enhance fish habitat and
provide public access to the water's edge.
Option 4b also utilizes lakefill to achieve the project objectives, however, the creation of an
open -water wetland feature and cobble beach habitat throughout the Study Area will allow for
fish habitat compensation to occur completely onsite.
The implementation of the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park will be undertaken in two phases:
Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1 will focus on project construction between Superior Avenue
and Norris Crescent Park. Phase 2 will focus on project construction between Superior Avenue
and the Grand Harbour Condominiums.
To complement the TRCA waterfront improvements, the City of Toronto is also proposing a
number of enhancements along Superior Avenue to provide an attractive linkage from the local
business community to the waterfront. Enhancements at Amos Waites Park are also proposed
to provide additional recreational opportunities for the local community.
77
WORK TO BE DONE
• submit draft EA for pre - consultation to the MOE and other commenting agencies;
• project development - includes securement of funding commitments with approval by the
federal and provincial governments and the City of Toronto;
• seek approval under the Environmental Assessment Act: Ontario Ministry of Environment
(once the Environmental Assessment study is submitted, a decision should be made within
7 months) in accordance with their service delivery guidelines;
• seek approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the federal Fisheries Act
(Department of Fisheries and Oceans), including the negotiation of a fisheries
compensation agreement;
• seek approval under the Public Lands Act (Ministry of Natural Resources);
• continue to negotiate for the acquisition of private lands;
• confirm partnership agreement between the federal and provincial governments and the
City of Toronto through the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation funding for
Strategic Projects; and
• preparation of detailed designs for Phases 1 and 2 of the Mimico Linear Park Project.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Total costs for the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Project have been estimated at $6.5 million
dollars, to be applied toward the completion of land creation and shoreline protection, land
acquisition, landscaping, fisheries compensation and trail construction. The estimated costs
will be further refined when detailed designs of the waterfront linear park have been produced
and during the preparation of the "Project" document and funding partnership.
Funding for the Project is being pursued through the Strategic Projects as recommended by
the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation from the three levels of government -1 /3
federal, 1/3 provincial and 1/3 City of Toronto. The details of any future funder agreements will
be brought back to the Authrority for approval.
The cost of completing the Environmental Assessment was approved in the City of Toronto
budget for 2003 under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project and is in Authority
account #206 -01.
Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313
For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313
Date: June 6, 2003
RES. #D31/03 - GTA NORTH TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
(Formerly 427 Extension Transportation Corridor). Status update on
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) input to the
Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference for the GTA North
Transportation Corridor and request for incorporation of a Smart Growth
review process for the planning of the transportation corridor.
78
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joe Pantalone
Anthony Ketchum
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Environmental Assessment
Team for the GTA North Transportation Corridor be invited to present an update to the
Watershed Management Advisory Board of the study Terms of Reference, and to identify
the Smart Growth planning efforts that have been undertaken to date through the Needs
Assessment phase of the project, and to present a recommended approach to assess the
Smart Growth objectives through the following phases of the EA process;
THAT a representative from the Smart Growth Secretariat be requested to participate
directly in the Environmental Assessment process as the next stages of the planning
study unfold, and to work with the EA team assessing the Implications of land use
change and cost to the tax payer;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to provide Input to the EA study team and work with
the other two affected Conservation Authorities through the Municipal Advisory Group,
the Stakeholders Advisory Group, the Oak Ridges Moraine Working Group and any new
discussions /work groups related to Inclusion of Smart Growth within the EA.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D32/03
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joe Pantalone
Anthony Ketchum
THAT the following be Inserted after the main motion:
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the legal position of TRCA and how the Source
Protection Planning Regulation for conservation authorities can be utilized with respect
to highway planning issues.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Issues of concern related to Smart Growth and the transportation corridor study were identified
early in the Ministry of Transportation's project public consultations, and are reiterated in
Authority Resolution #A10 /03, approved at Authority Meeting #1 /03, held on February 21,
2003, as follows:
79
THAT the report on the Environmental Assessment Act process regarding the Proposed
Highway #427 Extension be received;
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 issues of increased infrastructure
costs to the taxpayer of new development which may follow the extended highway,
including sewage treatment and water taking.
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 corridor in June 2002. A Transportation Needs Assessment report
has been prepared by URS Cole Sherman. That study identifies a study area within the TRCA
jurisdiction that extends from the western edge of our jurisdiction in the Town of Caledon to
approximately Bathurst Street on the east. The staff report of February 14, 2003 outlined the
various alternatives that were identified in the needs assessment, and the various modes of
transportation that were included in the review including highway and municipal roadway
improvements, demand and system management options.
The Transportation Needs Assessment report concludes that the road alternative is 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. The
preferred alternative includes:
• proposed Highway #427 extension;
• possible new link to Highway #400 south of Highway #89;
• new connection to Highway #400 south of Barrie;
• protection of transit lanes in the corridor;
• possible increased commuter rail service to Barrie, with commuter parking lots in the
corridor; and
• proposed #427 extension has fixed end points of the existing north terminus of Highway
#427 in the City of Vaughan, and the proposed tie -in to Highway #11 at Crown Hill.
TRCA staff believe that the needs assessment has been completed prior to the Smart Growth
panel recommendations, and includes municipal growth management information that also
probably pre -dates the smart growth initiative. The Ministry of Transportation has indicated
that all the municipalities that work within the municipal advisory group are in favour of building
the corridor. They also noted, however, that no conscious effort has been made to look at
changing municipal land use planning near or within the corridor with Smart Growth in mind.
They do not believe that they are in the municipal planning field.
80
RATIONALE
Since the Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting of February 2003, TRCA staff have
contacted Ministry of Transportation staff to introduce the resolution requirements for studying
Smart Growth objectives for this study process. Staff have also attended two committees to
provide input to the proposed Terms of Reference and work plan - the Stakeholders Advisory
Group on May 15, 2003 and Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Work Group on May 26, 2003.
Representatives of both the Nottawasaga Valley and the Lake Simcoe and Region
Conservation Authorities, as well as, MNR and MMAH were in attendance and participated in
discussions about the public expectations around the Smart Growth planning related to
transportation corridor proposals.
Following extensive discussion about the need to address the Smart Growth within the context
for the EA, the TRCA requested that the Environmental Assessment Team and their consultants
incorporate an approach in their EA Terms of Reference by which the objectives of Smart
Growth can be assessed for this transportation corridor project.
Specifically, TRCA requested that MTO identify the process they have undertaken to date to
address Smart Growth objectives and issues of land use implications in municipalities along
the corridor. The potential of having a Smart Growth Secretariat representative participate in
the EA study was deemed to be advantageous by other agencies in the working group.
TRCA has provided the EA team with our preliminary natural heritage mapping of existing
habitat areas through our jurisdiction, and agreed to assist in obtaining available groundwater
information, particularly any information related to areas of vulnerability. TRCA has committed
to provide a suitable presentation to review the methodology for the terrestrial natural heritage
system modeling, and to discuss its implications to corridor planning.
TRCA's primary concerns from our meeting evolve around the potential crossing of the Oak
Ridges Moraine and the Humber River natural system.
The agencies discussed criteria related to crossing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
lands and MNR provided MTO with additional mapping of natural features.
TRCA has had a thorough preliminary discussion with the EA study team regarding the need to
incorporate a component of the process to assessing the Smart Growth objectives within this
EA Terms of Reference. The EA study team has offered to come and make a brief presentation
at our next Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting on July 11th. The presentation
will include an overview of the Smart Growth planning efforts that have been undertaken to
date through the Needs Assessment phase, and those efforts which MTO and their EA team
would recommend for future phases of the planning process.. The process will take 8 to 10
years to complete, allowing for a significant amount of change to occur in transportation trends
and community need during that period.
Representatives from other agencies and conservation authorities supported the need to have
a representative from the Smart Growth Secretariat involved at the working committee level.
8 1
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
MTO staff and their EA Team need to address the issues that have been raised at the working
group sessions related to significant land use change, and impacts to the natural heritage
lands within three conservation authority jurisdictions and the Oak Ridges Moraine. The
existing Terms of Reference needs to be reassessed to incorporate a feed -back loop approach
where needs assessment, route alternatives, and route construction priorities can be
reassessed in view of changes in public concerns for sustainable development,
municipal /provincial attitudes and economic necessity.
MTO needs to clarify an approach to incorporating Smart Growth review within the ongoing
study process.
Staff will continue to provide input to the EA study team to assist in reviewing alternative route
alignments as they relate to TRCA policy and program areas of interest, and provide technical
support for specialized aspects of the natural heritage system review and groundwater data. It
was agreed among the meeting participants that a Terrestrial Natural Heritage Work Group
may have to be established to address the work between the three Authorities and MNR.
In light of the various potential crossings through ecologically sensitive and natural heritage
lands, TRCA staff has also requested that MTO consider options for changing their highway
design standards in order to reduce the impacts of such crossings and improve the
connectivity objectives associated with natural heritage areas. It was made clear that waiting
until the detailed design stage of the EA process is usually too late. Changes in highway
design standards need to be considered in the preliminary EA work so that change to
standards can be accommodated easily, particularly as it affects the width of the right -of -way
and greening opportunities for the corridor.
New standards for this highway may include planting, soil re- structuring, lighting,
slope /gradient alterations, fencing seed mixes, snow drifting considerations, landscape
maintenance and spills management. MTO staff indicated that they would not jeopardize their
safety clear zones.
Public meetings will be held in July to allow the public and agencies to comment on the draft
Terms of Reference for the study.
Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
For information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
Date: June 03, 2003
RES. #D33/02 - ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED PLANNING STUDY
Initiation of Rouge River Watershed Planning Study and release of
proposed work program for comment by the Rouge Alliance, watershed
municipalities, and other interested stakeholders.
82
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Rouge River Watershed
Planning Study be initiated and undertaken in three phases according to the general
work program outlined in this report;
THAT in 2003 public /stakeholder input to the work program be obtained via reports to the
Rouge Park Alliance, meetings with municipal staff, and a community open house in the
fall and that the public /stakeholder Involvement program for the remainder of the study
be confirmed at the end of Phase 1 (February 2004);
THAT letters be sent to municipalities advising them of the watershed planning study and
inviting them to participate in upcoming scoping meetings with TRCA and Rouge Park
staff;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back in fall, 2003 with a detailed work program and on
Phase 1 progress.
BACKGROUND CARRIED
At previous meetings of the Rouge Park Alliance, there has been a call for the development of
an overall Watershed Plan for the Rouge. The following report describes a proposed work
program for a watershed planning study. The report was tabled for comment at the Rouge
Park's Heritage Committee on May 21, 2003 and is being taken to the June 20, 2003 meeting of
the Rouge Park Alliance. Based on input provided at these and other meetings designed to
seek municipal and stakeholder input, a more detailed workplan will be prepared.
In 1989 the Rouge River Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy (CBMS) was the first
watershed plan prepared in the Toronto Region that addressed multiple objectives and
involved public input. Although state -of- the-art in its time, the CBMS needs to be updated to
address current management challenges associated with urbanization, agricultural practices,
park use, water use, and regeneration objectives.
Other recent initiatives also point to the need for an updated watershed plan:
• The Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) Act (2001) and Conservation Plan (ORMCP) Regulation
(2002) require York Region to have a watershed plan completed by April 2006, and its
recommendations incorporated into the Regional Official Plan before any major
development can be approved.
• Watershed -based source protection plans will likely become a legislated requirement within
the next year, as the provincial government has indicated its intent to implement
recommendations from the Walkerton Inquiry and a subsequent provincial Advisory
Committee.
• The Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has called for a watershed based
approach to de- listing impaired beneficial uses in the Toronto Area of Concern.
83
• The City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Master Plan identified a need to undertake
regeneration planning in the "905" area of the Rouge Watershed in order to make a
significant difference within the Toronto portion of the watershed
Based on this planning context, the following study objectives have been identified:
• fulfil York Region's obligations for watershed planning under the ORM Act and ORMCP
• fulfil requirements for completing a source protection plan
• guide Official Plan updates of the Region of York, City of Toronto, and the local
municipalities within the watershed
• guide the ongoing implementation of existing policies and programs of the watershed
municipalities, TRCA, Rouge Park, and other agencies, as they affect watershed
management
• guide stewardship activities of private landowners, agencies and community groups
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Planning Process
The watershed planning process will consist of three phases over two years. A preliminary
component, Phase 1A, will involve detailed work planning and design of the public involvement
program, which is an integral part of the planning process. The following is a summary of the
activities and deliverables associated with each phase.
Phase 1A: Designing the Planning Framework (March - Oct. 2003)
• establish administrative structure
• develop public involvement program
• prepare detailed work plan and budget
Phase 1 B: Characterization (May 2003 to Feb. 2004)
• review existing information
• define key issues and concerns
• collect new information and set up modelling and evaluation tools
• report on existing conditions (i.e. "State -of- the - Watershed" Report)
• define watershed management goals and objectives
Phase 2: Analysis and Evaluation of Alternatives (Jan. - Sept. 2004)
• define alternative scenarios (i.e. existing land use; build out of approved Official Plans;
projected water use scenarios; terrestrial natural heritage scenario; climate change
scenarios)
• predict system response to alternative scenarios
• evaluate management alternatives
• report on analysis and evaluation work
84
Phase 3: Developing the Watershed Plan (June 2004 - Feb. 2005)
• select the preferred management approach
• develop watershed management strategies and implementation mechanisms
• finalize targets
• develop monitoring recommendations
• prepare the watershed plan
Study Components
The study will involve an integrated analysis of the Rouge River watershed systems and their
interdependencies, and development of effective management recommendations. Studies will
address the following issue areas:
• climate and climate change
• air quality
• water budget and surface water flow
• groundwater quality and quantity
• surface water quality
• fluvial geomorphology
• aquatic communities and habitat
• terrestrial natural heritage
• human heritage
• recreational use
• land use
• water use
• sustainable communities themes
Outlines of individual study objectives, available information, and planned approaches are
currently being prepared by TRCA staff, and will be included in a detailed draft work program.
The draft work program will be circulated to Rouge Park Heritage Subcommittee members for
comment and discussed with municipal staff during focus group meetings over the summer
2003.
Funding has been secured by TRCA from the Region of York and City of Toronto in the 2003
budget to support and advance the following studies:
• Watershed water budget model development
• Water use assessment
• Groundwater information compilation
• Surface water quality modelling
• Aquatic resource studies (thermal modelling, aquatic surveys)
• Historic wetland studies
• Project planning and administration
85
Public /Stakeholder Involvement
Public /stakeholder involvement is integral to this watershed planning process. In addition to
stakeholder membership on the Rouge Park Alliance and on Boards of the TRCA, several
forms of consultation are envisioned.
Stakeholder Focus Groups
Special meetings or workshops will be held from time to time with stakeholder groups (e.g.
municipal staff, environmental groups, urban development industry, water users, agricultural
community etc.) to ensure their views are understood and to seek input to the resolution of
management issues. During Phase 1, a meeting with the municipal planning and works
department staff would be held as a minimum. Meetings will be held with specialized groups
during Phases 2 and 3 as issues dictate.
Community Open Houses
Community open houses will provide for consultation with the broad watershed community,
and will be held at two or more locations within the watershed, at least once during each study
phase.
Web Site(s) and Mailing Lists
General information about the study, meeting dates, and contact information will be posted on
the TRCA and Rouge Park web sites. Mailing lists of interested stakeholders will be maintained
for notification purposes.
Other Events
Interpretive events, tours, and displays are additional mechanisms that will be used to raise
community awareness of the study and invite participation.
Project Administration
The overall study will be directed jointly by Lewis Yeager, Rouge Park General Manager and
Sonya Meek, Water Management Planner at the TRCA. A project manager will be hired, who
will be dedicated full time to the coordination of this project. Technical studies will be
supervised by TRCA staff and carried out by either staff or consultants, depending on the
individual study.
86
In previous watershed planning exercises, TRCA has had much success with its Watershed
Task Force model, which has engaged municipally elected officials, representation from key
stakeholder groups, and citizens in a committee mandated with the responsibility of developing
the watershed plan. In keeping with this model, the Rouge Park Alliance will serve as this "
oversight" committee, at least during Phase 1. Recommendations on the membership or form
of an "oversight" committee relative to the broader stakeholder /public involvement program for
future phases will be made toward the end of Phase 1, as more information on key watershed
issues becomes available, legislated requirements regarding Source Protection Planning
Committee membership become known, and the interests of the community are considered.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for technical studies for Phase 1 is anticipated to be approved in the TRCA's York
Region and City of Toronto Capital Budgets.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253, or Lewis Yeager (905) 713 -7374
Date: June 02, 2003
RES. #D34/03 - GTA FLOOD PROGRAM STANDARDS
Adoption of the GTA Flood Standards to direct the evaluation,
modification and implementation of the TRCA Flood Warning Program
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the GTA Flood Standards be
formally adopted, and staff be directed to ensure that the TRCA Flood Forecasting and
Flood Warning Program comply with the requirements of the document;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to prepare a detailed report to the Board by the
end of 2003 to outline progress to date and to present a work plan for the 2004 fiscal year
to ensure that the TRCA's Flood Warning and Flood Forecasting Program is In
compliance with the GTA Flood Standards.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1996, under the direction of Conservation Ontario, a number of Conservation Authorities
(C.As) within the Greater Toronto Area, (including the Halton, Credit, Nottawasaga, Lake
Simcoe, Central Lake Ontario and the Ganaraska) formed a committee to look at ways to better
deliver flood forecasting and flood warning in the GTA. This group continues to meet
approximately 4 times per year to share expertise and to ensure that a consistent approach is
taken to prepare and deliver flood emergency planning and response within the GTA.
87
Over the last seven years, the GTA group has worked to develop a consistent format and
terminology to be used when flood messages are issued, they have developed a Generic
Flood Contingency Manual for distribution to municipal partners, and have also developed a
numerical GTA Flood Forecast Model to assist the C.As with their daily forecasting and
planning exercise.
Recently, the Provincial Flood Forecasting and Flood Warning Committee ( PFFWC), which
includes a respresentative from each of the local C.A. groups like the GTA Flood Group,
adopted as a Provincial Standard, the GTA Flood Group's format and terminology for issuing
flood messages.
With regards to other components in a flood forecasting and flood warning system, individual
C.As have their own delivery standards. To date, a set of comprehensive standards has not
been developed either at a Provincial level or at a local level. The Province has, on numerous
occasions in the past, attempted to develop a set of standards; however, to date this has not
been accomplished. Given this, the GTA Flood group initiated the development of a set of
standards which define a minimum level of service for Flood Forecasting and Flood Warning
Programs across the GTA. This process has been ongoing for the last 24 months and a final
set of standards has recently been agreed upon by the GTA group. The standards include
components related to Program Delivery and Administration, Forecasting, Communications
and Flood Operations (see attachment). The development of these standards will allow the
GTA C.As to improve upon their existing programs and will ensure the delivery of a core
Authority responsibility in a consistent and uniform manner across the GTA.
The GTA standards have recently been brought forward at a meeting of the PFFWC for review
and comment.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Over the last four months, TRCA staff have initiated a review of our existing Flood Forecasting
and Flood Warning Program. As a result of this review, a work plan was developed to direct
the implementation of a series of updates to the existing program. It was identified that the
majority of the requirements, outlined in the four core areas of the GTA standards, can be
addressed through the program updates recently initiated or through existing TRCA initiatives
that complement the TRCA's Flood Forecasting and Flood Warning Program (i.e. Floodplain
Mapping updates, Regional Monitoring Network). Additional program changes will still be
required over the upcoming year to ensure that the TRCA program is in full compliance with
the GTA standards.
TRCA staff will report back to the Board at the end of 2003 to report on the progress made to
date, to identify outstanding concerns and to recommend a work plan for the 2004 fiscal year.
88
FINANCIAL DETAILS
In addition to the work plan developed by staff, the TRCA business plan and all 2004 budget
proposals will be coordinated to reflect the need for additional resources to bring the TRCA
Flood Forecasting and Flood Warning Program into full compliance with the GTA Flood
Standards. Staff have recently applied for Provinical funding through The Ministry of Natural
Resources. Funding received through this program will be awarded in early fall and will be
applied to upgrades to the Flood Forecasting and Flood Warning Program. Staff are also
reviewing possible Federal funding opportunities through the Joint Emergency Preparedness
Program.
Report prepared by: Don Haley, extension 5226
For Information contact: Don Haley, extension 5226
Date: May 21, 2003
Attachments: 1
89
Attachment 1
Greater Toronto Conservation Authorities
Flood Forecasting and Warning Standards
April 2003
)CTORONTg r
A ND REGION ��
vat�on
for The Living City
CONSERVATION
HALTON
At
GANARASKA REGION
CONSERVATION
AUTHORITY
CVC
CREDIT VALLEY
CONSERVATION
90
AI Central
Lake Ontario
Conservation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION 1 - PROGRAM DELIVERY / ADMINISTRATION 2
SECTION 2 - FORECASTING 6
SECTION 3 - COMMUNICATIONS 6
SECTION 4 - FLOOD OPERATIONS 7
91
INTRODUCTION
The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Conservation Authorities are composed of the Toronto Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA), Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), Conservation Halton (CH),
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA), Ganaraska Region Conservation
Authority (GRCA) and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). These
authorities formed a committee in 1996 at the direction of Conservation Ontario to look at ways
to better deliver flood forecasting and warning in the GTA area. The Nottawasaga Valley
Conservation Authority (NVCA) also joined this group to help them develop standards for their
program.
Flooding in Southern Ontario is a fairly common occurrence. The most severe flooding on
record in Ontario occurred in October 1954 when Hurricane Hazel passed over the Toronto
area. Eighty -one lives were lost and damages were estimated at $25 million ($146.9 million in
1998 dollars). Hurricanes are not the only type of event that can cause flooding. Heavy spring
rains and snow melt commonly result in flooding, particularly on larger watersheds. High local
rainfall associated with severe thunderstorms can cause flooding usually associated with
smaller urban watersheds. Winter ice jams associated with frazil ice formation or spring break
up also has resulted in severe flooding situations.
Many of the watercourses on Southern Ontario have flood susceptible developments that were
settled prior to more current planning standards. The recent design standards for new
development can and have been exceeded a number of times in the recent past. Flooding can
occur at any time of year and any time of day. The Ministry of Natural Resources has the
provincial mandate for flood forecasting and warning and the administration of the Conservation
Authorities Act. Conservation Authorities assist the MNR in the delivery of flood forecasting and
warning in areas under their jurisdiction by way of a memorandum of agreement.
Each Conservation Authority has different staff capabilities and funding levels. Flood
forecasting and warning is a complicated process that varies in each Conservation Authority
depending on the physical characteristics of their water courses and the number and type of
flood prone areas. The purpose of this manual is to set out minimum levels of service for the
flood forecasting and warning system to ensure a consistent program is delivered across the
GTA region. It also ensures common approaches and common terminology are used in the
program delivery to the local municipalities who are ultimately responsible to the well being of
their population, especially where more than one Conservation Authority is providing flood
forecasting and warning to a municipality.
SECTION 1 - PROGRAM DELIVERY / ADMINISTRATION
Goal: To develop and maintain an administrative framework to facilitate and support flood
forecasting, operations and warning
1.1 Develop baseline knowledge of watersheds
Review and organize historic information of flood events in watershed in an accessible
format
92
Assess all events for trends and identify if possible general conditions which may
indicate potential for increased flood potential.
Assess events for multiple flood events to identify areas which are at increased risk
such as ice jamming locations
Identify flood prone areas
Identify flood damage centres and maintain mapping and /or general information in an
accessible format
Complete and maintain flood risk mapping in current format
Develop detailed information on flood prone areas including
• Frequency flow to on -set of flooding
Structures affected at onset of flooding
Road crossing capacities
Develop knowledge of physical characteristics of watershed
Develop knowledge of response times to all flood damage centres
Develop understanding of seasonal runoff variations for each watershed /damage centre
• Develop and maintain flood forecasting model
1.2 Establish Monitoring Network
Develop a Monitoring Network Plan for streamflow and rainfall gauges
• Assess locations of gauges relative to flood damage centres, specifically:
Are rainfall gauges available to assess precipitation for drainage area u/s of flood
damage centres?
Are streamflow gauges available to monitor flood conditions in flood damage centers?
Are streamflow gauges available to assess flood conditions u/s of damage centres, and
allow prediction of flood levels in flood damage centres?
Is rainfall gauge density sufficient?
1.3 Undertake Yearly Training for Staff
Develop training program
93
Field and Paper Exercises
Annual paper exercise test of flood message communications
Consider annual field exercise of river watch and flood control personnel land
communications
Consider bi- annual field exercises — mock emergency (internal)
Consider periodic training exercises with EMS /municipal partners
Conduct annual update of contacts
Consider annual /biannual meeting with EMS /municipal partners
Ensure sufficient staff resources to respond to a wide range of flood events
Annual internal refresher training for Flood Forecasting, River Watch
Back -up reservoir /flood control operations other as necessary to ensure preparedness
Document training plan component and exercises completed
1.4 Document Historical Flow Events
Document historical knowledge of what events caused problems in specific areas (high
and low flow conditions)
Document the nature of the problems that occurred i.e. number of buildings and roads
damaged
Document response characteristics of watershed under specific events
1.5 Maintain Liaison with Municipalities and Local Emergency Response Group
The CA is to become an active member of the Municipal Emergency Response Group.
Provide information / training documents and /or sessions on an annual basis to all
member municipalities
1.6 Maintain Adequate Floodplain Mapping and Hydraulic Model In Accordance with
FDRP Technical Standards
94
1.7 Develop and Maintain the Flood Forecasting (FFOR) Model
The isochronal unit hydrograph model (GTA Excel spreadsheet) shall be the minimum
standard for the GTA CA flood forecasting model
Model to be calibrated and verified on an annual basis
• Model to be up and running on all CA's by the end of 2003
Development of model upgrades to be discussed and agreed to by GTA CA's on an
annual basis at first meeting of group in each year. ( including cost apportionment)
• Use of the model for flood forecasting by other agencies will be approved by the
GTA CA group.
Any group outside of the GTA CA's who uses and upgrades the model will be
requested to ensure that the upgraded model is provided to the GTA CA's.
1.8 Develop and Maintain a Flood Site Database
Develop a database of flood vulnerable structures and roads using G.I.S.
Data base to adopt a five stage flooding format as follows;
Stage One:
Stage Two:
Stage three:
Stage four:
Stage five:
0 -10 year flood
10 -25 year flood
25 -50 year flood
50 -100 year flood
100- regulatory flood
Develop the above database in a common GTA format
1.9 Conduct Yearly Update of Flood Contingency Manual
Primary Conservation Authority to issue a letter to municipalities (in February of every
year) requesting contact names for the Flood Emergency Contact List.
Format of letter issued shall be in a format consistent with the letters issued by all CA
members of the Greater Toronto Flood Forecasting and Warning Group. The deadline
for response to this letter shall be three weeks after the date of issuance.
• Primary CA shall update the contact lists and send out updated contact lists to
municipalities in April of every year for inclusion in the Flood Contingency Manual.
95
Revisions to other Appendices in the Flood Contingency Manual should be issued at
the same time as the update contact lists.
Send complete new manual out every 3 years
Post manual as a PDF file on CA web site (generic manual, no phone numbers).
1.10 Develop and Maintain Operations Manual
Develop and maintain an Operations Manual.
The general requirement of this manual is to provide CA staff with an outline of staff
roles and responsibilities, flood forecasting procedures, and operation of flood warning
equipment.
This manual should be updated on a as- required basis to reflect changes in monitoring
systems, software technology, staffing etc.
1.11 Prepare for Emergency Operations
All CA offices that will act as the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) are to be
equipped with a back up power supply allowing operation of key building areas in the
event of a power black out.
SECTION 2 - FORECASTING
Goal: To understand and quantify the response and potential impacts within watersheds to
specific events
2.1 Follow a daily planning cycle
Obtain Environment Canada's Weather Forecast every day (short and long term).
If rain is forecast, obtain a minimum of three precipitation forecasts ( e.g. ETA, NGM,
GEM)
Document the Daily Planning Cycle
Maintain a data base of watershed conditions (snow pack, stream flows, soil moisture
etc.) using the Flood Forecasting (FFOR) Excel Spreadsheet model.
Operate Excel spreadsheet peak flow prediction model if required assess run off and
flood risk potential
Take appropriate action using standards related to flood messages
96
SECTION 3 - COMMUNICATIONS
Goal: To inform clients of the potential or actual impact of flood events in a concise and timely
manner
3.1 Establish an internal and external communications protocol to include but not
limited to the following components:
Communications will recognize the co- ordinated Flood Forecasting & Warning Service
as developed by the GTA Flood Group.
All external communications (Flood Messages) will be developed using the existing
generic GTA Flood Contingency Plans, notification procedures, & terminology (i.e.
Flood Status Levels).
The following client messaging protocol exists:
Message Type
Flood Safety Bulletin
Flood Advisory
(possible flooding)
Flood Warning
(flooding expected)
Client Groups
School Boards
Municipalities
Municipalities
Need
Advise students of dangers
Initial Response (prepare for)
Initial Response (action)
* Other client groups may be added according to individual conservation authority
needs.
In general, a Warning will be preceded by an Advisory in all cases, Safety Bulletins and
Advisory's can be sent independently based upon conditions.
GTA Conservation Authorities will strive to send out flood messages with sufficient
lead -time to allow its clients the maximum time to respond to a flood (as weather
forecasts and local watershed conditions permit).
Identification of key individuals within each CA that are directly responsible for flood
forecasting and warning activities. The specific roles and responsibilities of these
individuals will be outlined in each CA's Flood Operations Manual.
Flood Duty Officer(s) or their designates (as identified in each CA's Flood Operations
Plan)
SECTION 4 - FLOOD OPERATIONS
Goal: To provide on -going information and advice to municipal clients and CA staff.
97
4.1 Maintain an Emergency Operations Centre
During a flood event an emergency operations centre will be activated and maintained
in order to establish continued communications with internal Conservation Authority
staff and municipal clients. Once the emergency operations centre is activated, it will
be staffed on a twenty -four hour basis unless otherwise directed. For emergencies a
back up power system will be maintained at main operations centre. In addition, a line
load control phone line will be established into Conservation Authority office for
emergency calls.
The Flood Duty Officer may decide (under flood emergency conditions) to
designate a CA building as the EOC. The EOC shall operate on a 24 hour
round - the -clock basis for the duration of the flood emergency as directed as the Flood
Emergency Co- ordinator.
The EOC shall be staffed such that at least two (2) people remain in the building at any
given time.
The EOC shall be clearly signed to identify it as the Emergency Operations Centre.
4.2 Monitor Flood Events
During flood events, CA staff will contact precipitation and stream flow gauges as
required to monitor rainfall and reaction to water levels within rivers /creeks.
The Authority (or through partnerships) will maintain a network of stream gauges, rain
gauges and snow course sites throughout their watershed.
Real time information from rain and stream gauges will be compared to the results of
the flood forecast model.
The real time data could be used in the model as daily updates /checks to forecast.
During flood events, CA staff will obtain daily updates regarding amount of
precipitation, temperature highs and lows, and long -term forecasts.
Staff will also monitor sources for weather warnings /watches.
During events, staff will monitor radar information to track the storms movement and
potential precipitation amounts.
During flood events, the river watch program will commence. Communication with this
group is important to receive information on current flooding conditions.
98
4.3 Follow Reasonable Safety Procedures
During the monitoring of flood events, Conservation Authorities are to follow all
reasonable safety procedures. Staff safety is paramount, emergency equipment must
be taken by staff when visiting sites. A basic emergency kit may include the following
items, Authority fleet vehicle, binoculars, flashlight, flood emergency manual, camera,
spare set of keys for Authority vehicle and two orange traffic cones. All emergency
equipment is to be kept up to date and in a central location under lock and key.
4.4 Document Flood Events
During flood events, staff will document all phone calls from their local municipalities,
residents, and other agencies. The information taken should include name, address,
phone number, river /creek involved, concerns /comments, and decisions /actions
provided by CA.
Pictures and video (if possible) should be taken to document flooding conditions. The
information taken should include name, address, phone number, river /creek involved,
concerns /comments, and decisions /actions provided by CA.
Measurements of flood levels and flow values (were possible) should be taken during
or immediately following flood events. The measured levels and precipitation amounts
could be used to calibrate the flood forecasting model.
Documentation should include data from stream and precipitation gauges, snow
courses and antecedent index for the entire period of the event.
Documentation of what structures were affected by the flood event. This would include
bridges, culverts, roads, residential, commercial, and institutional.
4.5 Document Communications with Internal and External Clients
During a flood event Conservation Authorities are to document all communications with
internal and external clients. This document is a written summary of who said what and
to whom. All reports should contain the following information: date and time the
conversation took place, the clients name and a summary of the conversation.
4.6 Support Internal and External Clients
During flood events, CA staff will provide flood forecast updates to their internal and
external clients (as outlined in their Flood Contingency Plan) by issuing updates to their
Flood Advisory or issuing a Flood Warning, which provides information on a specific
river /creek, instead of the entire watershed.
During flood events, CA staff will provide current flood data as obtained through the
Monitor Flood Events section. This information is available to our internal and external
clients.
99
During flood events, CA staff will provide technical advice, as required.
• CA staff will participate in the local Municipal Emergency Planning Process.
4.7 Debrief Authority Staff
Interview staff and produce a written evaluation of what was done during the event and
what lessons have been learned.
4.8 Debrief River Watch Personnel
The debriefing of river watch personnel is a written summary of what was recorded and
when. This log represents a chronological record of all activities and communications
during a flood event. It is vital that this log be complete and accurate. The log should
be maintained at the emergency operations centre by the flood operations officer
and /or the assistant flood operations officer and flood emergency operator under the
supervision of the flood operations officer.
100
RES. #D35/03 - DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR NEW ETOBICOKE - MIMICO COMMUNITY
ACTION AREA PLANS IN 2003 - 2004
Snelgrove, Downtown Brampton, Mimico Headwaters, Central Toronto.
Community action area plans will be developed in 2003 and finalized in
2004 for the following areas of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek
watersheds: Snelgrove, Downtown Brampton, Mimico Headwaters, and
Central Toronto (as shown on the attached map).
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT this work plan be Initiated for the
development of four new community action area plans in 2003 in the Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek watersheds be endorsed;
THAT staff are directed to initiate the associated stewardship groups for each of these
areas as opportunities arise;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to provide updates to the Authority as the area
plans are developed and implemented. •
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition meeting #2/02, the community action
area plans were discussed and the following resolution #H24/02 was endorsed:
THAT the staff report on the three community action areas (Heart Lake, Malton, South
Mimico) be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the work plan detailing the development of additional community
action area plans be endorsed.
•
The Coalition agreed that there would be a total of 19 community action areas and associated
plans developed throughout the two watersheds. In accordance with Greening Our Watersheds
all 19 plans must be developed by 2006 to meet the scheduled target. The prioritization of
these areas within the work plan below was based on existing community interest, Coalition
contacts within those communities, and other existing opportunities. For example, developing
community action area plans for industrial areas will be undertaken once the business
outreach plan is completed (impacts areas 15 - West Mimico and 17 - North Toronto). This
time -frame is to be used as a general guide, the timing of plan development for the sites may
be modified as circumstances change. Within the following chart, the numbers correspond to
the mapped community action area boundaries on page 272 of Greening Our Watersheds (see
attached map).
101
COMMUNITY ACTION AREA PLANS
2003
2004
2005
2006
3) Snelgrove
2) Etobicoke Creek
Headwaters
6) Spring Creek
5) South Brampton
16) Mimico
Headwaters
11) South
Mississauga
7) Central Spring
Creek
9) North Mississauga
18) Central Toronto
12) Little Etobicoke
Creek
8) South Spring
Creek
15) West Mimico
4) Downtown
Brampton
13) Renforth Creek
10) Central
Mississauga
17) North Toronto
20) Pearson International Airport: Falls within both watersheds and is being treated as a case
study.
Implementation of the community action area plans will be undertaken as opportunities and the
need arise. The development of the community action area plans for Etobicoke Creek
Headwaters, South Mississauga, Little Etobicoke Creek and Renforth Creek are scheduled to
be initiated in the fall of 2004.
102
2003 - 2004 WORK PLAN FOR DEVELOPING COMMUNITY ACTION AREA PLANS FOR
SNELGROVE, MIMICO HEADWATERS, CENTRAL TORONTO AND DOWNTOWN
BRAMPTON
May 2003
Endorsement of work plan by
Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds
Coalition.
June 2003
Endorsement of work plan by the TRCA
Watershed Management Advisory Board.
June /July 2003 •
Introduce the watersheds strategy document
and action area plans to local area
Councilor's and municipal staff.
August 2003
Collect background information; integrate
other studies, plans, projects and programs;
coordinate mapping:
- Terrestrial Natural Heritage
- Fisheries
- Habitat Implementation Plan
- Heritage features
- municipal initiatives (e.g., WWFMMP,
Brampton Stormwater Study, Brampton
Pathways Master Plan and Design
Guidelines)
- other on -going projects
- exising programs (RAP)
September 2003
Peer consultation /workshop to identify
opportunities and constraints.
October /November 2003
Public consultation.
November /December 2003
Compile information and develop draft plans.
Submit draft plans for peer review.
March 2004
Final plans approved by the
Etobicoke- Mimico Creek Watersheds
Coalition.
April 2004
Final plans approved by the TRCA Watershed
Management Advisory Board.
RATIONALE
Community action area plans are intended to be the vehicle for implementing the Etobicoke
and Mimico Creeks watershed management strategy at the community level. Successful
implementation of the watershed strategies through the community action area plans is
dependent upon a number of factors coming together. These factors include municipal and
agency support, community support and involvement, and technical support and funding.
103
Extensive consultation with all partners is essential. Developing these plans is based on a
public consultative approach; implementing the plans is dependent on a core group of
community volunteers for each area. These will be implemented as need arises, and funding
and timing opportunities are presented.
Within these community action areas specific projects sites, called community action sites, will
be identified and pursued with community support. Two key factors in the development of
community action site plans are (1) opportunities to integrate a number of the watershed
management strategies in one location, and (2) opportunities to involve the public in a safe and
meaningful way.
The initiation of community based stewardship groups around each site will be critical in the
successful implementation of the initiatives at the community action sites and the initiatives
recommended within the area plans. The initial members of the stewardship groups are
typically identified through the public consultation component of the area plan development
process.
The areas of Snelgrove, Downtown Brampton, Mimico Headwaters, and Central Toronto were
prioritized for the development of area plans in 2003 -2004 for a number of reasons:
Snelgrove:, The Snelgrove Reach Plan, developed in 1994 and updated in 1999, is the catalyst
for developing a management plan for the broader Snelgrove community action area.
Developing the area plan and initiating the stewardship group will provide the impetus for
implementing the Reach Plan on TRCA and adjacent properties, increasing terrestrial and
aquatic habitat diversity and health.
Downtown Brampton: Staff have attended events in the downtown Brampton area and,
through speaking with members of the local community, have determined that there is
significant public support for environmental initiatives in this area. There is the opportunity to
initiate implementation on TRCA property within Downtown Brampton that could expand to
adjacent properties.
Mimico Headwaters: Within this area there are many opportunities for addressing water quality
issues, and for assisting the City of Brampton with environmental education and outreach
initiatives in the Professor's Lake community.
Central Toronto: The Central Toronto area contains a high percentage of parkland within the
valley and stream corridor that has the potential for providing enhanced aquatic and riparian
habitat features in conjunction with recreational opportunities (trails, sports fields, etc.). There
will be an opportunity to work with the City of Toronto to facilitate components of the plan
through the proposed redevelopment of West Deane Park and the reconstruction of the bicycle
trail further south.
It is critical that other studies, plans, projects and programs are integrated into the community
action area plans. For example, the Remedial Action Plan goals, Wet Weather Flow
Management Master Plan recommendations, and Brampton Pathways Master Plan and Design
Guidelines priorities, to name a few.
104
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff and members of the Coalition to pursue development of the 2003/04 community action
area plans through an extensive consultation process.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
• Funding to proceed with the development of community action area work plans, reports
and area plans is available in the 2003 budget and will continue to be a priority in future
budget submissions until all 16 plans are complete.
• New and alternative sources of funding will be secured for implementation of the
community action area plans.
Report prepared by: Kristin Geater, extension 5667
For Information contact: Kristin Geater, extension 5667
Date: May 29, 2003
Attachments: 1
105
Attachment 1
ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS
COMMUNITY ACTION AREA BOUNDARIES
ETOBICOKE CREEK
1 Heart Lake
2 Etoblcdre Headwaters
3 Snelgrove
4 Downirmn Brumpton
5 South Biancreiron
SIAM
Central Sprina_Creek
8 South =s-Fogriesek
9 North
1 Central Miseleseug
11 South M istia
12 Little Etobicolliceirreek
13 Rentorth Croak
LEGEND
. Ontario Shorans
c/ Municipal Etourdary
Major Roads
11111 Lakes and Ponds
Rivers
Community Argon Area Bormdwies
Watershed Boundary
2 0 2 4 6 Kamm.
MIMICO CREEK
14) Melton
West Mimico
Minim Headwaters
North Toronb
Central Tonal°
South Mimi=
1
16
11
18
19
20) Pearson International Aimed
111. area falls within both watersheds
and Is being treated as a case study
es
r
C. Organ'.
-
"IA
106
RES. #D36 /03 - CHANGES TO MEMBERSHIP
Don Watershed Regeneration Council. Changes to the membership of
the Don Watershed Regeneration Council.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Ms. Carolyn O'Neill,
representing Environment Canada, be appointed to the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council.
BACKGROUND CARRIED
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council consists of 44 Members and alternates, including
interest groups, business associations and government agencies. The Don Council Members
and Associate Members are appointed for a three year term. The above recommendations
reflect the current status of the Don Council membership.
At present, the Authority has not received a formal appointment to the Don Council from
Environment Canada. Carolyn O'Neill is a Member of the Remedial Action Plan
Implementation Team, and a Senior Policy Advisor with Environment Canada, and as such her
knowledge and experience will be a benficial addition to the Don Council.
Report prepared by: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: June 3, 2003
RES. #D37 /03 - CONSERVATION ONTARIO COMMENTS, ONTARIO REGULATION
285/99
TRCA comments for inclusion with Conservation Ontario's response to
Amendments to Ontario Regulation 285/99, the Water Taking and
Transfer Regulation.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on Conservation
Ontario Comments, Ontario Regulation 285/99 be endorsed;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue working with Conservation Ontario to
seek appropriate arrangements with the Ministry of the Environment for conservation
authorities participation in Permits to Take Water.
CARRIED
107
BACKGROUND
The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has proposed a series of revisions to Ontario
Regulation 285/99, the Water Taking and Transfer Regulation, under the Ontario Water
Resources Act. This regulation governs the approvals of Permits to Take Water (PTTW),and
the approval process is managed by the MOE. Permits are required for both groundwater and
surface water withdrawls of more than 50,000 litres per day. The TRCA has been asked by
Conservation Ontario to assist in the review of the proposed changes to this Regulation.
Proposed Changes
The proposed Ontario Regulation 285/99 is intended to enhance the existing PTTW process to
better manage the allocation and use of both surface and groundwater resources in the
province. These changes follow requests from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the
Environmental Commissioners Office, the Environmental Review Tribunal, and individual
Conservation Authorities, including the TRCA, to improve and update policies and practices
within the current PTTW program.
The proposed changes will require permit holders to:
• Notify municipalities, conservation authorities, and adjacent landowners about proposed
water takings
• Provide annual reporting of water use to:
- assist with the sustainable use of water;
- support decisions under the Ontario Low Water Response program;
- assist in the preparation of watershed -based water budgets; and
- fulfil Ontario's commitment under the Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001 to report on
water use to the eight Great Lakes States and Quebec.
• Define potential impacts that will be considered when reviewing permit applications.
The proposed changes will also require the MOE to consult on the development of a fee
structure to recover costs associated with the PTTW process. .
With the proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 285/99, the Province wants to formalize
a process to include conservation authorities within the PTTW approval process. We believe
that this demonstrates a positive step in managing water allocation issues on a watershed
basis. This initiative is in keeping with our goals related to both watershed management and
links directly to the Source Protection Planning process.
However, with this additional responsibility comes additional costs. Therefore, TRCA staff
believe that the conservation authorities should be consulted regarding the required level of
involvement in the PTTW approval process and the corresponding funding mechanism(s).
108
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff will continue to work with Conservation Ontario on the review mechanism and help
identify the resources required to deliver on this program.
Report prepared by: Don Haley, extension 5226
For Information contact: Don Haley, extension 5226
Date: May 23, 2003
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF ANOTHER BOARD
RES. #D38 /03 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #3/03, Meeting #4/03 and Meeting #5/03. The
Minutes of Meeting #3/03 held on March March 20, 2003, Meeting #4/03
held on April 24, 2003 and Meeting #5/03 held on May 15, 2003
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Anthony Ketchum
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council
Meeting #3/03, Meeting #4/03 and Meeting #5/03, 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: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
For Information contact: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
Date: June 04, 2003
RES. #D39 /03 - ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION
Minutes of Meeting #2/03, March 27, 2003. The Minutes of the
Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition Meeting #2/03, held on March
27, 2003, are provided for information.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Anthony Ketchum
109
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition
Meeting #2/03, held on March 27, 2003, 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 #5/02, held on May 24, 2002 by resolution #A124/02,
includes the following provision:
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.
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
Date: June 02, 2003
RES. #D40/03 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #2/03, April 15, 2003. The Minutes of Humber
Watershed Alliance Meeting #2/03, held on April 15, 2003, are provided
for information.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Anthony Ketchum
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of Humber Watershed Alliance Meeting #2/03,
held on April 15, 2003, 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: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
Date: June 02, 2003
110
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:04 p.m., on Friday, June 13, 2003.
Irene Jones
Chair
/ks
Brian Denney
Secretary- Treasurer
ffrTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/03
July 11, 2003
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/03, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, July 11, 2003. The Chair Irene Jones,
called the meeting to order at 10:07 a.m.
PRESENT
Ila Bossons Member
Irene Jones Chair
Anthony Ketchum Member
Jim McMaster Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Joe Pantalone Member
Ian Sinclair Member
REGRETS
Lorna Bissell Vice Chair
Cliff Gyles Member
Pam McConnell Member
Dave Ryan Member
Frank Scarpitti Member
Tanny Wells Member
RES. #D41/03 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joe Pantalone
Ila Bossons
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/03, held on June 13, 2003, be approved.
CARRIED
BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
The last paragraph on page 80 states that 'The Ministry of Transportation has indicated that all
the municipalities that work within the municipal advisory group are in favour of building the
corridor." The Authority was advised that in actuality, not all municipalities within the municipal
advisory group are in favour of building the corridor.
112
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Brian Denney, CAO, declared a conflict of interest with respect to item 7.2 - Status of the Pine
Valley Link, OP 600 OMB Appeal, and the Pine Valley Drive Link Environmental Assessment,
due to residing along the proposed link.
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Dick Hunter, General Manager, Conservation Ontario, in regards to
item 7.1 - Watershed Based Source Protection Update and Municipal Responses to
Advisory Committee Report.
RES. #D42/03 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
Jim McMaster
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
•
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A letter dated May 8, 2003, from Lois Griffin, Chair, Humber Watershed Alliance, in
regards to item 7.2 - Status of the Pine Valley Link, OP 600 OMB Appeal, and the Pine
Valley Drive Link Environmental Assessment.
(b) A letter dated June 20, 2003, from Adele Freeman, Acting Director, Watershed
Management Division, TRCA, in regards to Smart Transportation Bill (Bill 25).
(c) A letter dated July 4, 2003, from Michael Puddister, Senior Planner, Credit Valley
Conservation, in regards to Smart Transportation Bill (Bill 25). .
(d) An email dated July 10, 2003, from Madeleine McDowell, Chair, Humber Heritage
Committee, in regards to RAP MoU Project Progress Report.
(e) A position paper from the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, in regards to Review
of The Final Report OfThe Advisory Committee On Watershed -Based Source
Protection Planning - Protecting Ontario's Drinking Water: Toward A Watershed -Based
Source Protection Planning Framework.
113
RES. #D43/03 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Ian Sinclair
THAT above -noted correspondence (a) - (e) be received.
CARRIED
114
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
Humber
Rimier
May 8, 2003
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Chair and Members of The Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, ON
M3N 1S4
Dear Chair and Members:
Re: Proposed Pine Valley Drive Link
I am writing on behalf of the Humber Watershed Alliance regarding the Pine Valley Extension.
Attached please find a copy of a letter sent to the City of Vaughan regarding this matter.
At the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting of April 15, 2003, it was noted that in March 2001,
the TRCA adopted a resolution requesting the City of Vaughan to consider other alternatives
that would not impact Boyd conservation Area. In June, 2002, TRCA staff reiterated the position
that this matter should be considered through an individual Environmental Assessment.
We urge the TRCA to continue its strong stand on this matter and to reiterate to the City of
Vaughan your concern that this proposal will have major environmental impacts on the Boyd
Conservation Area.
Yours truly,
Lois Griffin, Chair
Humber Watershed Alliance
/L.
Encl.
cc: City of Vaughan, Mayor and Members of Council
115
CORRESPONDENCE (B)
TORONTO AND REGION Y-
onserva t:on
for The Living City
June 20, 2003
BY FAX (905) 704 -2007 AND MAIL
EBR Coordinator
Provincial and Environmental Planning Office
301 St. Paul Street, 2nd Floor
St. Catharines, Ontario
L2R 7R4
Dear EBR Coordinator:
Re: Smart Transportation Bill (Bill 25)
EBR Registry Number: AE03E4512
CFN 32769
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff have reviewed the proposed Bill 25,
and offer the following comments:
The TRCA supports the concept and principles of the Provincial Smart Growth initiative,
including transportation, in that it has the potential to support TRCA programs by providing for
a sustainable future. Bill 25, Smart Transportation, is aimed at strengthening the province's
Smart Growth commitments to manage growth, sustain the economy and protect the
environment. Aspects of the proposed legislation, such as the implementation of High
Occupancy Vehicle Lanes and commuter parking Tots support the Central Ontario Smart
Growth Panel's final report (Shape the Future) in providing an integrated transportation
network, both in terms of transit and goods movement opportunities.
While the TRCA is supportive of these initiatives, the proposed removal of a development plan
and infrastructure corridor plan from the definition of undertaking under subsection 1(1) of the
Environmental Assessment Act (EAA)in subsection 2(5) of Bill 25 raises concerns. The EAA has
allowed for the public and public bodies such as the TRCA, to participate in the discussion of
needs, alternatives to the undertaking and alternative methods of the undertaking. This right is
eliminated in the proposed legislation. While subsection 5(3) pertains to the requirement for
social, economic and environmental investigations, the weakened public and agency
involvement allow the Minster of Transportation to establish infrastructure corridors without
comprehensive consultation. Furthermore, the current draft of Bill 25 seems to provide no
opportunity to appeal a development or infrastructure corridor plan, which we feel is necessary
in establishing a transparent and fair process.
116
We feel that the identification and protection of natural heritage features and systems through
Conservation Authority involvement in the Environmental Assessment process is a necessary
step in the initial EA process. The Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel's final report further
supports this position in recommendations 3 and 11, which aim to manage growth within the
context of the natural- heritage system, and recommendation 4, aimed at the identification of
urban expansion areas well in advance of growth. With the identification of transportation
corridors as the first step in the planning process, the Minister of Transportation will essentially
be able to guide future land use planning and environmental protection. The proposed
legislation jeopardizes Ontario's natural heritage systems by providing for transportation
planning in the absence of regional proactive land use planning and environmental planning
and protection. As stated by the Pembina Institute, the proposed legislation will "...cement into
place decisions that commit Ontario to low- density, automobile -and road - dependent
development patterns for the foreseeable future."
Although the TRCA does not agree with the removal of the Environmental Assessment process
in Bill 25, we do recognize the value in streamlining the approvals process for development
and infrastructure corridor plans. We are willing to discuss with you streamlining measures to
expedite the review of selected development and infrastructure corridor plans.
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority recommends that Bill 25 be amended to
remove the proposed changes to the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 and
Environmental Assessment Act that would exclude a development plan or infrastructure corridor
plan as not being undertakings as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Environmental Assessment
Act. It is the opinion of TRCA that these proposed changes are in direct conflict with the intent
of the EAA.
We trust these comments are of assistance. Should you have any questions please contact
the undersigned at (416) 661 -6600 extension 5238, or Carolyn Woodland, Manager of
Development Services at extension 5214.
Yours truly,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
CAROLYN WOODLAND For
Adele Freeman
Acting Director, Watershed Management
AG/
cc: Brian Denney, TRCA
117
CORRESPONDENCE (C)
CVC
CREDIT VALLEY
CONSERVATION
EBR Coordinator
Provincial and Environmental Planning Office
301 St. Paul Street, 2nd Floor
St. Catharines, On
L2R 7R4
Dear EBR Coordinator,
Re: Smart Transportation-Bill (BM 25)
EBR Reeistry Number AE03E4512
•V•O•dl-
I6 ulr
ITA113193U
July 4, 2003
We have been circulated with the comments provided to you by the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority dated June 20, 2003. We agree with and support the position
they have taken on the Bill. We share their concern related to the importance of the
identification and protection of natural heritage features and systems through the BA
process. Further, we strongly support their recommendation to amend Bill 25 to remove
the changes that exclude a development plan or infrastructure corridor plans as not being
undertakings as defined in the Act
We would also be pleased to meet with Province to discuss ways and means of
streamlining the review of development and infrastructure corridor plans.
Michael Puddister
Senior Planner
cc
Adele Freeman
4
Acting Director, Watershed Management
TRCA
Credit valley Conservation 1 255 Old Derry Road. Mississauga. Ontario L5N 6R4
Phone (905) 670-1615 Fax 19051670-2210
'Conservation Through Cooperation"
118
CORRESPONDENCE (D)
July 9th, 2003
Chair and Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive,
Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4
Re: RAP MoU Project Progress Report
Dear Councillor Jones and Board Members:
Amongst the proposed projects listed for 2003/2004, under Clean Waters, is the sum of
$5,000 for Wet Weather Flow Support.
I wish to draw your attention to the inclusion within the City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow
Management Master Plan of a spit, or deflector arm, on the East bank of the Humber, at its
mouth extending almost two kilometres out into the Lake.
It provides absolutely no remediation of water quality, and in no way benefits the Remedial
Action Plan.
It is most important that such a proposal be eliminated before time and precious funds,
which should be directed towards water quality improvement from the Humber, are spent on
the Environmental Assessment.
The Humber Heritage Committee is categorically opposed to this device. We believe that it
would not only be most harmful to the River, but also endanger its Heritage River status. The
funds identified for this project should be reassigned to Natural Wetland / Infiltration Receiving
Areas in the Humber Watershed, which would truly benefit the Remedial Action Plan..
While I do realize that the Plan to which I refer is that of the City of Toronto, I believe that,
even prior to choosing a WWFMMP project to support, the Authority, as a responsible partner
in the RAP, should exhort the City to make this change immediately, before matters proceed
any further with the Environmental Assessment.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours sincerely,
Madeleine McDowell
Chair, Humber Heritage Committee
119
CORRESPONDENCE (E)
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Review Of The Final Report Of The Advisory Committee On
Watershed -Based Source Protection Planning
Protecting Ontar/o* Drinking Water TowardA Watershed -Based Source Protection
Planning Framework
EBR Registry Number: XAO3E0011
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council (DWRC) is composed of volunteer representatives
and municipal council members who are working with the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) to achieve the vision of a revitalized urban river and watershed. A
comprehensive regeneration strategy - "Forty Steps to a New Don" - was endorsed in 1994 and
through the efforts of thousands of volunteers and in partnership with other environmental
groups we are making some progress towards this goal. The lack of effective source protection
is still a significant barrier to Tong -term improvements to the river and to Lake Ontario. The
Council supports the proposed source protection framework with its anticipated beneficial
implications in the headwaters of the Don, which will have a significant impact on the whole
system. As well as advising the TRCA on matters related to comprehensive watershed
planning, the DWRC provides advice to other government agencies (federal, provincial and
municipal) on matters pertaining to the interests and activities of the ENGOs making up the
DWRC.
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council supports the principles of source protection
planning contained in the Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Watershed -based Source
Protection Planning entitled Protecting Ontario's Drinking Water: Toward a Watershed -based
Source Protection Planning Framework. We acknowledge that the Don watershed is a highly
degraded urban watershed. Many other watersheds in Ontario face different issues and
threats compared to the Don. When the Advisory Committee's framework addresses such
issues, we accept their expertise and support their recommendations. We encourage early
implementation of the Advisory Committee recommendations and provision of appropriate
funding for this framework.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The DWRC believes that work undertaken in the next few months will be critical in the
development of watershed source protection plans. We offer insights gained from over a
decade of experience of ecosystem based watershed planning and watershed management
by the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. We support the development of effective
instruments and tools for preparing and implementing source protection plans. The developed
instruments will play pivotal roles in protecting watersheds, ecosystems and groundwater and
surface water against degradation.
120
We support the recommendations contained in the Advisory Committee final report dealing
with the technical, scientific and risk assessment aspects of source protection planning and
offer recommendations to assist the composition of the Source Protection Planning
Committees (SPPC). We believe that Environmental Non Governmental Organizations
(ENGOs) with a history of effective involvement such as the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council should receive membership on the SPPC dealing with their watershed. Flexibility
should be built into the SPPC forming process to allow for representation of important
watershed community interests, while maintaining an effective and accountable SPPC
structure. We strongly support the proposed new stand -alone statute described in
Recommendation 7. We anticipate that the development of new technical guidelines and
practices as recommended in Recommendations 31, 43 and 51 together with the solid
legislative backdrop will ensure the establishment of the most critical first barrier, source
protection, in the protection of drinking water in Ontario. This will address the concern of
Justice O'Connor as stated in the Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry, "In a multiple- barrier
system for providing safe drinking water, the selection and protection of reliable, high - quality
drinking water sources is the first barrier."
Variability in financial capacity of municipalities, provincial agencies, conservation authorities
and ENGO organizations may cause inconsistent application of the new tools based on
financial capacity. By ensuring a legislative backdrop providing for monitoring and reporting,
this situation will be avoided thus protecting watersheds, ecosystems, groundwater and
surface water. It will be essential that sufficient financial and technical support be made
available to the participants if effective source protection planning and management are to be
achieved in the context of comprehensive ecosystem -based watershed management across
the entire Province.
We support an integrated ecosystem -based approach based on watershed boundaries
requiring special treatment for source protection areas in locations such as: groundwater
recharge zones; existing degraded areas, and natural habitat regeneration zones. Overall the
focus of source protection plans ought to emphasize the impact of chronic non -point source
pollutant loadings instead of a point source catastrophic impacts approach to source
degradation. Within the non -point chronic approach, special consideration must be given to
addressing the implications of road salts application, road salts storage sites and snow dumps.
To assist citizens to participate in non -point source watershed protection, we urge the Ministry
of the Environment to commit resources to support the watershed protection community,
including conservation authorities (CAs), to create and to distribute public education materials
concerning source protection planning and making the Zink that source protection is
inextricably linked with land use planning.
We encourage the Ministry of the Environment to integrate the DWRC positions into the risk
management instruments process for source protection. We are optimistic that the adoption of
our recommendations will protect watersheds, ecosystems, groundwater and surface water
against degradation and achieve protection for source areas.
Many of the 55 recommendations of the Advisory Committee have significant implications for
conservation authorities and municipalities that will require CAs to greatly strengthen their
watershed management capacities and abilities.
121
The Advisory Committee report calls for CAs to take on additional responsibilities in
coordinating the development of watershed -based source protection plans (SPP) and the
ongoing maintenance and up -keep of the plans, among other roles. This move will formalize a
mandate for CAs as a key participant in the area of public health, which brings with it a
significant increase in responsibility and accountability. This will present an opportunity to
strengthen municipal, business and community partnerships in watershed management. New
sources of funding are to be established to ensure adequate resourcing of CAs in their new
SPP roles. Land use planning and other water resource permitting decisions will have to be
consistent with recommendations of the source protection plan in vulnerable areas. These
recommendations will greatly elevate the legal status of watershed planning work and improve
the effectiveness of key implementation tools. Hence the plans must have sufficient resources
allocated to them to be prepared at a level of detail that can withstand legal scrutiny.
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Watershed -based Source Protection
Planning entitled Protecting Ontario's Drinking Water: Toward a Watershed -based
Source Protection Planning Framework.
Recommendation
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council strongly supports the development of
effective Instruments and tools for preparing source protection plans for
Implementation as soon as possible. These Instruments will play pivotal roles In
protecting watersheds, ecosystems and groundwater and surface water against
degradation.
2. Goal of Source Protection Plans (Rec. 3); Great Lakes link (Rec. 4, 5)
Within the Don Watershed, drinking water sources include both Take -based and
groundwater -based supplies. The groundwater withdrawals are located in vulnerable
and locally controllable source areas, some of which are under the jurisdiction of the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. As proposed, these areas would require the
development of source protection plans on a high priority basis. Ongoing local
municipal efforts to address the requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan for groundwater management, water budgets, and improving water quality of area
streams will provide a strong base from which to develop source protection plans for
both groundwater and lake -based water sources. For the majority of the Don
watershed residents who have Lake Ontario as their drinking water source it is
important that upstream decision - making also be required to protect their drinking
water source.
122
Recommendation
The Province ensure resources are available to Conservation Authorities and
Conservation Ontario in order to promote understanding and planning for drinking
water source protection in the context of Integrated ecosystem based watershed
management plans which protect al/ interdependent environments/ systems.
3. New SPP Legislation; Other Legislative Amendments; Guidelines (Rec. 7- 10, 31)
Legislated recognition of watershed based SPPs and the roles of CAs will greatly
enhance the status of watershed planning work and strengthen the effectiveness of key
implementation mechanisms. This recognition will demand improved accountability on
the part of CA staff to ensure state -of -the -art technical standards are maintained and the
resulting plans are defensible. Continued commitment to stakeholder involvement will
be essential and the level of involvement will increase. Likely, there will be an increased
need for conflict resolution expertise due to the implications that the final SPP will have
for existing and future land uses on private and public lands.
The provincial government has indicated its intent to draft the new SPP legislation by
Fall, 2003, and it is essential that the legislative amendments and guidelines be
developed concurrently or shortly thereafter. Technical guidelines intended to support
implementation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan were not, and are still
not, available, to assist municipalities to discharge responsibilities resulting in confusion
in interpretation and inefficiencies of implementation and the difficulty to meet legislated
time schedules.
Recommendation
A. The Province should develop: source protection planning legislation; technical
guide/ Ines and standards The Province should coordinate the development of
SPP guidelines with those being prepared in support of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Pion.
B. The Province should ensure that guidelines are available to Conservation
Authorities, municipalities, watershed stakeholders and the public prior to, or at
the time of, proclamation of any new legislation.
C. The Province should convene a multi-stakeholder technics/ working group,
including representatives from Conservation Ontario, Association of Municipalities
of Ontario, peer groups, science advisors and other watershed stakeholders for
the purposes of developing the SPP guidelines and standards
D. The Province should provide assistance to Municipalit ies, ENGOs, Conservation
Ontario and Individual conservation authorities in 2003 and 2004 to support their
efforts in reviewing the draft legislation, legislative amendments, guide lines, and
standards, and beginning to prepare for the proposed new mandate.
123
4. Time to Complete SPPs (Rec. 10), New Powers for Municipalities (Rec. 8, 9, 11) &
New Responsibilities for CAs (Rec. 12, 17, 36 - 38, 42, 52)
The Report recommends that SPPs be initiated within two years of the passage of SPP
legislation and completed within five years. If legislation were passed early in 2004,
plans would have to be completed by 2009. Watershed plans in the Don Watershed
located in the Oak Ridges Moraine planning area have to be completed, and Regional
Municipal Official Plans have to be brought into conformity, by 2007 to meet the
requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
The Report recommends that conservation authorities be the organization given
responsibility for coordinating the development of watershed -based source protection
plans wherever possible; ongoing review and update of the plan; and issuance of status
reports on SPP progress. CAs would also share roles with other agencies and
stakeholders in public education and dissemination of SPP information and
management and collection of SPP data. This move will formalize a mandate for CAs
as a participant in the area of public health, which brings with it a significant increase in
responsibility and accountability. For TRCA, the role is a natural expansion of work
already underway, and offers an opportunity to strengthen partnerships with municipal
and watershed communities in watershed planning, regional watershed monitoring and
reporting, education, and stewardship and regeneration projects.
The Report recommends other legislation be amended to be consistent with the new
source protection legislation. Unfortunately, the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA)
is omitted from the list. This oversight should be corrected by including the OWRA
especially since it presently does not specifically provide an approval process for the
renewal of water taking permits which requires notification of agencies, CAs,
municipalities and neighbouring property owners.
Recommendation
A. The Province immediately commence the preparation of guidelines and standards
and commence the presentation of training programs to build source protection
planning capacltyin Source Protection Planning Committees, Provincial agencies,
CAs and municipalities
B. Information and training be provided by the Province and by Conservation Ontario
to watershed adv/sorygroups such as the DWRC to ensure understanding of new
responsibilities and /!abilities under the proposed new legislation and legislative
amendments.
C All development proposals must be consistent with the Source Protect /on Plans in
a/ /parts of the watershed.
D. The Ontario Water Resources Act be amended to provide an approval a process
for the renewal of water taking permits, including the requirement to provide
notification to agencies, CAs, municipalities and neighbouring property owners.
124
5. New Funding Sources for CAs (Rec. 13); Financing Initial SPPs (Rec. 19)
The Advisory Committee acknowledged that provincial funding support will be
necessary to jump -start all initial SPPs, considering that it will take some time before
new sustainable funding mechanisms can be established.
Watershed -based SPPs will have legal status, compared to traditional watershed
planning exercises, so any budget estimates for SPP preparation should include
provision for legal services, enhanced level of stakeholder involvement, and the newly
required expert panel review. Ongoing SPP implementation costs should include
provision for legal counsel in the event that participation is required at appeal hearings.
As well, it is essential that such plans have the resources to be prepared with "on the
ground" knowledge of conditions and management needs. The funding for watershed
studies has declined over the years such that they are based largely on secondary
source information, particularly for ground and surface water, instead of data generated
by field research. The use of secondary source data will not be sufficient to provide for
a scientifically defensible SPP before any tribunals.
Recommendation
A. The Province update cost estimates of watershed planning and management
activities published by the interministeria /committee on Watershed Management
Evaluation Initiative in 1997 as the final report 54n Evaluation of Watershed
Management In Ontario Final Report" and incorporate provision for any additional
source protection planning requirements In order that sufficient funding can be
budgeted
B. The Province should prepare budget estimates for delivering sufficient ongoing
source protection planning program support, which Includes the collection of field
data fora scientifically defensible SPP.
6. Interim Risk Management Responsibilities (Rec. 17); Model SPP (Rec. 18)
Assuming SPP legislation is passed in 2004, SPPs may not be in place in all
watersheds for at least 3 to 5 years. While the recommendation for interim risk
management is very practical and proactive, there needs to be clarification around the
specific responsibilities and definitions of "potential threats" and "high risk activities" to
ensure that interim objectives are met. Application of this approach would also suggest
the need for initial scoping of potential threats and drinking water source vulnerabilities
throughout the source protection planning area and the use of powers already available
to Provincial agencies, municipalities and CA's to identify and to deal with interim risk
management opportunities. An interim approach could be provided as part of the
model SPP. Funding requirements for this initial scoping and legal review should also
be considered.
125
Recommendation
The Province should /dentifyand provide clarification of `ava //ab /e powers" of
Provincial agencies, municipalities and CAs for Interim approaches and powers to
deal with Interim risk management opportunities and to clarifyinterim risk
management responsibilities, to be used while the legislation and guidelines are
developed.
7. Planning Areas (Rec. 21); SPP Committee (Rec. 22- 26)
The Advisory Committee recommended that Southern Ontario be divided into 16
planning areas for the purposes of preparing source protection plans. The TRCA
jurisdiction is proposed to be one planning area. The report calls for the establishment
of a Source Protection Planning Committee (SPPC) for each area. The SPPC is to act
as an advisory committee to the Full Authority, and it is the Full Authority that
recommends the final SPP to the Ministry of the Environment for approval. Membership
on the SPPC is proposed to be a maximum of 18 members distributed as follows:
one -third municipal representatives; one -third provincial, First Nations, and federal
representatives; and one -third local public health and other stakeholders. The SPPC
may establish working groups, providing opportunities for direct involvement of others
in the plan.
The TRCA is composed of nine watersheds so an artificial limit of 18 members on the
SPPC may pose difficulties in the TRCA jurisdiction, whether applied to the jurisdiction
as a whole (i.e. the entire SPP planning area) or to individual watersheds (i.e. watershed
specific SPPCs), where there are numerous stakeholders and both local and regional
municipalities who would have active roles in implementing the SPP recommendations.
While there is merit in ensuring a balance of votes from the three sectors, there should
be flexibility in the number of members (e.g. by providing seats based on a
characterization of the watershed to ensure that groups with a history of committed
involvement be represented). The total number of members of the SPPC is less
important than having effective and accountable representation.
Our predecessor, the Don Watershed Task Force, composed of 25 members,
successfully developed a comprehensive plan, 'Forty Steps to a New Don' to regenerate
the Don Watershed. It was our experience that 10 watershed residents, 10 municipal
politicians and representatives of 5 environmental partners could work effectively
together given the technical support of the TRCA. Our experience and those of other
watershed groups like the AEMONT (Grey County groundwater group) and the Humber
Alliance indicate that the keys to successful outcomes are:
committed representatives from the watershed;
committed support staff with adequate funding and resources; and
political representation from each of the affected municipalities.
126
We believe that through this approach municipal councils gained the necessary
understanding of the importance of implementing the recommended plan.
Recommendation
A. F/exibi//ty/n the size and representation on the SPPC should be provided with
respect to the max /mum number of SPPC members In order to include ENGOs
with a history of committed involvement.
B. The ro/e, responsibilities and powers must be clearly set out including the ability
of the Province to override Inappropriate local decisions. The Province must
monitor and audit the performance of each SPPC to ensure that representatives
are accountab /e and responsible in performing their roles.
C. The Province considers assigning Low Water Response duties to the SPPC.
D. Clarification on what constitutes `sufficient municipal support"(as referenced in
rec. 26) should be provided.
8. Expert Panel (Rec. 27); Consultation Process (Rec. 29)
An expert panel is to be established as a means to assure continuous improvement and
state -of- the -art source protection planning approaches. Minimum requirements for a
transparent consultation process will be specified.
Recommendation
The Province should provide adequate remuneration to ensure that members of
the expert pane/ commit the effort and time necessary to fulfill their role.
9. Content of the SPP (Rec. 31)
The Advisory Committee report sets out a list of SPP requirements. Additional work on
specific technical guidelines and standards was identified as further work to be done.
Many of the required studies are already underway in many jurisdictions, as part of
ongoing watershed planning work, regional water supply studies, water quality
improvement studies, or provincially funded groundwater protection studies, being
carried out by the York -Peel- Durham - Toronto groundwater partners and the Regional
Municipalities. Care should be taken to ensure that studies are not needlessly and
unnecessarily duplicated. Technical guidelines are required to be prepared in a timely
fashion to provide adequate lead -time for multi -year work plans and budget
preparation. Clarification is needed, for example, on the application of fate of
contaminants models (i.e. for the whole watershed) and uncertainty in these models
should also be acknowledged.
127
Recommendation
A. The Province should prepare sensible science -based technical guidelines In a
t /melyfashion to provide adequate lead -time for multi-year work plans and budget
preparation.
B. The Province modifythe key Ingredients /ist'to include, for example,
cultural/social information, demographics, /dentif /cation of cultural communities,
commun /tysurveys, existing water management programs and local institutional
arrangements
10. Approval Process for the SPP (Rec. 32)
The Province (MOE) is to approve the SPP, and define in the SPP legislation the criteria
and process for approval.
Recommendation
The Province (MOE) should establish time lines for Its interne / review and
approve/ process of SPPs. Monitoring of the approve/ process should be carried
out to ensure adherence to the time lines.
11. Toward Implementation (Rec. 33- 35)
The report identifies a need for additional consultation and development in the areas of
SPP implementation, ongoing planning, and funding mechanisms. The DWRC notes
that the use of EBR for information purposes should not replace effective and principled
public consultation.
Recommendation
The Province should embark on fu/ / -scale public consultation of the results of the
feedback from the EBR posting. This should Include facilitated workshops for
ENGOs, municipal/t /es, conservation authorities and watershed stakeholders
Long term sustainable funding needs to be provided along with technical
resources such as SPP updates and implementation updates.
12. Public Consultation and Education (Rec. 42)
The Province, CAs, municipalities, and other stakeholders are to share in the
dissemination of information.
128
Recommendation
The Province should take the lead in preparing generic educational materials that
can be adapted and presented locally,
13. Risk Management Strategies (Rec. 43- 46)
This set of recommendations calls for the Province to establish definitions for threats
and risks and approaches for risk assessment. The report calls on the Province to
undertake the development of this technical guidance within six months of the receipt of
the report.
This section is key to the completion of many other aspects of source protection
planning, including the technical guidelines, scale and scope of studies, and
implications for legislation and standards. As this area is very new and very technically
oriented, training sessions would be beneficial.
Recommendation
The Province should develop risk management definitions, standards and
guidelines and offer training sessions for practitioners within 6months of approval
of the timeframe proposed by the Advisory Committee.
14. Monitoring and Information Management (Rec. 49 -54)
Care needs to be taken to not roll out existing regional watershed monitoring network
and watershed report cards as the basis for the monitoring and reporting needs of
source protection planning. Rather, new initiatives designed specifically to address the
needs of source protection in the context of integrated ecosystem -based watershed
management need to be developed. Existing data base management models should
be reviewed to determine if they can support the new initiative. There has been a move
away from wet weather based surface water monitoring on the part of the province and
we advocate for a renewed emphasis in this area as our experience is that this is when
the contaminants that pose risks to water supplies appear. Further, many of the long
term monitoring sites maintained by the Province were decommissioned during the
period of cutbacks. Now, there are insufficient locations on which to assess risk to
drinking water or the success of SPPs.
Recommendation
The Province should reinstate previous surface water monitoring stations and
develop new monitoring and reporting mechanisms including data and
Informat /on standards and guidelines and offer training sessions for practitioners.
June 19, 2003
129
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D44/03 - WATERSHED BASED SOURCE PROTECTION UPDATE AND
MUNICIPAL RESPONSES TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
Municipal Responses to the Final Report of the Provincial Advisory
Committee on Watershed Based Source Protection Planning
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) Members and staff continue to work with Conservation
Ontario and our member municipalities to advance source protection planning and
implementation within the province;
THAT the TRCA confirms its Intent to develop watershed based source protection plans
in full co- operation with its watershed municipalities following the enactment of the
appropriate Legislation, guidelines and funding mechanisms;
THAT the TRCA continue to seek seed funding to Initiate a source protection plan for the
Duffins and Carruthers watershed, based on the recently approved "A Watershed Plan
For Duffins and Carruthers Creek ", to provide a model for the integration of watershed
planning and source protection for the Oak Ridges Moraine and elsewhere in the
province.
THAT Conservation Ontario be thanked for its ongoing work on source protection;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to keep Members Informed of the progress towards
the development of provincial legislation and guidelines with respect to watershed based
source protection.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/03 staff provided a review of the Final Report of the Provincial Advisory
Committee on Watershed Based Source Protection Planning (WBSPP). The Authority
endorsed a set of comments that were subsequently forwarded to Conservation Ontario for
inclusion into a coordinated response to the province. The comments supported the principles
of source protection planning and identified a number of detailed implementation issues for
further discussion, including the make up of a source protection planning committee for TRCA,
the need for guidelines and standards, and clarification of what constitutes municipal support.
The final Conservation Ontario comments are included as attachment #1 to this report.
130
Also at Authority Meeting #4/03, the Authority directed staff to convene an information session
on the Final Report for municipalities. TRCA staff attempted and had invited and confirmed
senior Ministry of the Environment staff and representatives of Conservation Ontario. Due to
the extremely tight timing and conflicts with municipal agendas this session was canceled.
Staff are currently in the process of meeting with staff at the regional municipalities to discuss
the coordination of Watershed Plans and Source Protection Plans. Mr. Dick Hunter, General
Manager of Conservation Ontario, however agreed to present Conservation Ontario's
perspective at the TRCA's Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting to be held on July
11, 2003.
At Meeting #5/03 held on June 27, 2003 the TRCA resolved in part:
THAT the Province of Ontario be requested to provide resources to develop a Source
Protection Plan for the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watersheds that will serve to identify
the methodology and costs for developing these plans;
Staff are currently arranging a meeting with the Ministry of the Environment staff to discuss this
further.
At a June, 2003 meeting Conservation Ontario developed a draft resolution of support which
TRCA forwarded to its watershed municipalities. The draft resolution expressed support for the
recommendations of the Final Report on WBSPP. Municipalities were encouraged to adopt the
resolution and forward it to the Ministry of the Environment. The commenting deadline was
June 21, 2003.
TRCA staff are now in receipt of resolutions from the Regional Municipalities of Peel, York and
Durham, and various other comments that have been forwarded to the Ministry of the
Environment (Attachment #2). Appended to this report are Regional Municipality of Peel, York
and Durham resolutions. City of Toronto staff commented directly to the province. In addition,
the Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario have reviewed the Final Report and have
raised a number of salient points. The conclusion of their review is also appended to this
report (Attachment #3).
In general, there is strong support for the implementation of source protection throughout the
Province of Ontario. The TRCA member municipalities fully recognize the important role the
TRCA and neighbouring conservation authorities should play to ensure the success of this
work. The Region of York continues to support a strong leadership role for Conservation
Authorities while the other municipalities prefer a partnership model with the province, regional
municipalities and CA's contributing specific areas of expertise and a joint approach to
recommending a source area protection plan for approval by the Ministry.
The Regional Planning Commissioner's report, upon which a number of municipalities have
drawn their comments, similarly recognizes the importance of CAs in this work and in fact
highlights a number of GTA initiatives particularly with respect to the Oak Ridges Moraine,
groundwater studies and data sharing.
131
Emerging issues and concerns centre around the relative roles of CAs and municipalities in
undertaking source protection planning studies, preparation of the final plan and approval
mechanisms. These concerns warrant further discussion both within the TRCA jurisdiction and
at a provincial scale. Province wide discussions would preferably take place as part of an
extended mandate of the former advisory committee.
Within TRCA it would be our intent to develop watershed -based source protection plans in full
partnership with our watershed municipalities and other partners. Such a model is reflected in
the workplan to fulfill the watershed planning requirements of the ORM Act, as is being
developed with York Region. Under that model the municipalites and TRCA take the lead with
specific component studies, for which they have expertise, while TRCA coordinates the overall
planning and partner involvement process. Notably, a policy working group comprised of and
likely led by municipal planning staff will address the development of policy that will facilitate
the implementation of the plan's recommendations, into the municipal land use planning
process. Support for the source protection plan would be sought from all partners prior to
proceeding to the Authority for a recommendation of approval by the province. Similarily
mechanisms to incorporate the role of the public health department can also be developed.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff recommend that the TRCA continue to work through Conservation Ontario and with
member municipalities to advance source protection planning and implementation as set out in
Authority Meeting #4103. Staff further recommend that TRCA seek seed funding to assist in
detailing source protection technical requirements for building on the Watershed Plan for
Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. By developing a working model of source protection
within the Region of Durham this will advance the understanding of source protection technical,
funding and consultation requirements.
Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: July 04, 2003
Attachments: 3
132
Attachment 1
June 20, 2003
Dawn Landry, Policy Adviser
Strategic Policy Branch
135 St. Clair Ave. West, 11th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1 P5
Re: EBR Posting XA03E0011
Dear Ms. Landry,
I am writing on behalf of Conservation Ontario in response to the EBR posting for the Final
Report of the Advisory Committee on Watershed -Based Source Protection Planning (EBR#
XA03E0011).
As per the June 16th Council meeting, Conservation Ontario supports the overall direction and
recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Watershed -based Source Protection
Planning. We encourage the government to take into consideration comments received on the
Advisory Committee Report and then move forward in a timely manner with implementation
including legislation, regulations, guidelines, standards, etc.
The following comments pertain to issues of particular importance to Conservation Ontario:
• Conservation Ontario supports Recommendations 7 -10, which address the Legislative
Basis for Source Protection Planning, and recognizes the importance of key institutional
arrangements and legislative requirements. The Province is encouraged to proceed with
the development of source protection planning legislation, technical guidelines, and
standards such that there is a consistent approach in this and other legislation as well as
related activities.
133
• It is recognized that the mandate of the Advisory Committee was not intended to articulate
the contents of a source protection plan. It is our understanding that this will be addressed
through the next step which is a much more detailed report on implementation to be
developed in cooperation with those who will be required to actually deliver source
protection planning. Conservation Ontario therefore supports Recommendation 33 which
recommends further consultation on the implementation details of source protection.
Implementation details are needed to develop the technical standards, guidelines, and
appropriate implementation tools. Implementation details are also necessary for
developing a long term funding model and for the development of a model source
protection plan.
• It is requested that a multi - stakeholder technical working group, with broad stakeholder
representation (e.g. Conservation Ontario, AMO, etc.), be established for the purposes of
developing source protection standards, guidelines, and implementation tools. In addition,
it seems appropriate that issue specific technical working groups (rather than one technical
group dealing with all issues) should be formed to address various items.
• Existing tools may be used for the implementation of source protection planning. For
example, Conservation Ontario recommends building upon the progress made under its
partnership with the province on the Water Resources Information Project (WRIP) in order
to support delivery of source protection.
• Consistent with Recommendation 19 of the Advisory Committee's report, it is critical that
the Province provides substantial and adequate funding for both the creation of
watershed -based source protection plans and the Tong -term implementation thereof.
Having said this, we acknowledge that watershed municipalities also have a funding
responsibility. However, the member municipalities of Conservation Authorities already
contribute significant funding for existing watershed management programs, many of which
contribute to source protection planning and implementation. They must be given credit
for this existing investment in any future discussions about the sources of funding.
Municipalities cannot assume the majority of long -term financial responsibility for source
protection. An equitable funding partnership involving the Province, municipalities and the
private sector is critical for long -term sustainability and effectiveness. This funding formula
should reflect the differences in the ability to pay that exist across the Province. Although
not specifically addressed in the report, Conservation Ontario continues to support a move
to user pay with equity and fairness so that everyone contributes to source protection.
• The importance of source protection for those consumers who rely on existing communal
(i.e. serving < 5 households) or private wells should be further emphasized as source
protection is one of the only barriers against the contamination of their drinking water
supply.
The following address specific recommendations within the Advisory Committee Report. While
Conservation Ontario offers several comments on the contents, we provide these comments as
minor suggestions for improvement only.
134
Recommendation 10 - Source Protection Legislation and Regulations:
This recommendation indicated that first generation source protection plans must be in
place across Ontario within 5 years. Availability of source protection planning technical
guidelines will be necessary to meet these timelines. The ability to meet the 5 year time
frame will also be dependent on the availability of funding.
Recommendation 12 -14 - New CA Responsibilities:
The report indicates that municipalities and conservation authorities are to be given
additional responsibilities, mandates, and resources to address the issue of source
protection. However, the nature of these additional responsibilities, mandates, and
resources are generally vague and will require more information prior to implementation.
The issue of enforcement will also need to be clarified and more details provided. It is
appreciated that these specific recommendations are premised on significant new
sources of funding for source protection planning.
Recommendation 17 - Interim Risk Management:There is some concern that this
recommendation could create the perception that existing legislation and powers are
adequate to protect water sources. The recommendation should be reworded to indicate
"The Province, municipalities, and conservation authorities use their available powers to
the extent possible, recognizing the limitations that exist, to manage potential
threats... ".
In addition, Conservation Ontario requests that the province provide clarification on
interim risk management responsibilities as the legislation and guidelines are developed.
Conservation Ontario also encourages the Province to proceed with the development of
risk management standards and guidelines and offer training sessions for practitioners.
The Interim Risk Management section of the Advisory Committee Report is key to the
completion of many other aspects of source protection planning, including the technical
guidelines, scale and scope of studies, and implications for legislation and standards. As
this activity is new and very technically oriented, training sessions would be beneficial.
Recommendation 18 -Model Source Protection Plan:
This recommendation provides for a consistent approach in the preparation of source
protection plans. The development of a model plan and resolution of implementation
details should not be delayed during any public consultations that may be planned for
the Advisory Committee Report. Both should occur concurrently. Such a model plan may
in fact help address some of the concerns or issues that may be identified by various
interest groups and individuals. It should graphically display what is and is not included
in a source protection plan and what information one needs to develop a proper plan.
Recommendation 21 - Planning Areas:
Conservation Ontario agrees with the planning area concept and understands that the
province cannot provide funding to 36 separate CAs plus other areas in the province. We
recommend though that the planning process should be guided as much as possible at
the local level within a framework that is consistent across the province.
135
Conservation Ontario agrees that 24 planning areas in Ontario appear reasonable;
however, the exact boundaries should be the subject of further deliberations and
negotiations. The merits of various criteria for determining planning areas are being
debated within Conservation Ontario as the map is further evaluated. It should be noted
that Conservation Ontario does not support splitting any existing conservation authority
jurisdictions in the definition of these planning areas.
Recommendation 22 to 26 - Source Protection Planning Committee (SPPC):
Conservation Ontario requests that the province provide flexibility in the SPPC model,
particularly with respect to the maximum number of SPPC members. It should be noted
that a number of Conservation Authorities have been successful in working with groups
larger than 18. A limit on numbers may pose difficulties in some Conservation Authorities
where there are numerous stakeholders and both local and regional municipalities which
would have active roles in implementing the source protection plan recommendations.
Assuming that the "minimum 18" model remains, Conservation Ontario agrees that an "
overarching" SPPC should consist of senior representatives, while functional working
groups would operate at a smaller watershed task force level where there could be more
flexibility in the membership. Such working groups would reinforce the importance of
involving the "implementers" of the plan in its development.
Page vii and Page 20 include discussions on the organization of a SPPC. It is indicated
that a SPPC will report to "the board of directors of a conservation authority." It is our
understanding that this will be 2 or more conservation authority boards where CAs have
joined for the purpose of source protection planning.
Recommendation 31- Key Ingredients List & Need for Cultural Information:
In addition to those "key ingredients" listed in Recommendation 31, Conservation Ontario
recommends inclusion of cultural /social information. Most of the attention is given to
water budget and water quality data needs and modeling. While these are obviously
necessary, cultural /social information characterizing the watershed is equally important
with regard to the design of a public consultation process(es) and products that will be
effective locally.
The 'key ingredients list' must be modified to include cultural /social information including
for example: demographics, identification of cultural communities, community surveys
regarding the importance of source protection planning and implementation options,
existing water management programs, local institutional arrangements, etc. These should
be included in a revised Recommendation 31 to serve, at the very least, as a place holder
and reminder of the need for cultural /social information as the framework is further
developed.
136
Recommendation 37 - Review and Updating of Source Protection Plans:
This recommendation provides a list of the roles and responsibilities in order to keep
plans up to date. While the responsibilities of each agency are clearly listed, there needs
to be overall coordination in keeping a plan up to date and to prevent overlap. For
example, "issuing implementation status reports" is listed as a responsibility under each
agency. Overall coordination would help to prevent each agency from preparing its own
status report. Given the recommended responsibilities of the CAs, it would be
appropriate that the CA be identified as the lead agency for issuing the implementation
report with the cooperation of the other parties.
Recommendation 42 - Public Education:
We agree with this recommendation and suggest that the Province should take the lead
in preparing generic educational materials that can be adapted locally.
Recommendation 47 & 48 - Additional Standards for Surface Water:
Conservation Ontario supports these recommendations to both prevent misuse of the
Provincial Water Quality Objectives and to provide for a consistent data network across
the province.
Recommendation 49 - Monitoring and information Management:
Conservation Ontario believes that it is extremely important to ensure current networks
are not duplicated but are instead enhanced (e.g. Provincial Water Quality Monitoring
Network, Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network).
Recommendation 53 -Data:
This recommendation should be edited to read: "To every extent possible,
data should be made available to all stakeholders, including the
dissemination of data and information to the public (e.g., non - proprietary
information)."
Conservation Ontario agrees that the Province should be the lead agency in
data management. It is also necessary that the data be easily and readily
available to local agencies. It is critical that Conservation Authorities continue
to be involved in the development and design of datasets and the
establishment of Provincial standards. This is particularly important if the
Conservation Authorities and other local agencies are to use the data for their
source protection initiatives.
Page 47 - Examples of Water Quality and Quantity indicators:
Conservation Ontario recommends that one criterion for the selection of water quality and
quantity indicators should be its direct relationship to source protection issues.
Recommendation 54:
The recommendation should read: "The province working ...and local levels. These
indicators should be developed within six months of the ... planning process."
137
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this posting. Conservation Ontario
is committed to protecting Ontario's sources of drinking water and looks forward to continued
work with the province and other parties to meet this goal. Please contact Bonnie Fox at (905)
895 -0716 ext. 23 if you have any questions with regard to the above comments.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
Richard D. Hunter
General Manager
c.c. CAO /General Managers, All Conservation Authorities
138
Attachment 2
Region of Peel
Provincial Advisory Committee Comments on the Final Report on Watershed -Based Source
Protection Planning Framework
May 26. 2003
Resolution of June 19. 2003
That the Regional Clerk send a copy of the report of the Commissioners of
Planning, Health, and Public Works, dated May 26, 2003 titled, "Provincial
Advisory Committee - Comments on the Final Report on Watershed -Based
Source Protection Framework" to the Ministry of the Environment before the
commenting deadline of June 21, 2003;
And further, that the following specific comments be submitted regarding the Provincial
Advisory Committee's Final Report on Watershed -Based Source Protection Framework:
• Generally support the principles of Source Protection Planning contained in the Provincial
Advisory Committee's Final Report on Watershed -Based Source Protection Framework.
• The Province must consult extensively with municipalities and other stakeholders on the
form and content of any proposed source water protection legislation and that it should
appropriately empower municipalities, clearly outline responsibilities and requirements, and
provide necessary implementation tools.
• Any legislation must be accompanied by technical guidelines detailing provincial direction
and requirements. These technical guidelines must be prepared in consultation with
partners and be completed before enacting legislation.
• Source protection plans must address the protection of all drinking water sources,
including ground water, lake- based, and surface water supplies.
• The Province must continue to be ultimately accountable to the people of Ontario for
providing safe drinking water and should take the lead role in establishing standards and
requirements for drinking water quality.
• The coordination and implementation of source protection plans must be based on a
partnership involving the municipalities and the conservation authorities. The model
proposed by the Advisory Committee recommends conservation authorities be the
organization given responsibility for co- ordinating the development of watershed -based
protection plans wherever possible. This does not respect the fact that municipalities are
largely responsibly for delivering safe drinking water, provide much of the funding to
conservation authorities, and it does not recognize the lead role played municipalities in
implementation.
• Given that the Municipal Councils are directly elected and that I municipalities will be
expected to take a strong leadership role in the implementation of source protection plans,
it is recommended that municipal councils also have a role in recommending approval of
the source protection plans.
139
• The role of Health Departments is inadequately considered and defined by the Advisory
Committee. The Ministry of Health and Long Term Care should be consulted, along with
the Medical Officers of Health, to ensure a role for Health Departments is clearly outlined.
• The Province must be responsible for substantially funding the development and ongoing
implementation of watershed -based source protection plans.
• The model Source Protection Plan should be developed with municipal input. There is a
need to recognize the work that has already been done by municipalities in the area of
source protection planning and to utilize municipal expertise.
• In terms of data management, there is cautious support for the Province acting as the lead
data management organization. However, it is recommended that agreements be put in
place to ensure that data is provided in an appropriate, timely, and cost effective manner .
• Data Management systems should incorporate existing information management systems
and should be accessible to all.
And further, that the subject report be sent to Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Halton Region Conservation Authority (HRCA), the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and Peel's area municipalities for information.
The Regional Municipality of York
Report of the Commissioner of Transportation and Works and Commissioner of Planning and
Development Services
June 18.2003
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that:
1. Regional Council support Watershed -based Source Protection Planning as a
important initiative in protecting our water resources and a significant contribution to
public understanding and the municipal planning process.
2. That the elements of the Watershed based Source Protection Planning contained in
the Advisory Committee recommendations be supported in principle. subject to
clarification of detailed tasks, implementation mechanisms and funding
arrangement
3. The Province establish standards and technical guidelines for developing
Watershed- based Source Protection Plans that can be applied across the Province.
4. The Conservation Authorities' playa lead role in source protection planning to
characterise the water resources in a watershed and prepare the Watershed -based
Source Protection Plans.
140
5. The responsibility for approval of Watershed -based Source Protection Plans be vest
in Conservation Authorities following prescribed consultation, review and appeal
procedures.
6. The Province be requested to provide substantial funding toward the preparation an
implementation of Watershed -based Source Protection Plans.
7. Regional Council support municipal participation in a Source Protection Planning
Committee that will serve as an advisory role to the Conservation Authority in
guiding the preparation of the Watershed -based Source Protection Plan.
8. Regional Council support the implementation of Source Protection Plans through
existing legislative mechanisms and appropriate amendments to municipal planning
documents which will have regard for the recommendations of the Source
Protection Plans.
9. The Province be requested to continue to support financially; those partnerships in
water resources management that are currently in place between The Regional
Municipality of York, The Regional Municipality of Peel, The Regional Municipality of
Durham, The City of Toronto, and Conservation Authorities on the Oak Ridges
Moraine and to consider these efforts as a potential model /best practice for data
sharing and management within the source protection planning framework.
10. The Province support the implementation of Source Protection Plans by providing
the necessary regulatory tools through amendments to existing legislation to ensure
achievement of effective Watershed -based Source Protection.
11. Municipal participation is essential in any provincially led consultation regarding
technical standards, new municipal powers, or funding related to Watershed -based
Source Water Protection. York Region should therefore participate in any
consultation towards development, implementation, and enforcement of new or
amended regulations dealing with Source Protection Plans
12. The Province establish reasonable timelines for the delivery of Source Protection
Plans that reflect the complexity of the issues surrounding watershed -based source
water protection, including, the time required for the Province to deliver appropriate
standards and technical guidance in advance of initiation of the source protection
planning process.
13. The Regional Clerk forward a copy of this report to:
• the Minister of the Environment, by June 21,2003 as York Region's comments
regarding Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry Number XA03EO011;
• the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) as York Region's contribution
to AMO comments on the Final Report of the Advisory Committee;
• to local municipalities and adjacent Regions for their information.
141
Regional Municipality of Durham
Review of Final Report of the Provincial Advisory Committee on Watershed -Based Source
Protection Planning
June 18.2003
RECOMMENDATIONS:
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends to Regional Council that:
a) Report 2003 - COW -03 be endorsed as the Region of Durham's comments on the Final
Report of the Advisory Committee on Watershed -based Source Protection Planning and
submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE);
b) The Province be advised to undertake the following actions in developing an effective source
water protection framework:
i) Develop the Source Protection Planning Framework as one section of the provincial
Source to Tap Water Policy Manual, which would:
• describe all linkages to related legislation and policy such as the Planning Act, Safe
Drinking Water Act, Environmental Protection Act or Provincial Policy Statement, etc.
• contain comprehensive source water protection provisions including policies and
strategies for protection of Great Lakes and boundary rivers as the primary drinking
water sources for Ontarians.
ii) Within the legislative and policy framework for source protection planning, offer several
models for delivering the mandatory components of a source protection plan including:
• a model that permits delivery of the Source Protection Plan by single or upper tier
municipalities (similar to the York Peel Durham model).
iii) Avoid administrative duplication and jurisdictional complexity by building on and
enhancing the current land use and watershed planning processes and framework
• Conduct additional consultation with municipalities, conservation authorities and
public health units on creating functional, effective, accountable roles and
responsibilities for delivery of source protection planning without duplication
• Provide new powers and resources to municipalities and Conservation Authorities to
implement any new responsibilities associated with source protection planning
• Consider the York Peel Durham groundwater strategy data sharing agreement as a
model for data sharing province -wide.
c) A copy of this report be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Durham
MPPs, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the local municipalities and the five
Conservation Authorities located in Durham.
142
Attachment 3
Regional Plannning Commissioners of Ontario
Advisory Committee Recommendations - Watershed -based Source Protection Planning
June 19.2003
Conclusions
The Advisory Committee on Watershed -based Source Protection Planning has made
considerable steps towards developing a framework for effective source protection planning.
However this is not the final step, as many of the recommendations do not result in a clear and
accountable framework to achieve the objectives of protecting human health. Further
consultation with municipalities is required to create an accountable source protection
framework that builds on existing roles, responsibilities and legislative tools. The RPCO
recommends further consultation prior to proceeding with any legislative changes.
The following is a summary of the recommendations to the Ministry:
• The Source Protection Plan legislation should not be stand -alone but should be legislation
that adds responsibilities, requirements and implementation tools to the existing legislative
framework. This approach builds on existing infrastructure, expertise, and programs.
• The legislation must provide a variety of implementation tools and establish clear
responsibilities for municipalities and other partners. Further consultation is required to
define these requirements.
• The legislation must be accompanied by technical guidelines detailing provincial direction
and requirements. These technical guidelines must be prepared in consultation with
partners and completed before enacting legislation-
• Source protection plans must address the protection of drinking water sources including
ground water, lake -based and surface water supplies.
• The Province should continue to be ultimately accountable to the people of Ontario for
providing safe drinking water and should take the lead role in establishing standards and
requirements for drinking water quality.
• The development and implementation of source protection plans must be based on a
partnership among the province, municipalities and conservation authorities. The Province
will need to establish the overall framework, while the CAs should lead the technical
information component of the SPP. Municipalities should take the lead on the remaining
components, including: development of SWPP, source protection issues; land use
planning; ongoing implementation; and public health.
• Given that the Municipal Councils are directly elected and accountable and that
municipalities will have a strong leadership role in the implementation of source protection
plans, Municipal Councils should also be responsible for recommending approval of the
SPP by the province.
• The Province and the Advisory Committee must consult further with the municipalities, with
representatives from the Health Departments to further understand their current role with
respect to water quality, ensure their continued role in public health protection, and
develop possible funding sources for health department involvement
• The Province, which is still ultimately accountable to providing drinking water protection,
should be responsible for substantially funding the development and ongoing
implementation of watershed -based source protection plans.
143
• Recognizing that the Province should act as the main funding source, it is acknowledged
that additional funding sources may be required. Further consultation is required to
address additional funding options prior to establishing requirements within legislation. For
this consultation to be effective, the next step in this process should be to determine the
expectations of each affected parties. Once that is complete, there should be considerable
consultation on the funding mechanisms. The Legislation should be drafted only after these
tasks are completed.
• Further consultation is required in the area of rural water quality .Specifically, if
Municipalities are now to take on the role of protecting groundwater in the rural area,
outside wellhead protection areas, then there are significant issues related to funding,
mandates, and the tools necessary to complete this
• Building on the recommendation that leadership should be based on a partnership
approach, the Model Source Protection Plan should be developed with municipal
involvement. There is a need to recognise the work that has already been done by
municipalities in the area of source protection planning and to utilize municipal expertise.
• Further consultation is required on the initial risk assessment criteria. In addition, further
work is required on the defensibility of vulnerability mapping of areas at risk-
• In terms of data management, $ere is cautious support for the Province acting as the lead
data management organization. However, it is recommended that agreements be put in
place to ensure that data is provided in a timely and cost effective manner
• Data management systems should incorporate existing information management systems
and should be accessible to all. A similar standard should be established and consistently
implemented across Ontario.
144
RES. #D45/03 - STATUS OF THE PINE VALLEY DRIVE LINK, OPA 600 OMB APPEAL,
AND THE PINE VALLEY DRIVE LINK ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
Status reports on TRCA's Pine Valley Link, OPA 600 OMB Appeal
process, and the current process for the Pine Valley Drive Link EA. Status
presentation will be made regarding the findings of the Stage 2 phase of
the Pine Valley Drive Link EA.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joe Pantalone
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the status report be received for
the OMB Appeal of the OPA 600 for the Pine Valley Link, and for the Stage 2
(Alternatives) phase of work for the Pine Valley Drive Link Environmental Assessment
Process.
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to participate in the OMB appeal process, and the
Environmental Assessment Process.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Direction was given to TRCA staff as follows in Resolution #290/02, approved at Authority
Meeting #11/02, held on January 10, 2003:
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.
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to retain legal services for any necessary
representation on these matters.
Direction was given to TRCA staff as follows in Resolution #A33/01, approved at Authority
Meeting #2/01, held on March 30, 2001:
THAT the City of Vaughan be advised that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
has significant concem with the environmental issues 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.
145
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.
CONCLUSIONS
Status of Pine Valley Drive Link, OPA 600 OMB Appeal
The Pine Valley Drive Link is a municipal unopened road allowance between Clubhouse Road
and Rutherford Road in the City of Vaughan. The Zink extends through the Boyd Conservation
Area and traverses through the Pine Valley Forest Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) and
the Provincially Significant Life Science - Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (Pine Valley
Forest ANSI). The proposed link crosses a significant and well defined valley system
associated with the East Humber River.
The area in which the Pine Valley Drive Link is situated is subject to the Greenlands and
Environmental Policy Area (EPA) designations and policies of the Region of York Official Plan.
Specifically, these lands are identified on Map 2 as "Environmental Policy Area ", Map 3 as "
Significant Forested Lands ", Map 4 as "Regional Greenlands" and Map 5 as "those portions of
the Greenlands System that assist in defining the Regional Structure ". The Region of York
recognizes the significance of the natural habitat in this area, despite other competing
infrastructure interests.
The Pine Valley Drive Link has been identified on transportation schedules within the City of
Vaughan Official Plan (OPA 400 approved in 1991 and OPA 600 approved in June 2001). Prior
to "opening" this portion of Pine Valley Drive, the City is required to undertake a Municipal
Class Environmental Assessment. Despite not appealing both Official Plan Amendments, the
TRCA has repeatedly made clear its objection to the Pine Valley Dive Link through Authority
Board Resolutions and correspondence to the City of Vaughan. In July 2001, the National Golf
Club and Mr. Quinto Annibale appealed the inclusion of the Pine Valley Drive Link in Schedule "
J" to OPA 600 as well as some of the applicable policies related to the City's transportation
network to the Ontario Municipal Board. At a Prehearing Conference in November 2002, the
TRCA was granted Party Status to the appeals by the National Golf Club and Mr. Annibale.
The National Golf Club, Mr. Annibale and the TRCA collectively requested that the Ontario
Municipal Board to defer the Hearing until such time as the Environmental Assessment Process
has been completed. In response, the City of Vaughan filed a Notice of Motion to dismiss the
Hearing, with the alternative relief of an early Hearing date should their request be denied. On
June 4, 2003, the Ontario Municipal Board set aside July 2, 3 and 4, 2003 to hear the legal
arguments of this Motion. To respond to this Motion, all parties including the TRCA were
required to file motion material. This necessitated the preparation of Affidavits (witness
statements) by the Authority's Manager of Development Services, Carolyn Woodland and
Planning Ecologist Noah Gaetz. Authority staff were cross examined by Counsel representing
the City of Vaughan on June 26, 2003. At the writing of this report, the Motion is being argued
by legal counsel for all parties.
146
Status of Pine Valley Drive Link Environmental Assessment Process
The City of Vaughan initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment in June of 2002. At
Vaughan's invitation, TRCA staff have participated in the Community Stakeholder Work Group,
and attended public meetings as well. The City of Vaughan retained the firm of Cansult Limited
and Gartner Lee to conduct the consulting assignment. They developed a Terms of Reference
for the assignment, and have now completed the draft Needs Analysis, and the Planning
Alternatives phases of study. Throughout the process TRCA has advised the consultants and
members of the Community Working Group of our significant concerns for the environmental
sensitivity of the study site.
A draft Phase 2 Report was issued in May 2003 and this report includes the criteria and
alternatives proposal evaluations. The conclusions of the consultant is that the preferred
solution for dealing with the traffic demand and projected traffic patterns of the area includes
the Pine Valley Drive Link in the scenario. The consultant wants to proceed into Phase 3 of the
process to look at the detailed design of the preferred scheme.
Mr. Dick Gordon of Cansult Limited, and Don Fraser of Gartner Lee will provide a brief
presentation on the Pine Valley Drive Link EA process to date and will describe the evaluation
process that was conducted to reach their preferred scheme for the Environmental
Assessment for the Pine Valley Drive Link, at the Watershed Management Advisory Board
Meeting to be held on July 11, 2003.
Staff have responded to the Phase 2 Report and have identified that the Phase 2 Report has
not adequately assessed:
• The impacts on the larger ecological functions of the Humber River Natural Heritage
System.
• The local impacts to the Humber River System related to loss of habitat and reduced water
quality
• The alteration of the land base and forest cover of the Boyd Conservation Area natural
environment and recreation lands causing the need for possible operational change to
TRCA's facilities eg. potential alterations may include areas of family and group picnicking
and the trail systems that meanders through the forest and meadows of Boyd, as well as
potential impacts to the existing bird and wildlife observation activities that exist at this
important natural environment park.
Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
Date: July 4, 2003
147
RES. #D46/03 - RESTORATION PLANTING FOR NEW AND PROPOSED
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
Status update on TRCA's policies and requirements for restoration along
highways and other major road systems, and request to set
naturalization and planting objectives for new and proposed
transportation corridors.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joe Pantalone
Ian Sinclair
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff contact our municipal
partners and MTO to solicit interest in sharing joint research and information on corridor
planting, to review current planting standards for transportation corridors and roadways,
to look for opportunities for improved standards and increased ecological planting
requirements for these linear routes, and to seek funding resources to carry out these
initiatives.
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to work towards a best efforts practice to establish
ecological and urban forestry planting objectives where opportunities arise through
environmental assessment and municipal roadway planting initiatives with our partners,
until a comprehensive policy or set of guidelines can be established with our partners.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Issues of concern were raised at the WMAB meeting #1 /03 regarding the GTA Transportation
Corridor (Formerly 427 Extension Transportation Corridor) about the impacts of the corridor on
environmentally sensitive lands through which the route may extend and the potential to
incorporate green corridors as part of its planning and implementation. A request was made to
clarify our policies and procedures for plantings and restoration works along highways and
other major road systems as outlined in Resolution #A77/03, approved at Authority Meeting
#3/03, held on April 25, 2003, as follows:
THAT staff report back at the Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/02, to
be held on June 13, 2003, on what TRCA's policies and requirements are for restoration
works along highways and other major road systems, and on our naturalization
objectives for new and proposed transportation corridors.
Currently TRCA focuses its review of new transportation corridor planning proposals and
existing roadway upgrades on two key efforts: to protect existing significant terrestrial features
and natural heritage areas through realignment of the route corridor, and, secondly on
determining the level of impact on features and compensation for loss of habitat through new
planting and restoration works. These efforts are maximized through negotiation to the fullest
extent possible in our role as a commenting agency for our municipal and regional partners as
well as the Province. However, corridor planning is often limited within a narrow linear land
base with many constraints to successful planting initiatives.
148
Our responsibilities under Ontario Regulation 158 and TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor
Program provide a platform to require plantings to stabilize slope and stream corridor projects,
and to enhance naturalized stream corridor improvements through development permitting
procedures. The Federal Fisheries and Oceans requirements for fish habitat compensation
also provides an avenue to require fish and aquatic habitat restorations and enhancements to
offset disruption and removal of existing fish habitat through transportation development
approvals.
Our role primarily focuses on establishing best efforts planting for roadway and highway
planting requirements through the Environmental Assessment Process, and subsequent
permitting requirements.
TRCA staff is also currently working on an inter agency group with MTO to address habitat and
planting issues. TRCA's new Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program indicate that additional
habitat lands for targeted ecological health and biodiversity are critical to the ecological needs
of the jurisdiction into the future. This work is important to transportation corridor planning at
several levels.
RATIONALE
It has been recognized for many years that transportation corridors could potentially serve as
linear greenspace corridors that are not only more attractive for travelers but serve to provide
ecological function and add to the urban forestry concept for communities through which the
routes traverse. The design approaches taken for these corridors is fundamental to whether
the route stays as a barren infrastructure route or flourishes into a landscape of value. As urban
lands intensify greater reliance on these corridors to serve as natural areas for pollution filtering
and community buffering will prevail. Planting is no longer a frill but a necessity. The question
remains how best to achieve our overriding ecological objectives and planting requirements.
Design and environmental professionals know that the current standards for transportation
corridors can not support a productive landscape along these routes. The existing methods of
building highly compacted structured soil beds in road corridors does not support the
horticultural needs of native or non - native planting. Native species that can survive harsh
roadway conditions are limited in today's nursery market, and new technologies are needed to
establish planting that is hardy and indigenous to specific sectors in the route. Re- structuring
of existing soil is required to add nutrients to growing medium, and slope gradients must
change to allow for planting areas that are stable. Environmental management improvements
for transportation routes need to address seed mixes and meadow establishment, snow
drifting considerations, landscape maintenance of planting areas and spills management. All
of these considerations increase the cost of these transportation routes in the short term, but
potentially provide significant gains for the future.
Competing objectives also need to be addressed in dealing with road safety issues, clearance
zones, and sight line requirements from engineering standards.
Many disjointed professional efforts have been or are ongoing in dealing with the issues of
planting in transportation corridors. This information needs to be pooled together to form a
basis for thorough discussion on the topic, and to identify focused opportunities for highway
and roadway projects throughout the jurisdiction.
149
The range of opportunities will vary greatly between the current Ministry of Transportation
Future 400 Series Highways, regional roadway projects and urbanized streets within the City of
Toronto. In some areas TRCA has a clear opportunity to play, in others municipal partners have
the primary responsibility. However, a coordinated series of objectives need to be established
through dialogue on this topic. In many cases, opportunities for major new planting initiatives
need to be identified early in the planning process, and need to be site specific in establishing
the appropriate highway design response incorporating changing standards, right -of -way
delineation and protecting natural assets within a landscape.
Some projects and /or initiatives that are critical to a thorough dialogue on linear corridor
plantings include (to name a few that are currently underway):
• Greening of York Region Program (2000) dealing with road sides and main arteries;
Streetscape Policy 2000
• Region of Peel Adopt - Regional Road Sponsorship
• Conservation Ontario - MTO, Environmental Management and Performance Standards and
Measures
• City of Toronto - Urban Forestry Initiatives and Naturalization Demonstration Projects - Don
Valley Highway
• National Capital Commission, Ottawa - Parkway Naturalization Program
• MTO Maintenance Office - historical planting programs and meadow research program
• Redhill Creek Landscape Naturalization and Management Research
TRCA's Living City and Natural Heritage planning efforts over the next few years will be an
important movement to identify those corridors requiring a greening effort, particularly when
some transportation linkages could become corridors for biodiversity associated with the
Terrestrial Natural Heritage program directions.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
A workplan is needed to advance the discussion and exchange of ideas and research on this
topic among our municipal planning partners. Some initial research is required on this topic to
update each other on existing programs and accomplishments, as well as barriers to the
undertaking.
A discussion paper needs to be developed identifying this research and scoping the policy
undertaking with our municipal partners and the Ministry of Transportation. An information
workshop could be held in the fall as one option to gaining a collective discussion and set of
common objectives about planting requirements for roadway and highway corridors. This
would serve as a vehicle to open up the topic of changes in highway design standards and
would move many towards a vision for highway planning that responds to our need for
sustainable communities and natural heritage protection.
150
Following preliminary discussions with relevant agencies staff should develop funding
proposals to undertake associated work tasks.
Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
Date: July 3, 2003
RES. #D47/03 - REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP) MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING (MoU) PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT 2002/2003
AND 2003/2004 PROPOSED PROJECTS
Year one of the 2002 -2007 RAP MoU completed in March 2003 and a
progress report has been prepared outlining RAP achievements. A list of
proposed projects to be funded in 2003/2004 has been prepared
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Anthony Ketchum
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Project Progress Report for
2002/2003 RAP MOU projects be received;
THAT the 2003/2004 Proposed Project Listing for the RAP MoU be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board in
September when the RAP Team has completed its 5 -Year Planning and Public
Engagement Strategy (Communications Plan).
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
was signed in 2002. This five -year agreement between Environment Canada, The Ministry of
the Environment and the TRCA coordinates and implements projects to restore beneficial uses
in the Toronto and Region Area of Concern (AoC).
At the January 10, 2003 Authority Meeting, Resolution #A285/02 was approved as follows:
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.
151
Year one of the MoU was completed March 31, 2003. The following lists projects implemented
in 2002/2003 under the $400,000 budget ($200,000 contribution from Environment Canada and
The Ministry of the Environment respectively). For each project a brief summary of the progress
and /or products that the RAP MoU funding has enabled is included. The dollar value indicated
for each project reflects the RAP MoU contribution to these projects. While, in some cases, this
contribution is small in terms of the entire project budget, it represents important matching,
leverage and /or seed funding that enables these projects to be carried out.
2002/2003 Projects Completed Under the RAP MoU:
Clean Waters
Greenroofs for Stormwater Management - $20,000
• Establishment of monitoring objectives for stormwater assessment;
• Development of a monitoring program for stormwater assessment;
• Purchase and installation of monitoring equipment and sensors; and
• Creation of a website to facilitate the sharing of project results with both a secure and
public access components.
Rural Stewardship Program - $10,000
• Assisted 43 private landowners in the establishment of best management practices on their
property;
• Assembled information packages on a variety of related rural topics to distribute to
landowners and other inquiries;
• Developed a partnership with Ducks Unlimited which allowed staff to participate in 27
public events (17 educational seminars, 4 public restoration events, and 6 public
fairs /conferences); and
• Assisted in the implementation of 14 projects to improve water quality (through the
reduction of phosphorous entering watersheds, native tree and shrub planting, and wetland
creation)
Rural Water Quality Management Plan - $10,000
• Set -up and validated the AGNPS model for the Humber River Watershed; and
• Completed fertilizer and land /use survey of the Centreville Creek subwatershed which will
be used as input data for the model at the subwatershed scale.
Erosion and Sediment Control Project - $5,000
• Completed two reports: Sediment Control Pond Monitoring Study (Ryerson University,
March 2003) and Preliminary Assessment for Improved Design Criteria for Construction
Sediment Control Ponds (Clarifica Inc., March 2003).
Leithcroft Farm Retrofit - $20,000
• Consultant was hired by Markham to undertake a Class Environmental Assessment to
evaluate alternative stormwater pond retrofit designs; and
• A detailed design and report was prepared for the selected stormwater retrofit design by
the consultant.
152
Technoloay Transfer - $10,000
• Preparation of the Sediment Control Workshop took place in 2002/2003 and remaining
funding was deferred to 2003/2004 for the workshop implementation (May 7, 2003).
Surplus funding will be used to carry out additional technology transfer projects in
2003/2004 which will be reported on in next years' progress report.
Habitat Action
Regeneration Projects - $5,000
• Habitat Implementation Plans for the Humber and the Etobicoke Mimico have been
developed which determine potential restoration sites on TRCA property throughout the
watershed, using digital ortho -photo interpretation; and
• Potential sites were ground truthed to determine the feasibility of those which were
candidates for habitat restoration. Based on the information collected on -site, a short list of
candidate sites for habitat restoration has been developed.
Fisheries Management Plans - $20,000
• Data collection needs were met and the establishment of survey stations was completed.
Because the project started late in the fiscal year, unspent funding will be deferred to the
2003 /2004 fiscal year. Additional work will be reported on in next years' progress report.
Waterfront Habitat Restoration Strategy - $20,000
• Establishment of a Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy Advisory Panel; and
• Completion of the Draft Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy 2003.
Community and NGO Action
Community Stewardship Program - $10,000
• Establishment of a Stewardship Resource Centre at the Boyd Field Centre; and
• Carried out more than 25 conservation seminars across the watersheds to educate private
landowners and general interest groups.
Watershed on Wheels - $20,000
• Program reached more than 12,916 student, 926 teachers /leaders, 45 Yellow Fish Road
Program Groups and 35 Aquatic Planting Events at 20 wetland restoration sites; and
• Communications were enhanced with the decal design for the Watershed on Wheels truck,
an aquatic plants sticker kit, and a new storm drain marking concept and door hanger for
the Yellow Fish Road Program.
Monitoring and Research Action
Regional Monitoring Program - $25,000
• Annual implementation of the Regional Monitoring Program was carried out including the
development of the 2001 summary report.
Regional Reference Site - $12,500
• Compilation of physical and biological data from more than 300 stations across the north
shore of Lake Ontario; and
• Initial data analysis began.
153
Needs Further Assessment Items (Assessing Tumours in Fish) - $20,000
• Terms of Reference was developed and Gartner Lee was retained to prepare the "Review
and Assessment of the Status of Fish Tumors and Other Deformities as an Impaired
Beneficial Use within the Toronto Area of Concern"; and
• Experts in fish pathology and monitoring met to establish a Draft Monitoring Protocol for the
fish tumour monitoring to be carried out in 2003.
Susta /nab / //ty
Watershed Strategy Implementation - $60,000
• Newsletters, events, public policy and advocacy for all watersheds in the Toronto and
Region AoC and the waterfront;
• Completion of the Cold Creek Conservation Area Management Plan (Humber Watershed),
Lower Don EA Preliminary Agreements (Don Watershed), Etobicoke /Mimico Strategy
(Etobicoke /Mimico Creek Watersheds); and
• Establishment of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Alliance.
Terrestrial Natural Heritage - $20,000
• Progress made in the areas of: field inventories, characterization, landscape analysis and
target setting for the program.
Sustainability: Waterfront - $20,000
• TRCA staff provided in -kind services to the Waterfront Workgroup of the Sustainabtility
Round Table (SRT) which included commenting on key documents and consultation
between the SRT and the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation.
Sustainability: Living City Centre - $20,000
• Sustainable Communities Design Charette was carried out in February 2003.
Administration and Supply Costs - $62,500
• Completion of RAP MoU documents such as: the 5 -Year MoU, 2002/2003 Budget and
Project Descriptions, 2002/2003 Project Progress Report, 5 Year Strategies, Website
Update, Great Lakes Sustainability Fund Project Submissions, and other projects as
assigned by RAP Team Members. Monthly RAP Team meetings were also coordinated
through this funding allocation.
Waterfront Regeneration Trust (WRT) Support - $10,000
• Completion of transition from a 4 -party agreement (which included the WRT) to a 3 -party
agreement. WRT was compensated through RAP MoU funding for website alterations, staff
time on transition issues and Suzanne Barrett's representation at Wet Weather Flow on
behalf of the RAP.
A detailed progress report indicating project achievements and status has been prepared and
submitted to Environment Canada and the Ministry of the Environment. TRCA staff Lisa
Turnbull, the Community Liaison Officer for the RAP, will attend each of the watershed council
and task force meetings to provide information on the 2002/2003 progress and the 2003/2004
programs.
154
Year 2 of the RAP MoU
Projects proposals were submitted to the RAP Team (consisting of TRCA, Environment Canada
and Ministry of the Environment staff representatives) in February 2003 for the 2003 /2004 fiscal
year. Selections were made based on project compatibility with goals and objectives of the
RAP and also the Canadian - Ontario Agreement for the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA),
resigned in March of 2002. As in the 2002/2003 projects outlined above, many of the 2003/2004
projects will use RAP MoU funding in conjunction with the contribution of other partner funding
and resources.
Proposed Projects for 2003/2004
Clean Waters
Greenroofs for Stormwater Management - $30,000
• The Greenroofs for Stormwater Management project will be carried out at two locations to
assess the potential of greenroof infrastructure aiming to reduce the quantity and improve
the quality of stormwater runoff in a new building (York University) and in a retrofit situation
(Eastville Community Centre site).
Erosion and Sediment Control - $30,000
• The objectives of the Erosion and Sediment Control Project is to: enhance and assist in the
development of guidelines for effective control of sediment and other runoff pollutants from
construction sites by conducting performance analysis of the Richmond Hill sediment
control pond, to increase awareness of erosion and sediment control, and to implement an
Erosion and Sediment Control By -Law.
• The Burndenet Creek Erosion Control Optimization Study will also be completed under this
funding to provide a preferred management plan for restoration of the watershed.
Wet Weather Flow Support - $5,000
• Funding has been allocated to be directed at a project which supports the City of Toronto's
Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. A specific project will be identified after
further consultation with City of Toronto staff and RAP Team members.
HabitatAction
Terrestrial Natural Heritage Policy Development - $30,000
• A planning consultant has been retained to facilitate discussions about the Terrestrial
Natural Heritage (TNH) system implementation and assist the TRCA TNH team to write the
final recommendations and strategy components of the program.
Habitat Implementation Plan - $5,000
• Contribution will be made to the Habitat Implementation Program which will help put the
Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy into action in the western watersheds: Etobicoke
Creek, Mimico Creek and Humber River.
Education and NGO Action
Stewardship Projects (including Watershed on Wheels) - $60,000
• Funding will support: Watershed on Wheels, the Aquatic Plants Program, Yellow Fish Road,
the Stewardship Resource Centre, Stewardship Conservation Seminars, the Multi- cultural
Environmental Stewardship Program, and the Private Land Stewardship Agriculture
Program.
155
Sustainability Education - $10,000
• Specific projects are to be determined (in consultation with TRCA education staff and RAP
Team members).
Monitoring and Research
Regional Monitoring Program - $35,000
• Implementation includes the continuation of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program,
the refinement of the tools used to measure and report on ecosystem indicators (Regional
Reference Site approach), and enhancement of the methods for reporting on and sharing
the information and data collected.
Needs Further Assessment (Assessing Tumours in Fish) - $40,000
• Field collection and sampling will be done at selected sites and pathological analysis of fish
livers samples will be made to continue with the previous years' work assessing tumors in
fish. Collected data will be analyzed and a final report produced.
Susta /nab ///ty
Watershed Strategy Implementation - $100,000
• Activities, communications (including report cards for the Don and Humber), public policy
and advocacy for all the watersheds in the Toronto and Region AoC and waterfront will be
supported.
Living City Centre - $30,000
• Funding will support the following Living City Centre projects: Super Sustainable Schools,
Mayor's Megawatt Challenge and the demonstration of Sustainable Communities through
the Block planning process.
Waterfront Sustainability Support - $30,000
• TRCA staff time on the Sustainability Roundtable, Waterfront Sub - Group, will be funded.
Administration
General Administration - $25,000
• Funding will be used to cover TRCA administration costs associated with the RAP MoU.
RAP Liaison / Communications /Materials/Watershed Toolkit - $70,000
• Staff salary and materials will be funded. Communications, materials and the completion of
a "Watershed Toolkit", is also included in this allocation.
The 2003/2004 RAP MoU reflects a $50,000 increase in funding from both Environment Canada
and The Ministry of the Environment. The contributions for this fiscal year will be $250,000
respectively, totaling $500,000.
156
The RAP Team is currently in the process of drafting its 2002- 2007 5 -Year Plan and Public
Engagement Strategy. Reports will be complete by September 2003 and brought to the
Watershed Management Advisory Board for information. Both documents will outline key
deliverables under the RAP MoU for 2002 -2007.
Report prepared by: Lisa Turnbull, extension 5325
For Information contact: Lisa Turnbull, extension 5325
Date: June 20, 2003
RES. #D48/03 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEMBERSHIP
The appointment of two additional members to the Humber Watershed
Alliance.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Anthony Ketchum
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Mr. Steven Joudrey,
representing The Black Creek Project, be appointed to the Humber Watershed Alliance;
AND FURTHER THAT Mr. Michael Galli, representing the Jane Goodall Institute, 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 new members are sought.
In accordance with the terms of reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, the membership
is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure it is up to date.
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: June 30, 2003
157
RES. #D49/03 - 2003 ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL PLANNERS INSTITUTE (OPPI)
EXCELLENCE IN PLANNING AWARD
Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and
Mimico Creeks.. Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for
Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks won the 2003 OPPI Excellence in Planning
Award.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Anthony Ketchum
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT a letter of thanks be sent to the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watershed Task Force members and staff who participated
in the development of "Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke
and Mimico Creeks ".
AND FURTHER THAT the Chair of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Task Force and staff
be authorized to attend the OPPI & OALA Conference awards banquet on Friday,
September 19th, 2003 at the Deerhurst Resort in Muskoka to accept the award.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Ontario Professional Planners Institute is a professional organization that governs the
education and practice of planning in Ontario. In order to recognize the achievements and
accomplishments in planning, the Institute provides annual awards to projects that have a high
degree of quality and deserve professional recognition.
Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks,
represents a long -term strategy for the protection and management of the natural, cultural and
recreational resourbes of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. This strategy was developed over
a two year period by a volunteer task force that consisted of watershed residents, community
groups, agency staff and elected representatives.
Greening Our Watersheds was one of 40 submissions from across Ontario that was submitted
for the 2003 Excellence In Planning Award. Project submissions were judged on their
excellence in planning, innovation, impact on the field of expertise, implementation potential
and presentation.
RATIONALE
Without the continued dedication and support of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watershed
Task Force members and the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition, the Authority would
not have received this award - an award that symbolizes excellence and provides a high
degree of professional recognition to the Authority. We, therefore, would like to extend our
appreciation and congratulations to the members of the Task Force, Coalition and staff who
contributed to the production of Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for
Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks.
NEXT STEPS
• Staff will attend the OPPI & OALA Conference awards banquet on Friday, September 19th
2003 at the Deerhurst Resort in Muskoka to accept the award.
158
• OPPI and TRCA will issue a media release to all major newspapers to promote the award
winners.
• An article will be published in the Ontario Planning Journal and the information will be
posted on TRCA and OPPI website.
For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
Date: July 3, 2003
RES. #D50/03 - CANADIAN RIVERS DAY JUNE 8, 2003
Update on Canadian Rivers Day activities held on June 8, 2003.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Anthony Ketchum
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority's member and area
municipalities be requested to include Canadian Rivers Day, June 13, 2004 in their
schedule of events for 2004.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2002, the Minister for Canadian Heritage, Sheila Copps, signed a Ministerial
Proclamation to "declare that the second Sunday of June will be celebrated henceforth as
Canadian Rivers Day". The idea of an annual Canadian Rivers Day was unanimously endorsed
at the Canadian Rivers Heritage Conference in 2001.
Canadian Rivers Day promotes the natural, cultural and recreational values of Canada's rivers.
It is hoped that Canadians will take an active part in Canadian Rivers Day and that it will bring
Canada's river communities closer together on tangible projects for conservation, interpretation
and enjoyment.
A number of years ago, TRCA, with the assistance of municipalities and other partners,
coordinated watershed -wide events under the banner of "Celebrate Your Watersheds Week ". It
was successful but lost momentum due to other projects and priorities.
At Authority meeting #3/03, held on April 25, 2003, resolution #A87/03 was adopted which
states in part:
THAT staff work with TRCA volunteer task forces and other partners to coordinate
annual events to celebrate watershed management accomplishments as part of
Canadian Rivers Day.
To help rekindle a celebration of rivers and watersheds, TRCA staff worked with our
community -based task forces and other partners to host several events to promote Canadian
Rivers Day.
159
The City of Toronto, City of Brampton and Town of Caledon proclaimed June 8, 2003 as
Canadian Rivers Day. These proclamations were presented to TRCA. At Sir Casimir Growski
Park, at the mouth of the Humber River, a number of activities occurred. Guests of honor were
transported by canoe to a presentation site where a ceremonial tree planting occurred. A
variety of activities were offered to the public. Bass Masters provided free fishing equipment
and instruction to youth, First Nations representatives provided Aboriginal drumming and
crafts, Canoe Ontario hosted marathon canoe racing in the lower Humber, and paddling
instruction and canoe safety were offered to participants. An estimated 500 people attended
the activities over the course of the day.
At Bolton, members of the Humber Watershed Alliance celebrated the official opening of a new
pedestrian bridge over the Humber which is a critical link of the Humber Valley Heritage Trail
which extends from Albion Hills Conservation Area to Bolton. Approximately 80 members from
the local community attended the event including Mayor Seglins and Councillors, the Kinsmen
Club, Humber Valley Heritage Trail Association, local Horticultural Society and residents.
The Mill Pond Splash was another successful event in Richmond Hill. The Splash is a
cooperative project of Toronto Region Conservation, the Town of Richmond Hill and the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council and supported by T.O. Friends of the Environment. The Oak
Ridges Lion's Club hosted a BBQ, selling hotdogs, hamburgers and sausages for a nominal
fee. Home Depot donated 500 bird box kits, all of which had been assembled by the end of
the event.
The Richmond Hill Field Naturalists led another successful planting of 100 native trees and
shrubs on the south side of Mill Street. Rubber Duck Races were run throughout the day,
numerous children and their parents took the time to color a get well card for the Don River
while listening to the many different entertainers perform at the gazebo. Once again, the
TRCA's seine net fishing demonstration was a big hit. Both the children and adults enjoyed
seeing first hand the fish that live in the pond. Additional displays and activities included: the
Mill Pond Historical Display, York Region's "Water for Tomorrow", Richmond Hill Canoe Club,
Oak Ridges Trail Association, York Region's West Nile Virus Display and the Great Canadian
Shoreline Clean -up initiative. Reptillia was also on hand with live snakes, frogs and turtles - all
which were native to this region. The interactive activities such as Life of a Rain Drop, Healthy
Streams ... Happy People, and the Fish Pond provided kids with a fun hands -on learning
experience. An estimated 1500 people took part in the event. There was great representation
from all levels of government at the event including Mr. Bryon Wilfert, MP, Oak Ridges; Mr.
Frank Klees, MPP, Oak Ridges; Ms. Brenda Hogg, Deputy Mayor, Regional and Local
Councillor, Richmond Hill; Mr. David Barrow, Regional and Local Councillor, Richmond Hill,
and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Board Member; Ms. Lynn Foster, Councillor,
Ward 4, Richmond Hill and Mr. Arnie Warner, Councillor, Ward 2, Richmond Hill. Lynton
Friedburg, Parks and Recreation Commissioner for the Town also attended the event.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Encourage municipalities, other agencies and groups to promote Canadian Rivers Day;
and
• Work with TRCA volunteer task forces and other partners to coordinate annual events that
celebrate watershed management accomplishments.
160
FINANCIAL DETAILS
• Existing TRCA staff will assist with the planning and implementation of Canadian Rivers Day
events; and
• Proposals for funding will be prepared to support future activities related to the Canadian
Rivers Day celebrations.
Report prepared by: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: June 30, 2003
RES. #D51/03 - LEGAL POSITION WITH RESPECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND THE GTA NORTH TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
A legal position related to the rights of the TRCA to influence the GTA
North Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment Proposal.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joe Pantalone
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the legal opinion response
related to the Environmental Assessment Process and the GTA North Transportation
Corridor be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Issues of concern related to the transportation corridor study for the GTA North Transportation
Corridor were identified at the February 21, 2003 Authority Board Meeting and June 13, 2003
Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting. Resolution #D32/03 from the latter meeting
is as follows:
THAT staff report back on the legal position of TRCA (related to the EA process) and how
the Source Protection Planning Regulation for conservation authorities can be utilized
with respect to highway planning.
Staff requested TRCA's solicitor to provide the requested legal position, which is attached to
the staff report.
For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
Date: July 09, 2003
Attachments: 1
161
Attachment 1
BAKER & MCKENZIE
Memorandum
Date : July 9, 2003
To : Carolyn Woodland
From : J.Wigley
Subject : GTA North Transportation Corridor. Process and Legal Rights.
Introduction
Request has been made to clarify the legal rights of the TRCA in connection with the proposed
extension of Highway 427 (the "GTA North Transportation Corridor "). The context in which this
arises relates to the question of how the TRCA can legally go about influencing that decision.
This is an extremely complicated question. There are of course broad legal rights set out in the
Conservation Authorities Act and other pieces of legislation. Within each of those acts and
their associated regulations there are numerous other rights. The "right" to make a comment
on an application or project is valuable but clearly the right to refuse or condition that
application or project is more significant. In addition to this, there are "political" rights that are
every bit as "legal" and may be legitimately used to influence a decision that is being made.
To try to simplify, the TRCA's legal rights can best be broken down in the following areas:
• Conservation Authorities Act rights.
Environmental Assessment Act rights
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act rights
Expropriations Act Rights
Planning Act rights
Fisheries Act rights
Conservation AuthorityAct
The Authority has the right to establish a program, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a
program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of
natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals.
162
It follows that having established that program, the TRCA has the right to tell others what their
actions are doing to that program.
The Authority has a fill and flood regulation that prohibits persons from constructing or filling in
certain areas. This right is clearly stronger than any other within the Act. However, the
regulation does not bind the Crown (though usually they will try to follow it) and frequently
implementing legislation for major projects of the Crown will contain provisions that allow the
Minister to override or ignore the Authority's regulation. For example in the Highway 407 Act,
we find this:
"s.52. A regulation made under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act
does not apply to the owner with respect to management of Highway 407 on the
Highway 407 lands."
The Authority clearly has the right to expropriate lands for its purposes and obviously to own
lands for those purposes. If the province wishes to take land it can do so under the
Expropriations Act and clearly, if TRCA is an affected owner, it may claim compensation.
En vironm en tal A ss a ssm en t Act
Environmental assessment is part of public decision making at all levels of government in
Canada. Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act establishes a systematic review process to
evaluate the environmental impact of proposed activities prior to the granting of government
funds. The Act applies to public sector projects, but not to private projects unless specially
designated. Therefore the Act requires that all provincial road/transportation projects undergo
an environmental assessment and obtain approval from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).
The Act imposes a self- assessment process that includes mandatory public and municipal
consultation at key stages, as well as detailed reviews by the MOE and both federal and
provincial regulatory agencies. It requires consultation with affected parties, and consideration
of all reasonable alternatives. The following key steps represent the EA process generally:
i. Proponent undertakes preliminary background studies and needs assessment.
a. A "right" may exist at this stage to suggest (not require) that certain studies need to be
done to the satisfaction of the TRCA.
ii. Proponent prepares Terms of Reference for EA and submits same to MOE.
a. Again there may be a right to suggest (not require) that such Terms of Reference
contain certain provisions.
iii. MOE reviews Terms of Reference and decides whether to approve.
a. If the Terms become known, again suggestions can be made to the MOE as to the
content.
iv. Once approved, proponent prepares EA according to approved Terms of Reference.
v. Proponent submits EA to MOE with description of undertaking and its potential effect on
the environment, also outlining possible alternatives.
vi. EA submitted to all interested provincial government ministries and agencies, as well as
certain federal bodies, following which a summary review is prepared by MOE.
vii. Minister releases EA and its government review to public for comment (minimum 30 days).
a. TRCA is entitled to comment like anyone else.
163
viii. Following period of public review, Minister may decide to approve EA, approve EA with
conditions, reject EA, refer some or all of EA to mediation, or refer some or all of EA to a
hearing
ix. If EA accepted, 15 -day public review held; if no requests for hearing emerge, Minister may
decide, with Cabinet approval, to accept EA.
a. TRCA may request that a full hearing be held.
x. If hearing to be held, notice given to proponent, reviewers, and affected public; pre - hearing
meetings or preliminary hearings may be held to exchange documents and determine
issues.
a. TRCA can put forward its case as to the appropriateness of the EA and the locations
proposed.
xi. Environmental Assessment Board prepares its decision based on hearing testimony.
xii. Minister has 28 days to rescind Board's decision or request another hearing.
a. TRCA will have appeal rights to the Courts depending on the circumstances assuming it
participated in the hearings.
EA Process for GTA North Transportation Corridor
The Ministry of Transportation for Ontario (MTO) has initiated an individual environmental
assessment process for the GTA North transportation corridor. The EA Terms of Reference
must be submitted for review and approval by the MOE prior to undertaking the formal EA
study. The EA Terms of Reference phase is scheduled for completion in the fall of 2003. As
part of the consultation process, the MTO contacted a number of municipalities with the
intention of forming a Municipal Advisory Group that would meet throughout the process to
provide input and assist with the study. We understand there are also other groups such as
the "Stakeholders Advisory Group" and the "Oak Ridges Moraine Working Group ". All of these
are commenting groups and we understand that TRCA has been invited to participate in them.
Stages of Individual Environmental Assessment
At each of these stages, TRCA has legal rights to try to influence the outcome of that stage.
The process is highly dynamic. Legal rights may take the form of simple comment and
suggestion to requiring a hearing.
a. Terms of Reference Preparation (Proponent - MTO)
description and purpose of undertaking
focus on environmentally significant issues and potential environmental impact, and
monitoring strategy for environmental effects
defines content of eventual EA document, establishing eventual EA framework
alternatives must be reviewed and evaluated
consultation plan defines how proponents will consult with the public, with
municipalities, with review agencies, and other stakeholders such as TRCA during EA
preparation, in order to facilitate public consultation before irreversible decisions are
made, and allowing stakeholders and public agencies to identify unreasonable
proposals in advance
amending procedures, schedule, and timelines established
164
proponent must give public notice of the proposed Terms of Reference, indicating
where and when members of the public may inspect the proposed Terms of Reference
and state that they may give their comments about the process to the MOE
proponent must give same Information contained in the public notice to clerk of each
municipality in which undertaking to be carried out. TRCA will have the opportunity
to receive this material and normally will be provided with it as a commenting agency.
public review and comment on Terms of Reference completed
b. Terms of Reference Review and Decision (MOE) - potential Amendments
Proponent submits proposed Terms of Reference to MOE
EA Branch makes recommendations to Minister
Minister makes decision to approve /approve with amendments /refuse /order mediation
Minister's Terms of Reference decision final
Approved Terms of Reference represents commitments made by proponent and
approved by Minister, but does not guarantee approval of proposed undertaking
c. EA Preparation (Proponent - MTO)
once Terms of Reference approved, proponent may prepare EA according to approved
Terms of Reference
proponent's EA document evaluates project, its potential environmental effects, and
proposed mitigation measures
EA consists of project description, decision making process, environmental impact and
analysis, alternatives examined, mitigation and monitoring, and results of consultation
process
proponent responsible for where EA will start, but must provide rationale and
justification
d. EA Review and Decision (MOE) - potential Amendments
proponent submits EA to the MOE by means of Notice of Submission
proponent must give public notice of EA submission, indicating where and when
members of the public may inspect EA, and must state that they may give their
comments to the MOE
proponent must give the same information in the public notice to clerk of each
municipality in which undertaking to be carried out
MOE accepts public and government comments one EA submission
MOE review document prepared, Notice of Completion of Review
Public, government agencies, and other Interested parties comment on MOE
review document
Minister makes a decision based on the proponent's submission, recommendations of
government review team, comments received from interested parties, and consistency
with approved Terms of Reference, and decision approved by Cabinet
165
Consultation
As seen in the outline above, consultation is mandatory throughout the preparation of both the
Terms of Reference and the EA itself. The consultation process should include the requisite
notices, open houses, meetings and site liaison committees, allowing the public, the interested
municipalities, and other stakeholders various opportunities to comment at specified times
through communications to the MOE. The MOE considers the comments received and the
results of the various consultations when making its decisions.
Timelines
There are regulated timelines for each stage in the Terms of Reference and EA review and
approval process, which translate roughly as follows:
Proponent's Terms of Reference and Mandatory Public Consultation
Terms of Reference Review and Decision
Government/Public Review
EA Branch Recommendations
Senior Management Sign -off
Minister's Decision
EA Review and Approval Process
Public /Agency Review of EA
EA Review /Notice of Completion
Final Public Comment Period
MOE Evaluation and Minister's Decision
Unfortunately, there is no penalty for not meeting the regulated timelines.
TRCA Role
No timelines
5 weeks
2 weeks
1 week
4 weeks
12 weeks
7 weeks
5 weeks
5 weeks
13 weeks
Agencies such as TRCA review EA documents and provide input to ensure that their and other
government polices and standards are upheld. They also provide technical standards,
guidelines, and expertise. The TRCA works in partnership with regional and local
municipalities and the City of Toronto, providing information and technical support in the EA
process with respect to public sector projects. TRCA often works in conjunction also with other
Authorities and Conservation Ontario.
In the context of the GTA North Transportation Corridor mention has been made of various
working groups of which the Authority is part. The Authorities that are most affected by the
Transportation Corridor clearly can form their own working group to collaborate on multi
jurisdictional environmental issues. Such a group may be duplicative of the municipal working
groups however.
Deadlines, 0 Reg. 616/98
166
TRCA's regulations with respect to Flood and Fill Lines are relevant to the process in the
context of the identification of areas that are environmentally sensitive and need to be
considered. As noted though the Ministry however may not, when it comes to actually
building the 427, be forced to obtain permits under the Regulation from the Authority.
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act
This Act establishes the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Area. Within that Area, various
designations are established; Natural Core Area, Natural Linkage Area, Countryside Area, and
Settlement Area. The act provides for principles of protection within those respective areas. As
a result, if the Act applies the TRCA can raise relevant objections to the applications being
made.
It must be noted however that section 7 of the Act states,
7. (1) A decision that is made under the Planning Act or the
Condominium Act, 1998 or in relation to a prescribed matter, by a
municipal council, local board, municipal planning authority, minister of
the Crown or ministry, board, commission or agency of the Government
of Ontario, including the Ontario Municipal Board, shall conform with the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
There are specific provisions in the plan itself concerning transportation land uses.
41. (1) Transportation, infrastructure and utilities uses include,
(a) public highways;...
(2) An application for a transportation, infrastructure or utilities use with
respect to land in a Natural Linkage Area shall not be approved unless,
(a) the need for the project has been demonstrated and there is no
reasonable alternative; and
(b) the applicant demonstrates that the following requirements will be
satisfied, to the extent that is possible while also meeting all applicable
safety standards:
1. The area of construction disturbance will be kept to a minimum.
2. Right of way widths will be kept to the minimum that is consistent with
meeting other objectives such as stormwater management and with
locating as many transportation, infrastructure and utility uses within a
single corridor as possible.
3. The project will allow for wildlife movement.
4. Lighting will be focused downwards and away from Natural Core
Areas.
5. The planning, design and construction practices adopted will keep
any adverse effects on the ecological integrity of the Plan Area to a
minimum.
Similar sorts of provisions exist for other areas.
167
A decision to build the 427 or to do the EA or to seek a fill permit is not taken under the
Planning Act or the Condominium Act and it must be "prescribed" before the Ministry must
comply with the ORMCA.
TRCA's rights under this Act are limited.
Expropriations Act
TRCA has an expropriation power. So does the Ministry for the purposes of building roads.
The Ministry can expropriate land from TRCA as necessary. There is an interesting question as
to whether the TRCA can expropriate the land back from the Ministry but the better answer is
they cannot.
Under the Expropriations Act, compensation can be awarded. This will most likely take the
form of simple market value. Little if any other damages to TRCA are likely though the damage
to the environment may be great.
Planning Act
TRCA has a variety of commenting functions under the Planning Act. It can also initiate
proceedings under the Act in the form of appeals. It frequently requests that municipalities
include its comments in subdivision and site plan agreements though there is no legal
requirement to do so.
In creating the GTA North Transportation Corridor however the province may not necessarily
implement any changes under the Planning Act other than cause the respective municipalities
to recognize in their OP's the fact that the corridor is located where it is. While the
municipalities changes to their planning documents can be appealed, this is hollow if all they
are doing is recognizing a reality.
Fisheries Act
The Fisheries Act is federal legislation and in this area, TRCA has entered an agreement with
DFO and the Province to review and categorize applications that may be made. TRCA does
not make the decision to allow or not; that is made by DFO. The agreement is more
administrative than legal.
Constitutionally the federal legislation will take precedence over any conflicting provincial
activity. In this regard, TRCA will have the "right" to make comment to DFO on the applications
that may be received.
Court Proceedings
The TRCA will generally have the right to proceed to court for appropriate relief if it perceives
that a law has been broken which will affect it in some way. This could take the form of an
injunction against activity, damages or simply a declaration of wrongdoing.
168
Source Protection Planning Regulation
There is no Source Protection Planning Regulation at this point in time. The Regulation is in
the very early stages of consideration. There are no rights therefore under it.
169
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:44 a.m.., on Friday, July 11, 2003.
Irene Jones
Chair
/ks
Brian Denney
Secretary- Treasurer
‘..
erTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/03
September 12, 2003
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/03, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, September 12, 2003. The Chair Dick
O'Brien, called the meeting to order at 10:11 a.m.
PRESENT
Ila Bossons Member
Anthony Ketchum Member
Pam McConnell Member
Jim McMaster Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Joe Pantalone Member
Frank Scarpitti Member
Ian Sinclair Member
Tanny Wells Member
REGRETS
Lorna Bissell Vice Chair
Cliff Gyles Member
Irene Jones Member
Dave Ryan Member
RES. #D52/03 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
Ila Bossons
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/03, held on July 11, 2003, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Dr. Doug Dodge, Chair, Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy
Advisory Panel, speaking in regards to item 7.1 - Natural Heritage Management
Program.
171
(b) A presentation by John Sorrell, General Manager of the Geomatics Group, SeconSys,
speaking in regards to Web Based Map /Data Server.
RES. #D53 /03 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ila Bossons
Pam McConnell
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
RES. #D54 /03 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Pam McConnell
THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received.
CORRESPONDENCE
(a)
CARRIED
CARRIED
A letter dated September 3, 2003, from Ron M. Christie, Chair, Rouge Park Alliance, in
regards to Rouge Park Week 2003.
RES. #D55 /03 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Joe Pantalone
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT TRCA officially declare the week
of September 29 - October 4, 2003, as "Rouge Park Week".
CARRIED
172
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
etwr
Rouge Park
September 3, 2003
Rouge Park
50 Bloomington Road West Tel: (905) 713 -6038
Aurora, ON L4G 3G8 Fax: (905) 713 -6028
Mr. Dick O'Brien
Chair
Toronto & Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, ON M3N 1 S4
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
On behalf of the Rouge Park Alliance, I respectfully request that the Toronto & Region
Conservation Authority officially declare the week of September 29th to October 4th, 2003 as
"Rouge Park Week" and join our celebrations by flying the Rouge Park flag at your corporate
offices during this week.
As a partner organization of the Rouge Park Alliance, we have valued your contributions to the
management of the Rouge Park in the past and look forward to your cooperation in the future.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
R. M. Christie
Chair
Rouge Park Alliance
MN /dm
cc: Brian Denney, TRCA
173
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D56/03 - NATURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy (TWAHRS). The
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), in partnership with
various agencies under the direction of an Advisory Panel, has
completed a comprehensive Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy for the
Toronto Waterfront.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
Ian Sinclair
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic
Habitat Restoration Strategy developed under the Authority Natural Heritage
Management Program be endorsed;
THAT staff be directed to solicit support and endorsement of the Strategy from the
Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC), the City of Toronto, Fisheries and
Oceans of Canada, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment Canada, the Ministry
of Environment, the Toronto Port Authority and other stakeholders as identified;
THAT staff be directed to implement the Strategy recommendations of the Advisory
Panel, including the establishment of an Inter - agency coordinating mechanism to deliver
the strategy, as well as, the delivery of habitat restoration workshops for the public and
private sector;
THAT the TRCA thank the members of the Advisory Panel and the Agency Stakeholder
Committee for their support and contribution to the development of this Strategy;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to provide a progress report to the Board at an
appropriate future date outlining the progress on Strategy implementation, including
stakeholder endorsements.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #1/03, held on February 21, 2003, Res. #Al2 /03 was approved as follows:
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;
174
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Watershed Management
Advisory Board at Meeting #4/03, on September 12, 2003 or at the earliest meeting
thereafter upon completion of the Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy.
The TRCA has initiated the preparation of a comprehensive Natural Heritage Management
Program throughout its jurisdiction. This Natural Heritage Management 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 Toronto Waterfront Aquatic
Habitat Restoration Strategy is the completion of the first phase of this work that focussed on
the aquatic ecosystem.
Historically, the Toronto waterfront was a rich mosaic of aquatic and terrestrial habitats,
including bluffs and beaches, cobble reefs, estuaries and bays with productive marshes,
wooded shorelines and meadows. Clear water streams and broad rivers meandered through
densely forested watersheds to Lake Ontario. Diverse communities of fish and wildlife lived in
these habitats, which provided opportunities for shelter, food, spawning, nesting,
over - wintering and migration.
Over the past 200 years, the pressures of colonization, port expansion, industry, transportation
and recreation have changed this waterfront almost beyond recognition. With these changes
came serious environmental degradation, to the extent that in 1987, the Toronto waterfront was
included on the International Joint Commission's list of 42 Areas of Concern around the Great
Lakes.
In recent decades considerable work has been undertaken to begin the process of restoring
natural habitats and improving water quality, with promising results as aquatic and terrestrial
communities begin to show signs of recovery. The desire to improve the waterfront has been
enshrined in recent City of Toronto plans and policies, including its new Official Plan, Natural
Heritage Study and Central Waterfront Part 2 Plan. Also, the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Corporation was established by the three levels of government in 2001 to oversee development
of the downtown waterfront. In this context, this Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration
Strategy is a timely initiative to ensure that waterfront revitalization incorporates improvements
to aquatic habitats as an integral part of creating a more livable and sustainable waterfront.
Goal and Objectives
The geographic scope of the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy
(Strategy) is the Lake Ontario waterfront from Etobicoke Creek to the Rouge River, extending
up the estuaries of the rivers and creeks. 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 Strategy has four primary objectives:
1. Identify the potential for self- sustaining aquatic communities in open coast, sheltered
embayments, coastal wetlands and estuaries.
175
2. Identify limiting factors, evaluate opportunities and propose actions to protect and
enhance nearshore habitats and restore ecological integrity.
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.
Principles
The Strategy strives to create a more sustainable waterfront by using an ecosystem approach
to improve ecological integrity and provide suitable conditions for the maintenance of
self- sustaining aquatic communities and improve ecological connectivity. It emphasizes
conservation design based on native and naturalized species. It takes into account human
uses of the shoreline and nearshore waters and was developed using a consultative,
consensus -based approach involving stakeholders and the general public.
Since February, the development of the TWAHRS was guided by an Advisory Panel and
Agency Stakeholder Committee.
The Advisory Panel consisted of the following people:
Dr. Doug Dodge, Chair (retired, Ministry of Natural Resources)
Dr. Al Christie .(retired, Ontario Hydro)
Professor Walter Kehm (retired, University of Guelph)
Suzanne Barrett.
Corresponding Members
Dr. John Hartig (Detroit River Navigator).
The Agency Stakeholder Committee included: Toronto and Region Conservation; Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Corporation; City of Toronto - Works and Emergency Services, City of
Toronto - Parks and Recreation, Waterfront Secretariat, Planning; Ministry of Natural
Resources; Ministry of the Environment; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Environment Canada
and the Toronto Port Authority.
On May 15th, 2003, a habitat restoration workshop brought together a broader and diverse
group of agency and community stakeholders for a preliminary discussion of approaches to
restoring specific habitats. On June 10th, a public forum was held to provide an opportunity for
public review and input into the draft Strategy .
This consultation with the general public, advisory panel, agencies and stakeholders helped
formulate and develop the following Strategy components:
176
(1) 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 and delineating and classifying shoreline habitat conditions.
Recently, a substantive amount of effort has led to the modelling of water quality conditions
along the waterfront. Collectively, this and additional bodies of work have been summarized
into a synopsis which provides the foundation for a comprehensive understanding of
bio- physical shoreline conditions. The synopsis of existing conditions also acts as an
important foundation for directing the TWAHRS.
(2) Compendium of Habitat Restoration Techniques
To date, 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. The compendium has built upon this
knowledge and features techniques that are ecologically appropriate to their location, provide
critical habitat and have a broader application to many other areas. Over thirty different habitat
techniques have been illustrated in the compendium of habitat restoration techniques. Each
habitat restoration illustration is annotated with information on construction techniques and
materials, and outlines the desired habitat function. Illustrations include plan, oblique and
cross section views. The compendium will be a valuable tool for many agencies and will help
us achieve consensus on the type, function and size of various habitat components.
(3) Habitat Plan
The Habitat Plan matches habitat restoration techniques with the appropriate biological and
physical characteristics of the shoreline. Critical to implementation, this plan provides direction
and details the type and location of suitable habitat enhancement projects across the Toronto
shoreline, from the mouth of the Etobicoke Creek to the Rouge River. The plan targets
essential habitats that foster and promote the aquatic rehabilitation of the shoreline ecosystem.
Emphasis has been placed on habitat structures, enhancing community function and
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.
RATIONALE
Our analysis of the physical processes, cultural influences and aquatic communities on the
Toronto waterfront has shown that most of the aquatic ecosystems suffer from poor ecological
health, while a few locations, such as the Rouge River estuary and parts of Toronto Bay, exhibit
somewhat better conditions. Traditionally, urban planning, waterfront redevelopment, park
development, stormwater management and shoreline management activities have not paid
sufficient attention to the needs of aquatic communities. However, it is essential to recognize
that aquatic ecosystems are integral to the environmental health of the waterfront, and must be
given full consideration in planning, design and development processes.
Self- sustaining aquatic habitats can make an important contribution to The Living City - the
TRCA's vision for sustainable human communities built on a natural foundation of healthy rivers
and shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity. Aquatic habitat restoration is also a catalyst for
considerable social and economic benefits because it increases aesthetic quality, recreational
opportunities, public health and safety and desirability of waterfront spaces.
177
This Strategy provides a valuable repository of information including the biophysical attributes
of the shoreline, an illustrated compendium of habitat restoration techniques and a habitat plan
on a shoreline reach and site specific basis. It builds on and implements a number of key plans
and policies, including the City of Toronto Official Plan, Central Waterfront Part 2 Plan and
Natural Heritage Study; the Federal Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat; Lake Ontario
Fish Community Objectives and the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation's
Development Plan and Public Space Framework. The Strategy is a blueprint for positive
change, providing guiding principles and practical tools for implementing habitat projects
across the Toronto waterfront.
The overall approach to this Strategy has been supported by Fisheries and Oceans Canada
staff on the Stakeholder Committee. In addition, the TWRC incorporated the Aquatic Strategy
in their recently released "Parks and Public Spaces Framework" which provides the overall
context for the proposed 500 acres of new and improved waterfront public spaces.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations for waterfront agencies and other landowners are intended to
ensure that aquatic habitats are created and restored. The recommendations focus on
endorsement of the Strategy, improving ecological health and mechanisms for implementation:
(1) ENDORSEMENT
Waterfront revitalization provides opportunities for many agencies and private landowners to
incorporate aquatic habitat restoration from the outset of a wide variety of projects, ranging
from new building developments and environmental infrastructure to new or renovated parks
and shoreline management. The Advisory Panel recommends that:
• Agencies with responsibilities for the waterfront (eg. Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, City of Toronto, Toronto Port
Authority, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) should
formally endorse this Strategy as the guiding document for the creation and restoration of
waterfront aquatic habitats.
• Endorsement recognizes the need to achieve significant increases in aquatic habitats and
restore self- sustaining aquatic communities.
• Agencies use this Strategy as a planning tool to ensure that all future waterfront projects
incorporate aquatic habitat improvements.
(2) MANAGEMENT TO IMPROVE THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF OUR SHORELINE
In order to restore healthy, self- sustaining aquatic communities, it is necessary to create the
physical, chemical and biological conditions that are required for a balanced community of
native and naturalized species. Most non - native species (eg. carp, goby) take advantage of
degraded ecosystems, and their numbers and productivity will be reduced when ecosystem
health improves. To achieve the conditions required for centres of biological organization that
will support self- sustaining aquatic communities, the Advisory Panel recommends that:
• To ensure improved water and sediment quality the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow
Management Master Plan should be implemented quickly, and a similar plan be developed
and implemented for the upper watersheds.
178
• Structural diversity be increased across the waterfront, by implementing a habitat plan on a
shoreline reach basis.
In most cases, there is sufficient scientific knowledge to proceed with implementation.
In cases where there is less knowledge, scientific based experimental management
approaches provide opportunities to monitor, learn and adjust as necessary.
• Consistent with Fish Community Objectives (coolwater warmwater species) for Lake
Ontario, top predators especially walleye, muskellunge, should be re- introduced where
appropriate and carp should be excluded from key habitats that are favourable for their
reproduction (eg. coastal wetlands).
• Emphasis for improving Aquatic Habitats should be placed on opportunities for both
conservation and restoration. A number of these are existing centres of biological
organization where a relatively modest investment will create significant benefits. Others are
places where development is largely focussed on land, such as new waterfront parks and
urban redevelopment, which can easily incorporate major improvements to aquatic
habitats. Finally, there are opportunities associated with shoreline management such as
erosion control and harbour maintenance.
Existing centres of biological organization
Examples : Mimico Estuary, Humber Estuary & Marsh, Toronto Island, Tommy
Thompson Park, Bluffers Park, Highland Creek Estuary & Marsh, Rouge Marsh.
New waterfront parks and amenities
Examples: Canada Malting, Harbourfront, Lower Don /Keating Channel, Lake Ontario
Park
Urban Redevelopment
Examples: Home Depot site, Ship Channel, Portlands
Shoreline management
Examples: Humber Bay, Western Channel, Eastern Channel, Gibraltar Point, Fishleigh,
Guild Inn
(3) IMPLEMENTATION
The success of the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy will be measured
by the extent of project implementation, reporting of improvements in aquatic habitats, the
utilization of the Strategy by waterfront agencies and private landowners and the acceptance of
projects by the public. To ensure success, the Advisory Panel recommends that:
• The TRCA establish an inter - agency coordinating mechanism to:
ensure that aquatic habitat opportunities associated with existing centres of biological
organization, park development and amenities, waterfront revitalization, shoreline
management, lakefilling and erosion control projects are incorporated into ecological
pre - planning, design, and implementation of projects.
ensure a high standard of scientific rigour, use of the best tools, techniques and
appropriate design of experimental habitat management projects.
179
identify potential cumulative effects of projects, oversee monitoring programs, and
develop sustainability indices to determine trends over time.
report regularly on the Strategy implementation, including progress reports on specific
projects, aquatic community trends, and other measures, the first progress report to be
provided by December 2004.
similar strategy should be developed for the TRCA's jurisdiction within the Durham
waterfront.
• TRCA provide aquatic habitat restoration workshops for landowners and the consulting
industry to raise awareness of the goals and objectives of the TWAHRS as well as the
biophysical framework, restoration techniques, restoration sites and mechanisms for
inter - agency implementation.
• Public awareness and education should be incorporated into each project, using a variety
of mechanisms (such as signage, interpretive centre(s), underwater viewing facilities,
outdoor education programs, articles in newsletters and annual reports, media coverage
etc).
• Waterfront regulatory agencies use this habitat Strategy as a mechanism for
implementation.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will proceed with efforts to solicit further endorsement of this Strategy. Specific efforts will
be directed at the establishment of an inter - agency mechanism to implement the
recommendations of the Advisory Panel. In addition, staff will sponsor an aquatic habitat
restoration workshop for landowners and the consulting industry to raise awareness of the
goals and objectives of the Strategy.
Staff will provide the Authority in future with a progress report on the implementation and
endorsement by the Stakeholder Committee members.
Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
Date: September 02, 2003
RES. #D57/03 - WORKPLAN TO FULFILL THE WATERSHED PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS OF THE OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONSERVATION
PLAN (ORMCP)
Documentation of a generic watershed planning process and adoption of
that process for the preparation of watershed plans and associated
budgets for fulfilling the ORMCP watershed planning requirements of our
partner municipalities.
180
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Integrated Watershed
Planning Process described in Part 1 of the Workplan to Fulfill the Watershed Planning
Requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) Regulation
(O.Reg. 140/02) be used to guide the preparation of work plans and budgets for
individual watershed plans throughout the TRCA jurisdiction, and particularly for those
watersheds draining the Oak Ridges Moraine;
THAT staff be directed to undertake the preparation of watershed plans, as per the
planning schedule set out In this report, in cooperation with our watershed partners;
THAT staff promote this watershed planning process as the basis for the preparation of
watershed -based source protection plans and report back on any necessary
modifications, as the specific requirements of source protection plans or provincial
ORMCP watershed planning guidelines become known;
AND FURTHER THAT all regional and local municipalities within the TRCA jurisdiction be
informed of TRCA's long range watershed planning work program and of the Authority's
commitment to undertaking this work In full co- operation with its watershed
municipalities.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The watershed planning requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Act and Conservation Plan
(ORMCP) Regulation (O.Reg. 140/02), under section 24, require municipalities to:
•
•
•
initiate the preparation of watershed plans by April 22, 2003 for each watershed, whose
streams originate on the ORM;
incorporate the watershed plan's requirements into the municipal Official Plan;
complete the watershed plans and ensure all major development conforms with the
plan, before approving any major development application that is commenced on or
after April 23, 2007; and
in the case of York Region, complete a water budget and conservation plan,
demonstrating that the water supply required for major development is sustainable,
before approving any major development application that is commenced on or after
April 22, 2004 for areas serviced by the Yonge Street aquifer.
Shortly after the release of the ORMCP, York Region indicated to its two conservation
authorities (CAs) its interest in continuing its long- established partnership with the CAs as a
means of undertaking the watershed planning related aspects of the ORMCP. In consideration
of its stringent deadlines, the Region expressed its need to ensure coordinated workplans were
in place to fulfill the requirements. As the provincial watershed planning guidelines associated
with the ORMCP had not yet been released [anticipated to be released for public comment in
September, 2003], there was a need to develop a common outline of anticipated watershed
planning requirements, based on the experience of the Region and its CAs. This common
watershed planning outline was intended to ensure consistency in approach between the CAs
and provide a basis for long range budgeting exercises.
181
A working group, consisting of staff from the planning and works departments of York Region,
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA), and the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA), prepared a Workplan to Fulfill the Watershed Planning
Requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) Regulation (O.Reg.
140/02). The Workplan consists of two parts:
Part 1 (attached) recommends a generic watershed planning process and outlines key
deliverables required to fulfill the ORMCP. Specific features include:
•
•
•
•
•
watershed planning is recognized as one component in the overall, ongoing process of
watershed management
watershed plans will be developed in three stages: characterization, analysis and
evaluation of management alternatives; and preparation of the final watershed plan
watershed planning is a partnership; there is a commitment to involve all key players,
many of whom have been active participants in previous watershed initiatives
studies addressing ground and surface water quality and quantity, aquatic and
terrestrial resources, and water supply address the watershed planning requirements of
the ORMCP, but other studies are needed to address the full range of community
interests in York Region watersheds (i.e. human heritage, public use)
a chart summarizing the watershed planning component studies provides a basis for
reporting on study status and budget needs.
development of draft implementation policy will form part of the new generation of
watershed plans to facilitate the transition from watershed plan to municipal policy
Part 2 outlines the watershed - specific workplans , including:
•
•
•
recognition that "watershed" study areas for the purposes of fulfilling the full objectives
of the ORM Act must encompass the full watershed area from crest of ORM to Lake.
Within TRCA, this includes: Humber, Don, and Rouge Rivers and Duffins Creek
watersheds.
description of the current status of watershed plans and their component studies within
York Region watersheds
reference to separate, watershed - specific workplans containing more details of the
planning process, tailored to the needs of each watershed
a template for presentation of the five year budget forecast of funds needed to fulfill the
ORMCP.
The generic watershed planning process described in Part 1 of the Workplan is consistent with
the process generally followed by TRCA in previous watershed studies, and was drawn from
the Watershed Demonstration Project "Lessons Learned and Best Practices in Watershed
Planning, Implementation and Monitoring in the CVC, GRCA and TRCA" (CVC, GRCA, and
TRCA, 2003). This process is being promoted by Conservation Ontario in its discussions with
the province, as a basic framework for watershed -based source protection planning.
182
The watershed planning process and the outline of watershed planning component studies
appear to be supported by other CAs on the ORM and by the Regions of Peel and Durham. A
draft version of Part 1 of the Workplan was circulated to the nine CAs in the Conservation
Authorities Moraine Coalition and to the Regions of Peel and Durham planning staff for
comment. Overall, there was support for generic outline. All comments provided were
incorporated into the final version. All members of the CAMC adopted the watershed planning
outline as a means of reporting on status of their watershed plans. In June, 2003, at a meeting
with the Region of Peel, TRCA, CVC, and the Town of Caledon staff, there was agreement to
develop a "Peel" version of the York Region document, based on the same generic approach.
Durham Region staff have indicated their intent to host a similar meeting with the five Durham
CAs. Although, in the case of the Durham/TRCA portion of the ORM, it is believed that the
recently completed Duffins Creek Watershed Plan largely fulfills the ORMCP requirements.
BENEFITS
Documentation of the watershed planning process provides clarification and coordination
between the Region and TRCA on roles and responsibilities throughout the process. Upfront
agreement on the deliverables, scope, and schedule for these planning initiatives should
streamline the budget process in future years. The generic process still allows for flexibility in
addressing the unique needs of each individual watershed plan, consideration of the level of
previous work completed, and advancement of the science of integrated watershed planning
and other innovative methodologies.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff propose to use the integrated watershed planning process, described in Part 1 of the
Workplan, as the basis for preparing and updating watershed plans throughout the TRCA
jurisdiction. Watershed plans will be developed, or updated as necessary, according to the
following schedule:
Watershed
2002
2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008
Duffins C.
Carruthers C
Rouge R.
Phase 3
Phase 3
_L_
Phase
1A/1B
Phase
1A/1B
Phase' A
-
_may---
Ph. 1B/273-
Ph. 1 B/2
Phase 1B
Phase 1A
- - --
-
Phase 3 __
t
Highland C.
Humber R.
Phase 3
Phase 2/3 --
Phase Phase 3
1B/2 _
Phase 1A" Phase 1B Phase 2/3
Don R.
Petticoat C.
- -
-"
Etobicoke C
Mimico C.
--
--
MIN
W
Phase 1A Phase 1B Phase 2/3
- - �. ii Phase 1B Phase 2/3
Phase 1A - Scoping Dark shade = Period of primary planning activity
Phase 1B - Characterization Grey shade = Period of preparation or finalization work
Phase 2 - Analysis and Evaluation
Phase 3 - Plan Development
183
This schedule recognizes the Regions' required timelines to address the ORMCP, the City of
Toronto's priorities in implementing its Wet Weather Flow Master Plan, and the status of
available watershed information and planning documents. Completion of this planning
schedule is contingent upon available funding.
Staff have begun the development of more specific work plans for each watershed, with
outlines for the Rouge and Humber watersheds well underway. Consultations with
municipalities and other partners are underway to obtain input to these workplans. Staff are
attempting to obtain provincial review of the Duffins Creek Watershed Plan, and confirmation
that the plan meets the ORMCP.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
TRCA staff are in the process of preparing 2004-2008 budget forecasts for watershed plans,
using the template contained in this Workplan and which corresponds with the outline of study
components. Funding requirements for watershed plans will be presented as part of the
regional capital budget requests.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: August 22, 2003
Attachments: 1
184
Attachment 1
onsserva tion
for The Living City
A WORKPLAN TO FULFILL THE WATERSHED PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS OF THE OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONSERVATION
PLAN REGULATION (O.Reg. 140/02)
Part 1
June 26, 2003
185
A Workplan to Fulfill the Watershed Planning Requirements of the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan Regulation (O.Reg. 140/02)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMMITMENT TO A WATERSHED PLANNING PARTNERSHIP
PART 1: GENERIC OUTLINE OF WATERSHED PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
TO FULFILL THE ORMCP
1.1 Watershed Planning Process
1.2 Roles and Responsibilities - A Partnership Process
1.3 Component Studies Required to Fulfill ORM Conservation Plan
1.4 Other Watershed Plan Components
1.5 From Watershed Plan to Municipal Policy
PART 2: YORK REGION WATERSHEDS — STUDY STATUS, FIVE YEAR
BUDGET FORECAST, AND YEAR ONE DELIVERABLES
Part 2A - Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Watersheds
2.1 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Watersheds
2.1.1 Status of Study Components By Watershed
2.1.2 Watershed Planning Schedule and Watershed Specific Workplans
2.1.3 Five Year Budget Forecast
2.1.4 2003 LSRCA Budget Deliverables and Relationship to Aquifer Protection
Appendix A (LSRCA) - Status of Completion of Watershed Planning Study
Components in the LSRCA Watersheds
Part 2B - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Watersheds
2.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Watersheds
2.2.1 Status of Study Components by Watershed
2.2.2 Watershed Planning Schedule and Watershed Specific Workplans
2.2.3 Five Year Budget Forecast
2.2.4 2003 TRCA Budget Deliverables and Relationship to Aquifer Protection
Appendix A (TRCA) - Status of Completion of Watershed Planning Study
Components in the TRCA Watersheds
186
COMMITMENT TO A WATERSHED PLANNING PARTNERSHIP
The watershed planning requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Act and Conservation Plan
( ORMCP) Regulation (O.Reg. 140/02) represent an opportunity to strengthen a
long- established watershed management partnership between the Regional Municipality of
York and its two conservation authorities. The ORMCP (s. 24) requires York Region to:
initiate the preparation of watershed plans by April 22, 2003 for each of its watersheds
whose streams originate within York Region;
incorporate the watershed plan's requirements into the Region's Official Plan;
complete the watershed plans and ensure all major development conforms with the
plan, before approving any major development application that is commenced on or
after April 23, 2007; and
complete a water budget and conservation plan, demonstrating that the water supply
required for major development is sustainable, before approving any major
development application that is commenced on or after April 22, 2004 for areas
serviced by the Yonge Street aquifer.
Watershed planning has been an activity that the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
(LSRCA) and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) have carried out in
partnership with York Region, their other member municipalities, and watershed communities
for a number of years. As a result, watershed plans have been initiated on all watersheds
within York Region. Their status of completion varies depending on watershed.
Based on the considerable foundation of available watershed information and the expertise in
watershed planning, LSRCA and TRCA are committed to assisting York Region in fulfilling its
requirements under the ORMCP. The purpose of this document is twofold:
1. To recommend a generic watershed planning process and outline of key deliverables
required to fulfill the ORMCP; and
2. To describe the current status of watershed plans and their component studies within
York Region watersheds, identify deliverables associated with the 2003 budget request,
and present a five year budget forecast of the special funds needed to fulfill the
ORMCP.
This document is intended to facilitate a regular process of dialogue between the CAs and the
Region staff, which will promote improved coordination and information sharing among our
various study responsibilities.
187
PART 1: GENERIC OUTLINE OF WATERSHED PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS TO FULFILL THE ORMCP
1.1 Watershed Planning Process
The watershed planning process is one stage in the ongoing process of watershed
management. The basic thrust of watershed management has not changed since first formally
described in 1993 (MOEE and MNR, 1993). As illustrated in Figure 1, the process of watershed
management has four main stages, including plan development; plan implementation;
monitoring and reporting; and reviewing, evaluating and updating the plan. This process is
commonly followed by all conservation authorities in Ontario, although each CA may have
slightly different terminology associated with individual steps as suited to local watershed
needs.
Watershed plans are usually prepared in response to a trigger, such as public concern about
environmental conditions, a municipal Official Plan requirement, or, also in this case, the
requirements set out by the ORM Act and Conservation Plan.
FIGURE 1: WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROCESS
REVIEW and
EVALUATE
MONITOR and
REPORT
IMPLEMENT
188
'I
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
Reference CVC, GRCA and TRCA 2002
The steps involved in developing a watershed plan can be described according to three main
phases: characterization; analysis and evaluation of management alternatives; and
development of the watershed plan and implementation plan.
Characterization involves scoping the issues, gathering the information that is already
available, and confirming resource needs. The primary focus of this phase involves the
development of a detailed understanding of watershed systems and their interdependencies.
Working goals, objectives and targets are defined with stakeholder input to reflect community
values and sound science. Study components typically address issues associated with
surface and ground water quantity and quality; aquatic habitat and species; and terrestrial
habitat and species. Depending on the watershed, studies may also address a broader range
of issues, such as human heritage and outdoor recreation. Although it is necessary to
dissemble the complex set of watershed systems to study each one individually, the evolving
science of integration enables watershed planners to define relationships and
interdependencies among the systems.
Analysis and Evaluation of Alternatives involves the development of alternative future land or
resource use scenarios and management approaches. Using modeling and analytical tools
developed in the characterization phase, each scenario is studied in terms of the effects
(positive or negative) it will have on the watershed. The purpose of this analysis is to
understand how the watershed will respond to future stresses, determine whether
management objectives will be compromised and, if so, identify the effectiveness of various
management approaches. Based on a set of agreed -upon evaluation criteria, and with input
from the community, a preferred management approach is recommended.
Development of the Watershed Plan and Implementation Plan involves the actual
documentation of the management plan and its implementation framework. The plan identifies
the final set of management goals, objectives and targets, which is to be used to evaluate the
acceptability of future resource use proposals and track progress in implementation. The plan
specifies a set of land use and resource use management strategies and associated practices
and programs, necessary to fulfill the watershed's objectives. Management strategies are
often tailored to specific areas within the watershed. Further study needs may be specified for
the watershed scale or for smaller geographic areas, such as subwatershed or site scales. An
implementation framework sets out the primary mechanisms expected to be effective means of
implementing the plan, roles and responsibilities for key stakeholders, and a recommended
schedule for implementation. The municipal land use planning process represents an
important vehicle for implementation. The latest generation of watershed plans involve an
increasingly close partnership with the municipal partners in the development of land use
planning strategies and draft policies that are developed as an integral part of the
implementation framework. The monitoring plan recommends the extent of monitoring, timing,
responsibilities and reporting frequency.
189
1.2 Roles and Responsibilities - A Partnership Process
Watershed planning and watershed management is really a partnership involving conservation
authorities, municipalities, agencies, and other watershed community interests. Conservation
authorities serve as the coordinators of the plan development process, by bringing together the
various interests and ensuring appropriate opportunities for input throughout the process.
Experience has shown that municipalities and other stakeholders who have been involved in
the development of the plan are more likely to participate in the plan's implementation.
Therefore, effective involvement of all partners throughout the process is vital to the plan's
success. The following table summaries the general roles of each partner.
Roles and Responsibilities
York Region and Other Regional
and Local Municipalities
Conservation Authority
Other Stakeholder Groups and
Agencies, and Members of the
Public
• Ensure ORMCP is met (1)
•
Coordinate watershed planning
•
Participate in the development of
• Undertake or supervise
process
watershed plans
component studies
•
Lead public and stakeholder
•
Promote awareness of planning
• Participate in development of
involvement process
process and solicit input from
watershed plans
•
Undertake or supervise
broader constituency group
• Lead preparation of municipal
component studies
•
Participate in and lead aspects of
policy to help implement plan
recommendations (2)
• Participate in and lead aspects of
•
Lead integration of component
studies and overall development
of plan
plan implementation
plan implementation
•
Participate in and lead aspects of
plan implementation
(1) Unique to York Region and other ORM municipalities
(2) York Region and other ORM municipalities have legislated responsibilities under ORMCP
1.3 Component Studies Required to Fulfill ORM Conservation Plan
Figure 2 lists the component studies and deliverables associated with each of the three phases
in the watershed planning process. Primary points of public and stakeholder input are noted.
Although the overall watershed plan is a requirement of the ORMCP, references to particularly
relevant sections of the plan have been shown in Figure 3 for each of the basic technical
studies to facilitate an understanding of their role and application. Table 1 provides a brief
description of each of the component studies and its role in the watershed planning process.
The conservation authority will coordinate the overall watershed planning process, however
component studies may be led by conservation authority staff or their consultants, the Region
of York or their consultants, or other groups. A central role of the conservation authority is to
ensure that duplication is avoided and data are compatible and opportunities for sharing are
realized wherever possible. Figure 4 identifies the typical lead agency for each of the
component studies.
190
Further description of the specific scope and deliverables of the studies is provided in Part 2 of
this workplan and illustrated by the Duffins Creek Watershed Plan and associated reports.
1.4 Other Watershed Plan Components
Some watershed plans must address a broader range of issues than is expressly required by
the ORMCP in order to respond to local issues and community interest. Human heritage,
public use, and air quality are examples of these other watershed planning components. It
should be noted that human heritage and recreational use issues are addressed in other
policies associated with the ORMCP, and therefore, the watershed planning study may provide
the most efficient process for gathering additional information about existing or potential
heritage and recreational use sites and for developing more integrated management plans for
these features. The conservation authorities will seek opportunities to complete
comprehensive watershed plans within the schedule, or will identify the outstanding areas as
further required studies. It should be recognized that the watershed plans may need to be
amended, if the studies are completed as follow -up exercises.
1.5 From Watershed Plan to Municipal Policy
Municipal planning tools have long been regarded as a primary means of implementing the
watershed plan. Section 24 (2) of the ORMCP has formalized that mechanism by stating that "
The objectives and requirements of each watershed plan shall be incorporated into the
municipality's official plan." In its Oak Ridges Conformity exercise, York Region has already
included policies committing to the completion and implementation of watershed plans and
requiring area municipalities to incorporate, by official plan amendment, the applicable
objectives and requirements of completed watershed plans into their planning documents.
The Regions of Peel and Durham have adopted similar policies in their official plan
amendments. In order to facilitate the transition from the watershed plan to municipal policy
and criteria, it will be important to ensure that the watershed plan presents its
recommendations in a form and level of detail that is compatible with and conducive to being
easily incorporated into municipal policy.
The development of watershed policy /criteria is becoming regarded as a component of the
watershed planning process, and the results form part of the plan's implementation framework.
It is envisioned that a policy development working group, tasked with the responsibility of
developing the model policy framework, would be formed early in the watershed planning
process (i.e. Phase 1). The working group would involve regional and local municipal
planners, conservation authority staff, and other interested parties.
The group would undertake a review of existing policy tools and, in coordination with the other
technical studies and their findings, would develop new policies /criteria that could be used to
address watershed issues most effectively. Considerations include: determination of primary
policy issues, the appropriate scale for application, user - friendly presentation of various
databases, maps, and criteria needed to apply the policies, and rationalization of
watershed - specific vs. municipality -wide application. The policies would need to build upon
and complement existing municipal and conservation authority policy tools.
191
Several regional and provincial initiatives are underway, which will influence and assist in
establishing consistency in the form and direction of watershed - specific policy. The province is
expected to release guidelines in support of the ORMCP on water budgets, water conservation
plans, hydrological sensitive features, subwatersheds, aquifer vulnerability, recreation and
vegetation management, stormwater management, and sewage and water system plans. As
part of the Source Protection Planning Framework for Ontario, the province is also expected to
develop guidelines for risk assessment and delineation of areas of potential threat to human
health. The York -Peel- Durham - Toronto Groundwater Program's Policy Group is preparing
model policy and guidelines on a number of groundwater - related aspects of watershed
management, including well -head protection and aquifer vulnerability. As part of its Terrestrial
Natural Heritage Strategy, the TRCA is developing draft policy to address the protection of a
terrestrial natural heritage system. These policy initiatives will help provide standard definitions
for key terms and will form the building blocks from which watershed - specific policies and
criteria can be developed.
Figure 2: Watershed Planning — Component Studies Required to Fulfill ORM
Conservation Plan
Figure 3: Component Studies with references
Figure 4: Watershed Planning - Lead Agency Responsibilities for Component Studies
Copies of Figures 2 - 4 are available on request
192
Table 1 - General Description of Watershed Planning Study Components
Watershed Study Components
Description
CHARACTERIZATION PHASE=
Water Budget
- Surface Water Budget Model
- Groundwater Budget Model
-Water Use Effects Analysis
-Water Conservation Projections
-Low Flow Measurements
-Water Takings Verification
- Infiltration Rate Mapping
A Water Budget study provides an overall accounting of the volume of
water in the various components of the natural hydrologic cycle,
including precipitation, evapotranspiration, overland runoff, infiltration,
and surface and groundwater storage. The study also estimates the
current volume of water use (ground and surface water) and provides
an assessment of any impacts from this use. Low flow measurements,
needed for calibration of the surface water budget model, are also used
in other studies, including aquatic habitat studies.
A water budget model is needed in order to undertake an assessment
of the impacts associated with potential changes in future land use,
rates of water use, or climate scenarios. Changes in a watershed water
budget are interpreted in terms of their impact on other watershed
systems, such as baseflow, water quality, stream stability, aquatic
habitat, and terrestrial habitat (particularly wetlands).
Key input data include local watershed meteorologic data, soils, land
use /cover, long term flow data for calibration, and volumes of water use.
Key deliverables include surface and ground water budget models, and
maps showing spatial variation in watershed infiltration rates, which can
be used to set management criteria.
Water Use Assessment
- Current Water Use (PTTW, et al)
- Future Water Use Projections
- Wellhead Delineation
- Aquifer Vulnerability Mapping
•
The Water Use Assessment identifies all primary users of ground and
surface water within the watershed (i.e. municipal, commercial,
agricultural, etc.), except for environmental uses which are addressed
under other studies. The study estimates the current and future
volumes of water use and identifies any water quality restrictions
associated with the intended use. With particular focus on potable
water supplies, wellhead delineation and aquifer vulnerability mapping
is prepared. All of this information provides a basis for setting
watershed management goals and objectives; identifying key
stakeholders who should be involved in the planning process; defining
future water use scenarios; and setting criteria against which to evaluate
impacts.
Key input data include the Ministry of the Environment's PTTW database
and associated field verification updates, land use mapping, and other
related databases used to generate estimates of water use (i.e.
including users exempt from PTTW). Key deliverables from this work
include updated water use databases, wellhead delineation and aquifer
vulnerability mapping, recommended management
goals /objectives /targets, and water use scenarios for further analysis.
193
Surface Flow Modelling Study
The primary purpose of the surface flow modeling study is to provide a
basis for establishing or updating floodline mapping, used to delineate
- Hydrology Model Dev't
floodplains; to determine the appropriate stormwater management
- Hydraulics Model Dev't
criteria for flood control; and to identify sites of flood risk where remedial
- Floodline and Regulation Line
action should be undertaken. A watershed hydrology model provides a
Mapping
tool for the assessment of impacts of future land use /cover and water
-Flood vulnerable area/roads
use scenarios on watershed hydrology, including instream flows. The
model is also used to evaluate alternative flood flow management
strategies. The hydraulics model simulates flows within the channel
geometry and estimates water level elevations for mapping purposes.
Key input data include digital elevation model, soils, land use /cover,
meteorologic data, and database of structures. Key deliverables
include: recommended stormwater management criteria for flood
control, floodline maps, flow databases, and flood vulnerable sites
databases for flood warning programs and remedial works purposes.
Groundwater Study
The groundwater study develops a watershed based groundwater flow
model which is used to establish an understanding of groundwater flow
-3D Geological Mapping
directions, water levels, and discharge areas, and which puts the
-Well record compilation
watershed within a broader regional groundwater system context.
- Groundwater Flow Model Dev't
- Groundwater Use Effects Analysis
The groundwater model is used as a basis for evaluating impacts to the
- Aquifer Mapping and Flow
groundwater flow system in response to an altered water balance
Connections
associated with future land or water use scenarios. Changes in the
- Groundwater Discharge Mapping
groundwater system are interpreted in terms of their impact on other
watershed systems, such as water use potential, baseflow, water
quality, aquatic habitat, and terrestrial habitat (particularly wetlands).
Key input data include geological mapping, borehole data (e.g. from
well records), groundwater use data, infiltration rates (from surface
water budget), and stream baseflow data (for model calibration). Key
deliverables include: a conceptual geological model of the watershed,
a 3 -D groundwater flow model tool, and an interpretation of the existing
groundwater system.
194
Surface Water Quality Study
The Surface Water Quality Study reports on current water quality
conditions in streams and waterbodies, and assesses the contributions
-Surface Water Quality Assessment
from point and non -point sources of pollution. Water quality
-Water Quality /Contaminant
assessments are usually based on a combination of chemical and
Modelling
biological indicators. This study assists in setting water quality and
- Point/Non -point source
aquatic resource targets.
Identification
- Spills Inventory and Mapping
Surface water quality models are developed and later used to evaluate
-SW Retrofit Opportunities
the water quality impacts of future land or water use scenarios and the
Assessment
effectiveness of alternative management strategies. Depending on the
nature of pollutant sources in the watershed, further studies may include
nutrient budgets or assimilative capacity studies.
Key input data include: water chemistry, flow data, land use /cover,
agricultural practices data (e.g. fertilizer application rates, crop types,
livestock types, etc.), stormwater management practices, and a digital
elevation model, depending on the sophistication of studies deemed
necessary. Key deliverables include: water quality modeling tool(s), an
interpretation of current conditions, and recommendations for water
quality targets.
Groundwater Quality Study
The Groundwater Quality Study reports on groundwater chemistry in the
various aquifer systems and provides an interpretation of issues
- Groundwater Quality Assessment
associated with current or anticipated future groundwater use. This
- Potential Contaminant Inventory
study component also involves the development of a potential
- Contaminant Risk Assessment
groundwater contaminant database and an approach to undertake a
risk assessment in vulnerable areas.
Aquatic Resource Study
-Fish Habitat Survey
This study evaluates current and historic data on physical habitat
conditions (i.e. geomorphologic, geologic, flow, water chemistry,
temperature, etc.) and species presence to determine the historic
-Fish Community Survey
aquatic community types found within the watershed. Regional
- Benthic Invertebrate Survey
reference sites (i.e. aquatic communities found in other similar,
- Riparian Zone Survey
unimpacted, watershed reaches) are reviewed. Finally, human
- Regional Reference Community
influences, such as in- stream barriers and altered water quality or
Assess.
thermal conditions, are considered as an additional layer of analysis to
-Water Temperature Survey
help set aquatic community management directions.
- Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment
The aquatic community management targets are used to evaluate the
acceptability of impacts associated with future land or water use
scenarios (e.g. changes in baseflow, water temperature, etc.), as
modeled by other studies. The development of predictive tools that can
be used to evaluate the response of the aquatic community to changes
in watershed hydrology is an evolving science.
195
Terrestrial Natural Heritage Study
- Natural Cover and Land Use
Mapping
-Field Data Collection /mapping
- Terrestrial Natural Heritage
Modelling
This study reports on the health of the terrestrial natural heritage
system, including current flora and fauna type, distribution, quality of
habitat, and an identification of management issues. A set of indicators
and measures are used to evaluate conditions at a site through
landscape scale. Data are compiled using a combination of air photo
interpretation and field surveys. A Terrestrial Natural Heritage Modelling
Approach, based on principles of conservation biology and landscape
ecology, is applied to predict the impact that future losses of natural
cover or restoration strategies will have on the health of the regional
natural heritage system.
There are important inter - relationships between natural cover and
watershed hydrology, which need to be understood and considered in
setting watershed management directions. This study will recommend
terrestrial natural heritage management targets, which can be used to
determine the acceptability of changes in watershed hydrology caused
by future land or water use scenarios (i.e. impacts to wetlands). The
terrestrial study may also recommend natural cover restoration
strategies, which will need to be considered in terms of their potential
impact to the watershed's water balance and associated surface and
groundwater flow systems.
Land Use Map Consolidation
- Current and Future
Current land cover and future (e.g. as per approved municipal Official
Plans) land cover mapping is compiled from all watershed
municipalities and consolidated into one mapping product that can be
used in modelling exercises.
Characterization Report
- Summary of Existing Conditions
- Existing policy review
-Set goals, objectives, Working
Targets
This report documents the existing conditions and issues within the
watershed. It presents a summary of existing policies and programs •
available, which could be used as a basis for implementation. The
report identifies watershed management goals, objectives, and working
targets, as developed with input from stakeholders. This information is
used as a basis from which to evaluate changes due to future land and
water use scenarios and the effectiveness of alternative management
strategies.
AVALYSISAND;EVALUATION OFMANAGEMENTALTERNATIVES
' i v: ,..1,Y!i7 . k: Fd,,.t =t ;
•'.P .C.'.s,1. ,. -j*,. . i44,,.`. -... 9",.." -Y+, . ". i. a` J..$,', '..... ?Y A.i:' ``. 1
Define Alternative Land Use,
Water Use, and Management
Scenarios
Selected future scenarios are defined for analysis, with the intent of
benchmarking the watershed response and providing guidance for
establishing an effective management plan.
Model Watershed Response to
Alternative Scenarios
The various models developed in the Characterization phase are
applied to the scenarios in order to predict watershed response. In
some cases, the output from one model will be needed as in input to
another.
Evaluate and Integrate Findings
Evaluation criteria, including effectiveness, ability to meet targets, public
acceptability, cost, etc., are established and used to evaluate the
results. A preferred management approach is determined.
Summarize Results and Finalize
Targets
Results are summarized and targets finalized with stakeholder input.
196
DEVELOPMENT OF WATERSHED PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Formulation of Plan and
Implementation Framework
Land use and water use management strategies are developed,
discussed and negotiated with stakeholders. A final Watershed Plan
and Implementation Framework are prepared. Supporting
documentation, databases, maps, policies, guidelines and criteria are
finalized and published in an accessible format.
197
RES. #D58/03 - CONSERVATION ONTARIO'S WATERSHED -BASED
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Completion and public release of five Watershed -Based Demonstration
Projects and comparison to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
(TRCA) current practices.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Tanny Wells
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT this staff report, Including
Information on how to obtain copies of the five Watershed -Based Demonstration Project
reports, be distributed to member municipalities;
AND FURTHER THAT staff Incorporate lessons learned from these demonstration
projects into TRCA's watershed planning and overall watershed management activities.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Five watershed demonstration projects were initiated by the province prior to the release of the
Walkerton Inquiry Part 2 Report (O'Connor, 2002), in response to recommendations contained
in the provincial government- commissioned report "Managing the Environment: A Review of
Best Practices" (Executive Resources Group, 2001). That report called upon the province to
embrace a number of strategic shifts in environmental management including moving toward a
more place -based approach based on boundaries that made environmental sense ";
balancing the use of regulatory and non - regulatory tools; striving for continuous performance
improvements; improving the sharing and coordination of jurisdictional responsibility; and
becoming more transparent and inclusive in involving the public and stakeholder interests. It
specifically highlighted watershed management as the leading example of what was already
working well in the province and was increasingly being adopted elsewhere in North America
and on other continents.
The province invited proposals for watershed -based demonstration projects, and subsequently
five such projects were initiated in late 2001, under the leadership of Conservation Ontario (CO)
and /or individual conservation authorities (CA). The projects were aimed at demonstrating,
documenting and transferring watershed -based best management practices with particular
emphasis on protecting water quality, sustaining water resource availability and facilitating
public and stakeholder involvement for better watershed stewardship. Provincial oversight for
the projects was provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources, while the Ministry of the
Environment provided seed funding to match CO /CA financial and in -kind contributions. Each
project was led by a multi - agency steering committee. Projects were completed early in 2003
and reports can be obtained from the CO website (www.conservation- ontario.on.ca) or from
the TRCA website (www.trca.on.ca).
The following section provides a brief description of each of the projects. It should be noted
that TRCA was involved in the first two projects listed below.
198
REPORT #1: Watershed Management in Ontario: Lessons Learned and Best Practices in
Watershed Planning, Implementation and Monitoring in the Credit Valley Conservation
(CVC), Ganaraska and Region Conservation Authority (GRCA), and TRCA, 2003.
This report examines the lessons learned by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC),
the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA), and TRCA in the past 10 years and
identifies best practices currently being used in watershed management. To assist in the
transfer of these best practices to other practitioners, the three CAs developed a generic
framework for describing their common approach to watershed management, including a
breakdown of the steps involved in the development of a watershed plan. Watershed planning
is one component in the overall process of watershed management, which also includes
implementation, monitoring and reporting and periodic reviews and plan updates.
Conservation Ontario is promoting this generic watershed planning process to the province as
a reference tool for the development and implementation of watershed -based source
protection plans. TRCA, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) and York
Region have used the process as the basis for outlining their plans to fulfill the watershed
planning requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Act and Conservation Plan.
The report concluded that watershed management as practiced by CVC, GRCA, and TRCA is
consistent with Ontario's "strategic shifts" that have been adopted for managing the
environment. Watershed management is comprehensive in that it considers all facets of the
natural environment, addresses social and economic issues, includes both protection and
restoration of the environment and includes a full range of strategies from source control to "
end -of- pipe ". It was noted, however, that to date, social and economic issues have not been
as thoroughly addressed as issues relating to the natural environment.
The report also found that the science of watershed planning is fairly mature, and although
implementation of watershed and subwatershed plans is carried out extensively, it is not
always in a rigorous manner. Although there are good examples of each in CVC, GRCA, and
TRCA, it is fair to say that monitoring and reporting and periodic review are less well developed
as concepts and in practice. Detailed observations of barriers, challenges and trends in each
aspect of watershed management are summarized in the report's conclusions. Case studies of
the Don Watershed Regeneration Strategy and the West Humber Subwatershed Study,
prepared by TRCA staff, are included in the report.
REPORT #2: A Framework for Managing Water Allocation and Water Use on a Watershed
Basis (CVC and GRCA, 2003)
This project was undertaken in consideration of escalating water demands associated with
population growth and economic expansion, which are projected to exceed locally available
supplies in some parts of Ontario, and the low water, "drought" conditions that have been
becoming more commonplace. The report recommends a watershed -based framework for
making sustainable water allocation and water use management decisions with an emphasis
on local participation in problem - solving.
199
Current Ontario practices were documented and critiqued for various components of the water
allocation and water use management decision - making process, including: legal and policy
frameworks; priorities of use; available science and information; linkages with growth and
development planning; water efficiency and demand management practices; the role of supply
management; drought contingencies and institutional arrangements. Current and emerging
practices of other jurisdictions were reviewed.
Recommendations for Ontario were provided within a framework that focused on: water use
and allocation principles; effective planning and response and program administration and
support. Factors deemed to be critical for success included having:
• strong policy and legal frameworks;
• a good understanding of ground and surface water availability and variability on a
watershed basis;
• effective monitoring and reporting systems on current water use and for forecasting
future demands across all sectors;
• well documented and calibrated models and analytical tools for determining water
budgets; and
• prior experience and cooperative institutional arrangements for bringing diverse
water -use mandates and interests together around shared use and management of
water and related resources within a watershed.
TRCA staff is using this report as a key reference document in designing the work program and
approach for the preparation of the Rouge Watershed Strategic Plan and other related
watershed planning activities.
REPORT #3: A Guide to Watershed Reporting (UTRCA and RVCA, 2003)
This "guide" developed by the Upper Thames Region Conservation Authority (UTRCA) and the
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) provides advice on what environmental
information to report and how to design data collection and analysis systems that are the
precursors to good reporting, with an emphasis on improving public access to information.
The report was intended to foster standardized reporting across watersheds, which will assist
in broader regional and provincial evaluation. The guide addresses nine components of
reporting, including: purpose, audience, scale, format, frequency, key resource /environment
elements, indicators, evaluation and scoring, and stressors /causal factors.
TRCA's watershed report cards and the Regional Watershed Monitoring Network, designed to
gather the necessary data for reporting, are entirely consistent with the recommendations of
this report, and in fact go well beyond the level of detail that is being recommended as a "
minimum" basis for reporting.
200
REPORT #4: Using Web -based Interactive Communications to Share Information to
Protect the Health of Our Environment (LSRCA and GRCA, 2003)
This "guide" is a product of lessons learned by LSRCA and GRCA in their interactive web site
projects. Interactive websites have been found to be important methods of disseminating
information to a wide range of audiences and educating and involving the local watershed
public in various watershed management activities. The "guide" provides insight into the
project management aspects of website development and provides listings of helpful reference
sources.
TRCA is in the process of improving its web site in this regard.
REPORT #5: Phosphorus Management and Water Quality: Economic Incentives and
Multi- Stakeholder Watershed Management in the South Nation River and Lake Simcoe
Watersheds (SNC and LSRCA, 2003)
While "water quality trading" is not a common practice in Ontario, it has been sanctioned for
use in some areas, particularly in relation to nutrient enrichment concerns and the imposition of
phosphorus controls. One such area is the South Nation River watershed where municipal and
industrial dischargers are able to partner in the reduction of total phosphorus loadings across
the watershed by diverting monies they otherwise would be required to expend on more
advanced and expensive effluent control measures, to fund non -point source pollution controls
within the agricultural community at a smaller unit cost. These costs can be in the range of
7 -10 times cheaper.
The goal in the South Nation is to reduce ambient total P levels that are now typically 3 -5 times
provincial objectives. LSRCA is working on a similar model for application in their watershed,
aimed at achieving a 25% reduction to total lake loadings. This report summarizes the
experience of these CAs and identifies factors for success of a water quality trading program.
TRCA staff will consider opportunities to employ this approach in the delivery of watershed
plans.
Information contained in this staff report was summarized from: Fox, B. and J. Kinkead, 2003.
Source Protection Planning in Ontario - Linkages to Selected Watershed Initiatives of
Conservation Authorities. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Conference "Water Stewardship:
How Are We Managing ?" of the Canadian Watershed Resources Association, held June 11 -13,
2003, Vancouver, BC.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: August 26, 2003
201
RES. #D59/03 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE NATURALIZATION AND
FLOOD PROTECTION OF THE LOWER DON RIVER
Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project. Establishment
of a Community Liaison Committee as per the requirements of the
Conservation Authority Class Environmental Assessment for the
Naturalization and Flood Protection of the Lower Don River.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Tanny Wells
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT a Community Liaison Committee
(CLC) be established as per the requirements of the Conservation Authority Class
Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects, to assist
the TRCA and consultants in reaching out and maintaining contact with community
residents, groups, associations and organizations, and that the CLC provide community
Input to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), for the Lower Don River
West Remedial Flood Protection Project, as required;
THAT the Terms of Reference, including the membership be approved;
THAT any costs incurred by the TRCA in establishing the CLC be attributed to the Lower
Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project;
THAT Cynthia Wilkey, Ron Fletcher and John Wilson be thanked for assisting in
Identifying members for the CLC;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Board as required on the final list of
members in October 2003.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #9/02, held on October 25, 2002, Res. #A246 /02 on the Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization - Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower Don River -
Delivery Agreement was approved as follows:
WHEREAS the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) has requested that
the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a delivery agreement
with TWRC to undertake certain works for the Naturalization and Flood Protection for the
Lower Don River;
AND WHEREAS it is in the interest of TRCA under its authority and mandate as set out in
the Conservation Authorities Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. 27) to enter into such an agreement;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority agrees to enter into the Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization - Naturalization and Flood Protection For The Lower Don
Delivery Agreement, subject to all terms and conditions being finalized in a manner
satisfactory to Authority staff and the Authority's solicitors, Gardiner Roberts LLP;
202
AND FURTHER THAT Authority officials be authorized and directed to take all necessary
actions as may be required, including the signing of documents, for the execution of the
Delivery Agreement.
In December 2002, the TRCA and TWRC signed the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization -
Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower Don River - Delivery Agreement. This
Delivery Agreement calls for the TRCA to conduct two separate projects near the mouth of the
Don River. This resolution pertains to the first project, the Lower Don River West Remedial
Flood Protection Project.
The objective of this project is to determine the best solution to permanently remove 210
hectares of downtown Toronto, west of the Don River, from the Regulatory Floodplain using a
coordinated approach to meet the requirements under the provincial and federal environmental
assessment processes. The Conservation Authority Class EA for Remedial Flood and Erosion
Control Projects will be used to address the provincial EA process.
The TRCA established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to ensure agency stakeholders,
regulators and the three levels of government funding the project were involved throughout the
process.
Included in the TAC are three citizen representatives with a long history of involvement in
community issues and in particular issues relating to the Don. These community members
have reviewed an initial list of possible groups to be represented on the CLC and provided a
verbal summary of these recommendations at TAC meeting #2 held on Friday, August 29,
2003. In addition, Councillor Pam McConnell's office has been requested to suggest
groups /organizations to be represented. The three community representatives have now
contacted potential members of this committee.
Attached to this communication are the Terms of Reference for the CLC, including the proposal
membership to date of the Committee. Approval of these Terms of Reference at this time and
the list of potential groups /organizations will enable staff to organize an initial meeting in late
October /early November.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The community representatives will continue their work in identifying members for the CLC.
Staff will confirm the membership with the individuals and arrange an introductory meeting. A
further report will be provided when the name of additional members are available.
Report prepared by: Ken Dion, extension 5230
For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230
Date: September 03, 2003
Attachments: 1
203
Attachment 1
TERMS OF REFERENCE
COMMUNITY LIAISON COMMITTEE (CLC)
FOR A CLASS EA FOR THE REMEDIAL FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT
FOR DOWNTOWN TORONTO, WEST OF THE LOWER DON RIVER
PURPOSE OF THE CLC
The main purposes of the CLC is to:
• assist the TRCA in obtaining public input;
• identify issues of concern regarding a remedial project;
• review information and provide comments to the TRCA to be utilized during the planning
and design process; and
• disseminate information.
FUNCTIONS OF THE CLC
Specifically, the functions of the CLC will:
• identify items of public concern and interest with regard to the impact and design of
proposed flood reduction alternatives;
• provide direct input on the proposed flood reduction alternatives to the Conservation
Authority throughout the planning and design process;
• co -host, with Authority Staff, meetings organized by the Authority to facilitate the resolution
of concerns relating to a proposed remedial work;
• review any Part II Order requests made by the public and attempt to resolve the issues of
concern between the Part II Order requesters and the Conservation Authority before the
request gets referred to the Minister of the Environment for a decision; and
• where appropriate, submit an assessment to the Conservation Authority, upon project
completion, commenting on the effectiveness of the Class EA process for meeting public
concerns for the specific project and, where relevant, identify possible improvements.
MEMBERSHIP OF THE CLC
The TRCA has long been involved with issues along the Lower Don River and the West Don
Lands. During this period of involvement, the TRCA has established relationships with many of
the key community associations, groups and interests within the study area. The TRCA will
invite representatives from these interest groups to participate on the CLC.
A preliminary listing of CLC members is provided below.
The Task Force to Bring Back the Don - Tija Dirks
Don Watershed Regeneration Council
Tattle Creek Initiative - Eduard Sousa
Toronto Field Naturalists -
Corktown Residents and Business Association - Alan Marsh
Gooderham & Worts Neighbourhood Association — Julie Beddoes
Distillery District - David Jackson (Cityscape) or Kim Jones (Artscape)
West Don Lands Business Community - Food Share or Studio Works
Southeast Downtown Economic Redevelopment Initiative — Frank Burns
Port Lands Partnership - Paul Young
Toronto Cycling Committee - Frank Baldassini (To identify citizen member)
204
Citizens for the Old Town - Rollo Myers
Regent Park Tenants -
Queen-Broadview Village BIA - Ron Fletcher or Terry Lee
St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association - George Millbrand
West Don Lands Committee -
South Riverdale Revitalization Project - Reid Henry
Mississauga's of New Credit -
Councillor Pam McConnell, Ward 28
MPP George Smitherman, Riding 13
MP Bill Graham, Riding 13
Members of the CLC are permitted to recommend additional groups to participate on the
Committee if they believe key members of the community are missing.
APPOINTMENT OF CLC MEMBERS
Staff will formally invite the persons identified by the three community TAC members to form
the CLC during October and a final list of members will be provided to the Authority at a
subsequent meeting.
MEETINGS
It is anticipated that the CLC will meet on weekday evenings approximately six times a year
and will be established for the duration of the Class EA process commencing in October 2003.
TRCA staff will request an extension should the Class EA require additional time. Meetings will
be held at an appropriate centralized facility within Ward 28, or as near as possible.
The formality of a CLC's structure and composition will be proportional to the amount of public
interest in an undertaking. Given the high level of public interest and exposure for this project,
rules of order will be established, including the election of a Chair, and a spokesperson and
facilitator (if it is deemed necessary by the CLC).
205
RES. #D60 /03 - GTA TASK FORCE ON THE FUTURE OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL
BOARD
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) presentation to the
GTA Task Force on Ontario Municipal Board reform.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the GTA Task Force
recommendations on Ontario Municipal Board reform be endorsed;
THAT staff continue to monitor the progress of the GTA Task Force in affecting change to
the Ontario Municipal Board process and report at a later date;
AND FURTHER THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney
General be so advised.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D61 /03
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
Tanny Wells
THAT the following replace the first paragraph of the main motion:
WHEREAS the TRCA has participated in the consultations of the GTA Task Force
convened to make recommendations for OMB reform;
WHEREAS the TRCA endorses the GTA Task Force recommendations respecting:
1. Updating the role of the OMB;
2. Enabling timely municipal decisions based on complete information;
3. Supporting citizen participation; and
4. Promoting an independenta and fair tribunal;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
AUTHORITY THAT the Minister of Municipals Affairs and Housing be advised that the
TRCA is concerned that while the recommendations, if Implemented, will substantially
improve the OMB process, the TRCA requests the Minister also give careful
consideration to the role the OMB should have within the province's Smart Growth
program in integrating ecological and sustainable considerations into its decisions, and
specifically, to ensuring that cumulative impacts to ecological systems do not result from
site specific development considerations.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
206
BACKGROUND
The Greater Toronto Area Task Force (see membership list in Attachment 1) organized a series
of panel discussions to solicit opinions on the Ontario Municipal Board process and to receive
recommendations for its reform. The Task Force received presentations from many
stakeholders inclucing all municipalities within TRCA's jurisdiction, the Greater Toronto
Homebuilders Association, Ontario Liberal Party (David Chaplan), the Pickering East Shore
Comunity Association, the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and representatives for the
TRCA. The GTA Task Force has subsequently released a report on Ontario Municipal Board
reform.
Many planning decisions and actions by the municipality can be appealed to the Ontario
Municipal Board. The OMB decisions are generally final with the exception of arguments on
points of law which can be appealed to the courts. There are many criticisms of the Ontario
Municipal Board process by various groups including those of the TRCA which are highlighted
in the following paragraphs.
RATIONALE
TRCA staff through legal counsel, produced recommendations for reform which it shared with
the GTA Task Force in January 2003, as follows:
Need for a Comprehensive Approach to Planning
It has been the experience of the TRCA that the current planning process appeals to the
Ontario Municipal Board is not particularly well adapted to respond to dealing with the
cumulative impacts to the ecology as a result of ongoing development. There is a need for
much stronger and clearer legislative and policy direction to address Natural Heritage
Strategies through the planning process, specifically:
• the OMB decisions are based on the evidence presented at a site specific level from
individual appeals rather than considering cumulative impacts associated with ongoing
development.
• there is no effective means for the Board to monitor the results of its decisions. As a result
assumptions arising from the evidence presented at the hearing involving mitigation of
impacts, is never subsequently verified.
• certain appeals should be considered premature pending completion of comprehensive
studies which assess impacts on the natural environment.
Time Frames Associated with Appeals
It is unrealistic to egpect the proper review of development proposals within a 90 day appeal
period legislated under the Planning Act. Many of the cases with which the TRCA are involved
raise complex scientific issues. Therefore, staff are required to respond to applications where
information is incomplete or not forthcoming prior to the appeal. The current appeal period
should be lengthened and the requirements for perfecting an application be toughened. The
TRCA also believes that there should be greater emphasis placed at the OMB level on
screening appeals in advance of the hearings to afford an opportunity for resolution prior to the
hearing.
207
Recovery of Costs
There are substantial costs involved with the OMB proceedings. Where appeals are forwarded
to the OMB by developers, there is pressure exerted on the TRCA to respond in short time
frames on complex issues. Since the appellant is often able to compel an expedited review of
their application by staff, the TRCA believes that there should be some responsibility on the
part of the appellant to indemnify the TRCA for these additional costs.
The above comments were received by the GTA Task Force and the Task Force has prepared
its recommendations for change.
GTA TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
The GTA Task Force released a report on March 7, 2003 entitled "Recommendations for
Reforming the Ontario Municipal Board and Ontario's Planning Appeal Process ". The report
recommends reforms and seeks endorsement of its recommendations. The Task Force
recommendations focus on four key areas of improvement:
1. The need to update the role of the OMB
2. Enable timely municipal decisions based on complete information
3. Support citizen participation through intervenor funding
4. Promotion of an independent and fair tribunal
1. Update the Role of the OMB
The Task Force recognizes that municipalities and legislation have matured since the OMB was
created and that the Board should also be modified to reflect this maturing. As a result the
Task Force recommends a two stage process where the first stage would be to review reasons
for an appeal to determine if such an appeal should be granted. Only then will an appeal
proceed to a full Ontario Municipal Board hearing as a second stage.
2. Enable timely municipal decisions based on complete information
The Task Force recommends amending the Planning Act to create a definition of complete
application, to mandate preconsultation and to create a mechanism by which a dispute with
what constitutes a complete application could be brought to the Board. Further the Task Force
recommends giving the OMB jurisdiction to stay any appeal process if there is insufficient
information or the municipality has not had enough time to consider the application. Finally the
Task Force recommends a 150 day appeal period and not 90 days which is the current
practice.
3. Support citizen participation
The Task Force recommends the province establish a program to fund third party public
participation which citizen groups will need to qualify to obtain.
208
4. Promote an independent and fair trial
The Task Force recommends several changes to enhance reality and perception on this
matter. Highlights include, increasing the term of appointments to the OMB, providing a job
description of Board Members, an open process for applicants to the OMB and an open
performance evaluation process for Board Members.
The Task Force believes that if the above recommendations are implemented they will
substantially address the criticisms of the current planning appeal process. TRCA staff concur
with the Task Force recommendations as they directly relate to our criticisms. The TRCA's
endorsement of these recommendations will support the Task Force's promotion that the
province act to make the suggested changes.
Report prepared by: Russel White, extension 5306
For Information contact: Russel White, extension 5306
Date: September 02, 2003
Attachments: 1
209
Attachment 1
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM
Membership List
Roger Anderson
Regional Chair
Region of Durham
Steve Parish
Mayor
Town of Ajax
Mark Holland
City /Regional Councillor
City of Pickering
Nancy L. Smith
Assistant Corporate Counsel
City of Hamilton
Don Sinclair
Director, Development Law
Corporate and Legal Services Department
Region of York
Paul Mallard
Manager, Development Planning Section
Planning and Development Department
City of Hamilton
Frank D'Amico
Councillor
City of Hamilton
William Bell
Mayor
Town of Richmond Hill
A.L. Georgieff
Commissioner of Planning
Region of Durham
Kevin Daniel Flynn
Regional Councillor
Ward 1 - Oakville
Region of Halton
Patrick O'Connor
Director of Legal Services
Corporate Services Department
Region of Peel
Arvin Prasad
Director of Planning Policy and Research
Planning Department
Region of Peel
Stan Floras
Assistant Corporate Counsel
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer
Legal Services
Region of Halton
Gary Muller
Senior Planner
Planning and Development
Town of Ajax
Jody Wellings
Manager of Current Planning
Planning and Transportation Services
Region of Halton
Ann Mulvale
Mayor
Town of Oakville
Councillor Howard Moscoe
City of Toronto
Andrew Allison
Senior Solicitor
Region of Durham
210
RES. #D62 /03 - GENERAL IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FLOOD RISK IN
THE GREAT LAKES BASIN, AND TRCA WATERSHEDS
Review of the staff report on the potential impacts of climate change on
flood risk.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue to
work with Environment Canada in an attempt to further research and evaluate the
potential Impacts of a changing climate on flood risk.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D63 /03
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ila Bossons
Ian Sinclair
THAT the folowing be inserted after the main motion:
AND FURTHER THAT staff enter into discussions with the Professional Engineers
Association and the Municipal Engineers Association in regards to the design standards
for bridges.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Flooding in the Toronto Region has historically occurred as a result of typically four types of
meteorological events. These are rainfall on snow, tropical storm, large synoptic storms and
severe thunderstorms. With the onset of climate change, we can expect that a warmer climate
will result in changes in the types and frequency of weather systems which currently pose a
risk to the creation of flooding within the Great Lakes Basin, including watersheds within our
jurisdiction.
The first type of event, rainfall on snow, tends to result in high flows in all river systems and ice
breakup. This type of flood event occurs generally in early spring or mid - winter with varying
levels of flooding due to ice jamming. This type of event represents some of the earliest
recorded flooding in the region, dating back to 1850. While the risks with this type of flooding
have been significantly reduced by TRCA flood prevention works, localized flooding due to ice
jamming continues to exist at a number of areas within our watersheds. The impacts of a
changing climate on this form of flooding are anticipated to be two -fold, as with milder winters
due to a warming climate in the Great Lakes Basin, it is anticipated that spring runoff will be
occurring earlier and it is possible that less snowfall with more mid winter melt periods could
occur. Depending upon the individual winter weather, the results will range from less spring
flooding to more frequent ice jamming conditions.
211
The second type of meteorological event which has resulted in flooding within the region is that
of tropical storms during late summer and during the fall. While the records of flooding in our
watersheds note flooding as early as 1857 due to storms typically associated with these types
of events, September of 1878 is the earliest recorded flooding that can be directly associated
with a tropical storm which impacted the region. An analysis of tropical storms which have
reached sufficiently inland to affect the Great Lakes Region reveal that since the recording of
such events began in 1872, a total of 54 have occurred. The impacts of these systems varies
depending upon the type, severity and storm track, with the most severe recorded in October
of 1954 (Hurricane Hazel). It is unclear as to what impact climate change will have on these
types of storms, but an analysis by staff of the storms that have affected our region since 1954
reveals that between 1954 and 1988, a total of 10 events impacted our region over the 34 year
period. Since 1988, a total of 9 events have occurred over the 14 year period, with the majority
(8), occurring during the 1990's. The decade of the 1990's represented the warmest on record.
While detailed analysis and modeling will be required to verify the impacts of climate change
on these types of storms, the data collected to date tends to support the position that a warmer
climate tends to generate more of these types of storms. Given this, these types of events will
continue to present a significant and most likely an increasing risk to creating major flooding
within our region.
The third type of meteorological event that can result in flooding within our region are the large
synoptic type of storms typically experienced in early spring and late fall. These types of
systems are usually large, slow moving systems which can affect the entire province and
typically generate moderate rainfalls that last for 12- 36 hours. Flooding can result from these
storm systems as a result of the cumulative impact of runoff over long periods occurring on
existing, very wet or saturated soils. The Mississippi flooding in 1993 and the flooding
experience in north western Ontario in 2001 were a result of a series of these type of events.
The nature of our watersheds tends not to make this type of event a significant risk to major
flooding, however the extended periods of very high flows created by these types of storms do
generally create safety issues for extended periods along all our watersheds. The impacts of
climate change on these types of storms will also need to be studied, however, the general
aspects of a changed climate with a greater amount of water vapour held within the
atmosphere will tend to provide for larger amounts of preciptable water being available for
these systems.
The fourth and perhaps the type of meteorological event which poses the most frequent risk to
our region is that of severe weather (thunderstorms). Our watersheds and in particular our
urban communities are particularly susceptible to these types of events. These events often
occur with little warning and can deposit significant amounts of rain within very short time
frames, resulting in flash floods, street flooding and sewer surcharging (flooded basements).
Over the last 16 years, the majority of our flooding has been associated with these types of
storms. During the summer of 1986 our area was hit with three major events of this type with
widespread flooding and thousands of flooded basements. Similar storms created major
flooding in Essex County during the Harrow Storms of 1989. The Saguenay River flood in 1996
was a result of similar types of storms. The storms of May 12 -13 of 2000 (now known as the
Walkerton Storms) also resulted in significant flooding in our region. Similar storms throughout
the summer of 2000 created flooding throughout most of the southern portions of the province.
This summer, similar storms recently resulted in localized flooding in Mississauga and in
Pembroke, Ontario. It is these types of storms that may be the most impacted by changes
212
within our climate. It is generally held that one of the most significant changes we can expect
will be more severe local storms. Initial works by climate specialists have referred to the
potential for a doubling of the risk that these types of storms represent by 2050. Consequently,
these types of storms will continue to be the systems which present the greatest frequency of
flood risk in our region.
Environment Canada has recognized that a great deal of more detailed analysis is required to
definitively address the changes in risk that climate change represents. Staff of the TRCA are
currently working with the Meteorological Services Branch of Environment Canada in a Climate
Change Action Fund request to try and move this research forward. This research is needed to
confirm the changes in risk's we will be dealing with to allow both ourselves and our municipal
partners to adapt to an increased flood risk. A shift in frequency such as that presently being
discussed would result in a doubling of existing risk by 2050. The impacts of this type of
change could mean a 5 -year storm occurring at a frequency closer to that of a 2 year storm,
and the 1 /100 year storm at the 1/50 year return period. This shift would have the impacts of
significantly reducing the level of protection of existing flood control works and increasing the
frequency and severity of urban flooding problems. In addition to the change in risk to flooding
that a changing climate creates, the potential for more frequent smaller storms will also create
runoff events which will result in changes to stream morphology through increased erosion.
While the detailed research to clearly establish the degree of anticipated hydrologic change is
still required, the general consensus and initial data would tend to reflect that a changing
climate will and is resulting in greater severity and frequency of meteorological events resulting
in an increased flood risk.
Report prepared by: Don Haley, extension 5226
For Information contact: Don Haley, extension 5226
Date: September 04, 2003
RES. #D64/03 - 2003 - 2006 SNELGROVE REACH HABITAT REGENERATION PLAN
Etobicoke Creek. Approval of the 2003 - 2006 Snelgrove Reach Habitat
Regeneration Plan and direction to proceed with implementation in
concert with the development and implementation of the Snelgrove
Community Action Area Plan.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Tanny Wells
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 2003 - 2006 Snelgrove Reach
Habitat Regeneration Plan be approved;
THAT staff be directed to develop partnerships, seek funding and initiate implementation
of the Snelgrove Reach Habitat Regeneration Plan in concert with the development and
implementation of the Snelgrove Community Action Area Plan;
213
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the progress of the implementation of the 2003
- 2006 Snelgrove Reach Habitat Regeneration Plan.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #5/92, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
approved Resolution #72, granting a permanent easement on 0.309 hectares of Authority
owned lands to the Corporation of the City of Brampton to facilitate construction of a
stormsewer that would service new development. Due to the increases in level and frequency
of stormwater discharge that would result from this, Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) staff were directed to undertake terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancements
in the valley and any necessary erosion control work.
Pursuant to this, in 1994 the Valley and Stream Corridor Reach Plan for Snelgrove was
developed to guide future terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancements in this area. The
Snelgrove reach plan was updated in 1999 to be consistent with new water quality, aquatic
habitat, flora and fauna surveys and land use information, and incorporated information about
regeneration efforts in the area that were carried out between 1994 and 1999.
It recommended further site specific management activities to be undertaken over time as
opportunities are presented. Based on this, as well as updated flora and fauna surveys (2001),
a habitat regeneration plan, titled "2003 - 2006 Snelgrove Reach Habitat Regeneration Plan ",
has been developed for implementation between 2003 and 2006.
RATIONALE
At Authority Meeting #5/03, June 27, 2003, Resolution #A131/03, was approved as follows:
THAT this work plan be initiated for the development of four new community action area
plans in 2003 in the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds be endorsed;
THAT staff are directed to initiate the associated stewardship groups for each of these
areas as opportunities arise;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to provide updates to the Authority as the area
plans are developed and implemented.
The Snelgrove community action area is significantly larger than the area of the Reach Plan,
being located between Mayfield Road, Kennedy Road, Bovaird Drive and the western
boundary of Etobicoke Creek watershed. The fall 2003 Snelgrove planting event will be used
to kick -off the public participation component of the community action area planning process
and to develop public support for future efforts in the broader Snelgrove community action
area.
The implementation of the 2003 - 2006 Snelgrove Reach Habitat Regeneration Plan will help to
achieve the 2006 targets for the following indicators of the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek
Watersheds management strategy "Greening Our Watersheds ": Terrestrial Habitat Quantity,
Riparian Zone, and Biodiversity. It will also help to achieve the Remedial Action Plan goals of:
Rehabilitation of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Watersheds ( "Biotic corridor linkages are protected,
214
enhanced, or rehabilitated across the waterfront and throughout the stream and valley
system "), and Ecosystem Observation ( "Opportunities should be provided for residents and
visitors to study or observe a functioning, healthy ecosystem ").
WORK TO BE DONE
1. Submission of funding proposals to TD Friends of the Environment Foundation and MNR
CFWIP funding program.
2. Coordination and implementation of the 2003 Snelgrove fall public planting event.
3. Detailed designs and costs for 2004, 2005 and 2006 planting plans and habitat
enhancement features.
4. Public consultation for the development of the Snelgrove Community Action Area plan.
The fall 2003 habitat enhancement initiatives will be implemented at a large public planting
event.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
• Funding for the implementation of the 2003 Snelgrove regeneration projects is located in
account #112 -43. Further partnerships are being developed with the following groups:
Brampton Scouts, Punjabi Community Health Centre, TD Friends of the Environment
Foundation, MNR CFWIP funding program and others.
• Funding for the implementation of proposed 2004 - 2006 Snelgrove regeneration projects
will be planned for in budgets for future years.
• Funding for the development of the Snelgrove Community Action Area Plan and the
initiation and support of the future Snelgrove community stewardship group is available in
account #118 -70 and 118 -71 for 2003 and will be accounted for in future watershed
budgets .
Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
For Information contact: Kristin Geater, extension 5667
Date: August 28, 2003
Attachments: 2
215
Attachment 1
Snelgrove Reach Four Year Concept Plan 2003 - 2006
The Snelgrove Reach is a 2.6 kilometre reach along the Main Branch of the Etobicoke Creek,
extending from Conservation Drive in the north to Sandalwood Parkway in the south. The
natural landscape is primarily a matrix of natural and managed valley land features including
upland forest, fioodplain forest, wetlands, old field, shrub thickets, regeneration planting,
stormwater outfalls and manicured parkland. The Snelgrove Reach of Etobicoke Creek
demonstrates both a naturally meandering and physically altered channel. Storm water
outfalls and drainage diversion ditches are present throughout the area. Snelgrove is a
high -use park that provides a variety of recreational activities which include:
Walking and cycling along and extensive network of asphalt pathways;
Ice skating (Loafer's Lake);
Boating (Loafer's Lake);
Soccer and Baseball; and
Informal Picnicking
Snelgrove Reach is surrounded by predominantly residential land uses. A large community
centre is located near the south end on the east side of the valley adjacent to Loafer's Lake.
Somerset Drive Public School is located near the north end on the east side of the valley.
Flora and Fauna
Vegetation communities with the Snelgrove Reach have been identified, under the Terrestrial
Natural Heritage Monitoring Program, using Ecological Land Classification protocols.
Dominant vegetation cover types include the following:
Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow
Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple - White Ash Deciduous Forest
Reed Canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh
Manicured Park
Native Cultural Savannah
Exotic Cultural Savannah
Under the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Monitoring Program, fauna surveys were performed and
species of concern were identified. Habitat enhancement plans will include habitat
components required by these species. The following is a list of the species of concern
observed in Snelgrove and areas adjacent:
spring peeper
mink
northern leopard frog
wood thrush
common yellow throat
eastern pheobe
eastern wood -pewee
swamp sparrow
white breasted nuthatch
216
Restoration Opportunities
The following restoration opportunities have been identified for Snelgrove:
Reforestation:
Regeneration planting sites have been identified for upland, slope, floodplain and riparian
vegetation communities. Tree and shrub selection should focus on promoting historical
species. Within the floodplain, priority will be given to tree and shrub species that attract
songbirds. Areas identified as "naturally regenerating" should be monitored and managed to
promote the natural succession of native forest species. The interspersion of critical habitat
features such as nest boxes and a snake hbernaculum is recommended.
Wetland Pockets:
Areas have been identified within the floodplain for wetland pocket enhancement. These are
pre- existing wet areas, which can be enhanced to increase habitat diversity to be used by a
variety of amphibians, waterfowl, and songbirds. Actions for these wet areas should focus on
increasing the wetland pocket size and diversifying water depths. This would be achieved
through excavation and the manipulation of water levels. Once stabilized, the wetland pockets
should be planted with native emergent and submergent aquatic flora. The interspersion of
nest boxes is recommended.
Loafer's Lake:
Emergent vegetation such as cattail, sedges, smartweed, and rushes should be promoted via
planting to mitigate the high nutrient content in the pond and to increase cover for fish. Due to
the high population of Canada Geese around the pond, it is important that planting sites are
enclosed with restrictive fencing and continually monitored to determine and promote any
successful establishment. Further recommended actions include increasing cover for fish in
the pond installing critical habitat features such as root wads and fallen trees. Nest boxes
should be installed on the island within Loafer's Lake, away from park users.
Stream Restoration:
Originally recommended by the Valley and Stream Corridor Reach Plan for Snelgrove, selected
priority sections of the channel reach were identified for riffle:pool enhancements and bank
stabilization.
2003 - 2006 Proiect Deliverables
Habitat Type
Contribution
Forest
1 ha
Floodplain /Songbird habitat
4 ha
Riparian
1400 m
Wetland Enhancement
19 ha
Nest boxes
22
Snake Hibernaculum
2
217
Critical Habitat Features (root wads, fallen
trees) '
12
Bank Stabilization (bioengineering)
264 m
In- stream Pools
7 pools
In- stream Riffles
2 riffles
Suggested Time Line and Approximate Cost:
Habitat implementation recommendations for the Snelgrove Reach have been divided into a
four year schedule:
Year
Habitat Implementation
Cost ($)
2003
Snake hibernaculum
Floodplain forest/songbird corridor planting sites
4,000 - 6,000
12,000 - 17,000
16,000 - 23,000
Stream bank stabilization /riparian planting sites'
7,000 - 11,000
2004
Nest boxes
4,500 - 6,500
Planting sites (floodplain, valley, and slope)
16,000 - 22,000
Snake hibernaculum
4,000 - 6,000
31,500 - 45,500
Loafer's Lake shoreline and emergent re- vegetation
20,000 - 25,000
2005
Loafer's Lake habitat features (root wads, fallen trees and
nest boxes)
5,000 - 7,000
25,000 - 32,000
Wetland pocket enhancement
15,000 - 20,000
2006
Riparian planting sites
9,500 - 13,500
Stream restoration (riffle:pool)
9,000 - 15,000
33,500 - 48,500
Details of the 2003 - 2006 Habitat Regeneration Plan
As part the Snelgrove Reach Plan, the following implementation work has been identified for
2003:
(1) Songbird Corridor Planting Sites
In an effort to build on existing planting sites that have focussed on enhancing the floodplain
forest community within Snelgrove, new sites have been selected and a plant list developed, to
create a vegetation corridor for migratory songbirds containing berry producing trees and
shrubs and species historically present in the area.
The planting will be implemented in the fall by community volunteers and TRCA staff. Prior to
project implementation, the planting sites must be cleared by the TRCA archeology
department. The site will be tilled and an archeological survey will be performed for all planting
areas.
218
(2) Snake Hlbernaculum
In order to enhance the critical habitat features within Snelgrove, a snake hibernaculum will be
installed along the west side of the valley. Location requirements mandate its position on a
south facing slope. Installation of the hibernaculum involves excavating approximately 4 cubic
metres of soil from the valley slope and replacing it with clean stone and woody material.
Material will be collected on site. Any other required material will be purchased on an as
needed basis. Once completed a interpretive sign will be placed in a section on the park trial
near the project location. The hibernaculum will not be visible from the trail to deter any human
interference. For educational purposes a faux hibernaculum will be placed in an area that
visible from the interpretive sign and that is not a hazard for the trail users. An archeology
survey may be required prior to implementation.
2003 Project Deliverables:
• 1 ha of floodplain forest/migratory songbird habitat
• 1 Critical Habitat Feature (Snake Hibernaculum)
219
ETOBICOKE AND MIMIC° CREEK WATERSHEDS
COMMUNITY ACTION AREA BOUNDARIES
ETOBICOKE CREEK
1) Heart Lake
2 Etoblcoice Headwaters
31 Soo:trove
4) Downtown Brampton
6, South Brampton
8 , Spring
7, Central Spring Creek
South Spring Creek
9 North Mississauga
10 Central Mississaug
1
11 South Mississauga
12 Little Etobicake Creek MIMICO CREEK
13 Renforth Creek 14 Malton
15 West Mmico
LEGEND 16S Mimic° Headwaters
, y L. Ontario Shoreline 17 North Toronto
18 Central Toronto
,/ Municipal Boundary 19 South Mimic°
Major Roads
iMil Lakes and Ponds
• , Rivers
M Community Action Area Boundaries
I=1 Watershed Boundary
2 0 2 4 6 Kilometres
BRAnApioN
PEEL
20) Pearson International Airport
Thes area faits within both watersheds
and is being treated as a case study
4A'
Z luawy3eud
RES. #D65/03 - ONTARIO'S LIVING LEGACY FUNDING
Information regarding Living Legacy Funding.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Tanny Wells
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the project for the Ontario Living
Legacy Funds involving an investment of provincial funding of $325,000 for habitat
restoration projects within the Duffins Creek watershed and at Frenchman's Bay be
approved.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Ontario's Living Legacy is the largest natural heritage protection program in the province's
history. It includes protection of significant lands in southern Ontario for the benefit and
enjoyment of future generations. On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at Rotary Park in Ajax, the
Honourable Jerry J. Ouellette, Minister of Natural Resources, along with the Honourable Janet
Ecker and the Honourable Jim Flaherty, presented a cheque for $325,000 to Uxbridge Mayor
Gerri Lynn O'Connor, who accepted it on behalf of the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA). The money has been earmarked for seven habitat creation and wetland
protection projects in the Duffins Creek Watershed and the Frenchman's Bay Coastal Wetland.
Of the $325,000, $200,000 is for Duffins Creek watershed projects and $125,000 is split
between Duffins Marsh and Frenchman's Bay West. The following projects will benefit from
these funds:
Frenchman's Bay West Rotary Park - Wetland Creation Project
Ontario Living Legacy funds will be applied at this site to the habitat enhancement component,
specifically the development of a central wetland in the park. Future works related to habitat
enhancement will include establishing coastal butterfly meadows and forest regeneration.
Duffins Creek Marsh - Restoration Action Plan
Work commencing in 2003 will include the construction of a water control structure /carp barrier
and the implementation of habitat enhancement structures such as nesting platforms,
spawning shoals, wetland buffers, shrub thickets and basking logs. Planting will commence in
the Spring of 2004.
Private Land Stewardship - Conservation Easement Restoration
A number of landowners with conservation easements on their property have requested
assistance in restoring the natural features and functions of their property. Capital funds
through the Living Legacy program will provide trees, shrubs and aquatic plants for easement
enhancements.
Timber Brothers Gravel Pit - Restoration Plan
Living Legacy funds will be applied to wetland creation, wildlife habitat features and an
increase in forest cover to meet objectives of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and
the Duffins Creek Watershed Plan.
221
Glen Major Forest - Trail Head Creation
A variety of native trees and shrubs will be randomly planted throughout the site and a trail
head sign will be installed adjacent to the parking area. Existing trails will be extended through
the old field to create a link with the new Trail Head.
Greenwood Management Plan - Rodar Property Enhancements
This site provides an opportunity to develop and showcase meadow and riparian habitat in an
area that is an accessible public space. It is located on the proposed route for the Trans
Canada Trail up the East Duffins Creek, linking the waterfront to the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Paulynn Park - Riparian Enhancement Project
Fish habitat improvements will be made through riparian plantings. The installation of an
informal trail though this corridor will allow fishing and viewing opportunities for anglers and
others. Habitat structures to be installed include bird boxes for small song birds and creating
small brush piles and heat sinks as basking opportunities for small mammals, amphibians and
birds. An information kiosk will profile restoration techniques suitable for other locations.
A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed between the Ministry of Natural Resources
and TRCA. As the lead partner in Ontario's Living Legacy initiative, TRCA will administer the
government funding for this project. Work on these projects will be underway in the fall of 2003
and carry over into the spring of 2004.
The Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek is now complete and Ontario's
Living Legacy funds will go a long way in contributing to its implementation and moving us
towards our vision for The Living City - a vision for healthy communities where human
settlement can flourish forever as part of nature's beauty and diversity.
Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5392
For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385
Date: September 2, 2003
RES. #D66/03 - DON VALLEY BRICK WORKS
Approval of a minor amendment to the Don Valley Brick Works Master
Plan 1994 to reflect the enhanced access to the site in addition to a small
off leash dog area which will help to protect the Weston Quarry Garden.
These improvements will be funded through a generous donation to the
City of Toronto from The Woodbridge Company Limited.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ila Bossons
Anthony Ketchum
222
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minor amendment to the Don
Valley Brick Works Master Plan be approved to reflect the proposed enhanced access to
the site in addition to a small off leash dog area which will protect the continuing
regeneration of the Weston Quarry Garden;
AND FURTHER THAT The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto be advised of the
changed to the Don Valley Brick Works Master Plan 1994 by copy of this report.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) was approached by the City of Toronto to
enter into a three party agreement with respect to a $1 million dollar donation provided by The
Woodbridge Company Limited for the creation of a new one acre park as part of the
regeneration of the Brick Works. City of Toronto Council dealt with the matter in December,
2001 and had granted authority to enter into an agreement with The Woodbridge Company
Limited regarding the implementation of the parkland improvements to the Brick Works.
The $1 million dollar donation will be used for improvements at the site that links the Belt Line
Ravine to Building #1.
In reviewing this agreement, we have requested that provisions be made to maintain, in good
condition, the Allan Beattie tree and plaque as well as the bronze plaque awarded by the
Aggregate Producer's Association of Ontario in recognition of the regeneration of the Quarry.
The City retained Envision the Hough Group to develop the landscape plan for the site
improvements. The City staff have now settled on a proposed plan for the improvements to the
area. Two new access points will be provided from the Belt Line Ravine to the site and a small
off leash dog area, as well as general entrance improvements.
The first will be a set of steps that will replace the steep path linkage that enters the site
adjacent to the Weston Quarry Garden. This trail link has required improvement as it is
constantly eroding and requiring maintenance. Funding was not available in the first Phase of
the work to improve this access.
The second access point will be a ramped trail providing ease of access for those unable to
use the steps. The final designs for each of these points will be subject to further review of the
detailed drawings by TRCA staff.
The creation of an off leash dog area is a welcome addition to the park. From the time of initial
restoration of the quarry, the site has been a magnet for dog walkers and individuals wishing to
exercise their dogs in a beautiful natural setting. Many of the original plantings were damaged
when dogs were allowed to run off leash. City of Toronto staff erected a number of fences to
prevent further damage to the site and numerous attempts have been made to address the
issue. Ken Thompson, the benefactor of The Woodbridge Company Limited is a regular user
of the site and has recognized the need to create a dots off leash area for the benefit of the
local community and to assist in preventing the misuse of the Quarry Garden by dogs off leash.
A small area (approximately 1 acre) has been identified to the south of the existing parking lot
for the off leash area. Staff off the TRCA support this amendment to the Don Valley Brick
223
Works Master Plan. The proposal has also been discussed with the Brick Works Advisory
Committee. and representatives of the W. Garfield Weston Foundation.
Details of a site plan will be available at the meeting for review.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff have requested detailed drawings of both access points for approval prior to
construction. Staff continue to work with the City on the proposal for adaptive reuse of the site
in conformance with TRCA policies, the site Master Plan and the purposes for which the site
was originally expropriated. Staff will continue to update the Board and The Conservation
Foundation.
Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: September 04, 2003
RES. #D67/03 - ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION
Minutes of Meeting #3/03 and #4/03. The minutes of the
Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meetings #3/03 and #4/03, held
on May 22, 2003 and July 24, 2003, respectively, are provided for
information.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Tanny Wells
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the
Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meetings #3/03 and #4/03, held on May 22,
2003 and July 24, 2003, respectively, 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 #5/02, held on May 24, 2003 by resolution #A124/02,
includes the following provision:
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.
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
Date: August 12, 2003
224
RES. #D68 /03 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meetings #3/03 and #4/03. The minutes of Humber
Watershed Alliance meetings #3/03 and #4/03, held on June 23, 2003
and July 15, 2003, respectively, are provided for information
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Tanny Wells
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber
Watershed Alliance meetings #3/03 and #4/03, held on June 23, 2003 and July 15, 2003,
respectively, as appended, be received.
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: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: August 12, 2003
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF ANOTHER BOARD
RES. #D69 /03 - REGIONAL REPORT CARD PROGRESS AND 2001 REGIONAL
MONITORING PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
The Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) plans to embark on the creation of a Regional
Report Card in the 2004/2005 project year to address the state of the
environment in the Toronto Area of Concern (AoC). The 2001 Regional
Monitoring Status Report will act as baseline data in the preparation of
this report.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Scarpitti
IIa Bossons
225
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the update on the Regional Report Card be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the 2001 Regional Monitoring Program Status Report be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Toronto RAP understands the importance of assessing the state of the environment in the
AoC to foster appropriate action and also to show how current efforts have affected
environmental health. The preparation of a Regional Report Card fits well within RAP
monitoring and reporting objectives. In the Five -Year Strategic Plan currently being developed
for the Toronto and Region RAP, the Regional Report Card has been identified as a deliverable
for the 2004/2005 project year. Costs associated with the report (excluding some of the in -kind
staff time) will be funded through the RAP MoU.
At Authority Meeting #7/02, held on July 26, 2002, Res. #A202 /02 was approved as follows:
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.
In response to this resolution Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff
prepared a DRAFT report in February 2003 titled: "TRCA State of the Region Background
Report: Indicator Overview and Document Summaries ". This document will be used to draw on
the various techniques and reporting methods used by other agencies, when creating a
Toronto and Region specific report.
In preparation of the Regional Report card staff intend to utilize the vast resources that are
presently available in the Greater Toronto Area. An idea that will be explored is bringing in
different organizations in the Toronto Region to co- author sections of the report card that reflect
their areas of interest or expertise. At RAP Team monthly meetings, TRCA staff have initiated a
process of inviting local interest groups to come and speak about their projects and efforts.
The Team will be setting up meetings with agencies who show interest in becoming involved in
the preparation of the report in September and October 2003, to further the planning process.
The RAP AoC plus the Duffins and Carruthers Watersheds will be the area of focus for the
Regional Report Card. In consultation with Board Member Anthony Ketchum and the RAP
Team, the following have been identified as possible areas of concentration.
-Air Quality
- Energy
- Aquatic Habitat Quality
- Drinking Water
-Urban Agriculture
- Greenspace
-Urban Sprawl /Smart Growth
226
Further research and consultation with interest groups and TRCA staff will be undertaken to
confirm these areas and to refine the objectives of this report. A detailed Table of Contents
should be ready for Board approval in December 2003.
The Regional Report Card will also incorporate baseline data from the Regional Monitoring
Program. The Status Report for the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program 2001 is now
finalized and a copy of the report will be available at the Meeting for interested Board
Members. This report lays out monitoring data collected on the established indicators in the
program. Data collected in the first three years (2001 - 2003) establishes baseline conditions. In
this first phase indicators are all measures of condition and stress. Response indicators will be
incorporated in future years.
The 2002 and 2003 Regional Monitoring Program has integrated smoothly into the successful
pattern of data collection, analysis and management established in 2001. The 2001 report
articulates that the continued collection of baseline data leading to the development of
action - oriented indicators will make significant steps towards restoring beneficial uses in the
Toronto and Region AoC. The completion of a Regional Report Card is another effort identified
which will assist the Regional Monitoring Program in obtaining its' objectives.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
- Meetings with interested groups;
- Agreement on authors of the sections and major themes;
- Preparation of a detailed Table of Contents (will be brought to the Board for approval in
December 2003).
Report prepared by: Lisa Turnbull, extension 5325
For Information contact: Lisa Turnbull, extension 5325 or Scott Jarvie, extension 5312
Date: August 05, 2003
NEW BUSINESS
RES. #D70/03
Moved by: Pam McConnell
Seconded by: Bossons
THAT the Watershed Management Advisory Board Members unanimously request that
the Chair of the Authority send a letter of thank you to Chair Irene Jones and Vice Chair
Lorna Bissell for their outstanding committment and contributions to the work of the
Watershed Management Advisory Board and the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority.
CARRIED
227
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:27 a.m., on Friday, September 12, 2003.
Dick O'Brien
Chair
/ks
Brian Denney
Secretary- Treasurer
228
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/03
December 12, 2003
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #5/03, was held in the Humber
Room, Head Office, on Friday, December 12, 2003. The Chair Irene Jones, called the
meeting to order at 10:03 a.m.
PRESENT
Lorna Bissell
Ila Bossons
Irene Jones
Anthony Ketchum
Jim McMaster
Dick O'Brien
Frank Scarpitti
Ian Sinclair
Tanny Wells
REGRETS
Cliff Gyles
Pam McConnell
Joe Pantalone
Dave Ryan
RES. #D71/03 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
MINUTES
Dick O'Brien
Lorna Bissell
Vice Chair
Member
Chair
Member
Member
Chair, Authority
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/03, held on September 12, 2003, be approved.
CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
(a)
Sandy Agnew, Member, Black Creek Conservation Project, speaking in regards to
Oakdale Golf and Country Club.
(b) Two students from Chaminade College School, speaking in regards to Oakdale Golf
and Country Club.
229
(c) Herb Pirk, General Manager, Oakdale Golf and Country Club, speaking in regards to
Oakdale Golf and Country Club.
RES. #D72 /03 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ila Bossons
THAT above -noted delegations (a) - (c) be heard and received.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Jon Clayton, Supervisor, Aquatic Ecosystem Management, TRCA, in
regards to Item 7.2 - Fisheries Management Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers
Creek.
(b) A presentation by Lois Griffin, Chair, Humber Watershed Alliance and Gary Wilkins,
Humber Watershed Specialist, in regards to item 7.8 - 2003 Humber Watershed
Progress Report - Final.
RES. #D73 /03 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Lorna Bissell
THAT above -noted presentations (a) and (b) be heard and received.
CORRESPONDENCE
(a)
CARRIED
A letter dated November 20, 2003, from Susan Horvath, President, Black Creek
Conservation Project, in regards to Oakdale Golf and Country Club.
(b) An email dated December 11, 2003, from Madeleine McDowell, Chair, Humber Heritage
Committee, in regards to Oakdale Golf and Country Club.
(c) A letter dated December 10, 2003, from Luciano Martin, Executive Director, Action to
Restore a Clean Humber (ARCH), in regards to Oakdale Golf and Country Club.
(d) A letter dated December 5, 2003, from Robert Giza, Head of Science, Chaminade
College School, in regards to Oakdale Golf and Country Club.
230
(e) A letter dated December 11, 2003, from Brian Skinner, Director of Operations and
Environmental Services, Town of Ajax, in regards to Ajax Waterfront Trail: Proposal for
Completion to the Ajax - Whitby Border.
RES. #D74 /03 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT above -noted correspondence (a)
- (d) be received;
THAT staff be directed to continue to meet with Oakdale Golf and Country Club staff and
interested stakeholders to review the outcomes of the groundwater test drilling in
Downsview Dells to determine the potential options for withdrawal of groundwater, and
report back to the Authority as required;
THAT Oakdale Golf and Country Club be encouraged to continue to work on developing
an integrated watershed management plan, including the possibility of utilizing grey
water;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the possible number of golf courses within
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority jurisdiction which will be exploring the use of
groundwater to meet their future water needs.
RES. #D75 /03 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ila Bossons
CARRIED
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT above -noted correspondence (e)
be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report on the types of assistance that the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority can provide to the Town of Ajax on this
important initiative, including assessment of the priority of waterfront development
initiatives in the Region of Durham, relative to the availability of funding from the region
and other potential sources for waterfront projects.
CARRIED
231
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
November 20, 2003
The Black Creek Project
P.O Box 324, Station A
bownsview, Ontario
M3M 3A6
Tel: (416) 661 -6600 ext. 5364
Fax: (416) 661 -6898
Chairman and Board of Directors,
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,
5 Shoreham Dr.
Downsview,
M3N 184
Dear Chairman O'Brien and Board Members,
Re: Application by Oakdale Golf and Country Club (OGCC) to use Downsview Dells Park as a source
of irrigation water .
The water quality of the Black Creek has been severely degraded for decades. The Black Creek Project
(BCP) has been working for over twenty years to protect and enhance the Black Creek and it's
watershed. In spite of our efforts and those of others, the creek remains extremely polluted.
In a letter from R.J. Burnside and Associates to your staff OGCC has indicated that the poor water
quality of the creek is the cause of the declining health of the golf course landscape. After studying
various options the OGCC has decided that the most "logical" solution is for them to find another
source of clean water. To protect the health of their golf course they wish to drill a well at Downsview
Dells Park and pipe it to the golf course for irrigation.
The -flow of water in Black Creek consists almost entirely of storm sewer outfall. There are very few
ground water sources left in the watershed. The BCP is adamantly opposed to this proposal. It is
astonishing to our members to think that any group would even consider the use of valuable ground ,
water for the purpose of watering grass.
What is also disturbing is the fact that TRCA appears to actually be considering allowing such
a gross misuse and waste of ground water to take place on TRCA owned land. Your mandate is
to protect our natural resources not facilitate their further degradation.
Will you assure the BCP and residents of the watershed that TRCA will not approve any request to
withdraw ground water from TRCA owned land?
The BCP also requests the opportunity to make a delegation to the next TRCA board meeting.
an association of individuals interested in the preservation and rehabilitation
of the Black Creek through community involvement
232
The Black Creek Project
P.O Box 324, Station A
bownsview, Ontario
M3M 3A6
Tel: (416) 661 -6600 ext. 5364
Fax: (416) 661 -6898
Yours truly,
e<__
Susan Horvath
President
Black Creek Conservation Project
c.c.
Maria Augimeri, Toronto Councillor -Ward 9
George Mammoliti, Toronto Councillor -Ward 7
Frank Di Giorgio - Toronto Councillor -Ward 12
Mario Sergio, MPP -York West
Hon. Monte Kwinter, MPP -York Centre
Hon. Joe Cordiano -MPP -York South - Weston
Judy Sgro, MP -York West
Art Eggleton, MP -York Centre
Alan Tonks, MP -York South - Weston
Bob Giza - Chaminade College
We would be very appreciative if you could please respond to the concerns we have raised in this letter
before December 8th.
Please forward any of your questions, comments or concerns regarding this letter care -of
Steven Joudrey
Project Co- ordinator
Black Creek Conservation Project
P.O. Box 324, Station A
Downsview, Ontario
M3M 3A6
Tel: (416) 661 -6600 ext. 5364
Fax: (416) 661 -6898
email: sjoudrey @trca.on.ca
an association of individuals interested in the preservation and rehabilitation
of the Black Creek through community involvement
233
CORRESPONDENCE (B)
"Madeleine McDowell" <m.mcdowell @sympatico.ca> on 12/11/2003
01:22:18 AM
Please respond to 'Madeleine McDowell" <m.mcdowell @sympatico.ca>
To: Kathy Stranks /MTRCA @MTRCA
cc:
Subject: Oakdale G &C water draw
Irene Jones, Chair, and Members,
Watershed Management Advisory Board,
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive,
Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4
December 10th,2003
Dear Chair Jones
The Humber Heritage Committee has recently become aware of the Oakdale Golf and Country
Club's pursuit of the use of groundwater from off site for Golf Club use.
We have in the past expressed our concern about the draw of ground water for this purpose.
Commercial ground water draw can only damage water table levels and adversely affect any
natural springs, which feed local streams and ponds. If the water were from an on site source it
would t least affect a recharge of the groundwater being utilized. An off site draw from Dowsview
Dells, probably the old Barnard farm site, would entail pumping but with no possible recharge in a
fragile urban environment. We do not see this as substantially different from such action on the
Oak Ridges Moraine, to which we would be voicing our protest.
The City, Regions, the Authority and the Ministry of the Environment, amongst others have only
recently entered into investigation and mapping of ground water in the GTA.
My Committee has been greatly cheered by this. It indicated to us the acknowledgement of the
importance of ground water in the eco system and the need for its protection, both from depletion
and pollution. We are greatly perturbed that groundwater draw might be contemplated as viable.
There are many aquifers beneath the City. One has recently been identified in High Park. There is
almost certainly one at Downsview. These are part of the Great Lakes / Lake Ontario flow, a legacy
from the previous ice age and they are to be interfered with at our peril.
Would it not be possible for the Golf Course to establish holding ponds on site, to utilize both
runoff and City water, since they find Black Creek no longer viable as a source due to limitations
upon draw as well as the issue of water quality? We recognize the Golf Course' need for reliable
irrigation. We would like to be certain that they do not have excessive expectations. Their desire
for a most economic source, which we interpret as cheaper than City supply, is understandable
but not an argument worthy of consideration when pitted against our environmental concerns.
My Committee has been lobbying for changes in the use of salt, pesticides and herbicides for
many years now. We would prefer their discontinuation, and have made deputations to that effect,
both to municipalities and to the Authority. We were most pleased to learn of the City of Toronto's
cut backs in the use of salt in the coming year. It would be good to see this happen on other sites,
such as York University, which is upstream from the Oakdale Golf and Country Club.
Please do not consider a groundwater draw for any commercial purpose such as this.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours sincerely,
Madeleine McDowell
Chair, Humber Heritage Committee
234
CORRESPONDENCE (C)
TO Ru �`�% 4 CLEAN E'%ll6E1e„.„
10 December, 2003
The Water Board and
The Executive Committee
Toronto and Regjon Conservation
5 Shoreharn Drive
Faxed to: 416- 661 -6698
Toronto, ON M3N 1 S4
Attn.: Secretary Please place before Water Board December 12, 2003
Re.: Oakdale Golf and Country Club
Action to Restore a Clean Humber (ARCH) would like to register with the Water Board and the
Executive Committee of the TRCA our strong support of the motion adopted by the Humber
Watershed Alliance on October 21,2003 as follows:
"THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance strongly urges the TRCA to reject any
application requiring the granting of an easement by Oakdale Golf and Country Club to
place water pumps and water lines on TRCA land to facilitate irrigation at the Oakdale
Golf and Country Club property ."
We also express our support tor the position of the Black Creek Project on this matter.
Sincerely
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Luciano Martin,
Executive Director, ARCH
c. S. Agnew, Black Creek Project
21 TAYSHAM CRESCENT TORONTO ON M9V 1X1
Tel: (416)741 -5346 e-mail: humberarch @hotmail.com
Fax: (416)747 -6654 WEB:www.interlog.com/ -- archnow
235
CORRESPONDENCE (D)
December 5, 2003
Chairman and Board of Directors,
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,
5 Shoreham Dr.
Downsview, On
M3N IS4
Dear Chairman O'Brien and Board Members,
Re: Application by Oakdale Golf and Country Club to use Downsview Dells Park as a source of
irrigation water .
The students of Charninade College School (Lawrence and Jane) have worked for the
past six years to improve the water quality of Black Creek and to reintroduce indigenous fish
species to the creek. The initial monitoring of the fish population is encouraging; a viable
Brown Trout population has been established in our area and we anxiously await the results of
our first stocking of Atlantic Salmon into the creek. (May 2003.)
We, as a community, are very concerned about the application by the Oakdale Golf and
Country Club to use Downsview Dells park as a source of irrigation water . Through our
monitoring of the creek over the past few summers two reocurring problems have arisen -water
temperatures and water volumes. For example, the upper limit of water temperatures for
Salmonid survival was approached last August in the creek, and the trout we caught were all
clustered in small pools adjacent to cool incoming springs. Thus any application which could
exasperate the above critical situation should be rejected.
In addition to the fish question, there is also the much bigger question of education;
what would the approval of this application mean to the legions of students over the last six
years who have toiled with passion on this project?
Yours truly,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Robert Giza,
Head of Science, Chaminade College School,
F or the Chaminade Community
236
CORRESPONDENCE (E)
Town of Ajax
Ontario's First ISO 9001
Quality Community
65 Harwood Avenue S.
Ajax, Ontario
L1 S 2H9
(905) 683-4550
www.townofajax.com
December 11, 2003
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive,
Downsview, Ontario,
M3N IS4
attn: Mr. B. Denney, CAO.
Dear Mr Denney ,
RE: AJAX WATERFRONT TRAIL; PROPOSAL FOR COMPLETION TO THE AJAX -
WHITBY BORDER
Further to ongoing discussions with Authority through Larry Field with regard to the Ajax
Waterfront and more specifically the Waterfront Trail, we write to request TRCA support
and involvement in the completion of the Waterfront Trail to our eastern boundary.
The Town has placed the completion of the trail and related works within it's forecast of
capital projects for the upcoming two years. This series of projects would include the
completion of the trail, the installation of interpretive signage discussing Great Lakes
and Coastal Marsh ecology, landscape works for environmental rehabilitation and the
installation of observation platforms.
As you may already be aware, the Town has made a successful application through
partnership with the Regeneration Trust for Superbuild Funding. This funding will
provide 30% support for the works which are estimated at $ 834,700. Our objective is to
complete the Ajax portion of the Waterfront Trail in step with the Town's 50th Anniversary
celebration in 2005 and we feel that such an event would be a fitting time to
acknowledge the tradition of partnership we have enjoyed in building of our waterfront.
In keeping with the spirit of our long -held Management Agreements for the waterfront,
we are hopeful that the TRCA can provide the Town with assistance to make this project
a reality. Our requested target tor your consideration would be in tile order of 25% of the
overall project. We ask that this correspondence be received for discussion at your
December 12th meeting of the
Waterfront Management Advisory Board and are hopefull that the matter can be referred
to Authority staff for implementation.
We thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter and look forward to
working in partnership with the TRCA on this important waterfront project.
Yours Truly
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Brian Skinner,
Director of Operations and Environmental Services.
c.c Bruce Johnson - Manager of Design Services
Rob Ford - Director of Finance
Sheila Strain - Finance
237
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D76/03 - ETOBICOKE- MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS HABITAT
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Endorsement of the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Habitat
Implementation Plan.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek
Watersheds Habitat Implementation Plan be endorsed;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to seek
partnerships with the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks watershed regional and local
municipalities, local residents, and Interested groups for the implementation of habitat
restoration prescriptions for selected sites over the next five years;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff utilize the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Habitat
Implementation Plan as a foundation for strategic restoration activities within the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds.
CARRIED
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Habitat Implementation Plan (HIP) developed for the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds was initiated out of the need for a strategic and
realistic means for completing watershed -wide restoration projects over an extended time
frame. Under the support of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, the HIP has outlined
restoration opportunities for TRCA properties with site prescriptions and preliminary budgets
given to high priority sites. Recommended restoration initiatives are based on targets outlined
by the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) goals for the Greater Toronto Area of Concern in Clean
Water Clear Choices (1994); the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program (in development); the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Fish Management Plans (in development); Greening Our
Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks (2002). For each
watershed, the HIP outlines a strategic implementation framework that should be utilized by
organizations and community groups with an interest in improving the health of the Etobicoke
and Mimico Watersheds.
PROJECT RATIONALE
The purpose of the HIP project was to examine TRCA and adjacent properties in the
watersheds, to develop a catalogue of project sites ranked according to priority for
implementation with recommendations for restoration. Site selection and priority rankings are
based on criteria developed by TRCA under the Habitat Implementation Plan guidelines, which
recognize the most suitable site specific restoration options and the realistic viability of various
project initiatives. Habitat implementation criteria for sites are based upon the following
components:
238
• Habitat potential /value;
• Accessibility;
• Ability to support a diversity of flora and fauna;
• Current regeneration status /need for work;
• Project feasibility;
• Historical site conditions; and
• Potential for community involvement and public awareness.
Restoration recommendations are focused on habitat creation or enhancement, naturalization,
and project feasibility, and makes recommendations regarding community involvement. The
preliminary site prescriptions that accompany the 15 top priority sites may include one or more
of the following:
• Wetland creation /enhancement;
• Riparian corridor enhancement;
• Upland and lowland forest regeneration /woodlot expansion;
• Meadow /prairie creation /enhancement;
• Installation of critical habitat structures (bird boxes, brush piles, etc.);
• Fish barrier removal /mitigation; and
• Vegetation buffers and corridors.
The HIP allows TRCA staff and partners to effectively and efficiently identify sites for restoration
and develop project planning schedules on a yearly basis. Furthermore, sites may be
identified on an as- needed basis when funding or other partnership opportunities arise.
Ultimately, the HIP will act as a strategic implementation guide of restoration projects for the
next five years, outlining what may be done, where, and by whom.
In recognition of existing land management agreements and to account for the diversity of
interests across the watershed, the HIP has been designed to be evolving and interactive. As
projects are implemented, they can be removed from the site list. As new projects are
identified, they will be assessed and added to the database of identified projects. In addition,
the selection of projects can be tailored to meet the needs of the partner or interest group.
Each component of the assessment has an associated score that has been entered into a HIP
site database to reflect how priority sites are weighted with regards to implementation. For
example, a stakeholder group /partner might be interested in a community planting in the City
of Brampton that focuses on improving riparian vegetation. A simple database and GIS query
can isolate those areas in Brampton with a high score for improving riparian vegetation and
access /visibility to the community. Thus, the HIP will have three purposes:
1. To provide a list of high priority habitat implementation sites that represent the general
principles of the various strategies and management plans, while working to meet the
overall RAP targets and restore watershed health;
2. To create a workable database that contains a prioritized list of sites that may be
recommended for implementation by interested stakeholder groups /partners as funding
opportunities arise; and, perhaps most importantly,
3. To facilitate the implementation of habitat implementation projects across the watersheds.
239
The HIP document for the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek watersheds are the first in a series that is
anticipated for development in other watersheds within TRCA's jurisdiction. The
Etobicoke - Mimico HIP is now at an implementation stage, scheduled to occur in Spring, 2004.
WATERSHEDS BACKGROUND
The Etobicoke and Mimico watersheds are situated side by side in the western region of the
Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and TRCA's jurisdiction. The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek
watersheds are often referenced and managed together due to their similar physical and
land -use components. Over time, large sections of the watersheds have been heavily
urbanized. Urbanization and development in these watersheds has resulted in the
channelization of streams, draining of wetlands, installation of flood control structures, and
removal of forests and riparian corridors. At present, the watersheds contain only remnants of
what were an ecologically complex network of upland and vaileyland forests, meadows and
wetlands. The following is a percentage breakdown of the current conditions (Greening Our
Watersheds, 2002):
TABLE 1 - Current Habitat Cover vs. RAP Target Cover
Cover Type
Etobicoke
% Cover (2001
Mimico
% Cover (2001)
RAP Target
% Cover
Forest
5.1
2.5
30
Wetland
<1
<1
10
Riparian
17.2
19.1
75
Other current environmental concerns include poor water and soil quality, significant soil
erosion and loss of land, barriers to fish migration, fragmentation of remnant habitats and lack
of ecological biodiversity.
METHODOLOGY
The following list outlines the steps required to complete the HIP process for each watershed
(from development to site specific restoration):
• Utilize the: Digital Aerial Photography; Geographic Information Systems; Targeted
Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Model, Fish Management Plans, and any other relevant
documentation; and consultation with TRCA staff and watershed stakeholders to map
marginal habitats and identify opportunities to improve habitat function and connectivity.
• Ground -truth sites to determine those which are candidates for habitat restoration.
• Draft a preliminary catalogue of prioritized sites for the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek
watersheds.
• Collect baseline data, identify potential limitations, and research historic conditions of each
high priority site.
• Work with landowners, watershed advisors, TRCA staff, the community and a landscape
architect to develop a prescription and concept plan for each high priority site.
• Secure approvals and funding to implement projects.
• Implement habitat restoration projects to restore the function and connectivity of habitats.
• Monitor each implemented project and quantify all habitat gains; which will be used to
measure achievements in regards to RAP, Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program, Fish
Management Plans, and the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watershed Management Strategy
objectives.
240
Site Assessment Forms and Priority Score Sheets
Field assessments focused primarily on properties owned by TRCA. However, the limited
amount of property held by TRCA within the Etobicoke and Mimico watersheds necessitated
assessment of properties adjacent to TRCA lands, including those which are under the
ownership of municipalities, Hydro One, and other agencies. To facilitate consistent and
thorough data collection in the field, a series of assessment sheets were developed. These
include an On Site Assessment Form, Priority Assessment Form, and Fish Barrier Assessment
Form. Every assessed site has an associated habitat implementation score which represents
project habitat potential and feasibility at the site level.
Quantifying the Deliverables
All the habitat opportunity assessments have been inputted as a layer of information in GIS
format. Thus, it is possible to quantify the recommended actions and the natural cover change
over time, and utilize that information in project reporting. A sum total of all potential habitat
cover restoration /creation /enhancement can be generated to estimate how the current Habitat
Implementation Plan can contribute to the targets established under the RAP, Terrestrial
Natural Heritage Program, Fish Management Plans and Watershed Strategy objectives. The
following table outlines the habitat improvements identified by the current Habitat
Implementation Plan:
TABLE 2 - HIP Identified Habitat Improvement Quantities
Restoration /Creation /Enhancement
Cover Type
Etobicoke
(ha)
Mimico
(ha)
Total Area
(ha)
Forest
13.59
7.53
21.12
Meadow /Prairie
0.89
3.16
4.05
Riparian
45.84
26.67
72.51
Wetland/Wet Meadow
6.72
9.51
16.23
Approx. Upstream Access (Barrier
Removal)
44 km
13 km
57 km
Please note: this table applies to TRCA and adjacent/nearby property only. This is not a full
representation of all the potential habitat initiatives that could be implemented across the
Etobicoke and Mimico watersheds.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Total Cost to Develop: $14,870
Project Partners: Peel Region, City of Mississauga, City of Toronto, City of
Brampton
Potential Funding Sources for Project Implementation:
Peel Natural Heritage, Great Lake Sustainability Fund, TD Canada Trust Friends of the
Environment, Community Fisheries and Wildlife Involvement Program and Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The following list identifies how the HIP intends to proceed as a program of habitat
implementation initiatives:
241
• implement high priority projects under the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek watersheds and report
on progress;
• develop a comprehensive prioritized database of projects beyond TRCA owned property;
• develop partnerships with private land owners and offer subsidy funding to implement
habitat projects;
• complete the Humber Habitat Implementation Plan; and
• develop Habitat Implementation Plans for other watersheds.
Report prepared by: John Stifle ext. 5396, Phil Davies 905 - 851 -2809
For Information contact: John Stille ext. 5396, Phil Davies 905 - 851 -2809
Date: June 26, 2003
RES. #D77/03 - FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DUFFINS CREEK AND
CARRUTHERS CREEK
Completion and implementation of the Fisheries Management Plan for
Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Fisheries Management Plan
for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek, dated 2003, be approved;
THAT staff be directed to implement the Fisheries Management Plan when reviewing
documents including official plans, subwatershed studies, stormwater management
plans and permit applications dealing with alterations to watercourses;
THAT staff present the Fisheries Management Plan, in cooperation with the Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FOC), to the
watershed municipalities to seek their endorsement;
THAT staff provide a report to the Business Excellence Advisory Board on the protocol
for implementing proposed changes to angling on TRCA properties upstream of Highway
7 and a communications plan for implementation of the Fisheries Management Plan;
THAT staff be directed to send a letter to FOC and OMNR requesting that they implement
the recommended changes to angling regulations for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers
Creek watersheds;
242
AND FURTHER THAT staff coordinate fisheries management activities between
municipalities and other partners in cooperation with OMNR and FOC to address the
management actions as outlined, based on the priorities established in the Fisheries
Management Plan.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Fisheries Management Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek (Plan) is one of the
companion documents to A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek.
Guidance for the development of the Fisheries Management Plan was provided by TRCA,
OMNR and FOC. Consultation meetings were held during the development of the Plan to
solicit input from watershed stakeholders, angling groups and members of the public. Funding
for field work, writing of the document and public consultation was provided by the Region of
Durham and FOC.
The Fisheries Management Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek is a framework
document enabling the incorporation of fisheries concerns and management priorities into the
planning and permitting process. It provides background information on the state of the
aquatic ecosystem as well as management directions and targets. More specifically, the
purpose of the Plan is to:
1. present current and historical fisheries information;
2. identify critical issues;
3. outline management objectives;
4. recommend rehabilitation activities.
The overall objectives of the Fisheries Management Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers
Creek are to:
1. protect and enhance the biological integrity of the aquatic ecosystem;
2. describe the existing conditions of the fish community to establish a benchmark of
ecosystem health;
3. provide a framework for fisheries management at subwatershed, reach and site scales;
4. promote the sustainable utilization of fisheries resources;
5. achieve "no net loss" of fisheries habitat;
6. rehabilitate degraded fish communities and fish habitat, for self- sustaining, native stocks;
7. develop a greater knowledge of fish populations, fish habitat and aquatic ecosystems;
8. promote public awareness, appreciation and understanding of fisheries resources and the
aquatic habitats on which they depend; and
9. involve organized angling associations, environmental interest groups and the general
public in fisheries management activities.
The Fisheries Management Plan provides management direction at the watershed and
subwatershed reach levels, and is organized into the following four sections: 1) Biophysical
Characteristics; 2) Aquatic Ecosystem Management; 3) Monitoring; and 4) Implementation - A
Subwatershed Perspective.
243
1) Biophysical Characteristics
Details on the physical characteristics of the watersheds, including geological settings,
baseflow, instream fish barriers, riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat are provided. As well,
the historic and current aquatic communities are described.
Analysis of baseline data indicate that the Duffins Creek watershed supports a mostly
coldwater aquatic community of resident and migratory trout and salmon, with a mixture of
cool to warmwater species in the lower portions of the system. The range of some of these
species appears to be shrinking due to human influences such as instream barriers, removal of
riparian vegetation and watershed development.
Carruthers Creek is showing signs of stress from development and its associated impacts.
The fish community is currently a mix of cool and warmwater species. Coldwater species
historically would have been present in the Carruthers Creek watershed.
Based on the inherent characteristics of each watershed, the watercourses were classified into
one of six aquatic habitat categories: small riverine coldwater; small riverine warmwater;
intermediate riverine coldwater; intermediate riverine warmwater; large riverine and estuarine.
These categories help to describe how the watersheds functioned historically. Growth
proposals and competing angling objectives were assessed to help determine management
direction.
2) Aquatic Ecosystem Management
A number of issues were raised by the public during the development of the Fisheries
Management Plan including: species mix; enforcement; angling regulations; urban
development; dams; water quality and public access.
Highlights of the recommended management actions developed to address these issues and
achieve the goals of the Fisheries Management Plan are as follows:
Aquatic Habitat
Water Budget
• Maintain the existing water balance in each watershed.
• Maintain or enhance baseflows.
• Maintain or enhance groundwater levels and discharge for watershed functions.
• Ensure sustainable rates and timing of surface and ground water use.
• OMOE should consult with other government agencies to determine acceptable flow
alterations to protect aquatic communities.
Water Quality
• Manage the quality and quantity of runoff from rural and urban areas to maintain instream
uses.
• Minimize sediment run -off associated with construction or agricultural activities.
• Reduce water quality contamination associated with wastewater discharges.
• Protect groundwater quality to ensure provision of ecological functions.
• Golf courses, cemeteries and agricultural industry develop integrated pesticide and nutrient
management programs.
244
• All stormwater should be treated at the enhanced level prior to discharge into streams.
• Apply agricultural, industrial and residential Best Management Practices.
• Protect and plant riparian buffers.
lnstream Barriers and On -line Ponds
• Barriers and on -line ponds should be removed or by- passes created, where feasible.
Where not feasible, fish passage should be considered and /or pond outlets converted to
bottom draw structures.
• Maintain the Whitevale dam and Newman's dam for fisheries management purposes.
• Initiate negotiations with landowner to maintain Newman's dam.
• FOC to conduct additional research to evaluate alternative sea lamprey barriers that allow
for the passage of non - jumping fish species.
• Conduct fish passage investigations at known and potential barriers.
Riparian Vegetation
• 100% of stream bank length should be naturally vegetated.
• 75% of stream bank vegetation should have a woody component.
• Riparian vegetation should not be mowed or cropped to the stream's edge.
• Delineation of riparian buffer widths should be applied following the Oak Ridges
Conservation Plan and the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program.
• Plantings should take place on both private and public lands.
Habitat Rehabilitation
• Initiate projects and provide advice to interested groups to restore and develop fish
habitats, in support of the management philosophy of net gain.
• lnstream works must be planned with an understanding of reach level function.
• Rehabilitation works should be appropriately scaled, particularly where projects are
significant in either size or impact.
• Natural channel design should be the primary method used in stream restoration.
• Land- owners should be made aware of laws and legislation relating to works in and around
water.
• Implement TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy.
Aquatic Community
Species at Risk
• Protect and restore riparian habitat. Restoration plantings should include a high proportion
of grass and shrub material in redside dace management zones.
• Apply the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program.
• Investigate the status of native mussels, clams and crayfish.
• Great Lakes Fishery Commission to continue to investigate alternatives to the use of
lampricide.
• FOC to notify TRCA before applying lampricide on TRCA properties.
• FOC to put up appropriate signage when applying lampricide on TRCA properties.
• Initiate implementation of the Redside Dace Recovery Plan.
Introduced species
• FOC to maintain the sea lamprey barrier on Duffins Creek.
245
• Great Lakes Fishery Commission to conduct additional research to evaluate alternative sea
lamprey barriers and fish passage technology to improve passage for non - jumping fishes.
• Great Lakes Fishery Commission to continue to investigate alternatives to the use of TFM in
the control of sea lamprey.
• FOC to evaluate the existing structure designated as a sea lamprey barrier in Carruthers
Creek more closely to determine if it is performing well as a sea lamprey barrier.
• Investigate the distribution and potential impact of rusty crayfish.
• TRCA and OMNR to control carp access to Duffins Creek Marsh and Carruthers Creek
Marsh.
• OMNR investigate the potential for carp derbies as a way to reduce the existing carp
population.
Recreational Stocking
• Fish species to be stocked on either public or private land must be consistent with the
management zones defined in this Plan.
• Native strains are preferred.
• No additional stocking of non - native salmonid species into the tributaries of Duffins Creek.
• OMNR to conduct genetic analysis to assess the presence and extent of the historic brook
trout population in Duffins Creek.
• OMNR to investigate the habitat suitability for a self- sustaining population of rainbow trout
downstream of Taunton Road in Carruthers Creek and if appropriate, consider stocking.
Rehabilitative Stocking
• OMNR to investigate the habitat suitability for redside dace and Atlantic salmon in the
appropriate management zones in Duffins Creek and if appropriate, consider stocking.
• OMNR to investigate the habitat suitability for brook trout and redside dace in the
appropriate management zones in Carruthers Creek and if appropriate, consider stocking.
Consumptive Uses
Angling
• OMNR co- ordinate creel surveys over all seasons to better understand angler use.
• OMOE expand the list of fish species in the Sportfish Contaminant Monitoring Program to
include coarse species.
Enforcement and Angling Regulations
• Short term - TRCA to encourage artificial bait and single barbless hooks on TRCA
properties upstream of Highway 7 only; trout and salmon catch & possession limit on all
TRCA properties only to be changed to five in one day, but not more than one from among
brook and brown trout for a sportfishing licence and two in one day, but not more than one
from among brook and brown trout for a conservation licence.
• Long term - OMNR to change angling regulations to artificial bait and single barbless hooks
only upstream of Highway 7 and catch and possession limits in both watersheds for trout
and salmon be reduced to two with a sportfishing licence and one with a conservation
licence.
• OMNR to assess the need for a fish sanctuary between Whitevale Dam and Whitevale
Road.
• OMNR to increase enforcement, particularly during spring and fall migration periods.
246
Baitfish Harvesting
• Baitfish collection to be restricted at known redside dace locations.
• Commercial harvesters should reduce the risk of accidental harvest of Species at Risk and
game species through timing, location and collection techniques.
• Commercial harvesters should be capable of identifying all species and have taken a fish
identification course.
• All Species at Risk and game species should be released.
• Complete and accurate records to be sent to OMNR and include data on amounts, species
and locations collected. For collections on TRCA properties, data should also be sent to
TRCA.
• OMNR and TRCA work with the Ontario Baitfish Association to explore opportunities to use
baitfish harvest records as additional data in assessing fish community trends in the
watersheds.
Public Access and Lands
TRCA and Municipal Lands
• Create specific access areas /nodes for anglers.
• Promote catch and release angling, and the use of barbless hooks within identified
reaches.
• Improve angling opportunities and stewardship practices by exploring the possibility of
establishing angling clubs within Conservation Areas.
• Additional public lands should be secured in the Carruthers Creek watershed, particularly
in Carruthers Creek Marsh.
• Investigate opportunities to establish additional conservation easements in both
watersheds.
• Continue to reduce the amount of mowed areas adjacent to streams, where feasible.
• Implement TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy and approved Conservation Land
Management Plans. Develop management plans for other TRCA properties.
Federal and Provincial Lands
• All development should be conducted on an environment first basis and should include a
development setback of at least 30 m from top of bank.
• Additional aquatic surveys are required to determine use by salmonids and redside dace.
• All existing natural features must be identified and receive full protection.
• Implement TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System.
Education
Education
• Viewing opportunities should be expanded and /or formalized on appropriate TRCA lands.
• Signs at roads crossings be posted to indicate the presence of self - sustaining trout and
salmon populations
• Continue to implement programs like Yellow Fish Road and Adopt a Stream.
247
3) Monitoring
Monitoring is a tool to identify the long term benefits of rehabilitation efforts as well as to
identify and resolve and negative impacts associated with land use change. The plan
recommends additional stations in both watersheds be sampled for physical habitat, benthic
invertebrates and fish community.
4) Implementation - A Subwatershed Perspective
This section provides management direction at the subwatershed level for each of the six main
subwatersheds in the Duffins Creek watershed and for the entire Carruthers Creek watershed.
A brief assessment of the health of the aquatic habitat and community is provided as well as an
identification of issues. Targets for baseflow, barrier mitigation, riparian vegetation, aquatic
community health and other aquatic management components are provided. Implementation
activities necessary to meet the targets are highlighted on a map for the Carruthers Creek
watershed and each subwatershed. An example of this mapping is attached.
DUFFINS CREEK WATERSHED
East Duffins Creek Subwatershed
Recommended Management
.Actions
.......o..rw rsI.... .
1111▪ •MNIM vow 41..d.,
tr....r. «..r..I.. • ...____.,_..4 _,
awls Mr. r2rz.
▪ wuw.r '* 76**- •
ww.P..•.a.
r+.mn.r.+..mm•.r
r.
248
3C W* viii -im
NEXT STEPS
• Present the Fisheries Management Plan to member municipalities early in 2004 and seek
their cooperation in implementation.
• Obtain endorsement from the OMNR and the FOC.
• Prepare and distribute CDs to watershed partners, public libraries and angling groups.
• Continue to implement on -going projects.
• Develop partnerships with watershed stakeholders, private land owners and the provincial
and federal governments to help achieve the objectives of the Plan.
• Initiate stewardship projects on private and public lands that support the fish plan
objectives.
The Executive Summary of the Fisheries Management Plan is attached as an appendix. Digital
copies of the Fisheries Management Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek are available
upon request now and will also be available at the meeting.
Report prepared by: Jon Clayton, extension 5353
For Information contact: Jon Clayton, extension 5353
Date: November 27, 2003
Attachments: 1
249
Attachment 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unlike many of the other watersheds in the Greater Toronto Area, the Duffins and Carruthers
Creek watersheds remain largely undeveloped. However, as development pressures increase,
the need to prepare a watershed plan becomes more critical. This process was initiated in
2000, with the initiation of the Duffins and Carruthers Creeks Watershed Plan process.
Coincident with this project was the development of a fisheries management plan (FMP), which
will be used to guide future management of the aquatic ecosystem and provide direction for
implementation.
To help achieve the purpose of the FMP, the following objectives were developed:
• to protect and enhance the biological integrity of the aquatic ecosystem;
• to acheive no net loss of fisheries habitat;
• to promote the sustainable utilization of fisheries resources;
• to develop a greater knowledge of fish populations, fish habitat and aquatic ecosystems;
• to describe the existing conditions of the fish community to establish a benchmark of
ecosystem health;
• to provide a framework for fisheries management at subwatershed, reach and site scales;
• to rehabilitate degraded fish communities and fish habitat, for self - sustaining, native stocks;
• to promote public awareness, appreciation and understanding of fisheries resources and
the aquatic habitats on which they depend; and
• to involve organized angling associations, environmental interest groups and the general
public in fisheries management activities.
To understand the function of each watershed, the physical and biological characteristics were
assessed to provide a comparison between historic function and current health. The Duffins
Creek watershed remains the healthiest watershed in TRCA's jurisdiction and contains a high
proportion of coldwater streams. These, in turn, support populations of resident brook trout,
sculpin, American brook lamprey and darter species, as well as migratory rainbow trout,
chinook salmon and warmwater species such as largemouth and smallmouth bass and
northern pike. Impacts to the aquatic ecosystem are primarily instream barriers, lack of
riparian vegetation and in more urbanized areas, alterations to the flow regime. Carruthers
Creek still maintains a diversity of cool and warmwater fish species including rainbow trout,
northern redbelly dace, large and smallmouth bass, black crappie, logperch and mottled
sculpin. However, the apparent absence of brook trout, northern pike, redside dace and
rainbow darter suggest signs of impacts from development, including altered flows and
reduced riparian vegetation.
As the fisheries management plan was developed, the public was asked to provide input on
issues they felt were important. The main issues raised included impacts from development,
ponds and barriers, access for migratory species versus protection of resident species and
water quality. Based on the data analysis, current science and public input, target species for
management were developed. The six zones are (a) brook trout, (b) brook trout and Atlantic
salmon, (c) redside dace and darter species, (d) redside dace and rainbow trout, (e)
smallmouth bass and (f) northern pike and large and smallmouth bass.
250
Essential to maintaining these management zones is the need to preserve three barriers in the
Duffins Creek watershed as fisheries management tools. The barrier north of Church Street in
the Lower Duffins Creek is to continue to function in its role as a sea lamprey barrier while
Whitevale dam on the West Duffins Creek and Newman's dam on the East Duffins Creek will be
utilized to separate migratory salmon and trout and resident trout populations.
In order to address the issues raised by the public and to achieve the future management
goals, a suite of management actions were developed. While many are applicable across both
watersheds, it is at the subwatershed level where the management actions are the most
specific, as shown below:
East Duffins Creek Subwatershed
• Implement TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System.
• , Investigate potential barriers to fish passage and mitigate known barriers. High Hills Pond
is a priority.
• Maintain Newman's dam as a barrier to migratory trout and salmon. Structural assessment
of the dam is required.
• Plant riparian vegetation along East Duffins Creek between Taunton and Rossland Roads,
the headwaters of Mitchell, Spring and Brougham Creeks, and a small tributary that joins
East Duffins Creek north of the 8th Concession Road.
• Work with private land- owners to implement best management practices.
• Work with Transport Canada to protect and enhance environmental features and functions.
• OMNR to investigate the habitat suitability for redside dace and Atlantic salmon in the
appropriate management zones and if appropriate, consider stocking.
• Baitfish collection to be restricted at known redside dace locations.
• OMNR to change angling regulations to include artificial bait and single barbless hooks
only upstream of Highway 7, catch and possession limits in both watersheds for trout and
salmon be reduced to two with a sportfishing licence and one with a conservation licence.
• OMOE should consult with other government agencies to determine acceptable flow
alterations to protect aquatic communities.
West Duffins Creek Subwatershed
• Implement TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System.
• Investigate potential barriers to fish passage and mitigate known barriers. Rearing pond at
Secord Property is a priority.
• Maintain Whitevale dam as a barrier to migratory trout and salmon.
• Plant riparian vegetation along West Duffins Creek between 7th Concession Road north to
Webb Road, Secord Property, upstream of Highway 7; Stouffville Creek in Stouffville, south
of 19th Sideroad to confluence with Reesor Creek; Reesor Creek along the York/Durham
Townline between Bethesda Road and north of the Uxbridge /Pickering Townline and
between the 8th and 9th Concession Roads; Wixon Creek north and south of Webb Road
and north of 9th Concession Road; Major Creek along most of it's length; Whitevale Creek
south of Highway 7; Un -named Creek south of 7th and 9th Concession Roads and between
7th and 8th Concession Roads.
• Work with private land- owners to implement best management practices.
• Work with Transport Canada to protect and enhance environmental features and functions.
• OMNR to investigate the habitat suitability for redside dace and Atlantic salmon in the
appropriate management zones and if appropriate, consider stocking.
251
• Baitfish collection to be restricted at known redside dace locations.
• OMNR to change angling regulations to include artificial bait and single barbless hooks
only upstream of Highway 7, catch and possession limits in both watersheds for trout and
salmon be reduced to two with a spor fishing licence and one with a conservation licence.
• OMOE should consult with other government agencies to determine acceptable flow
alterations to protect aquatic communities.
Ganatsekiagon Creek Subwatershed
• Work with the provincial government on the Seaton Lands and Transport Canada on the
airport lands to protect and enhance environmental features and functions.
• Implement TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System.
• Protect and restore groundwater recharge and discharge locations.
• Investigate potential barriers to fish passage and mitigate known barriers.
• Plant riparian vegetation in headwater areas.
• Expand monitoring to assess salmonid spawning and presence of redside dace.
• Baitfish collection to be restricted at known redside dace locations.
Urfe Creek
• Work with the provincial government on the Seaton Lands and Transport Canada on the
airport lands to protect and enhance environmental features and functions.
• Implement TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System.
• Protect and restore groundwater recharge and discharge locations.
• Investigate potential barriers to fish passage and mitigate known barriers.
• Plant riparian vegetation in headwater areas.
• Expand monitoring to assess salmonid spawning and presence of redside dace.
• Baitfish collection to be restricted at known redside dace locations.
Millers Creek Subwatershed
• Implement TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System.
• Protect and restore groundwater recharge and discharge locations.
• Restore the water balance by improving infiltration and implementing stormwater
management retrofits.
• Investigate potential barriers to fish passage.
• Plant riparian vegetation and create wetlands in headwater areas.
• Investigate opportunities to naturalize and restore Millers Creek from Rossland Road
downstream to the confluence with Duffins Creek.
• Expand monitoring to assess fish communities and use by migratory salmonids in the
coldwater habitats of the subwatershed.
• Engage the community in stream clean -up and stewardship activities such as Yellow Fish
Road, Adopt a Stream and other programs.
Lower Duffins Creek Subwatershed
• Restore the water balance by improving infiltration and implementing stormwater
management retrofits.
• Investigate potential barriers to fish passage.
• Plant riparian vegetation in the coastal marsh and along tributaries.
• Investigate opportunities to naturalize and restore Duffins Creek near Highway 401.
• DFO to maintain the sea lamprey barrier north of Church Street.
252
• Great Lakes Fishery Commission to conduct additional research to evaluate alternative sea
lamprey barriers and fish passage technology to improve passage for non - jumping fishes.
• Great Lakes Fishery Commission to continue to investigate alternatives to the use of TFM in
the control of sea lamprey.
• OMNR to conduct a creel census to better understand angler use and needs.
• Implement the Duffins Creek Marsh Restoration Project.
• Engage the community in stream clean -up and stewardship activities such as Yellow Fish
Road, Adopt a Stream and other programs.
Carruthers Creek _
• Implement TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System.
• Plant riparian vegetation in headwater areas north of Taunton Road.
• Investigate potential barriers to fish passage and mitigate known barriers.
• Baitfish collection to be restricted at known redside dace locations.
• OMNR to investigate the habitat suitability for a self- sustaining population of rainbow trout
downstream of Taunton Road in Carruthers Creek and if appropriate, consider stocking.
• OMNR to investigate the habitat suitability for brook trout and redside dace in the
appropriate management zones in Carruthers Creek and if appropriate, consider stocking.
• Prepare and implement a restoration action plan for the Carruthers Creek Marsh.
• Investigate opportunities for the securement of conservation easements, with emphasis on
lands in the headwaters and Carruthers Creek Marsh.
• Work with private land- owners to implement best management practices.
• Develop an improved understanding of ground and surface water flows.
Implementation of this Plan will require a concerted effort between federal, provincial and
municipal governments, non - governmental organizations, rod and gun clubs, industry,
agriculture, golf courses and private citizens. In fact, implementation has already started
through riparian plantings and streambank stabilization at Paulynn Park, riparian plantings and
spawning surveys on the Transport Canada Property, and the development of designs to
bypass an existing on -line pond at the Deer Creek Golf Course. These initial projects represent
the first steps on the road to protecting and restoring the aquatic systems in the Duffins and
Carruthers Creek watersheds.
253
RES. #D78 /03 - GTA FLOOD PROGRAM STANDARDS
2003 Progress and 2004 Work Plan. To report on the status of the
existing Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Flood
Warning Program in terms of the GTA Flood Standards, and to define
components where actions are required.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 2004 Work Plan based on
GTA Flood Standards be approved;
THAT staff be directed to base Flood Warning and Forecasting budgets and future work
plans on fulfilling compliance with the GTA Flood Standards;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report annually on compliance progress to the Watershed
Management Advisory Board.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D79 /03
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
Ila Bossons
THAT the following be inserted after the last paragraph of the main motion:
THAT staff report back on the liability of flood programs and the reliability of the flood
standards, and on the public consultation process.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #5/03, held on June 27, 2003, resolution #A130/03 was approved as
follows:
THAT the GTA Flood Standards be formally adopted, and staff be directed to ensure that
the TRCA Flood Forecasting and Flood Warning Program comply with the requirements
of the document;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to prepare a detailed report to the Board by the
end of 2003 to outline progress to date and to present a work plan for the 2004 fiscal
year to ensure that the TRCA's Flood Warning and Flood Forecasting Program is in
compliance with the GTA Flood Standards.
254
TRCA staff have been working closely with our neighbouring CA's since the mid 1990's in the
context of a GTA Flood Warning and Forecasting Group (GTA Group). The GTA Group's
primary goal has been to develop consistent processes and programs which relate to
delivering Flood Forecasting and Warning services to our member municipalities.
The GTA Group had a wide variety of levels of service even within its small group of seven
CA's. Work was undertaken to develop a consistent Flood Contingency Manual, contact
update forms and flood message terminology. To further the GTA Groups work and to set
consistent program delivery standards and directions, the GTA Flood Standards were
developed. It is the intent of the GTA CA's that these standards form the program which will
allow for all CA's to move towards achieving the GTA Group's primary goal.
One key component of the works completed to date was to define the group members roles
and responsibilities in providing input into the emergency preparedness and response of
municipalities in the event of a large scale flood. It has been agreed that given staff resources,
that there is a need for a lead conservation authority to be defined to provide flood support to
the municipal emergency planning committee. The areas of responsibilities have been
distributed as follows:
• TRCA is to support the City of Toronto;
• Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority is to support York Region;
• Credit Valley Conservation Authority is to support Peel Region;
• Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority is to support Durham Region.
The defined CA representative will be tasked with co- ordinating and providing input for all CA's
that have any watershed or portion thereof within that municipality. In order to achieve this, it
is imperative that procedures and information related to flooding be consistent both in terms of
the level of information and its format. To accomplish this, GTA Flood Standards have been
developed and each CA within the GTA Group either has, or will be, formally adopting these
standards and developing work plans to move towards achieving the objective of consistent
program delivery.
The GTA Flood Standards represent one of the first comprehensive sets of standards for this
program that have been developed in the province. In fact, the Province of Ontario, through
the Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning Committee, is moving to develop a set of
standards built upon this work.
To assist the TRCA in defining our program development needs to meet these standards, a
review of our current programs, products and activities was undertaken. Staff then identified
what had been completed, what remained to be developed or updated and a relative degree of
priority related to meeting these standards. Where appropriate timelines were proposed.
255
In general, the TRCA has developed products and programs around most of the components
within the four program delivery areas. The four components are: 1) Program
Delivery/Administration; 2) Forecasting; 3) Communications; 4) Flood Operations. The
standards tables reflect these existing products, but also recognize that with a program such
as Flood Warning and Forecasting, these products will require frequent updates to meet both
TRCA's and our clients evolving needs. Other component areas reflect works which are
necessary to the flood warning program, such as flood plain mapping, which are currently
being upgraded within other related programs.
The general deliverables within each component are defined in more detail within the specific
standards, and staff also have undertaken a more detailed breakdown for the Program
Delivery/Administration component. While the breakdown and assessment of activities and
products by major category will serve to prioritize our works and develop our work plans and
budgets, the more detailed assessment will be utilized to develop detailed activities focused
upon implementing these work plans.
The specific review of the existing TRCA program in terms of status and update requirements
in the context of the four component areas within the GTA Standards reflect the following.
In terms of the Program Delivery/Administration component, current activities and products
exist within each of the eleven sub - components. Several existing products meet or exceed the
standards, while other categories reflect where updates are currently ongoing. The categories
of formally documenting historical events and expanding the GTA flood model are the only
areas where specific additional efforts will be required. The proposed 2004 work plan reflects
both of these activities.
The Forecasting component reflects two issues; one being the use of the GTA flood model and
the second being the use of a defined Daily Planning Cycle (DPC) approach. The TRCA has
always used a DPC approach in forecasting and has recently updated the system to allow for
ease in documenting the process. As noted in the Program Delivery/Administration
component, the 2004 work plan reflects our need to expand the use of the GTA flood model.
Within the Communications component, TRCA meets the requirements in all categories,
however, our work plan identifies training related to enhancing our capabilities within this
component
In the Flood Operations component, TRCA is meeting many of the requirements in a general
sense, although a number of activities are required to formalize and enhance our activities to
more effectively deliver services within this component. This would require TRCA to focus
more on training and better documentation processes.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Provisions have been made in the 2004 budgets to undertake the activities identified.
256
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The 2004 work plan used to develop our current budget requests has been developed to
reflect the priorities required to move towards meeting the GTA Flood Standards. (Attachment
1).
Report prepared by: Donald Haley, extension 5226
For Information contact: Nicole Langton, extension 5239
Date: November 24, 2003
Attachments: 1
257
Attachment 1
2004 Work Plan based on GTA Flood Standards
Component
Work Plan Component
Dec -2003
Jan -Mar
2004
Apr -Jun
2004
Jul -Sep
2004
Oct -Dec
2004
PROGRAM '_ ,,,
DELIVERY /ADMINISTRATION
—Channel and dam inspections
- -Field Visits
Develop Baseline knowledge of
watershed
Establish Monitoring Network and
Data Collection System
— Impliment RMN and CSA
workplans
—Review ice monitoring protocol
and determination of locations
—Review snow coarse locations
Ice and
Snow
Ice and
Snow
Yearly Training of Staff
—Media training
—Full operation training for Flood
Duty Officers
Historical Flow Events
— Update Events (Rainfall /Flow)
Maintain Liaison w/ Municipality
and Local Emergency Response
Groups
—Mock Emergency
—Training for Emergency
Operation Centre
—Meet to disc
Develop and Maintain flood site
database
— FVR/FVA updates: Krosno,
Rouge River, Humber River,
Duffins
Krosno
Creek ,
Rouge
River
Conduct yearly update of Flood
Contingency Manual
—Updates to Emergency Contact
lists
Develop and Maintain Operations
Manual
— Update Flood Warning Manual
—Claireville/G Ross Lord OMS
Manuals
-River Watch Manual
Flood Forecasting and Emergency
Operations
—Dam Safety Studies
FORECASTING
— Telemetry at H.O. for Rain
Gauge
— Expansion of GTA flood model
to remaining watersheds
Telemetry
Follow Daily Planning Cycle
COMMUNICATIONS
—Refresher training
Flood Duty Officer or designates
Identify key individuals in CA that
are responsible for flood
forecasting and warning activites.
Their roles and responsiblities will
be outlined in CA's Flood
Operations Manual
—Annual Duty officer schedule
FLOOD OPERATIONS
— Purchase safety equipment for
duty officers and River Watch
Follow all reasonable safety
procedures
Maintain an Emergency
Operations Centre
—New Emergency Operation
Centre in Humber Room (office
initative)
Document Communications with
Internal and External Clients
- -Event log book/training
Debriefing River Watch Personnel
— Meeting to structure program
258
RES. #D80/03 - COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR YORK
UNIVERSITY
Terms of Reference. To report on York University's Stormwater
Management Plan.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the York University Development
Corporation be thanked for developing the terms of reference for a Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan for York University;
THAT the York University Development Corporation be requested to advise Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Chief Administrative Officer and the Watershed
Management Advisory Board as to the timing and progress of the study and its
implementation;
THAT all new development applications at the York University Keele Campus be
consistent with the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan for York University,
when approved;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto, the Humber Watershed Alliance and the Black
Creek Project be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
A permit for the proposed works required for the National Tennis Centre development at
Shoreham Drive and Murray Ross Parkway was approved by the TRCA Executive Committee
on July 4, 2003. Associated with the approved permit for the National Tennis Centre
development, considerable improvements to Hoover Creek, a tributary of Black Creek, will be
implemented.
Improved stormwater management, both in terms of water quality and reduced peak flow rates,
will be provided for a significant drainage area tributary to Hoover Creek. In addition, a
degraded reach of Hoover Creek will be reconstructed using natural channel design principles.
There remains, however, a considerable drainage area tributary to Hoover Creek for which no
stormwater management measures or limited stormwater control has been provided. A
significant portion of this uncontrolled or under controlled area is within the York University
Keele Campus. While York University has recently been proactive with measures such as the
green roof for the computer science building, the majority of the older campus was constructed
with limited stormwater management measures that do not meet current stormwater
management criteria.
259
In considering the permit application for the National Tennis Centre, it was recognized that,
despite the associated feasible improvements to stormwater management and the channel
restoration works, the overall health of Hoover Creek would continue to be impaired by the
uncontrolled runoff from the York University lands discharging downstream of the proposed
stormwater management facility for the National Tennis Centre. It was further recognized that
the ongoing residential and institutional development, and re- development at the Keele
Campus of York University provide opportunities to improve the quality and quantity of runoff
from the campus lands to Hoover Creek. To address this concern, a commitment was made
by York University to 'develop and implement over time a comprehensive water management
plan in consultation with the TRCA and the City of Toronto'. This commitment was provided in
writing in a letter to Brian Denney from Mr. Bud Purves, President of York University
Development Corporation, dated June 26, 2003.
At Executive Meeting #6/03, held on July 4, 2003, resolution #B97/03 was approved as
follows:
THAT the City of Toronto be requested, through the implementation of the Wet Weather
Flow Master Plan, to work with York University to develop a comprehensive stormwater
management plan, as per the June 26, 2003 letter to Brian Denney from Bud Purves,
President of York University Development Corporation, for the entire Hoover Creek
catchment area as it relates to York University stormwater, including retrofitting Stong
Pond and the naturalization of the surrounding landscape, and that the Terms of
Reference for the stormwater plan be completed by the end of October, 2003;
AND FURTHER THAT Tennis Canada establish a working group of interested individuals
and community groups to be involved in the development of the environmental and
landscape features of the Tennis Canada proposal as a positive contribution to the
Humber Watershed as a Canadian Heritage River.
York University, through their consultant IBI Group, provided the TRCA with a preliminary terms
of reference for a stormwater management study in early October. TRCA staff provided
feedback on the preliminary terms of reference, and York University has since endorsed a
revised terms of reference recently submitted to the TRCA that outlines the development of a
comprehensive stormwater management plan for the campus to address the quality and
quantity of runoff from existing and future development at the university and upstream areas
draining through the campus. Specifically, the revised terms of reference have been expanded
based on the recommendations of the TRCA staff to include the following:
• The assessment and preparation of preliminary plans for the retrofit of existing storm
drainage systems on the campus to enhance water quality. The potential retrofit of the
Stong Pond is specifically mentioned in the terms of reference.
• The adoption of a treatment train approach using best management practices, considering
source controls (landscaping, permeable paving, etc.), conveyance controls (vegetated
BMPs, pervious pipes, etc.) and end -of -pipe facilities.
• The consideration of external areas draining through the York University campus in the
development of the stormwater management plan.
260
• The integration of the stormwater management plan with the City of Toronto Wet Weather
Flow Management Master Plan.
• An investigation into cost sharing and potential funding sources for proposed stormwater
management retrofit projects.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff will be pleased to assist the City of Toronto and York University in completing the
Stormwater Management Study
Report prepared by: Steve Hollingworth, extension 5278
For Information contact: Steve Hollingworth, extension 5278
Date: December 1, 2003
Attachments: 1
261
Attachment 1
Storm Water Management Study
Keele Street Campus of York University
DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The Toronto Reg/on Conservation Authority (TRCA) hes requested that York University carry out a storm
water management study for the Keefe Street Campus. The objective of the study is to provide a
framework For the implementation of storm water management measures as development proceeds on
the Keele Street Campus
York University has agreed to the TRCA request and has instructed 31 Group to prepare this draft Terms
of Reference for review by the University and the TRCA.
The Juno 28, 2D03 letter from the York University Development Corporation to the TRCA and the
resolution of the TRCA Executive Commtttee with respect to the permit application for the Tennis Canada
development are attached.
The geographic scope of this study comprises the lands bounded by Keefe Street, Steelcs Avenue,
Murray Ross Parkway, Black Creek and the Finch Hydro corridor.
BACKGROUND
A number of developments are underway on the Campus, including the following:
• The new National Tennis Centre by Tennis Canada:
• The Tribute Communities (York) Inc. residential development on the South Campus lands;
• New University and College buildings.
Stone water management measures are incorporated in these projects as well as recently
constructed projects, including new storm detention ponds and underground and rooftop storage.
Original development on the campus relies on the Stang Pond as part of the drainage system but
this pond hes limited storm water control effectiveness. There Is a need to consider retro fitting this
Pond to improve its effectiveness including the reduction of downstream erosion along Hoover
Creek.
Future development on the Campus is subject to many factors, such as the avaltabdity of funding.
and the possible development of new public transit seNrces (e.g. bus rapid transit and/or extension
of the subway). Accordingly, the storm water management study should establish criteria whrch
anticipate a broad range of development types and densities, and therefore, incorporate flexibility to
allow implementation of the suitable storm wafer management In response to the evolving pattern of
development
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Study will comprise the activities listed below_
262
1. A review of existing drainage and storm water managemart facilities on the Campus. taking
into consideration the possible form and density of future development, The review will
include consideration of external areas draining through the York University Keefe Street
Campus.
2 Establishment of applicable storm water design criteria.
3. An analysis of the existing and proposed storm water management facilities in relation to the
design criteria. The contribution of the existing woodlots to storm water quality will be
assessed.
4. The development of a draft Storm Water Management Plan for the Campus. taking Into
account the range of possible development types and densities. The development of the
Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) will be based on the implementation of Best
Management Practices following a treatment tram approach for existing and future
development This approach includes source controls (permeable pavement, landscaping
etc.), conveyance Controls (grassed swales, filtration strips, pervious pipes etc.). and end of
pipe facilities.
5. The identification of any cost effective opportunities to improve drainage conditions within the
older portions of the Campus. Available funding sources for such Improvements will be
investigated.
6, A review of the draft SWMP meth the University. the TRCA, the City of Toronto Department of
Works and Emergency, upstream landowners, and if appropriate the City of Vaughn. The
possible integration of the SWMP into the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management
Master Plan will be explored.
7. Following consultation with the above stakeholders, the SWMP will be documented Including
preliminary concept plans and cost estimates for proposed retrofits and new facilities
263
RES. #D81 /03 - BLUFFERS PARK MARINA MASTER PLAN AND LEASE
AMENDMENT - FLOAT HOMES
City of Toronto Waterfront. To amend the Bluffers Park Marina Limited
(BPML) Master Plan and lease to accommodate float homes in
accordance with the City of Toronto Council's approved settlement with
BPML.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Anthony Ketchum
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Bluffers Park Marina Limited
(BPML) Master Plan be amended and approved to incorporate the revised dock
configuration for 25 float homes in accordance with the BPML settlement and the specific
terms and conditions as approved by City of Toronto Council at its July 30, 31 and
August 1, 2002 meeting, and the letter of direction from the City of Toronto of January 22,
2003;
THAT staff be authorized and directed to execute the necessary documents to give effect
thereto, including amendments to the lease between the City of Toronto, Bluffers Park
Marina Limited and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to reflect the
approved settlement and the revised Bluffers Park Marina Master Plan for the dock
configuration to accommodate a maximum of 25 float homes;
THAT staff be directed to process the Bluffers Park Marina Limited's permit application
under Ont. Reg. 158 for the new dock configuration;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto and Bluffers Park Marina Limited be so advised.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D82 /03
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Anthony Ketchum
THAT the first paragraph of the main motion be amended to read:
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Bluffers Park Marina Limited
(BPML) Master Plan be amended and approved to incorporate the revised dock
configuration for 25 float homes in accordance with the BPML settlement and the specific
terms and conditions as approved by City of Toronto Council at its July 30, 31 and
August 1, 2002 meeting, and the letter of direction from the City of Toronto of January 22,
2003, subject to confirmation that all black and grey water disposal systems are
connected to, or treated through, the municipal sewage system;
AND FURTHER THAT the following be inserted before the last paragraph of the main
motion:
264
THAT the TRCA continues to oppose in principle float home uses within waterfront parks.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/02, held on April 26, 2002 , Resolution #A79/02 as follows was
approved:
THAT the resolutions of City of Toronto Council on the issue of "float homes" and
year -round liveaboards adopted at its February 13, 14 and 15, 2002 meeting and the
additional information on the Nautical Village Group's "timeshare" 1995 proposal be
received;
THAT the Authority reiterate its position on "liveaboards" as generally adopted on March
22, 1991, to the City of Toronto as follows:
a. In negotiating new lease agreements or extensions to the current yacht club or
marina agreements due to expire in 2005, provisions be incorporated for the
prohibition of "liveaboards" during the non - boating season, between haul -out and
launch, and of "grey wate?' discharge at anytime within small craft harbours
under ownership and management of the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority and the City of Toronto;
b. The City of Toronto be requested to take all reasonable steps to ensure that any
concerns of the City of Toronto Fire Department and other emergency services
are addressed for existing " liveaboard" situations on the Toronto Waterfront;
c. The City of Toronto be requested to enforce the provisions of any existing
agreement with a yacht /boat club or marina which includes a specific clause or
provision prohibiting "liveaboards';
THAT the Authority support the City of Toronto's position that "float homes be prohibited"
on the basis of their incompatibility with the goals and objectives of TRCA's - Lake
Ontario Waterfront Development Program, limiting recreational boating opportunities
along the Toronto waterfront for existing and future residents of the City of Toronto and
the Greater Toronto Area and the conflict with the 1972 Toronto/TRCA waterfront
management agreement which states that the City of Toronto will maintain the waterfront
public lands for park, recreation and conservation purposes;
THAT staff be directed to take whatever action is necessary to ensure the Authority
interests are protected in the legal proceedings and mandatory arbitration with respect
to "float homes" and to request the City of Toronto Legal Services represent the Authority
in this matter;
THAT staff be directed to report in future as to the conclusion of the legal proceedings
and any further actions of the City of Toronto on the "float home" or liveaboard" issue;
265
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto be so advised.
City of Toronto Council, at its July 30, 31 and August 1, 2002 meeting approved a settlement
with Bluffers Park Marina Limited (BPML) to allow for 25 Float Homes on a new dock
configuration at Bluffers Park Marina. The following key conditions of settlement with the City
are relevant to this report:
(1)
The existing 24 float homes at Bluffer's Park Marina would be grandparented, and
allowed to remain at the marina until the end of the current lease and its extension
(i.e., until 2022). The float homes would remain grandparented for that period, even if
sold. These float homes cannot be replaced (e.g., if a vessel was destroyed or left the
marina), but they can be repaired.
(2) BPML would be allowed to have up to 76 liveaboard vessels, in addition to the 24 float
homes, for a total of 100 vessels, used for residential purposes at the marina. As the
number of float homes decreases, a corresponding increase in the number of
Iiveaboards
would be permitted, up to the 100- vessel ceiling. This total represents about 20 percent
of the total slips at the marina; the liveaboard component represents historic use levels
at the marina.
(3)
Consent would be given to allow BPML, at its sole expense, to build a new dock in the
marina to accommodate the 24 float homes in one location. BPML has already applied
to the TRCA for a permit for this project, which requires amending both the Bluffer's
Park Master Plan (involving approvals by the City of Toronto, the TRCA and Fisheries
and Oceans
Canada) and the marina lease. Sewerage connections would be subject to BPML
obtaining all necessary regulatory and government approvals.
(4) A float home currently located at Toronto Island could be moved to Bluffer's Park
Marina, at which point it would be treated the same as the existing 24 float homes
(i.e., subject to grandparenting provisions). This would increase the permitted numbers
referred to in paragraph (2) above to 25 float homes and a total of 101 residential
vessels.
(5)
Large motorized pontoon houseboats and large monohull powerboats or sailboats
would
be allowed into, and to remain at, the marina, so long as their purpose was recreational
rather than residential. Weekend or vacation use of boats as accommodation would
continue to be permitted.
(6) BPML would assist the City of Toronto in the administration of any liveaboard license
fee system,
including but not limited to, monitoring liveaboard activity in the marina and collecting
on the city's behalf any payments due pursuant to such licenses.
266
(7)
Parks and Recreation staff do not object to BPML increasing the number of recreational
boats left in the water year- round. Any boats used for residential purposes would,
however, be included within the total number of permitted liveaboards.
BPML has requested a modification to its master plan to remove one dock spine and construct
a new shoreline dock for the 25 float homes as set out in Attachment 1.
RATIONALE
Staff feel this is a reasonable resolution to this situation. The City of Toronto and TRCA will no
longer be required to be involved in costly arbitration and /or litigation.
The settlement sets the maximum number of float homes at 25 with the complete resolution of
the float home issue by 2022.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will modify the Bluffer's Park Marina Master Plan to reflect the new dock configuration set
out in Attachment 1, and will forward such plan to the city solicitor for incorporation into the
revised lease. Staff will review the revised lease document with TRCA's solicitors, Gardiner
Roberts.
Staff can proceed with the BPML's permit application review including any Federal Fisheries
and Oceans authorization or advice. Release of any approved permit would be subject to
receiving a fully signed revised lease agreement.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
TRCA is not exposed to any extraordinary costs except for some minor expenses related to
legal advice on the revised lease agreement. Most of the legal effort will be covered by City
Legal.
Report prepared by: Larry Field, extension 5243
For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243
Date: December 3, 2003
Attachments: 1
267
Attachment 1
BLUFFERS PARK MARINA
a_•t�7Vt _, !/,
1di Ot-E
T t'i:J C:K
(i114-.1.-.. 5IFLOA7'H03.IE )
for The Living City
1:4.000
Orthnphctny SprInc: 193), Triathlon PAappng Cnrpn'atinr
RES. #D83/03 - INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION (IJC) - THE INTERNATIONAL
LAKE ONTARIO - ST. LAWRENCE RIVER STUDY
To report on the International Joint Commission's International Lake
Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the continued participation of
Larry Field, Waterfront Specialist, on the Public Interest Advisory Group (PIAG) for the
remaining two years of the Study (2004, 2005) be approved;
THAT TRCA staff report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board as the
International Joint Commission's International Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study
recommendations are released for public and agency comment;
AND FURTHER THAT the Canadian Co- Director of the Study Board, be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Following a presentation by Robert (Bob) Metcalfe, Member, International St. Lawrence River
Board of Control, in regards to Lake Ontario level conditions in 2003 and the Regulation
Strategy at the Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/03, held on April 11, 2003,
the Authority requested staff report on the International Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River
Study.
The International Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study Board (Study Board) was formed in
December 2000 by the International Joint Commission to manage a comprehensive 5 -year
study that would assess and evaluate the Order of Approval (1952, as amended 1956) used to
regulate outflows from Lake Ontario through the St. Lawrence River. The IJC also appointed a
bi- national Public Interest Advisory Group to ensure the continuous involvement of all interests
in the study throughout the five years.
The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 requires bi- national approval of projects that change the
natural levels and flows of boundary waters, such as Lake Ontario and the international portion
of the St. Lawrence River.
In 1952, the IJC approved the hydropower project at Massena, New York, and Cornwall,
Ontario. The IJC's Order of Approval requires that the water levels and flows resulting from the
project meet certain conditions and criteria to protect the interests of both countries, including
shoreline communities, commercial navigation and hydropower production. Since the project
was built, recreational boating and tourism have become significant interests. There are
concerns about the environmental impacts of water levels and flow regulation, which were
never assessed in a comprehensive manner. In addition, high and low water supplies have
been more extreme than in the past, and there is a need to prepare for the challenges that
potential climate change scenarios might bring.
269
Attachment 1 to this report provides a satellite image of the Great Lakes and an illustration of
the changes in elevation from Lake Superior to below Montreal. Note should be taken of the
hydropower dams on the St. Marys River and the Moses - Saunders Powerhouse on the St.
Lawrence.
Attachment 2 outlines the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River drainage basins. Note the size
difference between the Ottawa River and Lake Ontario drainage basins. Of the total water
supply for Lake Ontario, 85% comes from the other Great Lakes and their watersheds through
the Niagara River.
The IJC has listened to the public and has informed the Study Board to evaluate the impacts of
changing water levels on environmental quality, shore erosion, flood damages, recreational
boating and tourism. Public Interest Advisory Group member collaboration with the Study
Technical Work Groups and the Study Board builds public participation into the very fibre of
the study.
It is recognized that the complexity of the Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River System dictates
that most proposed solutions will have consequences for others.
The study pulls together a bi- national team of experts from government, native communities,
academia, and interest groups comprising the geographical, scientific, economic and
community concerns of the Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River systems. The Study Board will,
based upon the results of the study and consultations with the public, deliver
recommendations to the IJC for possible amendments to the present Order of Approval for the
regulation of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, including a plan to give effect to the
Order.
The Study Board established the following bi- national Technical Work Groups to collect data,
develop models and evaluate the effects of changing water levels on various interests:
Coastal Processes Technical Work Group
Investigates the impacts of water level fluctuations on shore property, with particular attention
to erosion and flood processes.
Commercial Navigation Technical Work Group
Investigates the impacts of water levels on cargo shipping, including tug and barge operations.
Information Management Technical Work Group
Collects and updates information on depths and elevations (bathymetric and topographic) in
critical areas of the Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence system and shares findings with other work
groups.
Environment/Wetlands Technical Work Group
Investigates the impacts of water level variations on fish, birds, plants and other wildlife in the
Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River system, focusing particularly on ecological effects on
wetlands.
270
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Technical Work Group
Develops models to predict water levels and flows in the Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River
system based on different regulation plans and climate scenarios.
Hydroelectric Power Technical Work Group
Evaluates how different regulation plans affect power generation.
Plan Formulation and Evaluation Technical Work Group
Develops alternative water level regulation plans, establishes performance indicators for those
plans, and measures the effectiveness of the alternate criteria and operating plans.
Recreational Boating/Tourism Technical Work Group
Investigates the impacts of water levels on individual boaters, marinas, and
boating /boating - related tourism.
Domestic, industrial, and Municipal Water Uses Technical Work Group
Investigates the impacts of water level variations on industrial, municipal and domestic water
intakes and treatment facilities.
The IJC also established the Public Interest Advisory Group (PIAG) to provide public
involvement, guidance and consultation, as well as ensuring effective communication between
the public, the IJC and the International Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study Board. The
PIAG is to report periodically to the IJC on its activities, findings and recommendations.
This group of 20 volunteers from the United States (10) and Canada (10), are available to talk
with people who are interested in the progress of the study and to carry forward their concerns.
Since July 2001, Larry Field has been one of the Canadian representatives appointed by the
IJC on the PIAG. He has participated in PIAG public meetings in Sackets Harbour (New York
State), St. Catherines and Ottawa. He also attended the presentation by the IJC Canadian
Section Chair - Herb Gray and PIAG member - John Hall at the International Association of
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Mayors Conference 2003 in St. Catherines.
RATIONALE
The overall mission of the study is "to consider, develop, evaluate and recommend updates
and changes to the 1956 criteria for Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River water levels and flow
regulation, taking into account how water level fluctuations affect all interests and changing
conditions in the system including climate change, all within the terms of the Boundary Waters
Treaty." This five year study (2001 -2005) provides an opportunity to consider the wealth of
knowledge that has been gained since the 1952, as amended 1956, Order of Approval for
water level and flow regulation, the changed uses of the system and the likely future trends.
The study has added three critical areas of interest previously not considered in developing the
original Order of Approval:
1) the environment and coastal wetlands;
2) recreational boating;
3) shoreline property and coastal processes.
271
The IJC also made a commitment to public participation through the formation of a Public
Interest Advisory Group.
The participation of Larry Field on the PIAG provides four significant benefits to TRCA:
1) maintains direct involvement in the study and furthers the understanding of the relationship
of TRCA's nine watersheds to the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence drainage area.
2) provides an opportunity for direct input into the study recommendations which utilizes
TRCA's approach of community -based watershed strategies, stewardship;
integrated shoreline management and aquatic habitat rehabilitation.
3) brings TRCA's community -based public consultation and participation model to this
international level study;
4) continues to build the profile of conservation authorities watershed planning model at the
international level.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Larry Field has been asked by the IJC to continue as a Canadian representative on the PIAG to
the study's completion in December 2005. Mr. Field's PIAG commitment will not interfere with
any TRCA priority waterfront initiatives. It is requested that the Authority endorse Mr. Field's
appointment to, and participation on, the IJC's Public Interest Advisory Group.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
All travel and accommodation expenses related to the PIAG meetings are covered by the
IJC. The salary and benefits for time to participate during the regular work week is paid by
the TRCA.
Report prepared by: Larry Field, extension 5243
For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243
Date: December 3, 2003
Attachments: 2
272
Hydropower Dams &
Compensating Wor
601.1 ft.
St. Marys St. Clair Detroit Niagara Falls
River River River
1 Lake St. Lawrence
5775 R. 572i h. / 569.2 ft. Lake St. Francis
1
/Lak
'N---------, ,/- \ 243.3 h. I Lake St. Louis
St. Clair 2 %h.
Lake -- / Montreal Harbour
Lake Erie /� a
750h. fir../ Huron
Niagcira I Lake " \St. Lawrence River
_923h. River 1 Ontario
Moses-Saunders Powerhouse
1330h._
Lake
Michigan
802h.
Gu f of
St Lawrence
Atlantic
Ocean
L luawy3eUV
Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence
River Drainage Basin
Canada = 3028 km
U.S. =1325 km
Total= 4353 km
Canada= 1881.5 miles
U.S.= 823.3 miles
Total = 2704.8 miles
Legend
• Cities
International Border
- St. Lawrence River
Drainage Basin
Lake Ontario
Drainage Basin
Z luewyaetiV
RES. #D84/03 - GRASS CARP FOUND IN THE LOWER DON RIVER
Potentially harmful invasive species.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Irene Jones
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to work directly
with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (FOC) on a surveillance program for the grass carp;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back with the status of these efforts.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
As part of the Lower Don River /Keating Channel Environmental Assessment, Environmental
Services Section staff are conducting environmental monitoring activities in the Lower Don
River. A component of these efforts is a bi- weekly electrofishing survey of this area during the
open water season. To date, staff have documented many interesting attributes of the Lower
Don fish community including:
• abundance of northern pike in the Lower Don River during the post spawning season;
• adult walleye utilizing the lower reaches of the river;
• presence of juvenile walleye which alludes to local reproduction; and
• a single grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) was collected by staff on October 30, 2003.
The grass carp is one of several species in a group of fish known as Asian carp. Also known as
White Amur, the grass carp belongs to the family Cyprinidae and is native to eastern Asia. It
was imported to North America in the 1960's as a possible way to control weeds. The first
intentional release of the species took place in Arkansas in 1971. Positive identification of the
Don River fish was verified by the Royal Ontario Museum, Ichthyology Department.
What makes this catch significant is that this specimen is potentially a harmful invasive species.
Grass carp have had a negative effect on the ecosystem and the commercial and recreational
fishery where they have become established in the U.S. Grass carp have been found on a
number of occasions in the Great Lakes. It was first discovered in 1985 in Lake Erie. Three
more were captured in commercial fishing nets on three separate occasions during 1989 and
1998 in southern Lake Huron. It is generally believed that these were isolated occurrences and
that there is no established population.
As a result of intentional stocking and accidental escape from aquaculture facilities, grass carp
is widespread throughout the United States. The species was also introduced for aquatic plant
control in irrigation canals in Alberta, where it also escaped into the wild. The carp reaches
sexual maturity at a young age, has a high reproductive rate and feeds extensively on aquatic
vegetation, often resulting in large areas of vegetation being uprooted and increasing turbidity.
Serious impacts to wetland habitats have also been documented.
275
To date, the Lower Don River specimen's origin has not been determined. Currently, a number
of tests are being conducted on the fish to see if its origins can be established. There are a
number of possibilities, one being that it could have been purchased at a live fish market and
released, either accidentally or intentionally. It is also suspected that these fish are available
through the aquarium /backyard pond trade for use in water gardens and can even be
purchased on the internet. Further tests are being conducted on this specimen to determine if
it is triploid (a method of manipulating chromosome numbers of a fish to produce sterility).
Most jurisdictions where grass carp have been released require the fish to be certified triploid
effectively ensuring the fish cannot reproduce. The process is not 100% effective so diploid
fish (which can successfully reproduce) may still occur.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA is working closely with the OMNR and the FOC conducting an aggressive surveillance
program to determine if there are more of these fish in the wild. This includes additional fall
electrofishing sites in the Don River estuary, Humber River estuary and the Rouge River
estuary. A 2004 spring electrofishing schedule is also being developed. The OMNR is working
with municipal, provincial and federal agencies to explore various options to address the live
food and fish trade issue. Initiatives including communications, industry best - management
practices and regulations are being discussed as possible tools to minimize the chance of
introduction. The OMNR enforcement branch is also investigating the availability of this
species through other retail sources, including the water garden trade.
The following precautions should be used to help prevent the spread of grass carp and other
exotic species.
• Never release live fish purchased at a market or restaurant into a lake, river, pond or
stream. It is illegal and harmful to aquatic ecosystems.
• Learn to identify exotic species. The grass carp can be identified by their unique scales
which are a silver /pale grey colour with a prominent dark -edge, giving a unique
characteristic crosshatched effect.
If a grass carp is caught, it should be kept for positive identification and the TRCA, OMNR or
the FOC should be notified. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has also
established the Invading Species Hotline at 1- 800 -563 -7711, which can be used to report this
or any other invasive species.
Report prepared by: Rick Portiss, extension 5302
For Information contact: Rick Portiss, extension 5302
Date: December 1, 2003
RES. #D85/03 - 2003 HUMBER WATERSHED PROGRESS REPORT - FINAL
Final copy of the 2003 Humber Watershed Progress Report
276
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lorna Bissell
Frank Scarpitti
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 2003 Humber Watershed
Progress Report be circulated to federal and provincial governments, Humber watershed
municipalities, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Members of Parliament,
Members of Provincial Parliament, Councillors, community groups, schools, libraries and
the public throughout the Humber watershed;
THAT staff continue to work with the members of the Humber Watershed Alliance to
implement the actions recommended in the 2003 Humber Watershed Progress Report
that will help protect, restore and celebrate the Humber watershed;
AND FURTHER THAT a letter of thanks from the Chief Administrative Officer of the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) be sent to the Chair of the Humber
Watershed Alliance.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In accordance with Objective 30 of Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber, the Humber
Watershed Alliance is committed to producing a report card on the health of the Humber River
watershed every three years as a means of informing the public on progress and watershed
conditions.
In July, 2000, the first Report Card on the Health of the Humber River Watershed was published
by the Humber Watershed Alliance. This award - winning document provided an important
initial assessment of the watershed. It was also intended to be a benchmark against which our
future progress toward achieving a healthier watershed could be measured.
The 2000 report card established targets for improving each indicator with the first targets
being for the year 2005. Three years have elapsed since the last report card, therefore it was
decided that a progress report would be issued to highlight the progress made toward meeting
the 2005 targets for 15 priority indicators. In another three years, the Humber Watershed
Alliance will issue a full report card which will grade the overall condition of the Humber
watershed based on the original 28 indicators.
For each of the 15 indicators in the 2003 Humber Watershed Progress Report, the 2005 targets
from the 2000 report card are given. For each target, there is a brief synopsis of the progress
to date plus a check mark indicating the level of progress in achieving the 2005 targets. The
report then identifies some major threats and key future actions that are necessary in order to
reach the 2005 target.
The progress report suggests that we are actually moving away from two of our targets related
to the Toss of mature forest cover and the lack of commitment and resources to outdoor
environmental education. However, the Humber Alliance is happy to report that the Humber
has made at least some progress in 23 of the 30 targets reviewed. Over 300,000 new trees
have been planted, 2.8 ha of wetlands have been created, 8.4 km of trail have been built and
14 community action sites have been planned and implemented on the Humber.
277
In addition to this, a great deal of progress has been made in the form of data collection and
policy changes. For example, the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy and Groundwater
Management Strategy that the TRCA has been developing will identify important areas of
terrestrial habitat and areas of groundwater recharge and discharge respectively, as well as
identify opportunities to protect these resources. A Wet Weather Flow Management Master
Plan has been developed by the City of Toronto to address the impacts associated with
stormwater and combined sewer overflow. The implementation of this plan will improve water
quality in Toronto's urban rivers.
Other water policy issues were raised during the Walkerton Inquiry and through the
development on the Oak Ridges Moraine. This has helped to keep our concerns in the media
and political forefront and have resulted in new policies such as the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan which limits the development of urban areas on the moraine. Source
Protection Plans, as recommended by the Walkerton Inquiry, are an efficient way to safeguard
drinking water while, at the same time, benefit aquatic habitats. Most importantly, these issues
have brought about a better understanding of the need for watershed management among our
decision makers. Hopefully, this will translate into future actions that help to revitalize the
Humber watershed.
The 2003 Humber Watershed Progress Report was released on October 21, 2003 at meeting
#5103 of the Humber Watershed Alliance. The Humber Alliance hopes that this progress
report will not only showcase the work that is being done by many partners, but inspire others
to join in protecting and improving the health of the Humber watershed.
Report prepared by: Karen Sun, extension 5291
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: November 27, 2003
RES. #D86/03 - ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION
Changes to Membership. Approval of changes to the membership of the
Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the resignation of Stephen Cliffe,
resident of the City of Mississauga, be received;
THAT the resignation of Karen English, resident of the City of Toronto, be received;
THAT the resignation of Susan McClure, resident of the City of Toronto, be received;
THAT the resignation of Jennifer Turgeon, representing EcoSource Mississauga, be
received;
278
THAT the retiring members be thanked for their work on the Etobicoke - Mimico
Watersheds Coalition;
THAT Bruce Dobbin, representing the Credit River Anglers Association, be appointed to
replace John Kendell;
THAT Glenn Miller, representing the Peel Federation of Agriculture, be appointed to
replace Nick deBoer;
THAT Mathew Rossi, a resident of the City of Mississauga, be appointed to the
Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition;
THAT Sean Harvey, representing the City of Toronto, be appointed to the
Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition;
THAT Roger Taylor, representing the Caledon Countryside Alliance, be appointed to the
Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition;
AND FURTHER THAT Irene Jones, a resident of the City of Toronto be appointed to the
Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On an annual basis, the membership of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, in
accordance with the Terms of Reference - Section 3.2, is reviewed by Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff to ensure it is up -to -date.
The Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition consists of 44 members and alternates, including
residents, interest groups, business associations, academic institutions and elected
representatives.
Coalition members, and their alternates, are appointed for a three year term. Over this period,
members may find themselves unable to continue with their commitment and hence, need to
resign. To ensure the vitality of the coalition, new members are added. The above
recommendations reflect the current status of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition
membership.
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
Date: November 19, 2003
279
RES. #D87/03 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance: 2004 - 2006.
Approval of the Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance:
2004 - 2006
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Terms of Reference for the
Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December, 2003, as attached, be approved;
THAT the local and regional municipalities in the Humber watershed be requested to
appoint one municipal council member to the Humber Watershed Alliance;
THAT the City of Toronto Community Councils in the Humber watershed (Toronto North,
Toronto South and Toronto West) be requested to appoint representatives to the Humber
Watershed Alliance;
THAT the municipalities be requested to appoint staff liaisons from appropriate
departments to assist with technical components of the work, including planning and
policy development;
THAT applications for prospective members be requested from the Humber watershed
residents by March 1, 2004;
THAT other agencies and groups, as identified in the Terms of Reference, be requested
to appoint members and alternates by March 1, 2004;
THAT a report be submitted to the Authority identifying the proposed membership,
including the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) member, for formal
approval;
AND FURTHER THAT all the members of the second Humber Watershed Alliance be
thanked for their substantial contributions over the past three years.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On December 20, 1997, the Authority approved "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber" and
"A Call to Action - Implementing Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber."
Objective 25 of "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber" states:
"Create a Humber Watershed Alliance to facilitate implementation of the Humber Watershed
Strategy."
The Humber Watershed Alliance has completed two consecutive, three year terms, and they
have successfully contributed to:
280
• the designation and maintenance of the Humber as a Canadian Heritage River;
• the development of the first report card which examines the health of the Humber River and
subsequent Humber Progress Report published in October, 2003;
• the construction of fishways to restore migratory fish populations;
• the construction of pedestrian trails and bridges;
• habitat restoration, including reforestation and wetland creation;
• community events to provide education and recreation opportunities;
• an art exhibition to celebrate the values of the Humber River;
• nature and heritage hikes;
• contribution to submissions to other planning efforts including the City of Toronto's Official
Plan process, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and Source Protection Plan
Framework;
• application for, and receipt of, funds from a number of sponsors;
• watershed advocacy.
TRCA will benefit through the Humber Watershed Alliance assisting with the following actions:
• maintaining and enhancing contacts within the community regarding watershed
management issues;
• building capacity within the general community to deliver watershed management products
and services;
• advocating for the principles and actions contained in "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy
Humber";
• providing a framework for meaningful community involvement in watershed management;
• acting as a united voice for addressing issues relevant to the municipal, provincial and
federal governments;
• providing leadership in watershed management;
• contributing a level of service that addresses regional needs and opportunities;
• supporting the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto and the delivery of The Living
City Campaign;
• promoting sustainable living communities.
RATIONALE
The development of the Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance contains a
number of important elements that will:
• address the need to assist with the development of an Integrated Watershed Management
Plan and subwatershed plans to satisfy the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan;
• reflect The Living City Campaign by the Conservation Foundation Greater Toronto;
• address practical process considerations recognizing the need to allow the Humber
Watershed Alliance membership flexibility to develop work plans and subcommittees that
will provide the most effective use of volunteer and agency time, while addressing the
identified goals and objectives;
• be consistent with the Terms of Reference of the Don Watershed Council to the extent
feasible, recognizing the unique character and issues of each watershed;
• provide for the addition of representatives from the business and academic communities to
strengthen these community links;
281
• strengthen the inter - watershed linkages for community members, agency and technical
staff.
These changes are made to assist the Humber Watershed Alliance and the TRCA by
increasing the capacity of the Alliance to address watershed issues.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Advertisements will be placed in local newspapers identifying the application process for
prospective members. Information meetings will be held in early 2004 to provide an overview
of the goals of the Humber Watershed Alliance and to answer questions of persons interested
in applying. Notice will also be enclosed in the forthcoming "Humber Advocate" newsletter.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Provisions for these activities are provided through annual budget allocations.
Report prepared by: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: December 1, 2003
Attachments: 1
282
Attachment 1
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
2004 - 2006
Goals, Membership, Organization and
Terms of Reference
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
December, 2003
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
TERMS OF REFERENCE, GOALS, MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION
1.0 AUTHORITY DIRECTION
On December 20, 1996, at Meeting #11/96, the Authority approved in part:
Res. #A261/96
"THAT the Humber Watershed Task Force reports entitled "Legacy: A Strategy for a
Healthy Humber ", dated November 20, 1996 and "A Call t� Action: Implementing the
Humber Watershed Strategy ", dated October 30, 1996, be received and endorsed;
THAT the staff be directed to provide a terms of reference and membership proposal for
a Humber Watershed Alliance for the Authority's consideration in the spring of 1997."
On May 30, 1997, at Meeting #4/97, the Authority approved:
Res. #66/97
"THAT the Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance: 1997 -1999, dated
May 8, 1997, be adopted;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to take all actions necessary to establish the
Humber Watershed Alliance in time for the first meeting to occur in October, 1997."
On January 5, 2001, the Authority approved the following resolution establishing the goals,
membership, organization and Terms of Reference for the second Humber Watershed
Alliance 2001 -2003:
Res. #A266100
"THAT the Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance: 2001 -2003, dated
December, 2000, be approved;"
2.0 GOALS
The goals of the Humber Watershed Alliance are to protect, restore and celebrate the
Humber watershed and, more specifically, to assist the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA), the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, other agencies, and the
public to:
i) implement the Humber Watershed Task Force's report, "Legacy: A Strategy for a
Healthy Humber ".
284
ii) implement the recommendations of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan
contained in "Clean Waters, Clear Choices: Recommendations for Action" as they
pertain to the Humber watershed;
iii) implement the actions required to address the targets identified in the Humber
watershed report cards, "A Report Card on the Health of the Humber River" and 2003
Humber Watershed Progress Report;
iv) assist with the implementation of source protection initiatives;
v) assist with the development of an Integrated Watershed Management Plan and
subwatershed plans to meet the requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan.
3.0 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEMBERSHIP
3.1 The Humber Watershed Alliance shall consist of approximately 60 members
including:
TRCA
• the Chair of the Authority or other designated Authority member;
Regional and Local Municipalities
• one Council member from each of the "905" regional and local municipalities in the
Humber watershed;
- Regional Municipality of York
- Regional Municipality of Peel
- Town of Richmond Hill
- City of Vaughan
- Township of King
- Town of Aurora
- City of Mississauga
- City of Brampton
- Town of Caledon
- Township of Mono
- Township of Adjala - Tosorontio
City of Toronto Community Councils
• one Councillor representing the City of Toronto's Community Councils which have
the Humber watershed within its boundaries:
- Toronto North
- Toronto South
- Toronto West
Residents
• 25 watershed residents;
285
Community Groups
• one representative and alternate from each of the following community groups
which have a specific Interest in the Humber watershed:
- Action to Restore a Clean Humber;
- Humber Heritage Committee;
- Save the Oak Ridges Moraine;
- Ontario Streams;
- Black Creek Project;
- Trout Unlimited;
- Jane Goodall Institute - Roots and Shoots;
- Friends of Claireville;
- York Soil & Crop Improvement Association;
- Richmond Hill Naturalists;
- Humber Arboretum;
Others may be added throughout the term of the Alliance.
Other Public Agencies
• one representative and alternate from each of the following groups which have a
specific interest in the Humber watershed:
- Environment Canada
- Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
- Ontario Ministry of Environment
- Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation
- Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Humber Watershed Businesses /Business Organizations
• three persons representing businesses and /or business organizations interested in
corporate environmental stewardship and the economic vitality of the region.
Persons can be added throughout the term of the Alliance.
Academic Institutions
• three persons drawn from the university, college, public /catholic /private school
systems interested in watershed management, restoration, research, and in
integrating sustainability issues into watershed applications and /or curriculum.
Persons can be added throughout the term of the Alliance.
3.2 Appointment of Municipal Representatives
3.2.1 Regional and Local Municipal Representatives
The regional and local municipalities will be requested by the Authority to
confirm the participation of a council member to the Humber Watershed
Alliance. A municipality may appoint a current Authority member. The
appointed members should represent an electoral ward within the
Humber watershed.
286
3.2.2 City of Toronto Community Council Representatives
Within the City of Toronto, the individual Community Councils will be
requested to appoint members of Council.
3.3 Appointment of Watershed Residents. Business Members and Academic
Institution Representatives
Applications from watershed residents, businesses and academic institutions
will be solicited through announcements in "The Humber Advocate" newsletter,
local newspapers, and through press releases. A committee of three persons,
comprised of one member of the TRCA's Watershed Management Advisory
Board, a TRCA member of senior staff and the Humber Watershed Specialist will
recommend appointments to the Humber Watershed Alliance. This selection
will take into consideration the following:
- demonstrated interest in the watershed /community;
- willingness of the applicant to meet the potential time and work
commitments;
- geographical representation of the watershed;
- professional expertise, and /or knowledge of the watershed in any area
which would assist in the implementation of assigned tasks.
3.4 Appointment of Community Group Representatives
Selected community groups will be requested by the Authority to appoint a
representative and an alternate to the Humber Watershed Alliance. Alternate
members will have voting privileges on all matters of business.
3.5 Appointment of Other Public Agency Representatives
Selected federal and provincial agencies will be requested by the Authority to
appoint a senior staff and an alternate to the Humber Watershed Alliance.
Alternate members will have voting privileges on all matters of business.
3.6 Term of Appointment
Municipalities and other public agencies will be requested to appoint their
representatives for the three -year period coincident with the three -year term of
municipal councillors. All other members will be appointed for a two -year period
with the provision for a one -year renewal without reapplication. Membership will
be reviewed on an annual basis. Members unable to fulfill their commitments
will be replaced by candidates recommended by Authority members, other
Humber Watershed Alliance members and TRCA senior staff.
Resignations may be filled based on the recommendation of the selection
committee as described in Item 3.1.3 above.
287
Notice of resignations and recommendations for new members will be
presented to the Authority on an, as required, basis for approval.
3.7 Attendance and Effort of Humber Watershed Alliance Members at Meetings
Members will be required to attend on a regular basis all Watershed Alliance
meetings.
Members will contribute actively to the work of the Alliance, prepare effectively
for and participate in at least one working committee.
Municipal councillors will be requested to assist in developing an effective
communication strategy to ensure their involvement in the Alliance while
recognizing their time commitments within their own municipalities.
It is anticipated that evening meetings will be held once per month. Additional
working groups may be required to deal with specific issues from time to time.
Additional meeting time will be required in these cases. Members unable to
fulfill this commitment will be replaced after missing three consecutive meetings
to ensure broad and effective representation on watershed issues.
3.8 Selection of Chair and Vice Chair of the Watershed Alliance
The Chair and Vice -Chair will be elected by the Watershed Alliance from
amongst its members. The Authority may appoint an interim chair until such
time that an election can take place. The Chair and Vice -Chair will also be
ex- officio members of all working committees.
3.9 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. Annual work
plans will be developed and submitted prior to the end of the first quarter of
each year.
The Humber Watershed Alliance is not a formal commenting body. However,
Authority staff will advise the Watershed Alliance of major Authority projects
being planned or undertaken within the Humber watershed and of major
planning initiatives or projects of others where the Authority may be a
commenting or permitting body.
The Humber Watershed Alliance may provide comments or other information for
the consideration of staff and the Authority. On a project or application specific
basis the Authority or Authority staff may request comments from the Watershed
Alliance. These comments will be provided or sought within the time frame
necessary to maintain the Authority's service delivery standards.
288
4.0 RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
4.1 Authority Support
The Authority will provide staff support for the Humber Watershed Alliance,
including technical project support and community outreach, based on available
funding, and on a work plan developed by the Humber Watershed Alliance and
approved by the Authority.
Subject to available funding, the staff secretariat will include:
- Humber Watershed Specialist
- Humber Watershed Projects Manager
- Humber Watershed Resource Planner
- Humber Watershed Technical Support Staff
- Humber Watershed Administrative Assistant (part time)
The Humber Watershed Alliance, and its working committees, will otherwise
strive to be self- sufficient in achieving their goals.
From time to time, the assistance of additional TRCA staff may be required on a
project specific basis. Provision of such assistance will be determined when a
project plan is completed by either the Humber Watershed Alliance or a working
committee, and approved by the TRCA's Director of Watershed Management.
The project plan will clearly identify membership requirements, including TRCA
staff, Humber Alliance members and associate members. The project plan will
also identify expectations of the members' responsibilities, time commitment
and project funding availability and allotment.
4.2 Agency Staff Liaison
Each municipality within the Humber watershed will be requested to designate a
staff liaison to the Humber Watershed Alliance from an appropriate department
with direct responsibilities for open space, planning, water management, and
operations. These staff will be invited to all meetings and may wish to join
specific working committees. Annually, a separate meeting/forum may be held
to share information on Humber Watershed plans underway, regeneration
activities carried out directly by municipalities and to ensure on -going liaison
with appropriate departments.
4.3 Working Committees
The Humber Watershed Alliance will undertake its work through the active
involvement of its members on at least one committee.
289
Working committees will be dissolved when their work is substantially complete.
New committees will be struck to deal with specific implementation items as
determined by the Humber Watershed Alliance. This information will be
communicated to the Authority at least twice annually.
Smaller committees can be added for specific projects but the Watershed
Alliance will generally be limited to 5 active /standing committees at any one
time. This will ensure the necessary focus and effort required, while serving to
limit, to a reasonable level, the demands on the Watershed Alliance members
and staff of the Authority and other agencies.
4.3.1 Committee Membership and Associate Watershed Alliance Members
The Humber Watershed Alliance committee members will enlist the
assistance of others interested in actively giving of their time and talents
to the protection, regeneration and celebration of the watershed.
Additional committee members will also be recruited from federal,
provincial, regional and local agencies. These persons will be appointed
as "associate" Watershed Alliance members by the Watershed Alliance
upon recommendation of the working committees. Associate members
are not required to be residents of the watershed. Associate members
are welcome and encouraged to attend all Watershed Alliance meetings
and participate at the discretion of the Watershed Alliance Chair during
committee reports and at other times, as appropriate.
4.3.2 Committee Chair
The Chair of each committee will be a Watershed Alliance member. The
Chairs will be responsible for addressing and implementing the Terms of
Reference and reporting to the Watershed Alliance on a regular basis.
4.3.3 Terms of Reference for Working Committees
Terms of Reference will be developed and approved by the Watershed
Alliance for each committee established. Authority staff will work with the
members of the Humber Watershed Alliance to establish Terms of
Reference for each working committee.
4.3.4 Work Plans
The committees will develop annual work plans. These work plans will
contain resource plans required to support the proposed activities based
on the Terms of Reference.
4.4 Other Resources
Funding may be available for projects and activities of working committees
based on approved work plans and available Authority funding. Working
committee members are encouraged to secure other resources and
partnerships for Watershed Alliance projects and activities, whenever possible.
In -kind or other support for projects and activities will be welcome from
businesses, industries, other government agencies, private foundations,
educational institutions and others in accordance with TRCA policies. In -kind or
other support will be coordinated with the assistance of the Conservation
Foundation of Greater Toronto, where appropriate.
5.0 COMPENSATION OF WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEMBERS
At regular Humber Watershed Alliance meetings, as well as working committee meetings,
members will be eligible for travel expenses according to Authority policy. Associate
members of working committees are also eligible for travel expenses, where these are not
covered by their agency.
6.0 RULES OF CONDUCT
The Humber Watershed Alliance will adhere to the TRCA's Rules of Conduct, Policies and
Procedures, as adopted by resolution at Authority meeting #3/02, or as may be amended. A
quorum will consist of one -third of the members of the Humber Watershed Alliance.
7.0 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
The Humber Watershed Alliance shall:
1. Initiate and recommend to the Authority and other partners, regeneration and
stewardship projects and activities in consultation with the regional and local
municipalities, Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan and other watershed
stakeholders that will lead to the realization of the vision for the Humber and implement "
Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber" , "A Report Card on the Health of the Humber
River ", and "The 2003 Humber Watershed Progress Report";
2. Assist with the development of an Integrated Watershed Management Plan to meet the
requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan;
3. Assist with the development of subwatershed plans;
4. Assist with source protection planning;
5. Adhere to the basic principles of sound ecosystem management that recognizes the
interrelationship between cultural heritage, physical characteristics, biological conditions
and economic needs, and the integration of conservation, restoration and economic
activities necessary for the health of the watershed;
6. Act as the Humber watershed advocate in large projects that cross municipal boundaries
and support major projects advocated by others which will protect, regenerate and
celebrate the Humber;
291
7. Continue to promote the Humber Pledge to municipal councils, agencies, businesses,
community organizations and others throughout the watershed;
8. Develop the second Humber Watershed Report Card scheduled for publication in 2006;
9. Assist in gaining financial and in -kind resources;
10. In conjunction with the TRCA and others, host technical forums leading to improvements
in planning and practice, throughout the watershed;
11. Inform watershed communities about regeneration through public meetings,
publications, displays and special events;
12. Support the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto and the delivery of The Living
City Campaign;
13. Provide leadership in watershed management;
14. Act as a united voice for addressing issues relevant to the municipal, provincial, and
federal governments;
15. Provide a framework for meaningful community involvement in watershed management;
16. Build capacity within the general community to deliver watershed management products
and services;
17. Maintain and enhance contacts within the community regarding watershed management
issues;
18. Contribute a level of service that addresses regional needs and opportunities such as
environmental policy development, and sustainable tactics and strategies;
19. Work collaboratively with TRCA staff, and other watershed /waterfront advisory
committees on issues of common concern;
20. Advocate and assist with maintaining the natural heritage, human heritage, and
recreational values that identify the Humber as a Canadian Heritage River;
21. Support local community groups;
22. Consult and involve individuals, interest groups, communities, businesses, industry and
23. government agencies in the realization of the vision of the Humber watershed .
292
RES. #D88/03 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council: 2004 -
2006. Approval of the Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council: 2004 - 2006
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Terms of Reference for the
Don Watershed Regeneration Council, dated December, 2003, as attached, be approved;
THAT the local and regional municipalities in the Don watershed be requested to appoint
one municipal council member to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council;
THAT the City of Toronto Community Councils In the Don watershed (Toronto North,
Toronto South and Toronto East) be requested to appoint representatives to the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council;
THAT the municipalities be requested to appoint staff liaisons from appropriate
departments to assist with technical components of the work, including planning and
policy development;
THAT applications for prospective members be requested from Don watershed residents
by March 1, 2004;
THAT other agencies and groups, as identified in the Terms of Reference, be requested
to appoint members and alternates by March 1, 2004;
THAT a report be submitted to the Authority identifying the proposed membership,
including the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff member for formal
approval;
AND FURTHER THAT all the members of the third Don Watershed Regeneration Council
be thanked for their substantial contributions over the past three years.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On May 27, 1994, at Meeting #4/94, the Authority approved Res. #A111/94 in part as follows:
THAT the Don Watershed Task Force report entitled "Forty Steps to a New Don" be
received and endorsed;....
THAT the staff be directed provide a terms of reference and membership proposal for a
Don Regeneration Council....for the Authority's consideration
On October 28, 1994, at Meeting #9/94, the Authority approved Res. #A224/94 in part as
follows:
293
THAT the Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference for the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council, as set out in the report, dated October 1994, ... be
approved;
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council have completed three successful, three year terms.
The Don Council's achievements since inception in 1995 have been many and far reaching.
They include:
• the modification or removal of several weirs to allow for fish passage - leading to the first
large scale migration of salmon in over 100 years;
• holding dozens of community events to celebrate stewardship and educate people on Don
issues;
• assisting the Friends of Little German Mills Creek in establishing their regeneration project;
• the securement of funds to assist in the restoration of Milne Hollow;
• the completion of Phase 1 of the Don Valley Brick Works project in the Lower Don, and
many other regeneration projects watershed -wide;
• the provision of comments and submissions on environmental policy issues such as the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, York Region Greening Strategy, Canada - Ontario
Agreement on the Great Lakes, York Region Transportation Master Plan and the Provincial
Policy Statement;
• ongoing support for the continued regeneration effort in the Bartley Smith Greenway;
• efforts to influence the International Joint Commission to add non point source pollution to
the Great Lakes Quality Agreement;
• advocacy for the protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine, McGill ESA, Burke Brook Ravine
ESA and for Smart Growth in the GTA;
• facilitation of the interwatershed submission on the City of Toronto's Official Plan and of a •
presentation on the role of the public in watershed management to Justice O'Connor at the
Walkerton inquiry hearings and the continued support and advocacy for effective Source
Protection Planning initiatives;
• strong support for the TRCA's Living City Campaign;
• advocacy for better signage of the Don River and its tributaries;
• consistent messages for better stormwater management both in the 905 region and
through the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan initiative; and,
• the publication of 3 report cards on the health of the Don watershed including the inaugural
report, released in 1997 entitled "Turning the Corner", "A Time for Bold Steps" released in
2000, and "Breathing New Life into the Don ", the most recent report card which was
released in October 2003.
TRCA will benefit through the Don Watershed Regeneration Council assisting with the following
actions:
• maintaining and enhancing contacts within the community regarding watershed
management issues;
• building capacity within the general community to deliver watershed management products
and services;
• advocating for the principles and actions contained in "Forty Steps to a New Don";
• providing a framework for meaningful community involvement in watershed management;
294
• acting as a united voice for addressing issues relevant to the municipal, provincial and
federal governments;
• providing leadership in watershed management;
• contributing a level of service that addresses regional needs and opportunities;
• supporting the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto and the delivery of The Living
City Campaign;
• promoting sustainable living communities.
RATIONALE
The development of the Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council
contains a number of important elements that will:
• address the need to assist with the development of an Integrated Watershed Management
Plan as required as part of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan;
• reflect The Living City Campaign by the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto;
• address practical process considerations recognizing the need to allow the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council membership flexibility to develop work plans and subcommittees that
will provide the most effective use of volunteer and agency time, while addressing the
identified goals and objectives;
• be consistent with the Terms of Reference of the Humber Watershed Alliance to the extent
feasible, recognizing the unique character and issues of each watershed;
• provide for the addition of representatives from the business and academic communities to
strengthen these community links;
• strengthen the inter - watershed linkages both for community members and agency and
technical staff.
These changes are made to assist the Don Watershed Regeneration Council and the TRCA by
increasing the capacity of the Council to address watershed issues.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Advertisements will be placed in local newspapers identifying the application process for
prospective members. Information meetings will be held in early 2004 to provide an overview
of the goals of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council and to answer questions of persons
interested in applying. Notice will also be enclosed in the forthcoming "On the Don" newsletter.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Provision for these activities are provided through annual budget allocations.
Report prepared by: Amy Thurston, extension 5283
For Information contact: Amy Thurston, extension 5283
Date: December 4, 2003
Attachments: 1
295
Attachment 1
THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
2004 - 2006
Goals, Membership, Organization and
Terms of Reference
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
December, 2003
296
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
TERMS OF REFERENCE, GOALS, MEMBERSHIP, AND ORGANIZATION
1.0 AUTHORITY DIRECTION
On May 27, 1994, at Meeting #4/94, the Authority approved in part:
Res. #A111/94
"THAT the Don Watershed Task Force report entitled "Forty Steps to a New Don" be
received and endorsed;....
THAT the staff be directed to provide a terms of reference and membership proposal for
a Don Regeneration Council for the Authority's consideration .... "
On October 28, 1994, at Meeting #9/94, the Authority approved in part:
Res. #A224194
THAT the Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference for the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council, as set out in the report, dated October 1994, ... be
approved;"
On October 31, 1997, the Authority approved the following resolution, establishing the goals,
membership, organization and Terms of Reference for the 2nd Don Watershed Regeneration
Council 1998 -2000.
Res. #A241/97
"THAT the Terms of Reference including the membership for the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council as set out in the report dated October 14, 1997 be approved;"
On January 5, 2001, the Authority approved the following resolution, establishing the goals,
membership, organization and Terms of Reference for the 3rd Don Watershed Regeneration
Council 2001 -2003.
Res. #A267/00
"THAT the Terms of Reference including the membership for the Don Council as set out
in the report dated December 15, 2000, as attached, be approved:"
297
2.0 GOALS
The goals of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are to protect, regenerate and celebrate
the Don watershed and, more specifically, to assist the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA), the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, other agencies, and the
public to:
i) implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report, "Forty Steps to a New Don";
ii) implement the recommendations of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan
contained in "Clean Waters, Clear Choices: Recommendations for Action" as they
pertain to the Don watershed;
iii) implement the actions required to address the targets identified in the Don Watershed
Report Cards "Turning the Corner" , "A Time for Bold Steps ", and "Breathing New Life
into the Don";
iv) assist with the implementation of source protection initiatives;
v) assist with the development of watershed and subwatershed plans to meet the
requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
3.0 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
3.1 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council shall consist of approximately 45
members including:
TRCA
• the Chair of the Authority or other designated Authority member;
Regional and Local Municipalities
• one Council member from each of the "905" regional and local municipalities in the
Don Watershed:
- Regional Municipality of York
- Town of Richmond Hill
- City of Vaughan
- Town of Markham
City of Toronto Community Councils
• one Councillor representing each of three of the City of Toronto's Community
Councils which have the Don watershed within its boundaries:
- Toronto North
- Toronto South
- Toronto East
Residents
• 20 watershed residents;
298
Community Groups
• one representative and alternate from each of the following community groups
which have a specific interest in the Don watershed:
- The Task Force to Bring Back the Don, City of Toronto
- Friends of the Don East
- Richmond Hill Field Naturalists
- North Toronto Green Community
Others may be added throughout the term of the Council
Other Public Agencies
• one representative and alternate from each of the following groups which have a
specific interest in the Don watershed:
- Environment Canada
- Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
- Ontario Ministry of Environment
Don Watershed Businesses /Business Organizations
• three persons representing businesses and /or business organizations interested in
corporate environmental stewardship and the economic vitality of the region.
Persons can be added throughout the term of Council.
Academic Institutions
• three persons drawn from the university, college, public /catholic /private school
systems interested in watershed management, restoration, research, and in
integrating sustainability issues into watershed applications and /or curriculum.
Persons can be added throughout the term of Council.
3.2 Appointment of Municipal Representatives
3.2.1 Regional and Local Municipal Representatives
The regional and local municipalities will be requested by the Authority to
confirm the participation of a council member to the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council. A municipality may appoint a current Authority
member. The appointed members should represent an electoral ward
within the Don watershed.
3.2.2 City of Toronto Community Council Representatives
Within the City of Toronto, the individual Community Councils will be
requested to appoint members of Council.
3.3 Appointment of Watershed Residents. Business Members and Academic
Institution Representatives
Applications from watershed residents, businesses and academic institutions
will be solicited through announcements in the "On the Don" newsletter, local
newspapers, and through press releases. A committee of three persons,
299
comprised of one member of the TRCA's Watershed Management Advisory
Board, a TRCA member of senior staff and the Don Watershed Specialist will
recommend appointments to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. This
selection will take into consideration the following:
- demonstrated interest in the watershed /community;
- willingness of the applicant to meet the potential time and work
commitments;
- geographical representation of the watershed;
- professional expertise, and /or knowledge of the watershed in any area
which would assist in the implementation of assigned tasks.
3.4 Appointment of Community Group Representatives
Selected community groups will be requested by the Authority to appoint a
representative and an alternate to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council.
Alternate members will have voting privileges on all matters of business.
3.5 Appointment of Other Public Agency Representatives
Selected federal and provincial agencies will be requested by the Authority to
appoint a senior staff and an alternate to the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council. Alternate members will have voting privileges on all matters of
business.
3.6 Term of Appointment
Municipalities and other public agencies will be requested to appoint their
representatives for the three -year period coincident with the three -year term of
municipal councillors. All other members will be appointed for a two -year period
with the provision for a one -year renewal without reapplication. Membership will
be reviewed on an annual basis. Members unable to fulfill their commitments
will be replaced by candidates recommended by Authority members, other Don
Watershed Council members and TRCA senior staff.
Resignations may be filled based on the recommendation of the selection
committee as described in Item 3.1.3 above.
Notice of resignations and recommendations for new members will be
presented to the Authority on an, as required, basis for approval.
3.7 Attendance and Effort of Don Watershed Regeneration Council Members at
Meetings
Members will be required to attend on a regular basis all Watershed Council
meetings.
300
Members will contribute actively to the work of the Council, prepare effectively
for and participate in at least one working committee.
Municipal councillors will be requested to assist in developing an effective
communication strategy to ensure their involvement in the Council while
recognizing their time commitments within their own municipalities.
It is anticipated that evening meetings will be held once per month. Additional
working groups may be required to deal with specific issues from time to time.
Additional meeting time will be required in these cases. Members unable to
fulfill this commitment will be replaced after missing three consecutive meetings
to ensure broad and effective representation on watershed issues.
3.8 Selection of Chair and Vice Chair of the Watershed Council
The Chair and Vice -Chair will be elected by the Watershed Council from
amongst its members. The Authority may appoint an interim chair until such
time that an election can take place. The Chair and Vice -Chair will also be
ex- officio members of all working committees.
3.9 Reporting Relationship
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council is considered a subcommittee of the
Watershed Management Advisory Board. The Watershed Council 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.
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council is not a formal commenting body;
Authority staff will advise the Watershed Council of major Authority projects
being planned or undertaken within the Don watershed and of major planning
initiatives or projects of others where the Authority may be a commenting or
permitting body.
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council may provide comments or other
information for the consideration of staff and the Authority. On a project or
application specific basis, the Authority or Authority staff may request comment
by the Watershed Council. These comments will be provided or sought within
the time frame necessary to maintain the Authority's service delivery standards.
4.0 RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
4.1 Authority Support
The Authority will provide staff support for the Watershed Council, including
technical project support and community outreach, based on available funding
and on a work plan developed by the Watershed Council and approved by the
Authority.
301
Subject to available funding, the staff secretariat will include:
- Don Watershed Specialist
- Don Watershed Resource Planner
- Don Technical Clerk
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and its working committees, will
otherwise strive to be self- sufficient in achieving their goals.
From time to time, the assistance of additional TRCA staff may be required on a
project specific basis. Provision of such assistance will be determined when a
project plan is completed by either the Don Council or a working committee,
and approved by the TRCA's Director of Watershed Management.
The project plan will clearly identify membership requirements, including TRCA
staff, Don Council members and associate members. The project plan will also
identify expectations of the member's responsibilities, time commitment and
project funding availability and allotment.
4.2 Agency Staff Liaison
Each municipality within the Don Watershed will be requested to designate a
staff liaison for the Don Council from an appropriate department with direct
responsibilities for open space, planning, water management, and operations.
These staff will be invited to all meetings and may wish to join specific working
committees. Annually, a separate meeting/forum may be held to share
information on Don watershed plans underway, regeneration activities carried
out directly by municipalities and to ensure on -going liaison with appropriate
departments.
4.3 Working Committees
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council will undertake its work through the
active involvement of its members on at least one committee.
Working committees will be dissolved when their work is substantially complete.
New committees will be struck to deal with specific implementation items as
determined by the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. This information will
be communicated to the Authority at least twice annually.
Smaller committees can be added-for specific projects but the Watershed
Council will generally be limited to 4 active /standing committees at any one
time. This will ensure the necessary focus and effort required, while serving to
limit, to a reasonable level, the demands on the Watershed Council members
and staff of the Authority and other agencies.
302
4.3.1 Committee Membership and Associate Watershed Council Members
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council committee members will enlist
the assistance of others interested in actively giving of their time and
talents to the protection, regeneration and celebration of the watershed.
Additional committee members will also be recruited from federal,
provincial, regional and local agencies. These persons will be appointed
as "associate" Don Watershed Regeneration Council members by the
Don Watershed Regeneration Council upon recommendation of the
working committees. Associate members are not required to be
residents of the watershed. Associate members are welcome and
encouraged to attend all Don Watershed Regeneration Council meetings
and participate at the discretion of the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council Chair during committee reports and at other times, as
appropriate.
4.3.2 Committee Chair
The Chair of each committee will be a Don Watershed Regeneration
Council member. The Chairs will be responsible for addressing and
implementing the Terms of Reference and reporting to the Watershed
Council on a regular basis.
4.3.3 Terms of Reference for Working Committees
Terms of Reference will be developed and approved by the Watershed
Council for each committee established. Authority staff will work with the
members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council to establish Terms
of Reference for each working committee.
4.3.4 Work Plans
The committees will develop annual work plans. These work plans will
contain resource plans required to support the proposed activities based
on the Terms of Reference.
4.4 Other Resources
Funding may be available for projects and activities of working committees based on
approved work plans and available Authority funding. Working committee members
are encouraged to secure other resources and partnerships for Watershed Council
projects and activities, whenever possible. In -kind or other support for projects and
activities will be welcome from business, industries, other government agencies, private
foundations, educational institutions and others in accordance with TRCA policies. All
in -kind or other support will be coordinated with the assistance of the Conservation
Foundation of Greater Toronto, where appropriate.
303
5.0 COMPENSATION OF WATERSHED COUNCIL MEMBERS
At regular Don Watershed Regeneration Council meetings, as well as working committee
meetings, members will be eligible for travel expenses according to Authority policy. Associate
members of working committees are also eligible for travel expenses, where these are not
covered by their agency.
6.0 RULES OF CONDUCT
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council will adhere to the TRCA's Rules of Conduct, Policies
and Procedures, as adopted by resolution at Authority meeting #3/02, or as may be amended.
A quorum will consist of one -third of the members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council.
7.0 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council shall:
1. Initiate and recommend to the Authority and other partners, regeneration and
stewardship projects and activities in consultation with the regional and local
municipalities, Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan and other watershed
stakeholders that will lead to the realization of the vision for the Don and implement
"The Forty Steps to a New Don" and targets established in "A Time for Bold Steps ",
"Turning the Corner" and "Breathing New Life into the Don";
2. Assist with the development of the Integrated Watershed Management Plan to meet the
requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan;
3. Participate in efforts of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation with respect to
the naturalization and flood protection at the mouth of the Don and related activities;
4. Assist with source protection planning;
5. Adhere to the basic principles of sound ecosystem management that recognizes the
interrelationship between cultural heritage, physical characteristics, biological
conditions and economic needs, and the integration of conservation, restoration and
economic activities necessary for the health of the watershed;
6. Act as the Don watershed advocate in large projects that cross municipal boundaries
and support major projects advocated by others which will protect, regenerate and
celebrate the Don;
7. Continue to promote the Don Accord to municipal councils, agencies, businesses,
community organizations and others throughout the watershed;
8. Develop the fourth Don Watershed Report Card scheduled for publication in 2006;
9. Assist in gaining financial and in -kind resources;
304
10. In conjunction with the TRCA and others, host technical forums leading to
improvements in planning and practice, throughout the watershed;
11. Inform watershed communities about regeneration through public meetings,
publications, displays and special events;
12. Support the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto and the delivery of The Living
City Campaign;
13. Provide leadership in watershed management;
14. Act as a united voice for addressing issues relevant to the municipal, provincial, and
federal governments;
15. Provide a framework for meaningful community involvement in watershed management;
16. Build capacity within the general community to deliver watershed management
products and services;
17. Maintain and enhance contacts within the community regarding watershed
management issues;
18. Contribute a level of service that addresses regional needs and opportunities such as
environmental policy development, and sustainable tactics and strategies;
19. Work collaboratively with TRCA staff, and other watershed /waterfront advisory
committees on issues of common concern;
20. Advocate the values contained within Forty Steps to a New Don;
21. Support local community groups;
22. Consult and involve individuals, interest groups, communities, businesses, industry and
government agencies in the realization of the vision for the Don watershed.
305
RES. #D89 /03 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #6/03, Meeting #7/03 and Meeting #8/03. The
Minutes of Meeting #6/03 held on June 19, 2003, Meeting #7/03 held on
July 17, 2003 and Meeting #8/03 held on October 16, 2003
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ila Bossons
THAT the Minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #6/03, Meeting
#7/03 and Meeting #8/03, 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: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
For Information contact: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
Date: December 03, 2003
RES. #D90 /03 - PICKERING HARBOUR COMPANY WATERFRONT REGENERATION
PROJECT
City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham. Direction to prepare a
Pickering Harbour Company Waterfront Regeneration Project in the City
of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to prepare a
Pickering Harbour Company Waterfront Regeneration Project (the "Project") on a
multi -year basis in the City of Pickering, Region of Durham as a component of the Region
of Durham's waterfront multi -year project;
THAT prior to preparation of the Project, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA) obtain written support and a partnership commitment from the City of Pickering
and the Pickering Harbour Company for such a major waterfront initiative;
THAT the TRCA, in preparing the Project, including a funding partnership, seek
commitments from, but not limited to, the Government of Canada, the Province of
Ontario, the Regional Municipality of Durham, the City of Pickering and the Pickering
Harbour Company;
306
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Pickering and the Pickering Harbour Company be so
advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #2/99, held on February 26, 1999, Resolution A53/99 entitled "Waterfront
2001 - Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront - Final Report - June 1998" was
approved as follows:
THAT the staff report on the Waterfront 2001- Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering
Waterfront Final Report - June 1998 as actioned by Pickering Council in Report to Council
IDT 80 -98 be received;
THAT the Authority support the establishment of a "Waterfront Co- ordinating Committee and
confirm Larry Field, Waterfront Specialist and an appropriate alternate, as the
Authority's representative on the Committee;
THAT staff continue to acquire key properties within the Master Plan of Acquisition along the
Pickering waterfront in accordance with the Authority's priorities and in conjunction with the
Town of Pickering;
THAT staff be directed to work with the Town of Pickering and their departments, and the
Waterfront Co- ordinating Committee on the implementation of the various waterfront
initiatives on a priority basis;
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Pickering be so advised.
The task force's final report incorporated the following key elements of the waterfront vision:
• Promoting Tourism on the Waterfront;
• Linking the East and West Spits of Frenchman's Bay;
• Improving the Entrance to Frenchman's Bay and Addressing the Problem of Sedimentation;
• Improving Waterfront Recreational Opportunities;
• Completing the Pickering Waterfront Trail;
• Celebrating History, Heritage and the Arts;
• Ensuring an Ecologically Sustainable Waterfront and Bay.
To support the long -term vision for the Frenchman's Bay section of the City of Pickering's
waterfront within the Region of Durham, the following policy documents and key projects are
highlighted:
• Region of Durham Official Plan waterfront policies including the "Tourist Node" designation
and contribution to the region's economy and quality of life;
• City of Pickering's Official Plan and waterfront policies, including specific recommendations
in the Waterfront 2001 Final Report;
• Implementation of major components of Pickering's Waterfront Trail Master Plan including
the completed Millennium Trail at the foot of Liverpool Road;
307
• Establishment by TRCA in partnership with the City of Pickering of the Frenchman's Bay
Watershed Rehabilitation Project in 1998, including the recent extension of the Project for
the next 5 years through the Trillium Foundation financial commitment;
• Acquisition of Front Street Park and initiation of park development in 2003 by the City of
Pickering;
• Completion of the Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park Master Plan by TRCA and the City of
Pickering in 2002;
• Start of major redevelopment of the planning area known as "Liverpool Road South" in 2003
with townhouse development, reconfiguration of major upgrades to East Shore Marina
(Pickering Harbour Company), along with some dredging and municipal infrastructure
works;
• Completion in June 2003 of the "Remediation of an Urban - Impacted Watershed and
Lagoon - Frenchman's Bay Report - A Collaborative City of Pickering, University of Toronto
and McMaster University Project."
The TRCA over the last two years has been involved in various discussions with the City of
Pickering and Pickering Harbour Company on a long -term vision for Frenchman's Bay.
RATIONALE
In recent discussions with the City of Pickering and the Pickering Harbour Company regarding
the significant investment to date in Pickering's waterfront, it was determined the strategic
opportunity to formulate a Pickering Harbour Company Waterfront Regeneration project is
now. This project will support the policies in the Region of Durham's and City of Pickering's
Official Plans.
The Authority is requested to direct staff to prepare a multi -year Pickering Harbour Company
Waterfront Development Project. This project would be integrated with the pending 5 year
Durham Waterfront Capital Project and its integrated Frenchman's Bay Management Plan
component. This project will include such matters as land ownership, dredging, park
development (East Spit), habitat restoration and construction of a new harbour entrance.
Prior to TRCA initiating the Project preparation, the support and commitment by the City of
Pickering and the Pickering Harbour Company .is essential.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Authority requests the support and commitment of the City of Pickering and Pickering
Harbour Company prior to preparing the Project.
Upon securing the above support, TRCA staff will prepare a detailed "Project and Funding
Partnership for TRCA and Partners Approval ".
308
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The details of the funding partnership will be outlined in the detailed project and funding
partnership. With the anticipated level of investment required to achieve the vision for
Frenchman's Bay, a multi -level partnership is critical.
Report prepared by: Larry Field, extension 5243
For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243
Date: December 10, 2003
NEW BUSINESS
RES. #D91 /03
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ila Bossons
THAT Mark Wilson be thanked for his significant contributions as Chair of the Don
Watershed Task Force, for serving 3 years as Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council and for his outstanding dedication to improving the health of the Don River
watershed.
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:22 p.m., on Friday, December 12, 2003.
Irene Jones
Chair
/ks
CARRIED
Brian Denney
Secretary- Treasurer
309