Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWatershed Management Advisory Board Appendices 2004THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #1/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #7/04 JULY 23, 2004 vt �onsera o n for The Living City theDon MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/04 May 20, 2004 Page F1 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #1/04, was held in Committee Room #1 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday May 20, 2004. Acting Chair Don Cross called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT Glenn Abuja Member Cassandra Bach Member Margaret Buchinger Member Carmela Canzonieri Member Don Cross Acting Chair Eli Garrett Member Phil Goodwin Member Moyra Haney Member Peter Heinz Member Brenda Lucas Member Deborah Martin -Downs Member James McArthur Member Helen Mills Member Roslyn Moore Member Carolyn O'Neill Member Douglas Obright Member Janice Palmer Member Nancy Penny Member Mel Plewes Member Ron Shimizu Member Beverley Thorpe Member Tom Waechter Member John Wilson Member Catherine Wood Member Miao Zhou Member OBSERVERS Jane Darragh City of Mississauga Phil Davies Watershed Resident F2 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/04 May 20, 2004 STAFF Alex Blasko Don Watershed Technical Clerk Laurian Farrell Etobicoke /Mimico Water Management Coordinator Adele Freeman Acting Director, Watershed Management Division Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner INTRODUCTION WELCOME Don Cross, Acting Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council welcomed back returning members to the Council and expressed a special welcome to the new members this term. Adele Freeman, Acting Director of TRCA's Watershed Management Division provided welcome to the Council on behalf of Dick O'Brien (Chair, TRCA) and Brian Denney (CAO, TRCA). She emphasized the importance of volunteer groups such as the Don Council and Humber Alliance to making a significant and lasting difference within our Living City. Adele provided some highlights of accomplishments that the watershed advisory groups have helped to bring about, including: • The signing of the Don Accord by numerous corporations and agencies; • The designation of the Humber as a Heritage River; • The regeneration of key sites such as the Don Valley Brick Works and numerous other restoration projects throughout all of the TRCA watersheds; and • The production of watershed report cards for the Don, Humber and Etobicoke /Mimico watersheds. Adele introduced the Don Council as part of a broader team - one of many groups working as part of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The goal of the RAP is to work towards the continuing improvement of the Toronto area, and the removal of Toronto from the list of Areas of Concern. Adele concluded by noting that the TRCA and the Council are poised on a number of significant opportunities. The amount of work that lies ahead is tremendous, but so is the potential for positive change. Issues such as the Integrated Watershed Management Plan and Source Protection Planning will make up the backbone for the work of the Council this term. Adele encouraged Council members to make the most of their time with the Council, and thanked them for their commitment to the Don. May 20, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/04 F3 BACKGROUND ON THE DON COUNCIL Deborah Martin -Downs provided a presentation on the history of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council with key points as follows: The Don Watershed Task Force was created in 1992 to develop a strategy to regenerate the Don. The Task Force provided a vision, principles and steps to accomplish this in the form a watershed planning document called Forty Steps to a New Don, which was published in 1994. Vision • A revitalized urban river, flowing with life- sustaining water through regenerated natural habitats and human communities. • A diversity of wildlife with varied and connected habitats. • An appreciation and sense of responsibility for the Don from its residents. Principles • • Protect what is healthy; Regenerate what is degraded; Take responsibility for the Don. Steps • Caring for water; • Caring for nature; • Caring for community; • Take responsibility. Step 32 of the report charged the Task Force to "Form a Don Watershed Regeneration Council to integrate our efforts ". The first Don Council was subsequently formed in 1994 to continue the work that was started by the Task Force. Don Council Operations The Don Council operates through a number of working committees that report through the Council to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Board. The committees vary from term to term, but often include: • Education and outreach; • Policy; • Projects; • Report card; • Special projects; and • Stewardship. F4 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/04 May 20, 2004 Don Watershed Report Cards Three report cards have been produced to date, including Turning the Corner (1997), A Time for Bold Steps (2000) and Breathing New Life into the Don (2003). Key points highlighted in these reports include: • 91 % of Don residents surveyed think the Don is important to them, yet most don't understand watersheds and the problems facing them. • Stormwater remains the largest problem facing the river - it affects water quality, flow, fish, community, and even wildlife to some extent. • Although wildlife exists, biodiversity is very low. • Natural areas, the majority of which are found in the valleylands, are threatened by extensive use and development. • Work must continue on a number of issues such as: public education; wet weather flow management; invasive species control; watershed monitoring; funding for major projects; and others. • The groundwork has been laid for future improvements in many areas including: the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan; Source Protection Planning; Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan; signage; and many high profile regeneration projects. PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE DON COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES Over the last 3 years, the Policy and Advocacy Team has had an influence on a number of issues both within the watershed and without. These issues include work on the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, Road Salts, the Oak Ridges Moraine, as well as numerous general watershed issues. For a detailed account of the Policy and Advocacy Team's accomplishments over the 2001 -2003 term, Council members are directed to the 2004 -2006 Briefing Notes. Some challenges of working as part of the Policy and Advocacy Team include: • The workload is unpredictable; • The team must react to the proposals and initiatives from others; • Often the pace and duration of a project are determined by outside groups. This leaves little flexibility in the timeline for participation and commenting on projects; • The preparation of reviews and submissions often falls to a few individuals with specific knowledge; and • Continuity of involvement in projects and issues is important in order that consistent perspectives are provided - projects must be followed through from beginning to end. The activities of the Policy and Advocacy Team will be guided by Forty Steps to a New Don along with the vision of the 2004 -2006 Don Council. Team members will have the opportunity to select those opportunities for involvement which best advance the interests of the Council in the watershed and /or influence conditions outside the watershed. May 20, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/04 F5 WET WEATHER FLOW MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN The development of the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan (WWFMMP) was a 3 -year process consisting of over a thousand hours of work on the steering committee and its sub - committees. The goal of the plan in brief is to improve the management of rain and snow that falls on the ground as precipitation. This will include the improvement of the quality of water that flows into rivers and lakes. The study has confirmed that stormwater runoff is the major contributor to surface water contamination. A key point for the proper management of stormwater is the need to increase infiltration into the land area. It is imperative to decrease the amount of impervious hard surfaces in the city. At the other end, it is necessary to clean up the stormwater before it enters the river systems through improved end -of -pipe controls and containment facilities. The final strategy is a combination of municipal policy and regulatory measures, the full plan spans 100 years with a total cost of $12 billion. A shorter 25 -year plan will provide a narrower outlook with more tangible goals. The WWFMMP is a leading edge strategy for the regulation of urban stormwater. The plan is currently being implemented, and great success is predicted over the next 25 years in reducing the quantity, while increasing the quality of Toronto's stormwater. PROJECTS AND STEWARDSHIP The Projects and Stewardship Team for the 2001 -2003 term dealt with the in- ground work for the Council. Some fo the Team's adopted initiatives over the term included: • The Moccasin Trail stormwater management pond; Work on the sustainable management of trails; Hydro corridor naturalization; and Watershed and trail signage (with success in Richmond Hill and the valleys of Toronto). For a detailed account of the Projects and Stewardship Team's accomplishments over the 2001 -2003 term, Council members are directed to the 2004 -2006 Briefing Notes. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH The Education and Outreach Team organized a number of celebratory events over the course of the term. Included in the Team's work is the annual Paddle the Don and Mill Pond Splash events. The Paddle the Don is one of the most popular events on the Don, with 180 canoes annually making the trip from E.T. Seton Park to the Keating Channel along,the Don River. Despite poor weather, 144 canoes made the trip down the river this year and raised over $25,000 for the regeneration of the Don. F6 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/04 May 20, 2004 The Mill Pond Splash takes place in Richmond Hill, and provides a number of environmental displays and activities for the whole family to enjoy. The event includes bird box building, a native snakes display, rubber ducky races and live music to enjoy. Last year's Team also organized the 10 Years On the Don Celebration at the Don Valley Brick Works to celebrate the formation and accomplishments of the Council and the launch of the 2003 Don Watershed Report Card. For a detailed account of the Education and Outreach Team's accomplishments over the 2001- 2003 term, Council members are directed to the 2004 -2006 Briefing Notes. FUTURE AND EMERGING ISSUES There are many challenges ahead for the protection and restoration of natural areas within the Don watershed. Currently, a number of regulatory and planning tools are under development to provide the necessary support to achieve these goals, and some key projects will soon be underway. These include: The TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy - currently in draft form, this will serve to identify key targets for the enhancement of natural areas within the TRCA jurisdiction. This strategy will provide a tool achieve the goals set out in Forty Steps to a New Don and the watershed report cards relating to the enhancement and protection of wildlife populations and habitat. The Greenbelt Protection Act - this will help to protect areas outside of the urban boundary. Since the majority of the Don is urbanized, this act will have a limited impact on the watershed. • The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan - this plan will include watershed studies to determine how best to protect key natural features. The study for the Don watershed will be scoped this year, and is planned for completion in 2006. • The Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project - this project has been put on hold due to a lack of federal funding. This Environmental Assessment study will provide a preferred alternative to address two issues: the permanent flood protection of the Port Lands area; and the naturalization of the Keating Channel and potentially the Don Narrows. May 20, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/04 F7 PROCESS AND PROCEDURES Adele Freeman provided a brief overview of the processes and procedures for the TRCA and Don Council as outlined in the 2004 -2006 Briefing Notes: TRCA Organization This section outlines the organization and structure of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The Don Watershed Regeneration and the other watershed advisory groups report directly to the Watershed Management Advisory Board (WMAB). Minutes and recommendations from the Council are taken to the WMAB, and then are passed through to the TRCA Authority Board. In this way the Council is accountable to the Authority, and has the power to influence the decision - making of the TRCA. There has been a big shift in TRCA in the last three years with the development of The Living City vision. TRCA is still developing and growing, and will continue to work towards healthy rivers and shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity, and sustainable communities. The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto The Conservation Foundation is an arm's length organization based out of the TRCA Head Office that helps to raise funds and resources for TRCA initiatives. The Don Council and the Don watershed team work closely with the Foundation over the course of the year on a number of projects and events. Don Watershed Regeneration Council Terms of Reference On page 73, section 7.0, there are two new additions to the Terms of Reference for the 2004- 2006 term. These items are: 2. Assist with the development of the Integrated Watershed Management Plan to meet the requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. 4. Assist with source protection planning. It is recommended that part of the Council work as a task force to provide comments and input to the Integrated Watershed Management Plan. These issues will be reviewed at the first meeting of the Policy and Advocacy Team. Contact Info The contact information provided in the 2004 -2006 Briefing Book is provided for the convenience of Council members. This information is rarely given to outside groups, and only after careful consideration. Generally, all communications from outside groups are passed through the Don watershed staff to keep member information confidential. It should be noted that this contact information is available on the TRCA Contact Manager system, and is therefore accessible by all TRCA staff. Other divisions within TRCA may send out information to Council members on various events or initiatives of interest. F8 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/04 May 20, 2004 Council members are asked to confirm the contact information listed in the 2004 -2006 Briefing Book, and to bring any errors to the attention of Alex Blasko for correction. It was noted by Mel Plewes that there is no formal member sitting on the Council as a representative of the Ministry of Environment. It is recommended by Adele Freeman that Ellen Schmarje, the staff liaison be specifically invited to attend an upcoming meeting to receive an introduction to the council. EXPECTATIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE DON COUNCIL FOCUS The goal of the Don Council is to protect, regenerate and celebrate the Don watershed, and to assist the TRCA in implementing Forty Steps to a New Don and other watershed reports. This provides a wide array of potential projects, initiatives and events with which to be involved. The Don Council should be adaptive to what is going on across the watershed and selective in the things that they get involved with. Council members should contribute were they can, building on their own particular strengths - the groups and communities they represent, and in the people they know. One key of the Council is to work through these other groups and organizations to accomplish work and broaden the influence of the Council on the Don. Council members will have the chance to determine the focus of the Council over the next three years, along with the operation and makeup of the working committees. These committees perform most of the day to day operations of the Council, from Education and Outreach to Policy and Advocacy. Council members have the opportunity to suit the work they perform to their particular interests on the Council by forming or joining these working committees. Due to the ever present need of a voice from the council on policy issues, and the requirement for event and outreach planning, it is suggested that a preliminary list of names be taken down for the Policy and Advocacy, and Education and Outreach teams. Other committees can be formed as the need and interest arises. MEETINGS The Don Council meetings become an important touchstone to the collective work of the Council, and so every effort should be made to attend these meetings that are held generally once a month. Working committees will meet separately from the full Council, and will develop their own schedules as necessary. May 20, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/04 F9 Members with updates from other Don watershed groups are encouraged to get their reports in to Alex Blasko two weeks before the meeting so that these can be included in the agenda package, or alternatively bring the information to the meeting as a handout. With regard to new business, unless it is a small item, members should notify the Chair in advance and the item should be included in the Agenda with some recommendation on what you are asking the Don Council to do. Some large items may need to be reviewed by a Committee before they come to the full Don Council. DON COUNCIL CHAIR Don Cross will remain Acting Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council until such a time as a formal chair has been elected. It has been proposed that the Council elect its new Chair at meeting #2/04, on June 17, 2004. Members are encouraged to familiarize themselves with each other, and come prepared to nominate candidates and elect a chair for the 2004- 2006 term at this time. It is suggested that a returning member would bring the necessary experience to fill the role of chair, however the position of vice -chair would be ideal for a new member to fill. Adele Freeman will discuss the issue with Council members prior to meeting #2/04. POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM The following Council members have volunteered to join the Policy and Advocacy Team: Margaret Buchinger Carmela Canzonieri Brenda Lucas Deborah Martin -Downs Carolyn O'Neill Douglas Obright Mel Plewes Ron Shimizu Beverley Thorpe John Wilson Miao Zhou The first meeting of the Policy and Advocacy Team has been tentatively scheduled for June 10, 2004. Details to follow. F10 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/04 May 20, 2004 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH TEAM The following Council members have volunteered to join the Education and Outreach Team: Cassandra Bach Don Cross PhD Goodwin Moyra Haney Catherine Wood Details on the first meeting of the Education and Outreach Team will follow. HOMEWORK Council members are asked to read the Executive Summary of Forty Steps to a New Don, review the actions contained in the document and relate the objectives to their particular areas of interest. Members should note which actions have been completed and which actions still need to be done to move the yardsticks forward for our next report card. Amy Thurston has prepared a form to identify what areas are of particular interest and what issues are of prime concern to Council members. Forms should be sent to Alex Blasko by June 4, 2004 so that the focus of Council can be determined, and the work plan for the 2004- 2006 term can be established. MINUTES RES. #F1/04- MINUTES TO MEETING #10/03 Moved by: Seconded by: Peter Heinz Mel Plewes THAT the minutes of meeting #10/03, held on December 11, 2003 be approved CARRIED May 20, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/04 F11 CORRESPONDENCE INCOMING 2.1 ETOBICOKE CREEK AND MIMICO CREEK CROSSING SIGNS Letter to Garth Armour, City of Toronto from Steve Rutherford, Etobicoke- Mimico Watershed Coalition - February 11, 2004 OUTGOING 2.2 CONGRATULATIONS FROM THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Letters to all councillors in the Don watershed from Don Cross, Don Council - January 12, 2004 2.3 TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL INITIATIVES, LETTER OF SUPPORT Letter to Mayor William Bell, Town of Richmond Hill from Don Cross, Don Council - January 22, 2004 2.4 EBR REGISTRY NUMBER RB04E6005 (invasive species) Letter to Beth MacKay, Ministry of Natural Resources from Mark Wilson, Don Council - March 24, 2004 2.5 WHITE PAPER ON WATERSHED -BASED SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING Letter to Dawn Landry, Ministry of the Environment from Mark Wilson, Don Council - April 14, 2004 INFORMATION ITEMS 3.1 PROVINCIAL POLICY FOR SECONDARY USES IN HYDRO CORRIDORS WMAB #2/04, April 16, 2004 3.2 LOWER DON RIVER WEST REMEDIAL FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT AND DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT WMAB #2/04, April 16, 2004 3.3 MANDATE OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES TRCA Authority Board #4/04, April 30, 2004 3.4 ASIAN LONGHORNED BEETLE TRCA Authority Board #4/04, April 30, 2004 3.5 "JUTURNA" - THE TRCA WEB -BASED MAP DATA SERVER- PHASE TWO Executive Committee #4/04, May 7, 2004 F12 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/04 May 20, 2004 RES. #F2/04- CORRESPONDENCE AND INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Moyra Haney Janice Palmer THAT correspondence items 2.1 to 2.5 and information items 3.1 to 3.5 be received CARRIED ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES UPCOMING MEETING DATES The 2004 meeting schedule for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council has been amended as follows: -4, DON WATERSHED REG 6E�RATIO�N COQ t y�y�IL` ` rt7. .. :Rap •t 1.+;Vt -'. Tien .., ' ' a & .A., Meeting # Date .' ,.' 1I. .q:' .]. -.,,;�� „,I; Loca #ion,' ';':;..,;,,. .;.,: ��I. �4`: . # 2/04 Thursday June 17, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 3/04 Thursday July 15, 2004 BBQ at Deb Martin - Downs' house # 4/04 Thursday September 16, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/04 Thursday October 14, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 5 # 6/04 Thursday November 18, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/04 Thursday December 16, 2004 Black Creek Pioneer Village NEW BUSINESS DON WATERSHED BUS TOUR After the success of the bus tour on April 24, 2004 of the northern reaches of the Don Watershed, Council members have expressed an interest in a second tour. The focus of the second tour will be on the southern portion of the watershed to explore the area not covered in the first tour. Those new members who were not able to attend the first tour will have a second May 20, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/04 F13 opportunity to explore a part of the Don. This tour will be scheduled in mid - summer, details to follow. WATERSHED GROUP EVENT It is suggested that the Don Council organize an event to be held in conjunction with the TRCA's other watershed advisory groups. This will provide a valuable networking opportunity and a chance to meet neighboring watershed members. Such an event would be scheduled for Fall 2004. Adele Freeman will look into the possibility, and report back to the Council after speaking with the other Watershed Specialists. 50' ANNIVERSARY OF HURRICANE HAZEL The 50th anniversary.of Hurricane Hazel will be on October 15, 2004. TRCA has planned a number of events for this date including the production of a half -hour documentary on Hurricane Hazel, the launch of the Lower Don River West Environmental Assessment, and other events on the Humber, where the impact of the storm was most intense. Glenn MacMillan, Acting Manager of Resource Science will produce a science -based piece for the municipalities so that they can further understand the issues surrounding the hurricane. It is suggested that the Council could organize a commemorative event at the Jolly Miller, which was the major hub of the impacts on the Don. Adele Freeman will talk with Catherine MacEwen, Manager of Human Resources about the details of the events that are planned, and will report back to the Council. ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 pm. Don Cross Acting Chair /ab Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #2/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #7/04 JULY 23, 2004 vWonserat o n for The Living City theDoi MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/04 June 17, 2004 Page F14 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #2/04, was held in Committee Room #2 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday June 17, 2004. Acting Chair Don Cross called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT Deborah Martin -Downs Chair Don Cross Vice -Chair Cassandra Bach Member Margaret Buchinger Member Carmela Canzonieri Member Stephen Cockle Member Eli Garrett Member Phil Goodwin Member Peter Heinz Member Brenda Lucas Member Andrew McCammon Alternate Member Roslyn Moore Member Carolyn O'Neill Member Douglas Obright Member Janice Palmer Member Nancy Penny Member Mel Plewes Member Ron Shimizu Member Beverley Thorpe Member Tom Waechter Member Catherine Wood Member Miao Zhou Member GUESTS Bill McLean Director, Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto Paul Murray General Manager, Gartner Lee Limited STAFF Alex Blasko Don Watershed Technical Clerk Jim Dillane Director, Finance and Business Development Adele Freeman Acting Director, Watershed Management Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner F15 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/04 June 17, 2004 PRESENTATIONS • PADDLE THE DON 2004 CORPORATE CANOE CHALLENGE Bill McLean, Director of the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto presented the engraved trophy and commemorative photo to Gartner Lee Limited, winner of the Paddle the Don 2004 Corporate Canoe Challenge. Paul Murray, General Manager and Deborah Martin - Downs, Principal were on hand to receive the award on behalf of Gartner Lee Limited. Despite the cold and rainy weather, 144 canoes and kayaks took to the river at E.T. Seton Park and paddled 15 km south to the mouth of the Don. Eight Corporate Canoe Challenge teams braved the inclement weather conditions to support the Don, and raised over $15,000 in donations for the event. Gartner Lee Limited led all corporate teams by raising an incredible $5,070 to once again win the Corporate Canoe Challenge. Gartner Lee Limited (the defending champions of the inaugural 2003 Challenge) were awarded the engraved, handcrafted wooden paddle as well as a framed corporate plaque to recognize their accomplishments for the 2004 Paddle the Don. Bill McLean congratulated the Gartner Lee team along with all of the Corporate Canoe Challenge participants on the money they raised, all of which will be put towards regeneration projects on the Don. A lot of people have worked a lot of years to provide a consistent effort towards improving the health of the Don. The Don Watershed Regeneration Council is one of the modern generation of groups that has moved us to a hopeful, optimistic and achievable goal for this watershed. Those people such as the Corporate Canoe Challenge participants bring the dedication and support to the Don which has allowed this river to emerge from years of neglect. Congratulations to Gartner Lee Limited for their continuing efforts to make the Don a healthy part of The Living City. TAYLOR MASSEY PROJECT WEB SITE Andrew McCammon, Chair of Friends of the Don East (FODE) provided an introduction and brief tour of FODE's recently developed Taylor Massey Project web site. The Taylor Massey Project represents an effort to integrate many past FODE program elements into a cohesive strategy for community engagement in watershed management, and has the following four over - arching principles: 1. To increase community awareness of the watercourse and increase public participation in efforts to protect and restore its natural features; 2. To identify and help deliver watercourse and natural habitat improvements through increased public participation in agency initiatives, particularly the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan; June 17, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/04 F16 3. To ensure the establishment of the Taylor Massey Trail, a continuous trail from Terraview Willowfield (at 401 and Pharmacy) to the Forks of the Don, including a trail within the Warden hydro corridor; and 4. To increase public and private participation in sound environmental practices that will protect the whole of the Taylor Massey watershed and its surrounding ecosystems. FODE will deliver the Taylor Massey Project by working with government agencies, strategically distributing watershed information, coordinating public programs, and seeking to establish 11 `Reach Stewardship Groups' (5 of which have already been formed). Key contributors to the Taylor Massey Project include First Base Solutions Inc., ESRI Canada, and Toronto and Region Conservation. From the Taylor Massey Project Portal, users have access to the project overview, including information about the creek, current problems, work done towards remediation, project objectives and the plans for the Taylor Massey Trail system. Reach fact sheets give users access to customized location maps and 65 aerial photos that accompany specific information on 13 reaches of the Creek. The fact sheets provide a virtual tour of the Creek, starting at the headwaters in Terraview Willowfield and traveling downstream to Taylor Creek Park. It is suggested that FODE share their expertise on the development of this site with other interested groups so that they may proceed with similar projects to highlight key tributaries throughout the watershed. Groups such as Lost Rivers have developed similar sites, and a list of such web - related resources that are currently available would be a useful tool for Council members. For more information on FODE and the Taylor Massey Project, Council members are directed to visit the FODE web site at www.fode.ca, and the Taylor Massey Project Portal at http://www.web.net/—fode/tayloriportal.htm. MINUTES RES. #F3/04- MINUTES TO MEETING #1/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Mel Plewes Margaret Buchinger THAT the minutes of meeting #1/04, held on May 20, 2004 be approved CARRIED F17 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/04 ELECTION OF THE CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR CHAIR OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL • June 17, 2004 Deborah Martin -Downs was nominated as Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. Ms Martin -Downs was a founding member of the Don Watershed Task Force, and has contributed vital and consistent work on the Don over the past years to many projects, the Don report cards, and numerous planning and advocacy initiatives. Nominations for Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council were closed with no further nominations. RES. #F4/04- Moved by: Seconded by: ELECTION OF THE CHAIR Mel Plewes Don Cross THAT Deborah Martin -Downs be declared elected by acclamation as Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council CARRIED VICE -CHAIR OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Don Cross was nominated as Vice -Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. Mr. Cross was a founding member of the Don Watershed Task Force and has served as a member of the Council from the very beginning. He brings to the Council a wide and varied background in environmental engineering. During the past three years, Mr. Cross was Co -Vice Chair of the Council and Chair of a number of sub - committees. Nominations for Vice -Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council were closed with no further nominations. RES. #F5/04- ELECTION OF THE VICE -CHAIR Moved by: Seconded by: Mel Plewes Roslyn Moore THAT Don Cross be declared elected by acclamation as Vice -Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council CARRIED June 17, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/04 F18 DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF Deborah Martin -Downs disclosed a pecuniary interest in the Pine Valley Drive Link and the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project due to her affiliation with Gartner Lee Limited as a Principal for that organization. Ms. Martin -Downs will abstain from voting on any motions brought forward on these issues, and Don Cross will chair any discussion on these matters. CORRESPONDENCE INCOMING 5.1 Mayor's Response to Congratulatory Letter from the Don Watershed Regeneration Council Letter to Don Cross, Co- Vice -Chair from Mayor David Miller, City of Toronto - April 29, 2004 INFORMATION ITEMS 6.1 Provincial Consultation Papers on Planning Reforms Memorandum from Adele Freeman 6.2 TWRC Commissioners Park Public Meeting - July 6, 2004 Memorandum from Don Cross 6.3 Oak Ridges Moraine Trail Association Strategic Plan Sustainable Communities Board #3/04, June 4, 2004 6.4 Canada Green Building Council Partnership Sustainable Communities Board #3/04, June 4, 2004 6.5 Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy Conference Executive Committee #5/04, June 4, 2004 6.6 Electronic Document and Records Management System Executive Committee #5/04, June 4, 2004 6.7 Kortright Centre for Conservation Retrofit Executive Committee #5/04, June 4, 2004 F19 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/04 June 17, 2004 6.8 Bioindicator Database of Benthic Invertebrates Found in the Toronto Region Executive Committee #5/04, June 4, 2004 6.9 Pomona Mills Park - Contract Approval for Step Construction on Existing Pathway Executive Committee #5/04, June 4, 2004 6.10 Archaeological Monitoring of the Todmorden Mills Papermill Theatre Executive Committee #5/04, June 4, 2004 6.11 Pine Valley Drive Link Executive Committee #5/04, June 4, 2004 6.12 2004 City of Toronto and Regions of Peel, York and Durham Habitat Regeneration Projects Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/04, June 11, 2004 6.13 Asian Long- horned Beetle - Federal Funding Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/04, June 11, 2004 6.14 Don Watershed Regeneration Council Changes to Membership Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/04, June 11, 2004 ITEM 6.11 - PINE VALLEY DRIVE LINK A concern was raised regarding the lack of involvement of the Don Council in this Environmental Assessment (EA) process. This project appears to be of a similar scale to the Teston Road EA, which the Council was heavily involved in. The study area for the Pine Valley Drive Link is situated within the Humber River Watershed. General protocol dictates that watershed advisory groups take the lead on policy issues such as this only within their own watershed. In this case the Humber Watershed Alliance has been actively involved in the EA process. The Pine Valley Drive Link project differs from the Teston Road project in that it will likely now proceed as an Individual EA. Along with the request from the TRCA, seven other additional requests were received to complete an Individual EA study for the project. Both the Region of York and the City of Vaughan will be co- proponents for the study, and an order has been drafted requiring the Terms of Reference to be posted for sixty days on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry. The Ministry of Natural Resources is in full support of TRCA's position on this issue. June 17, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/04 F20 In specific circumstances, watershed advisory groups are encouraged to lend an individual voice to key issues. In this instance, it is suggested that the Don Council review and endorse the comments of the Humber Alliance through the Policy and Advocacy Team. Policy Team members are directed to contact Alex Blasko for further information on the project. It is further suggested that Council members provide comments on the project when it is posted on the EBR Registry. ITEM 6.12 - 2004 CITY OF TORONTO AND REGIONS OF PEEL, YORK AND DURHAM HABITAT REGENERATION PROJECTS The budgeted amount for the Bartley Smith Greenway was not approved by Vaughan City Council, which effectively reduces the total amount available for the Don watershed by half. Adele Freeman will follow up with Michael D'Andrea, Manager of Works and Emergency Services for the City of Toronto to determine how Don watershed projects may line up with the objectives of the Wet Wether Flow Management Master Plan for additional potential support. ITEM 6.13 - ASIAN LONG - HORNED BEETLE - FEDERAL FUNDING It is recommended that the replanting initiatives following the Asian Long- horned Beetle clearing should follow an ecological system plan. TRCA should emphasize the need for this type of approach when advising municipalities on their replanting programs. One possibility is to consider leaving `holes' in the areas, which will be populated with maples in 5 years or so when the threat of the beetle has been eliminated. TRCA will be chairing a committee to develop a plan for these plantings, which will identify priority areas, key riparian zones, and other targets to ensure that there is no net Toss of canopy cover in the affected areas. RES. #F6/04- CORRESPONDENCE AND INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Palmer Beverley Thorpe THAT correspondence item 5.1 and information items 6.1 to 6.14 be received CARRIED F21 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/04 June 17, 2004 POLICY ISSUES MAPLE NATURE RESERVE A question was raised regarding the potential allocation of funds from Paddle the Don to the restoration of the Maple Nature Reserve in Vaughan. Resolution #F77/03 from Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #10/03 moved that $10,000 of the total funds from the 2002 and 2003 Paddle the Don events be distributed to increase interior habitat at the Maple Nature Reserve. Adele Freeman has been in contact with Linda LaFlamme, Landscape Architect and Paul Gardner, Manager of Parks Development of the City of Vaughan to discuss the potential to develop interior forest and restore the Maple Nature Reserve site. The restoration of this site - which also includes a salamander breeding pond - would be an important part of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy. The $10,000 from the last two years along with the approximate $20,000 raised this year at Paddle the Don would be enough seed funding to approach other potential partners for this initiative. The Maple Nature Reserve has the potential to become a legacy site in the City of Vaughan, and it is recommended that this project is pursued. Amy Thurston will follow the progress of this project and a further report will be brought back to the Council or appropriate sub - committee in the early fall. COMMITTEE REPORTS POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM The first Policy and Advocacy Team meeting took place on June 10, 2004. Draft minutes were attached as an addendum to the agenda. Team members identified key issues at the federal, provincial and local level to be addressed. Lead persons to monitor and provide updates on specific issues, and key reviewers to oversee the commenting and consultation for these issues were assigned as listed in the draft minutes to Meeting #1/04. It is the intent of the Policy and Advocacy Team to produce comments on these issues that will then be brought before the full Council for approval before submission. This procedure may not be feasible at times due to time constraints, in which case Team comments will be submitted prior to Council approval, and included as a report to the Council at the next scheduled meeting. June 17, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/04 F22 RES. #F7/04- DRAFT POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM MINUTES Moved by: Mel Plewes Seconded by: Ron Shimizu THAT the minutes to Policy and Advocacy Team meeting #1/04 be received in draft form CARRIED EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Mill Pond Splash Despite construction occurring at Mill Pond Park, the Mill Pond Splash attracted approximately 400 to 500 people for the 6th annual event, which took place on Sunday June 6, 2004. This year's Splash included environmental displays; musical entertainment (including jazz, rock, country, folk and opera); a planting of 100 trees and shrubs from the Richmond Hill Field Naturalists; a native snakes display by Reptillia; bird box building supplied by TRCA; and a barbeque provided by the Richmond Hill Lions Club. TD Friends of the Environment awarded a $1,600 grant for the event, and the rubber duck races raised $100 for the Don. There was great representation from all levels of gpvernment including Bryon Wilfert, MP, Oak Ridges; Frank Klees, MPP, Oak Ridges; Mayor Bell, Richmond Hill; David Barrow, Deputy Mayor, Regional and Local Councillor and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Board Member; Brenda Hogg, Regional and Local Councillor; Lynn Foster, Councillor, Ward 4; David Cohen, Councillor, Ward 3; and Elio Di lorio, Councillor, Ward 5. Thanks are extended to all the volunteers who made this year's Mill Pond Splash a success, and special thanks to Barb Anderson and Stephen Cock le for their help in organizing the event. It is suggested that fund - raising opportunities be explored for Mill Pond Splash similar to Paddle the Don. By starting on a small scale and then building on the potential of such things as the rubber duck race, more funds can be generated for the Don. Council members are requested to consider possible fund - raising opportunities, and bring any suggestions to the attention of Amy Thurston. Southbrook Farms Partnership The potential exists for the Council to build upon the partnership with Southbrook Farms that was developed for the 10 Years On the Donn Celebration in September 2003. Stephen Cockle suggested that the Council should further explore the possibilities of receiving sponsorship from Southbrook through ticket sales for their Wine and Food Festival, and follow up with Southbrook by identifying where the proceeds from these sales would be directed. F23 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/04 June 17, 2004 It is further suggested that a Council site visit to the Maple Nature Reserve could be scheduled to coincide with Southbrook's Wine and Food Festival. Council members who have expressed an interest in visiting the site could meet there early, and then proceed to Southbrook Farms - which is located Tess than a kilometer away. RES. #F8/04- Moved by: Seconded by: SOUTHBROOK FARMS PARTNERSHIP Mel Plewes Phil Goodwin THAT the Don Watershed Regeneration Council request Stephen Cockle to take the lead on organizing a field trip to the Maple Nature Reserve that will coincide with the Southbrook Farms Wine and Food Festival. AND THAT the Council request Stephen Cockle to pursue possible sponsorship opportunities with Southbrook Farms for the above noted event as well as other possible partnership opportunities CARRIED TORONTO AND AREA REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN GENERAL UPDATE Adele Freeman attended the Great Lakes Reception, held on June 16, 2004 at Queen's Park. The event highlighted the successes and challenges surrounding Great Lakes protection issues, and attendees included Anne Mitchell, Executive Director of the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (CIELAP) and Paul Muldoon, Executive Director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA). Presenters spoke of the absolute need for a resurgence of political interest in the Great Lakes area, and the need for groups to advocate for MPs and MPPs to lend their support to Great Lakes renewal. It is imperative to solve these Great Lakes issues, because improvements elsewhere will have little effect without a marked improvement in the Great Lakes. Invasive species has become a serious issue in the Great Lakes area. The Ministry of Natural Resources has been working with anglers and hunters to increase the awareness of invasive species such as zebra mussels, gobies and spiny water fleas. The lack of funding has proven to be an obstacle. The Toronto area can be seen as a locus for information on this issue, since much of the population travels north on weekends and vacations. A release program for the beetle that will control purple loose strife populations is being implemented throughout the province. The Toronto Region will be included in the 2005 program, ensuring that each watershed has been inoculated with the beetle. June 17, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/04 F24 UPDATES FROM OTHER -DON WATERSHED GROUPS EAST DON PARKLAND PARTNERS Events The East Don Parkland Partners planted 1,000 wildflowers and grasses in the East Don Parkland on the first weekend of June 2004. Over 50 people attended the event, including the grade 3 and 5 classes from Steelesview Public School. Their next planting is scheduled for October 2, 2004. The Ontario Oyster Festival will be held on July 18, 2004 at 2:00 pm. The event will be hosted at Rodney's Oyster House (469 King St West, just west of Spadina). The event is in support of the Environmental Defence Fund of Canada. Admission is $20 which for a plate of oysters and a couple of drinks. Tickets are available at the door. FRIENDS OF THE DON EAST FODE Granted Charitable Status Andrew McCammon announced that Friends fo the Don East has been granted charitable status. The announcement will be officially made near July 1, 2004. NORTH TORONTO GREEN COMMUNITY New Projects 1000 Trees in North Toronto - This co- operative venture was launched during Earth Week in partnership with LEAF, City of Toronto, the Fairlawn Heights Church and Neighbourhood Centre and the Clean Air Foundation. The goal is to plant 1000 trees and shrubs in North Toronto by 2005 to help replenish the urban forest and raise awareness about the environmental benefits of trees and organic methods of gardening. In addition to plantings on individual properties, Brookdale Avenue will have the first street planting bee which will take place in the Fall. Canadian Film Centre - The former E.P Taylor Estate on Bayview Avenue was taken over by the City in the 1980's and the original mansion is now home to the Canadian Film Centre. The Film Centre is responsible for 7 of the 22 acres of the heritage site and is working with NTGC to develop a plan to incorporate new planting in keeping with the historic character, naturalization areas, orchard regeneration and stormwater management. New partnerships will be sought to provide expert advise and to share the costs. Don Valley West One Tonne Challenge - Proposed by John Godfrey, M.P for Don Valley West the goal is to reduce emissions by one tonne per person. NTGC sits on the Steering committee along with a number of community groups, Universities and representatives of business and F25 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/04 June 17, 2004 industry. Efforts will be concentrated on transportation and home and property maintenance efficiencies. An application is now being prepared by the Steering Committee for Federal funding to proceed. Upcoming Events The annual Summer Garden Festival will be held at NTGC's Community Garden at the rear of the North Toronto Memorial Community Centre - 200 Eglinton Avenue West on July 14. For details visit www.ntgc.ca. TASK FORCE TO BRING BACK THE DON Crothers Woods Trail Management On June 16, 2004, the Don Valley Trail User's Group made a presentation to the City of Toronto Natural Environment and Horticulture Section in regards to their proposal for the regeneration and management of the trails in Crothers Woods. The group recommends that City staff work with local Environmental Non - government Organizations such as the Friends of the Don East (FODE) to protect and rehabilitate these sensitive areas. Private Tree By -law The City of Toronto Council deliberated on a harmonized private tree by -law that would protect trees with a diameter greater than 30 cm. It was decided to set a report on the by -law before Community Council on July 6, 2004 for further review. The Task Force to Bring Back the Don plans to draft a letter of support for the by -law. Although the by -law is not perfect in the eyes of the Task Force, it is thought that the danger of it not passing outweighs the need to further refine the by -law at this time. The by -law will be brought before City Council again later in the summer. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES UPCOMING MEETING DATES The 2004 meeting schedule for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council has been confirmed as follows: June 17, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/04 F26 DON illATERSHEDYREGENERATION COON Meeting. # Date ' Locations # 3/04 Thursday July 15, 2004 BBQ at Deb Martin - Downs' house # 4/04 Thursday September 16, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/04 Thursday October 14, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 5 # 6/04 Thursday November 18, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/04 Thursday December 16, 2004 Black Creek Pioneer Village ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:40 pm. Deborah Martin -Downs Brian Denney Chair /ab Chief Administrative Officer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #3/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #11/04 JANUARY 7, 2005 TORONTO AND REGION 1.-- onserva tion for The Living City theDoit MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/04 July 15, 2004 Page F27 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #3/04, was held at 91 Kirk Drive, Thornhill, on Thursday July 15, 2004. Chair Deborah Matin -Downs called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT Deborah Martin -Downs Chair Cassandra Bach Member Margaret Buchinger Member Stephen Cockle Member Jane Darragh Member LiIIi Duoba Member Eli Garrett Member Phil Goodwin Member Moyra Haney Member Peter Heinz Member Brenda Lucas Member James McArthur Member Doug Obright Member Carolyn O'Neill Member Janice Palmer Member Nancy Penny Member Mel Plewes Member Beverley Thorpe Member John Wilson Member Catherine Wood Member STAFF Alex Blasko Don Watershed Technical Clerk Colleen Cirillo Community Stewardship Technician Adele Freeman Acting Director, Watershed Management Patricia Lowe Supervisor - Outreach, Education & Stewardship Mark Lowe Valley & Stream Technician Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner Lisa Turnbull RAP Community Liaison Officer F28 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/04 PRESENTATIONS MARKHAM GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM Colleen Cirillo, Community Stewardship Technician with the TRCA provided an introduction to the Markham Green Neighborhood Program. July 15, 2004 The Markham Green Neighbourhoods is a unique program offered to Markham residents from Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA), the Town of Markham and Rouge Park. It is designed to inspire and guide residents in the creation of ecologically -sound lawns and gardens. Participants of this program will receive the following: 1. An information kit (containing relevant literature); 2. An implementation kit (containing native trees, shrubs and wildflowers, a garden design, lawn sign, lawn watering gauge and membership with North American Native Plant Society); 3. Invitations to two workshops -- one in July and one in October; and 4. Invitation to a native plant garden tour on August 8, 2004. TRCA and partners are distributing 500 information kits through the summer. Both workshops and the garden tour are open to everyone, whether or not they participate in the garden naturalization component of this program. The implementation kit will be offered to 75 successful applicants at the highly subsidized price of $30. Recipients of these kits will be chosen based mainly on a first come, first served basis. Other considerations include size of yard, size of area available for the plants and commitment to ecologically -sound gardening. Participants will be asked to sign a healthy yards pledge and to provide feedback on their experience with the program and the success of their native plant gardens. Visit www.trca.on.ca /yards for a calendar of related events. UPDATE ON TOWN OF MARKHAM PROJECTS Lillia Duoba, Manager of Environmental Planning with the Town of Markham provided an overview of current environmental initiatives being undertaken by the Town of Markham. Small Stream Study The first formal piece of the Markham Small Stream Study is to be completed in September 2004. This piece, geared towards future development areas, will include draft guidelines on how to manage streams that do not meet the TRCA watercourse designation, and will go through a consultation process and through City Council. There has been a tremendous response from both the council and community in support of this study. z m July 15, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/04 F29 P1 C7 Rouge North Management Plan The Rouge North Management Plan is a strategy developed by the Rouge.Park Alliance and its north partners (Markham, Richmond Hill, Whitchurch- Stouffville, the TRCA and the Region of York) to guide the establishment and management of Rouge Park North along the tributaries of the Rouge River watershed through Markham, Richmond Hill and Whitchurch- Stouffville to the Oak Ridges Moraine. One of the main components of the plan is the introduction of boundary delineation criteria used to determine the boundary of the Rouge Park North lands through the ,development approvals process and other land securement measures. The Town of Markham is looking to amend the plan and increase the setback of these boundaries to 3 to 6 times their current size. This issue has been appealed to the OMB, and the Town expects some resistance to the proposed changes. Markham Tree By -law The recommendations and proposals on Markham's tree by -law will be brought forward in fall 2004. This by -law will address trees with a caliber of greater than 30cm in newly developed areas. It is the hope that this by -law will serve to ensure good coverage of urban trees at a local level. Eastern Markham Strategic Plan Currently there is a quantity of undeveloped land held in public ownership within the Town of Markham. The long -term vision of these lands will be reviewed as the Town progresses with a plan to commit a large portion of this land as permanent greenspace. Markham Support for the Don Council The Town of Markham has granted the Don Council $25K for use on capital projects. This grant requires matched funding, and should be used for high priority projects such as trails and signage. Potential work could include the mitigation of 14 barriers along a 1 km stretch of the Don or the development of a stormwater management facility at a selected concept site. MINUTES AMENDMENT TO MEETING MINUTES #2/04 Page F25 of the Minutes to Meeting #2/04 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council under Updates from Other Watershed Groups - Task Force to Bring Back the Don has been amended as follows: F30 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/04 July 15, 2004 Crothers Woods Trail Management On June 16, 2004, the City of Toronto Natural Environment and Horticulture Section and the Don Valley Trail Users' Club (DVTUC) made a presentation to the Task Force to Bring Back the Don. They described actions already taken to alter the trails in Corthers Woods to decrease the negative impact of mountain biking in this Environmentally Sensitive Area. The DVTUC announced that it was preparing a proposal for future management and maintenance of the trails. Task Force members stressed that local Environmental NGOs (eg. FODE) be invited to be consulted before any plans are implemented. RES. #F9/04- Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES TO MEETING #2/04 Mel Plewes Peter Heinz THAT the minutes of meeting #2/04, held on June 17, 2004 be approved as amended CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF Deborah Martin -Downs disclosed a pecuniary interest in the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project due to her affiliation with Gartner Lee Limited as a Principal for that organization. Ms. Martin -Downs will abstain from voting on any motions brought forward on this issue, and Mel Plewes will chair any discussion on this matter. CORRESPONDENCE OUTGOING 4.1 Consultations on Protecting Greenspace in the Golden Horseshoe Don Watershed Regeneration Council Review of Toward a Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt - Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper July 15, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/04 F31 rn INFORMATION ITEMS • 5.1 GO Transit Lakeshore East Rail Corridor Expansion Letter to Alex Blasko, Don Watershed Technical Clerk, TRCA from Greg Ashbee, GO Transit - June 28, 2004 5.2 West Don River Watershed Floodline Mapping Update Executive Committee #6/04, July 9, 2004 5.3 Towards a Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt: Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper Executive Committee #6/04, July 9, 2004 5.4 Proposed Open Space/Trail Development Through the ORM in Richmond Hill - Stakeholders Meeting Memorandum from Andrea Fennell, TRCA 5.5 Earl Bales Park Area Stormwater Management Plan Study Notification RES. #F10/04- CORRESPONDENCE AND INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Palmer Carolyn O'Neill THAT correspondence item 4.1 and Information items 5.1 to 5.5 be received CARRIED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION WORKING TEAM FORMATION Currently organized are the Don Council's Policy and Advocacy Team, Projects and Stewardship Team, and Education and Outreach Team. It is recommended that a working • group of Don Council members be organized to discuss the interests and needs of the Council and to determine the structure of additional working teams. The following Council members volunteered to attend an initial scoping session for additional working teams: F32 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/04 July 15, 2004 Cassandra Bach Stephen Cockle Jane Darragh Eli Garrett Phil Goodwin Moyra Haney Peter Heinz Janice Palmer Details on the scoping sessions will follow. COMMITTEE REPORTS POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM RES. #F11/04- Review of the TRCA Draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage Systems Strategy Moved by: Seconded by: Margaret Buchinger Beverley Thorpe THAT the Don Watershed Regeneration Council officially adopt the comments provided by the Policy and Advocacy on the TRCA Draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage Systems Strategy CARRIED TORONTO AND AREA REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN GENERAL UPDATE Spills Management Concerns have been raised from the Etobicoke /Mimico watersheds in regards to frequent spills in industrial areas. In response to these concerns a steering committee was formed with representatives from the federal, provincial and municipal levels to address this issue on an area -wide basis under the banner of the Toronto RAP. With the assistance of the steering committee, a spills management background report was developed. The purpose of this report will be to serve as a primer for a spills workshop which will take place on September 29, 2004 at Black Creek Pioneer Village. Invitations along with a copy of the backgrounder will be sent to Council members in late August. 17 _s July 15, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/04 F33 ill Living City Report Card The Living City Report Card, produced by Toronto and Region Conservation in conjunction with the Canadian Urban Institute will report on a number of key environmental and sustainability indicators within the TRCA jurisdiction. Key areas include water, energy, nature, and outdoor recreation and stewardship. Focus groups with representatives from government, NGOs and academic institutions have met for each area to identify and discuss the prominent issues, actions and indicators to be explored in the report. The Living City Report Card will be aimed at the informed public, but the media will be used as a channel to engage the general public as well. Migratory Shore Birds Study A study in the Don will be undertaken to produce recommendations for the enhancement of potential shorebird habitat in the watershed. The study will commence in the fall of 2004 and spring of 2005. More information will be brought to the Council when available. Toronto RAP Website The Toronto RAP will be working on revamping the currently out of date information featured on TRCA's website. Check back in late fall 2004 for updated information and a new look for the site at http:/ /www.trca.on.ca /water_protection /remedial /. UPDATES FROM OTHER DON WATERSHED GROUPS TORONTO BAY INITIATIVE TBI's Bid By the Bay fundraising auction will take place on Sunday September 19, 2004 at 2:00 pm at the Lakeside Terrace, York Quay Centre, Harbourfront. On July 19 and 28 the City of Toronto will be hosting two meetings on biosolids and water residuals. For more information as it becomes available contact infoPtorontobay.net. NEW BUSINESS DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT All levels of government have committed the necessary funding to proceed with the Individual Environmental Assessment. Work will be moving ahead on the project in two phases once an updated work plan has been developed. F34 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/04 July 15, 2004 ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES UPCOMING MEETING DATES The 2004 meeting schedules for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council and its working teams have been confirmed as follows: i''i 4s: i rY,,,:at:. 'Y s; r::?;i;,' s ti•:T'_ `. ` er.l gi ::"ir'7""' y.. Fn`_ •7:',� 94 -- .c6•-� - T _ f .�,, i - i•s +j�* <''a � # ° i ; ,. D ?O`NOWATER•SFIED REG�,NERAT O[ COUNCIL 4 .h ` s 6 . ` � +tl :.,� „, i....4014,v.7':' ,', /.° V.:41tr?.:+?< '.'''4:`'.4.2.144 � . j 1` ' - � z _ _� . . i1 . . _ i. .�'. +d rat Meeting # Date : Location, _ # 4/04 Thursday September 16, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/04 Thursday October 14, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 5 # 6/04 Thursday November 18, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/04 Thursday December 16, 2004 NYCC Room TBD YrLp'h "r', !f '."..�' ^:. .4G•r L•a- "r•'.'; ;M1,�rn rY� "rZi, T.. ,-t- £ .hr..�. ;7 .�.•: `.a• - 't ."' :•E v ., �r ^,M1 l r t + '� H. ,.y ?.1`q °370C: ' k AND �O//����C� TEA ` t ��4�.,5k��,U,��y��+,�..7 10- y�A 4b"� I� t �' 4� 4 ��'. � tiw"'�t -r4�' 'ar'.r`.�r'�i.`.T .:. ..54:4 3stc.. _- a. -..:,,,:.,441._;,..,-!.. r .,,:.,4 x.41 }�_.._'r:....4 ._ ? ,� , _ :Y.. t +� F i 'ice. t ,-.., . - �' u . '",r_ `7;' •-- ,.:c- :` -_,- �, y 3 ! � ' �S' ;'1rr... ...t j� E. _. Meeting # Date # 1/04 Location,' ' # 3/04 Wednesday August 11, 2004 (2:00 pm) TBD # 4/04 Thursday September 2, 2004 TBD # 5/04 Thursday October 7, 2004 TBD # 6/04 Tuesday November 9, 2004 TBD # 7/04 Thursday December 9, 2004 TBD .]. { 1�'.^'r4: . 9 ...7, n,.. a r. a-7.1F �o:"9C `7FF"'.t i `din -77.T. '- Tyr . 'Fl `l 4 x.7 `4. ..4YM 1 l � Y L� `+ , t k �' EiDUCAWITiAM' .". r iL11 ,(�"'1Z + i`�tessr�_ ,i_ ' ..74,7-11'.`51t7 4 -- Fr. , ...__$Y... ` =� y. .. ',^, ....... ...... ... ....?'.:,. '_.�',...�v_ .._RSA. -y .?F.t s+e Meeting # Date • 'Location # 1/04 Thursday September 9, 2004 TBD # 2/04 Thursday November 4, 2004 TBD July 15, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/04 F35 ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 8:30 pm. Deborah Martin -Downs Brian Denney Chair Chief Administrative Officer /ab THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #4/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #11/04 JANUARY 7, 2005 TORONTO AND REGION WonservatIon tron for The Living City SCANNED theDon MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/04 September 16, 2004 Page F35 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #4/04, was held in Committee Room #2 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday September 16, 2004. Chair Deborah Matin -Downs called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT Deborah Martin -Downs Chair Don Cross Vice Chair Cassandra Bach Member Karen Boniface Member Margaret Buchinger Member Carmela Canzonieri Member Jane Darragh Member Phil Goodwin Member Moyra Haney Member Peter Heinz Member Andrew McCammon Alternate Member Janice Palmer Member Ron Shimizu Member Tom Waechter Member STAFF Alex Blasko Don Watershed Technical Clerk Adele Freeman Acting Director, Watershed Management Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner GUESTS Mark Wilson Former Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council F36 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/04 September 16, 2004 PRESENTATIONS PRESENTATION TO MARK WILSON Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council presented Mark Wilson with a gift commemorating his many years of work on the Don. Mark was Chair of the original Don Watershed Task Force, and Chair of the Don Council for three terms. On behalf of the Council, Deborah thanked Mark for his dedicated service to the watershed, and presented him with the art piece entitled `River Bottom' to memorialize his vision of a healthy and invigorated Don River. Mark responded that he is proud of the model they have developed for the Don Council, which has been successfully adopted in many other places. People look to the Don for innovation and creativity, and this Council is still very much a part of the life of the city. Mark concluded that although there is still a tremendous amount of work to do, the Don is in great hands moving forward. MINUTES RES. #F12/04- MINUTES TO MEETING #3/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Moyra Haney Ron Shimizu THAT the minutes of meeting #3/04, held on July 15, 2004 be approved CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE INCOMING 4.1 EcoAction Community Funding Program Letter to EcoAction partners from Shaffina Kassam, Manager of Community Programs - July 5, 2004 OUTGOING 4.2 Draft Drinking Water Source Protection Act Letter to The Honourable L. Dombrowsky, Minister of the Environment from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - August 20, 2004 September 16, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/04 F37 4.3 Trail Management in the Don Valley Letter to John Wilson, Chair of the Task Force to Bring Back the Don from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - August 26, 2004 4.4 Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools: Consultation Discussion Paper #1 Letter to Ken Petersen, Acting Manager of Provincial Planning & Environmental Services Branch from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - August 31, 2004 4.5 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS): Consultation Discussion Paper #2 Letter to Gloria Brandao, Senior Planner of Provincial Planning & Environmental Services Branch from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - August 31, 2004 4.6 Grant for the Don River Watershed Letter to Victoria McGrath, Manager of Environmental Leadership of the Town of Markham from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - September 9, 2004 ITEM 4.3 - TRAIL MANAGEMENT IN THE DON VALLEY Janice Palmer raised a concern that the tone of this letter was inappropriate, and that it did not pass through the proper channels before being sent. She questioned the process behind a letter that is sent on behalf of the Council without, first passing through either the full council or a working group for approval. The letter was approved by Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Council and Adele Freeman, Acting Director of Watershed Management. Additionally John Wilson, Chair of the Task Force was made aware of the message. It is noted that there is however a valid concern in regards to the approval process for letters sent on behalf of the Don Council. RES. #F13/04- APPROVAL PROCESS FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Seconded by: Margaret Buchinger Ron Shimizu THAT any letter written on behalf of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council be vetted through the full Council and /or one of the standing working teams prior to transmission. AND FURTHER THAT in the event of a time sensitive issue, at least two of: the Chair of the Council; the Vice -Chair of the Council; or the Chair of any of the standing working committees, be empowered to approve letters on behalf of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council CARRIED F38 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/04 September 16, 2004 RES. #F14/04- CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Margaret Buhcinger Don Cross THAT Correspondence items 4.1 to 4.6 be received CARRIED INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 Property Acquisition - Maplewood Villages Ltd. Blocks 394, 395 and 396 Memorandum from Alex Blasko, Don Watershed Technical Clerk, TRCA 5.2 Planning Reform Executive Committee #7/04, August 6, 2004 5.3 Southbrook Wine & Food Festival - Event Summary Memorandum from Stephen Cockle, Member of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council 5.4 Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/04, September 17, 2004 5.5 Hurricane Hazel - 50th Anniversary Events Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/04, September 17, 2004 5.6 Aquatic Invasive Species in the Toronto Region Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/04, September 17, 2004 5.7 Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Interim Targets 2002 -2007 and the 2004/2005 Budget Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/04, September 17, 2004 5.8 Notice of Open House and Public Meeting #3 Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project ITEM 5.4 - GREAT LAKES CHARTER ANNEX 2001 Ron Shimizu advised caution when endorsing this agreement. This may not be the best for Ontario as it will potentially shift the balance towards making decisions on withdrawals and diversions easier in the United States. September 16, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/04 F39 RES. #F15/04- INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Palmer Peter Heinz THAT information items 5.1 to 5.8 be received CARRIED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION FORMATION OF DON COUNCIL WORKING TEAMS Currently the only working team that has been officially formed for this term of council is the Policy and Advocacy Team. It is suggested that a maximum of 3 standing committees be formed to address watershed issues. Additional ad hoc committees may be formed as necessary for specific issues (e.g. single events, report cards, etc.), however focused, permanent teams should be formed to deal with the key areas of concern. The Don Council is involved, or has been involved previously in a number of activities, including: • Event planning; • Community outreach and education; • Project planning and implementation; • Policy and advocacy; • Watershed report cards; and • Monitoring and management. After a discussion on Council direction and priorities, it was decided that one additional working team would be formed to accompany the Policy and Advocacy Team. Council members will meet to determine the focus and direction of this team before the next Council meeting. Some key issues to be considered for this group will include: • Critical areas management (e.g. the lower don); • Community outreach (making it happen); • Assist other groups in spreading what they have produced (e.g. FODE and the Task Force to Bring Back the Don); Implementation of partnerships; Improvement of stormwater and access to the waterfront; Need wet weather flow management north of Steeles; Habitat management and the implementation of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Systems Strategy; and Source water protection planning. F40 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/04 September 16, 2004 The first meeting of this working team will be scheduled for the evening of Thursday September 30, 2004. All Council members who are interested in discussing the focus of this team are encouraged to attend. Those who are interested are instructed to contact Amy Thurston to be added to the Team list. Details will follow. COMMITTEE REPORTS POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM Over the summer months the province has released a number of discussion papers on various topics including the Golden Horseshoe, Provincial Policy Statement, and broader planning reforms. Together, these documents form the province's Smart Growth initiative. The Policy and Advocacy Team has reviewed and provided comments on all of these discussion papers. The final document being reviewed is on the Growth Management Plan. Carolyn O'Neill is taking the lead on this, and will have draft comments prepared for the Team on September 24, 2004. The final comments will be brought forward at Meeting #5/04 of the Council on October 14, 2004. A Source Water Protection Statement of Expectations has been produced by a number of environmental groups including the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Conservation Ontario, Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Pollution Probe. It is the recommendation of the Policy and Advocacy Team that the Council support this document in principle. TORONTO AND AREA REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN GENERAL UPDATE Lisa Turnbull, the former RAP Community Liaison Officer has accepted a new position within TRCA as the Humber Watershed Project Manager. A new job description will be written for the RAP Coordinator, and the hiring process will commence shortly. September 16, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/04 UPDATES FROM OTHER DON WATERSHED GROUPS TORONTO BAY INITIATIVE F41 The Bid By the Bay fundraising auction will take place on Sunday September 19, 2004 at 2:00 pm at the Lakeside Terrace, York Quay Centre, Harbourfront. Visit www.torontobay.net for more details. TBI's annual meeting will be held on October 13, 2004 in Metro Hall. Details to follow. EAST DON PARKLAND PARTNERS The autumn wildflower walk will take place at the hydro corridor by the Old Cummer bridge. Email Phil Goodwin at pcgoodwinCa?sympatico.ca for further details when available. TORONTO TRAILS FESTIVAL Mayor David Miller has proclaimed October Toronto Trails Festival Month. The kickoff for the Toronto Trails Festival Month is Sunday, October 3 at 1 p.m. in High Park. There will be special guests, prizes and guided walks. Guided walks known as the "Fall Classics" will be held at parks and trails across the City October 10, 17, 24 and 31. The highlight of the festival will be Sunday, October 17, when 24 hikes will be held in a single day. Each of these walks will be hosted by a Toronto City Councillor and will feature great prizes for the participants. FRIENDS OF THE DON EAST The latest addition to the Taylor Massey Project, which identifies 19 areas FODE seeks to plant between 2004 and 2008 can be viewed online at www. web .net /--- fode /taylor /workplan.htm. Leap -frog: the Upper Taylor Massey Bus and Hiking Tour, sponsored by the City of Toronto, TRCA, and Grassroots, will orient members and the public to FODE's vision for both the regeneration of the Creek and the creation of the Taylor Massey Trail as we bus and hike various sections of the upper portion of the Creek, from the 401 to Warden Wood. Registration is free but required to ensure we have enough seats on the bus. Register to eco(fode.ca or via voice message to 416- 567 -2800. F42 NEW BUSINESS FOI REQUESTS DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4104 September 16, 2004 There have been recent changes to the federal FOI request procedures which will affect the way TRCA processes these requests. Andrew McCammon stated that he would look into the process and keep the Council informed. Mr. McCammon has since resigned from the Council. TWRC DRAFT SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation is holding a meeting on their draft Sustainability Framework. The meeting will take place on Tuesday October 5, 2004 from 7:00 pm to 9:30 pm in the Chanmpagne Balirom of the Novotel Hotel (45 The Esplanade, Toronto). To view the Framework, visit www.towaterfront.ca. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES UPCOMING MEETING DATES The 2004 meeting schedules for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council and its working teams have been confirmed as follows: D'ON • WATERSHED I!EGENERATON COUNCIL ? ^ '' M'eeting # Date Location, # 5/04 Thursday October 14, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 6/04 Thursday November 18, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/04 Thursday December 16, 2004 NYCC Room TBD September 16, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/04 F43 . '. .POLICY AND. ADVOCACY; TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 5/04 Thursday October 7, 2004 TBD # 6/04 Tuesday November 9, 2004 TBD # 7/04 Thursday December 9, 2004 TBD 2ND WORKING 7EA M Meeting # n . � Date �r. . .. ;,.: a ',„ ' Frr�i;W yT ,■ rq!.. -'1,, II :„ =Lo:,:'''"' ri'1'.i Location.'' # 1/04 Thursday September 30, 2004 TBD # 2/04 Thursday October 28, 2004 TBD # 3/04 Thursday November 25, 2004 TBD ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 pm. Deborah Martin -Downs Chair /ab Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #5/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #11/04 JANUARY 7, 2005 TORONTO AND REGION Y� onservation for The Living City SCANNED theDon MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/04 October 14, 2004 Page F44 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #5/04, was held in Committee Room #2 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday October 14, 2004. Chair Deborah Matin -Downs called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT Deborah Martin -Downs Chair Don Cross Vice Chair Margaret Buchinger Member Carmela Canzonieri Member Stephen Cockle Member Peter Heinz Member Roslyn Moore Member Carolyn O'Neill " Member Douglas Obright Member Janice Palmer Member Nancy Penny Member Mel Plewes Member Ron Shimizu Member Beverley Thorpe Member STAFF Alex Blasko Adele Freeman Amy Thurston Tim Van Seters Don Watershed Technical Clerk Acting Director, Watershed Management Don Watershed Resources Planner Water Quality and Monitoring Supervisor F45 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/04 October 14, 2004 PRESENTATIONS WATER QUALITY IN THE DON RIVER Tim Van Seters provided an update on the trends and issues relating to water quality in the Don River. An evaluation framework has been developed and adapted for each individual watershed in the TRCA jurisdiction, which is used to assess the water quality. The general framework consists of the following components: Goals - the desired end points to achieve the watershed vision. Objectives - the approaches necessary to address key issues. Indicators - specific facts or information about an objective. Measures - quantitative ways of measuring the state of the indicator. Targets - a threshold level associated with each measure. The overall goal of water quality is to protect surface water with consideration for ecological function, human use, flood risk and sustainability. Swimmability in the Don One objective to address the water quality goal is to meet standards for body contact recreation at nearshore beaches and in the river. The key indicator for this objective is Swimmability, which is measured by levels of coliform bacteria, beach postings and number of combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The key targets for Swimmability in the general evaluation framework are: • Greater than 75% of bacteria levels meet PWQO of 100 counts /100mL; • Beaches open 95% of swimming season; • Reduction in # of CSOs. % of samples that exceeded to 00 TO 60 C SO 40 .0 Bacteria Levels in the Don River 3 30 O , Lower Don Massey West Don East Don German © Pottery Creek © © Highway @ Steeles Mills Creek Road Don Milts 7 @ Leslie October 14, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/04 F46 As illustrated above, bacteria levels in the Don River exceeded the Provincial Water Quality Objectives guideline (100 counts per 100 mL) well over the targeted 25% of the time in all but one station for the period of 1996 -2002. Other targets have already been met for this indicator, including a reduction of beech postings to below 5% of the total days of the season, and the separation of over 70% of the CSOs in Toronto. Current efforts that will improve swimmability in the Don include the identification of CSOs as a priority for the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, and CSO treatment at the North Toronto Sewage Treatment Plant to reduce bacteria loads in the river. Water Quality for Aquatic Life A second objective is to protect and restore the quality of surface waters to ensure protection of aquatic habitat. The indicator for this objective is contaminant levels in the river. The concentrations of conventional pollutants, heavy metals and organic pollutants are measures of this indicator. The key targets for Water Quality in the general evaluation framework are: Concentrations meet receiving water standards (PWQOs); Organic pollutant levels meet IJC and CCME guidelines; • No increase of contaminants in sport fish; • Number of stormwater facility upgrade projects. Heavy Metals and Organic Pollutants ci as IN Don .- .3,�_.-. $ Humber_ 4th -. 30— g 2° 1� 0 0 -0 a e 46(' As seen below, heavy metal and organic pollutant levels in the Don exceed guidelines on a regular basis. The target for this indicator is that all water quality guidelines will be met for these contaminants. A number of initiatives have been proposed and implemented to improve these water quality conditions. A new pesticide by -law has been approved by the City of Toronto, road salt management plans and sewer use by -laws are being developed, and the province has proposed new spills legislation to control contaminants that are entering the river. Current trends suggest that although chloride levels appear to be increasing, bacteria levels are leveling off, and phosphorous, lead and organic pollutants appear to be in decline. F47 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/04 October 14, 2004 Next Steps A some key steps to help improve the water quality in the Don River include: • Implementing the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan; • Developing a similar plan for York Region; • Completing and implementing salt management plans; • Encouraging low impact development' models; • Completing and implementing Watershed -Based Source Protection Plans; • Improving spills management; and • Educating and promoting awareness. ECOSYSTEM STATUS REPORT: LAKE ONTARIO Carolyn O'Neill presented an overview of the state of the Lake Ontario ecosystem with respect to the key factors affecting the physical integrity of the Lake, and the implications of these factors on the Lake and its ecosystem. The Lake Ontario Drainage Basin Lake Ontario is the last in the chain of Great Lakes. More than eight million people live in the Lake Ontario basin, concentrated in the northwest part of the Canadian shoreline. This region, commonly referred to as the "Golden Horseshoe ", is highly urbanized and industrialized. The U.S. side of the lake is not as heavily populated, although there are concentrated areas of urbanization at Rochester, Syracuse and Oswego. Outside of these areas, agriculture and forests dominate the land uses within the basin, although the forests are highly fragmented. There are nine Areas of Concern (ADCs) in the Lake Ontario basin (including the Niagara River AOC) and over 80% of the water flowing into Lake Ontario comes from the upper Great Lakes through the Niagara River. Lake Processes Lake Ontario is the smallest of the Great Lakes despite being relatively deep (with an average depth of 84 meters) and a water retention time estimated to be about seven years. There are two main sedimentary basins within Lake Ontario: the Kingston Basin, which is a shallow basin located at the northeastern end of the Lake; and a deeper main basin that covers the rest of the lake. Lake Ontario has a seasonally dependent pattern of both horizontal and vertical thermal stratification. This means that in the spring, the nearshore waters warm -up more quickly than the deep offshore waters. Since the density of water varies with temperature, the result is the vertical stratification between the nearshore and offshore zones, with very little mixing between the two. This thermal stratification lasts until about the middle of June when offshore waters finally warm and mixing occurs. As the summer progresses the lake experiences a period of horizontal stratification, with very little mixing between the warm surface waters and the cool deeper waters. In the fall, when the surface waters cool, the waters mix again. October 14, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/04 In terms of lake circulation, the prevailing west - northwest winds combined with the eastward flow of water from the Niagara River are the most important influences on the lake current, resulting in a counter - clockwise motion. The circulation of water generally occurs along the eastern shore and within the sub - basins of the main lake. There is very little net flow along the north, inshore zone. 1.. F48 Taken together, the Lake's bathymetry, the way it stratifies, and its circulation pattern impact aquatic communities and influence the effects human activities have on the lake. Key Factors Affecting Physical Integrity Significant changes have occurred in the Lake Ontario ecosystem over the last century due primarily to the effects of toxic pollution and habitat loss resulting from the rapid development of the basin. Currently, water level regulation, zebra and quagga mussels, and urbanization are the most important factors affecting the physical integrity of the Lake. Water Level Regulation Since 1960, Lake Ontario's water levels have been regulated by a series of dams on the St. Lawrence River. By managing lake levels, the range in water level fluctuations has been reduced, which has had serious and lasting impacts on Lake Ontario's natural resources. As a result of lake level management, Lake Ontario wetlands are no longer experiencing the same range of periodic high and low water levels. Regulated water levels have affected the natural range, frequency, timing and duration of water level changes in coastal wetlands, and in turn, have reduced the extent and diversity of wetland communities and altered habitat quality for wetland fauna. The low levels of variations in water levels are thought to, have lead to cattail dominance and reduced species diversity in coastal wetlands. Zebra and Quagga Mussels Zebra and quagga mussels have changed many aspects of the physical habitat of Lake Ontario. Their filtering activities have greatly reduced the amount of material in the water column, thereby increasing Tight penetration. Increased light penetration has, in turn, allowed the growth of extensive macrophyte beds in many littoral areas. The innumerable shells released as the mussels die have modified onshore and nearshore habitats, creating shell beaches, that in many cases have smothered shoreline boulder complexes. Not only have these non - native mussels affected the physical habitat of the lake, they have also dramatically impacted the Lake's biological and chemical integrity. The mussels filter water to feed on microscopic phytoplankton and other organic material, thereby reducing the amount of food available to other benthic organisms. From a management perspective, it is not clear what the future holds. Once a non - native species is introduced, it disrupts the food web and creates a ripple effect. These changes are irreversible, which is why prevention is the key. Urbanization Land use and population growth are also putting an enormous stress on the Lake Ontario system. It is projected that by 2030, 3 million more people will live in the Lake Ontario basin, concentrated at the western end of the Lake. It is important to note, that this same growth pressure is not being felt on the U.S. side, where only modest increases in population are forecasted. Most of the growth will be concentrated around Toronto and into the F49 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/04 October 14, 2004 Hamilton- Niagara Area. Between 1996 and 2001 more than 90% of Ontario's population growth took place -in this region, which is one of the top 10 most sprawling regions in the world. Urbanization has radically altered the region's hydrologic regime. The increase in impervious surfaces has led to increases in stormwater runoff, more frequent and higher peak flows and altered baseflows. This in turn has led to increases in erosion and sediment and nutrient Toads. Natural ecosystems in the Golden Horseshoe are already stressed and development is rapidly spilling over the countryside, removing large areas of natural habitat. Two - thirds of coastal wetlands have been lost and those that remain are disturbed, and woodlots continue to get smaller and suffer fragmentation. Additionally, concentrations of chemical contaminants are elevated in virtually all urban media. The urban areas in the Golden Horseshoe are acting as large point sources of contaminants to Lake Ontario. Overall, ecological conditions in the watersheds of the Golden Horseshoe are degraded and slowly getting worse due to the way we have been managing urbanization. Summary Lake Ontario is an ecosystem in transition. Over the last hundred years, the Lake has been subjected to a number of stresses which have led_to the degradation of water quality, the loss of fish and wildlife habitat and the decline of native fish communities. While the ecosystem has shown a remarkable capacity to respond and repair the damage done, new forms of stress keep appearing. Currently water level regulation, zebra and quagga mussels, and urbanization are the most important issues impacting the physical integrity of the Lake. MINUTES RES. #F16/04- MINUTES TO MEETING #4/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Don Cross Janice Palmer THAT the minutes of meeting #4/04, held on September 16, 2004 be approved CORRESPONDENCE INCOMING CARRIED 4.1 Draft Drinking Water Source Protection Act Letter to Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council from Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of the Environment - September 16, 2004 October 14, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/04 F50 4.2 Final Discussion Document of the Industrial Pollution Action Team for Preventing and Managing Spills in Ontario Letter to John Vidan, Manger of the Strategic Policy Branch, Ministry of the Environment from Lois Griffin, Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance - September 28, 2004 4.3 Final Discussion Document of the Industrial Pollution Action Team for Preventing and Managing Spills in Ontario Letter to John Vidan, Manger of the Strategic Policy Branch, Ministry of the Environment from Irene Jones, Co -Chair and Suzanne Barrett, Co -Chair of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition - September 28, 2004 4.4 Town of Markham Environmental Review and Consolidation Study . Letter to Adele Freeman, Don Watershed Specialist, TRCA from Lilli Duoba, Senior Project Coordinator, Town of Markham - October 5, 2004 4.8 Stream Names in Markham Letter to Adele Freeman, Acting Director of Watershed Management, TRCA from Lilli Duoba, Senior Project Coordinator, Town of Markham - October 6, 2004 OUTGOING 4.5 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Letter to Hannah Evans, Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal - Smart Growth Secretariat from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - September 24, 2004 4.6 Settler's Park Master Plan Letter to Linda Irvine, Manager of Parks & Open Space Development, Town of Markham from Deborah Martin Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - September 28, 2004 4.7 Pomona Mills Creek (Don River) Implementation Plan Letter to Alan Brown, Director of Engineering, Town of Markham from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - September 28, 2004 4.9 Final Discussion Document of the Industrial Pollution Action Team Letter to John Vidan, Manager of Strategic Policy Branch, Ministry of the Environment from Mel Plewes, Chair of the Policy and Advocacy Team, DWRC - October 8, 2004 RES. #F17/04- CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Mel Plewes Peter Heinz THAT correspondence items 4.1 to 4.9 be received CARRIED F51 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/04 October 14, 2004 INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 TRCA Watershed Maps 5.2 Nature Walk - German Mills Settlers Park, Markham Event Notice from the Town of Markham 5.3 Pomona Creek Implementation Plan Markham City Council, September 7, 2004 5.4 Detailed URF -Based Water Budget Assessment for the Don River Watershed (905 Area) Executive Committee #9/04 - October 1, 2004 5.5 Hogg's Hollow Stormwater Management and Road Improvement Study Notice of public meeting and report 5.6 York Region Stakeholders Pollution Prevention (P2) Workshop Notice of meeting and registration information (register online at http : / /www.oceta.on.ca/redistration ' RH.htm ) 5.7 Don Watershed Regeneration Council Membership Resignation - Andrew McCammon Memorandum from Alex Blasko, Don Watershed Technical Clerk, TRCA 5.8 Maple Nature Reserve Site Walk, Friday November 5, 2004 Memorandum from Amy Thurston, Don Watershed Resources planner, TRCA ITEM 5.6 - YORK REGION STAKEHOLDERS POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2) WORKSHOP Stephen Cockle will attend the workshop and prepare a report for the Outreach Team. The Team will follow this issue as it progresses. RES. #F18/04- INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Penny Carolyn O'Neill THAT information items 5.1 to 5.8 be received CARRIED October 14, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/04 F52 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION TOWN OF MARKHAM ADVISORY GROUPS The Town of Markham has requested that a representative of the Don Council participate as part of a Stakeholder Advisory Group for their Environmental Policy Review and Consolidation Study (see Item 4.4). Margaret Buchinger has volunteered to represent the Council, with Mel Plewes as -an alternate. RES. #F19/04- PARTICIPATION IN TOWN OF MARKHAM ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY REVIEW AND CONSOLIDATION STUDY Moved by: Seconded by: Beverley Thorpe Doug Obright THAT Margaret Buchinger be assigned to represent the Don Watershed Regeneration Council with Mel Plewes as an alternate as part of the Stakeholder Advisory Group for the Town of Markham Environmental Policy Review and Consolidation Study .... CARRIED Additional items to be addressed include the Pomona Mills Creek Implementation Plan and the Settler's Park Master Plan. It is suggested that one of the members close to Markham be selected to pursue these issues (Glenn Abuja, Tom Waechter or Eli Garrett). This issue will be sent to the Outreach Team for the selection of a member to represent the Council. PARTICIPATION OF NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS It has been noted that some new members have not been actively involved in the Council in recent months. It is suggested that members contact their `buddies' as selected at Meeting #1104 to ensure that all members of the Council remain engaged. COMMITTEE REPORTS OUTREACH TEAM Peter Heinz met with Amy Thurston and Maryam Nassar in regards to recreational trail signage opportunities within the Don and Rouge watersheds. A letter will be prepared by the Outreach 4, 7 171 F53 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/04 October 14, 2004 Team and sent on behalf of the Don Council to the Rouge Park Alliance to explore the potential for trail linkages across the watersheds. RES. #F20/04- COMMITTEE REPORTS Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Palmer Carolyn O'Neill THAT committee reports from Outreach Team Meeting #1/04 and Policy and Advocacy Team meeting #5/04 be received CARRIED UPDATES FROM OTHER DON WATERSHED GROUPS TASK FORCE TO BRING BACK THE DON Market Gallery Exhibit in partnership with the Task Force to Bring Back the Don presents Reconnecting with the Don - Balancing the Valley. This exhibition will take place from October 2, 2004 to January 23, 2005 at the Market Gallery, on the 2 "d floor of St. Lawrence Market. For more information and Gallery hours, call 416 - 392 -7604. BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE A 1- kilometre section of trail is now open for public use in the Bartley Smith Greenway from Langstaff Road up to Jacob Keffer Parkway. The next section of trail that is planned for construction will run north from Rutherford Road to Major Mackenzie Drive. The marsh in this area has great potential for remediation as work commences. The new Bartley Smith Greenway web site can be accessed at www.bartleysmithgreenway.ca. Council members are invited to visit the site before its official opening and provide comments to Stephen Cockle. TORONTO TRAILS FESTIVAL Three Don Council members will be taking part in the tours for the Toronto Trails Festival. Janice Palmer, Don Cross and John Wilson will have an opportunity to influence local councilors as they guide them through sections of the Don watershed. October 14, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/04 F54 ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES UPCOMING MEETING DATES The 2004 meeting schedules for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council and its working teams have been confirmed as follows: .ry a DON WATERSHED R G ERAT ON CQUNCIL Meeting # Date Location # 6/04 Thursday November 18, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 7/04 Thursday December 16, 2004 NYCC Room TBD f fi "r ` e ` PO[ ICY' AND ADVOCAGY,TEAM x Meeting # Date Location # 6/04 Tuesday November 9, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 7/04 Thursday December 9, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 5 , TREACH T�F..A!�A -i . .' * y ,.�.,r., , a.` i Se sa RYi� ffiI ? gY 4.} 1 y ,:, � � }44k 'Meeting # Date Location # 2/04 Thursday October 28, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 4 # 3/04 Thursday November 25, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 4 ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 pm. Deborah Martin -Downs Chair /ab Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #6/04 TORONTO AND REGION 1r- onserva Lion for The Living City SCANNED theDon MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/04 November 18, 2004 Page F55 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #6/04, was held in Committee Room #2 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday November 18, 2004. Chair Deborah Matin -Downs called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. PRESENT Deborah Martin -Downs Chair Don Cross Vice Chair Cassandra Bach Member Margaret Buchinger Member Carmela Canzonieri Member Eli Garrett Member PhD Goodwin Member Moyra Haney Member Peter Heinz Member Brenda Lucas Member Carolyn O'Neill Member Mel Plewes Member Ron Shimizu Member Beverley Thorpe Member Laurian Farrell Corresponding Member GUESTS Charlotte Cox Watershed Resident STAFF Alex Blasko Don Watershed Technical Clerk Adele Freeman Acting Director, Watershed Management Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner Natalie Iwanycki Terrestrial Biologist F56 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/04 November 18, 2004 PRESENTATIONS TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE IN THE DON Natalie Iwanycki provided an update on the progress of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS), and its status within the Don watershed. Consultation has taken place over the last several months on the draft TNHSS through a process which received input from agencies, stakeholders and the public. The draft strategy provides natural habitat targets on a regional scale for the TRCA region, and can be refined at the local level. The Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy The key challenges to be addressed with the development and implementation of the TNHSS are the incremental Toss of natural cover, terrestrial biodiversity, and the decline in quality of remaining habitat patches. The strategy responds to the decline in the quality and quantity of natural habitat by emphasizing the importance of surrounding land uses and the need for a systems -based approach. New analyses and methods have been developed to evaluate the integrity of the existing natural system and set targets for an improved system. This work will be tied together with a series of strategic directions including new policies and procedures that will help to implement the target system. New Data and New Tools Data collection is being performed at the landscape level, the vegetation community level, and the individual species level: • At the landscape level, remote sensing has been used to digitize the entire TRCA Region. Land is classified into geographic categories, and evaluated for quality and quantity of natural cover. Orthographic photographs from 1999 were originally used for the digitization process, but the data is currently being updated for a set of 2002 photos. • At the vegetation community level, TRCA staff survey approximately 6000 hectares of land a year, using the Provincial Ecological Land Classification System and identifying Communities of Concern based on local occurrence and geophysical requirements. Over 60 %'of the TRCA Region has now been surveyed. • At the individual species level, flora and fauna species are identified and digitized as point data based on Species of Provincial Interest and TRCA Local Interest. While the Species of Provincial Interest are based on species abundance, TRCA Species of Local Conservation Concern are based on local occurrence, population trends, sensitivity to development and habitat dependence. In this way, TRCA will look beyond only those species which are already at risk towards potential future impacts on the natural system. To date, approximately 33% of the Don watershed has been surveyed by TRCA biologists between 2000 and 2004. It has been found that most natural cover in the Don is restricted to valley lands, and the distribution of fauna species of conservation concern tends to be focused November 18, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/04 F57 in the northern reaches of the watershed. Flora species of conservation concern are able to persist in urban valley systems because they have slower reaction times to unfavorable adjacent land uses, whereas most fauna species tend to respond more quickly due to their ability to move. Target Setting and System Design Model The TNHSS was designed around three core principles to produce a healthy, sustainable natural system: • Quantity - an increase in regional natural cover. • Distribution - a more even distribution of habitat. • Quality - fair to good habitat quality. A Landscape Analysis Model was developed to evaluate the condition of habitat patches in the landscape using size, shape, matrix influence, biodiversity and connectivity. A Target System Design Model was then used to assign relative values (based on 18 criteria) to all lands using 10m x 10m grid cells. This model identified the lands with the highest relative values, of which the top 30% were used to develop the target system. This system will serve to increase the total natural cover from 17% to 30 %, while also maximizing higher quality natural habitat and improving overall habitat quality and connectivity. The Target System also helps to meet some of the specific habitat guidelines set by Environment Canada (2004) such as those for forest patch size and interior forest cover. Thus implementing the Target System may help with the delisting the Toronto Area of Concern (AoC). Existing Conditions in the Don Watershed Currently in the Don watershed there exists 9% natural cover. The target system aims to increase this value to 16 %. The fact that the Don fits mostly into the urbanized or urbanizing land categories limits the potential for natural cover within the watershed. The largest forest patch is 101 hectares, with a potential for a 465 - hectare patch in the target system. Interior forest cover is negligible in the Don, at 0.3% for 100 -metre depth, and 0% for 200 -metre depth. The target system will increase these values to 1.7% and 0.3% respectively. Summary Implementing TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy would provide the region with increased natural cover, improved habitat and enhanced biodiversity. This in turn will increase the region's resiliency to effects from detrimental forces such as climate change and invasive species. Other benefits include increased rainfall retention and aquifer recharge (which will in turn lead to reduced peak flows), and expanded recreational opportunities. F58 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/04 November 18, 2004 MINUTES RES. #F20/04- MINUTES TO MEETING #5/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Don Cross Mel Plewes THAT the minutes of meeting #5/04, held on October 14, 2004 be approved CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE INCOMING 4.1 Town of Richmond Hill Pesticide Strategy Public Meetings Meeting dates and locations OUTGOING 4.2 Improvements to Ontario's EA Process Letter to Blair Rohaly, Strategic Policy Branch - Ministry of the Environment from Mel Plewes, Chair of the Policy and Advocacy Team - November 1, 2004 4.3 Protected Areas Legislation Review Letter to Bob Moos, Strategic Planning Officer, Protected Areas Legislation Review from Deborah Martin Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - November 8, 2004 4.4 Comments on Environmental Assessment Yonge Street and Highway 7 Transitways Letter to York Region's Rapid Transit Office from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - November 5, 2004 RES. #F21/04- CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Carolyn O'Neill Moyra Haney THAT correspondence items 4.1 to 4.4 be received CARRIED November 18, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/04 F59 INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project - Transition Planning Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/04, October 15, 2004 5.2 Don Watershed Plan Update Study - Workplan Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/04, October 15, 2004 5.3 Spills Management Initiative Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/04, October 15, 2004 5.4 Ad Hoc Committee on Crother's Woods - Reports Task Force to Bring Back the Don - October 20, 2004 5.5 Pioneer Park Stormwater Management and Regeneration - Status Report Town of Richmond Hill Committee of the Whole - July 19, 2004 5.6 Follow -up: Maple Nature Reserve Site Walk Memorandum from Amy Thurston, Don Watershed Resources Planner, TRCA 5.7 Choosing Our Legacy - Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 2003 -2004 Annual Report Table of Contents and Backgrounder (to download the full report, visit http: / /www.eco.on.ca/english /whatsnew /index.htm - right click on the link to Annual Report and select 'Save As') 5.8 Workshop Invitation - The Habitat Framework Introduction to A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern ITEM 5.2 - DON WATERSHED PLAN UPDATE STUDY - WORKPLAN TRCA staff have met with the Don Council Executive to review the preliminary work plan for the development of the Don Watershed Plan, and discuss how the Council will be involved in the process. It is suggested that Council members reflect on how they wish to take part in the development process, and on the governance of Council involvement (i.e. through the Policy and Advocacy Team, Outreach Team, or a new Working Team specific to this task). Early comments on this process should be forwarded to Amy Thurston at 416 - 661 -6600 ext. 5283, or athurston@trca.on.ca. The development of the Plan is slated to begin in the new year, and is scheduled for completion in 2007. Sonya Meek will attend Meeting #7/04 (December 16, 2004) to present background information on the Integrated Watershed Management Plans and to facilitate a discussion on the Don Watershed Plan. F60 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/04 November 18, 2004 ITEM 5.8 - WORKSHOP INVITATION - THE HABITAT FRAMEWORK TRCA will reimburse travel expenses for 1 vehicle to attend the Habitat Framework Workshop in Burlington. It is suggested that interested Council members coordinate amongst themselves to car pool to the workshop location. Cassandra Bach, Mel Plewes, Beverley Thorpe and Moyra Haney have expressed an interest in attending. RES. #F22/04- INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Margaret Buchinger Peter Heinz THAT information items 5.1 to 5.8 be received CARRIED COMMITTEE REPORTS RES. #F23/04- COMMITTEE REPORTS Moved by: Seconded by: Moyra Haney Brenda Lucas THAT committee reports from Outreach Team Meeting #2/04 and Policy and Advocacy Team Meeting #6104 be received CARRIED TORONTO AND AREA REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN GENERAL UPDATE TRCA will be entering into a cooperative environmental assessment with the Ministry of Natural Resources to address the issue of double- crested cormorant management in Tommy Thompson Park. Negative impacts from the increasing cormorant populations include the loss of over 40% of the park's tree cover, and increased stresses on a fractured black- crowned night heron population. TRCA and the RAP Team are developing a work plan for 2005. Discussions will commence regarding key projects and deliverables to flag for next year. One key issue to move forward will be a stormwater management workshop focused on opportunities for public involvement following a demonstrated interest in this area from members of the Humber Alliance. November 18, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/04 F61 UPDATES FROM OTHER DON WATERSHED GROUPS CALENDAR OF EVENTS bft 'i(E°y L'l'r �Y Date /- Location ;' k' a§ t . y.,... •i. 1 —i _ �S• ' Event Description Thursday November 25, 2004 Liberty Grand, Exhibition Place (25 British Columbia Road) Meeting the Conservation Challenge The Conservation Council of Ontario and The Province of Ontario invite you to participate in a summit meeting for Ontario's conservation leaders. For further information visit the summit website: www.greenontario.org/summit/ Thursday November 25, 2004 7:00 - 9:00 pm Riverdale Collegiate Institute (1094 Gerrard Street East) Port Lands Town Hall Meeting For more information contact info @towaterfront.ca Tuesday December 7, 2004 1:00 - 4:00 pm Canada Centre for Inland Waters (867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington) Workshop - The Habitat Framework Guidelines for Restorinq and Conserving Wildlife Habitat RSVP by November 30 to Graham.Bryan @ec.gc.ca 416 - 739 -4286 TORONTO HARBOUR LIAISON COUNCIL Discussions were held regarding Toronto Waterfest 2006 - a Mini Expo /Olympics by the water that will have a broad cultural focus, incorporating art, science and sport, underpinned by a strong sustainability message. The event will be scheduled for June 2006. Join Mayor Miller and members of Toronto City Council to discuss the City's priorities on issues such as: • What can we do to make Toronto clean and beautiful? • How can we build strong neighbourhoods? • What more can we do to give Torontonians a say about issues and services that affect them? The event will be held on Sunday November 28, 2004 at 1:00 pm in Metro Toronto Convention Centre (255 Front Street West), Constitution Hall, North Building, Level 100. To register, call Access Toronto at 416 - 338 -0338. F62 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/04 November 18, 2004 ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES UPCOMING MEETING DATES {i i +k... -� .! VIIATE .� REGENERA ION COUNCIL ' :, Meeting # '. ', 'Date Location # 7/04 Thursday December 16, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 2 {i i +k... -� `r4' ddLACY AND ADVQCACYTEA .. M -M. }L teS i; , . � AY 5 3in 410 Ri * 14`? :•'.�". til � r. Meeting # Date Location • # 7/04 Thursday December 9, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 5 {i i +k... -� � ^: .{i 4.ivS O, EACHiT w . ; ^t d,„ t meeting ,.-, Date Location # 3/04 Thursday November 25, 2004 NYCC Committee Room 4 EXPENSE FORMS A Traveling Expense and Disbursement Form is now available for Council members. This form is to be used for all Council business outside of regularly scheduled Council and Working Team meetings. As per the Don Watershed Regeneration Council 2004 - 2006 Terms of Reference, Council members are eligible for travel expenses according to TRCA policy. As outlined in the policy (included on the expense form), members are eligible for a per - kilometre reimbursement rate, as well as some additional travel expenses (such as parking fees). All Council business must be approved by the Chair of the Council and the Don Watershed Specialist. Copies of the expense form can be attained from Alex Blasko at 416 - 661 -6600 ext. 5280, or ablasko @trca.on.ca. November 18, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/04 F63 NEW BUSINESS DON COUNCIL WEB SITE Beverley Thorpe has requested that a web site be developed for the Council as a communication tool for Council members and watershed residents. The web site will be used to share Council documents such as minutes and agendas, and can be used as a means of outreach to the community. IT staff are following up on the development requirements for such a site. PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY WITH BANROCK STATION WINERY Phil Goodwin has been in contact with Banrock Station Winery in regards to opportunities for involvement on the Don. Banrock may be interested in participating in some wetland restoration work, and could potentially be a sponsor for Paddle the Don. Banrock has already agreed to provide wine for the annual Quest for Chowder event. ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:00 pm. Deborah Martin -Downs Brian Denney Chair Chief Administrative Officer /ab THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #7/04 )CTORONTO AND REGION "N.-, onservation for The Living City SCANNED theDon MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/04 December 16, 2004 Page F64 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #7/04, was held in Committee Room #2 at the North York Civic. Centre, on Thursday December 16, 2004. Chair Deborah Matin -Downs called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. PRESENT Deborah Martin -Downs Chair Don Cross Vice Chair Margaret Buchinger Jane Darragh Eli Garrett Phil Goodwin Moyra Haney Brenda Lucas Helen Mills Roslyn Moore Carolyn O'Neill Doug Obright Janice Palmer Nancy Penny Mel Plewes Ron Shimizu Beverley Thorpe Tom Waechter Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Karen Boniface Staff Liaison, Town of Markham Lilli Duoba Staff Liaison, Town of Markham STAFF Alex Blasko Don Watershed Technical Clerk Adele Freeman Director, Watershed Management Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner Sonya Meek Water Management Planner F65 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/04 December 16, 2004 PRESENTATIONS INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS Sonya Meek provided the Council with a preliminary overview of the work plan for the Don Watershed Plan. New Directions The requirements for watershed planning from the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Source Protection legislation provide an opportunity to update the guidelines set out in Forty Steps to a New Don with new technical information. A number of tools can be incorporated into the plan which were not available in 1994 for the initial development of Forty Steps. These include water budget and water use information, 3D groundwater models, and the recently developed Terrestrial Natural Heritage methodology. These advancements will allow for a more strategic and specific development of priorities and implementation tools. The Planning Process The watershed planning process will be divided into three main phases over two and a half years: • Phase 1 (A & B) - Designing the Planning Framework (July 2004 - January 2005); Scoping and Characterization (by June 2005); • Phase 2 - Analysis and Evaluation of Options (by December 2005); and • Phase 3 - Developing the Watershed Plan (by June 2006). Phase 1A: Designing the Planning Framework The initial stage of Phase 1 work primarily involves project design, including: • Establishing the administrative structure for directing development of the plan; • Developing the public involvement program; and • Preparing the detailed workplan, schedule and budget. Phase 1B: Scoping and Characterization The purpose of this part of Phase 1 work is to develop an understanding of current watershed management issues /opportunities and existing conditions in the study area by: • Reviewing existing information; • Scoping and identifying key watershed management issues, concerns and opportunities; • Collecting new information and setting up modeling and evaluation tools; • reporting on existing conditions; and • Confirming watershed management goals and objectives. Phase 2: Analysis and Evaluation of Options Scenarios of future resource use and management approaches are analyzed in this phase of the process in order to anticipate the response of the watershed system to potential changes, which involves such activities as: • Defining future scenarios (i.e. targeted terrestrial natural heritage, stormwater retrofit, climate change, etc.); December 16, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/04 F66 • • • Predicting system response to future scenarios; Evaluating management approaches; and Reporting on analysis and evaluation work. Phase 3: Developing the Watershed Plan This phase of the study involves building consensus for a preferred management approach among participants in the planning process, and preparing the final watershed plan that integrates and communicates the outcome of the process. This phase involves the following activities: • Selecting the preferred management approach; • Developing watershed management priorities and implementation mechanisms; • Finalizing targets for indicators of watershed health; • Developing monitoring recommendations; and • Preparing the watershed plan. The Role of the Don Council The TRCA's Watershed Task Force model, used in previous watershed planning studies, has proved to be a successful means of engaging and empowering watershed stakeholders in developing and implementing their watershed plan. For that reason, the Don Watershed Regeneration Council will be asked to provide input throughout the watershed planning process most likely through the formation of a smaller working group of the Council. During Phase 1, the Don Watershed Regeneration Council will be invited to: • Review the proposed workplan; • Identify key watershed management issues and concerns affecting the watershed; • Identify key stakeholders; and • Assist in securing necessary funds for the planning process. The Don Council will also be asked to guide the latter phases of the watershed planning study, particularly in the following tasks: • Define future land use and management options; • Evaluate study findings and develop an updated management strategy; • Determine an effective, practical implementation plan; and • Select concept site locations and develop their regeneration plans. Preliminary Workplan Council members are directed to the Preliminary Draft of the Don Watershed Plan Update Workplan on page 31 of Agenda #7/04 for further details. F67 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/04 December 16, 2004 MINUTES RES. #F24/04- MINUTES TO MEETING #6/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Don Cross Mel Plewes THAT the minutes of meeting #6/04, held on November 18, 2004 be approved CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF There were no pecuniary interests disclosed. CORRESPONDENCE OUTGOING 4.1 Watercourse Identification Signs in the Town of Markham Letter to Ron Christie, Chair of the Rouge Park Alliance from Peter Heinz, Chair of the Outreach Team - December 10, 2004 RES. #F25/04- CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Peter Heinz Janice Palmer THAT correspondence item 4.1 be received CARRIED m December 16, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/04 F68 INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 Ad Hoc Committee on Crothers' Woods Task Force to Bring Back the Don Meeting 8 - October 20, 2004 5.2 Bartley Smith Greenway Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/04 - December 10, 2004 5.3 Salt Management Plan in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Jurisdiction Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/04 - December 10, 2004 5.4 Wicksteed Avenue Erosion Control Project Project description and status ITEM 5.2 - BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY Stephen Cockle suggests that a letter from the Council in support of the Bartley Smith Greenway may encourage the City of Vaughan to reinstate the capital funding for the project. RES. #F26/04- LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY TO THE CITY OF VAUGHAN Moved by: Seconded by: Stephen Cockle Peter Heinz THAT the Don Watershed Regeneration Council prepare a letter to the City of Vaughan in support of TRCA's recommendation to request that the City reinstate capital funding for the completion of the trail system and environmental improvements on the Bartley Smith Greenway CARRIED RES. #F27/04- INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Mel Plewes Roslyn Moore THAT information items 5.1 to 5.4 be received CARRIED F69 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/04 December 16, 2004 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION DON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Following the presentation by Sonya Meek, discussions were held to determine the most effective way to manage Council involvement on the development of the Don Watershed Plan. Key issues to address as the Council moves forward include: • This could be the defining project for this term of council. • The watershed plan should be a replacement for Forty Steps, perhaps in lieu of a report card for this term of council ( "Beyond Forty Steps "). • A business case must be developed to attract more funding. • It will be necessary to re- engage the politicians and the media through this planning process. The end product will not be as valuable without engagement. • There may be a need to re- evaluate the vision from Forty Steps - is this still valid? • This should . be approached as an opportunity to revitalize public engagement in the Don, and to restate the priority of the Council. It is suggested that a separate sub - committee be formed to focus on the development of the Plan, although representation from both the Outreach Team and Policy and Advocacy Team should be present. The preliminary meeting of this Watershed Planning Team will be scheduled for January 27, 2005. Initial Council member volunteers to join the team include: Margaret Buchinger Moyra Haney Brenda Lucas Helen Mills Roslyn Moore Mel Plewes Beverley Thorpe Ron Shimizu Bryan Bertie Kevin Mercer RES. #F28/04- Moved by: Seconded by: (Policy and Advocacy Team) (Outreach Team) (Policy and Advocacy Team) (Outreach Team) (Outreach Team) (Policy and Advocacy Team) (Policy and Advocacy Team) (Policy and Advocacy Team) (Task Force to Bring Back the Don, suggested by Janice Palmer) (Task Force to Bring Back the Don, suggested by Janice Palmer) FORMATION OF WATERSHED PLANNING TEAM Mel Plewes Peter Heinz THAT a sub - committee be formed consisting of members of the Don Council, with representation from the Outreach Team and the Policy and Advocacy Team to assist TRCA with the development of the Don Integrated Watershed Management Plan. AND THAT the sub - committee report back to the Council from time to time ... CARRIED December 16, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7104 F70 TWRC GOVERNANCE ISSUE - DRAFT LETTER Council members are directed to the draft letter on page 58 of agenda #7/04, and the Policy and Advocacy Team report on page 71 regarding TWRC governance. The letter will be finalized and sent pending comment from Kristin Jenkins of TWRC. RES. #F28/04- APPROVAL OF DRAFT LETTER REGARDING TWRC GOVERNANCE Moved by: Seconded by: Beverley Thorpe Mel Piewes THAT the draft letter regarding TWRC Governance be approved in principle, pending finalization CARRIED COMMITTEE REPORTS OUTREACH TEAM RES. #F29/04- NORTH TORONTO GREEN COMMUNITY 10th ANNIVERSARY Moved by: Seconded by: Don Cross Roslyn Moore WHEREAS the Don Watershed Regeneration Council recognizes the on -going good work of the North Toronto Green Community to promote conservation through grassroots action and the development of sustainable, self- supporting, long term initiatives that are community based; AND WHEREAS this work of the NTGC embodies the three major principles of Forty Steps to a New Don - protect what is healthy, regenerate what is degraded and take responsibility for the Don; THAT the Don Watershed Regeneration Council take this opportunity, on the occasion of the celebration of their 10th Anniversary, to congratulate the NTGC on their work over the past ten years, and to wish them every success in their on -going efforts to promote environmental action and awareness through community -based projects and programs; AND THAT a letter of congratulations be sent to the North Toronto Green Community signed by the Chair of the Don Council; AND THAT a copy of the congratulations letter be sent to the local MP Joseph Volpe, MPP Mike CoIle, City Councillors Karen Stintz, Michael Walker and Clifford Jenkins, and the Lytton Park Residents' Organization CARRIED •M F71 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/04 December 16, 2004 Earl Bales Park Area Stormwater Management Plan Peter Heinz provided an update on the Earl Bales Park Area Stormwater Management Plan following the public meeting on November 30, 2004. A number of options were brought forward to address the stormwater management issues for the 555 hectare area, including: • the construction of 2 small ponds on the upper reaches of the area; • the construction of dams to contain water within the valley corridors; and • the channelization of the valley corridors to direct water through the trunk sewers and into a pond near the river. Currently, none of these options are deemed feasible, and so potential alternatives will be reviewed and refined. Peter Heinz will keep the council informed as information becomes available. POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM On December 14, 2004, the Government of Ontario released the reports on Source Protection from the Technical Experts Committee and the Implementation Committee. The reports contain the Committees' recommendations to the Government for the upcoming Drinking Water Source Protection Act. Comments are due through the EBR by February 14, 2005, and the reports can be accessed from the EBR at the following links: Implementation Committee: htto://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envregistry/024324ex.htm Technical Committee: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envregistry/024326ex.htm RES. #F30/04- COMMITTEE REPORTS Moved by: Seconded by: Don Cross Margaret Buchinger THAT committee reports from Outreach Team Meeting #3104 and Policy and Advocacy Team Meeting #7/04 be received CARRIED December 16, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/04 F72 TORONTO AND AREA REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN GENERAL UPDATE Councillor Brian Ashton has requested that TRCA provide a briefing package regarding the RAP and other federal and provincial initiatives in preparation for the Mayor's involvement in Great Lakes Cities initiatives. The package will promote the Canada Ontario Agreement, Source Protection, and Healthy Watersheds, among others. Two stormwater management workshops will be scheduled for the new year. The first workshop, to take place in May, will be a technology transfer. The second session to follow will focus on community involvement in monitoring and Wet Weather Flow. Representatives of the watershed councils will be invited. The 2005 Stewardship Forum is scheduled for March 5, and the theme will be waterfront issues. UPDATES FROM OTHER DON WATERSHED GROUPS POMONA MILLS CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL REHABILITATION TASK FORCE The Task Force held its initial meeting on December 6, 2004. Attendees included Regional Councillor Bill O'Donnell, Local Councillor Stan Daurio, and representatives from TRCA, Shouldice Hospital, Ladies' Golf Club of Toronto, as well as local businesses and residents. The Task Force identified key issues and opportunities for the area, including: • Barrier mitigation; • Streambank erosion; • Wet weather water quality; • Water- taking from the golf course; • Recreational trails; and • Impacts of upstream development. A work plan will evolve as the Task Force moves forward. Deborah Martin - Downs, as a member of the Task Force will report to the Council with updates. F73 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/04 December 16, 2004 ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES UPCOMING MEETING DATES _—• y Meeting #:`t, 'Date: 'a'' r,., �i Lcation ,:.i �; • - ;r•. s # 1/05 Thursday January 20, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 2/05 Thursday February 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 3/05 Thursday March 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 4/05 Thursday April 14, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 5/05 Thursday May 12, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 6/05 Thursday June 16, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 7/05 Thursday July 21, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 8/05 Thursday September 15, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 9/05 Thursday October 20, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 10/05 Thursday November 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 _—• y • • ' t y i+: ry,kj< � et rW i -. i''r'.''1 x r ,. d a. .i. r � wi.. Fr `" . 9 ea ., wC 'n i • ,Date . t +' 4' E'1. .n ,; . „9, '! . -st Y ,Ct Lcat o 1 ,,],•. .: FiY1!s tc, • , � r _ 4. ; :. 1. # 1/05 Thursday January 13, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 2/05 Thursday February 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 3/05 Thursday March 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 4/05 Thursday April 21, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 5/05 Tuesday May 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 6/05 Thursday June 9, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 7/05 Thursday July 14, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 8/05 Thursday September 8, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 9/05 Tuesday October 11, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 10/05 Thursday November 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 December 16, 2004 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/04 F74 ).i�vy N - "!,{.�tij 4 _ �+ > 'QY °. � � _1e5 'a 4 t ct ' off ; �_ _ tr _ '��d -S: yr. �. } i ti4 � .. '�` ��, J. �F� Meeting'# '• ° y Date =' • ' ,., • ; ,1��. _ �- _ ;• � �- _ . ,. '. .'Location • •, - # 1/05 Thursday January 6, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 2/05 Thursday February 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 3/05 Thursday March 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 4/05 Thursday April 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 5/05 Thursday May 5, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 6/05 Thursday June 2, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 7/05 Thursday July 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 8/05' Thursday September 1, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 9/05 Tuesday October 6, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 # 10/05 Thursday November 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 2 NEW BUSINESS RICHMOND HILL PESTICIDE BY -LAW The Town of Richmond Hill is currently in consultation to explore the issue of pesticide control, following the City of Toronto's adoption of a pesticides by -law. It is suggested that the Don Council express support to the Town in developing a similar by -law. The Policy and Advocacy Team will follow this issue and prepare a response as necessary. ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:15 pm. Deborah Martin -Downs Brian Denney Chair - Chief Administrative Officer /ab THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP MINUTES OF MEETING #1/04 W TORONTO AND REGION' . - onservatfon for The Living City MEETING OF THE DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #1/04 September 15, 2004 Duffins and Carruthers Watersheds Page JK1 The Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group Meeting #1/04 was held in the Admiral's Room at the Ajax Community Centre, on Wednesday September 15, 2004. Interim Chair Neil Burnett called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. PRESENT Neil Burnett Acting Chair for the Meeting Neil Acton Member Gary Bowen Member Doug Dodge Member Susan Self Member Patricia Short-Gallo Member Peter Waring Member Stephen Woolfenden Member STAFF Alex Blasko Don Watershed Technical Clerk Brent Bullough Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Project Manager Julie Hordowick Environmental Monitoring Technician Joanne Jeffrey Community Stewardship Program Coordinator WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Neil Burnett, as Acting Chair, welcomed the members of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group and provided an introduction to the function and role of the group. This initial meeting of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group is to acquaint members with the tasks associated with the implementation of A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. The focus of the group will be the coordination of project implementation and building on strong partnerships through the implementation process. The Chair of the Group will be appointed at a later meeting. Members have already received a briefing book with background information including the Term of Reference for the Group and Rules of Conduct. The committee will set the agenda and set priorities as the group moves forward. TRCA staff will provide support to help set priorities and coordinate the implementation of the plan. At the next meeting in January 2005, the Group will determine • JK2 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #1/04 Sept. 15/04 priorities and define key activities to help partners with specific initiatives as implementation of the Watershed Plan moves forward. An update on the Source Protection study will also be given at the January meeting. REPORTS ITEM 5.1 - PROGRESS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF A WATERSHED PLAN FOR DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS CREEK This report provides a summary of progress on the proposed management actions that are currently underway towards the implementation of the Watershed Plan. The goal of this summary is to determine the roles and responsibilities of members in order to advance the objectives of the plan. Those areas that have advanced well are linked primarily to the need to expand greenspace, for instance terrestrial habitat, hydrological function. Little progress has been on cultural heritage, primarily because many of the cultural heritage components are value added items. Meetings will be held with local municipalities to identify various programs that are supportive of the watershed plan with the intent that a report is brought back to the Group. This type of progress summary may be used as a reporting mechanism on the status of implementation to the Watershed Management Advisory Board. RES. #JK1 /04- Progress Report on Implementation ofA Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Moved by: Seconded by: Susan Self Patricia Short-Gallo THAT report item 5.1 - Progress Report on Implementation of A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek be received CARRIED ITEM 5.2 - MNR'S LIVING LEGACY PROJECTS IN DUFFINS CREEK WATERSHED Joanne Jeffrey reports that the $200,000 of funds accepted on behalf of TRCA helped with a number of habitat restoration projects, and stewardship and outreach opportunities in the Duffins Creek watershed. Momentum was given to complete a number of restoration sites. The following projects were accomplished with Living Legacy funding: • • Timber Brothers - Gravel Pit Restoration Rodar Property - Trail Head Kiosk Installation and Plantings Paulynn Park - Trail Head Kiosk Installation -and Plantings Frenchman's Bay Rotary Park - Plantings and Habitat Feature Installation 1 JK3 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #1/04 Sept. 15/04 Duffins Creek Marsh - Corner Creek Marsh Restoration Conservation Easement Restoration - Woodlot Expansion and Riparian Planting Glen Major - Trail Head Installation and Plantings RES. #JK2 /04- MNR's Living Legacy Projects in Duffins Creek Watershed Moved by: Seconded by: Doug Dodge Neil Acton THAT report item 5.2 - MNR's Living Legacy Projects in Duffins Creek Watershed be received CARRIED ITEM 5.3 - POLLUTION PROBE'S NET GAIN PRINCIPLE AND THE DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED PLAN Net Gain was adopted as part of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Plan management philosophy. Subsequent to the release of Pollution Probe's independently produced Net Gain report, TRCA and Pollution Probe began working together to explore practical mechanisms to implement the principles of Net Gain in the watersheds of Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. This work will connect closely with TRCA's sustainability objectives. RES. #JK3 /04- Pollution Probe's Net Gain Principle and the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Moved by: Seconded by: Neil Acton Patricia Short-Gallo THAT report item 5.3 - Pollution Probe's Net Gain Principle and the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan be received CARRIED SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS A tentative schedule for future meetings of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group is as follows: JK4 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #1/04 - Sept. 15/04 D �cF , iN D� UT� CE ,1% Meeting # Date Location 1/05 January 19, 2005 TBD 2/05 March 23, 2005 TBD 3/05 June 22, 2005 TBD 4/05 September 14, 2005 TBD 5/05 November 23, 2005 TBD At the January meeting, the Group will identify specific activities to be initiated before March 2005 that will be key to the implementation of the Watershed Plan. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 7.1 - TOUR OF WATERSHEDS FOR NEW MEMBERS A bus tour of the Duffins and Carruthers watersheds has been scheduled for October 31 at 1:30 pm to familiarize new members and potential partners with the area. Two objectives of the tour will be to acquaint members with the physical features of the watershed, and to identify current projects underway and windows of opportunity that may exist. ITEM 7.2 - GENERIC WATERSHED POLICY PROJECT A generic toolkit was developed to aid in the implementation of the Watershed Plan and to provide a level of consistency between municipalities. This project will serve to harmonize the implementation process as Official Plan amendments are brought forward. It will be critical to have the provincial ministries and federal departments involved to ensure this will meet their needs. ITEM 7.3 - DUFFINS- CARRUTHERS DRINKING WATER SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN The Terms of Reference for the Source Protection Plan has been circulated to the ministries and departments. There is an opportunity for the Group to participate in this study. Letters of interest will be sent out in the next couple of weeks, and work is expected to begin in December 2004. JK5 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #1104 Sept. 15/04 ITEM 7.4 - DUFFINS- CARRUTHERS 2004 STEWARDSHIP AND REGENERATION PROGRAMS As implementation of the Watershed Plan progresses, TRCA will be focusing on outreach opportunities using a successful model of community -based stewardship that involves groups coordinating their own community events. Momentum will be built through upcoming events and local municipalities and communities will be engaged to prioritize projects. Current stewardship efforts include tree wrapping to protect against beavers and conservation seminars. The goal will be to get people interested and involved in their community, and to establish local projects. The stewardship plan will be brought to the Group as a future agenda item. ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 8:15 pm. Neil Burnett Brian Denney Acting Chair for the Meeting Chief Administrative Officer /ab THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ETOBICOKE MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION MINUTES OF MEETING #1/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #6/04 JUNE 25, 2004 4%, THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION #1104 January 22, 2004 Page H1 The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition met in the Tower Garden Cafe, at the City of Mississauga, on Thursday, January 22, 2004. In the absence of the Chair and Vice - Chair, Chris McGlynn assumed the role of Chair. The meeting was called to order at 6:50 p.m. PRESENT Cleve Battick Member Marjut Dunker Member Janice Etter Member Bette -Ann Goldstein Member Michael Gusche Alternate Marilyn Hagerman Member Alina Korniluk Alternate Randy McGill Member Chris McGlynn Acting Chair John McMahon Alternate Chris Nelson Member Mathew Rossi Member Steve Rutherford Member Sean Stuart Member Boris Swedak Member David Switzer Member Tanya Trivedi Member GUESTS Tara Buonpensiero City of Brampton Barry Colbert York University Elizabeth Kurucz York University Karl Walsh Director, of Community Design, City of Brampton STAFF Scott Jarvie Coordinator, Regional Watershed Monitoring Program Lia Lappano Administrative Assistant Chandra Sharma Specialist, Etobicoke - Mimico Paul Willms - Watershed Resource Planner H2 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 January 22, 2004 RES. #H1/04 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Boris Swedak Mathew Rossi THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/03, held on October 23, 2003, be received CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) Letter from TRCA's watershed committees to Premier Dalton McGuinty, dated November 5, 2003, re: A Cleaner, Greener Ontario (b) Letter from TRCA's Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Coalition to City of Toronto dated November 6, 2003, re: Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan (c) Excerpt from TRCA Executive Committee minutes #11/03 re: permit to place fill 350 First Gulf Blvd., City of Brampton, Etobicoke Creek Watershed (d) Excerpt from TRCA Executive Committee minutes #11/03 re: permit to alter a waterway, place fill at Chinguacousy Park, City of Brampton, Etobicoke Creek Watershed RES. #H2/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: Sean Stuart Randy McGiII THAT the above -noted correspondence be received CARRIED (e) Letter from Ministry of the Environment, dated October 16, 2003, re: Source Protection RES. #H3/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: Chris McGlynn Bette Ann Goldstein THAT a joint letter from TRCA's watershed committees be sent to the Minister of the Environment in support of source protection planning CARRIED January 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 H3 PRESENTATIONS (a) Brampton Pathways Master Plan Mr. Karl Walsh and Ms. Tara Buonpensiero of the City of Brampton made a presentation on the Brampton Pathways Master Plan, including the public input process; goals; barriers and opportunities; the pathways network; signature elements; and next steps. The Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition would appreciate the opportunity of being involved in any trail planning and construction activity within these watersheds in an effort to partner and to share information with the City of Brampton. Members requested that all future trail or river crossing signs developed through this process should incorporate the Etobicoke - Mimico logo. (b) Regional Watershed Monitoring Program TRCA's Scott Jarvie updated the members on the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program and highlighted the following: • goals and objectives; • scale of the monitoring network; • condition - stress - response relationship; • indicators and measures; • partnerships; • next steps. The Acting Chair thanked the presenters for their informative presentations. RES. #H4/04 - REGIONAL WATERSHED MONITORING PROGRAM Update on the TRCA's Regional Watershed Monitoring Program. Moved by: Seconded by: Steve Rutherford Boris Swedak THAT the staff report on the TRCA's Regional Watershed Monitoring Program, be received for information; THAT members of the Etobicoke Mimico Watersheds Coalition participate in the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program to assist with monitoring activities in the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watershes; AND FURTHER THAT the Report Card Working Group utilize data from the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program in the production of the 2005 Etobicoke Mimico Report Card CARRIED H4 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 January 22, 2004 BACKGROUND The Regional Watershed Monitoring Program is an ongoing program that has been developed by The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to provide a comprehensive, integrated and coordinated approach to environmental monitoring in the Greater Toronto Area. The program includes the establishment of a Monitoring Network that endeavors to bring together a group of Tike- minded, cooperative agencies and organizations to collect, store, distribute and report on environmental monitoring data that furthers the interests of all involved parties. This Monitoring Network builds on the existing local and project- specific monitoring efforts of its partners. PROJECT OBJECTIVES To develop a program that provides the necessary information to assess the health of the watersheds, subwatersheds, waterfront ecosystems and RAP area, spatially and temporally; • To identify a set of indicators that reflect ecosystem condition, integrate the monitoring requirements of the RAP with report cards for individual watersheds, and are compatible with municipal state of the environment reporting and other broad programs like State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC), for the Great Lakes basin, and the provincial policy performance indicators; • To develop an efficient program that builds upon existing monitoring activities, avoids duplication between agencies, municipalities and organizations, is cost effective in allocating the best use of resources and informs management decisions; To identify ways to engage and involve the public, interest, and school groups in meaningful monitoring activities; To develop and obtain, agreement from stakeholders on a set of monitoring protocols for the collection, analysis, storage and distribution of data on the indicators that are identified. The Regional Watershed Monitoring Program was initiated in 2001 and has focused on four components; Aquatic Habitat and Species, Surface Water Quality, Flow and Precipitation, and Terrestrial Natural Heritage. The monitoring activities supporting the regional program are implemented through the TRCA and a network of partners. The network is comprised of agencies that collectively carry out environmental monitoring activities (Table 1). Table 1 - Regional Watershed Monitoring Network MONITORING COMPONENT Aquatic Habitat & Species Benthos Fish Community & Habitat Fluvial Geomorphology Algae Surface Water Quality Routine Stream Sampling Routine Waterfront Water Chemistry AGENCY /PARTNER TRCA / MOE / Community TRCA / MNR / TRCA / City of Toronto TRCA / City of Toronto City of Toronto /TRCA City of Toronto January 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 H5 Tributary Toxics Monitoring Fish Biomonitoring Lake Partner Program Aesthetics Monitoring Flow & Precipitation Stream Flow Gauges Base Flow Monitoring Precipitation Gauges Snow Course Monitoring Terrestrial Natural Heritage MOE / TRCA MOE MOE TRCA TRCA / Environment Canada / Municipalities TRCA TRCA / Environment Canada TRCA TRCA The 2003 field season marks the completion of the third year of the monitoring program. This is significant in that several of the monitoring components (fish community and habitat, and fluvial geomorphology) have been designed to be implemented on a three year cycle, and in this respect the 2003 season completes the first full cycle of these components in all nine watersheds. Data can now be analyzed and used to report on watershed health on a regional scale, in addition to the watershed scale. 2003 MONITORING ACTIVITIES The following highlights some of the monitoring activites carried out during 2003: Aquatic Habitat and Species Aquatic organisms live, for the most part, their entire lives within the water. As a result, they are subjected to the many interacting physical, chemical and biological factors which surround them, and are dependent upon these factors for the maintenance of their health. Such factors include water temperature, water flow, nutrients, sediment or contaminants carried in water, channel form and types of in- stream cover, to report a few. If an environment becomes degraded, often the first clue is a change in the biotic community. The monitoring activities undertaken under the Aquatic Species and Habitat component are summarized as follows: Benthic Invertebrates were monitored at a total of 143 sites throughout the TRCA's nine watersheds (Humber, Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek, Don, Highland, Rouge, Petticoat Creek, Duffins and Carruthers) in 2003. Samples of the invertebrate communities were obtained at each site using a modified kick and sweep netting technique. Samples were submitted to a qualified consultant for identification services and were identified to species. Based on the data collected in 2001 -03 and in future years, a variety of multi- metric and multi- variate approaches will be used to assess water quality and habitat conditions within the sample sites. Future use of the data will also include the identification of Regional Reference Sites that can be used to characterize the ecological integrity of various streams within the region. In 2003, TRCA became a partner in the Ontario Biomonitoring Network, a provincially -led initiative towards standardization of benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring and data H6 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 January 22, 2004 sharing. The 2003 activities include participating in training and workshop sessions designed to launch the program, the provision of data collected through the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program, the selection and monitoring of reference sites from within the TRCA's watersheds, and participation in research designed to compare various collection protocols. This participation in the biomonitoring network is consistent with one of Conservation Ontario's recommendations outlined in their WRIP III report, released in July of 2003. Fish Species and Habitat Fishes and their community structure are often used as indicators of the health of an aquatic system for a number of reasons: 1) fish communities usually encompass all of the trophic levels present in a system from primary consumers (herbivores) to top predators (piscivores); 2) fish are generally easy to sample and identify; 3) there is a wealth of information available on their life- histories and various sensitivities to environmental degradation; 4) historical data exists regarding fish communities in many areas; 5) fishing is an important industry with economic value; and, 6) the general public and policy makers can relate more to fish than other aquatic organisms. In order to gain a regional understanding of fish species and habitat on a watershed basis, the monitoring program has targeted 150 sites throughout the nine watersheds within the TRCA jurisdiction. In 2003, a total of 49 of these sites (25 Rouge, 21 Duffins, 3 Carruthers) were monitored using the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol. The goal of the program is to monitor all of the 150 sites identified within a 3 -year period. With the completion of the 2003 field work, this goal has been achieved, and it is expected that the Humber and Etobicoke Creek sites monitored in 2001 with be re- surveyed next year to continue the 3 -year cycle. Fluvial Geomorphology Information on physical habitat is needed at fixed sites within each watershed in order to understand the normal variation that occurs in habitat and associated changes in the fish and benthic invertebrate community. The data is also needed to identify any long term trends in habitat that might affect stream health and productive capacity. Therefore, it has been recommended that a Tong -term monitoring program be established in partnership with interested agencies and organizations to track changes in physical habitat at the sites where fish and benthic invertebrate communities are surveyed. The physical component of aquatic habitat in a stream is closely related to the fluvial geomorphology. Studies of fluvial geomorphology are important components of works in and around watercourses and are often undertaken in association with these works. Previously, there have been few on -going monitoring activities associated with tracking changes in fluvial geomorphology, spatially and temporally. The importance of fluvial geomorphology in understanding the association between flow in a stream and the aquatic habitat present cannot be overstated. For this reason, it is has been recommended that several aspects of fluvial geomorphological assessments (eg. long profiles, cross sections, pebble counts, bank full width and depth, etc.) be incorporated into the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program that has been developed and is currently being implemented by the TRCA. January 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1104 H7 A total of 150 stations across the nine watersheds within the TRCA's jurisdiction have been targeted as part of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program. For the 2003 field season, a total of 50 of these stations were selected in the Duffins, Carruthers and Petticoat Creek watersheds and will be surveyed using standard fluvial geomorphology measurement techniques. The goal is to have all of the sites identified and surveyed within a 3 -year period. With the completion of the 2003 field work, this goal will be achieved, and it is expected that follow -up monitoring of the sites previously set -up will continue. Algae Marianne Douglas, an Assistant Professor of Geology from the University of Toronto outlined a case for algae as biomonitors at the 1999 International Joint Commission (IJC) Water Quality Board workshop (Toronto and Region RAP 1999). In her presentation she identified that algae can be excellent biomonitors for environmental assessments because they are common and widespread throughout all watersheds; they form the base of the food chain; there are hundreds of different species; and, they are sensitive to environmental conditions, especially water chemistry. Algae have been successfully used to monitor such things as nutrient surplus (ie. eutrophication), turbidity and siltation, organic enrichment, high salinity, contamination by metals and acidification. At present, there are several programs throughout the world that have utilized algae monitoring. The benefit of using algae as a biomonitor is that it is low cost relative to other traditional methods as well as the non - destructive collection methods of algae sampling. In addition, algae are often the first group of organisms to be impacted by shifts in physical and chemical conditions in a watercourse, including the introduction of pollutants at relatively low concentrations because of their strong connection to basic water chemistry and their short life cycles. Thus algae can be an important component of an early warning system of change in a watershed. Algae sampling was conducted during the 2003 field season at 143 sites in the Humber, Etobicoke, Mimico, Don, Highland and Rouge watersheds, as well as at the stream water quality monitoring sites surveyed by the City of Toronto. These samples will provide some of the data necessary to further evaluate the use of algae as a biomonitor for the GTA watersheds. Water Quality In 2002 -03, the TRCA continued to liaise and expand partnerships with our key program delivery agencies, including the City of Toronto (stream and waterfront routine water chemistry monitoring); Ministry of the Environment (Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network, Tributary Toxics Monitoring; Young -of- the -Year Biomonitoring; Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring; Lake Partner Program); and the City of Mississauga. The following summarizes the surface water quality monitoring activities that were carried out in 2002 -03 through these partnerships: Routine stream chemistry is tracked at 36 sites across TRCA watersheds, once per month (April through November) throughout 2002 -03. Water samples are analysed for basic water chemistry parameters and metals using a combination of provincial, municipal and private laboratories. H8 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 January 22, 2004 MOE's Tributary Toxics Monitoring (TTM) program monitors the full suite of water chemistry parameters (basic, metals and organics) in selected Lake Ontario tributaries. In 2003, TRCA partnered with the MOE to re- establish 10 monitoring stations that will be sampled over the next 3 years. Under this partnership, TRCA has provided sampling equipment and staff to collect samples at 2 of the sites. In 2002 -03, all of the 31 proposed young -of- the -year biomonitoring sites were surveyed in MOE's fall survey. MOE continued with•their ongoing Sport Fish Contaminant program in 2002 -03. Of the five additional recreational sport fishing sites recommended under the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program, two have been monitored. Partnership arrangements are currently underway with MOE, including offering TRCA field staff to assist with collections if necessary, to ensure the additional sites are re- surveyed as required in the future. TRCA helped bring together community volunteers in the last 3 years to participate in MOE's Lake Partner Program to track lake nutrient conditions. Volunteers participated in the program at Seneca/Eaton Hall Lake, Palgrave Pond, Claireville Reservoir, Grenadier Pond, Heart Lake, Mary Lake, Gibson Lake and Professor's Lake. TRCA field centre staff monitored Lake St. George. In 2003, TRCA partnered with the City of Mississauga to install and monitor 3 automatic water sampling stations (2 Etobicoke Creek, 1 Mimico Creek) in order to monitor water quality related to storm events. This sampling will continue over the next two years. Terrestrial Natural Heritage Terrestrial natural heritage monitoring was undertaken in support of the development of TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy. Natural cover (forest, wetlands and meadow) were inventoried by staff biologists throughout the TRCA jurisdiction. The surveys involved mapping and describing vegetation communities, and mapping flora and fauna species. To date, more than 50% of the natural cover in the TRCA jurisdiction has been digitized. This information has been combined into a regional inventory and will be used in the development of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy and in subsequent stages of its implementation. The region's Natural Heritage System continues to be updated using 1999 and 2002 ortho photos and landscape analysis. Terrestrial inventories were undertaken, including the ecological land classification of approximately 8,000 ha. The volunteer monitoring component that continued in 2003 with the monitoring of 63 fixed sites within the TRCA jurisdiction. Data Management One of the key elements of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program is the data that is collected on an annual basis. As such, the storage, security and retrieval of the data is extremely important. In 2001, the TRCA contracted a consultant to develop a relational database (TRCA Envirobase) to house all of the various environmental data collected through this and other programs of the TRCA. This relational database also has the ability to link various data sets that are currently available. Updates to the relational database have been January 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 H9 completed in subsequent years including the addition of a sediment quality and fluvial geomorphology component. Additional customization of the TRCA's database structure along with data entry is on- going. Changes to the corporate IT /Network structure in the near future will enable more effective sharing and use of the relational database by staff. In 2003, staff has entered into a partnership with York University and Seconsys on a project that focuses on the development of a web -based data assessment and reporting system to support the TRCA's Regional Watershed Monitoring Program. As a pilot project, its purpose is to demonstrate how biological monitoring and abiotic data can be presented in a geographic context to facilitate the sharing of watershed monitoring data with civic, scientific and political stakeholders. In this web -based environment, results can be viewed in attribute space (as line charts), and in a geographic context (via topographical maps). This will allow for a better appreciation of potential physical factors in catchment areas that may influence findings from in- stream monitoring activities. The geographic scope for this pilot project is the Humber watershed. A suite of indices using region- specific criteria are used to provide "roll -up" or an aggregate evaluation for a specific monitoring site. For example, in another similar web -based application (Map Reflections), ten (10) indices have successfully been used to characterize the community composition and diversity of benthic macro invertebrates observed at a monitoring site. These indicies include: Number of Taxa, Diversity, and Dominant Taxon. Results of this assessment method are reported as: impaired, potentially impaired, or unimpaired. While the results are not specific to the types of possible impacts, trends in the data may raise "red- flags ", and prompt more intensive investigation. Through a marriage of emerging Internet mapping technology and reporting applications, community stakeholders can be engaged in more meaningful ways when watershed monitoring information is being disseminated. Stakeholders will have the option of searching and visualizing watershed monitoring information with greater ease, but also to contact existing community -based environmental organizations (e.g., Citizens Environment Watch - CEW) to consider participating in data collection, assessment and information sharing. The embodied energy of shared interests, identity and trust - what has been called "social capital" - is harnessed and focused to support the stewardship of the region's environment. This project represents a small but important step towards integrating and reinforcing programs. This development of the pilot site is expected to be completed by the end of October 2003, and will be the focus of a future communication to the Watershed Management Advisory Board. Products To date there have been a number of reports that have been produced that describe components of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program, along with applications of the data and information generated by the network. A partial list is as follows: Benthic Community Monitoring Program: Toronto Area Watersheds 2001; Regional Watershed Monitoring Program: Toronto Waterfront Benthic Community Evaluation 2001; H10 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 January 22, 2004 Regional Watershed Monitoring Program 2001 - Status Report; The Visual Aesthetic Condition of Watercourses in the Toronto Region: The Results of a Pilot Community -based Visual Aesthetic Survey - July 2002; Regional Monitoring Program - Fluvial Geomorphology Component (Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek and Humber Watersheds) 2001; Regional Monitoring Program - Fluvial Geomorphology Component (Don River, Rouge River and Highland Creek Watersheds) 2002. In July 2003, Conservation Ontario released their report on the third year of participation in the Water Resources Information Project (WRIP). In addition to outlining the various activities addressed by the WRIP process, the report identifies a number of specific recommendations for individual conservation authorities to collect, store and share water resources information. TRCA, through the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program has addressed and supported a number of these recommendations, including: • TRCA staff participated in the development and review of Conservation Ontario's Water Quality Monitoring Discussion Paper; • Staff is continued to develop a relational database for storage and management of water resources information; • TRCA's Information Technology group has developed, and is implementing a corporate IT strategy to address day -to -day network maintenance needs and future information technology expansion; Staff is partnering with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in the newly developed Ontario Biomonitoring Network in order to standardize benthic invertebrate data collection, storage and analysis; Staff participated in a two -day water sampling and data analysis workshop, and participated in the review of a Sampling and Data Analysis Manual developed by the MOE and Conservation Ontario. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The 2004 field work and data collection will commence in the spring, and will include additional fish, habitat and water quality monitoring to be done in Region of Durham (Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek) subject to funding approval. Monitoring work will include: Benthic invertebrate sampling at 150 watershed stations and 22 waterfront sites; Fish community and stream habitat will be re- surveyed at the 51 stations set -up in the Humber and Etobicoke watersheds in 2001, and at 22 sites along the waterfront; Monitoring of the fluvial geomorphology stations established in the Humber River, Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks will be continued; Water quality data will be collected from a total of 49 sites in the Toronto region through a network of partners. Further updates to the TRCA's relational database will be forthcoming in the next few months as well as staff development and training on its use. Additional development of the web -based map and data server will be undertaken following review of the pilot web site and application scheduled for completion at the end of October 2003. January 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 H11 A more detailed report outlining the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program and a summary of the data collected in 2002 will be prepared by staff over the next several months. This report, along with the 2001 summary report will provide the basis for updating the TRCA's marketing information for the program, including display materials, literature and web page content. Analysis of the data collected in 2001 -03 will be undertaken over the next few months in order to provide usable interpretation for the TRCA's watershed report card process and to share with municipal partners. This data from the first 3 years of the monitoring program will also contribute to the baseline data for the development of a Regional Report Card by the TRCA. In addition, staff will continue to foster partnerships with community groups and other agencies involved in monitoring activities through the watershed monitoring network. RES. #H5/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS REPORT CARD: 2005 Preparation of the 2005 Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Report Card Sean Stuart Chris Nelson THAT the draft work plan for the 2005 Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Report Card be received for information; THAT a four member Report Card Working Group be established by the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition; THAT Irene Jones, Suzanne Barrett, Randy McGiII and Mathew Rossi be appointed to the Report Card Working Group; THAT members of the Report Card Working Group provide input to the Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Report Card development, as required; THAT progress on the development of the 2005 Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watershed Report Card be reported at a future meeting of the Coalition; THAT the final Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watershed Report Card be brought forward to the Authority for approval when completed; AND FURTHER THAT the 2005 Report Card be used as the basis for the development of an Integrated Watershed Plan for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks (to be initiated in 2005) CARRIED H12 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 January 22, 2004 BACKGROUND The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force approved "Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds including the first Etobicoke and Mimico Report Card" at its meeting #10/01 (Res #H97/01) . Progress of the watershed has been reported under 31 indicators. These 31 indicators, divided into three strategies - Natural Heritage, Human Influences, and Working Together - give a detailed description of current ecological and cultural conditions within the watershed, outlines strategies and targets to improve the health of the watershed, and provides future management directions for achieving a healthy sustainable watershed. Short term (2006 and 2012) targets have been identified for the indicators where baseline information was available. Target year 2025 was recommenced as the "long term" objective because it coincides with the Vision Statement for the watersheds. In some cases, baseline data was not available and further study was required. Greening Our Watersheds, including the Report Card, is an important initial assessment of the watersheds and represents a benchmark against which our future progress for achieving a healthy watershed will be measured. The Natural Habitat Working Group and the Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Groups of the Coalition discussed the 2005 report card at their respective meetings. Members decided that a separate Report Card Working Group be established with representatives from both working groups. It was also decided that members of the Report Card Working Group bring back progress reports to their respective groups on a regular basis for input and feedback. RATIONALE The watershed planning process developed by the TRCA, has four main stages: plan development, implementation, monitoring and reporting, and updating the Plan. The Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Report Card will form the basis of an Updated Integrated Watershed Management Plan for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks which is scheduled to be initiated in 2005. The timing and process of report card development is also in conformity with the development of the Toronto Region RAP Regional Report Card. The preparation of a Regional Report Card fits within RAP monitoring and reporting objectives to assess the state of the environment in the Area of Concern to foster appropriate action and also to show how current efforts have affected environmental health. 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. January 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 H13 WORK COMPLETED TO DATE A draft work plan has been developed and a short list of priority indicators is currently being developed based on an indicator selection criteria. Staff has been in the process of collecting relevant background information to assist with the development of Report Card. Baseline data from the TRCA Regional Monitoring Program, currently underway, will be utilized. A draft Terms of Reference has been developed to hire a consultant to undertake the Etobicoke and Mimico Land Use and Infrastructure Study. The Terms of Reference will be finalized by the Report Card Working Group. This undertaking will determine baseline conditions for some of the forms and limits, infrastructure, and sustainable practices indicators for the Report Card. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Elect a Chair and Vice Chair of the Report Card Working Group at their first meeting; • Finalize work plan. A draft work plan has been prepared for information; • Finalize indicators based on priorities and availability of sufficient information; • Finalise Terms of Reference and hire a consultant to undertake the Land Use and Infrastructure Study; • Review existing baseline data and monitoring initiatives; • Initiate research, analysis and writing; • Launch and distribute the report card. RES. #H6/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: MALTON COMMUNITY ACTION AREA IMPLEMENTATION To establish a community -based stewardship group that will be responsible for guiding the implementation of the Malton Community Action Area Plan. Janice Etter Bette -Ann Goldstein THAT the implementation plan for the Malton Community Action Area be endorsed; THAT a Malton Community Action Area Stewardship Group be established to assist with the implementation of the Malton Community Action Area Plan; THAT members of the Coalition who reside in, or are interested in, the Malton Community Action Area participate in the stewardship group and assist with outreach, regeneration, and community development activities; H14 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 January 22, 2004 AND FURTHER THAT members of the Malton Community Action Area stewardship group bring back a progress report to the Coalition at a future date CARRIED BACKGROUND At the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Task Force meeting #10/01, resolution #H104/01 and amendment resolution #H105/01 were approved. The resolution established a Malton Community Action Area Stewardship Group and allowed for the development of workplans and updates to the Malton Community Action Area Plan, the provision of regular progress reports to the Coalition, the seeking of approval for projects from the Coalition, and required that the Chair of the Stewardship Group be a member of the Coalition. A meeting was hosted in February 2003 by the City of Mississauga to bring together community organizations and recognize their past efforts in the environmental clean -up and regeneration in Malton. Representatives from nineteen organizations (business, schools, resident associations, community groups) attended the meeting. Building on the interest and momentum of this meeting, a vision for implementing the Community Action Area was developed over several months and presented to a second subsequent meeting in September 2003 to a larger audience of community representatives. They supported the direction of the vision and encouraged City and TRCA staff to establish an advisory committee and key partners to further refine the vision and develop funding proposals. A Trillium funding proposal was submitted in December 2003 for a five -year community -based restoration and stewardship program with a total request approaching $350,000 and a total budget including in -kind and other partnership resources approaching $900,000 over five years. Seven restoration projects form the basis of the 5 -year implementation plan with associated stewardship programs. The projects provide for an opportunity to create real environmental change in Malton for participating organizations and individuals. This will be accomplished through a hands -on environmental stewardship program designed to engage local residents, business, schools, and the many ethnic and culturally diverse communities. The environment, and its restoration, is seen as a "common ground" issue; one in which no one group has ownership, but instead, is owned, and cared for, by all groups. The common ground approach will likely achieve more than just the ecological restoration of seven sites, but the bringing together of different community organizations around a common goal. RATIONALE For each of the Community Action Sites in the Humber Watershed, stewardship committees are established to guide the development and implementation of projects. Membership on these committees includes TRCA, municipal and agency staff, local members of the community including residents and businesses, and members representing local Community groups. These groups have proven to be invaluable in ensuring that approvals are received on a timely basis, and that government requirements /needs and community interests are met. The decision - making process is generally based on consensus. The concept of Community Action Areas is new, and is being developed for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds only. For the same reasons as listed above, establishing stewardship groups is recommended as a prudent, proactive mechanism of ensuring support, facilitating communications, and ensuring effective implementation of the project(s). January 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 H15 As the three original Community Action Areas outlined in 2001 (Heart Lake, South Mimico, and Malton) have progressed, they have taken different approaches to achieving the targets of Greening Our Watersheds at the local level. In addition, different approaches have been attempted by the Coalition, TRCA, and City of Mississauga within Malton throughout the last three years to foster ownership and participation in protecting, respecting and regenerating Mimico Creek in the area with limited / minimal success. The "Malton approach" involved the identification and contact of over 100 community organizations, and several key local partners including Rotary International and the Malton Residents Association, and an annual "summit" meeting with all of the organizations. The approach focused on community organizations instead of individuals. The lead partners in the initiative are the City of Mississauga, TRCA, the Malton Residents Association, and Rotary International. WORK TO BE DONE • Formalize a stewardship group; • Confirm Trillium funding and complete all project - related documentation; • Plan a project launch event in the Spring of 2004; • Raise funds, as required. RES. #H7/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: GOLFING GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP WORKSHOP Update on the February 26, 2004 Golfing Green Environmental Stewardship Workshop hosted, in partnership with the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition and Humber Watershed Alliance. Janice Etter Bette Ann Goldstein THAT the staff report on the Golfing Green Environmental Stewardship Workshop be received; THAT Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition members support the workshop and assist with the workshop on February 26, 2004; AND FURTHER THAT Frank Merran, Manager of the Peel Village Golf Club, be thanked for hosting the workshop CARRIED H16 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 January 22, 2004 BACKGROUND The Etobicoke - Mimico Task Force in Greening Our Watersheds identified that outdoor recreational facilities should be planned and managed in a manner that integrates ecological health with social benefits. Within the Human Influences Management Strategy section of the management plan the indicator "Golf Courses" was developed, with the objective that all golf courses are sited, designed and operated as green and sustainable facilities. The target that the Nature and Water Working Group of the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition is currently working toward achieving is: one Conservation Seminar targeted to golf courses by 2006. A similar initiative was successfully undertaken in the Rouge watershed in 2002 and 2003, which is being used as the template for this 2004 undertaking. In order to maximize the efficiency of the workshop, representatives from 30 golf courses in the Etobicoke, Mimico and Humber watersheds are being invited. PROGRESS TO DATE TRCA staff has been working with Frank Merran, Manager of the Peel Village Golf Club, to develop a workshop that will be relevant to superintendents and managers of golf courses and, at the same time, works toward achieving the goals of Greening Our Watersheds and the TRCA. The focus of the workshop is to provide information on practical, innovative and economical techniques and practices that will assist managers to work toward more environmentally friendly golf courses. Speakers will cover topics such as: naturalization techniques, water taking permits, TRCA flood and fill regulations, and stewardship and outreach opportunities for fulfilling the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System certification requirements. The workshop is being held at the Peel Village Golf Club, located at 29 Hartford Trail, in Brampton. Registration is mandatory. Letters of introduction and invitations to the workshop have been sent to superintendents or managers of all 30 golf courses. Once registration is complete, agenda packages will be prepared and the final details of the event will be coordinated. Follow -up actions to the workshop will be determined based on the feedback from the workshop participants. Actions may include annual workshops or events, site visits to discuss specific projects, or the development of fact sheets relevant to specific issues. January 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 H17 RES. #H8/04- Moved by: Seconded by: INTEGRATED TRAILS MASTER PLAN The production of a watershed trails map integrating the existing four municipal trails plans. Boris Swedak Marjut Dunker THAT the staff report on Integrated Trails Master Plan be received; AND FURTHER THAT a progress report be brought back to the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition at a future meeting CARRIED BACKGROUND Etobicoke Creek contains 54 km, while the Mimico Creek watershed contains 23km, of valleyland trails. Demand for public trails has increased with urban residents turning to healthier lifestyles, and the desire to access natural green spaces within increasingly developed urban areas. A trail system and interpretive signs can help residents gain an appreciation of local natural resources and ecosystems. The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force identified three issues (pp. 216 -218 Greening Our Watersheds) revolving around trails in the creeks: 1) lack of watershed trail master plans, 2) trail fragmentation and 3) trail maintenance. The Task Force recommended the development of watershed trails master plans by 2006, and further recommended that Trail Design Guidelines be developed to ensure that both human and environmental needs are met in the development of trails throughout the watersheds. The Sustainable Communities Working Group of the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition identified the production of an integrated trails map as a priority action in their workplan. The map would be the first step in producing a watersheds trails master plan that would identify existing trail alignments, future build -out scenarios, capital budget allocations, and overlay Community Action Area plans and projects. Integration of the existing municipal trails plans of Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, and Caledon is the first step in producing a watershed trails master plan. The plan should include the following aspects (Greening Our Watersheds, p.218): • Take into account existing and proposed municipal alignments Recognize immovable barriers (e.g. Highway #401) Address private land ownership issues Identify needs for biological inventories Identify access, trail hierarchy and alignment Identify need to naturalize or close trails for environmental or safety reasons Prescribe guidelines for trail design, construction and use Identify interpretive opportunties Ensure trails are environmentally appropriate and interconnected with local, natural and human heritage highlights Recommend trail sections where upgrades are necessary Recommend areas where linkages are necessary H18 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 January 22, 2004 • Provide for adequate trail access, public transit connections and parking areas The Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group may also consider other aspects in developing the plan. RATIONALE Greening Our Watersheds, pp. 216 -218, describes the issues and current•conditions in the watersheds and sets a target for the production of a trails master plan for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. The Sustainable Communities Working Group initiated this project under their 2003 workplan and are continuing their efforts in 2004. WORK TO BE DONE The four project phases to produce a watersheds trails master plan objectives are summarized below. The 2004 workplan involves completion of phase 1 (Integrated Trails Map) through a partnership with the City of Mississauga, Community Services Department, under the leadership of Michael Gusche, Sustainable Communities & Outreach Working Group and Coalition member. Project Phases Phase I: Collect and electronically amalgamate trail master plans of Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon. Outline present status, proposed future scenarios, 10 -year capital forecast, and linkage opportunities across municipal boundaries. Identify environmentally sensitive and policy areas. Develop a relationship and protocol with municipalities to update the map periodically and to account for completed trail construction in the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Report Card. Phase II: Identify priority projects within Community Action Areas. Phase III: Phase IV: Review the municipal, TRCA Trail Planning and Design, Waterfront Regeneration Trust and Ministry of Transportation guidelines by 2006. Guidelines relevant to the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds should be extracted and regularly updated to ensure the specific watershed concerns are adequately reflected. Advocate for trail completion, restoration of disturbed areas, and associated interpretive signs as a means of expressing the human heritage and ecology of Community Action Areas. The City of Mississauga Community Services Department will lead the development of the first phase (described above) in partnership with the TRCA and other watershed municipalities. The workplan to complete phase one in 2004 includes the following steps: Summer 2003 - initiate contact with municipal staff to enlist their help in completing the project. Decide on an appropriate electronic format for the GIS product (final product should be in an electronic format that can be manipulated by GIS departments in any of the municipalities and the TRCA. January 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 H19 • Fall 2003 - hire a student to be supervised by the City of Mississauga to complete the GIS work on the plan. January 2004 - May 2004: assemble electronic and paper versions of municipal trails master plans assemble four GIS layers focusing upon the trails within the watersheds boundaries: - current trail system - b%ild -out trail system (choose a year close to 2025 for standardizing different municipal trail build -out schedules and Greening Our Watersheds mandate - ten year forecasted trail construction - linkage opportunities a focused smaller scale examination of the above within current Community Action Areas boundaries: Heart Lake, South Mimico, Malton, Snelgrove, Central Mississauga, Central Toronto, South Mississauga. • Liaise with TRCA / Mississauga staff to write accompanying explanatory text for GIS layers developed by the student. • Present a draft to municipalities and TRCA for review and comment in May 2004. • Present a draft to the June 2004 Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group for review and comment. • J Make revisions and produce final report and presentation for September 2004 Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group. • November / December 2004 - Send electronic and paper copies to municipalities. • Post on the Etobicoke - Mimico section of TRCA's website with links to partner municipalities. The Sustainable and Outreach Working Group will provide guidance to the project and will bring a progress report to the Etobicoke Mimico Watersheds Coalition in the future. H2O ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 January 22, 2004 RES. #H9/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION: 2003 A summary of key indicators and 2003 accomplishments in the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds during the first year of implementation of Greening Our Watersheds. Chris Nelson Cleve Battick THAT the staff report on 2003 accomplishments of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, be received; AND FURTHER THAT members of the Coalition be congratulated for establishing new partnerships, participation in restoration projects, and on 2003 accomplishmentCARRIED BACKGROUND The following report summarizes the actions, events, and partnerships that were established in the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks in 2003. The summary was derived from the list of events held throughout the year with a particular focus on partners, the number of participants, and the measurable result of the activity (that apply to report card indicators). Public events were held throughout the year, from February 25 to December 13, and were sponsored by a variety of partners and community organizations. • total events in the watersheds = 36 • total partner organizations = 38 (many new relationships established in 2003) • total participants in events and activities = 10,755 • hundreds of Yellow Fish Road plates affixed to storm sewers • over 100 bags of garbage removed during cleanups • 1,710 square metres (271 linear metres) of riparian zone restored • 1 hectare upland, wet meadow, and other habitat patches planted • 3,497 trees and shrubs planted • 2,000 emergent aquatic plants planted (9 species, some rare and uncommon in Ontario) • 300 sand dune species (300 square metres of sand dune habitat enhanced) • 500 rainbow trout released • 300 xeriscape plants distributed in a water conservation campaign pilot project • over 50 different native species of trees, shrubs, herbaceous and aquatics planted contributing significantly to biodiversity within the watersheds • an archeological site found and registered - public excavation planned for 2004 • original song about environmental issues composed and performed by a watershed school • nationally rare wildflower re- discovered not far from its original 20 -year old Environmentally Significant Area designation • 15 interpretive walks / watch events held January 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 H21 Four Community Action Areas and associated Stewardship Groups officially launched with several developing based on local interest and participation (Heart Lake, South Mimico, Malton, Snelgrove, Central Mississauga, Renforth Creek) RES. #H10/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the meetings for the following working groups are provided for information. David Switzer Sean Stuart THAT the following minutes be received: • Meeting #2/03 of the Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group; • Meeting #3/03 of the Nature and Water Working Group; Meeting #2/03 of the South Mimico Stewardship Group CARRIED NEW BUSINESS There was no New Business DOOR PRIZE As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition, a door prize is given out at the end of each Coalition meeting. The door prize for this meeting was a gift certificate to be used at the Authority's nursery. The winning ticket belonged to Marjut Dunker. H22 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/04 January 22, 2004 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 8:50 p.m., January 22, 2004. Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Acting Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer /L. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ETOBICOKE MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION MINUTES OF MEETING #2/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #7/04 JULY 23, 2004 t‘. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 April 22, 2004 Page H23 The Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition met at the Kortright Centre for Conservation, on Thursday, April 22, 2004. Co -Chair Irene Jones called the meeting to order at 7:55 p.m. PRESENT Chris Barnett Member Suzanne Barrett Co -Chair Cleve Battick Member Marjut Dunker Member Janice Etter Member Bette -Ann Goldstein Member Gerry Gorman Member Irene Jones Co -Chair Alina Korniluk Alternate David Lyons Member Randy McGiII Member Chris McGlynn Member John McMahon Alternate Doug McRonney Member Glenn Miller Member Chris Nelson Member Steve Rutherford Member Sean Stuart Member Tanya Trivedi Member Robert Volpe Member GUESTS Mr. & Mrs. Gordon Stuart STAFF Colleen Cirillo Community Stewardship Technician Jon Clayton Supervisor, Aquatic Ecosystem Management Cathy Crinnion Assistant Archaeologist Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer Kristin Geater Watershed Project Manager Rosemary Hasner Photographer /Creative Services H24 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 April 22, 2004 Lia Lappano Administrative Assistant David Lawrie Aquatic Management Technician Chandra Sharma Specialist, Etobicoke - Mimico Paul Willms Watershed Resource Planner INTRODUCTIONS C. Sharma introduced Mr. Robert Volpe, a City of Brampton resident, who has been recently appointed to the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition. RES. #H11/04 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Etter Doug McRonney THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/04, held on January 22, 2004, be received CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) TRCA Report re: Provincial Policy for Secondary Uses in Hydro Corridors RES. #H12/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Etter Marjut Dunker WHEREAS the Authority will be considering a report on hydro corridor uses at their meeting on April 30, 2004; THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition send a letter to the Chair of the Authority requesting an amendment to one of the recommendations to provide for the inclusion of urban agriculture to the list of secondary uses CARRIED April 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 H25 (b) Letter from Steve Rutherford, Co -Chair of the Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group, to the City of Mississauga, dated February 11, 2004, re: Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek Crossing Signs (c) Letter from Steve Rutherford, Co -Chair of the Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group, to the City of Toronto, dated February 11, 2004, re: Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek Crossing Signs (d) Letter from Irene Jones, Co -Chair of the Coalition, to the Town of Caledon, dated March 8, 2004, re: Etobicoke Creek Crossing Signs (e) Letter from Irene Jones, Co -Chair of the Coalition, to the City of Brampton, dated March 8, 2004, re: Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Crossing Signs RES. #H13/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: Steve Rutherford Marjut Dunker THAT the appropriate modifications be made to signs being installed which would include the identification of either the Etobicoke Creek or the Mimico Creek .. CARRIED (f) Letter from the City of Mississauga, dated January 28, 2004, re: Etobicoke Creek Trail (g) Letter from Irene Jones, Co -Chair of the Coalition, to the City of Toronto, dated March 11, 2004, re: Etobicoke Creek Trail (h) Letter from Janice Etter, Co -Chair of the South Mimico Environmental Stewardship Group, to the City of Toronto, dated March 9, 2004, re: Tom Riley Park (1) (i) Letter from Irene Jones, Co -Chair of the Coalition, to MNR, dated March 30, 2004 re: buying and selling of invasive species TRCA Volunteer Policy approved by the Authority on January 30, 2004 RES. #H14/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Etter Chris McGlynn THAT the above -noted correspondence be received CARRIED H26 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 April 22, 2004 PRESENTATIONS (a) Oil Painting by Gordon Stuart Mr. Gordon Stuart generously donated an oil painting of the Heart Lake Conservation Area to the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition. Dick O'Brien, Chair of the Authority, will bring the painting to the attention of Authority members. Special thanks were extended to Mr. Stuart. (b) Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek Watersheds Fisheries Management Plans TRCA's Jon Clayton updated the members on the Watersheds Fisheries Management Plans and highlighted the following: • biophysical characteristics; • habitat potential; • target species; • management direction; • current state; • future direction; • implementation; • management recommendations for subwatersheds; • monitoring. (c) The Canron Barn: The Last Barn in the Mimico Watershed Janice Etter gave a presentation on the status of the Canron Barn. RES. #H15/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Etter Doug McRonney WHEREAS the barn located at 100 Disco Road is significant for its place in both the agricultural and industrial history of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds; WHEREAS its multi - layered story encapsulates the history of the development of the watershed; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition communicate to the Toronto West Community Preservation Panel, the Toronto Preservation Board and the City of Toronto's Heritage Preservation Services its support for investigating the addition of the Avery /Canron barn to the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties; THAT the relevant TRCA staff continue to assist the TWCPP efforts to secure the preservation of the barn; THAT the Heritage Working Group of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition consider the possibility of independently nominating the barn for inclusion on the Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties and make a recommendation to the Coalition at its meeting in July, 2004; . April 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 H27 AND FURTHER THAT the Co- Chairs be authorized to act on behalf of the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition, if necessary. CARRIED The Co -Chair thanked the presenters for their informative presentations. RES. #H16/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS To seek input and comments, and update the Coalition on the status of the Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek Fisheries Management Plans. Sean Stuart Bette -Ann Goldstein THAT the staff report on the Fisheries Management Plans be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT interested members of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition provide comments to staff CARRIED BACKGROUND Fisheries Management Plans are resource documents to help guide regeneration projects and act as tools to guide and influence development. They contain an overview of the baseline biological, physical, and chemical data for the watersheds. These data are then used as a basis for determining the aquatic 'potential' of the watershed, and are compared to more recent sampling data to determine if this 'potential' is being met and /or what measures are necessary to achieve it. Recent sampling for both fisheries and invertebrate data was completed under TRCA's Regional Watershed Monitoring Program. The Program is focussed primarily on tracking change at a watershed and subwatershed scale through the collection and monitoring of data on five major components: aquatic habitat and species; fluvial geomorphology; terrestrial natural heritage; surface water quality; and flow and precipitation. Under the monitoring program, 150 sites are sampled annually across TRCA's jurisdiction for invertebrate species, and 50 sites are sampled annually for fisheries species, following the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource's Stream Habitat Assessment Protocol for Southern Ontario. In the Mimico and Etobicoke Creek watersheds, sampling for benthic invertebrates was carried out in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Fisheries sampling was completed for Etobicoke Creek in 2001, and for Mimico Creek in 2002. Fourteen stations were sampled in Etobicoke Creek and five stations in Mimico Creek. Based on the biological information and through consideration of existing physical and chemical conditions, individual reaches are categorized into one of seven aquatic habitat categories. These categories are a way of describing the "potential" of a stream reach to support a type of aquatic community. Once the types of aquatic habitats are defined within the entire watershed, an analysis is undertaken to identify the most sensitive species that currently H28 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 April 22, 2004 or historically existed within the habitat. Once the 'target' species has been identified, consideration is given to what measures are necessary to either protect and /or restore the conditions necessary to support the 'target' species. Recommended rehabilitation activities include: planting riparian vegetation; improving water quality; stabilizing flows; mitigating instream barriers; in -water rehabilitation works; natural channel design; and, stocking. PROGRESS TO -DATE AND NEXT STEPS Prior to the formation of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Task Force, assessments of the aquatic habitat and species within both watersheds were developed. These two draft reports entitled Evaluating the Condition of the Fish Communities in the Etobicoke Creek Watershed and Evaluating the Condition of the Fish Communities in the Mimico Creek Watershed (TRCA, 1998) helped guide the Task Force as the watershed strategy was developed and formed the basis for the development of the Fisheries Management Plans. The Task Force was also given the opportunity to comment on the two reports. These two reports did not have any management recommendations and as such, were not complete Fisheries Management Plans. At the beginning of 2002, the process to take the biological, and physical assessments of the earlier reports, synthesize that information and add the management recommendations began. A public meeting was held on October 3rd, 2002 at Professor's Lake Recreation Centre to provide an overview of the intent of the FMPs and to gain input from the public on their concerns, issues, and desires. Information gathered from this meeting was incorporated into the management strategies and a second public meeting was held in December 2002. WORK TO BE DONE The final draft document is currently being circulated to TRCA staff, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and the Regional Municipality of Peel for review. Members of the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition are also encouraged to submit comments to TRCA staff on the draft plans. These comments will be incorporated prior to their being posted on the Provincial Environmental Bill of Rights Registry. Comments received from this posting will be reviewed and incorporated into the final plan, which will then be sent to TRCA's Water Management Advisory Board and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources for approval. It is anticipated that the Fisheries Management Plans will be ready for distribution in late summer 2004. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding support for the Etobicoke Creek Fisheries Management Plan has been provided by the GTAA, Region of Peel and TRCA. The Mimico Creek Fisheries Management Plan is supported by funding from the Region of Peel and TRCA. April 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 H29 RES. #H17/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: WHITE PAPER ON WATERSHED -BASED SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING - Review and Comments The Coalition comments on the White Paper on Watershed -Based Source Protection Planning. Suzanne Barrett Janice Etter THAT the staff report on comments received from members of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition on the White Paper on Watershed -based Source Protection Planning, be received; AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition participate on the SPPC and /or watershed sub - committee, as required, to assist TRCA and its partner Conservation Authorities in the proposed source protection planning region to develop and implement a source protection plan for the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek watersheds. AMENDMENT RES. #18/04 Moved by: Seconded by: David Lyons Janice Etter THAT land owners, and in particular the agricultural sector, be compensated in some way for their contributions to environmental services when the needs of source protection are met; AND FURTHER THAT this point be made the next time TRCA and the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, in particular, have the opportunity to comment on source protection. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND The provincial government released the "White Paper on Watershed -Based Source Protection Planning" for public comments on February 12, 2004. The Paper builds on the report of the Provincial Advisory Committee on Watershed -Based Source Protection, issued in May 2003. The White Paper proposes a framework for the proposed source water protection legislation and outlines ways to enhance Ontario's management of water takings and the concept of water taking charges. The Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition was invited to comment on the White Paper. Irene Jones, Suzanne Barrett, Sean Stuart, and Randy McGill reviewed the document. Irene Jones and Suzanne Barrett were also invited to attend the Regional Stakeholder Consultation meeting hosted by MOE. The comments were incorporated into the Don Regeneration H30 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 April 22, 2004 Council's comments for formal submission to the Province. RES. #H19/04 Moved by: Seconded by: HEALTHY YARDS PROGRAM Update on the Healthy Yards Program being developed by the TRCA Stewardship Department in partnership with the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition. Suzanne Barrett Chris McGlynn THAT the staff report on the Healthy Yards Program be received; THAT the Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group work with staff to achieve 2004 project deliverables; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the progress of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Coalition's Heathy Yards Program CARRIED BACKGROUND The Etobicoke - Mimico Task Force in Greening Our Watersheds identified that in order to be successful in returning the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks watersheds to a healthier state, it would be necessary for people who live and work in the watersheds to take an active role in environmental initiatives not only on public lands (the traditional approach through watershed events) but in their own yards. In 2003, TRCA stewardship staff initiated the Healthy Yards Program in partnership with the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition. This program provides an opportunity to improve existing TRCA stewardship programs and projects focussed on private land initiatives, such as those currently delivered in Frenchman's Bay and Markham, while developing additional and complementary components that would serve the entire TRCA jurisdiction. The development of the Healthy Yards Program works toward achieving the Backyard Practices goal within Greening Our Watersheds to "Educate and work with watershed stakeholders to change and improve backyard practices at home, school and the workplace ". The demand for new healthy yards products and services is demonstrated by increased requests for information from the TRCA, the growing interest in related topics among the general public and through discussions with groups and municipal departments working in this field. PROGRESS TO DATE In fall 2003, research was conducted on healthy yards programs and related restrictions and by -laws in place throughout the TRCA's jurisdiction. The purpose of this research was to identify the services and products available to GTA residents as well as any gaps that may exist, and to determine the challenges faced by organizations and municipalities offering these services and products. April 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 H31 H32 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 April 22, 2004 About 30 programs were summarized. Copies of program literature and other items as well as related restrictions and by -laws were compiled into a reference binder. In mid - November, thirty letters were sent to contacts made while conducting research as well as pre- existing healthy yards contacts. This letter was accompanied by three items: a summary of the TRCA's involvement in healthy yards issues to date, a list of options for review and a list of organizations included in the research. An internal Healthy Yards committee, consisting of Stewardship staff and Etobicoke - Mimico watershed staff, worked together to determine the initial list of options for review, which included the following items: Web site map, resource guide, healthy yards awards program, summary of by -laws and restrictions, clearing house, and network- building. The letter explained that the TRCA was exploring options for increasing its involvement in the healthy yards movement and requested feedback on those options. Nine out of 30 recipients responded with feedback, either by phone or E -mail. This feedback, along with the initial research, will direct TRCA's future work in the healthy yards field. Those that replied responded favourably to the research and exploration of options to promote and complement existing programs. Of all the options for review presented in the correspondence, the Web site map option received the most support. People saw this as a useful tool for groups to promote their work and attract new clients. The importance of social marketing and the need to carefully choose the tools to promote behaviour change was also mentioned by respondents. This research demonstrates that there are many excellent healthy yards programs in place throughout the GTA, and that the initiation of a Healthy Yards Alliance would benefit these existing programs. This alliance could be a formal grouping of municipal governments, organizations and individuals working together to advance the common goal of promoting the healthy yards movement in the GTA. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE . Organize a workshop for groups and individuals working on healthy yards issues in the GTA (held on Wednesday, March 3, 2004). The workshop outcome identified that there was merit in collaborating with other "Healthy Yards" focused groups across the greater Toronto region in order to avoid duplication of efforts and competition for scarce funding resources; to work together to share information and resources; and promote each other's programs and products, as appropriate. The Healthy Yards Alliance was thus formed. Participate in the Healthy Yards Alliance (see above). Develop five new stewardship fact sheets focusing on Healthy Yards: Naturescapes; Water and Waste in the Yard; Landscaping for Energy Conservation; Backyard Insects; Organic Lawn Care. Develop and launch new web pages that provide information on Healthy Yards resources available across the greater Toronto region, including "how -to" fact sheets and external programs available to the public that TRCA staff can promote rather than developing new programs with limited resources; this will provide a centralized source April 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 H33 of information. This web tool is currently being developed, and will be launched in May 2004. • Develop five new Conservation Seminars focusing on Healthy Yards, to be delivered five times in 2004 across the TRCA region. • Support Healthy Yards staff who will be available to attend watershed events to promote Healthy Yards information, programs and products. • Incorporate Healthy Yards topics into the 2004 Stewardship Forum. • Package the above products together into a legitimate TRCA Healthy Yards Program that can be funded for continuation and expansion. • Develop a communications strategy to assist with the promotion of the Healthy Yards Program to foster more partnerships and secure more funding for program continuation and expansion. • Investigate possible sources of additional funding. RES. #H20/04- Moved by: Seconded by: TEAPOT LAKE SEDIMENT SAMPLING - Natural and Human Heritage Investigation at Heart Lake Conservation Area The analysis of sediments at the bottom of Teapot Lake to obtain information regarding the natural and human heritage of the northeast portion of the Heart Lake Conservation Area. Bette -Ann Goldstein Chris Barnett THAT the staff report on the investigation at Teapot Lake be received; THAT the protection and promotion of Teapot Lake as a significant natural heritage feature, within the Etobicoke Creek watershed, be ensured through a detailed heritage conservation plan as a component of the Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan; THAT information regarding the investigations at Teapot Lake be forwarded to the Heart Lake Master Plan Advisory Committee; AND FURTHER THAT the Human Heritage Working Group of the Coalition assist the Heart Lake Advisory Committee in developing the heritage conservation plan . CARRIED BACKGROUND Teapot Lake, located on TRCA's property in the northeast corner of the Heart Lake Conservation Area, is one of only two meromictic lakes in Southern Ontario; the other being Crawford Lake. In September of 2001, members of the Human Heritage Working Group of the Etobicoke - Mimico Task Forces, Janice Etter (Chair) and Rhona Swarbrick (member) visited a meromictic lake at the Crawford Lake Conservation Area (Halton Region) with TRCA Etobicoke - Mimico and Archaeological Resource Management Unit staff. H34 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 April 22, 2004 Crawford Lake was initially studied during the 1970s due to its classification as a meromictic lake. These types of lakes are very deep in relation to their surface area and only contain circulating water and oxygen in the upper portion of the lake. The lower portion is devoid of light and oxygen and, as a result, no burrowing organisms live in the lake bottom sediments. Therefore, debris and sediments that accumulate at the bottom of the lake are preserved in undisturbed stratigraphic layers that can be dated; the top layer would form with the passing of each new season. The scientists who examined the Crawford Lake sediments discovered pollen grains from maize (North American corn) as well as other domesticated plant pollen in layers dating to the Pre - Contact period (prior to A.D. 1650), indicating that an Aboriginal village was situated near the lake. Archaeologists then conducted field work in the area and discovered an archaeological site within 400 metres of the lake that dated to circa A.D. 1400. Research has continued on this lake and the Crawford Lake Conservation Area has established one of the few tourist/education facilities in the Province with a reconstructed Aboriginal village and a museum /education centre that showcases the natural and human heritage of this extraordinary location. Teapot Lake is smaller than Crawford, and is approximately 100 metres in diameter and 12 metres in depth. Due to its rarity, Teapot was studied by University of Toronto (U of T) professor Dr. Rigler and his students from the mid -1950s to the mid- 1970s. Results of their studies are now being sought after by U of T student, Michelle King, who is conducting a project on Teapot with assistance from TRCA staff. Dr. John (Jock) McAndrews, U of T Emeritus, led the research at Crawford Lake and is involved with research at Teapot. Teapot Lake occupies a kettle feature on the Brampton Esker. Investigations at Teapot will serve to update TRCA records regarding this rare resource and will better inform the Heart Lake Master Planning process. Indicators of the natural heritage of the lake and its environs are being uncovered as may evidence about past human occupations in the area. These activities work towards Watershed Strategy goals, including: Indicator: Community Action Action(s): • Complete development of community action area plans for the watersheds (Greening Our Watersheds, page 276). Indicator: Human Heritage Features and Resources Action(s): • Assess heritage features and resources in conjunction with Action Areas, accounting for public benefit, value, integrity, understanding and respect for the watershed as a whole (Greening Our Watersheds, page 230). Evidence of Pre - Contact Aboriginal activity (if found) and Post - Contact Euro- Canadian activity will serve to: • Raise awareness of the importance of human heritage resources and their relationship to the natural environment through community events, newsletters, plaques, heritage trails and other opportunities as they arise (i.e., through the education programme at HLCA) (Greening Our Watersheds, page 230). April 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 H35 PROGRESS TO DATE On Friday, February 6, 2004, a team of researchers visited Teapot Lake in order to obtain a sample of lake bottom sediments. The team included: Dr. Jock McAndrews (U of T Professor Emeritus, developer of remote sampling techniques for meromictic lakes), Dr. Charlie Turton (U of T, examines sediment samples for microscopic pollen and other debris), Dermot Antoniades (U of T PhD candidate in limnology, studies water temperature and electromagnetic conductivity), Michelle King (U of T undergraduate student), Janice Etter and Rhona Swarbrick (Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition and Task Force members, Human Heritage Working Group), Don Ford (TRCA Hydrogeologist), Tamara Kondrachova (TRCA, Assistant in Hydrogeological Services), and Cathy Crinniori and Alistair Jolly (TRCA Archaeological Resource Management Unit). Two holes were drilled through the ice, which was approximately 45 cm (18 inches) thick. Readings were taken for water temperature and electromagnetic conductivity, since these can be indicators of meromictic conditions. Temperature and conductivity should be relatively stable within the upper, circulating zone, and very different in the lower zone that does not experience circulation. This was found to be the case at Teapot, and it was thus confirmed to be classed correctly as meromictic. The remote sediment sampling equipment involved a piston sampler which was designed by Dr. McAndrews and previously tested in other lake situations. The piston is locked onto a metal rod, and lowered into the water along with a clear plastic tube. Once the piston is activated, a 1.5 metre sample of lake bottom sediment is collected in the plastic tube. In the field, the sample is deemed successful by visual inspection through the clear plastic once the tube is raised back to the surface. In the case of the Teapot sample, it was clear that the top (most recent) layers of sediment were black in colour from large amounts of charcoal, a result of vegetation burning to clear fields during the Post - Contact period (A.D. 1830 and on), and the bottom (older) layers were brown in colour, indicating the previous Pre - Contact periods. Analysis of the sediment sample has identified various pollen species indicating a mixed forest of evergreen and deciduous trees. The boundary between the Pre - Contact Aboriginal and the Post - Contact Euro- Canadian periods is signalled by the rise of ragweed and grass pollen grains at about A.D. 1850 due to large -scale farming disturbances. Alder invaded the lake margins perhaps due to erosion and deposition of upland soil during the Post - Contact period. Rotifers, planktonic grazers that indicate human - generated disturbances in the local environment, were found to be confined to the Post - Contact period. Thus, no evidence of the Pre - Contact agricultural period (for instance, maize, sunflower, perslain and corn smut pollens, or rotifers) was found in this sample, unlike at Crawford Lake. WORK TO BE DONE • Additional results from the February 6' investigation at Teapot Lake as well as a recent geophysical analysis will be provided as they become available. • TRCA staff intend to collaborate further with the University of Toronto to conduct a frigid fingernail test of the lake bottom sediments, radiocarbon dating of the materials and additional pollen analyses. H36 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 April 22, 2004 RES. #H21/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: PEEL CHILDREN'S WATER FESTIVAL AT HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA To provide an overview of the festival's educational activities, ecological restoration project, and the Coalition's water conservation gardening campaign. Gerry Gorman Steve Rutherford THAT the staff report on the festival, restoration project, and the Coalition's water conservation gardening campaign be received; THAT four -six members of the Coalition volunteer to help facilitate the planting and water conservation gardening activities on Public Day, Saturday, May 29th (10 a.m. - 3 p.m.); THAT members of the Coalition attend the festival on Public Day, Saturday, May 29, 2004; THAT the Co- chairs of the Etobicoke & Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition attend the VIP presentations on Saturday, May 29, 2004; THAT the Region of Peel be congratulated for being recognized with an Ovation communications award and ACE award from the Canadian Public Relations Society for the 2003 Peel Children's Water Festival; AND FURTHER THAT staff and Coalition volunteers report back on the festival activities CARRIED BACKGROUND The Peel Children's Water Festival has been held at Heart Lake Conservation Area for the last two years, and will return this year from Thursday, May 27, 2004 to Wednesday June 2, 2004 with Public Day once again being held on Saturday, May 29, 2004. The 2003 Peel Children's Water Festival hosted 5,000 grades two -five students from Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon, 1,000 adult chaperones and 500 high school volunteers. There was also a waiting list of close to 1,000 students. Public Day drew approximately 4,000 members of the general public (three times the number of people compared to 2002) despite the threat of rain. Over 10,000 people in total passed through Heart Lake Conservation Area in the six days of the Festival. The students participated in over 50 water - related interactive and educational activities, including seven developed and coordinated by the TRCA and the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition. The VIP day was well attended by municipal politicians, staff and the Honourable Tony Clement. Local politicians took part in one of the restoration projects by planting white water lilies. Three of the activities were restoration projects, ranging from the driest of vegetation communities to regionally rare aquatic plants. The three restoration projects injected biodiversity into the Heart Lake area by establishing 47 different species and a total of 5000 trees, shrubs, herbaceous sand dune and aquatic plants, accelerating the restoration work at Heart Lake Conservation Area by years. In addition, the April 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE -M IMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 H37 TRCA asked a Brampton school to develop a theme song that incorporated all of the themes of the Strategy document and Festival. The song, "Save the Rain ", was performed by 130 grades one - four students from Robert J. Lee P.S. with rain sticks during the VIP opening ceremonies. The song has been recorded and its lyrics featured in CreekTime. The six -day Festival represents an opportunity to educate over 5000 grades two -six children, 1000 adult chaperones, 500 highschool volunteers, and several thousand members of the general public on water issues. In addition, the Festival accelerates ecological restoration projects within Heart Lake Conservation Area and provides a focus for environmental issues. Finally, the Festival highlights the Coalition's objectives of protecting, restoring, and celebrating the Living City Region. The Festival's activities are grouped into five themes: Water Conservation, Water Attitudes, Water Technology, Water Protection, and Water Science. This year, over 65 activity centres will interactively teach children and adults about water issues, and the theme areas incorporate curriculum requirements. The TRCA and Coalition's contributions to the 2004 Festival include ten activities with the primary focus being the "Healthy Watershed Circuit" and the "systems" message. Students will not only learn through an integrated set of activities, but will directly contribute to water quality, biodiversity, and habitat improvement over the course of the week by building something permanent - a meadow ecosystem. OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES Healthy Watersheds Circuit The Healthy Watersheds Circuit involves five integrated activities: • A Fine Kettle of Fish • Match the Track • Just Passing Through • Three Strikes You're Out • Butterflies, Birds and Biodiversity The activities are connected in theme, correlated to the Ontario curriculum, and were developed by the TRCA Education Department. The activities, and their educational messages, will be delivered by volunteers trained through TRCA's Environmental Volunteer Network program. A Fine Kettle of Fish A Fine Kettle of Fish uses a 3D model of Heart Lake to describe the conditions of a kettle lake, impacts of the ice age, and cold and warm water fish currently inhabiting the water body. Students view a 3D model of the Heart Lake Conservation Area and discover how Heart Lake was formed at the end of the last ice age. Fish community mobiles are used to describe cold water and warm water fish communities and students discuss what effects urban environment might have on the environmental health of Heart Lake and its fish community. H38 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 April 22, 2004 Match the Track Match the Track has students investigate the connections between terrestrial and aquatic habitats through an interactive activity on riparian habitat involving animal tracks. The animals are found in riparian areas (where land meets water) and biodiversity is explored. Human influences, threats, and the animals themselves are explored. Just Passing Through Just Passing Through has students investigate how vegetation affects the movement of water over land surfaces. Specifically, the students will mimic a river flowing downstream and the impacts that vegetation, rocks, sediment, erosion, and other issues have upon a stream. Three Strikes You're Out Three Strikes You're Out uses an interactive baseball simulation game where students investigate the life cycle of amphibians and the limiting factors imposed on them as they proceed from egg, to tadpole, to emergent subadult, to adult phases. Students will learn about limiting factors such as habitat loss and pollution, as well as frog calls and monitoring. effects of water on the environment Butterflies, Birds & Biodiversity Students have restored the Heart Lake shoreline, established a sand dune ecosystem, and completed the horseshoe wetland project by planting over 4000 emergent aquatic plants, 600 sand dune species, and 2500 trees and shrubs over the last two years of the Festival. The Butterflies, Birds, and Biodiversity project involves the upland restoration of a 3000 sq. metre sloped area by planting 4000 native wildflowers and grasses, 1250 native shrubs, and several large trees. In addition, brush piles and kestrel box habitat features will be installed. The habitat will provide food sources for migratory and resident birds, raptors, and small mammals. The project will increase the biodiversity of Heart Lake Conservation Area. Aquatic Plants Program TRCA's Aquatic Plants Program will feature a display to encourage more Region of Peel teachers and their classes to become involved by growing aquatics within the classroom and then planting them in restoration projects within the watersheds. PUBLIC DAY ACTIVITIES Public Day will feature four TRCA / Coalition activities: Trout Release, All's Well That Ends Well, Water Conservation Gardening, and Bat Night. Trout Release During the Trout Release the public will see the "trout truck ", hear about fisheries management, and will receive a trout to release into Heart Lake. Heart Lake is currently stocked each year with thousands of rainbow trout to enhance the put- and -take fishing experience. April 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 H39 All's Well That Ends Well All's Well that Ends Well will give the public a chance to "pump up" at Heart Lake's groundwater well to learn about the hydrologic cycle of the region and how Toronto Region Conservation monitors the health of our groundwater resources as part of the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network. Water Conservation Gardening - Etobicoke & Mimico Creek Coalition The Coalition will once again be giving away native, low -water plants in an attempt to encourage more sustainable practices within the watersheds. Why change gardening maintenance practices? 50 -60% of summer water use goes to lawn and garden and water shortages and lawn watering bans have become commonplace in suburban communities. By converting a portion of the front lawn to native species, home owners can still enjoy beautiful landscapes while cutting their water use by 30 %. The Coalition will be giving away native, low- water plants and encouraging gardeners to seek out other plants to complete their gardens. They will also be encouraging people to subscribe to CreekTime, the Coalition's watersheds newsletter in order to learn more about sustainable practices around the home and to encourage stewardship activities. The Region of Peel will be featuring their "Wise Water Gardening Book, rain barrels, and lawn watering gauges to help gardeners with water efficiency around the home. The campaign meets TRCA corporate objectives and the Etobicoke and Mimco Creeks Coalition's Strategy Document objectives for "education for sustainable living," "water conservation ", and "sustainable practices ". Bat Night! As the sun sets over Heart Lake, the Conservation Area's resident bat colony emerges from its day roost to forage for insects over the lake. TRCA staff will host an informative and entertaining evening to watch the evening bat exodus and discover the ecological connections between the bats and their Heart Lake habitat. The evening will include an outdoor slide presentation, bat house construction demonstration and nocturnal insect viewing station. The program concludes with viewing the bats and listening to them with special ultrasonic bat detectors. RES. #H22/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the meetings for the following working groups are provided for information. Cleve Battick Robert Volpe THAT the following minutes be received: H40 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/04 April 22, 2004 • Meeting #1/04 of the Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group; • Meeting #1/04 of the Nature and Water Working Group; • Meeting #1104 of the Report Card Working Group; • Meeting #1/04 and #2/04 of the South Mimico Stewardship Group CARRIED NEW BUSINESS EARTH DAY EVENT Members were invited to attend the Earth Day Event at Tom Riley Park on Saturday, April 24, 2004 from 10:00 a.m. to 12 noon. DOOR PRIZE As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition, door prizes are given out at the end of each Coalition meeting. Two door prizes were awarded at this meeting. The first was a certificate from Green Savers who will provide a sustainable household assessment and the second was a basket of sustainable cleaning products. The winning tickets belonged to Doug McRonney and Irene Jones, respectively. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m., April 22, 2004. Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Acting Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer /L. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ETOBICOKE MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION MINUTES OF MEETING #3/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #8/04 SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 PirTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3104 July 22, 2004 Page H40 The Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition met at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Thursday, July 22, 2004. Co -Chair Irene Jones called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. PRESENT Cleve Battick Member Marjut Dunker Member Janice Etter Member Gerry Gorman Member Marilyn Hagerman Member Irene Jones Co -Chair Alina Korniluk Alternate Chris McGlynn Member Doug McRonney Member Glenn Miller Member Bob Noble Member Mathew Rossi Member David Switzer Member Tanya Trivedi Member Robert Volpe Member Debbie Wagdin Member GUESTS Althea Ovid TRCA Volunteer STAFF Ron Dewell Manager, Property/Asset Management Nancy Gaffney Waterfront Specialist Kristin Geater Watershed Project Manager Lia Lappano Administrative Assistant Lionel Normand Regional Terrestrial Biologist Chandra Sharma Specialist, Etobicoke - Mimico Lisa Turnbull Community Liaison Officer for RAP Paul Willms Watershed Resource Planner H41 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3104 July 22, 2004 RES. #H23/04 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Etter Doug McRonney THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/04, held on April 22, 2004, be received CARRIED BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES (a) Canron Barn J. Etter advised that additional research is required and that a report will be available at the next Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting on October 28, 2004. CORRESPONDENCE (a) TRCA Report to its Executive Committee Meeting #5/04, held on June 4, 2004, re: Toronto Golf Club RES. #H24/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Etter Marilyn Hagerman THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition send a letter to the City of Toronto requesting clarification of the changes to Enfield Park, north of the CNR, and impact of the pipe on the future implementation of the Wet Weather Flow Management Matte/RNtED (b) TRCA Report to its Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/04, held on June 11, 2004, re: Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan Beaches Protection Pier RES. #H25/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: David Switzer Debbie Wagdin THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition send a letter to the City of Toronto asking that staff consider, during the Environmental Assessment process for the Etobicoke Creek Protection Pier, construction of two stormwater ponds along Etobicoke Creek - one.in Marie Curtis Park and the other north of the QEW along Sherway Drive (identified in the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan) - natural channel design and associated riparian restoration CARRIED July 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 H42 (c) Letter from the City of Toronto dated June 28, 2004 re: Legion Road Extension, Park Lawn Road Off-Ramp Modifications Class Environmental Assessment Study Addendum RES. #H26/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Etter Debbie Wagdin THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition send a letter to the City of Toronto supporting the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian path as part of the Parklawn Road off-ramp modifications; AND FURTHER THAT Segments 1, 2 and 3 of the Legion Road extension Environmental Assessment be subject to a new municipal class environmental assessment in conjunction with the proposed Bonar stormwater management facility addressing issues of the road, stormwater pond and changes in adjacent land use CARRIED (d) TRCA Report to its Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/04, held on July 16, 2004, re: City of Toronto Harmonized Private Tree By -Law RES. #H27/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Etter Doug McRonney THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition support the Harmonized City-wide Private Tree By -Law proposed by the City of Toronto; AND FURTHER THAT Irene Jones and Janice Etter make a presentation to the Planning and Transportation Committee on September 7, 2004 on the importance of the Harmonized City-wide Private Tree By -Law in providing support to the terrestrial natural heritage system of our urban watersheds CARRIED (e) Letter from City of Toronto, dated March 16, 2004, re: Etobicoke Creek Trail (f) (g) Letter from Councillor Doug Holyday, dated April 8, 2004, re: Pedestrian Bridge Funding Letter from Irene Jones, Co -Chair of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, to Mayor David Miller, dated May 12, 2004, re: City of Toronto Pesticide By -Law (h) Letter from Mayor David Miller, dated June 2, 2004, re: City of Toronto Pesticide By -Law (i) News Release from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, dated May 12, 2004, re: H43 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 July 22, 2004 Compensation Regulations to Aid in Tree Replanting Efforts TRCA Report to its Executive Committee Meeting #6/04, held on July 9, 2004, re: Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper G) (k) (1) (m) Letter from the Don Regeneration Council to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, dated July 13, 2004, re: Don Council Review of the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper Excerpt from Executive Committee Meeting #4/04, held on May 7, 2004 re: permit to Menkes Industrial Holdings to construct an industrial building and associated stormwater management pond adjacent to Mimico Creek Excerpt from Executive Committee Meeting #4/04, held on May 7, 2004 re: permit to Mantella & Sons to construct an industrial building and undertake a sanitary sewer connection in Mimico Creek RES. #H28/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: THAT the above Chris McGlynn Marjut Dunker correspondence be received CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy TRCA's Lionel Normand gave a presentation on the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy highlighting the following: • The Challenge and Vision • Philosophy, Analysis and Methods, Policies and Procedures • Tools and Methods • System Design Principles • Criteria Employed in the Model • Implementation (b) Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Project TRCA's Nancy Gaffney updated the members on the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Project highlighting the following: • preferred concept design • Amos Waites Park • Cobble Beaches • Next Steps The Chair thanked both presenters for their very informative presentations. July 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 H44 H45 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 July 22, 2004 RES. #H29/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM STRATEGY An update on the draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. Cleve Battick Gerry Gorman THAT the comments submitted to The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on behalf of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition regarding the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy dated July 6, 2004, be endorsed; AND FURTHER THAT members of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition strive to achieve the targets outlined in the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds through their work in the two watersheds CARRIED BACKGROUND As part of the public consultation process for TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy, the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition was invited to provide input to this document. On June 15, 2004, Irene Jones and Suzanne Barrett, Co- Chairs of the Coalition attended a stakeholders meeting. In addition, input was obtained from other Coalition members. As a result, written comments were submitted to the Authority on behalf of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition. The Authority, at its meeting #4/04, held on April 30, 2004, adopted resolution #A123/04 as follows: THAT the draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (April 2004) be circulated to its member and local municipalities, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Conservation Ontario, South - central Ontario Conservation Authorities Natural Heritage Discussion Group (SCOCA NHDG), non - government organizations, the Urban Development Institute, the Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario, watershed councils and task forces, and interested professionals for comment; THAT the draft strategy be provided to the Greenbelt Advisory Panel and the Smart Growth Secretariat for consideration; THAT staff be directed to implement a consultation process to facilitate the review of the draft strategy document; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the comments received regarding the proposed strategy to enable finalization and adoption. As part of The Living City Vision, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has established objectives for Healthy Rivers and Shorelines, Regional Biodiversity, Sustainable Communities and Business Excellence. The Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (herein "Strategy ") is the main vehicle for achieving the objective for Regional Biodiversity. The July 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 H46 Living City objective for regional biodiversity is to protect and restore a regional system of natural areas that provide habitat for plants and animal species, improve air quality and provide opportunities for the enjoyment of nature. The Strategy is designed to enhance biodiversity and the quality of life for the residents of the TRCA watersheds by seeking to increase the amount and quality of forest and wetland habitats. It uses a science -based analytical tool, based on ecological criteria, to identify an expanded and targeted land base for inclusion in the terrestrial natural heritage system. It incorporates the current thinking on terrestrial natural heritage protection and restoration principles to identify quantity, quality and distribution targets for a terrestrial natural heritage system. In addition, comprehensive data on the terrestrial natural heritage assets of TRCA's jurisdiction were used to develop the Strategy. At Authority Meeting #5/01, held on June 22, 2001, Resolution #A105/01 in regards to the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy was approved as follows: THAT the development of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy for the TRCA jurisdiction be endorsed; THAT staff from the Authority proceed with the workplan and continue to work on this program in partnership with the Regions of York, Peel and Durham, and the City of Toronto, and in consultation with stakeholders; THAT staff use the tools and methodologies in Authority activities and comments in its plan input and review, and permitting roles; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority with a status update on Strategy development and stakeholder consultation (late fall 2001 or early winter 2002). The Authority Meeting #4/02, held on April 26, 2002, amended Resolution #A91/02 in regards to the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy was approved as follows: THAT the State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem draft report be endorsed, and the final plan be brought to the Authority in the fall of 2002; THAT staff use the report findings to assist in the development of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy; AND FURTHER THAT the report be provided to various provincial, municipal, and public stakeholders. Staff has continued to move forward in the development of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy as outlined below: The State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Report has been finalized to be used as the basis for the strategy document. Geographic Information System (GIS) based models and analytical tools have been developed, tested and peer reviewed. The GIS tools were used to develop the recommended target Terrestrial Natural Heritage H47 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 July 22, 2004 System for the TRCA jurisdiction described in the strategy document. The target setting methodology was peer reviewed. The first draft of the TNHS Strategy, in particular the development of the land use planning policies, was prepared with the assistance of a planning consultant. The first draft was revised in response to comments from internal circulation and external peer review by planning experts. RATIONALE Despite the increase in awareness of conservation issues and concerns for decreasing biodiversity, there continues to be incremental losses of habitat and the quality of remaining habitat continues to decline. These trends have been highlighted by the biological inventory work undertaken over the last decade by TRCA . For example, many species are no longer found in the urban portions of the watersheds even where there are suitable remnant habitat patches. More and more species are becoming of concern due to declining numbers or restricted (limited) distribution. As urbanization expands within the watersheds, these negative trends will continue unless a different approach is taken. Traditional approaches of protecting only the most unique, rare or best example habitats are not enough. This "islands of green" approach has the unintended effect of allowing species to become threatened or rare before they are considered significant, leading to perpetual crisis management. It is expensive, and the outcomes are uncertain and often disregard other more common habitats and species which contribute to the biodiversity and ecosystem functions of the region. Natural processes such as vegetation community succession, pollination and species dispersal can only be maintained if there is substantial natural cover, well distributed across the landscape. Without these processes, natural succession and native biodiversity will continue to decline. The terrestrial natural heritage system modelling shows that even if all the existing habitats were protected, they would continue to decline in quality and biodiversity if the existing approach to natural heritage protection and managing land use changes is used. The Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy addresses the past and continuing decline in biodiversity in two ways: by applying a systems approach that emphasizes the importance of the terrestrial natural heritage system as a single functional unit, rather than as separate natural areas; and by determining targets for the quality, distribution and quantity of terrestrial natural heritage needed in the landscape, in order to promote biodiversity and a sustainable city /region. To ensure that the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System continues to support native biodiversity there needs to be more land set aside for the system. A major benefit of an expanded natural land base is its contribution to maintaining and /or returning a more natural hydrologic regime. This has been dramatcially demonstrated through the recent completion of A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek (TRCA, . 2003). In this work it has been shown that increasing natural cover within the Duffins Creek watershed from 37% (existing) to 49% resulted in a number of the subcatchments having peak flow decreases.up to 25% over the existing flows for the 100 year event. July 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 H48 Vision TRCA's vision for the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System is a sustainable system that is accessible to and valued by the region's residents as the foundation for the health and ecological integrity of the Toronto region, making it "The Living City". Goal To work with all stakeholders to protect the land base shown as the Target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System and fully restore the system by 2100. Objectives TRCA's objectives for the Toronto region Terrestrial Natural Heritage System are to: Increase natural cover to target system levels, the quantity and quality of forests, wetlands and other terrestrial natural heritage communities across the region. Optimize the location and distribution of forests, wetlands and other terrestrial natural heritage communities across the region to ensure a sustainable and robust natural heritage system. Ensure that biodiversity of species, habitats and communities of conservation concern can recover, evolve and flourish throughout the region as development and intensification continues. Contribute to the Toronto region's sense of place by defining, differentiating and sustaining the landscape characteristics of the region's human communities. Provide opportunities throughout the Toronto region for natural heritage enjoyment through appropriate outdoor recreation that is sustainable for a growing population. For the purpose of better reflecting the diversity within TRCA's jurisdiction, the Strategy divides the region into four natural heritage planning zones. Each zone has its own combination of physical, land use and development characteristics. From north to south the four zones are: Oak Ridges Moraine /Niagara Escarpment zone; Rural zone; Urbanizing zone; Urban zone. STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES FOR A TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM Protecting terrestrial natural heritage requires a comprehensive approach that deals with ecosystem structure, form and function, and species populations across the whole landscape. Ecological systems and processes are complex and uncertain. It is usually easier to prevent environmental damage than to repair it later. A terrestrial natural heritage system can be designed for an area as small as a neighbourhood or as large as a continent. Compatibility between scales is important. SYSTEM DESIGN PRINCIPLES Seven design principles have guided the development of the target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System and the proposed programs and draft policies for implementation. H49 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 July 22, 2004 Quantity More natural cover is better. The higher the percentage of natural cover in any area, the more likely that the area will have a greater degree of ecological integrity. Distribution More evenly distributed natural cover is better. The more evenly natural cover is distributed • across an area, the more effectively ecological functions can operate across the whole landscape, bringing the area closer to ecological integrity. Size Larger habitat patches are better for promoting biodiversity because they provide more niches and resources to support more species; more vegetation age classes and community types; and larger populations of species. Native Biodiversity The more that a habitat patch or ecosystem is dominated by native species, the closer it will be to ecological integrity. Shape In developed or fragmented landscapes, habitat patches that are more compact and consolidated have the least amount of edge, and are therefore less vulnerable to adverse external effects. Matrix Influence (Surrounding Land Use) Generally, the proximity of other natural cover within the matrix is beneficial. While agricultural uses within the matrix have some negative effects, the greatest adverse effects are associated with urban development. Connectivity The more connected (through direct linkage or proximity) that habitat patches are to each other, the more effectively ecological functions operate across the whole landscape, and the better the opportunities to support viable populations of species of conservation concern. SETTING TARGETS The recommended target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System represents a "quantity" target of 30% forest and wetland cover, with a "quality" target so that, on average, the habitat patches could ultimately support species of conservation concern, and a "distribution" target that strives to reduce the northward loss of habitat, recognizing that a truly even distribution is not achievable due to the long history of settlement and development in the TRCA's jurisdiction. The results of the analyses done for the State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem(TRCA, 2002) report are shown in the distribution of existing natural cover (forest and wetlands) by each of the four zones in the first two columns of the table below. Achieving the recommended target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System requires that additional lands be secured for natural heritage protection. The amount above existing cover for each of the zones is shown in the last two columns. The second table shows the distribution of existing natural cover and the increases needed to acheive the target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System by watershed. . July 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 H50 Quantity of Natural Cover by Zone for Existing and Target Conditions (Table 2 from the Strategy document) Zone Existing Natural Cover Target Natural Cover Hectares % of Zone Hectares % of Zone Urban 7,934 7% 15464 13 Urbanizing 5,926 18% 9830 29 Rural 9,743 18% 17629 33 Moraine /Escarpment 17,898 39% 29446 63 Total, Region 41,502 17% 72,369 30% Quantity of Natural Cover by Watershed for Existing and Target Conditions (Table 3 from the Strategy document) Watershed Existing Natural Cover Target Natural Cover Hectares % of Hectares % of Watershed Watershed Carruthers Creek 665 17 1,252 33 Don River 3,116 9 5,772 16 Duffins Creek 8,190 29 12,866 45 Etobicoke Creek 1,207 6 2,500 12 Frenchman's Bay 353 13 658 24 Highland Creek 608 6 1,307 13 Humber River 19,841 22 34,800 38 Mimico Creek 208 3 635 8 Petticoat Creek 491 18 856 32 Rouge River 4,930 15 10,735 32 Lake Ontario Waterfront 734 6 1,404 12 Implementation of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy depends on securing, protecting and ultimately restoring the land base. The Strategy document contains strategic directions to protect the system including nine proposed policies for land use and infrastructure planning that could be used by our partner municipalities. The Strategy also provides strategic direction for land management, stewardship and outreach, as well as monitoring of the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system over time As noted earlier, the improvement of the terrestrial natural heritage system has multiple benefits for the watersheds, particularly in maintaining the hydrological function and aquatic habitats of the watersheds. The exploration of these benefits will be part of the preparation of watershed plans. H51 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 July 22, 2004 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Consultation with municipalities and other stakeholders will begin once direction from the Authority is received. The consultation will include circulation of the draft document as well as a facilitated workshop. The workshop would take place this summer. Staff will revise the draft Strategy and bring it back to the Authority for adoption in the fall. RES. #H30/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: MIMICO WATERFRONT LINEAR PARK PROJECT To provide an update to the members of the Coalition on the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Project. David Switzer Debbie Wagdin THAT the staff report on the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park project be received ; AND FURTHER THAT the representatives of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition assist with project implementation work 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 Iakefilling 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: Improve public access: Establish east/west linkages via an extension of the Waterfront Trail between Humber Bay Park West and Norris Crescent Parkette. Enhance streetscape linkages from Lake Shore Boulevard West and the Mimico Business Community to the waterfront. Provide boater access to the Mimico Business Community through a day -use moorage facility at the foot of Superior Avenue Parkette. Enhance links to Amos Waites Park Beach. Enhance terrestrial and aquatic habitat along the waterfront. Provide a multi -use amenity and ensure public safety within the Waterfront Linear Park. Provide a•safe and defined harbour entrance into Humber Bay Park West. July 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 H52 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 Iakefill. 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. 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 11 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 versus Iakefill 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 H53 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 July 22, 2004 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. 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 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; July 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 H54 • Beach enhancement at Amos Waites Park; Terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancement; and Lakefilling is necessary to carry out this alternative. 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; H55 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 July 22, 2004 • . 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; 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 five Options for the undertaking. During the two workshops, nearly 100% 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 Iakefill 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 July 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 H56 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. 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 - eather 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. Total costs for the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Project have been estimated at $6.5 million 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. H57 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 July 22, 2004 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. RES. #H31/04 Moved by: Seconded by: SPILLS PROJECT To update the Coalition on the spills project initiated by the Nature and Water Working Group of the Coalition. Bob Noble Robert Volpe THAT the staff report on the spills project be received; THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Coalition members attend the Spills Workshop on September 28, 2004 with representatives of the federal and provincial governments, regional and local municipal staff, community -based watershed groups, and other stakeholders; THAT the Nature and Water Working Group of the Coalition discuss the background report and develop recommendations at their September 21, 2004 meeting in anticipation of the spills workshop; AND FURTHER THAT the Nature and Water Working Group report back to the Coalition on the outcome of the workshop and a plan of action for implementation of workshop recommendations by the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition CARRIED BACKGROUND At the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting #5/03, held on October 23,2003, the Nature and Water Working Group presented a workplan to address spills within the watersheds and the following recommendations were adopted by resolution #H44/03: THAT the staff report on the Spills Management Project be received; THAT Professor James Li, author of the Spills Management Report for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks, be invited to a future Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting to present the results of his research; THAT the Nature and Water Working Group of the Coalition continue to work with TRCA to develop a background report on spills management, and associated outreach resources, for the general public; THAT the background report be brought back to the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition for their endorsement; July 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 H58 AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Coalition invite spills management professionals, members of the other TRCA watershed groups and committees and other stakeholders to a spills management workshop. A spills advisory group, consisting of federal, provincial, and regional agency staff was contacted and organized in order to address the issue of spills across the watersheds within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). A partnership was developed with the Ministry of Environment and Environment Canada through the Remedial Action Plan team to address the spills issue in a coordinated way across the nine watersheds of TRCA's jurisdiction. A presentation by James Li was delivered to the spills advisory group and, after consultation with agency staff, a draft background report evaluating the current state of spills within the GTA was produced. The final background report will be distributed in late August / early September to representatives of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, Humber Watershed Alliance, Rouge Park Alliance, Don Regeneration Council, and Highland Creek Stewardship Group, Waterfront advocacy groups, and Duffins & Carruthers Task Forces. A workshop has been scheduled for September 28, 2004 to discuss the results of the background report with agency staff and to make recommendations for addressing spills. The October 2003 (Coalition Meeting #5103) report contained information to potentially use within outreach / public education materials. One idea in particular was to create a wallet -size card with spills contacts and general information that could be distributed to the public at outreach events. The production of this, and other outreach materials, may be coordinated with other watershed groups across the GTA. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The overall goal of this initiative is to raise awareness about spills management issues and ensure that effective measures are implemented to monitor, control, and prevent harmful substances from entering our watersheds and the waterfront; and coordinate responses to spills. The following actions were identified by the Nature and Water Group to better address the spills issue within the watersheds: 1. Spills Advisory Committee An advisory committee was formed with spills experts from the federal, provincial, and municipal governments as well as TRCA. 2. Background Report A background report was produced that summarized existing information relating to spills management in the Greater Toronto Area including: number of spills (type and location), ecosystem impacts, agency roles and responsibilities, response procedures, legislation to best practices. 3. Host an Information Workshop A workshop has been planned for September 28, 2004. 4. Recommendations / Discussion Paper The information gathered in the preparation of the background report and the workshop will be used to: H59 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3104 July 22, 2004 • identify gaps and provide potential solutions; develop a framework to guide future monitoring activities through the Regional Watershed Monitoring Network; facilitate efficient inter - agency coordination; and, determine roles and projects for community -based watershed task forces. RATIONALE Spills prevention and management is an important issue to all nine watersheds within the Toronto and Region Conservation's jurisdiction as well as to the Ministry of Environment and Environment Canada. Watershed councils and alliances are important advocates of healthy river systems and addressing spills management has been identified as a key action in their strategies. Greening Our Watersheds identified spills management as a priority for action. Spill prevention is an initiative listed under "Improving Water Management" where it states that: "Spill prevention should involve a concerted effort to work with industrial businesses in the watershed to develop pollution prevention programs and to change attitudes toward the environment. Better education for, and management practices by, watershed residents is also required regarding disposal of hazardous waste and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides." DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Staff to distribute the background report and workshop invitations to watershed groups. • Background report to be circulated to Nature and Water Working Group for comment and discussion at their September 21, 2004 meeting. • Members of the Coalition to attend the spills workshop on September 28, 2004 from , 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. • Nature and Water Group to develop a plan of action based on workshop recommendations. RES. #H32/04- Moved by: Seconded by: TORONTO AND REGION REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP) UPDATE Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) has entered year three of a five -year agreement with Environment Canada (EC) and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) regarding the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (Toronto RAP). As the implementation coordinator for the RAP, TRCA would like to become further engaged with the watershed councils providing regular updates and opportunities for members to raise RAP - related issues. Chris McGlynn Mathew Rossi THAT the staff update on the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan be received; July 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 H60 AND FURTHER THAT regular updates on the Toronto and Region RAP be made to the Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Coalition with the opportunity for members to raise RAP related issues and concerns CARRIED BACKGROUND Through a five -year (2002 -2007) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the TRCA, EC and MOE, the TRCA acts as the implementation coordinator for the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (Toronto RAP). Under the Canada - Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, EC and MOE co -lead RAP management in Toronto. The role of the TRCA is to raise municipal and key stakeholder awareness of RAP priority issues; to facilitate the exchange of information among implementers and coordinate implementation plans; to focus RAP implementation on a watershed by watershed basis; and to report on progress. The Toronto RAP Area of Concern (AOC) encompasses most of the TRCA's jurisdiction extending from the Etobicoke Creek as far east as the Rouge River Watershed. Under the terms of the MOU, EC and MOE each provide $250,000 annually to TRCA to undertake RAP projects and coordination. An interagency team including representatives from EC, MOE, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and TRCA meet on a monthly (minimally) basis to oversee the coordination process and address RAP issues. A key action for this team was the establishment of interim targets for 2002 - 2007. These targets guide the implementation of projects by TRCA under the MOU and provide a measure for progress during the course of the agreement. The fundamental goal of the Toronto RAP is to restore our polluted waterways and the Toronto Waterfront. Through the RAP's support of the TRCA's Watershed Advisory Groups, opportunities continue to be provided for community participation in protection and restoration efforts. Education and outreach activities are undertaken by the RAP through programs like Watershed on Wheels. The RAP is also supporting applied research and programs in stormwater management, integrated watershed planning, fish management, erosion and sediment control, regional monitoring and terrestrial natural heritage. Integration of the Living City vision into strategies for restoring beneficial uses to the Toronto RAP AOC has been identified as a key strategic direction under the MOU. The goals of the TRCA and the Toronto RAP are highly complimentary and have enabled the TRCA to leverage significant a financial contribution from municipalities and other funding sources. 2004/2005 RAP MOU Projects Clean Waters Erosion and Sediment Control Greenroofs Porous Pavement Workshop: Spills H61 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3104 July 22, 2004 Workshop: Stormwater Monitoring and Maintenance Habitat Action Terrestrial Natural Heritage /Quest Layers Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds Education /NGO Action Stewardship Projects Highland Creek Stewardship Rouge Park Public Lands BMP's Program Monitoring and Research Regional Watershed Monitoring Program Needs Further Assessment Regional Report Card Sustainability Living City Charette Watershed Strategies The Toronto RAP would like to further its involvement and communication with the watershed councils. A representative from the RAP coordination team will be available to update coalition members at each meeting on current RAP initiatives and progress. In turn they will be happy address any questions or concerns members may have, bringing issues back to RAP agencies for further discussion and action. RES. #H33/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the meetings for the following working groups are provided for information. Glenn Miller Tanya Trivedi THAT the following minutes be received: Meeting #2/04 of the Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group; Meeting #2/04 of the Nature and Water Working Group; • Meeting #1/04 and #2/04 of the Human Heritage Working Group; • Meeting #3/04 of the South Mimico Stewardship Group CARRIED July 22, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/04 H62 NEW BUSINESS POLICY REVIEW TEAM Members expressed an interest in establishing an Etobicoke - Mimico Policy Review Team. RES. #H34/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Etter Marjut Dunker THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition establish a Policy Review Team to evaluate and respond to policy issues; THAT the Policy Review Team be chaired by one of the Co- Chairs of the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition; THAT Janice Etter, Doug McRonney, Suzanne Barrett, Irene Jones, Bob Noble and Chris McGlynn be appointed to the Policy Review Team; AND FURTHER THAT staff submit, to the next Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, a draft Terms of Reference for the Policy Review Team which will address membership and how the team will conduct its work CARRIED GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY The Province has recently released a Growth Management Study for Ontario's Golden Horseshoe. The report will be circulated to the Etobicoke - Mimico Policy Review Team. Comments are due on September 24`h CHARLES SAURIOL ENVIRONMENTAL DINNER Members were encouraged to attend the 11`h Annual Charles Sauriol Environmental Dinner to be held on Thursday, November 4, 2004 featuring Jean - Michel Cousteau. Tickets are $150 per person or $1,200 for a table of eight. H63 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3104 July 22, 2004 HURRICANE HAZEL 50TH ANNIVERSARY October, 2004 will mark the 50`h anniversary of Hurricane Hazel. TRCA is developing a marketing and communications plan around the event. JOHN McMAHON C. Sharma announced the John McMahon from the City of Brampton has submitted his resignation from the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition to accept a position in Vancouver. A letter of appreciation for his many years of support, on behalf of the Coalition, will be sent to John with our best wishes. DOOR PRIZE As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition, door prizes are given out at the end of each Coalition meeting. Two door prizes were awarded at this meeting. The first was the recently - released book titled, "Paths to the Living City - The Story of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority" by Bill McLean and the second was a native plant gift certificate from the TRCA Nursery. The winning tickets belonged to Tanya Trivedi and Chris McGlynn, respectively. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:00 p.m., July 22, 2004. Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Acting Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer /L. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION MINUTES OF MEETING #4/04 t%. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 October 28, 2004 Page H63 The Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition met at Markland Wood Golf & Country Club on Thursday, October 28, 2004. Co -Chair Irene Jones called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. PRESENT Chris Barnett Member Bette -Ann Goldstein Member David Lyons Member Steve Rutherford Member Gerry Gorman Member Boris Swedak Member Pamela Gough Member Chris Nelson Member Marilyn Hagerman Member Irene Jones Co -Chair Alina Korniluk Alternate Chris McGlynn Member Doug McRonney Member Dick O'Brien TRCA Chair Mathew Rossi Member David Switzer Member Robert Volpe Member Debbie Wagdin Member GUESTS Mark Prieur .... Assistant Golf Course Superintendent - Markland Wood Golf & Country Club STAFF Quentin Hanchard Senior Planner, Development Services Section Mike Bender Landscape Architect, Conservation Land Planning Group Kristin Geater Watershed Project Manager Deanne Rodrigue Manager of Marketing Communications & Media Chandra Sharma Specialist, Etobicoke - Mimico Paul Wilims Watershed Resource Planner INDEX TO ETOBICOKE - MIMICO COALITION MEETING MINUTES #4104 Thursday, October 28, 2004 MINUTES H63 Minutes of Meeting #3/04, held on July 22, 2004 INTRODUCTIONS H63 New Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition member, Pamela Gough CORRESPONDENCE H63 • Letter from Rockwood Homeowners' Association to Mayor Hazel McCallion, dated August 13/04, re: Proposed Development at the Northeast Corner of Creekbank and Matheson Blvd. • Letter from Mayor Hazel McCallion to Rockwood Homeowners' Association dated September 7/04, re: Proposed Development at the Northeast Corner of Creekbank and Matheson Blvd. • Letter from the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, dated August 31/04, re: Coalition comments and recommendations on the Provincial Policy Statement • Letter from the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, dated August 31/04, re: Coalition comments on Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools • Letter from Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to the City of Toronto dated September 15 / 04, re: WWFMMP Beaches Protection Pier • Letter from Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to the City of Toronto dated September 15 / 04, re: Legion Road Extension • Letter from Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to the City of Toronto dated September 15 / 04, re: Harmonized Private Tree By -law • Letter from Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to the City of Toronto dated September 15/04, re: Toronto Golf Club • Letter from Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to the Ministry of the Environment, dated September 29 / 04, re: Preventing and Managing Spills in Ontario. • Public Meeting Notice: City of Brampton Lake Assessment and Management Study. October 27, 2004 PRESENTATIONS H65 • Mark Prieur, Habitat Enhancement Initiatives at Markland Wood • Deanne Rodrigue, Hazel's Legacy (video) • Quentin Hanchard, TRCA Development Review Process • Mike Bender, Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan SECTION I REPORTS - ACTION ITEMS 50th Anniversary of Hurricane Hazel Activities H66 City of Mississauga Salt Management Plan H68 Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan H70 . Policy Review Team Terms of Reference H72 Schedule of Coalition Meetings - 2005 H85 Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition - Membership H86 SECTION H REPORTS - INFORMATION ITEMS • Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001 H88 • Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe H88 • Aquatic Invasive Species in the Toronto Region H89 • Planning Act Reforms H89 WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE REPORTS H90 • Sustainable Communities & Outreach Working Group • Nature & Water Working Group • Human Heritage Working Group • South Mimico Stewardship Group • Report Card Working Group NEW BUSINESS H90 • Coalition Committee Organizational Chart • Charles Sauriol Dinner • New Region of Peel Representative • Malton Public Meeting DOOR PRIZE H91 TERMINATION XX October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H63 RES. #H35/04 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Boris Swedak Chris Barnett THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/04, held on July 22, 2004, be received CARRIED INTRODUCTIONS C. Sharma introduced Ms. Pamela Gough, an Etobicoke resident and member of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Board, who recently joined the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition. CORRESPONDENCE 5.1 Letter from Rockwood Homeowners' Association to Mayor Hazel McCallion, dated August 13/04, re: Proposed Development at the Northeast Corner of Creekbank and Matheson Blvd. 5.2 Letter from Mayor Hazel McCallion to Rockwood Homeowners' Association dated September 7/04, re: Proposed Development at the Northeast Corner of Creekbank and Matheson Blvd. 5.3 Letter from the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, dated August 31/04, re: Coalition comments and recommendations on the Provincial Policy Statement 5.4 Letter from the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, dated August 31/04, re: Coalition comments on Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools 5.5 Letter from Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to the City of Toronto dated September 15 / 04, re: WWFMMP Beaches Protection Pier 5.6 Letter from Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to the City of Toronto dated September 15 / 04, re: Legion Road Extension 5.7 Letter from Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to the City of Toronto dated September 15 / 04, re: Harmonized Private Tree By -law 5.8 Letter from Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to the City of Toronto dated September 15/04, re: Toronto Golf Club 5.9 Letter from Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition to the Ministry of the Environment, dated October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H64 September 29 / 04, re: Preventing and Managing Spills in Ontario Debbie Wagdin, representing the Nature and Water Group, was asked by the Co -Chair to report on the recent Spills Workshop (September 29, 2004) and Background Report. D. Wagdin reviewed the history of the project from its initiation at the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition last year to its adoption by all of the watersheds within the RAP jurisdiction as a priority issue. The Spills Workshop featured 75 participants from all orders of government, NGOs, TRCA, and Coalition, Humber River Alliance, Don Council, and the Black Creek Project. Participants heard from four speakers representing spills response at the Regional and Provincial level as well as a presentation from Dr. James Li of Ryerson on the nature of spills within the GTA. The workshop was then divided into eleven small groups to discuss current practices and recommendations for improvements. The workshop raised awareness, was a positive communication experience for participants, and involved other watersheds. D. Wagdin further mentioned that members of the International Joint Commission, Environment Canada, Ministry of Environment, and Environmental Commissioner's Office were in attendance. C. Nelson mentioned that the workshop made him more aware and that the Golf Course is more prepared for spills. D. Lyons mentioned that local tow -truck drivers are often expected, as first on the scene, to manage small spills and this raised health and safety issues. He suggested that police and emergency services personnel be involved in future discussions. B. Goldstein commented on the new legislation and increased fines recently announced by the Province following the IPAT report and asked if the workshop's work will have similar impact. D. Wagdin responded by noting that the RAP team is currently compiling the Outcomes Report from the workshop and discussing next steps; and further, that in addition to issues regarding increased fines, the workshop participants focused on preventative measures among other issues. 5.10 Public Meeting Notice: City of Brampton Lake Assessment and Management Study. October 27, 2004 RES. #H36/04 Moved by: Seconded by: David Switzer Bette -Ann Goldstein THAT the above correspondence be received; AND FURTHER THAT emergency services staff be invited to comment upon and contribute to future discussion on spills management CARRIED October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H65 PRESENTATIONS Environmental Initiatives at Markland Wood Golf & Country Club (MWGCC) MWGCC Assistant Golf Course Superintendent Mark Prieur gave a presentation on Markland Wood's inventory of flora and fauna, habitat enhancement initiatives, and participation and challenges of the Audubon International Golf Course Habitat Certification process. 6.1 Hazel's Legacy Video premiere of the newly - released Hurricane Hazel documentary. Deanne Rodrigue, TRCA Manager of Marketing Communications and Media presented the video as one of the initiatives for the 50th Anniversary of Hurricane Hazel undertaken by TRCA and partners. Communication 7.1 outlined all of the Hurricane Hazel activities including a website, photo gallery, displays in various local museums, media coverage, events, and a poster. The video is available to members of the Coalition at a discount (25% off for a total cost of $13) and several copies were sold. The presentation and associated communication (Agenda Report 7.1) were dealt with together by the Coalition and the resolutions are outlined with the report below. 6.2 TRCA Development Review Process Quentin Hanchard, TRCA Senior Planner reviewed the policies, regulations, issues, and development proposal commenting process. He outlined avenues for the Coalition to participate in the policy and development review process. The presentation and associated communication (Agenda Report 7.4) were dealt with together by the Coalition and the resolutions are outlined with the report below. 6.3 Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan Mike Bender, TRCA Landscape Architect, gave an update on the Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan process to date, upcoming meetings, and issues. The presentation and associated communication (Agenda Report 7.3) were dealt with together by the Coalition and the resolutions are outlined with the report below. The Chair thanked the presenters for their very informative presentations. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H66 SECTION I REPORTS - ACTION ITEMS RES. #H37/04 Moved by: Seconded by: 50th Anniversary of Hurricane Hazel Activities To update the Coalition on activities organized to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Hurricane Hazel. Marilyn Hagerman Chris McGlynn THAT the video presentation, Hazel's Legacy, be received; THAT the staff report on activities organized by the TRCA and It's watershed groups to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Hurricane Hazel, be received for information; THAT members of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Coalition promote the Hurricane Hazel resources described below; AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition undertake activities and programs to enhance public awareness and education of the cause and effects of severe weather occurrences and what the community can do to reduce their vulnerability to these events and any consequent impacts CARRIED BACKGROUND October 15, 2004 was the 50`h anniversary of Hurricane Hazel, a pivotal event in today's conservation authority movement in Ontario. The most significant outcome of the devastation due to its flooding was the development of a regional approach to flood control and water management in Ontario. After Hazel, the Ontario provincial government amended the Conservation Authorities Act (1946) to enable a Conservation Authority to play a significant role in the protection of life and property from natural hazards such as flooding. Historically, the negative impacts of flooding on life and property had typically been a consequence of urbanization: the reduction of natural vegetation cover, increases in impervious surfaces, incorrectly constructed bridges over rivers, and uncontrolled construction within natural floodplains. Future flooding problems may be compounded by our changing climatic patterns associated with global warming. Global Warming and Flooding Global warming can be described as an increase in the amount of certain gasses (water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone)in the atmosphere which essentially form a thermal blanket around the earth, raising the temperature of the earth's surface. Scientists are now predicting that in the region of Toronto, global warming will result in more frequent and severe precipitation events, and quicker melting of snow and ice during the winter. These combined will have the effect of raising the water levels in rivers more quickly than before, and causing flood waters that are deeper than what are currently experienced. • Current Flood Management Techniques In order to significantly reduce the reduce the risk to life and property due to flooding, the October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H67 TRCA is continually working to improve upon floodplain regulations, policies and emergency preparedness procedures. Some of the main initiatives include: • acquiring floodplain areas to prevent development along rivers; maintaining flood control dams to store water during a flood and release it gradually after the storm has passed; protecting and creating wetlands which naturally attenuate flood waters ; reducing the amount of stormwater entering the rivers by requiring stormwater retention ponds in new developments; encouraging new technologies such as "green roofs" to absorb and store rainfall; working with municipalities to develop flood contingency plans; upgrading flood forecasting systems which assist municipalities to put emergency response plans into operation more effectively; and, working on a watersheds -basis to develop and implement plans that protect and restore the natural forms and functions of our ecosystem. Commemorative Events and Activities In order to recognize the importance of Hurricane Hazel to conservation authorities and all of their watershed citizens, numerous initiatives are being undertaken by the TRCA this fall: Hurricane Hazel Documentary The TRCA produced a historical documentary entitled Hazel's Legacy, featuring first -hand accounts of the hurricane and interviews with experts in the area of flood control. The documentary is available for sale in DVD and VHS formats from the TRCA. Hurricane Hazel Photo Gallery Black Creek Pioneer Village is featuring a still photo gallery focusing on Hurricane Hazel, in the Visitor's Centre. Hurricane Hazel Plaque The Ontario Heritage Foundation unveiled a plaque to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Hazel at Kings Mill Park, one of the Humber River watershed sites that was devastated by the hurricane. The event was organized by the Ontario Heritage Foundation in partnership with TRCA, the City of Toronto and the Humber Heritage Committee. Hurricane Hazel Web Site: www.hurricanehazel.ca This new website features personal accounts, a hurricane quiz, photo gallery, chronology of events, information on Hurricane Hazel, and a summary of the evolution of flood control management in Ontario. The website is supported by Conservation Ontario. Memorial Events Events to commemorate Hurricane Hazel will be held throughout October, 2004 across the TRCA watersheds. Complete event listings can be found on the TRCA web site: ww.trca.on.ca. Paths to The Living City: The Story of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority This recently released book.by Bill McLean, former Chair of the TRCA, describes the formation and subsequent evolution of the TRCA in response to changing land use pressures and resulting environmental issues such as flooding. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H68 RES. #H38/04 Moved by: Seconded by: City of Mississauga Salt Management Plan To update the Coalition on completion of municipal road salt management including the recently - published City of Mississauga Salt Management Plan (July 2004). Mathew Rossi Debbie Wagdin THAT the staff report on the City of Mississauga's Salt Management Plan (July 2004) be received for information; THAT this report be forwarded to the Malton Environmental Stewardship Project Executive Committee for their information as Wildwood Park has been identified as one of the sites for contamination containment; THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Rockwood Homeowners Association for their information; THAT a letter of congratulations on receiving the 2004 Award of Excellence in Salt Storage be sent to the Region of Peel Public Works Department; THAT a letter be sent to the City of Mississauga, copied to the Rockwood Homeowner's Association and Malton Environmental Stewardship Project, requesting that implementation of chloride mitigating measures at the sites within the watersheds be accelerated given the known impacts to the creeks; AND FURTHER THAT the Report Card subcommittee take into account the production of salt management plans when considering the actions to achieve targets identified within the Conventional Pollutants and Benthic Invertebrate Communities indicators. CARRIED The Co -chair recognized the Region of Peel Public Works Department and its receipt of a 2004 Award of Excellence in Salt Storage. The award recognizes standards of environmental consciousness and effective management of winter materials storage. The Co -chair expressed a concern that many of the proposed chloride mitigation measures proposed within the City of Mississauga Salt Management Plan were not to be implemented until after 2011 at specific sites within the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds. She reminded the Coalition of the City of Toronto's Salt Management Plan, and the City's reconsideration of the Bonar site (as a proposed snow dump facility and its potential impacts on future restoration efforts) after the Coalition brought the project and watershed interests to the attention of Public Works staff through the consultation process. The Bonar site was delisted as a snow dump facility. C. Sharma suggested that the City of Mississauga be encouraged to implement the chloride mitigation measures as soon as possible. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H69 BACKGROUND There are water quality and aquatic habitat impairments in both Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek due in part to the amount of road salt which enters annually through both the stormwater system and road maintenance procedures. The Greening Our Watersheds strategy document (GOW) specifically supported the Environment Canada position that road salts be placed on the Priority Substances List (GOW, 2002:148). Further, the Coalition supported the position that road salts be placed on the Priority Substances List Schedule 1 (Resolution # H10 / 02 ). The Benthic Invertebrate Communities and the Conventional Pollutants indicators both highlight the need for reducing road salt for improving water quality and habitat conditions. A recent assessment by Environment Canada (2000) indicates that chloride levels above 250 mg /L can have adverse effects on aquatic life. The most recent surface water quality monitoring in the creeks occurred between 1990 and 1995 by the Ministry of the Environment. In Mimico Creek, and chloride concentrations vary widely from a minimum of 51 to a maximum of 3470 mg /L. The concentration reported within the GOW at the mouth of Mimico sampling station was 553 mg /L (GOW, 2002: map on p.142). In Etobicoke Creek, chloride concentrations steadily increase from the upstream to downstream monitoring stations, ranging from 278 to 351 mg /L (GOW, 2002: map on p.142). AM samples exceeded the Environment Canada adverse effects concentrations. Monitoring will continue after the municipal salt management plans are implemented through the Regional Monitoring Network and municipal monitoring programs. Since Environment Canada designated road salt as a toxic substance, municipalities have been developing plans and refining methods of achieving road safety standards while having regard for the impacts of road salts. Since publication of the GOW strategy the following actions have taken place with regard to reducing road salt use within the watersheds: • The City of Brampton has been employing alternative operational methods (December 2001), such as the Epoke salting machines, since before Environment Canada's consideration of chlorides as toxic. At the time of writing this report it was not known whether or not they have completed their salt management plan. • The City of Toronto conducted a consultative process on road salt alternatives and published their Salt Management Plan in April 2002. Incidentally, this consultative process lead to the official de- listing of the Bonar Community Action Site as a snow dump. • The Region of Peel produced its Salt Management Plan Final Report in September 2003. • Environment Canada published its "Code of Practice for the Environmental Management of Road Salts" in April 2004. • The City of Mississauga produced its Salt Management Plan (July 2004). CITY OF MISSISSAUGA SALT MANAGEMENT PLAN The City published its Salt Management Plan in July 2004. This publication date allowed for consideration of Environment Canada's Code of Practice for the Environmental Management of Road Salts published through a multistakehoder consultation process in April 2004. All municipalities are required to prepare a salt management plan by April 2005 with implementation to begin within the 2006 fiscal year. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H70 The City's plan identifies a number of current snow dump sites, potential improvements, rough timelines for installation of mitigation measures, and a proposed monitoring program. One snow dump site is within the Mimico Creek and two within the Etobicoke Creek watershed. In total, three snow dump sites out of ten are located within the Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek, the rest are located within the Credit River watershed. Five sites are proposed for further monitoring, all within the Credit watershed, and it is stated that "Upon completion of this monitoring program the City of Mississauga can further assess if any pollution prevention tactics are required for sensitive areas" (2004:31). It would seem from the monitoring conducted by various agencies since 1990, and reported in the GOW, that pollution prevention "tactics" should be implemented first and monitored later, especially given that at all current monitoring stations within Mississauga chlorides exceed maximum Environment Canada threshholds for adverse effects. The three sites within the Mimico and Etobicoke Creek are as follows: 1. Wildwood Park - This snow dump site is adjacent to Mimico Creek and it is recommended that some sort of contamination containment, including berms to reduce flow into the creek, or by paving the area and creating a parking lot connected to an oil /grit separator, be constructed to improve flow to the creek by the year 2012. If this is not manageable this site may require to be closed (2004:23, 18). 2. Max Ward Park - This site is located on Matheson Blvd. just south of the Highway #401. The snow is dumped in the parking lot of this park and snow melt is directed to the catchbasins. It is recommended that an oil /grit separator is installed in the parking lot by 2013 (2004: 22,18). 3. Fleetwood Park - This site is located at 2000 Burnhamthorpe Rd E. and is located adjacent to Etobicoke Creek. It is highly recommended to install an oil /grit separator on the site by 2011 and ensure prompt spring clean up after the snow melt. Fencing around the property does not appear to be feasible (2004: 23,18). Electronic copies of the salt management plans are available from municipal websites. Alternatively, paper copies of the Mississauga Salt Management Plan will be made available at the meeting. RES. #H39/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan Endorsement of the Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan Background Report, Final Draft. Bette -Ann Goldstein Chris Barnett THAT the staff report on the progress of the Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan be received; THAT the Executive Summary of the report "The Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan Background Report" Final Draft, September 2004, as appended, be endorsed; October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H71 AND FURTHER THAT the final draft of the Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan be reviewed and endorsed by the Coalition when completed.. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #8103, held on October 31, 2003, the initiation of a master plan for the Heart Lake Conservation Area (HLCA) was approved. Resolution #A229/03, as follows, was adopted: THAT staff be authorized to develop a Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan; THAT an Advisory Committee be established, which would include members of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Coalition, interested community groups, business representatives, community residents, agency staff, municipal staff and area councillors to assist with the development of the Master Plan and to facilitate the opportunity for public input; AND FURTHER THAT the final Master Plan be brought to the Authority for approval." As a part of the process for developing the Heart Lake Conservation Area (HLCA) Master Plan, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has prepared a background report that details the current knowledge about the HLCA. This report was reviewed by TRCA staff and the HLCA Master Plan Advisory Committee. The HLCA Master Plan Background Report will act as a consolidation of the current knowledge of the HLCA. It will also act as a reference document for making management recommendations for the master plan. The TRCA and the Advisory Committee can refer back to the contents of this report when making recommendations and decisions regarding the HLCA. This report and its accompanying planning process follow an ecosystem approach. The ecosystem is broadly defined as including ecological, social and economic components, and their respective interactions. Achieving ecosystem health is a function of integrating the ecological, social and economic needs of a particular area, and so these needs are assessed and incorporated into the background report and subsequent master plan. The background report is a description of the HLCA, and is principally based on a literature and data review. Studies, plans and policies of the TRCA, the Region of Peel, the City of Brampton and the Town of Caledon that may affect the future management of these lands are also summarized and included in the report. Information regarding the HLCA is presented in four parts. The first part consists of Chapters 1 and 2. Chapter 1 is the introduction and the purpose of the report. Chapter 2 describes the HLCA in detail, including land acquisitions, sales, and current ownership and land uses. The second part of the report consists of Chapters 3 to 5. These chapters summarize the programs, policies and plans which have affected or potentially will affect the management of the HLCA. These documents should be considered when making future management recommendations and creating the associated plans. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H72 The third part of the report, consisting of Chapters 6 to 8, provides an inventory of resources located within the HLCA. These chapters provide an inventory of natural and cultural heritage resources, and the outdoor recreation and economic resources within the HLCA. Chapter 9 comprises the final part of this report. This chapter discusses the steps that will be taken to continue the development of a master plan for the HLCA. A copy of the full report is available upon request, and an electronic copy of the Background Report will be made available on the TRCA website. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • • TRCA staff to continue to work with the HLCA Master Plan Advisory Committee in developing recommendations to be included in the master plan. Staff to bring the Final Draft of the HLCA Master Plan to the Coalition for their endorsement. It is anticipated that the Master Plan will be completed in the winter of 2005. RES. #H40/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Policy Review Team Terms of Reference Approval of the Etobicoke - Mimico Policy Review Team Terms of Reference. Bette -Ann Goldstein Chris Barnett THAT the Etobiocke - Mimico Watershed Coalition Policy Review Team Draft Terms of Reference, as appended, be approved; THAT Members of the Etobicoke - Mimico Policy Review Team work with other watersheds groups in the Don ,Humber, Rouge and Duffins and Crauthers Watersheds on projects and policy initiatives that have implications across watersheds. THAT TRCA staff provide to the Policy Review Team, on a regular basis, information on major Authority projects being planned or undertaken within the Etobicoke - Mimico watershed, and of major planning initiatives or projects of others where the Authority may be a commenting or permitting body. THAT Boris Swedak be added as a member of the Policy Review Team; THAT Quentin Hanchard's presentation on development review issues, mandates, and policy be circulated to members of the Policy Review Team; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report, along with the Final Terms of Reference be circulated to other watershed Groups for their information.. CARRIED C. Sharma felt that it would be a good idea to invite Quentin Hanchard, TRCA Senior Planner for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks, to provide a presentation at this meeting before discussing October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4104 H73 the Terms of Reference. The Co -chair asked whether the team would only review certain types of Environmental Assessments (EAs). C. Sharma responded that both TRCA and municipal EAs would be reviewed by the Team. B. Goldstein asked whether other watershed groups have Policy Review Teams and if the Etobicoke - Mimico team would comment on issues within other watersheds. C. Sharma responded that the issues would have to affect the Etobicoke and Mimico watersheds in some way to gain consideration by the Team, and that the Don Council has a Policy Review Team, but the Humber River group deals with policy issues at the full Alliance level. Boris Swedak volunteered to assist the Policy Review Team. The Co -chair suggested that a copy of Quentin Hanchard's powerpoint presentation be send to members of the Policy Review Team for reference. BACKGROUND At meeting #3/04 of the Etobicoe - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, held on July 22, 2004 resolution #H34/04 was adopted which states: "THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition establish a Policy Review Team to evaluate and respond to policy issues; THAT the Policy Review Team be chaired by one of the Co- Chairs of the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition; THAT Janice Etter, Doug McRonney, Suzanne Barrett, Irene Jones, Bob Noble and Chris McGlynn be appointed to the Policy Review Team; AND FURTHER THAT staff submit, to the next Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, a draft Terms of Reference for the Policy Review Team which will address membership and how the team will conduct its work" The Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition undertakes it's work through the active involvement of it's members on at least one committee. The work of various sub - committees of the Etobicoke- Mimico Coalition is guided by the Terms of Reference dated May 2002. Section 4.3.3 of the Coalition Terms of Reference states that Terms of Reference from watershed Subcommittees will be developed and approved by the watershed Coalition. Copies of the Draft Terms of Reference for the Policy Review Team is attached with this Report for the approval of The Coalition. Attachment 1: TRCA Development Review Process. Attachment 2: Procedure for informing the Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Coalition of Major Planning Initiatives and projects within the Etobicoke Mimico Creeks Watersheds. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H74 THE ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHED COALITION 2002 -2005 POLICY REVIEW TEAM Draft Terms of Reference The work of the Policy Review Team of the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition will be guided by specific policy and advocacy related responsibilities, membership requirements and reporting relationships as stated within the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition Terms of Reference dated May 2002.. 1.0 The Goals and Responsibilities In regards to policy and advocacy the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition has been tasked with the responsibility to: • advocate the values of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks watersheds; • act as a united voice for addressing issues relevant to the municipal„ provincial and federal governments; • provide leadership in watershed management; and • contribute a level of service that addresses regional needs and opportunity. 2.0 Membership The Policy Review Team is to be chaired by one of the Co- Chairs of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition. Other members will be appointed form amongst the Coalition Members. As per section 4.3.1 of the Coalition Terms of Reference, additional committee members may also be recruited form outside the Coalition. These persons will be appointed as "associate" watershed Coalition members by the Watershed Coalition upon recommendation of the working committee. Associate members are not required to be residents of the watershed. Associate members are welcome and encouraged to attend all watershed Coalition meetings and participate at the discretion of the watershed Coalition Chair during committee reports and at other times, as appropriate. 3.0 Reporting Section 3.5, Reporting Relationships of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Coalition, states: "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 fo the first quarter of each year. The Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition is not a formal commenting body: Authority staff will advise the Watershed Coalition of major Authority projects being planned or undertaken within the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds and of major planning initiatives or projects of others where the Authority may be a commenting or permitting body. The Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition may provide comments or other information for the consideration of staff and Authority. On a project or application specific basis, the Authority or Authority staff may request comments from the Watersheds Coalition. These comments will be provided within the framework necessary to maintain the Authority's service delivery standards." October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H75 4.0 Meetings Policy Review Team will meet on a as required basis. Members will also participate in the inter - watershed group meeting regarding specific Policy review projects as required. It is anticipated that in the interest of effeciency, the Team will communicate via emial and other web -based communication techniques. 5.0 Mandate and Activities Assist TRCA and its partner municipalities by providing input to planning and policy issues at variety of scales - regional, watershed or local /site level. These might include Official Plan updates, Growth Management Plans, Secondary Plans and Masters Plans for specific projects. 11. Provide comments to TRCA staff on a planning issue or application subject to the TRCA Development Review Process (attachment 1) that has the potential to significantly impact the condition of the watershed. 111. Participate in the Environmental Assessment (EA) process on projects as identified by staff that impact the watershed (Attachment 2 : Procedure for informing the Etobicoke- Mimico Watershed Coalition of Major Planning Initiatives and projects within the Etobicoke Mimico Creeks Watersheds). IV. Serve as a Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Coalition representative on advisory committees of major planning and policy projects as identified by the TRCA. V. Participate in inter - watershed group initiatives to develop a coordinated response on issues that transact watershed boundaries or projects that impact more than one watershed. VI. Provide input to various Authority -led planning and policy initiatives such as the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Systems Strategy and a potential review of the Valley and Stream Management Program and other initiatives as identified by staff. VII. Represent the Coalition at various local, regional and national forums and advocate for values identified in Greening Our Watershed; Revitalization Strategies for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H76 Policy Review Team Draft Terms of Reference ATTACHMENT 1 TRCA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS 1. Planning Framework The TRCA, through its role in plan review and the regulation of development, works in partnership with member municipalities to protect natural hazard and natural heritage areas. In this regard, the TRCA reviews and comments on municipal planning documents and development applications, to protect and regenerate natural systems and to prevent, eliminate, or reduce the risk to life and property from flooding, erosion of river banks, and slope instability. The Planning Act is the primary piece of legislation governing land use planning in Ontario. The Planning Act sets out the policies by which a municipality must implement land use planning decisions. Conservation Authorities are a prescribed agency under The Planning Act; this means that CAs are able to provide advice to municipalities on development applications that may impact natural hazard and natural heritage systems. Under section 3 of The Planning Act, the 1997 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) was issued which articulates the main interests of the province that must be considered through the planning process; Section 3.1 of the PPS speaks directly to the management of natural hazards. The Planning Act requires that municipalities and other agencies involved in planning shall "have regard" to the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement when reviewing and approving development applications. Through an agreement with the Province, Conservation Authorities are responsible for upholding Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, which outlines the need to direct development outside of natural hazard areas, such as valley and stream corridors. Section 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement outlines the provincial interest in protecting natural heritage features and areas from development. Provincially significant wetlands and the habitat of endangered and threatened species are expressly protected from all development. Other features, such as significant woodlands, significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat and areas of scientific and natural interest (ANSIs) are also afforded a certain level of protection; development may occur within or adjacent to these features only if there will be no negative impacts on the natural features and ecological functions of the area. Regional municipalities have been delegated the responsibility of upholding the natural heritage policies of the Provincial Policy Statement. However, recognizing the expertise of Conservation Authorities in the area of natural heritage protection, many Authorities provide municipalities with technical review and advice on issues of natural heritage protection. The TRCA's role in protecting natural heritage through plan review is formalized in agreements with all of its regional municipal partners, and a mix of formal and informal agreements with local municipalities. The role of Conservation Authorities in development review has expanded, from strictly managing development adjacent to natural hazards, to providing expertise in natural heritage protection, including terrestrial, aquatic, and surface and ground water management. Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) provides CAs with the mandate to carry out broad resource management programs on a watershed basis. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H77 Section 20(1) - Objects: The objects of an authority are to establish and undertake, in the area over which is has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and mineral. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.27, s.20. Further, under section 21 of the CA Act natural resource programs and policies aimed at conserving, restoring, developing, and managing those resources can be issued. Powers of authorities: For the purposes of accomplishing its objects, an authority has power, (a) to study and investigate the watershed and to determine a program whereby the natural resources of the watershed may be conserved, restored, developed and managed; (j) to control the flow of surface waters in order to prevent floods or pollution or to reduce the adverse effects thereof; (k) to alter the course of any river, canal, brook, stream or watercourse, and divert or alter, as well temporarily as permanently, the course of any river, stream, road, street or way, or raise or sink its level in order to carry it over or under, on the level of or by the side of any work built or to be built by the authority, and to divert or alter the position of any water -pipe, gas -pipe, sewer, drain or any telegraph, telephone or electric wire or pole. It is under sections 20 and 21 that allowed the TRCA to adopt the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) in 1994, in order to guide the review of development applications in regard to natural hazards and natural heritage areas. 2. 1994 Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program The Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Program was an initiative which consolidated and articulated Authority policy and practices to the time of its adoption in 1994. The document was intended to replace various related programs of the 1980 Watershed Plan and the 1986 Watershed Plan Update and other policy amendment documents of the Authority and Province. The program was organized to integrate the Authority's public safety responsibilities and reaffirm its commitment to ecosystem planning at a watershed level. Valley and streams are interconnected systems, not isolated features. Valley and stream corridors were vulnerable to development impacts, and the policies were established to direct land use to ensure that corridor systems are protected and /or enhanced. Cumulative impacts to the natural system, inclusive of aquatic and terrestrial resources must be considered in making planning decisions. The VSCMP defines the limits of valley and stream corridors as including significant areas that are within and /or immediately adjacent to a valley or stream corridor, and 10 metres inland (if the valley is stable). The main thrust of the TRCA's policies and procedures for undeveloped valley and stream corridors is to: October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H78 Prevent new development that would introduce risk to life and property associated with flooding, erosion and slope stability and /or is not compatible with the protection and rehabilitation of these natural resources in the natural state. Technical studies are required in support of development applications (inclusive of infrastructure and servicing projects) to demonstrate that they are consistent with the intent of the Management Program. The VSCMP promotes the protection of watercourses and valleys in their natural state and recognizes that on occasion, watercourses may be altered to accommodate development. The elimination of watercourses for development purposes is not supported. The VSCMP recognizes that `other infrastructure and servicing such as pipelines, hydro corridors and vehicular transportation corridors may need to cross valley and stream corridors' on occasion. Services, such as roadways, should be carefully sited and designed to: • Prevent risk associated with flooding erosion, or slope instability; Protect and rehabilitate existing landforms, features and functions; Provide for aquatic, terrestrial and human access. Likewise, the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy has been adopted under sections 20 and 21 of the CA Act, and will work in concert with the VSCMP to further protect and restore natural heritage systems through the planning process. In addition to reviewing site specific development applications, the TRCA provides input and technical support in the development and implementation of municipal Official Plans, Secondary Plans, environmental studies and reports, and special municipal by -laws (e.g., tree, ravine, sediment and erosion control, fill and grading, etc.). Through participation in various committees, workshops and studies, the TRCA provides valuable information and advice on flood control, stormwater management, and the protection of natural features and functions within its watersheds. Involvement in these processes ensures that concerns of the TRCA, such as protection of natural heritage systems, are considered throughout the municipal land use planning process. In addition to providing municipalities with advice on applications under the Planning Act, the TRCA reviews applications in respect to the Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and other applicable legislation. The TRCA provides technical and scientific expertise to support the environmental planning function of municipalities, providing recommendations on how development should proceed to maintain, or where possible, enhance or restore the natural environment. 3. Ontario Regulation 158 Under section 28 of the CA Act, the TRCA administers Ontario Regulation 158, the Authority's Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterway Regulation. Through Ontario Regulation 158, the TRCA has the ability to regulate: i) the alteration of a watercourse; ii) the construction of a building or structure in areas susceptible to flooding; and October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H79 iii) the placing or dumping of fill if, in the opinion of the Authority, the control of flooding, control of pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by development. It is through the conservation of land aspect of TRCA's regulatory mandate that the protection of the terrestrial natural heritage system can be addressed. The conservation of land, as defined by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC, 1996, Appendix D) is "the management of land resources (soil and related plant life) such that its environmental integrity is not adversely affected." The Mining and Lands Commission found that the conservation of land "includes all aspects of the physical environment, be it terrestrial, aquatic, biological, botanic or air and the relationship between them (Appeal No. CA 007 -92, 1994, pg. 63). These broad definitions of conservation of land acknowledge the evolution of TRCA's policies and programs, further recognizing the ecosystem approach to land use planning. Conservation Authorities are in the process of updating their individual regulations through the Generic Regulation process. The aim of the Generic Regulation process is to ensure consistency in regulating development in and adjacent to natural hazard lands across the province and to expand areas currently regulated by Conservation Authorities. Instead of the traditional Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways regulation, Conservation Authorities will be required to adopt a development and alteration regulation. The TRCA will have the ability to expand its regulated area to include watercourses, waterfront lands, inland lakes (including kettle lakes), river and stream valleys, wetlands, and hazardous lands. Adoption of a regulation through the Generic Regulation process will provide more protection to existing natural heritage features within regulated areas, and will allow TRCA to regulate in a manner more consistent with the philosophy of assessing the ecological, hydrological and natural heritage functions of a watershed. 3a) Review of Permit Applications The TRCA's permitting process is mandated under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Section 28 outlines the Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulations which is enforced by the TRCA. See Figures 1 and 2 for an illustration of the review and approval process for planning and permit applications. Section 28 Regulations by Authority Regarding Area Under Its Jurisdiction 28(1)- Subject to the approval of the Minister, an authority may make regulations applicable in the area under its jurisdiction, (a) restricting and regulating the use of water in or from rivers, streams, inland lakes, ponds, wetlands and natural or artificially constructed depressions in rivers or streams; (b) prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse, or for changing or interfering in any way with a wetland; (c) prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for development if, in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development; (d) providing for the appointment of officers to enforce any regulation made under this October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H80 section or section 29; (e) providing for the appointment of persons to act as officers with all of the powers and duties of officers to enforce any regulation made under this section. 1998, c.18, Schedule I, s.12. 3b) Review of Minor Variance /Consent /Site Plan Applications Municipal building permit clearances come from residents or municipalities that require the TRCA to clear a plan before a Building Code permit is issued. Where there are no TRCA issues, this can be processed relatively quickly with a stamp on a plan, or a faxed memo to the applicant, or a verbal confirmation to the appropriate person at the municipality. TRCA has an interest in reviewing and responding to an application when the subject property is within and /or adjacent to any of the following: • valley /stream corridor • watercourse • fill regulated area • fill extension program area • floodplain • special policy area • ESA • ANSI • wetland • woodlot • shoreline • Oak Ridges Moraine • Niagara Escarpment • and other natural feature The application is checked for conformity with TRCA policy and regulation. For example: i) Does the plan meet the objectives of the VSCMP? (Is the site subject to flooding, slope and erosion hazards, ecological impacts, appropriate setbacks, permitted uses, etc. If so, is the nature of the development proposed in conformity with TRCA policy ?) Is a permit (Ontario Regulation 158) required in addition, or concurrently with any application being reviewed. ii) Does the application have enough information to assess the above, or are additional studies required such as: Environmental Impact Study • Stormwater Management Report Geotechnical /Slope Stability Report Floodline delineation study /hydraulics report, detailed topographic map Site and Grading Plans Erosion and Sediment Control Plans Landscaping /Site Rehabilitation Plans Others as deemed necessary Impact on TRCA owned lands October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H81 TRCA comments are forwarded to the municipality or applicant depending on who submitted the application. 3c) Review of Property Clearances and Concept Development /Property Inquiries When a proposed development does not require a permit under Ontario Regulation 158 and does not affect the policies of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), it can be processed as a Property Clearance. A Property Clearance is often used to demonstrate to municipal staff that a client has contacted the TRCA with respect to a proposed development that requires a municipal building permit. The proposed development has not triggered any applications under The Planning Act. 4. Niagara Escarpment Commission The Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) have an established partnership where TRCA staff provide technical review (engineering, ecological, geotechnical, etc.) for all NEC permit applications within this Authority's jurisdiction. All NEC applications are mandated under The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. Under Section 24 of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, applicants within the NEC's jurisdiction are required to obtain a development permit from the NEC. The NEC then circulates necessary documents to the appropriate Conservation Authorities, Municipalities and other required agencies. All NEC applications are reviewed by TRCA Development Services Staff, subject to the policies outlined in this Authoritys Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP).The review of these applications should follow standard Development Services Section review protocol (i.e., screening, circulation to technical staff, site visits, comments, etc.). The TRCA provides technical and scientific expertise to support the environmental planning function on how development should proceed to maintain, or where possible, enhance or restore the natural environment. 5. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is implemented mainly at the municipal level. Where municipal official plans or zoning by -laws conflict with the provincial policy, the provincial policy will apply. Municipalities are required to implement the principles of the provincial plan and reflect them in their own official plans and zoning by -laws. Where appropriate, municipalities may also develop policies on land uses other than agriculture and mineral aggregate extraction that are more restrictive than those in the provincial plan. During the review of planning applications (O.Reg. 158 permit applications are not subject to the ORMCP), TRCA is asked to screen for Key Natural Heritage Features located on the subject property, as identified in the ORMCP. While municipalities are the ultimate approval authority for planning applications, the Authority still maintains an interest in conserving and preserving Key Natural Heritage Features within the ORM. As such, Authority staff can request that proponents undertake a study to determine the level of conformity with the ORMCP. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H82 FIGURE 1: PROCESS FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS Confirm location Confirm TRCA interests • valley /stream corridor watercourse fill regulated area fill extension program area floodplain special policy area ESA ANSI wetland • woodlot • shoreline • Oak Ridges Moraine • Niagara Escarpment • other natural feature File Check • previous history? Review • conformity with policy? • permit required? • studies needed? (Environmental Impact Study) • send reports for technical review Site Visit • top of bank staking • geotechnical • other Comments to municipality or applicant • no objection • conditional approval • more information needed • revisions needed • refusal Permit Review Process, if required (see Figure 2). October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H83 FIGURE 2: PROCESS FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS Screening • confirm fill regulated area • confirm regional storm floodplain • sedimentation • placement or removal of fill • conservation of land • other Assign file number Technical Review • slope stability • planting plans • stormwater • other Site Visits • identify issues • identify limits of development Formal Correspondence • send comments to applicant Revisions • circulated to staff for review Permit Reports • recommendations sent to Executive Committee • hearing held before refusing an application Appeal • referred to Mining and Lands Commissioner within 30 days of permit refusal. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H84 Policy Review Team Draft Terms of Reference Attachment 2 PROCEDURE FOR INFORMING THE ETOBICOKE - MIMICO COALITION OF MAJOR PLANNING INITIATIVES AND PROJECTS WITHIN THE ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS Environmental Assessments and Policy Documents For environmental assessments and policy documents affecting the Etobicoke and Mimico watersheds, Development Services staff will request the proponent add the Chair and the Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Specialist to the public distribution list. TRCA staff will ensure that all future steps in the planning process are communicated to the Coalition at regularly scheduled meetings or direct mailing, as required. As a normal part of procedure, the Watershed Specialist will be part of the internal TRCA review team. Coalition members will have the option of attending public meetings and providing comments as unaffiliated residents. When warranted, environmental assessments and policy documents will be the subject of discussion at Coalition meetings. Formal comments may be submitted by the Chair of the Alliance on behalf of the group. Joint submissions by interested watershed task forces is another option to communicate a larger, united voice. Environmental assessments and other major policy documents are posted on the Ministry of the Environment Environmental Bill of Rights Registry at: http: / /www.ene.gov.on.ca/ envision /env_reg /ebr /english /index.htm Members can respond during these public review periods as unaffiliated residents. Major Development - Related Projects Affecting TRCA Land Staff will review reports going to TRCA Boards and add pertinent ones to the Coalition agenda as information items. When the scheduled Coalition meetings do not facilitate the timely presentation of this information, then relevant TRCA Board reports will be included as information on Policy Team meeting agendas. The Watershed Specialist is the primary contact person and wilt provide further details to members at Coalition meetings and subcommittee meetings, and undertake any follow -up required. When timing is an issue because the Coalition is not scheduled to meet, staff will inform the Chair of the Coalition and those members of the Policy Team. The Watershed Specialist will convene meetings, as necessary, to discuss the project and determine any necessary action. Due to unforeseen circumstances, from time to time, there is some urgency to accelerate the presentation of reports to the TRCA Boards. In such cases, Development Services staff will immediately notify the Watershed Specialist when reports on projects of concern are scheduled to be taken to TRCA Boards. The Watershed Specialist will, in turn, inform the Coalition Chair and members of the Policy Team. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H85 General Development Services staff also have weekly meetings and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (S.W.O.T.) meetings bi- weekly, to review files. Any major projects or issues of a controversial nature will be brought to the attention of the Watershed Specialist who will, in turn, inform the Coalition. Members are welcome to attend these meetings if more detail is needed. Project proponents will be asked to attend Coalition meetings periodically to present their proposal and answer any questions. Development Services staff and other technical TRCA staff will attend Coalition meetings when requested by the Watershed Specialist to speak to projects and related Board reports. Copies of letters and written comments from the Coalition addressed to the TRCA Chair, Advisory Boards or Authority will be circulated to appropriate Development Services staff. Coalition members are also encouraged to bring projects to the attention of the Watershed Specialist who will investigate and inform the membership, as appropriate. There will be staff orientations scheduled to ensure there is clear understanding of roles and good exchange of information on major planning initiatives and projects. The Watershed Specialist will be the primary contact with Development Services staff. RES. #H41/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Schedule of Coalition Meetings - 2005 A schedule of meeting dates is proposed for the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition. Chris McGlynn Mathew Rossi THAT the meeting dates for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on the following dates be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the members of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition be encouraged to host meetings in various locations throughout the watershed... CARRIED DATES #1/05 Thursday, January 27, 2005 #2/05 Thursday, April 28, 2005 #3/05 Thursday, July 28, 2005 #4/05 Thursday, October 27, 2005 RATIONALE A schedule of meetings is prepared to assist the Coalition. A random sample of municipalities were contacted to avoid choosing meeting dates that may conflict with municipal council meetings. Meetings will be held on the fourth Thursday evening of January and April. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H86 Working Groups of the Coalition will develop their own respective meeting schedules during the months in which the Coalition does not meet. No meetings will be scheduled in August and December, unless required by the Coalition or team work plan. Coalition members are encouraged to host meetings at various locations throughout the watershed. RES. #H42/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition - Membership Replacing a resident member of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition. Marilyn Hagerman Debbie Wagdin RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Chris Barnett, a resident member and Vice -Chair of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition be granted a one year leave. THAT Ms. Pamela Gough, resident of the City of Toronto, be appointed to the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition for a one year team replacing Mr. Chris Barnett; AND FURTHER THAT the Coalition elect a Vice -Chair at their next meeting on Thursday, January 27th , 2005.. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Terns of Reference for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition allows for 15 resident members to be appointed to the Coalition and makes provision for inviting new members at the discretion of the Alliance and approval of the Authority. Currently there are 15 residents members on the Coalition. Mr. Chris Barnett has made a request to allow him to take a one year leave from the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition due to some family related commitments. Mr. Barnett has requested that Ms. Pamela Gough, a resident of City fo Toronto be nominated to the Coalition in his place for one year. Ms. Pamela Gough, who is also a resident members of the TRCA Board, has expressed a strong interest in getting involved with the work of the Coalition. Ms. Gough has been a long term resident of the watershed and has been a great advocate of TRCA's work. Ms. Gough's kncwledge of the watershed and her experience working with the community will be an asset for the Coalition. Ms. Gough would be assigned to the Water and Nature Group and the South Mimico Stewardship group to replace Mr. Barnett. As per the Terms of Reference of the Coalition, a Vice -Chair is elected by the Coalition from amongst its members. Since Mr. Barnett is the Vice -Chair of the Watersheds Coalition, this position will need to be filled during his absence. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H87 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Obtain TRCA Approval on membership change. • Appoint a Vice- Chair at the next meeting of the Coalition. I October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H88 SECTION II - REPORTS - INFORMATION ITEMS RES. #H43/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001 Provision of comments by Conservation Ontario regarding Implementing Agreements on Water Taking and Diversions. To provide comments on the drafts of the Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement and Great Lakes Water Resources Compact to implement the directives outlined in the Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001. Bette -Ann Goldstein Boris Swedak RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the report noting the concerns of Conservation Ontario regarding the Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001 be received; AND FURTHER THAT Larry Field, Waterfront Specialist be invited to the January 27, 2005 meeting in order to further discuss Coalition concerns regarding water diversions, legal implications, climate change and other potential impacts. CARRIED B. Goldstein expressed concerns that the TRCA seemed to be supporting the provisions of the Annex 2001. She voiced concerns regarding increased water diversions, legal implications of water taking, implications for NAFTA, climate change and the philosophical commodification of water. D. O'Brien responded that the report to the TRCA Water Management Board represented comments on the Annex by Larry Field on behalf of Conservation Ontario. I. Jones and C. Sharma explained that the Coalition was not being asked to support the Annex, rather the Conservation Ontario comments and concerns - that the letter highlighted the weaknesses of Annex 2001. A motion to receive the communication, and also invite Larry Field to the next Coalition meeting to further explain the Annex and his comments on behalf of Conservation Ontario was carried. RES. #H44/04 Moved by: • Seconded by: Growth Plan for Greater Golden Horseshoe Provide comments to the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal on the discussion paper "A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ". Bette -Ann Goldstein Mathew Rossi October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H89 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the information report on TRCA comments on the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe be received; AND FURTHER THAT a letter of congratulations be sent to the Province on the announcement today of the Greenbelt Protection Plan and its focus upon sustainable communities and environmental protection provisions.. CARRIED The Co -Chair related that the Provincial government announced its Greenbelt Protection Plan today. D. O'Brien revealed some of the details of the plan regarding buffers for natural areas and watercourses. The sustainable communities and environmental protection provisions are consistent with the Greening Our Watersheds Strategy, and therefore the Co -Chair suggested sending a letter of congratulations and support to the Minister on the Greenbelt Protection Plan. RES. #H45/04 Moved by: Seconded by: RECOMMENDATIONS Aquatic Invasive Species in the Toronto Region Update on the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's current involvement with aquatic invasive species issues. Marilyn Hagerman Debbie Wagdin THAT the information report on Aquatic Invasive Species in the Toronto Region be received CARRIED RES. #H46/04 Moved by: Seconded by: RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Act Reforms Update on the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's current involvement with aquatic invasive species issues. Marilyn Hagerman Debbie Wagdin THAT the information report on Planning Act Reforms received CARRIED October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H90 RES. #H47/04 WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the meetings for the following working groups are provided for information. Moved by: Marilyn Hagerman Seconded by:Debbie Wagdin THAT the following minutes be received: • Meeting #3/04 of the Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group; • Meeting #3104 of the Nature and Water Working Group; • Meeting #3/04 of the Human Heritage Working Group; • Meeting #4/04 of the South Mimico Stewardship Group • Meetings (July 26`h and Sept. 27th) of the Report Card Working Group .. CARRIED NEW BUSINESS COALITION COMMITTEE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART The Co -Chair expressed an interest in developing a chart and membership rolls for each workgroup and Community Action Area committee of the Coalition including Nature & Water, Sustainable Communities and Outreach, Policy Review Team, Human Heritage, Report Card, and the South Mimico Stewardship Group, and Malton Environmental Stewardship Project. The chart is to be tabled at the next Coalition meeting for review and discussion. CHARLES SAURIOL DINNER Members were encouraged to attend the 11`h Annual Charles Sauriol Environmental Dinner to be held on Thursday, November 4, 2004 featuring Jean - Michel Cousteau. Tickets are $150 per person or $1,200 for a table of eight. C. Sharma mentioned that the Heart Lake shoreline painting, formally presented to the Coalition at its April 2004 meeting by the artist Gordon Stuart, will be part of the auction. NEW REGION OF PEEL REPRESENTATIVE C. Sharma announced that Mark Head will be representing the Region at the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, and noted that a letter of thanks would be sent to Andrea Warren for her previous participation. October 28, 2004 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/04 H91 MALTON PUBLIC MEETING Dick O'Brien, TRCA Chair, inquired whether or not a Coalition member attended the inaugural public meeting of the Malton Environmental Stewardship Project. Steve Rutherford indicated that he attended on October 26, 2004 and that the meeting and its outcomes were very positive. C. Sharma noted that the Malton Project was officially launched several weeks previous to the meeting at a successful public event which thanked the Trillium Foundation for their support, and that the project is off to a good start. DOOR PRIZES As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition, door prizes are given out at the end of each Coalition meeting. Two door prizes were awarded at this meeting. The first was a stainless steel border shovel, and the second was a $50 gift certificate for Lee Valley Tools and Veritas. The winning tickets belonged to Boris Swedak and Marilyn Hagerman respectively. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:15 p.m., October 28, 2004. Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Acting Director, Watershed Management Chief Administrative Officer /L. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MINUTES OF MEETING #1/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #7/04 JULY 23, 2004 PirTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 Page Gi May 18, 2004 The Humber Watershed Alliance met in the North Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Tuesday, May 18, 2004. Dick O'Brien, Chair of the Authority, called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. PRESENT Sandy Agnew Member Bill Boston Member Jim Bradley Member Sharon Bradley Member Tony Carella Member lain Craig Member Yvette Fournier Member Brenda Fowler Member Aaron Fox Member Royce Fu Member Bob Giza Member Krisann Graf Member Lois Griffin Member Suzan Hall Member Alyson Hazlett Member Elaine Heaton Member Ron Hingston Member David Hutcheon Member George lvanoff Member Linda Jackson Member Steve Joudrey Alternate Kathrine Mabley Member Luciano Martin Member Madeleine McDowell Member Joan Miles Alternate Hugh Mitchell Member Arthur Mittermaier Member Miriam Mittermaier Member Joanne Nonnekes Member Dick O'Brien Chair Brendan O'Hara Member Carol Ray Member Randall Reid Member G2 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 May 18, 2004 Yamile Rijo Member Fernando Rouaux Member Deb Schulte Member Lynn Short Member Vito Spatafora Member John Sprovieri Member Nancy Stewart Member Anyika Tafari Member Horst Truttenbach Member Jane Underhill Member Richard Whitehead Member John Willetts Member Bill Wilson Member GUESTS Gerry Foley Seneca College - King Campus Linda LaFlamme City of Vaughan STAFF Chris Benjamin Volunteer Coordinator Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer Vince D'Elia Clean the Humber Coordinator Adele Freeman Acting Director, Watershed Management Rose Hasner Photographer /Creative Services Lia Lappano Administrative Assistant, Humber Karen Sun Watershed Resources Planner Gary Wilkins Humber Watershed Specialist WELCOMING REMARKS Dick O'Brien, Chair of the TRCA and Brian Denney, Chief Administrative Officer welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked them for their interest in participating on the Humber Watershed Alliance. PRESENTATIONS (a) Accomplishments of Previous Humber Watershed Alliances A power point show was presented to the members highlighting the many accomplishments of previous Humber Watershed Alliances and its partners. May 18, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 G3 INTRODUCTIONS Everyone in attendance introduced themselves. RES. #G1/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: TRCA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MANDATE Review of the TRCA development review process and Humber Watershed Alliance mandate. Tony Carella Vito Spatafora THAT the staff report on the TRCA development review approval process and Humber Watershed Alliance mandate, in this regard, be received; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff inform Humber Watershed Alliance members 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. AMENDMENT RES. #G2/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Tony Carella Vito Spatafora THAT TRCA staff bring a report to the next Humber Alliance meeting recommending a mechanism for informing the Humber Watershed Alliance of major planning initiatives or projects affecting the Humber River watershed, in a timely manner. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND At meeting #5/03 of the Humber Watershed Alliance, held on October 21, 2003, resolution #G46/03 was adopted which states: `THAT the TRCA staff be requested to prepare a report and make a presentation, at the first meeting of the next term of the Humber Watershed Alliance, on the process followed by TRCA staff for commenting on development applications, issuance of permits and applicable policies and practices utilized in this process; G4 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 May 18, 2004 AND FURTHER THAT the mandate of the Humber Watershed Alliance regarding the review of development applications and issuance of permits governed by Ontario Regulation 158, be described at the first meeting of the next term of the Humber Watershed Alliance." 1. Planning Framework The TRCA, through its role in plan review and the regulation of development, works in partnership with member municipalities to protect natural hazard and natural heritage areas. In this regard, the TRCA reviews and comments on municipal planning documents and development applications, to protect and regenerate natural systems and to prevent, eliminate, or reduce the risk to life and property from flooding, erosion of river banks, and slope instability. The PlanningActis the primary piece of legislation governing land use planning in Ontario. The PlanningActsets out the policies by which a municipality must implement land use planning decisions. Conservation Authorities are a prescribed agency under The Planning Act; this means that CAs are able to provide advice to municipalities on development applications that may impact natural hazard and natural heritage systems. Under section 3 of The Planning Act, the 1997 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) was issued which articulates the main interests of the province that must be considered through the planning process; Section 3.1 of the PPS speaks directly to the management of natural hazards. The Planning Act requires that municipalities and other agencies involved in planning shall "have regard" to the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement when reviewing and approving development applications. Through an agreement with the Province, Conservation Authorities are responsible for upholding Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, which outlines the need to direct development outside of natural hazard areas, such as valley and stream corridors. Section 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement outlines the provincial interest in protecting natural heritage features and areas from development. Provincially significant wetlands and the habitat of endangered and threatened species are expressly protected from all development. Other features, such as significant woodlands, significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat and areas of scientific and natural interest (ANSIs) are also afforded a certain level of protection; development may occur within or adjacent to these features only if there will be no negative impacts on the natural features and ecological functions of the area. Regional municipalities have been delegated the responsibility of upholding the natural heritage policies of the Provincial Policy Statement. However, recognizing the expertise of Conservation Authorities in the area of natural heritage protection, many Authorities provide municipalities with technical review and advice on issues of natural heritage protection. The TRCA's role in protecting natural heritage through plan review is formalized in agreements with all of its regional municipal partners, and a mix of formal and informal agreements with local municipalities. The role of Conservation Authorities in development review has expanded, from strictly managing development adjacent to natural hazards, to providing expertise in natural heritage protection, including terrestrial, aquatic, and surface and ground water management. May 18, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 G5 Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) provides CAs with the mandate to carry out broad resource management programs on a watershed basis. Section 20(1) - Objects: The objects of an authority are to establish and undertake, in the area over which is has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and mineral. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s.20. Further, under section 21 of the CA Actnatural resource programs and policies aimed at conserving, restoring, developing, and managing those resources can be issued. Powers of authorities: For the purposes of accomplishing its objects, an authority has power, (a) to study and investigate the watershed and to determine a program whereby the natural resources of the watershed may be conserved, restored, developed and managed; (j) to control the flow of surface waters in order to prevent floods or pollution or to reduce the adverse effects thereof; (k) to alter the course of any river, canal, brook, stream or watercourse, and divert or alter, as well temporarily as permanently, the course of any river, stream, road, street or way, or raise or sink its level in order to carry it over or under, on the level of or by the side of any work built or to be built by the authority, and to divert or alter the position of any water -pipe, gas -pipe, sewer, drain or any telegraph, telephone or electric wire or pole. It is under sections 20 and 21 that allowed the TRCA to adopt the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) in 1994, in order to guide the review of development applications in regard to natural hazards and natural heritage areas. 2. 1994 Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program The Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Program was an initiative which consolidated and articulated Authority policy and practices to the time of its adoption in 1994. The document was intended to replace various related programs of the 1980 Watershed Plan and the 1986 Watershed Plan Update and other policy amendment documents of the Authority and Province. The program was organized to integrate the Authority's public safety responsibilities and reaffirm its commitment to ecosystem planning at a watershed level. Valley and streams are interconnected systems, not isolated features. Valley and stream corridors were vulnerable to development impacts, and the policies were established to direct land use to ensure that corridor systems are protected and /or enhanced. Cumulative impacts to the natural system, inclusive of aquatic and terrestrial resources must be considered in making planning decisions. G6 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 May 18, 2004 The VSCMP defines the limits of valley and stream corridors as including significant areas that are within and /or immediately adjacent to a valley or stream corridor, and 10 metres inland (if the valley is stable). The main thrust of the TRCA's policies and procedures for undeveloped valley and stream corridors is to: • Prevent new development that would introduce risk to life and property associated with flooding, erosion and slope stability and /or is not compatible with the protection and rehabilitation of these natural resources in the natural state. Technical studies are required in support of development applications (inclusive of infrastructure and servicing projects) to demonstrate that they are consistent with the intent of the Management Program. The VSCMP promotes the protection of watercourses and valleys in their natural state and recognizes that on occasion, watercourses may be altered to accommodate development. The elimination of watercourses for development purposes is not supported. The VSCMP recognizes that `other infrastructure and servicing such as pipelines, hydro corridors and vehicular transportation corridors may need to cross valley and stream corridors' on occasion. Services, such as roadways, should be carefully sited and designed to: • Prevent risk associated with flooding erosion, or slope instability; • Protect and rehabilitate existing landforms, features and functions; • Provide for aquatic, terrestrial and human access. Likewise, the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy has been adopted under sections 20 and 21 of the CA Act, and will work in concert with the VSCMP to further protect and restore natural heritage systems through the planning process. In addition to reviewing site specific development applications, the TRCA provides input and technical support in the development and implementation of municipal Official Plans, Secondary Plans, environmental studies and reports, and special municipal by -laws (e.g., tree, ravine, sediment and erosion control, fill and grading, etc.). Through participation in various committees, workshops and studies, the TRCA provides valuable information and advice on flood control, stormwater management, and the protection of natural features and functions within its watersheds. Involvement in these processes ensures that concerns of the TRCA, such as protection of natural heritage systems, are considered throughout the municipal land use planning process. In addition to providing municipalities with advice on applications under the Planning Act, the TRCA reviews applications in respect to the Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Actand other applicable legislation. The TRCA provides technical and scientific expertise to support the environmental planning function of municipalities, providing recommendations on how development should proceed to maintain, or where possible, enhance or restore the natural environment. May 18, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 G7 3. Ontario Regulation 158 Under section 28 of the CA Act, the TRCA administers Ontario Regulation 158, the Authority's Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterway Regulation. Through Ontario Regulation 158, the TRCA has the ability to regulate: i) the alteration of a watercourse; ii) the construction of a building or structure in areas susceptible to flooding; and iii) the placing or dumping of fill if, in the opinion of the Authority, the control of flooding, control of pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by development. It is through the conservation of and aspect of TRCA's regulatory mandate that the protection of the terrestrial natural heritage system can be addressed. The conservation of land, as defined by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC, 1996, Appendix D) is "the management of land resources (soil and related plant life) such that its environmental integrity is not adversely affected." The Mining and Lands Commission found that the conservation of land "includes all aspects of the physical environment, be it terrestrial, aquatic, biological, botanic or air and the relationship between them (Appeal No. CA 007 -92, 1994, pg. 63). These broad definitions of conservation of land acknowledge the evolution of TRCA's policies and programs, further recognizing the ecosystem approach to land use planning Conservation Authorities are in the process of updating their individual regulations through the Generic Regulation process. The aim of the Generic Regulation process is to ensure consistency in regulating development in and adjacent to natural hazard lands across the province and to expand areas currently regulated by Conservation Authorities. Instead of the traditional Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways regulation, Conservation Authorities will be required to adopt a development and alteration regulation. The TRCA will have the ability to expand its regulated area to include watercourses, waterfront lands, inland lakes (including kettle lakes), river and stream valleys, wetlands, and hazardous lands. Adoption of a regulation through the Generic Regulation process will provide more protection to existing natural heritage features within regulated areas, and will allow TRCA to regulate in a manner more consistent with the philosophy of assessing the ecological, hydrological and natural heritage functions of a watershed. 3a) Review of Permit Applications The TRCA's permitting process is mandated under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Section 28 outlines the Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulations which is enforced by the TRCA. See Figures 1 and 2 for an illustration of the review and approval process for planning and permit applications. G8 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 May 18, 2004 Section 28 Regulations by Authority Regarding Area Under Its Jurisdiction 28(1)- Subject to the approval of the Minister, an authority may make regulations applicable in the area under its jurisdiction, (a) restricting and regulating the use of water in or from rivers, streams, inland lakes, ponds, wetlands and natural or artificially constructed depressions in rivers or streams; (b) prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse, or for changing or interfering in any way with a wetland; (c) prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for development if, in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development; (d) providing for the appointment of officers to enforce any regulation made under this section or section 29; (e) providing for the appointment of persons to act as officers with all of the powers and duties of officers to enforce any regulation made under this section. 1998, c.18, Schedule I, s.12. 3b) Review of Minor Variance /Consent /Site Plan Applications Municipal building permit clearances come from residents or municipalities that require the TRCA to clear a plan before a Building Code permit is issued. Where there are no TRCA issues, this can be processed relatively quickly with a stamp on a plan, or a faxed memo to the applicant, or a verbal confirmation to the appropriate person at the municipality. TRCA has an interest in reviewing and responding to an application when the subject property is within and /or adjacent to any of the following: • valley /stream corridor • watercourse • fill regulated area • fill extension program area • floodplain • special policy area • ESA • ANSI • wetland • woodlot • shoreline • Oak Ridges Moraine • Niagara Escarpment • and other natural feature May 18, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 G9 The application is checked for conformity with TRCA policy and regulation. For example: i) Does the plan meet the objectives of the VSCMP? (Is the site subject to flooding, slope and erosion hazards, ecological impacts, appropriate setbacks, permitted uses, etc. If so, is the nature of the development proposed in conformity with TRCA policy ?) Is a permit (Ontario Regulation 158) required in addition, or concurrently with any application being reviewed. ii) Does the application have enough information to assess the above, or are additional studies required such as: Environmental Impact Study • Stormwater Management Report Geotechnical /Slope Stability Report Floodline delineation study /hydraulics report, detailed topographic map Site and Grading Plans Erosion and Sediment Control Plans Landscaping /Site Rehabilitation Plans Others as deemed necessary Impact on TRCA owned lands TRCA comments are forwarded to the municipality or applicant depending on who submitted the application. 3c) Review of Property Clearances and Concept Development /Property Inquiries When a proposed development does not require a permit under Ontario Regulation 158 and does not affect the policies of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), it can be processed as a Property Clearance. A Property Clearance is often used to demonstrate to municipal staff that a client has contacted the TRCA with respect to a proposed development that requires a municipal building permit. The proposed development has not triggered any applications under The Planning Act. 4. Niagara Escarpment Commission The Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) have an established partnership where TRCA staff provide technical review (engineering, ecological, geotechnical, etc.) for all NEC permit applications within this Authority's jurisdiction. All NEC applications are mandated under The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. Under Section 24 of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, applicants within the NEC's jurisdiction are required to obtain a development permit from the NEC. The NEC then circulates necessary documents to the appropriate Conservation Authorities, Municipalities and other required agencies. G10 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 May 18, 2004 All NEC applications are reviewed by TRCA Development Services Staff, subject to the policies outlined in this Authoritys Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP).The review of these applications should follow standard Development Services Section review protocol (i.e., screening, circulation to technical staff, site visits, comments, etc.). The TRCA provides technical and scientific expertise to support the environmental planning function on how development should proceed to maintain, or where possible, enhance or restore the natural environment. 5. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is implemented mainly at the municipal level. Where municipal official plans or zoning by -laws conflict with the provincial policy, the provincial policy will apply. Municipalities are required to implement the principles of the provincial plan and reflect them in their own official plans and zoning by -laws. Where appropriate, municipalities may also develop policies on land uses other than agriculture and mineral aggregate extraction that are more restrictive than those in the provincial plan. During the review of planning applications (O.Reg. 158 permit applications are not subject to the ORMCP), TRCA is asked to screen for Key Natural Heritage Features located on the subject property, as identified in the ORMCP. While municipalities are the ultimate approval authority for planning applications, the Authority still maintains an interest in conserving and preserving Key Natural Heritage Features within the ORM. As such, Authority staff can request that proponents undertake a study to determine the level of conformity with the ORMCP. 6. Roles a) TRCA Executive Committee The Executive Committee meets monthly, as does the Authority, and has been delegated some of the day -to -day management decisions of the Authority, including the administration of the Authority's Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation and the permits issued related to the regulation. b) Humber Watershed Alliance The mandate of the Humber Watershed Alliance, regarding the review of development proposals and issuance of permits, is described in their Terms of Reference dated December, 2003. Section 3.9, Reporting Relationship, states: "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." May 18, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 G11 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • TRCA staff to inform the Humber Watershed Alliance of major planning applications or issues that have the potential to significantly impact the condition of the watershed Humber Watershed Alliance members have the following options: • provide comments to TRCA staff on an issue or application received for Executive Committee consideration; • pursue the issue or application as an independent individual or group not affiliated with the Humber Watershed Alliance; • provide comments to another group for inclusion in a joint submission on the issue or application. FIGURE I FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE G12 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 May 18, 2004 FIGURE 1: PROCESS FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS Confirm location Confirm TRCA interests • valley /stream corridor • watercourse • fill regulated area • fill extension program area • floodplain • special policy area • ESA • ANSI • wetland • woodlot • shoreline • Oak Ridges Moraine Niagara Escarpment other natural feature File Check • previous history? Review • conformity with policy? permit required? • studies needed? (Environmental Impact Study) • send reports for technical review Site Visit • top of bank staking • geotechnical • other Comments to municipality or applicant • no objection • conditional approval • more information needed • revisions needed • refusal Permit Review Process, if required (see Figure 2) May 18, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 G13 FIGURE 2: PROCESS FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS Screening confirm fill regulated area confirm regional storm floodplain sedimentation placement or removal of fill conservation of land other Assign file number Technical Review slope stability planting plans stormwater other Site Visits • identify issues • identify limits of development Formal Correspondence • send comments to applicant Revisions • circulated to staff for review Permit Reports • recommendations sent to Executive Committee hearing held before refusing an application Appeal • referred to Mining and Lands Commissioner within 30 days of permit refusal. G14 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 May 18, 2004 RES. #G3/04 - 50-m ANNIVERSARY OF HURRICANE HAZEL Commemorating the 50`h anniversary of Hurricane Hazel. Moved by: Seconded by: Luciano Martin Madeleine McDowell THAT subcommittees of the Humber Watershed Alliance work together with other partners to direct existing projects or plan new activities to recognize Hurricane Hazel and the impact it has had in the Greater Toronto Area CARRIED BACKGROUND October, 2004 marks the 50`h anniversary of Hurricane Hazel which had a devastating and long lasting impact on the Toronto region. In addition to the millions of dollars in property damage and significant loss of human lives, Hurricane Hazel also influenced many positive initiatives such as: • the first flood warning system in Canada; • beginning of floodplain regulations; • acquisition of flood vulnerable property; • acceleration of lands stewardship, reforestation and water management activities. A number of ideas to commemorate the 50`h anniversary are being considered at this time including: • a half hour documentary, by TRCA, on Hurricane Hazel and the work of TRCA; • two interpretive hikes by Heritage Toronto which highlight the aftermath and steps taken following the hurricane; • a short video /DVD, by Heritage York, showing original footage, interviews with people and some outcomes as a result of the hurricane; • unveiling of a bronze plaque by the Ontario Heritage Foundation, Humber Heritage Committee and other interested partners. At a previous Humber Watershed Alliance meeting, Madeleine McDowell of the Humber Heritage Committee, suggested that Alliance members work together to plan activities to commemorate the 50`h anniversary of Hurricane Hazel. May 18, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 G15 RES. #G4/04 - ASIAN LONG - HORNED BEETLE Update on the Asian Long- Horned Beetle. Moved by: Seconded by: David Hutcheon Vito Spatafora THAT the report regarding the Asian Long- Horned Beetle be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND The Asian Longhorned beetle (ALHB), Anop /ophore g /abripennis, is an invasive quarantine insect native to Asia known to attack and kill healthy trees. This beetle has devastated tree canopies in parts of New York, Chicago and Seattle since the late 1990's. On September 8, 2003 the first confirmed infestation of the beetle attacking trees in Canada was in the Toronto area. It is believed that the insect arrived via wooden packing material (i.e. skids, crates, etc.). While the insect will not infest homes or workplaces and presents no threat to public health, the beetle does pose a significant threat to Canada's trees and forests. The ALHB has no natural controls in North America that would prevent its spread. The beetle prefers hardwood trees, especially maple and horsechestnut but will also attack elm, ash poplar, alder, willow and various fruit trees. It kills trees when their larvae feed within tree trunks and limbs, causing them to die. Tree surveys have determined the central area of infestation to be in a primarily industrial area roughly bordered by Hwy. 407, Hwy. 400, Finch Avenue West, and Milvan Drive (see map). As of September 29, 2003, survey crews have found satellite infestations in the Ansley Grove Road area of Woodbridge, Beechwood Cemetery and in the Thistletown area of Toronto. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), TRCA, the City of Toronto, the City of Vaughan, and other partners implemented an aggressive campaign to identify, control, and eradicate ALHB. All material from infested and neighbouring host trees have been destroyed to eliminate the risk of ALHB spreading to uninfested trees. The goal was to remove the host material from the primary and secondary zone (400 m) before March 31. The goal was reached and over 15,000 host trees were removed. In the satellite zones (Thistletown and Beechwood), only the trees that had oviposition sites were removed. Cutting has now stopped for the summer season, although some stump removal is still occurring. These trees were destroyed by chipping and subsequent composting at the Emery Works Yard in the Finch Avenue /Islington Avenue area. Emery Yard is still the only disposal site. Toronto, Vaughan and York have modified their yard waste programs to ensure that the material is contained in the zone. In terms of ultimate disposal of the chipped material, Toronto and CFIA have received a number of proposals (everything from composting to making shingles). The CFIA has implemented strict import policies to regulate wood packaging and wood products. The CFIA also supports the adoption of a recent international standard created by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) to reduce the plant health risks associated with wood packaging used in trade. G16 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 May 18, 2004 To reduce the risk of spreading the beetle, residents and hired landscape maintenance companies or property management companies are asked to not move any tree materials (including nursery stock, firewood, and fallen or pruned branches) from the infested area. The quarantine zone for the transport and removal of wood material is the focus of ads in the papers (major dailies as well as local and other language papers). The Ministerial Order as well as the Action Plan can be found on the CFIA website. Data collected from the removals (including numbers and locations of removed trees) is being added to the database. Information that was collected from the downed material by the Science Committee is also being added to the database and analyzed. The focus is now back on the survey work in the 800 m zone and intensive surveys in the satellite areas. This includes training. CFIA, TRCA, Vaughan, MNR and York Region are working to develop a tree replacement program on private and public land. At this time, CFIA does not provide any financial compensation for lost trees. To date, MNR has allocated $500,000, Tree Canada has allocated $8,000 and York Region has allocated $50,000 for tree replacement. Signs of ALHB infestation include round exit holes in the bark (9mm -11 mm in diameter), oval wounds (egg - laying sites) and sawdust from the larvae boring in affected trees. The adults are large bluish -black beetles (2.5 to 3.5 cm in length) with white spots and very long antennae. Full grown larvae•can reach 50 mm in length. Anyone who finds a beetle, or sees signs of infestation, should contact the CFIA's toll -free line at 1- 800 - 442 -2342. Do not remove a beetle from the area. For more information about ALHB, including pictures of the insect and sign of infested trees, please visit the CFIA website at www.inspection.gc.ca. RES. #G5/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: VOLUNTEER POLICY AND THE RECOGNITION POLICY Approval of the Volunteer Policy for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and resultant amendment to the TRCA Recognition Policy. David Hutcheon Vito Spatafora THAT the TRCA Volunteer Policy be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND• TRCA has a long history of engaging volunteers in meaningful environmental work and providing them with skills development opportunities. In 2002, more than 1,200 TRCA volunteers contributed a combined total of 5,500 hours of their time, proving themselves an integral part of TRCA's activities. Volunteers have contributed to the vision for The Living City through work creating and restoring wetlands and forests, cleaning up garbage, building May 18, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 G17 animal and stream structures, performing aquatic and terrestrial monitoring, leading educational workshops, gardening, constructing and maintaining trails, acting as guides for our visitors, conducting research, providing administrative assistance, participating on watershed task forces and committees and helping out at special events. In October 2002, TRCA, in partnership with the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI), initiated the Environmental Volunteer Network (EVN) Program funded by the Ontario Trillium Foundation. The EVN Program has been developed to coordinate the use of volunteers across the TRCA, train and place volunteers appropriately, allow for skills development for volunteers and to increase the TRCA's ability to manage volunteers effectively. The proposed Volunteer Policy is an outcome of the EVN program and draws upon the existing Volunteer Policy, as approved by the Authority in 1986, and amended with Resolution #30 at Authority Meeting 1/91, held on February 22, 1991, current TRCA policies on human resources and safety management issues, and a Volunteer Program Manual developed by the the Don Watershed Regeneration Council In 1997. Input from other environment - focused organizations working with volunteers was also obtained. The Volunteer Policy outlines TRCA's responsibilities to its volunteers, selection and placement of volunteers, supervisors' and the Volunteer Coordinator's responsibilities, volunteer rights and responsibilities, volunteer compensation and resource distribution, and provides information on TRCA's health and safety and harrassment policies. Section C.2. of the current Recognition Policy, as approved at with Resolution #290 at Executive Committee Meeting #17/90, held on February 8, 1991, and amended at Executive Committee Meeting #4/99, held on May 14, 1999, is as follows: Foundation Members, Authority Committee Members and Volunteers: Persons eligible for awards are those that provide their services as Members of The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto Committees. Volunteers eligible for awards are those that provide their services on a continuing basis and who provide more than 40 hours of service per year. (1) with 3 years of service to be recognized with a silver Authority logo; (//J with 6 years of service to be recognized with a lifetime pass; (// /J with 10 years of service to be recognized with a gold Authority logo. So that the eligibilty for service recognition awards be consistent with that for a full -year complimentary pass, as proposed in the Volunteer Policy, it is proposed that the second paragraph of Section C.2. of the Recognition Policy be amended as follows: Volunteers eligible for awards are those that provide their services on a continuing basis and who provide 30 or more hours of service in a year. G18 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 May 18, 2004 RATIONALE The Volunteer Policy will guide a consistent, accountable approach to working with volunteers that fits with the vision for The Living City and TRCA Business Plan (2003 -2007) objectives. The policy is also part of a broader TRCA effort to participate in meaningful engagement with Toronto's diverse communities as part of the work recently initiated by the Toronto Alliance formed out of recommendations in the Toronto Alliance report, Enough Talk. At Authority Meeting #9/03, held on November 28, 2003, Resolution #A253/03 was approved, in part: THAT the staff report on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) initiatives for the inclusion of new Canadians and others in employment, outreach and volunteer opportunities be received; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to monitor the effectiveness of the program in 2004 and report back to the Business Excellence Advisory Board at the end of 2004, prior to any extension or expansion of the program. Current initiatives include: Career Bridge internship program for new Canadians, Newcomer Opportunities for Work Experience (NOW) program, and the World Education Service (WES) to certify non - Canadian academic credentials. The Volunteer Policy will guide the current Environmental Volunteer Network and future volunteer activity throughout the TRCA. RES. #G6/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: HUMBER WATERSHED BUS TOUR To host an orientation bus tour to familiarize members with the Humber watershed. David Hutcheon Vito Spatafora THAT a Humber Watershed Bus Tour be held on Saturday, June 19, 2004; AND FURTHER THAT interested members be requested to indicate their interest in attending by June 1, 2004 CARRIED BACKGROUND In order to familiarize new Humber Alliance members with the watershed and selected projects, either completed or currently being implemented, TRCA staff is hosting a bus tour. Sites would include fishways, fish culture station, evidence of Hurricane Hazel, Discovery Walks, heritage sites, wetland creation, trails, stormwater management and much more...all made possible by the valuable contributions of the Humber Watershed Alliance and our partners. May 18, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 G19 Members are encouraged to suggest any project which they would like to see included in the itinerary. The tour will leave from Black Creek Pioneer Village at approximately 9 a.m. and return at 3 p.m. Lunch will be provided. If there is not enough interest expressed by members, the bus tour will be cancelled so please let Lia Lappano know by June 1st whether you would be interested in attending. RES. #G7/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS: 2004 -2005 A schedule of meeting dates is proposed for the Humber Watershed Alliance. David Hutcheon Vito Spatafora THAT the meeting dates for the Humber Watershed Alliance scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on the following dates be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the meetings be held at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitors Centre, unless otherwise noted CARRIED DATES 2004 #1/04 Tuesday, May 18, 2004 #2/04 Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2005 #1/05 Tuesday, January 18, 2005 #2/05 Tuesday, April 19, 2005 #3/05 Tuesday, July 19, 2005 #4/05 Tuesday, October 18, 2005 RATIONALE A schedule of meetings is proposed to assist the Alliance. A random sample of municipalities were contacted to avoid choosing meeting dates that may conflict with municipal council meetings within the Humber River Watershed. Tuesday evenings are proposed. Meetings of the entire membership will be held quarterly. TRCA can provide meeting space to the Alliance on a regular basis at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitors Centre. This location is central to the watershed and easily accessible. However, the Alliance is encouraged to have meetings at various locations throughout the watershed. Suggestions for other meeting locations are welcome. G20 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 May 18, 2004 RES. #G8/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: NATURAL PURIFICATION SITES (NPS) Using Natural Purification Sites (NPS) to clean up runoff in implementing the Toronto Wet Weather Flow Master Management Plan (WWFMMP) and Toronto Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Luciano Martin Madeleine McDowell THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance continue to support ARCH's efforts as stated in Resolution #G36/37/03, July 15, 2003; THAT John Willetts be designated a Humber Watershed Alliance representative to join the SCRUB Steering Committee, to work with ARCH; AND FURTHER THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance endorse, in principle, the provisional SCRUB III Work Plan for 2004 -2006 CARRIED BACKGROUND Since its founding in 1991, Action to Restore a Clean Humber (ARCH) has undertaken positive community action and has made the best use of natural processes the main foundations of its efforts to improve water quality and the environmental health in the Humber River watershed and Humber Bay. The most intensive work was done with project SCRUB- Stormwater Cleanup by Restored Urban Biosystems. It has involved extensive monitoring and analysis of ten wetland systems along the Main Humber and Black Creek in Toronto. Preliminary findings were described in the SCRUB reports of Phase I (1996) and Phase II (1997). Monitoring has continued at a very reduced scale at a few of the sites in the period 1997 to 2003. SCRUB III, for the period 2004 -2006, is intended to bring the previous work to fruition. The proposed actions include an update of the databases, adequate interpretation and reporting of the past wetlands monitoring, an inventory and assessment of other wetlands and of infiltration sites in the various Humber subwatersheds in Toronto and upstream. Some pilot projects will be detailed for immediate implementation. The proposed work plan for Phase III of the SCRUB project is attached. The Humber Watershed Alliance has expressed strong support of the efforts by ARCH to work with natural processes, most recently by the following resolutions of July 15, 2003: Resolution #G36/03 as amended by Res. #G37 /03 THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance support making the greatest use of source prevention and natural processes to improve the quality of storm water runoff before it reaches the Humber River using suitable natural sites to receive and help clean up the runoff. May 18, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 G21 THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance recognize the considerable efforts by Action to Restore a Clean Humber (ARCH) to monitor and advocate a greater role for natural wet /and and infiltration areas in improving the quality of storm water runoff to the Humber River system. THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance encourage ARCH to extend the work begun with the SCRUB project, in particular the identification and screening of potential additional wetland /infiltration sites, and testing their suitability to act as storm water reception and improvement areas. AND FURTHER THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance urge government agency support and partnership of in these efforts, particularly the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, the City of Toronto, the Governments of Ontario and Canada. The following recommendation was considered by Toronto City Council on September 22, 2003 (Amendment moved by Councillor Suzan Hall to Motion to adopt the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan ( WWFMMP): Whereas suitable projects based on natural processes such as natural vegetated wetlands /infiltration sites can be effective and economical in cleaning up stormwater: and Whereas the knowledge and expertise of competent community organizations are a valuable resource in implementing the Plan; That staff work with knowledgeable Humber Watershed groups to pursue the inclusion of some low cost projects that utilize effective natural processes for the 2003 -2007 implementation period of the WWFMMP NEW BUSINESS PINE VALLEY EXTENSION UPDATE I. Craig gave a brief update on the newly- formed Friends of Boyd group. Alliance members were encouraged to write to their councillors and the Ministry of the Environment citing their concerns about the proposed Pine Valley extension through the Boyd Conservation Area. G22 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 May 18, 2004 CITY OF TORONTO PESTICIDES BY -LAW RES. #G9/04 - CITY OF TORONTO PESTICIDES BY -LAW Moved by: Seconded by: Madeleine McDowell Tony Carella THAT the following resolution of the Humber Watershed Alliance be forwarded to the City of Toronto Clerk: WHEREAS the use of herbicides is harmful to: -the natural environment and the avian and animal populations; -the groundwater and surface water of the Humber River; -human health; THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance support the Toronto Board of Health and several medical associations in their opposition to the application of pesticides, including herbicides; AND FURTHER THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance not support the May 5, 2004 recommendations of the joint Economic Development and Parks Committee and the Works Committee which would make the pesticides by -law more lenient and make exceptions for the application of pesticides CARRIED PROPOSED BEACHES PROTECTION PIER STRUCTURE (DEFLECTOR ARM) Members were invited to attend a public meeting on May 19, 2004 at Black Creek Pioneer Village to share thoughts and opinions on the proposed deflector arm /fishing pier structure proposed for the mouth of the Humber River. This project is part of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan strategy to achieve beach water quality objectives at the Western Beaches, and in the Humber River. DOOR PRIZE As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Humber Alliance, G. Wilkins advised that a door prize will be drawn at the end of each Alliance meeting. There were two door prizes available at this meeting - a Black Creek Pioneer Village Family Pass and a basket of environmentally friendly products. The winning tickets belonged to Ron Hingston and Deb Schulte, respectively. May 18, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/04 G23 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:10 p.m., May 18, 2004. Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney A/Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer /L. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MINUTES OF MEETING #2/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #8/04 SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 Page G24 July 20, 2004 The Humber Watershed Alliance met at the Earth Rangers Centre on Tuesday, July 20, 2004. Dick O'Brien, Chair of the Authority, called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. PRESENT Sandy Agnew Member Mary Louise Ashbourne Member Margaret Black Member Jim Bradley Member Sharon Bradley Member lain Craig Member Dianne Douglas Member Yvette Fournier Member Aaron Fox Member Royce Fu Member Michael Galli Member Krisann Graf Member Lois Griffin Member Alyson Hazlett Member Kathrine Mabley Member Madeleine McDowell Member Joan Miles Alternate Hugh Mitchell Member Arthur Mittermaier Member Miriam Mittermaier Member Dick O'Brien Chair Carol Ray Member Yamile Rijo Member Lynda Rogers Member Deb Schulte Member Nancy Stewart Member Anyika Tafari Member Horst Truttenbach Member Jane Underhill Member Richard Whitehead Member John Willetts Member Bill Wilson Member G25 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 GUESTS Gerry Foley Seneca College - King Campus Linda LaFlamme City of Vaughan John Milligan Chair, Palgrave Community Action Site Committee STAFF Noah Gaetz Planning Ecologist Lia Lappano Administrative Assistant, Humber Lionel Normand Regional Terrestrial Biologist Karen Sun Watershed Resources Planner Gary Wilkins Humber Watershed Specialist RES. #G10/04 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Stewart Madeleine McDowell THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/04, held on May 18, 2004, be approved CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) News Release from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, dated May 12, 2004 re: Compensation Regulations to Aid in Tree Replanting Efforts RES. #G11/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Alyson Hazlett Miriam Mittermaier THAT the above correspondence be received CARRIED July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G26 PRESENTATIONS (a) Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy Lionel Normand, TRCA's Regional Terrestrial Biologist, made a presentation on the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. The presentation highlighted: The Challenge, Vision and Philosophy of the TNHSS Analysis and Methods New Policies and Procedures Tools and Methods System Design Principles Implementation Initiatives and Opportunities (b) Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper Deb Schulte, Alliance members, made a presentation on the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper. Highlights included: • Vision and Goals for Future Greenbelt • Identification of Layers of the Greenbelt • Next Steps The Chair thanked both presenters for their very informative presentations. RES. #G12/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED PLANNING STUDY Initiation of the Humber River Watershed Planning Study and release of the proposed workplan for comment by the Humber Watershed Alliance, watershed municipalities and interested stakeholders. Richard Whitehead Kathrine Mabley THAT the Humber River Watershed Planning Study be endorsed by the Humber Watershed Alliance CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1997, the Humber Watershed Task Force released the Humber River watershed strategy, Legacy: A Strategy ForA Healthy Humber, which provided 30 objectives for a healthy watershed, and a set of actions necessary to achieve them. After three years of implementation efforts, A Report Card on the Health of the Humber River Watershed (2000) G27 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 was released by the Humber Watershed Alliance which established indicators of watershed health, evaluated the extent to which the objectives of the watershed strategy were being achieved and established targets for improving each indicator by 2005. In 2003, the Humber Watershed Progress Report, was released, providing an evaluation of progress toward the 2005 targets. Recently, several policy and planning initiatives point to the need to update and expand upon Legacy: A Strategy ForA Healthy Humber. • The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2002), established the requirement for all upper tier and single -tier municipalities to prepare watershed plans for Oak Ridges Moraine rivers and streams, and outlined requirements for the content of watershed plans including a watershed -based water budget and water conservation plan; • In response to the Walkerton Inquiry Part 2 Report, a provincial advisory committee developed a Framework for Source Protection Planning in Ontario (2003), which, if adopted by the province, will guide the preparation of watershed -based water source protection plans for potable water supplies; • The City of Torontos Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan (2003) identified a particular need for further watershed -based analysis to evaluate the potential benefits of stormwater management retrofits and regeneration work in the upstream "905" area municipalities of the Humber River watershed; The following report describes a proposed study workplan to develop an integrated watershed plan for the Humber River that updates Legacy.•A StrategyForA HealthyHumberwith the technical information and level of analysis necessary to meet Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan requirements, and address drinking water source protection issues. A general work program outlining the process and timeline for the Humber River Watershed Planning Study was prepared and communicated to the Humber Watershed Alliance in July 2003. Consultations have been held between some municipal and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff to identify available watershed information, on -going technical work and further technical work needed. Based on the general work program and input from TRCA and municipal staff, a draft workplan has been prepared that outlines the following: • Current watershed planning context; • Goals and objectives of the watershed planning study; • Administrative framework for managing the study; • Partner involvement program; • Watershed planning process and schedule; • Study deliverables; • Available watershed information for each study component; and, • Further technical work to be undertaken for each study component. July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G28 RATIONALE The goal of this watershed planning study is to recommend effective management strategies that will guide land and water use decision - making such that the overall health of the Humber River watershed is protected and improved. Recognizing the significant watershed planning work that has already been completed for the Humber River, this watershed planning study will adhere to the following principles: • Build upon previous watershed planning work by filling information gaps (e.g., water budget, water use and groundwater- surface water interactions) and developing improved management direction with regard to these issues; • Provide technical, science -based decision support tools to help municipalities and other partners with land and water use planning; • Emphasize work on developing detailed management strategies and providing more direction with regard to implementation, especially where recommendations affect private lands; • Keep reports concise and user - focused; and, • Don't let the study delay action. Continue to initiate innovative regeneration projects during the watershed planning study. The study area will include the entire watershed of the Humber River, from the Oak Ridges Moraine to Lake Ontario, including the near shore environment. The regional context will be established such that linkages between the Humber River watershed and neighboring watersheds (Credit River, Nottawasaga River, Lake Simcoe, Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek, Don River and Rouge River) are understood, to the extent possible. The study will involve the Humber Watershed Alliance, and be coordinated by TRCA staff and led by the Humber Watershed Specialist. A partner involvement program, including stakeholder focus group meetings, community open house events and web site postings, will provide a variety of means for all interested stakeholders to participate in the watershed planning process. Municipal staff and other stakeholders will be invited to participate in meetings and will be circulated with draft documents from each phase in the planning study for review and comment. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The watershed planning study will follow a process that is divided into three main phases: Phase 1 - Scoping and characterization of the watershed (February 2004 to December 2004) Phase 2 - Analysis of alternative scenarios of resource use and management (October 2004 to October 2005) Phase 3 - Developing the final watershed plan (June 2005 to December 2005) Individual component studies to fill information gaps and develop or refine tools for analyzing and evaluating alternative scenarios will cover a comprehensive range of watershed management issues and will evaluate the interdependencies and interactions among natural system features and functions and human activities. Reports will address the following topics in a level of detail appropriate at the watershed scale: G29 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 Climate Air quality Groundwater quality and quantity Surface water quality Surface water quantity Fluvial geomorphology Aquatic habitat and species Terrestrial natural heritage Land use Water use Public use Cultural heritage Human health Economy Any additional information or studies necessary to fulfill the province's watershed -based source protection planning requirements will be incorporated into the workplan of the Humber River Watershed Planning Study as they become known. More detail may be provided for subwatersheds on the Oak Ridges Moraine, to the extent necessary to fulfill Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation P /an requirements. The final products of the watershed planning study will establish an updated and improved information base, updated management strategies and improved, science -based planning tools for making better informed decisions with regard to managing human activities and human uses of the watershed resources. The watershed plan will recommend an effective management strategy for the Humber River watershed composed of a framework of management objectives, indicators of watershed health, targets to be achieved, recommendations for action and a user - focused implementation plan. Special attention will be given to preparing a set of model policies that would better facilitate implementation of recommendations of the plan. The watershed plan will contain a watershed -based water budget, a water conservation plan, a stewardship and regeneration plan, a land securement plan and a monitoring plan. This study will contribute to advancing the science of integrated watershed planning in urbanizing environments and will recommend state -of- the -art approaches to achieving a healthy, livable, sustainable and prosperous Humber River watershed. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Humber River Watershed Planning Study has been granted funding approval from the capital budgets of the Regional Municipality of Peel, Regional Municipality of York and City of Toronto and is in TRCA's approved 2004 budget. July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G30 RES. #G13/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: PROCEDURE FOR INFORMING THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE OF MAJOR PLANNING INITIATIVES AND PROJECTS WITHIN THE HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED A proposed procedure for informing members of planning issues within the Humber River watershed. Sandy Agnew Arthur Mittermeier THAT the procedure for informing the Humber Watershed Alliance of major planning initiatives and projects in the Humber River watershed, as described in this report, be endorsed CARRIED BACKGROUND At the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #1/04, held on May 18, 2004, resolution #G2/04 was adopted which states in part: THAT TRCA staff bring a report to the next Humber Alliance meeting recommending a mechanism for informing the Humber Watershed Alliance of major planning initiatives or projects affecting the Humber River watershed, in a timely manner. The Humber Watershed Specialist met with the Director of Watershed Management and the Manager of Development Services and the following procedures for informing the Humber Watershed Alliance of major planning initiatives and projects, affecting the Humber River watershed, is proposed. Generally, major planning initiatives and projects that will be of greatest interest to the Humber Watershed Alliance will be related to Environmental Assessments, policy documents and projects specific to TRCA property. From time to time, large developments that may impact significant natural features may also warrant some review and comment by the Alliance. Environmental Assessments and Policy Documents For environmental assessments and policy documents affecting the Humber River watershed, Development Services staff will request the proponent add the Chair of the Alliance and the Humber Watershed Specialist to the public distribution list. TRCA staff will ensure that all future steps in the planning process are communicated to the Humber Watershed Alliance at regularly scheduled meetings or direct mailing, as required. As a normal part of procedure, the Humber Watershed Specialist will be part of the internal TRCA review team. Humber Watershed Alliance members will have the option of attending public meetings and providing comments as unaffiliated residents. When warranted, environmental assessments and policy documents will be the subject of discussion at Humber Watershed Alliance meetings. Formal comments may be submitted by the Chair of the Alliance on behalf of the group. Joint submissions by interested watershed task forces is another option to communicate a larger, united voice. G31 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 Environmental assessments and other major policy documents are posted on the Ministry of the Environment Environmental Bill of Rights Registry at: http: / /www.ene.gov.on.ca/ envision /env_reg /ebr /english /index.htm Members can respond during these public review periods as unaffiliated residents. Major Development - Related Projects Affecting TRCA Land Humber watershed staff will review reports going to TRCA Boards and add pertinent ones to the Humber Watershed Alliance agenda as information items. When the scheduled Humber Alliance meetings do not facilitate the timely presentation of this information, then relevant TRCA Board reports will be included as information on subcommittee meeting agendas. The Humber Watershed Specialist is the primary contact person and will provide further details to members at Alliance meetings and subcommittee meetings, and undertake any follow -up required. When timing is an issue because the Alliance is not scheduled to meet, Humber Watershed staff will inform the Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance and those members who have known expressions of interest in a particular project. The Watershed Specialist will convene meetings, as necessary, to discuss the project and determine any necessary action. Due to unforeseen circumstances, from time to time, there is some urgency to accelerate the presentation of reports to the TRCA Boards. In such cases, Development Services staff will immediately notify the Humber Watershed Specialist when reports on projects of concern are scheduled to be taken to TRCA Boards. The Watershed Specialist will, in turn, inform the Humber Watershed Alliance Chair and members who have a known expressed interest in the project. General Development Services staff also have weekly meetings and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (S.W.O.T.) meetings bi- weekly, to review files. Any major projects or issues of a controversial nature will be brought to the attention of the Watershed Specialist who will, in turn, inform the Alliance. Members are welcome to attend these meetings if more detail is needed. Project proponents will be asked to attend Humber Watershed Alliance meetings periodically to present their proposal and answer any questions. Development Services staff and other technical TRCA staff will attend Humber Watershed Alliance meetings when requested by the Humber Watershed Specialist to speak to projects and related Board reports. Copies of letters and written comments from the Humber Watershed Alliance addressed to the TRCA Chair, Advisory Boards or Full Authority will be circulated to appropriate Development Services staff. July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G32 Humber Alliance members are also encouraged to bring projects to the attention of the Humber Watershed Specialist who will investigate and inform the membership, as appropriate. There will be staff orientations scheduled to ensure there is clear understanding of roles and good exchange of information on major planning initiatives and projects. The Humber Watershed Specialist will be the primary contact with Development Services staff. RES. #G14/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: SUBCOMMITTEE STRUCTURE OF THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Establishing the subcommittee structure of the Humber Watershed Alliance. Richard Whitehead Kathrine Mabley THAT the following subcommittee structure for the Humber Watershed Alliance, 2004 -2006, be adopted CARRIED Lower Humber Sandy Agnew Mary Louise Ashbourne /Joan Miles Maria Augimeri Royce Fu Michael Galli /Michele Martin Bob Giza Krisann Graf Elaine Heaton David Hutcheon Steven Joudrey Luciano Martin Madeleine McDowell Brendan O'Hara Randall Reid Fernando Rouaux Peter Telford Sylvia Watson Mark Heaton East Humber Margaret Black /Gaspare Ritacca Jim Bradley Sharon Bradley Tony Carella/Bernie DiVona lain Craig Ian Gray Ron Hingston George lvanoff Linda Jackson /Barb Jeffery Judith Limkilde Kathrine Mabley Hugh Mitchell Joanne Nonnekes Lynda Rogers Deb Schulte Vito Spatafora/Tracey Steele Jane Underhill /Gaspare Ritacca G33 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 West Humber Dianne Douglas Yvette Fournier Lois Griffin Suzan Hall Alyson Hazlett Luciano Martin Arthur Mittermaier Miriam Mittermaier Carol Ray Lynn Short John Sprovieri Anyika Tafari John Willetts Community Outreach Sharon Bradley Dianne Douglas Yvette Fournier Aaron Fox Bob Giza Judith Limkilde Kathrine Mabley Hugh Mitchell Brendan O'Hara Randall Reid Yamile Rijo Deb Schulte Lynn Short Vito Spatafora Nancy Stewart Anyika Tafari John Willetts Report Card Brenda Fowler Krisann Graf Lois Griffin David Hutcheon Luciano Martin Bill Wilson Caledon Community Action Site Harry Baker Bill Boston /Bill Fox Brenda Fowler Garry Moore Yamile Rijo Nancy Stewart/Andrea Warren Horst Truttenbach Richard Whitehead Bill Wilson Len Yust/Doug Nicholson Planning and Policy Sandy Agnew Bill Boston Tony Carella Brenda Fowler Royce Fu Krisann Graf Elaine Heaton George lvanoff Luciano Martin Madeleine McDowell Joan Miles Hugh Mitchell Joanne Nonnekes Carol Ray Fernando Rouaux Ellen Schmarje Nancy Stewart Peter Telford Jane Underhill Ray Valaitis Richard Whitehead July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G34 BACKGROUND The approved Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December, 2003, requires that each member be appointed to at least one subcommittee. Based on the interests that each member expressed at the first meeting on May 18, 2004 and their home addresses, the following subcommittees are suggested: • Lower Humber • East Humber • West Humber • Caledon Community Action Site • Planning and Policy • Report Card • Community Outreach Each member has been assigned to at least a subwatershed or the community action subcommittee. Where members expressed a personal interest in community outreach, planning and policy, or the report card, their names have been added to these subcommittees as well. At this time, we do not know how busy the planning and policy subcommittee will be. Therefore, your assistance in this group will be on an `as required' basis. The report card subcommittee will start in 2005. In the meantime, the other subcommittees will meet regularly, usually monthly, except for those months when the full membership meets which is quarterly. The Chair of each subcommittee, with input from the other members, will confirm their meeting schedule. RES. #G15/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM STRATEGY An update on the draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. Carol Ray Alyson Hazlett THAT the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT members of the Humber Watershed Alliance who are interested in providing input to the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy do so by July 23, 2004 CARRIED G35 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 BACKGROUND The Authority, at its meeting #4/04, held on April 30, 2004, adopted resolution #A123/04 as follows: THAT the draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (April 2004) be circu /ated to its member and local municipalities, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Conservation Ontario, South - central Ontario Conservation Authorities Natural Heritage Discussion Group (SCOCA NHDG), non government organizations, the Urban Development institute, the Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario, watershed councils and task forces, and interested professionals for comment; THAT the draft strategy be provided to the Greenbelt Advisory Panel and the Smart Growth Secretariat for consideration; THAT staff be directed to implement a consultation process to facilitate the review of the draft strategy document; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the comments received regarding the proposed strategy to enab /e finalization and adoption. As part of The Living City Vision, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has established objectives for Healthy Rivers and Shorelines, Regional Biodiversity, Sustainable Communities and Business Excellence. The Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (herein "Strategy ") is the main vehicle for achieving the objective for Regional Biodiversity. The Living City objective for regional biodiversity is to protect and restore a regional system of natural areas that provide habitat for plants and animal species, improve air quality and provide opportunities for the enjoyment of nature. The Strategy is designed to enhance biodiversity and the quality of life for the residents of the TRCA watersheds by seeking to increase the amount and quality of forest and wetland habitats. It uses a science -based analytical tool, based on ecological criteria, to identify an expanded and targeted land base for inclusion in the terrestrial natural heritage system. It incorporates the current thinking on terrestrial natural heritage protection and restoration principles to identify quantity, quality and distribution targets for a terrestrial natural heritage system. In addition, comprehensive data on the terrestrial natural heritage assets of TRCA's jurisdiction were used to develop the Strategy. At Authority Meeting #5/01, held on June 22, 2001, Resolution #A105/01 in regards to the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy was approved as follows: THAT the development of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy for the TRCA jurisdiction be endorsed; THAT staff from the Authority proceed with the workp /an and continue to work on this program in partnership with the Regions of York, Pee/ and Durham, and the City of Toronto, and in consultation with stakeholders; July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G36 THAT staff use the tools and methodologies in Authority activities and comments in its p /an input and review, and permitting roles; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority with a status update on Strategy development and stakeholder consultation (late fall 2001 or early winter 2002). The Authority Meeting #4102, held on April 26, 2002, amended Resolution #A91/02 in regards to the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy was approved as follows: THAT the State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem draft report be endorsed, and the final plan be brought to the Authority in the fall of 2002; THAT staff use the report findings to assist in the development of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy; AND FURTHER THAT the report be provided to various provincial, municipal, and public stakeholders. Staff has continued to move forward in the development of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy as outlined below: The State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Report has been finalized to be used as the basis for the strategy document. Geographic Information System (GIS) based models and analytical tools have been developed, tested and peer reviewed. The GIS tools were used to develop the recommended target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System for the TRCA jurisdiction described in the strategy document. The target setting methodology was peer reviewed. The first draft of the TNHS Strategy, in particular the development of the land use planning policies, was prepared with the assistance of a planning consultant. The first draft was revised in response to comments from internal circulation and external peer review by planning experts. Several members of the Humber Watershed Alliance, including Deb Schulte, Madeleine McDowell, Fernando Rouaux, Lois Griffin, and Bill Wilson, have had the opportunity to review the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. To date, comments have been received from Bill Wilson. Comments are being received by TRCA until July 23`d, 2004 should other members wish to provide input. RATIONALE Despite the increase in awareness of conservation issues and concerns for decreasing biodiversity, there continues to be incremental losses of habitat and the quality of remaining habitat continues to decline. These trends have been highlighted by the biological inventory work undertaken over the last decade by TRCA . For example, many species are no longer G37 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 found in the urban portions of the watersheds even where there are suitable remnant habitat patches. More and more species are becoming of concern due to declining numbers or restricted (limited) distribution. As urbanization expands within the watersheds, these negative trends will continue unless a different approach is taken. Traditional approaches of protecting only the most unique, rare or best example habitats are not enough. This "islands of green" approach has the unintended effect of allowing species to become threatened or rare before they are considered significant, leading to perpetual crisis management. It is expensive, and the outcomes are uncertain and often disregard other more common habitats and species which contribute to the biodiversity and ecosystem functions of the region. Natural processes such as vegetation community succession, pollination and species dispersal can only be maintained if there is substantial natural cover, well distributed across the landscape. Without these processes, natural succession and native biodiversity will continue to decline. The terrestrial natural heritage system modelling shows that even if all the existing habitats were protected, they would continue to decline in quality and biodiversity if the existing approach to natural heritage protection and managing land use changes is used. The Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy addresses the past and continuing decline in biodiversity in two ways: by applying a systems approach that emphasizes the importance of the terrestrial natural heritage system as a single functional unit, rather than as separate natural areas; and by determining targets for the quality, distribution and quantity of terrestrial natural heritage needed in the landscape, in order to promote biodiversity and a sustainable city /region. To ensure that the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System continues to support native biodiversity there needs to be more land set aside for the system. A major benefit of an expanded natural land base is its contribution to maintaining and /or returning a more natural hydrologic regime. This has been dramatcially demonstrated through the recent completion of A Watershed Plan for Duffers Creek and Carruthers Creek (TRCA, 2003). In this work it has been shown that increasing natural cover within the Duffins Creek watershed from 37% (existing) to 49% resulted in a number of the subcatchments having peak flow decreases up to 25% over the existing flows for the 100 year event. Vision TRCA's vision for the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System is a sustainable system that is accessible to and valued by the region's residents as the foundation for the health and ecological integrity of the Toronto region, making it "The Living City ". Goal To work with all stakeholders to protect the land base shown as the Target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System and fully restore the system by 2100. July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G38 Objectives TRCA's objectives for the Toronto region Terrestrial Natural Heritage System are to: Increase natural cover to target system levels, the quantity and quality of forests, wetlands and other terrestrial natural heritage communities across the region. Optimize the location and distribution of forests, wetlands and other terrestrial natural heritage communities across the region to ensure a sustainable and robust natural heritage system. Ensure that biodiversity of species, habitats and communities of conservation concern can recover, evolve and flourish throughout the region as development and intensification continues. Contribute to the Toronto region's sense of place by defining, differentiating and sustaining the landscape characteristics of the region's human communities. Provide opportunities throughout the Toronto region for natural heritage enjoyment through appropriate outdoor recreation that is sustainable for a growing population. For the purpose of better reflecting the diversity within TRCA's jurisdiction, the Strategy divides the region into four natural heritage planning zones. Each zone has its own combination of physical, land use and development characteristics. From north to south the four zones are: Oak Ridges Moraine /Niagara Escarpment zone; Rural zone; Urbanizing zone; Urban zone. STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES FOR A TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM Protecting terrestrial natural heritage requires a comprehensive approach that deals with ecosystem structure, form and function, and species populations across the whole landscape. Ecological systems and processes are complex and uncertain. It is usually easier to prevent environmental damage than to repair it later. A terrestrial natural heritage system can be designed for an area as small as a neighbourhood or as large as a continent. Compatibility between scales is important. SYSTEM DESIGN PRINCIPLES Seven design principles have guided the development of the target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System and the proposed programs and draft policies for implementation. Quantity More natural cover is better. The higher the percentage of natural cover in any area, the more likely that the area will have a greater degree of ecological integrity. Distribution More evenly distributed natural cover is better. The more evenly natural cover is distributed across an area, the more effectively ecological functions can operate across the whole landscape, bringing the area closer to ecological integrity. G39 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 Size Larger habitat patches are better for promoting biodiversity because they provide more niches and resources to support more species; more vegetation age classes and community types; and larger populations of species. Native Biodiversity The more that a habitat patch or ecosystem is dominated by native species, the closer it will be to ecological integrity. Shape In developed or fragmented landscapes, habitat patches that are more compact and consolidated have the least amount of edge, and are therefore less vulnerable to adverse external effects. Matrix Influence (Surrounding Land Use) Generally, the proximity of other natural cover within the matrix is beneficial. While agricultural uses within the matrix have some negative effects, the greatest adverse effects are associated with urban development. Connectivity The more connected (through direct linkage or proximity) that habitat patches are to each other, the more effectively ecological functions operate across the whole landscape, and the better the opportunities to support viable populations of species of conservation concern. SETTING TARGETS The recommended target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System represents a "quantity" target of 30% forest and wetland cover, with a "quality" target so that, on average, the habitat patches could ultimately support species of conservation concern, and a "distribution" target that strives to reduce the northward Toss of habitat, recognizing that a truly even distribution is not achievable due to the long history of settlement and development in the TRCA's jurisdiction. The results of the analyses done for the State of the Terrestrial Ecosystem(TRCA, 2002) report are shown in the distribution of existing natural cover (forest and wetlands) by each of the four zones in the first two columns of the table below. Achieving the recommended target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System requires that additional lands be secured for natural heritage protection. The amount above existing cover for each of the zones is shown in the last two columns. The second table shows the distribution of existing natural cover and the increases needed to acheive the target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System by watershed. July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G40 Quantity of Natural Cover by Zone for Existing and Target Conditions (Table 2 from the Strategy document) Zone Existing Natural Cover Target Natural Cover Hectares % of Zone Hectares % of Zone Urban 7,934 7% 15464 13 Urbanizing 5,926 18% 9830 29 Rural 9,743 18% 17629 33 Moraine /Escarpment 17,898 39% 29446 63 Total, Region 41,502 17% 72,369 30% Quantity of Natural Cover by Watershed for Existing and Target Conditions (Table 3 from the Strategy document) Watershed Existing Natural Cover Target Natural Cover Hectares % of Hectares % of Watershed Watershed Carruthers Creek 665 17 1,252 33 Don River 3,116 9 5,772 16 Duffins Creek 8,190 29 12,866 45 Etobicoke Creek 1,207 6 2,500 12 Frenchman's Bay 353 13 658 24 Highland Creek 608 6 1,307 13 Humber River 19,841 22 34,800 38 Mimico Creek 208 3 635 8 Petticoat Creek 491 18 856 32 Rouge River 4,930 15 10,735 32 Lake Ontario Waterfront 734 6 1,404 12 Implementation of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy depends on securing, protecting and ultimately restoring the land base. The Strategy document contains strategic directions to protect the system including nine proposed policies for land use and infrastructure planning that could be used by our partner municipalities. The Strategy also provides strategic direction for land management, stewardship and outreach, as well as monitoring of the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system over time. G41 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 As noted earlier, the improvement of the terrestrial natural heritage system has multiple benefits for the watersheds, particularly in maintaining the hydrological function and aquatic habitats of the watersheds. The exploration of these benefits will be part of the preparation of watershed plans. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Consultation with municipalities and other stakeholders will begin once direction from the Authority is received. The consultation will include circulation of the draft document as well as a facilitated workshop. The workshop would take place this summer. Staff will revise the draft Strategy and bring it back to the Authority for adoption in the fall. RES. #G16/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: SPILLS MANAGEMENT PROJECT AND WORKSHOP To update the Humber Alliance, Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, Don Regeneration Council, Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Group, Rouge Park Alliance, Lake Ontario waterfront advocates, and Duffins & Carruthers Task Forces on the spills management project, advisory committee, background report and upcoming workshop on September 28, 2004. Richard Whitehead Kathrine Mabley THAT the report on the spills management project be received; THAT Luciano Martin and John Willetts attend the Spills Workshop on September 29, 2004 with representatives of the federal and provincial governments, regional and local municipal staff, community -based watershed groups, and other stakeholders; THAT the designated Humber Watershed Alliance members review the background report and develop recommendations in anticipation of the spills workshop; AND FURTHER THAT participants report back to the Humber Watershed Alliance on the outcome of the workshop CARRIED BACKGROUND In their efforts to address the impacts of spills upon the highly urbanized creeks within Brampton, Mississauga and Toronto, the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition identified spills as a priority target for action within their 2003/2004 workplan. However, it was quickly realized that other groups across the nine watersheds within the TRCA jurisdiction have similar priorities identified within their strategy documents and report cards, and that a coordinated approach, including the Regional Spills Action Centres, Ministry of Environment, and Environment Canada would best address spills issues across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G42 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES The overall goal of this initiative is to raise awareness about spills management issues and ensure that effective measures are implemented to prevent and control harmful substances from entering our watersheds and the waterfront, monitor when they do, and coordinate responses to spills. The following actions were identified to better address the spills issue within the watersheds: 1. Spills Advisory Committee An advisory committee was formed with spills experts from the federal, provincial, and municipal governments as well as TRCA. 2. Background Report A background report was produced that summarized existing information relating to spills management in the Greater Toronto Area including: number of spills (type and location), ecosystem impacts, agency roles and responsibilities, response procedures, legislation to best practices. This background report was compiled by Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) staff in consultation with a "Spills Advisory Committee ". The Committee was comprised of representatives from Environment Canada, Ministry of the Environment, City of Toronto, Region of Durham, York Region, Region of Peel and TRCA. 3. Host an Information Workshop A workshop has been planned for September 28, 2004 to discuss the background report and spills within the GTA with members of the watershed groups, TRCA, Regions, Environment Canada, Ministry of Environment and other stakeholders. Members of watershed groups are encouraged to attend and develop recommendations to table at the workshop. 4. Recommendations / Discussion Paper The information gathered in the preparation of the background report and the workshop will be used to: • identify gaps and provide potential solutions; • identify spill prone areas and develop preventative, remedial, and restorative measures; . • develop a framework to guide future monitoring activities through the Regional Watershed Monitoring Network; • facilitate efficient inter - agency coordination; and, determine roles and outreach opportunities for community -based watershed task forces. RATIONALE Spills prevention and management are important issues to all nine watersheds within the Toronto and Region Conservation's jurisdiction as well as to the Ministry of Environment and Environment Canada. G43 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 Community -based watershed groups are important advocates of healthy river systems and addressing spills management has been identified as a key action in their strategies. The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Task Force identified spills management as a priority for action in their strategy, Greening Our Watersheds , within the highly urbanized watersheds of Brampton, Mississauga, and Etobicoke. 40 Steps to a New Don, the report of the Don Watershed Task Force recognizes spill prevention as one of the steps to a cleaner Don River. The report states that we must: "continue municipal spills prevention and control programs, regularly evaluating, updating and improving them where necessary'. Environmental objective 10 in Legacy: A Strategy for a Hea /thy Humber, the report of the Humber Watershed Task Force emphasizes that we must "Protect ground and surface water from spills and illegal discharges of hazardous material". The Fall 2003 Humber Watershed Progress Reportidentifies future actions to achieve targets such as "identify areas of vulnerability to spills and develop remedial measures." DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Staff to distribute the background report and workshop invitations to Humber Alliance members in late August / early September. Members of the Humber Alliance to attend the spills workshop on September 28, 2004, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. • Members of the Alliance to develop a plan of action for the Humber River based on the workshop recommendations RES. #G17/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: TOWARDS A GOLDEN HORSESHOE GREENBELT: GREENBELT TASK FORCE DISCUSSION PAPER Summarizing the contents of the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper and outlining the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's comments for submission to the province. lain Craig Nancy Stewart THAT the report on the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND The Executive Committee of the Authority at their meeting #6/04, held on July 9, 2004, adopted the following report and resolution: WHEREAS the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper is compatible with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy and The Living City in that they each recognize; 1) the importance of taking a systems approach to protecting natural heritage and biodiversity; and, 2)each recognize the multiple benefits to be achieved from a healthy environment that contributes to a high quality of life for residents, such July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G44 as clean air and water, recreational opportunities and fostering a sense of community; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the TRCA advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs that TRCA supports the general directions of the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper, which will have major implications for the future quality of life for residents of southern Ontario; THAT staff comments and recommendations on the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper, as outlined in this report, be endorsed by the Authority and submitted to the province by the commenting dead line of July 16, 2004; THAT the province consider the inclusion of groundwater in the Natural Resources layer of the greenbelt plan and protection of significant areas based on the results of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition/York Pee/ Durham Toronto groundwater studies; THAT within TRCA watersheds, the Target System of the TNHS Strategy be protected as the minimum for the "Environmental Protection" layer of the greenbelt, and that staff append to the submission to the province the draft Toronto and Region Terrestrial Natural Heritage System (TNHS) Strategy; THAT the province make available, prior to any final decisions being made on a Greenbelt, its proposals for comprehensive transportation and growth management plans for south - central Ontario, which recognise existing approved municipal growth management studies and planning documents; and also that there should be a review of the environmental assessment process to ensure that the consideration of alternatives reflects emerging technologies, innovative designs and especially an appropriate balance of roads and transit; THAT the TRCA supports the Task Force view that the Greenbelt not be intended as primarily a land reserve for a future transportation /utilities corridor and that stringent need /alternatives assessment provisions for these uses be included as part of the Greenbelt Plan; THAT the TRCA supports the Task Force recommendations on agricultural lands to be protected, with the caveat that the financial and infrastructure supports necessary to ensure the sustainabi/ity of near -urban agriculture must be included as part of the implementation of a Greenbe /t Plan; and that the GTA Agricultural Action Plan be used as the basis to develop and implement sustainable agricultural policies and practices. THAT in addition to the proposed review of the financial tools availab /e to protect agricultural lands, the province also include in that review financial too /s that serve other environmental purposes, including the natural heritage system and source water protection, and that a clear distinction be made between income tax incentives and property tax incentives; G45 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 THAT aggregate extraction be excluded as a permitted use in the "environmental protection" layer of the greenbe /t; that the higher threshold for tests required to permit aggregate extraction, as found in the ORMCP, be required for extraction within the greenbelt plan area; and, that new stricter requirements for rehabilitation of older pits that pre -date the Aggregate Resources Act be considered; THA T, as one example of lands to be included in the Culture, Recreation and Tourism layer of a Greenbe /t P /an, the Humber River and associated lands including the Boyd Conservation Area, Kortright Centre for Conservation (future home of The Living City Centre) and the McMichael Gallery in K/e/nburg be protected and designated as a special Greenbelt Area; THAT the province finish the model site alteration and tree cutting by -laws that were being prepared for the ORM and require them for use in the greenbelt plan area as well; THAT TRCA supports the task force recommendation that the greenbe /t be implemented through provincial legislation that creates a Greenbe /t Protection P /an and that extensive consultation be he /d with implementing agencies to determine the most effective means for achieving conformity in municipal official plans, THAT TRCA staff be given the opportunity to make a presentation on the TNHS Strategy to the Greenbelt Task Force and appropriate provincial representatives; AND FURTHER THAT this report be circulated for information to TRCA 's municipal partners, the members of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition, Conservation Ontario and MPPs within TRCA watersheds. On December 16, 2003, Bill 27, an "Act to establish a greenbelt study area and to amend the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act" was introduced into the legislature by the provincial government. TRCA staff reported on this proposed Act at Authority Meeting #1/04, held on January 30, 2004, wherein Resolution #A22/04 was approved in part as follows: ...THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the TRCA advise the Minister of Municipal Affa/rs that TRCA, in principle, supports Bill 27, Greenbelt Protection Act 2003; THAT staff be directed to assist in the deliberations on the establishment of a greenbelt by providing information and expert advise on terrestrial and aquatic resources and opportunities for protection; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to work with the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition to further this initiative and to report back as necessary. The province subsequently appointed a task force in February, 2004 to develop recommendations on how the province could most effectively establish a permanent Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt. Task force members with conservation authority affiliation include Russ July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G46 Powell, Chief Administrative Officer of Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and Deborah Schulte, member of the Humber Watershed Alliance. On May 13, 2004 the task force released their discussion paper and began a series of consultation sessions, both public evening sessions and day -time sessions for invited stakeholders. TRCA staff attended several of the stakeholder sessions to provide input at the facilitated workshops. The discussion paper has been posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry for 60 days with comments due by mid -July. SUMMARY OF THE GREENBELT TASK FORCE DISCUSSION PAPER The paper sets out a broad vision and goals recommending that the greenbelt be a permanent and sustainable legacy that will enhance the quality of life for current and future residents by serving an array of functions, while recognizing the projected population increase of up to three million people within the region over the next thirty years. The task force considered five "layers" of functions for the proposed greenbelt: 1) environmental protection 2) agricultural protection 3) transportation and infrastructure 4) natural resources, especially mineral aggregates, and 5) culture, tourism and recreation. Two overarching themes are also noted as needing to be integrated into greenbelt considerations: a growth management plan for the central Ontario region, which is currently under development by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal; and, implementation and administration approaches, models and tools for establishing and administering a greenbelt. Source Water Protection and Planning Reform (Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement review) are noted as other initiatives which could influence the proposed greenbelt. The Five Layers of a Greenbelt The section on Environmental Protection seeks to protect and enhance core water and land areas and the linkages between them, including linkages to Lakes Ontario and Simcoe; to enhance biodiversity and connectivity; and, to contribute to clean air and water, scenic landscapes and outdoor recreation opportunities. The recommendations are similar to the format of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan in that a "systems" approach is proposed to include a natural heritage system, a water resources system, landform conservation and a network of open spaces. The discussion paper recommends that the greenbelt be integrated with the broader water resources system being developed through source water protection and watershed management. Implementation tools proposed include planning controls, a parks and trail strategy, an acquisition and stewardship strategy, and tree conservation and site alteration by -laws. The proposed approaches to environmental protection would define a system of natural and hydrological features and functions that "should" include provincially significant features, functions and connections between them and "could" include regionally significant features and functions. Additionally, a two -tier hierarchy of protection is proposed whereby very limited new uses (i.e. conservation uses) could occur in the most sensitive areas and a variety of compatible uses could occur in the less sensitive areas. The section on Agricultural Protection proposes to permanently protect critical areas such as specialty crop areas, including the Holland Marsh and the Niagara tender fruit and grape lands. Large areas of prime agricultural lands are also recommended for permanent protection in the greenbelt. A comprehensive review that assesses intensification and redevelopment opportunities in existing urban areas is proposed as a requirement prior to expanding urban boundaries into prime agricultural lands. The task force recognizes the issue of economic viability of agricultural lands and recommends a review of taxation policies and other financial tools to support agriculture. G47 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 The section on Transportation and Infrastructure recommends that the greenbelt not be viewed as a land reserve for future infrastructure needs but that it be permitted where a demonstrated need exists, within the context of an improved environmental assessment process, the provincial growth management plan and with an appropriate balance of roads and transit. The section on Natural Resources relates primarily to aggregate resources and the need for their protection for long term use as close to market as possible. A more rigorous approach to rehabilitation and a provincial review of the licensing process to facilitate new supply and ensure the integrity of hydrological and ecological systems are the basis of the proposed approach for natural resources in the greenbelt. The section on Culture, Tourism and Recreation notes the importance of cultural landscapes, public open spaces and conservation areas in promoting healthy lifestyles, greenbelt - compatible economic opportunities and community character. The task force recognizes that the close proximity of these amenities to existing urban areas contributes to residents' quality of life and that expanding urban areas to accommodate continuing population growth could degrade these amenities. The task force recommends promotion and marketing initiatives to support a network of public and private recreation, tourism and cultural heritage related activities and destinations. The final section of the discussion paper addresses greenbelt administration and implementation options, including a review of related Ontario situations such as the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP), as well as other greenbelt models from other provinces and the United States. The approaches for administration and implementation proposed by the task force includes: legislation coordinated with the provincial growth management initiative to ensure permanence of the greenbelt through consistency in policy application, while having regard to regional differences; a Greenbelt Protection Plan that knits together the NEP, ORMCP and other appropriate lands to be administered by municipalities through consistent incorporation into their official plans; an appellate tribunal; involving a stakeholder working group to take task force recommendations to fruition; being subject to monitoring performance standards and a 10 -year review; and, fiscal measures concerning conservation and agricultural viability, including special incentives for landowners for restoration, protection and stewardship of their properties. TRCA STAFF ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS ON THE GREENBELT DISCUSSION PAPER TRCA supports and commends the task force on the following specific points addressed in the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper: • the need for a "systems" approach to protecting natural heritage and biodiversity; • the recognition that a healthy, functioning natural environment is an essential component to a high quality of life for area residents by providing additional benefits such as clean air and water, recreational and educational opportunities and fostering community pride through scenic landscapes and a sense of place; • the need to permanently protect high quality agricultural lands for agricultural uses; July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G48 • that a permanent greenbelt should be implemented through a legislated Greenbelt Protection Plan which would be administered by municipalities through incorporation into municipal official plans; and, • that additional, necessary non - regulatory means of implementing a greenbelt plan are recommended such as financial and tax incentives for private land stewardship, agricultural land protection and urban intensification and brownfields redevelopment. While TRCA supports the general directions of the discussion paper, it is a fairly broad document whose ultimate implementation can benefit from the specific work undertaken through TRCA's TNHS Strategy. The TNHS Strategy is based on four years of intensive ground - truthed field data, a peer- reviewed and scientifically defensible methodology and an approach that is compatible with similar work being undertaken by our sister conservation authorities. The key conclusions of the TNHS Strategy are that the current amount of natural cover within TRCA's jurisdiction, at 17 %, is continuing to decline in quality and native biodiversity. An increase in the terrestrial natural heritage system to 30% of the land base is required to withstand the pressures of the anticipated population growth of three million people. From this perspective, TRCA staff provide the following detailed comments on the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper. Vision and Goals The vision for the Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt is that it will be a "permanent and sustainable legacy for current and future generations ". The TNHS Strategy clearly and scientifically shows that the current amount of natural cover within TRCA's jurisdiction is not sustainable even for the current population, let alone for the projected growth. Staff recommends that, within its watersheds, the Target System of the TNHS Strategy be protected as the minimum for the "Environmental Protection" layer of the greenbelt, and that staff append to the submission to the province the draft Toronto and Region Terrestrial Natural Heritage System (TNHS) Strategy. Background and Context This section notes that the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal is developing a growth management plan that will target areas for intensification and transit investment in an effort to reduce the demand for new land. While TRCA supports this direction, which must address the potential "leapfrog" effect of a greenbelt on urban growth patterns, the current unavailability of this key document leads to the analysis of the greenbelt paper in a vacuum. Staff recommends that when the province releases its Greenbelt Protection Plan for consultation, based on the work of the Greenbelt Task Force, that it also make available the growth management plan so that informed analysis based on full knowledge of all relevant factors can be considered. Environmental Protection The proposed approach of the task force to environmental protection is to define a system of natural and hydrological features and functions that "should" include provincially significant features and functions such as the Oak Ridges Moraine, Niagara Escarpment, Rouge Valley and the connections between them such as the major river valleys connecting to Lakes Ontario and Simcoe. They further recommend that the system "could" include regionally significant features and functions such as portions of the Lake Iroquois shoreline. In the opinion of staff, this recommendation is clearly inadequate for the TRCA jurisdiction, as it barely even meets G49 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 the status quo for environmental protection. Staff recommends the Target System of the TNHS Strategy be protected as the appropriate natural heritage system for the TRCA jurisdiction. The task force recommends a hierarchy of environmental protection, similar to the ORMCP, where only conservation- related new uses would be permitted in "sensitive areas" while a variety of compatible uses could be permitted in less sensitive areas. There needs to be a clear distinction made between "greenspace" protected for ecological purposes relative to greenspace protected as "open space" for recreational and other similar uses. The TNHS Strategy shows that even if all current environmental features (17% of TRCA jurisdiction) are protected, the quality of that natural system will continue to decline as urban growth continues and the current natural system is subject to increasing use pressures. For the approach proposed by the task force to work, staff recommends that the "sensitive areas" where only conservation- related new uses are permitted be defined as the Target System of the TNHS Strategy. One of the goals of the greenbelt is to protect, sustain and restore the ecological features and functions of the natural environment. Only the concept of protection of existing features and functions is dealt with in the approaches proposed for environmental protection. To fulfill the goal of sustaining and restoring a healthy natural heritage system, the Target System of the TNHS Strategy needs to be achieved. The financial incentives proposed to protect agricultural lands such as easements, land trusts and changes to tax policies and the property value assessment system, also need to apply to lands designated for the environmental protection layer. Staff recommends implementation of the Target System of the TNHS Strategy in order to achieve the complete task force goal of protecting, SUSTAINING and RESTORING the natural heritage system. Staff further recommends that in addition to the proposed review of the financial tools available to protect agricultural lands, that the province also include in that review financial tools that serve other environmental purposes, including the natural heritage system and source water protection. Staff also recommends that a clear distinction be made between income tax incentives and property tax incentives. Agricultural Protection The proposed approach of the task force to agricultural protection is to permanently protect the entire Holland Marsh and the Niagara tender fruit and grape lands plus other prime agricultural lands that are sufficiently large in area to support a viable agricultural economy. This is similar in concept to the TNHS Strategy approach of protecting a defined and targeted land base of sufficient size and quality to adequately sustain the resource in perpetuity. In that regard, staff supports the inclusion of all designated prime agricultural lands within its jurisdiction for protection, with the caveat that the financial and infrastructure supports necessary to ensure the sustainability of near -urban agriculture must be included as part of the implementation of a Greenbelt Plan. The task force recommends that a provincial task force on agriculture be created immediately to develop agricultural policies that will ensure a viable agricultural industry across the greenbelt and the rest of Ontario. While this may be beneficial for the remainder of the province, it is redundant for most of the greenbelt lands as a GTA Agricultural Action Plan has recently been developed by the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) regional municipalities, the City of Toronto, the GTA Federations of Agriculture and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G50 Staff recommends that the GTA Agricultural Action Plan be used as the basis to develop and implement sustainable agricultural policies and practices rather than creating a new task force to do this. Transportation and Infrastructure The discussion paper recommends that development of a greenbelt should not weaken existing provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan or the Niagara Escarpment Plan. Staff agrees and recommends that the higher thresholds of approval established in the ORMCP and NEP for transportation, infrastructure and mineral aggregate resource uses be incorporated into a Greenbelt Protection Plan. Staff also agrees that there should be a review of the environmental assessment process to ensure that the consideration of alternatives reflects emerging technologies, innovative designs and especially an appropriate balance of roads and transit. Natural Resources The discussion paper recommends that high potential aggregate areas should be included in the greenbelt and protected from incompatible land uses, and that a more rigorous approach to rehabilitation is needed. Aggregate resources often have adverse impacts on local communities (including cultural landscape and haul route traffic /access road impacts) which need to be addressed carefully in opening any new or expanded facilities. With respect to aggregate resources, staff recommends that aggregate extraction be excluded as a permitted use in the "environmental protection" layer of the greenbelt; that the higher threshold for tests required to permit aggregate extraction, as found in the ORMCP, be required for extraction within the greenbelt plan area; and, that new stricter requirements for rehabilitation of older pits that pre -date the Aggregate Resources Act be considered. The task force report deals with aggregate resources only in this section, but welcomes comments on other natural resources as well. Conspicuous by its absence in this section is groundwater resources and the issue of water balance for the health of the watersheds, and ultimately the protection of the Great Lakes. While mentioned in the environmental protection layer for its ecological functions, groundwater also needs to be addressed in the Natural Resources section for its role in municipal water supply for domestic uses, as well as its use for agricultural and recreational purposes. Major groundwater studies are currently being undertaken by the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC) and their municipal partners (York, Peel, Durham and Toronto within the TRCA jurisdiction). Staff recommends that groundwater be included in the Natural Resources layer of the greenbelt plan and significant areas (such as recharge areas) be protected based on the results of the CAMC/YPDT groundwater studies. Culture, Recreation and Tourism The task force report correctly points out that these amenities, including conservation areas, contribute to a high quality of life and that continued urban expansion would likely degrade these existing areas at precisely the time when more are needed to serve a rapidly growing population. As a major land owner of ecologically significant land and provider of outdoor recreational /educational services and facilities, TRCA has a direct stake in ensuring the wise management and viability of these operations. TRCA agrees that one of the functions of the greenbelt should be to provide opportunities for compatible economic activities such as G51 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 tourism and outdoor recreation, in order to provide for the long term prosperity and sustainability of the rural lands within the greenbelt. It is important that lands within the environmental protection layer be carefully integrated with protected cultural and heritage landscapes and resources to strengthen the vitality, integrity and profile of the greenbelt. As one example, staff recommends that the Humber River and associated lands including the Boyd Conservation Area, Kortright Centre for Conservation (future home of The Living City Centre) and the McMichael Gallery in Kleinburg be protected and designated as a special Greenbelt Area. Administration and Implementation The task force recognizes that the vast majority of lands in the greenbelt are privately -owned and that both regulatory and non - regulatory approaches will be required to implement a greenbelt plan. In particular, conservation authorities are recognized for their role in public education, land stewardship and land securement. The report notes that certain lands within the greenbelt may be eligible for various means of tax relief or incentives such as the federal Ecological Gifts Program or provincial initiatives such as the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program, the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program or the Farm Property Taxation Policy. The report also recommends that special incentives to landowners for restoration, protection and stewardship of lands designated in the greenbelt area is required. Staff agrees that incentives such as tax relief is warranted for owners of private lands that have their uses restricted to provide public benefits, and that this is a necessary component of implementing a greenbelt plan. Site alteration and tree conservation by -laws are proposed as some of the regulatory means of implementing a greenbelt. These were proposed as part of the ORMC Act but their implementation was not fully completed. Staff recommends that the province finish the model site alteration and tree cutting by -laws that were being prepared for the ORM and require them for use in the greenbelt plan area as well. TRCA agrees with the task force proposal for greenbelt legislation that creates a Greenbelt Protection Plan. Our experience in implementation of the ORMCP has shown that a provincial regulation backed by legislation is much more effective in the protection of environmental features and functions than reliance on the Provincial Policy Statement or municipal official plans. Recent studies undertaken for the Niagara Escarpment Commission have found that the NEP /NEC has been more successful than local planning controls in preventing the introduction of non -farm residential uses and other urban uses into agricultural areas. Similarly, related studies have shown that the amount of loss of forest cover inside NEP lands is significantly less than study control areas outside the plan area, and that there is also a much higher rate of reforestation on lands within the NEP than on lands outside the plan area. It is important to note, however, that TRCA does not support a new commission to implement a greenbelt plan. We believe that the ORMCP model of requiring municipalities to amend their official plans in conformity with the regulation is the most effective mechanism for implementation. We do believe, however, that the process can be designed to be less onerous than what was required for the ORMCP. We also believe that conservation authorities need to be recognized for their expected role in implementation of a greenbelt plan as conservation authorities in the Toronto region have expended significant staff efforts and costs in the review of ORM applications and defence of the ORMCP at OMB hearings. Further, we advise caution with respect to "knitting July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G52 together" the greenbelt plan with the ORMCP and the NEP. In our view, it will be simpler to establish a greenbelt plan first and assess possibilities for streamlining /knitting together at some future date. Staff supports the task force recommendation that the greenbelt be implemented through provincial legislation that creates a Greenbelt Protection Plan and that extensive consultation be held with implementing agencies to determine the most effective means for achieving conformity in municipal official plans. RES. #G18/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: CITY OF TORONTO WET WEATHER FLOW MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN (WWFMMP) BEACHES PROTECTION PIER Proposed beaches protection piers in the City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow Master Management Plan ( WWFMMP) at the mouth of the Humber River and the Etobicoke Creek to improve water quality along the Lake Ontario shoreline. Deb Schulte Richard Whitehead THAT the report on the City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan (WWFMMP) Beaches Protection Pier be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority at its meeting #6/04, held on June 25, 2004, adopted the following report and resolution: THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staffreport on the proposed beaches protection piers in the Wet Weather F /ow Management Master P /an at the mouth of the Humber River and the Etobicoke Creek, be received; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be sent to the City of Toronto and the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC). At Authority Meeting #2/04 , held on February 27, 2004, correspondence was received from Madeleine McDowell, Chair of the Humber Heritage Committee, expressing concern about the City of Toronto proceeding with the construction of a beaches protection pier at the mouth of the Humber River and the Etobicoke Creek to improve water quality along the Western Beaches. Members of the Authority requested a further staff report on the proposed process and that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff consult with the City of Toronto staff in the development of this. The Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan was initiated by the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in 1997. Its goal was "to reduce, and ultimately, eliminate the adverse effects of wet weather flow on the built and natural environment in a timely and sustainable manner, and to achieve a measurable improvement in ecosystem health of the watersheds." G53 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 Following the Class Environmental Assessment process, the plan was developed in four stages. Stage I, completed in 1998, involved collecting data on current environmental conditions and developing goals and objectives to guide the process. Stage II focused on developing a Wet Weather Flow Management Strategy for the city and was completed in August, 2003. Stage III and IV of the planning process focused on implementation of the master plan and monitoring the plan's effectiveness. Development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Strategy included documentation of existing conditions, establishing targets, assessing potential wet weather flow control options, evaluation of flow management strategies and preparing a wet weather flow implementation plan. As part of this process, technical studies were prepared for each of the city's six watershed study areas, including Mimico Creek, Etobicoke Creek, Humber River, Don River, Highland Creek, Rouge River, the combined sewer system study area and the waterfront. A wet weather flow management policy was also developed from the technical study results and recommendations. TRCA staff was involved throughout the preparation of the WWFMMP. Staff provided background information, participated in the steering committee and assisting at times in public consultation with the watershed advisory committees. At Authority Meeting #2104 a presentation was made by Mike Price, General Manager, Water and Wastewater Service, City of Toronto in regards to the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. Resolution #A47/04 was adopted which states: WHEREAS the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master P /an provides detailed recommendations for addressing stormwater, combined sewer overflow, and infiltration /inflow problems, which have been identified by the Toronto and Region Remedial Action P /an (Clean Waters Clear Choices, 1994) and local watershed management strategies (Forty Steps to a New Don -1994, Legacy - A Strategy for a Hea /thy Humber - 1997; and Greening Our Watersheds - Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks, 2002) as representing the most significant sources of impairment to Toronto's watersheds and waterfront; WHEREAS the City's WWFMMP study followed an innovative, comprehensive approach; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Chair of the Authority send a letter of congratulations to the City of Toronto on the completion of the Wet Weather F /ow Management Master Plan and express TRCA's intent to assist the City of Toronto with the plan's implementation; THAT the TRCA promote a consistent approach to wet weather flow management among all municipalities throughout the Toronto watersheds through inter - regional workshops and joint projects; July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G54 THAT TRCA staff assist in WWFMMP implementation by incorporating specific actions within work programs including: watershed planning studies, wet weather flow policy, Regional Watershed Monitoring Network, ongoing education, outreach, stewardship and regeneration programs, and stormwater management technology performance evaluations; AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to meet regularly and work with City of Toronto staff on the completion of the technical and management guidelines to support the implementation of Wet Weather Flow Policy and projects. The proposed beaches protection pier is primarily intended to address beach closures along the western waterfront. Modelling conducted as part of the WWFMMP showed that implementation of enhanced stormwater measures, as described in the preferred strategy, would not fully achieve recreational use targets at the western beaches. These modelling results for the preferred strategy included the stormwater best management practices that have been undertaken within the watershed areas upstream of the City of Toronto, and assumed that the best management practices approach to stormwater management would continue to be implemented. In our written comments to the City of Toronto on the WWFMMP reports last August, TRCA recommended that further investigation of the beaches protection pier be delayed until the water quality benefits of stormwater management, agricultural best management practices and enhanced natural cover in the '905' area had also been evaluated. TRCA is proposing to complete this work for the Humber River watershed in 2004 and 2005 as part of its watershed planning process. Comments received by the city during the public and agency review period were considered and incorporated into the final master plan which was presented to Toronto City Council in late September, 2003. The master plan received final endorsement from City Council during its meeting held from September 22 -25, 2003. As part of this resolution, the City of Toronto agreed to delay the Class Environmental Assessment process for the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek beaches protection piers and instead, requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report back to the Works Committee by April, 2004 on consultations with expert stakeholders and the community in these watersheds. On Wednesday, May 19, 2004, a public meeting was hosted at Black Creek Pioneer Village, City of Toronto. Invitations were sent directly to over 215 individual addresses including residents, interest groups, yacht clubs, angling clubs, multicultural groups, elected representatives and staff from the City of Toronto and TRCA. A paid advertisement was also placed in the Etobicoke Guardian newspaper. Approximately 15 agency and staff representatives and 8 members of the general public attended the meeting. The staff of Toronto will be reporting shortly to committee and council on this issue. TRCA staff has identified a number of factors, at this time, that should be taken into account during the Environmental Assessment process for the proposed piers: • potential sedimentation at the mouths of the rivers and the remedial measures necessary to deal with the impacts; G55 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 • acceptable defined fill limit in the lake; • potential benefit to water quality of increased natural habitat areas throughout the watershed; • existing aquatic ecosystems in and adjacent to the subject site; • adequate aquatic habitat compensation within the context of the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy; • public use supported within and adjacent to the beaches protection pier within the context of the Toronto waterfront revitalization plan; (Le. boating, trails, fishing and public access); • navigation issues and solutions; and, • cost/benefit when compared to the actual swimming opportunities that would be created by the beaches protection piers. TRCA staff is committed to working with the City of Toronto through the environmental assessment process by providing additional information as it becomes available to assist in determining if further options are feasible to meet the objectives regarding safe swimming. Copies of this report should be provided to the City of Toronto, the TWRC and to Madeleine McDowell. RES. #G19/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: CENTREVILLE CREEK - Community Outreach and Environmental Stewardship Program Approval to commence a community outreach and environmental stewardship program in the Centreville Creek subwatershed in partnership with Trout Unlimited Canada (TUC). Bill Wilson Lois Griffin THAT the report on the Centreville Creek Community Outreach and Environmental Stewardship Program be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND The Watershed Management Advisory Board at its meeting #4/04, held on July 16, 2004, adopted the following report and recommendations: THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Centreville Creek Community Outreach and Environmental Stewardship Program be approved; THAT staff be authorized to take such action as is necessary to implement the Centreville Creek Community Outreach and Environmental Stewardship Program, including the signing and execution of all required documentation; July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G56 AND FURTHER THAT staff provide an annual project progress report that highlights the milestones and the accomplishments of the program. In 1997, the Humber River watershed strategy titled Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber was published. It identified watershed issues and listed thirty objectives to achieve a healthy watershed. Included in the strategy were recommendations for further work to enhance our understanding of the features and functions of the natural heritage, human heritage and recreational resources of the watershed. Since 1997, a great deal of new science -based technical work has been completed which is now being incorporated into an updated watershed plan to satisfy the Oak Ridges Moraine Act and for more local subwatershed plans. In the Humber watershed, significant urban development is occurring and is expected to continue for some time prompting the importance of developing detailed subwatershed plans. The Centreville Creek subwatershed in the Town of Caledon is one of those subwatersheds where a detailed subwatershed plan is being finalized. This high quality headwater tributary of the Humber River flows from the Niagara Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine into the main branch of the Humber River in the Albion Hills Conservation Area, located approximately six kilometers northeast of the village of Caledon East. The subwatershed plan for Centreville Creek integrates technical studies related to surface and groundwater, water use, aquatic resources and terrestrial habitats. The subwatershed plan provides meaningful local information to guide priorities and specific projects to protect and improve the form and function of the natural environment and guide future urban growth. The Centreville Creek Community Outreach and Environmental Stewardship Program was developed to respond to some of the recommendations in the subwatershed plan. The Humber Watershed Alliance, a community based committee of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), has been actively involved in establishing partnerships to focus on resources to achieve such things as habitat enhancement, water quality improvement, community awareness and recreational opportunities. Trout Unlimited is a member of the Humber Watershed Alliance and has been active in aquatic habitat restoration in the Humber watershed for many years. Trout Unlimited Canada - Humber River Chapter was formally established in 2000. Over the past three years as a chapter, members have given a tremendous amount of time and effort to create partnerships with other groups, agencies and the community. In November 2003, Trout Unlimited Canada - Humber River Chapter submitted a funding proposal to the Ontario Trillium Foundation requesting $159,000 over three years to implement the Centreville Creek Community Outreach and Environmental Stewardship Program. In March 2004, TUC received confirmation that their funding request for the Centreville Creek Community Outreach and Environmental Stewardship Program was approved. The majority of the Trillium funds support a project ecologist to co- ordinate the program, develop specific projects, obtain approvals, recruit volunteers to implement activities, and host environmental awareness events. Trout Unlimited Canada has asked TRCA to administer the program on their behalf, and a formal memorandum of understanding to support this relationship will be developed. G57 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 This three -year program is designed to increase awareness and educate the community about environmental issues impacting the Centreville Creek subwatershed, while protecting, restoring and enhancing the ecological health of the area through naturalization projects and stewardship activities. This program will provide hands -on initiatives to empower and involve the community, and ultimately instill a long -term commitment to the regeneration and protection of natural areas within the Centreville Creek subwatershed. Volunteers including local residents, students, community groups and businesses will be invited to participate in various activities. As the majority of land in this subwatershed is in private ownership, stewardship initiatives will focus on engaging private landowners through the TRCA Private Land Tree Planting Program, Rural Clean Water Program, Wood Duck Box Program and Healthy Yards Program. The majority of community based habitat enhancement and naturalization projects will take place in the Albion Hills Conservation Area. This area will be identified as a community action site for the stewardship program providing easy access for volunteers and school groups as well as a highly visible area to demonstrate projects and celebrate accomplishments. Workshops and conservation seminars will be hosted in the subwatershed over the three years to provide opportunities for outreach and education on a variety of environmental stewardship topics. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Ontario Trillium Foundation and the Region of Peel cash contributions for year one of this project total $92,000. In kind contributions, valued at $30,000, will be provided by the Region of Peel, Town of Caledon, TRCA, Citizens Environmental Watch, Environmental Conservation Volunteer Network, Ministry of Natural Resources, Action to Restore a Clean Humber, Ontario Streams and the Humber Watershed Stream Watch Program. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Commencing in June 2004, the Project Ecologist - Centreville Creek Stewardship Project began to work with TUC - Humber River Chapter to further define the timing, reporting structure, accounting procedures and priority projects for year one. • Additional funding sources will be secured to provide further leverage of the Ontario Trillium Foundation funding support. • Annual progress reports will be submitted to the Ontario Trillium Foundation, TUC - Humber River Chapter, and the TRCA Watershed Management Advisory Board. July 20, 2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 G58 NEW BUSINESS PINE VALLEY EXTENSION UPDATE I. Craig gave a brief update on the newly- formed Friends of Boyd group. A flyer has been prepared which will be distributed to all Alliance members. An individual environmental assessment has been requested for the section of Pine Valley Drive from Langstaff to Teston Road. All Alliance members are invited to a barbecue, hosted by Friends of Boyd, on September 19 which will include a walk through Boyd where the road is proposed. Details will be provided once they're available. Also, Friends of Boyd are in the process of launching their website at www.boydpark.ca. RES. #G20/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: Lois Griffin Madeleine McDowell THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance be added to the Friends of Boyd membership CARRIED CANADIAN RIVER HERITAGE CONFERENCE G. Wilkins announced that TRCA received the prestigious National River Conservation Award on June 8th, 2004 at the above conference in Guelph. The award, presented only every ten years, recognizes the outstanding work of TRCA in protecting, restoring and celebrating the heritage values of the Humber River watershed. Congratulations were extended to the Humber Watershed Alliance members whose outstanding contributions resulted in this recognition. G59 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/04 July 20, 2004 ELECTION OF INTERIM CHAIR OF THE ALLIANCE D. O'Brien opened the floor for nominations for Interim Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance. Lois Griffin was nominated as Interim Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance by Miriam Mittermaier. RES. #G21/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: Miriam Mittermaier Sandy Agnew THAT nominations for Interim Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance be closed; AND FURTHER THAT elections for Chair and Vice -Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance be held at the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting on October 19, 2004 CARRIED LOIS GRIFFIN was declared by acclamation as Interim Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance. DOOR PRIZE As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Humber Alliance, G. Wilkins advised that a door prize will be drawn at the end of each Alliance meeting. The door prize available at this meeting was a solar powered radio and flashlight. The winning ticket belonged to Sharon Bradley. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m., July 20, 2004. Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney A/Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer /L. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MINUTES OF MEETING #3/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #11/04 JANUARY 7, 2005 THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 Page G60 October 19, 2004 The Humber Watershed Alliance met at the Seneca College (King Campus)on Tuesday, October 19, 2004. Lois Griffin, Interim Chair of the Humber Alliance, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Sandy Agnew Member Harry Baker Member Margaret Black Member Bill Boston Member Jim Bradley Member Sharon Bradley Member lain Craig Member Dianne Douglas Member Yvette Fournier Member Brenda Fowler Member Krisann Graf Member Lois Griffin Member Suzan Hall Member Alyson Hazlett Member Elaine Heaton Member Ron Hingston Member George Ivanhoff Member Steven Jourdrey Member Kathrine Mabley Member Luciano Martin Member Hugh Mitchell Member Arthur Mittermaier Member Miriam Mittermaier Member Joanne Nonnekes Member Lynda Rogers Member Fernando Rouaux Member Deb Schulte Member Lynn Short Member Nancy Stewart Member Anyika Tafari Member Horst Truttenbach Member Jane Underhill Member 1.19.r, HIIMRFR WATFRSHFr1 Al I IANGF #3/(14 Clrtnhar iq 9(1[14 GUESTS Jeff Hladun Humber Chapter - Trout Unlimited John Yovanoff Ballycroy Area Rural Conservation Alliance Sharon Yovanoff Ballycroy Area Rural Conservation Alliance STAFF Derek Smith Stormwater Monitoring Coordinator Karen Sun Watershed Resources Planner Lisa Turnbull Humber Watershed Project Manager Gary Wilkins Humber Watershed Specialist RES. #G22/04 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: George Ivanhoff Luciano Martin THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/04, held on July 20, 2004, be approved CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) Letter from the Minister of the Environment to Lois Griffin, Dated July 16, 2004, re: Pine Valley Drive Link (b) Letter from the Minister of the Environement to City of Vaughan and region of York, dated July 16'h, 2004, re: Pine Valley Drive Link (c) Letter to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing from the Humber Alliance, dated August 31, 2004, re: Planning Act Reform (d) Letter to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing from the Humber Alliance, dated August 31, 2004, re: Provincial Policy Statement (e) Letter to MOE dated September 28, 2004, re: Preventing and Managing Spills in Ontario (f) Web page from www.mvbolton.com, dated September 13, 2004, re: Commemoration of 50'h Anniversary of Hurricane Hazel October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3104 G26 RES. #G23/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Harry Baker Hugh Mitchell THAT the above correspondence be received CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) Porous Pavement Project Derek Smith, TRCA's Stormwater Monitoring Coordinator made a presentation on the Permeable Pavement and Bioretension Swale Demonstration Project taking place at Seneca College (King Campus). The presentation highlighted: • Technology used for the project . Project purpose Project Design Deliverables for the project (b) Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Update Lisa Turnbull TRCA's Humber Project Manager and former Community Liaison Officer for the RAP, made a presentation on the Toronto and Region RAP. Highlights included: • A brief overview of the issues facing the Toronto and Region RAP (Toronto RAP) Progress made to date in the Toronto RAP The role of TRCA in the Toronto RAP Current projects funded under the Toronto RAP The Toronto RAP's desire to further engage the Watershed Councils The Humber Alliance brought forward a request that the RAP hold a stormwater workshop in early 2005. L. Turnbull, L. Martin and S. Agnew to meet to discuss and to develop a specific proposal. The Chair thanked both presenters for their very informative presentations. (c) Premier Showing of the Newly Released Hurricane Hazel Video Due to a time constraints the Hurricane Hazel video was not shown. Alliance members were informed that the video is available for purchase on VHS and DVD. (97 HIIMRFR WATFRSHFrl Al I IANGF #3 /114 Clrtnhpr 1S, 9(184 SECTION I REPORTS - ACTION ITEMS RES. #G24/04- ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR Election of a Chair and Vice -Chair for the Humber Watershed Alliance by the members of the Alliance. Lois Griffin was nominated by Miriam Mittermaier for the position of the Chair. Seconded by: Sandy Agnew THAT Nominations for the office of Chair of the Humber Alliance be closed. Moved by: Luciano Martin Seconded by: Lynn Short Lois Griffin was declared elected by acclamation as Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance. Nancy Stewart was nominated by Deb Schulte for the position of the Vice - Chair. Seconded by: Sharon Bradley lain Craig was nominated by Joanne Nonnekes for the position of the Vice - Chair. Seconded by: Lynda Rogers THAT Nominations for the office of Vice -Chair of the Humber Alliance be closed. Moved by: Lynn Short Seconded by: Dianne Douglas Nancy Stewart was declared elected as Vice -Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance. BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December 2003 and adopted by the Authority at its meeting #10/03 held on January 9, 2004 by Resolution #A289/03 includes the following provision: Selection of Chair and Vice -Chair of the Watershed Alliance The Chair and Vice -Chair will be elected by the Alliance from amongst its members. The Authority may appoint an interim Chair until such time as an election can take place. The Chair and Vice -Chair will be ex- officio members of all working committees Election Process Nominations for Chair and Vice -Chair will be accepted followed by a show of hands. A formal election by ballot for Chair and Vice -Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance will be held only if necessary. October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 G28 RES. #G25/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: SPILLS MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP To provide an update on the spills management initiative which has been lead through the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Jim Bradley George Ivanhoff THAT the staff report on the spills management initiative be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND In October 2003, the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition initiated a project to address spills within their urbanized watercourses in order to meet the targets for water quality improvement as outlined in Greening Our Watersheds - Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. The project terms of reference involved studying the state of spills in the watersheds and hosting an educational networking workshop. It was recognized that spills are not only a concern for the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds but are also issues for all the watersheds in Toronto and Region Conservation's (TRCA) jurisdiction. In January 2004, the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (Toronto RAP) team endorsed and sponsored the spills management initiative. Resources were allocated through the Toronto RAP Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) budget to: prepare a background report, build a consultative process, and host a workshop. Project Objective The overall goal of this initiative is to raise awareness of spills management issues and ensure effective measures are implemented to monitor, control and prevent harmful substances from entering our watersheds and the waterfront. The activities that were carried out in support of this goal include the establishment of an inter - agency advisory committee, the production of a background report (released in August 2004), and the development and implementation of a workshop (held on September 29, 2004). The workshop will produce an Outcomes Report with recommendations as well as the potential to further pursue implementation of spills management projects through the network opportunity afforded by the process. Information gathered through out the process of this spills management initiative is expected to guide future recommendations for action at all levels of government, the community and other stakeholders. It is anticipated that specific recommendations could initiate the: • improvement of spills information and communication; • integration of spills data into TRCA's Regional Monitoring Network Program; • facilitation of improved inter - agency coordination; and, • determination of roles and projects for community -based watershed groups. f,99 HIIMRFR WATFRRHFf Al I IANCF #3 /l14 nrtnhpr 9(1(14 Background Report and Advisory Committee A background report was developed in consultation with an advisory committee consisting of Regional Spills Action Centre staff, TRCA staff, MOE and EC representatives. The report provides information on spills policy, prevention, management, response, agency coordination, and potential effects on the environment. The report also provides a preliminary evaluation based on the advisory committee members opinions, of the current multi- agency spills management system in terms of spills prevention, response containment clean -up and restoration, the legal process and monitoring of spill impacts. The report achieved the objective of building relationships with Regional Spills Action Centres, MOE and Environment Canada, and also provided a contextual foundation for the next step in the process - the spills workshop. The report was circulated, along with an invitation to a spills workshop, to all watershed groups, NGOs, municipalities, and agencies interested in spills within the TRCA watersheds (a copy of the Backgrounder will be available at the Humber Alliance meeting for interested members). Spills Workshop The spills workshop was held on September 29, 2004 and was well- attended by approximately 70 participants including: watershed councils, local and regional municipal staff, Provincial and Federal staff involved with spills, representatives from the International Joint Commission and Environmental Commissioner's office and other non - government organizations. The audience heard presentations from the Region of Peel and City of Toronto Spills Action Centre, the Ministry of Environment, and Professor James Li on different aspects of Peel Region / City of Toronto spills response, prevention, management, coordination, and information exchange. The issues were then summarized into several questions by an independent workshop facilitator for the nine workshop groups to discuss. Some of the comments and suggestions for regarding the spills management system included: • The workshop and networking opportunity was the first of its kind in over 35 years of one participant's experience and represented a very positive coordination step in the opinion of many of the workshop participants: • Spills prevention plans should be mandatory and enshrined in regulation with the provision of a plan linked to occupancy permits or other municipal instruments the way building permits are linked to zoning by -law change applications for example; • The spills response and clean -up system was working well although some participants felt that the roles and responsibilities and inter - agency coordination were not clearly defined; • The spills response sites should be geo- referenced to provide better data, analysis, and accessibility capabilities for the MOE spills database; • More data is needed on the types, locations, impacts, etc. of spills in order to design proper policy, administrative, and educational program responses to the challenge of preventing spills and restoring the natural environment after a spill; • Spills prevention plans, convictions, and information should be made public; • Media should be more involved, the process should be more transparent, and the public, and in particular spill sectors, should be educated about prevention measures; • Some commented on the need for municipal spills plans to be a core service and appropriately resourced; October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 G30 • Participants commented strategically on the different abilities and enforcement powers of municipal sewer use by -laws, Fisheries Act, Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act in prosecuting spills offences; Infrastructure, such as oil grit separators should be mandatory in new developments (industrial parks, roads, sewer outfalls, etc.) and paid for through development charges. stormwater facilities, such as the extensive ponds with the City of Brampton, work well to contain the impacts of spills; Having to prove an adverse impact to the environment is a weakness of the EPA; there is presently not enough monitoring, assessment, and restoration of the natural environment after a spill; Incentives for industries should be created (and not simply more regulations) such as better insurance premiums, etc. for non - spilling industries; MOE and Regional inspections worked well in highlighting areas for improvement in spills and pollution prevention; and An environmental "911" telephone number (the group suggested "711") should be created with associated educational program to encourage reporting of pollution within the province. The comments listed above are only a sample of discussions from the workshop. The outcomes and recommendations of the workshop will be further developed and refined by a voluntary committee struck at the workshop and will be circulated to participants for comment. RATIONALE Watershed councils and alliances are important advocates of healthy river systems. Addressing spills management has been identified as a key action in community -based watershed planning documents and strategies throughout the TRCA jurisdiction. All watershed strategies identify spills management as a priority for action, especially in the more urbanized, industrial and transportation corridor areas. Spills management is also a priority for the Regions and lower -tier municipalities within the TRCA jurisdiction as they operate spills action centres and develop emergency plans. The Ministry of Environment (MOE) and Environment Canada (EC) have regulatory jurisdiction over spills through a variety of agreements, policy, regulations, protocols, and legislation. TRCA's "mission is to work with partners to ensure that the Living City is built upon a natural foundation of healthy rivers and shorelines, green space and bio- diversity, and sustainable communities ". Spills in our watersheds have the potential to seriously impact the Regional Monitoring Network Program indicators (water quality, benthos, etc.) which provide the baseline information to the watershed report cards. TRCA works in conjunction with the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to restore beneficial uses in the Toronto and Region Area of Concern (AOC). Clean Waters, Clear Choices, the Stage 2 report for the Toronto and Region RAP, identifies the "Improvement of Spills Response and Prevention" as an action item under the stormwater section. The spills management initiative complements other consultative processes currently underway in Ontario. The Industrial Pollution Action Team (IPAT), a panel appointed by the Minister of Environment, released their Discussion Document with recommendations on spills (131 IdIIMRFR WATFCSHFC Al 1 IANCF #3/04 frtnhar 1Q, 9(1114 and pollution prevention in the Sarnia area in August 2004. The Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition sent a letter supporting in principle the recommendations of the IPAT report after it was posted to the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry for public comment. Under the current review of the Emergency Management Act, municipalities and Provincial ministries are reviewing their policies and protocols and producing emergency plans by December 2004. Finally, the Credit Valley Conservation Authority recently set up a communications coordination protocol, similar to that in existence at the TRCA, with its watershed municipalities and the Spills Action Centre and also attended the spills workshop. The TRCA and CVCA share similar predisposition to spills impacts in terms of large urbanized portions of the watersheds, industrial / commercial areas, and major transportation corridors. FINANCIAL DETAILS The 2004 budget for sponsoring this project was $5000 from the Toronto RAP MOU. Discussion with RAP Team members are currently underway regarding future commitments to this initiative. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Produce an outcomes report with recommendations and circulate the report to the advisory committee and then to workshop participants for comment; • present final outcomes report and recommendations to the Board for approval; • further discuss the spills initiative with the RAP Team, specifically the MOE and EC to determine deliverables and funding for 2005; and, • initiate collective action on key recommendations. SECTION II REPORTS INFORMATION ITEMS RES. #G26/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: STORMWATER INFILTRATION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS Porous pavement / bioretention swale demonstration project construction and monitoring protocol development at Seneca College, King Campus. Sharon Bradley Arthur Mittermaier THAT the staff report on the Permeable Pavement project be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND A permeable pavement or bioretention system allows runoff to infiltrate through voids in the pavement or through curb -side swales. Since runoff is infiltrated into the soil naturally, it reduces the need for treatment and eliminates the need for underground or site consuming detention facilities. In most cases, space normally reserved for detention facilities, in turn, can be used for other developments. October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 G32 Urban development has been shown to have significant impacts on natural watercourses and hydrologic dynamics. These impacts include increased risks of downstream flooding, accelerated channel erosion, increased water pollution, decreased groundwater recharge, and alterations to aquatic habitat. Vehicular traffic accounts for much of the build -up of contaminants on parking surfaces. Wear from tires, brake and clutch linings, engine oil and lubricant drippings, combustion products and corrosion, road salting /sanding all account for a build up of sediment particles, metals, and oils and grease. Consequently, the variety of different elements and compounds that runoff a parking lot can accumulate and degrade local water courses over time (MOE, 2001). Recently, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has installed permeable pavement and a bioretention swale in a parking lot at Seneca College, King Campus. This initiative will assess the performance of both technologies and their effectiveness in controlling stormwater quality and quantity in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and on the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM). The project is expected to satisfy many of the policy and stewardship concerns that pertain to the GTA. For instance, the TRCA's efforts to monitor permeable pavement and bioretention swales as a demonstration project satisfy several polices outlined in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) (Table 1). rss H11MRFR WATFRSHFfl Al 1 IANCF *UM r)rtnhpr t q 2nna Table 1. ORMCP landuse polices that pertain to permeable pavement / bioretention technology. ORMCP Policy # ORMCP Sub Description Section # How Policy is Satisfied 45: Stormwater Management 45: Stormwater Management 45: Stormwater Management 46: Stormwater Management Plan 46: Stormwater Management Plan 3 4 6 1 In considering an application for development or site alteration, the municipality shall seek to reduce areas with impervious surfaces and increase areas retained in a natural undisturbed state, in order to minimize stormwater volumes and contaminant loads. Municipal development standards shall incorporate planning, design and construction practices that will: (a) reduce the portions of lots and sites that have impervious surfaces; and (b) provide the flexibility to use altemative stormwater management techniques. For the purposes of stormwater management, the minimum standard for water quality is that 80 per cent of suspended solids shall be removed from stormwater runoff as a long -term average. The objectives of a stormwater management plan are to: (a) maintain groundwater quantity and flow and stream baseflow; (b) protect water quality; (c) protect aquatic species and their habitat; (d) prevent increases in stream channel erosion; and (e) prevent any increase in flood risk. A stormwater management plan shall provide for an integrated treatment train approach that uses a planned sequence of methods of controlling stormwater and keeping its impact to a minimum by 2 techniques including, without limitation: (a) lot level controls such as devices and designs that direct roof discharge to rear yard ponding areas; (b) conveyance controls such as grassed swales; 1. Installation of permeable pavement and /or bioretention swales reduces impermeable surface area. 2. Stormwater volumes are reduced by allowing infiltration. 1. Installation of permeable pavement and /or bioretention swales reduces impermeable surface area. 2. Both technologies are altemative stormwater management technique. 1. Typically, infiltration technologies such as permeable pavement reduce TSS by 80% or more (see table 1). 1. Permeable pavement and bioretention swales can be incorporated into most stormwater management plans and contribute to the treatment train process. 2. Ground water recharge will occur more naturally. 3. Runoff quality will be improved. 4. Channel erosion and flooding will be reduced because of reduced runoff volumes by infiltration. 1. Permeable pavement and bioretention swales will contribute to the treatment train process. 2. Permeable pavement and bioretention swales are a lot level control device for stormwater runoff. 3. Permeable pavement and bioretention swales are a conveyance control device for stormwater runoff. October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 G34 Furthermore, the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Toronto Area aims to restore polluted waterways in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Installation of permeable pavement / bioretention swales also helps fulfill several of the RAP goals and actions (Table 2). Table 2. RAP goals and actions applicable to permeable pavement / bioretention swales. Goals Actions 3a. Control of Stormwater Quality 1. The quality of stormwater is protected and enhanced. and Quantity The natural hydrologic cycle is protected and re- established. Improved Catch basin Design and Cleaning Practices. Establish Design Standards for Roads /Parking Areas for Runoff Quality Control Catch basins design should allow them to collect more water for infiltration into the ground. Establishment of design standards for roads and parking areas so that those areas can be adequately drained while maintaining or restoring the natural hydrologic cycle. Encourage Research on Protection Further scientific research to be conducted necessary for and Rehabilitation of Aquatic conservation, restoration, and development, of aquatic habitats. Habitat Similar to the RAP, the Toronto Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan (WWFMMP) also lists permeable pavement as a contribution to achieving its goals (Table 3). Over the next 25 years, the WWFMMP has identified source and conveyance controls as priority measures that help protect watercourses and reduce pollutant Toads to Lake Ontario. Table 3. WWFMMP goals and actions applicable to permeable pavement. Goal Target 7.2.1 Water Quality and 50. Reduction of the volume of Stormwater to sewers. Quantity ii. Infiltration best management practices should be implemented where permissible. Performance pilot projects for optimization of wet weather flow should be encouraged. j,3, HIIMRFR WATFRSHFII Al 1 IANCF #3/(14 flrtr her 1(1, 9(1(14 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The TRCA has installed permeable pavement and a bioretention swale for a long term monitoring demonstration project. The site is located on the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) in the Township of King, at Seneca College's King Campus. King Campus is located in the north east part of the Humber River watershed where local tributaries drain to the east branch of the Humber River. The permeable pavers and bioswale were installed in September, 2004 and its design incorporates monitoring considerations to demonstrate the effectiveness of permeable pavement and a bioretention swale as a stormwater control technology. One of the key objectives for this project is to establish the evidence needed to maintain localized hydrological balances and protect ecological habitat. The project will assess typical parking lot stormwater runoff and stormwater infiltrated through permeable pavement and a bioretention swale over 3 years. Parking lot runoff will be collected atboth the ground level and within the native soil subgrade. Water is directed using a sophisticated plumbing system that transports the water to an underground sampling vault where flow metres and automated water samplers will be installed to collect continuous runoff data and flow proportioned water quality samples. All water will then be discharged to an overflow structure that directs runoff to an infiltration trench. This project will monitor attributes in the following categories: a) water quality and quantity, b) infiltration rate, c) temperature fluctuation in soil, pavement, and air, d) sediment quality, and e) the durability of both technologies in context with seasonality. All monitoring equipment is located underground in a large sampling vault and will be powered by a combination of both wind turbine and solar power. The TRCA has asked Seneca College to subject the study area to its typical parking lot maintenance schedules. This would include salting and sanding in the winter (if applicable), sweeping and vacuuming (if applicable), ploughing, and heavy machinery parking. The purpose is to observe the degradation /durability and performance of the pavement over time and generate a maintenance schedule that could improve performance if degradation occurs. Results will advocate to developers the scale and cost - benefit relations between permeable pavement/bioretention swales and other stormwater management technologies. Once the monitoring component of the project has been completed, the TRCA will model scenarios to predict the sum benefits (e.g. water quality, peak storm flow, water budget) of permeable pavement or bioretention swales at the subwatershed scale. The result will be used for landuse planning purposes by municipalities and conservation authorities. If proven successful, it is anticipated that the data will be used to assist the TRCA in its discussions with developers and municipalities through the plan review /approvals process of stormwater management within the GTA and on the ORM. Findings will also be used to determine solutions for potential retrofit sites that have stormwater management problems. Public awareness will also be increased with the use of the internet via the website Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) ( www.sustainabletechnologies.ca) and the TRCA. All reports and fact sheets will be posted on the sites and the web address will be quoted at all workshops or conferences where this study is discussed. October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3104 G36 The schedule of activities for this demonstration project can be seen in Table 4. Table 4. Schedule of activities Activity Time Design Plan of Parking Lot and Study Area Construction of Permeable Pavement Parking Lot and Study Area Development of Performance Monitoring Program Report of activities to date, monitoring design, monitoring protocol, and activities for 2005. Monitoring Year end report Final Report FINANCIAL DETAILS Table 5 lists the funding partners that have been confirmed. Table 5. Funding partners. August 2004 August /September 2004 September /October 2004 March 2005 January to November 2005/2006/2007 March 2005/2006/2007 March 2008 Partner RAP MOU (Environment Canada) The Pat and John McCutcheon Charitable Foundation Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation Toronto and Region Conservation (labour, design, report) The Ministry of the Environment (lab) Hanson Canada (sampling chamber) Unilock (permeable pavers) EMCO ltd. (infiltration /drainage trench) Layfield Geotextiles (liner) Seneca College (site) Funding Status Confirmed CI CI II Contribution Funding Funding Funding In -kind In -kind In -kind In -kind In -kind In -kind In -kind Construction cost for this study was approximately $50,000.00 which included labour, construction material purchases, machinery rental, and landscaping. Over $35,000 in donated materials was supplied by Unilock, Hanson Canada, Layfield Geotextiles, and EMCO Ltd. It is expected that monitoring, data analysis, and interim /final report authoring will cost $77,000 each year, of which $25,000.00 will be in -kind contributions from the Ministry of the Environment for lab services. S17 HIIMAFR WATFARHFII Al I IANCF 4A3/(14 Clrtnhpr 1Q, 9(1[14 RES. #G27/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: TORONTO AND REGION REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN UPDATE Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) has entered year three of a five -year agreement with Environment Canada (EC) and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) regarding the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (Toronto RAP). As the implementation coordinator for the RAP, TRCA would like to become further engaged with the watershed councils providing regular updates and opportunities for members to raise RAP related issues. Luciano Martin Suzan Hall THAT the staff update on the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan be received; AND FURTHER THAT regular updates on the Toronto and Region RAP be made to the Humber Watershed Alliance with the opportunity for members to raise RAP related issues and concerns. CARRIED BACKGROUND Through a five -year (2002 -2007) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the TRCA, EC and MOE, the TRCA acts as the implementation coordinator for the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (Toronto RAP). Under the Canada - Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, EC and MOE co -lead RAP management in Toronto. The role of the TRCA is to raise municipal and key stakeholder awareness of RAP priority issues; to facilitate the exchange of information among implementers and coordinate implementation plans; to focus RAP implementation on a watershed by watershed basis; and to report on progress. The Toronto RAP Area of Concern (AOC) encompasses most of the TRCA's jurisdiction extending from the Etobicoke Creek as far east as the Rouge River Watershed. Under the terms of the MOU, EC and MOE each provide $250,000 annually to TRCA to undertake RAP projects and coordination. An interagency team including representatives from EC, MOE, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and TRCA meet on a monthly (minimally) basis to oversee the coordination process and address RAP issues. A key action for this team was the establishment of interim targets for 2002 - 2007. These targets guide the implementation of projects by TRCA under the MOU and provide a measure for progress during the course of the agreement. The Toronto RAP Interim Targets can be viewed in Attachment 1. The fundamental goal of the Toronto RAP is to restore our polluted waterways and the Toronto Waterfront. Through the RAP's support of the TRCA's Watershed Advisory Groups, opportunities continue to be provided for community participation in protection and restoration efforts. Education and outreach activities are undertaken by the RAP through programs like Watershed on Wheels. The RAP is also supporting applied research and programs in stormwater management, integrated watershed planning, fish management, erosion and sediment control, regional monitoring and terrestrial natural heritage. October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 G38 Integration of the Living City vision into strategies for restoring beneficial uses to the Toronto RAP AOC has been identified as a key strategic direction under the MOU. The goals of the TRCA and the Toronto RAP are highly complimentary and have enabled the TRCA to leverage significant a financial contribution from municipalities and other funding sources. 2004/2005 RAP MOU Projects Clean Waters Erosion and Sediment Control Greenroofs Porous Pavement Workshop: Spills Workshop: Stormwater Monitoring and Maintenance Habitat Action Terrestrial Natural Heritage /Quest Layers Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds Education /NGO Action Stewardship Projects Highland Creek Stewardship Rouge Park Public Lands BMP's Program Monitoring and Research Regional Watershed Monitoring Program Needs Further Assessment Regional Report Card Sustainability Living City Charette Watershed Strategies The Toronto RAP would like to further its involvement and communication with the watershed councils. A representative from the RAP coordination team will be available to update coalition members at each meeting on current RAP initiatives and progress. In turn they will be happy address any questions or concerns members may have, bringing issues back to RAP agencies for further discussion and action. RES. #G28/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: HIIMRFR WATFRSHFf GI 1 IAI'ifF *n /n4 C)rtnhpr 1Q, 9C1(14 AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES IN THE TORONTO REGION Update on the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's current involvement with aquatic invasive species issues. George Ivanhoff Jim Bradley THAT the report on the Aquatic Invasive Species in the Toronto Region be received for information; AMENDMENT RES. #G29/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Deb Schulte George Ivanhoff THAT the Humber Alliance send a letter to the Minister of Natural Resources urging them ban the sale and use of the rusty crayfish as bait. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MOTION, AS AMENDED WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND The Watershed Management Advisory Board at its meeting #5/04, held on September 17, 2004, adopted the following report and recommendations: THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) continue to work closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) and any other stakeholder agencies to further the education and awareness of invasive species issues in Toronto region; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA send a letter to the Minister of Natural Resources requesting that they consider banning the sale and use of the rusty crayfish as bait. At Authority Meeting #3104, held on March 26, 2004, Res. #A74 /04 was approved as follows: THAT staff be directed to further investigate TRCA's role in regards to invasive species issues through our work as a lead implementation partner for the Toronto and Region RAP and during the development of fisheries management plans; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Watershed Advisory Management Board with recommendations on TRCA's future actions and involvement in invasive species issues in the Greater Toronto Area. October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 G40 TRCA, under the banner of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (Toronto RAP) has been in active liaison with key agencies and stakeholders to investigate how we can assist in managing invasive species issues. On May 31, 2004, TRCA and Toronto RAP staff meet with the MNR and OFAH in Peterborough to discuss current invasive species issues and explore areas where collaborative efforts could assist. With Toronto region being a vast geographic area with a large culturally diverse population, one of the action items identified at the meeting that took place on May 31, 2004 was that the TRCA and the Toronto RAP increase their role as communicators of key issues to the public to further contribute to reducing the introduction and spread of invasive species. The recent finding of an grass carp in the Don watershed (fall of 2003) through the Regional Monitoring Program at the TRCA, has placed particular focus and attention on the effects aquatic invasive species have on the health of our watershed ecosystems. In addition to on- going monitoring efforts associated with the grass carp, TRCA has also been concerned with the incidence of an invasive benthic species, the rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus). As part of the commitment made to assist in the communication of invasive species issues to the general public of the Toronto region, TRCA has recently focused on raising awareness about the rusty crayfish in order to stop the spread of this invasive species throughout TRCA's watersheds. Overview - Rusty Crayfish The following provides a synopsis of the discovery of the invasive rusty crayfish within TRCA's jurisdiction and the ecological impacts associated with its presence. In 2000, benthic invertebrate samples were collected in the Rouge, Duffins and City of Toronto watersheds as part of fisheries management planning and Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. 2001 was the initiation of TRCA's Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (RWMP). Under this program, 150 benthic invertebrate samples are collected across TRCA's jurisdiction annually. In September 2003, rusty crayfish were identified at a number of benthic invertebrate sampling stations in the Rouge watershed. Upon further analysis, rusty crayfish were present at 18 locations, or 12% of all stations monitored from 2002 -2003. The 18 stations are spread across three watersheds: Duffins Creek has ten stations, the Rouge River has seven stations and the Humber River has one. Even though the collection protocol and level of identification were the same, no rusty crayfish were found in benthic invertebrate samples that were collected in 2000 and 2001. Upon the discovery of the relatively wide distribution of the crayfish, further research was conducted into the ecology and life history information of this species. Through a small literature review and expert contacts, it was discovered tfiat this species has been causing many ecological problems in the United States, and on the north shore of Lake Superior. Contacts were made with the Minnesota Sea Grant College Program and with Lakehead University. In addition, TRCA has begun to establish stronger links with the Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Management Unit and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) invasive species biologists to tackle the rusty crayfish issues. (41 HIIMRFR WATFRAHFf AI I IANCF #3 /114 nntnhar 1q 9[1114 Ecological Concern Rusty crayfish originated in streams in the Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee regions and is one of 350 crayfish species found in North America, of which three are native within TRCA's watersheds. In their native waters, rusty crayfish typically encounter 25 - 35 predatory species but in most of TRCA streams, it may encounter 3 - 5 predatory species and more often than not, only two. The rusty crayfish is a threat to native crayfish populations by out - competing them, potentially extirpating them from the watersheds, or from large sections of river. The Rusty crayfish has a voracious appetite and consumes food at twice the rate of native crayfish species, and can quickly deplete the food supply for native fish populations and other species important in the food chain. Rusty crayfish also have a ravenous appetite for aquatic plants and will destroy the habitat of invertebrates and juvenile fish that depend on them. Some research points strongly to the fact that crayfish are primarily carnivorous and utilize plants for food when animal protein has become unavailable, in which case fish and benthic invertebrate populations will be at further risk than perhaps initially thought. Rusty crayfish will alter the ecosystems that they are introduced into, however, what the change will be in our local ecosystems has yet to be determined. Media Release At the May 31, 2004 meeting with MNR, OFAH, the Toronto RAP and TRCA, it was determined that an appropriate course of action was to issue a media release about the problems that rusty crayfish pose to the ecological integrity of aquatic ecosystems. The media release was issued by the TRCA on July 9, 2004, and detailed what the rusty crayfish looks like, how to identify it, where they came from, how to prevent their spread, and requested that any sightings be reported to the invasive species hotline run by the OFAH. The media release also had input from MNR and OFAH. The news release was picked up by the following news agencies: • Global TV - conducted an on camera interview and visit to the Little Rouge River; • CBC (Metro Morning) - conducted a radio interview; • 680 News - conducted a radio interview; • Globe and Mail - conducted a telephone interview and released a news article; • Scarborough Mirror - conducted a telephone interview and released a news article; • Etobicoke Guardian - conducted a telephone interview and released a news article; • Now Magazine - released a news article based on the press release; • London Free Press - conducted a telephone interview and released a news article; • Ming Pao (Chinese daily newspaper)- released a news article based on the press release; • Fishing Tackle Retailer Magazine (Alabama) - released a news article based on the press release; • Great Lakes Information Network - posted an article on the web based on the press release; • CP24 - posted an article on the web based on the press release. October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 G42 In addition, the media release has been sent through MNR to the bait fish harvesters in our area to raise their awareness as to the presence of the species, and to hopefully reduce or prevent the harvest of rusty crayfish for sale, or accidental transfer between watersheds. The invasive species hotline has received more calls in response to the media release. Most calls have pertained to identification questions and not new introduction locations. The lack of response is likely due to the fact that many aquatic species, including crayfish, live invisibly beneath the water and most people never encounter them. However, through the media release TRCA was contacted by an individual at the MOE who pointed us to a paper that shows when and where the approximate point of introduction was to TRCA's watersheds. The probable point of introduction was in the West Duffins Creek in 1983. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE This summer TRCA staff conducting aquatic and terrestrial inventories, and baseflow surveys, were contacted to raise their awareness about the rusty crayfish and to identify locations where they were seen. As well, TRCA benthic invertebrate taxonomists are working on further identifying locations where this species is found. Further background research is being conducted on the rusty crayfish and Dr. Walter Momot from Lakehead University has provided his research papers and other contacts. It is likely that the rusty crayfish will have a negative effect on the aquatic ecosystems within the TRCA's jurisdiction, however, it may take a number of years for sampling to show the effects. The first and most obvious impact will be the elimination of native crayfish species from infected watersheds. Evidence of this is found in the Little Rouge River watershed, where samples show a crayfish community containing very few native crayfish and an abundance of rusty crayfish. The 2004 RWMP survey data which will complete collections in September will be analyzed to see where rusty crayfish have spread and the relative number of individuals collected. All information will be documented and sent to MNR and OFAH for incorporation into their databases. This activity will take place over the winter months of 2004 and 2005. At this point further work needs to be conducted on reducing the spread of this invasive species with the goal of preventing any new introductions. Specifically, efforts should be directed at containing the spread of this species in the Humber watershed, with early detection being the key. With only one monitoring station showing the presence of rusty crayfish in the watershed, the chance of protecting the remainder of the Humber watershed is relatively high compared to the other watersheds. However, this would take a concerted effort that cannot be abandoned after a few years. There also needs to be further work conducted on what the future impacts may be, and possible removal mechanisms. One way the TRCA could support increasing efforts to stop the further introduction of the rusty crayfish would be to request the MNR to consider banning the sale and use of the rusty crayfish as bait. A similar approach for the rusty crayfish would be requested as that which recently was used to pass regulation on the purchase and sale of invasive carps, snakeheads and gobies. S4:1, HIIMRFR WATFRSHFr1 Al 1 IANCF #3/114 (lctnher 1Q, 9004 At Authority Meeting #3/04, held on March 26, 2004, Res. #A74 /04 was approved as follows: THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) send a letter to the Minister of Natural Resources as part of the public record in support of the proposed regulation to prohibit the buying or selling of live invasive carps, snakeheads and gobies during the 30 day comment period which closes on March 28, 2004. TRCA sent a letter of support for this regulation (Ontario Regulation 113/04) when it was posted for comments with the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry. Subsequently, Ontario Regulation 664/98 (Fish Licensing) was amended by Ontario Regulation 113/04, and came into effect on April 22, 2004, the date on which it was filed with the Registrar of Regulations. TRCA will continue to monitor the incidence of other aquatic invasive species through the Regional Monitoring Network. Additional opportunities to assist the MNR and the OFAH in communication and education advancement for invasive species issues will continue to be investigated and pursued when possible. Invasion of the rusty crayfish into TRCA's jurisdiction may signal the potential spread of this species to other nearby watersheds. It is hoped that the above noted media efforts will make other areas aware of this potential threat and signal them to precautionary measures to prohibit the invasion of the rusty crayfish in their waters. RES. #G30/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: GLOBAL LESSONS FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Comparison of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's watershed management programs to emerging international approaches. Joanne Nonnekes Sharon Bradley THAT the report on the Global Lessons for Watershed Management be received for information. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Watershed Management Advisory Board at its meeting #5/04, held on September 17, 2004, adopted the following report and recommendations: THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Water Environment Research Foundation Study be received; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be sent to Conservation Ontario. The Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) is a not - for - profit organization of the United States (U.S.)that funds and manages water quality research for its subscribers through a diverse public - private partnership with municipal utilities, corporations, wastewater utilities, consulting firms, academia and the U.S. federal government. WERF is dedicated to advancing science and technology, and addressing water quality issues as they impact water resources, the atmosphere, the lands and quality of life. October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3104 G44 In 1999, WERF undertook a project to research global approaches for watershed management for possible application to the U.S. context. This report details the objectives of the WERF study, findings and the lessons learned from global approaches to watershed management. As the WERF study describes, the key factors in the success of Ontario conservation authorities (CA) has been: 1) establishment on a watershed basis; 2) the delivery of state of the art science and engineering; 3) the establishment of effective partnerships; and, 4) our emphasis on community based approaches. It should be noted that during the five years that the WERF study took to complete, there has been significant advancements in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) and other CA watershed management programs and technical capabilities. Since the WERF study was able to examine only one Ontario conservation authority, the committee selected the Grand River watershed due to the watershed size and similarity with U.S. water resources issues. Study Objectives Water resources management in both the U.S. and Canada are evolving in the face of competing issues and challenges to protect water quality, aquatic habitat and other natural resources. The WERF study recognized that many jurisdictions and agencies outside of the U.S. are adopting watershed management as an effective mechanism for water resources management. While innovative watershed management initiatives are underway in the U.S., WERF recognized that successful transition to new approaches would be challenging due to U.S. institutional, regulatory and information barriers. The objective of this study was to identify the most promising watershed planning and management experiences from around the world, and synthesize the information about: how they operate; their benefits and limitations; and, the degree to which these approaches could be successfully adapted to the U.S. context. Findings from the study are intended to inform U.S. policy makers and practitioners and to promote the implementation of integrated watershed management approaches. Research Methodoloqy In consultation with external technical advisors, WERF identified five primary research tasks; Conduct a literature review on the theory and practice of watershed -based management in the U.S. and abroad; Prepare a compendium of international watershed management experience; Develop in -depth case studies of leading international watershed initiatives; Conduct a workshop with U.S. and international watershed experts and practitioners to identify case study lessons and appropriateness for U.S. application; and, Prepare a report summarizing the key findings of the project. Consultant for the Project The Global Lessons for Watershed Management Study was undertaken by the Tellus Institute. The Tellus Institute is a not for profit research group, whose research objectives centre on sustainability. Tellus conducts a diverse program of research, consulting and communication. P.45 HIIMRFR WATFRSHFf Al 1 IANCF #3/f14 Clrtr her 1q, 20f14 Its work is sponsored by foundations, government agencies, multinational organizations, non - government organizations and business. Tellus's vision is to bring insight, vision and guidance to advance the transition to a sustainable society. United States Experience - Context for Emerging Watershed Approaches To set the stage for their review of international experiences, Tellus conducted an assessment of the current status of watershed management in the U.S. One of the most noteworthy aspects of successful watershed initiatives in the U.S. is their diversity of approaches. The diversity approaches reflects the issues and scales at which these issues are managed. Broad based stakeholder involvement and collaborative decision making are key elements behind successful watershed management. One of the big weaknesses however, is that institutional arrangements in U.S. are not, as a rule, watershed - based. Since the early 1990s, increasing population and water consumption has led to water scarcities and identified the need for a new system of managing water resources. U.S. federal legislation such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) had a profound effect on watershed initiatives. In the Pacific Northwest, the ESA is an extremely important force for watershed activities - bringing increased support for watershed initiatives. Most recently, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) requirements of the Clean Water Act have the potential to force greater integration of point and non -point source pollution regulation. Watershed approaches provide an obvious framework for handling environmental and regulatory issues under these acts, including water scarcity, ecosystem health, compliance with regulations and the establishment of TMDLs. TMDLs are defined as the maximum Toad (mass) of a contaminant that can be safely discharged to a surface water body without impacting the functions and use of the resource. All discharges to the system are assessed to ensure that the TMDL are not exceeded. This has led to concentrated efforts to reduce loads and to formulate optimization strategies (such as phosphorous trading) to promote economic growth while at the same time advancing water quality targets. Need for Coordinated Authority Experience from around the globe and in the U.S. has shown that watershed initiatives are often hampered by fragmentation of authority. With multiple agencies with overlapping jurisdiction over water resources it is common to find cross - purpose mandates and unnecessary duplication of efforts between federal and state agencies. At the local or municipal level, downloaded responsibilities for water resources are hampered by limited budgets, over - extended staff and the lack of a supporting framework to coordinate their activities. Dearth of Watershed Initiatives at the Largest Scale The absence of large -scale watershed management experience for river basins such as the Mississippi River was recognized as a serious deficiency. Large scale river systems are in theory the appropriate ones for managing on a national basis, key water quality problems such as sedimentation, salinity, nutrient loadings and water allocation. Despite the recognized benefits for all or part of the watershed, one of the key challenges is the distribution of costs and benefits among stakeholders, in different parts of these large watersheds. In large watersheds, it is extremely difficult to foster the same sense of community, hence it is very October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 G46 difficult to request voluntary sacrifices. Integration of Large- and Small -Scale Efforts In the U.S. watershed -scale initiatives have been initiated at many different scales ranging from small grass roots studies to projects crossing state boundaries and focusing on regional issues such as water allocation and sediment loading. Similar to our experiences in the Great Lakes Basin, multiple benefits are recognized in the integration of small- and large -scale efforts. Use of Economic Instruments Limited and inconsistent funding is a constant challenge in the U.S. particularly for small -scale watershed studies. Emerging programs such as effluent trading can help in this regard to achieve watershed management goals. Other economic instruments are required to overcome challenges associated with limited and inconsistent funding. Integration of Point and Non -point Source Pollution Management Historically in the U.S., point and non -point source pollution management was not well integrated at the federal and state level, or with local watershed initiatives. Clearly it is understood that this needs to change. To effectively manage, watershed studies need reliable information about point and non -point sources of pollution. In addition, a key factor is that local land use planning is not well connected to watershed planning, thus, watershed protection priorities have little impact on growth management and regulatory decisions such as zoning, building design and development choices that profoundly impact the hydrologic properties of watersheds (impervious surface areas, stormwater runoff and rural non -point source pollution). Improved Monitoring and Measurements of Watershed Conditions Common to Ontario experience, U.S. studies have demonstrated that you cannot effectively manage what you are not measuring. Science -based decision - making requires reliable, complete, Tong -term data to fully understand the issues and dynamics of watersheds, track the health of watersheds and develop effective programs. Most of the effort in the U.S. has been focused on effluent quality, thus providing an incomplete picture of the history, nature and dynamics of watershed and human activities. The issue is really what level of information and funding commitment is required to support implementation of monitoring programs on a watershed level. Multiple Objectives Framework The WERF study showed that U.S. agencies involved with watershed management were looking to achieve multiple objectives in the face of complex environmental and social concerns. The key to achieving these multiple objectives was the identified need for a coordinated authority, at the river basin or watershed scale. In the case of the U.S., this change would require the involvement of more than just "water" professions. Ideally to achieve a community- based, multi - objective watershed initiative, as many representatives as possible would have to be involved from as many different aspects of the watershed as possible. Funding Challenges In the U.S., Tess than $1 billion in federal funding ($20 million per state) is allocated to grant programs for watershed initiatives. Additional funds are indirectly available through federal agency efforts, however the WERF study identified this to be short of the resources needed. (47 HIIMRFR WATFRSHF11 Al I IANCF *Jfl4 (lrtnhpr 1q, 9(1(14 Similar to Canadian experiences, there clearly is a need for more government funding, and more funding program flexibility, in order to allow watershed efforts to proceed. Few programs in the U.S. have dedicated funding sources such as hydro power revenues or water /sewage surcharges. Stability of funds from year to year is a big problem. LESSONS LEARNED FROM REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT The key aspect of this study was a review of international watershed management experiences as detailed through a review of five detailed case studies. These five cases were short listed from a broader overview of emerging watershed experiences. In the international context, all the watershed management authorities reviewed have some degree of self- sufficiency in funding through a combination of water and pollution charges or resource associated levies on stakeholders. In return, the local stakeholders directly influence decisions that may affect their use and /or enjoyment of the watershed. A variety of instruments were identified that promote effective watershed management in these case studies: Economic Instruments: Means of involving stakeholders and finding better, more efficient financial solutions. Regulatory Instruments: Effect cooperation among agencies across jurisdictions and give local decision makers authority. Information and Communication Instruments: Can be combined to promote a common ground for discussion among stakeholders. Technology Instruments: Potential to drive win opportunities in the case of conflict. Whatever institutions or instruments that proved effective in a individual case study, the fact remains that there is no standard approach or blueprint for effective watershed management. The WERF study has identified that successful elements must be tailored to local conditions and opportunities. Case Studies The following international case studies were conducted for the WERF project: Mersey River - Fraser River - Rhine River - Grand River - Murray-Darling River - Northwest England British Columbia, Canada Nine European countries Ontario, Canada Southwest Australia October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 G48 Lessons Learned: Lesson 1. Utilities have a critical role (Mersey and the Rhine) In the U.S., drinking and waste services are often privatized and their territories rarely follow watershed boundaries. The fact that drinking water and waste water utilities are major withdrawers or dischargers make them critical players in watershed management. This experience is very different from Ontario, where the services have not to a large extent been privatized. Further, Tellus recommends that drinking protection activities be coordinated on a larger watershed scale for joint planning and management. Lesson 2. Multi- stakeholder processes provide a forum for effectively managing watersheds (All) The WERF study identified the key obstacle to effective management in the U.S. was the lack of stakeholder involvement. The credibility and success of a watershed initiative depends upon the degree to which stakeholders participate throughout the process. Accordingly, studies need to factor in the time required to engage stakeholders and ensure that they are engaged early in the process. Trust is achieved by establishing a common understanding of issues and challenges and by providing open access to key information on the watershed. Further effective multi - stakeholder processes that involve a full range of parties help break down some of the institutional barriers. Experience has shown that independent watershed initiatives evolve and that these initiatives are accountable and have the capacity to operate efficiently. Lesson 3. Large scale watersheds succeed by cultivating and integrating discrete subwatershed and stakeholder initiatives (Mersey, Murray - Darling and the Rhine) The involvement of a full spectrum of stakeholders representing subwatershed concerns and activities is essential to improve the effectiveness of watershed management in very large basins. Additional organizational capacity is required in order to dedicate support for smaller watersheds to ensure their concerns and activities are incorporated. Lesson 4. Integration win -win methods support the resolution of upstream downstream and human versus nature conflicts (Murray - Darling, Fraser, Mersey and the Rhine) When watershed institutions or committees involve both upstream and downstream users, tensions or conflict that exist in many U.S. watersheds are avoided. These bodies can serve to avoid open conflict and afford mutually beneficial solutions. This structure can promote exploration of innovative options such as the use of cost sharing, and /or financial incentives from downstream parties to encourage upstream parties to modify policies and practices that degrade resources. Examples are investment in upstream watershed protection measures to reduce pollutant Toads. (;49 HIJMRFR WATFRSHFf Al I IANGF #3/n4 ortnher 1q 2nn4 Lesson 5. An engaged civil society can provide authority that may be lacking in the watershed organization (Fraser, Mersey and Rhine) International review of watershed experiences show that watershed initiatives rarely enjoy direct executive or regulatory powers. Instead, these studies succeed by assuming convening, facilitation, planning and assessment functions that inform decision making about policy and project implementation. Successful watershed initiatives often gain de facto authority by influencing decisions to implement the watershed plan. Cooperation with NGOs avoids lawsuits and provides negotiations that foster broader acceptable solutions and serve to create political support. Lesson 6. Institutional stability and a clear mandate for watershed management can reduce fragmentation of authority and result in more efficient planning and implementation (Grand, Murray - Darling) Whenever there are mandates and frameworks for comprehensive watershed management, stable institutional and planning processes become established. The stability of the "watershed institutions" are important factors in the long -term success of watershed planning. The study recognized that enabling legislation can provide this mandate by specifying the structure of the watershed management institutions, their rules and responsibilities, jurisdiction, membership and funding. Lesson 7. Instilling regulatory authority in a watershed based institution can facilitate effective watershed protection across political boundaries (Grand and Murray - Darling) The study recognized that it is rare to find laws and regulations to protect water and other natural resources that are carried out on a watershed -wide basis or by watershed focused organizations. Watershed based institutions can adapt necessary standard or issue permits for development based upon water quality, quantity and other environmental sensitivity criteria to protect watersheds, reduce flooding, create greenspaces, etc. In the U.S., it is politically difficult to establish watershed institutions, due to local resistance, despite the fact that recognized benefits could be significant. Lesson 8. Explicit policies and guidance documents can be used to promote the integration of watersheds and land use planning at the local level ( Grand) One of the success stories that the WERF study recognized from its review of Ontario conservation authorities, (using the Grand River as a case study) was the ability to promote the integration of watershed and land -use planning at a local level. In the U.S., clear guidance and incentives for local follow- through, would be required in order for watershed plans to be integrated with municipal planning. Lesson 9. A system of opportunity costs and benefits equitably across the watershed (Grand - Murray - Darling) Because watershed management activities naturally take place at the local level, they frequently require the acceptance and involvement of municipal officials and long term October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 G50 dedication of capital funds. For this reasons it is critical to involve municipal decision makers in the process of watershed planning from the onset. One way to engage and secure municipal participation is to establish a system of equitable distribution of costs and benefits. The funding partnership advanced by Ontario CAs were identified as an effective mechanism to establish equitable distribution of watershed management costs and benefits. In the U.S., a similar role could be played by regional utilities. Lesson 10. Watershed decision making a the lowest appropriate level is most effective (Fraser and Murray - Darling) A key finding of the WERF study was that the lack of coordinated management at the large scale, was largely due to concerns about the Toss of decision - making authority at the smaller scale. To allay these concerns the study supported the Fraser and Murray - Darling experience, which suggested that implementation issues and concerns impacting a limited part of the basin be made on a more local, sub - watershed basis. Potential Applications of the WERF Study for Ontario Conservation Authorities As Ontario Conservation begin developing their Drinking Water Source Protection Programs (SPP), there is an unique opportunity to update the various watershed management programs that will be the under pinning of successful SPP. Therefore, opportunities exist to adapt the lessons learned from the WERF study and other reviews of international approaches to watershed management, to Ontario watershed management programs, thereby ensuring that our water resources management capabilities continue to be recognized as leading edge on a global basis. RES. #G31/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE Provide comments to the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal on the discussion paper "A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ". George Ivanhoff Jim Bradley THAT the report on the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe be received for information. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Watershed Management Advisory Board at its meeting #5/04, held on September 17, 2004, adopted the following report and recommendations: THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT WHEREAS the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (herein "Growth Plan ")is an important step towards the Sustainable Communities objective of The Living City in that both seek to promote a "smart growth" model of compact urban development that conserves natural resources and energy while promoting increased use and availability of efficient public transit; Scl Hl1pURFR WATFRSHFn Al 1 IANCF #3 /n4 r)rtnhar 1c 9nn4 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) advise the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal that TRCA supports the general directions of the growth plan; THAT to avoid undermining the intent of the Growth Plan, the province consider increasing both the target for intensification and not permitting urban boundary expansions within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) for a period greater than 5 years, unless the target and other proposed criteria have been met; THAT the province consider increasing the time horizon for the Growth Plan to beyond 30 years and that the additional projected population growth beyond a 30 year planning horizon be contained within urban growth boundaries established in accordance with environmental carrying capacities identified through watershed plans; THAT the province consider a growth management strategy that would prevent any new or expanded Take -based water and sewer infrastructure (excluding infrastructure approved but as yet unbuilt or infrastructure required to address serious health or environmental concerns) from being extended onto or over the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM); THAT a growth management plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe recognize the importance of locally significant natural heritage systems in supporting the ecological integrity of provincially significant features and areas and that as intensification and redevelopment of existing urban areas occurs, an expanded and enhanced natural heritage system will be required for Tong -term sustainability to withstand the use and pressures of a projected population growth of an additional 3 million people; THAT financial tools, incentives and standards, similar to those proposed for brownfields redevelopment and intensification, be developed to encourage the private sector and assist municipalities in the enhancement of local natural heritage systems, implementation of "green infrastructure" such as stormwater management retrofits and the use of green building technologies that reduce energy consumption and improve air quality, including provisions for renewable energy sources, as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce the impacts from and rate of climate change; THAT TRCA support the coordination of the environmental assessment and land -use planning process to ensure the protection of local natural heritage systems and that the consideration of alternatives reflects emerging technologies, innovative designs and especially an appropriate balance of roads and transit; AND FURTHER THAT this report be circulated for information to TRCA's watershed municipalities and conservation authorities within the Greater Golden Horseshoe study area. In mid -July, the Province of Ontario released a discussion paper titled "Places to Grow: Better Choices. Brighter Future. A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ". The document outlines a strategy and identifies tools for managing growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) over the next 30 years, where 3 million new residents are expected to settle. The October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 G52 document provides proposed directions for provincial and municipal decisions on a range of growth- related issues such as urban development and land use planning, capital investment planning, housing, transportation and environmental infrastructure and economic development. This document is one component of several provincial initiatives to manage the growth and prosperity of Ontario's communities, and also includes the Golden Horseshoe (GH) Greenbelt Plan, source water protection and planning reform, among others. SUMMARY OF THE GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE The document addresses four primary topics: 1) Where and How to Grow; 2) Infrastructure to • Support Growth; 3) Protecting What is Valuable; and 4) Implementation. 1) Where and How to Grow The document identifies the redevelopment of brownfield and greyfield sites and intensification along higher order transit corridors within urban areas as key opportunities to contain much of the anticipated growth within existing urban boundaries. The review of existing and new financial tools and incentives and the development of standards for greenfield development are some of the strategies proposed to achieve this form of compact urban growth. Priority Urban Centres (PUC) are identified as the location where much of the growth should be accommodated through redevelopment opportunities. PUC within TRCA watersheds include: Downtown Toronto Waterfront, Yonge - Eglinton Centre, North York Centre and the Brampton City Centre. Emerging Urban Centres (EUC) identified within TRCA watersheds include: Scarborough Centre, Markham Centre, Richmond Hill /Langstaff Gateway and Downtown Pickering. Approximately one third of all identified PUC and EUC are located within TRCA watersheds. Strategies to encourage growth within these areas include exploring and developing innovative financial tools and incentives, the development of standards and performance measures for urban centres, including density targets, and establishing the GH Greenbelt to clearly delineate areas off limits to urban growth. The report also notes that it may be necessary to consider expansions to urban boundaries in some areas, including the areas of the GTA that are south of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) and outside of the proposed Greenbelt. Map 4 shows this conceptually as a rounding out of the existing urban boundaries, leaving a thin strip of potential greenbelt lands south of the ORM. A number of criteria are proposed that would need to be satisfied prior to any expansion of urban boundaries within the next five years, including that 40% of projected growth is accommodated through intensification, natural heritage systems are planned for and protected and appropriate consideration is given to source water protection. 2) Infrastructure to Support Growth The document proposes to establish new approaches to infrastructure planning such as optimizing the use of existing infrastructure and establishing a more integrated transportation network. A 10 -year Strategic Infrastructure Investment Plan is currently under development by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (PIR). Strategies are identified for moving goods and people, such as building urban transit, including new inter - regional systems and strengthening the GO rail system, plus a network of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Map 5 shows conceptually a future inter - regional transit link between Barrie and the GTA through the proposed Highway 427 corridor. Map 6 shows conceptually a future "economic corridor" along the existing urban boundary in York and Peel regions extending from near Highway 400 r53 HIIMRFR WATFRSHFn Al l IANCF *jf14 f)rtnhar 1(1, 2nn4 westwards through Guelph to Kitchener/Waterloo. Sustainable water and wastewater services are given special mention as necessary supports to growth, including the need for strategies to develop methods of treating stormwater and combined sewer overflows, new controls on regulating water takings and assessing the assimilative capacities of receiving water bodies. 3) Protecting What is Valuable This section of the document largely recaps existing ongoing initiatives such as the proposed greenbelt plan, source water protection, the Nutrient Management Act and other existing legislation. The report notes that greenspace systems are an integral part of the regional fabric which contributes to the quality of life of residents, and that protection is required for significant natural heritage features as well as broader systems such as the Lake Ontario Waterfront, ORM and Niagara Escarpment. As in the greenbelt report, certain agricultural lands (including the Duffins -Rouge Agricultural Preserve) and mineral aggregate resources are also identified as requiring long term protection. 4) Implementation: Moving Forward The document notes that a provincial facilitator will be appointed to assist on issues arising as the growth plan is implemented. Additionally, a "blue ribbon" panel will be established to monitor and advise on implementation of the plan. Possible planning implementation tools include upper tier official plans, community improvement plans and a development permit system. Planning reform, including Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) reform and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) update are other means already ongoing. Provincial legislation is suggested as a possible means to ensure compliance with the Growth Plan. A number of possible fiscal implementation tools are also suggested such as life -cycle pricing, tax increment financing, property tax reform and others. The development and monitoring of community livability and sustainability indicators are suggested to assess the effectiveness of growth plan implementation. TRCA STAFF ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS ON THE GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE The document integrates and discusses many of the planning and development issues of concern in the GTA over the past decade. It is, however, fairly general in nature, and relies on many strategies yet to be developed and many tools yet to be explored and evaluated. Together with other recent provincial initiatives such as planning reform and a greenbelt plan, it does deliver a sense that the issues are now going to be seriously investigated and a coordinated action plan adopted. The Growth Plan, though general in nature, is an important step towards the Sustainable Communities objective of The Living City. Both the Growth Plan and The Living City seek to promote "smart growth" models of compact urban development that conserve natural resources and energy while promoting increased use and availability of efficient public transit. In that regard staff recommend that TRCA generally support the directions of the Growth Plan. There are, however, several areas in which staff believe the directions of the document should be strengthened, such as: 1) in setting timelines and targets for the ratio of greenfield development vs development within existing urban boundaries; 2) the time horizon for the overall Growth Plan; 3) geographical restrictions to the expansion of new lake -based sewer October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 G54 and water infrastructure; 4) recognition that intensification will require planning for a more robust natural heritage system; 5) adding to the list of topics needing to be implemented through new financial tools and standards, additional topics such as enhanced green infrastructure, green building technology and energy efficiency; and 6) requiring better integration and coordination of the land use planning process with the environmental assessment process. The Growth Plan provides several case studies of the ratio of greenfield development to development through intensification in existing urban areas. Sydney, Australia recently adopted a target requiring 75% of new dwellings to be built within existing urban areas while allowing for 25% as greenfield development. A new national target for the United Kingdom is to build 60% of new dwellings on previously developed land by 2008. The target of the Vancouver Regional District's strategic plan is to capture 70% of growth by 2021 in the growth concentration areas. In contrast, the GGH Growth Plan sets a target of a minimum of only 40% of projected growth to be met through infill and intensification. Further, this is one of the criteria that would permit urban boundary expansions in GTA municipalities within the next 5 years, even as the Growth Plan states that most municipalities have sufficient land designated to accommodate urban growth in the GGH for the next 15 to 25 years, even without implementing compact urban form measures. Clearly, the proposed target and timeline needs to be strengthened so as not to undermine the intent of the Growth Plan. TRCA staff recommend increasing both the target for intensification and not permitting urban boundary expansions within the GTA for a period greater than 5 years, unless the target and other proposed criteria have been met. With respect to the 30 year time horizon of the Growth Plan, this is only marginally greater than most regional official plans within the GTA. The document specifically references an approximately 40 year horizon for Highway 407 from planning to implementation. It also notes that Waterloo Region has a 40 year Growth Management Strategy. Therefore, to avoid simply duplicating municipal official plans and to provide true provincial leadership in this exercise, a time horizon for the Growth Plan of greater than 30 years should be considered. Further, no indication is provided as to how to accommodate additional population growth beyond the 30 year horizon of the Growth Plan. Environmental modelling undertaken through watershed plans to be conducted over the next few years will provide guidance as to the environmental carrying capacity of lands within the GGH to accommodate additional urban growth. This may establish significant environmental constraints to urban boundary expansions within GTA watersheds, and the Growth Plan should account for the potential need to accommodate projected population growth beyond the 30 year planning horizon within the urban boundaries established for the 30 year plan. To ensure that future urban growth within GTA municipalities unfolds as proposed in the Growth Plan, the province should consider a specific policy /strategy that would not permit any new or expanded Take -based water and sewer infrastructure to be extended onto or over the Oak Ridges Moraine (this would not apply to approved but as yet unbuilt infrastructure or infrastructure required to address serious health or environmental concerns). Such a policy would support the implementation of the Growth Plan by ensuring that sewer and water system funding contributes to the optimization of existing infrastructure, concentrates new growth in Priority Urban Centres and Emerging Urban Centres and minimizes the impacts to j;55 HIIMRFR WATFRSHFf 01 1 IANCF #3 /n4 r]ctnhPr 1q, 2nn4 environmental features and groundwater resources. The Growth Plan suggests that for future growth areas, especially for urban boundary expansions, a number of criteria should be met, including demonstrating that the environmental capacity, particularly sustainable water - taking, to support the projected growth is available and that natural heritage systems have been planned for and protected. This supports the proposed revisions to the PPS that would promote watershed studies being conducted prior to urban expansions. The wording, however, should be strengthened to recognize that simply protecting existing natural heritage features is not sufficient to ensure the Tong -term sustainability of a robust natural heritage system. TRCA's draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy clearly demonstrates that given the projected population growth, even if the currently existing natural heritage system is maintained, it will continue to decline in quality as urban development occurs. Through watershed planning exercises, municipalities must be able to identify, protect and enhance locally significant natural heritage systems as the connecting links between and among the protected provincially significant features, which function as the anchors of local systems. Similarly, as intensification and redevelopment within existing urban areas occurs, the existing natural heritage system also needs to be enhanced and augmented to withstand the use and pressures from the projected population growth and servicing requirements of an additional 3 million people. The Growth Plan speaks to "minimizing" or "mitigating" environmental impacts of infrastructure expansion but staff hold the opinion that a much more proactive approach is necessary, such as the protection and restoration of additional lands as compensation for losses to the natural heritage system. The mapping and policy framework included in TRCA's draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy provide an example of a proactive approach to achieving a robust natural heritage system. Staff note the reference to the Seaton lands in the Growth Plan and observe that it can serve as a good model for planning urban growth within an effective and appropriate natural heritage system. The Growth Plan identifies a number of possible strategies for promoting intensification and compact development in PUCs, including changes to the Development Charges Act to encourage and provide incentives for compact urban form as well as the development of standards and performance measures for urban centres, such as transit ridership, density targets and others. Staff suggest that the Development Charges Act could be amended to also permit the collection of funding for the enhancement of "green infrastructure ", natural heritage system lands enhancement and for implementing energy efficiency programs. Significant financial assistance and incentives will be needed by municipalities to enable implementation of projects to protect and enhance water quality (such as source water protection and wet weather flow projects) and to prepare for and mitigate the potential impacts of climate change (such as stormwater management retrofits and the enhancement of local natural heritage systems). Additionally, the list of standards and performance measures for urban centres should be expanded to include energy efficiency and the use of green building technologies, including provisions for renewable energy sources and conservation measures. Rating systems such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) provide excellent examples of guidelines that promote improved standards in new building technology. This should be further supported as one of the "complementary investment" areas, similar to transit system investments to support compact urban form, and funding should be allocated in the budget of the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal to advance this direction. October 19,2004 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/04 G56 The Growth Plan identifies as one of its strategies for effectively managing future growth the coordination of the environmental assessment process, the land -use planning process and infrastructure planning to ensure that appropriate infrastructure capacity is in place to support planned growth. While staff acknowledge the importance of this strategy for the reasons provided, staff experiences lead us to support the strategy for entirely different reasons. TRCA experience has been that land use changes have been approved in advance of the environmental assessment process, thus leading to the necessity of approving environmental assessments for infrastructure to service the development, no matter the environmental costs, and often resulting in the loss and degradation of portions of the local natural heritage system. Better integration and coordination of the land -use planning process and environmental assessment (EA) process, particularly for transportation planning, is urgently needed to ensure the sustainability of communities offering a high quality of life. Additionally, the consideration of alternatives through the EA process needs to reflect emerging technologies, innovative designs and especially an appropriate balance of roads and transit. RES. #G32/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the following working group are provided for information. Luciano Martin Deb Schulte THAT the following minutes be received with the following amendments to Meeting #01/04 of the East Humber Working Group and #1/04 of the West Humber Working Group minutes; West Humber Working Group: On page 57 under section #5 regarding the Claireville Leadership Conservation Partnership, the line stating "this is not feasible or the desire of the TRCA at this time" needs to be rephrased. The current wording suggests that TRCA is not interested in pursuing the Claireville Leadership Conservation Partnership which is not the case. It should be rephrased to say that TRCA is very interested in pursuing this partnership, however at this time TRCA funding is not available to build opportunities such as trails etc. East Humber Working Group: The spelling of Kleinburg to be corrected. • Meeting #01/04 of the Communications and Outreach Working Group; • Meeting #01/04 of the Lower Humber Working Group; • Meeting #01/04 of the West Humber Working Group; • Meeting #01/04 of the East Humber Working Group CARRIED r57 NEW BUSINESS HIIMRFR WATFRAHFf Al I IANCF #3/(14 (lrtnher 1q 90(14 PINE VALLEY EXTENSION UPDATE Deb Schulte outlined the letter that the friends of Boyd Park have prepared for the Minister of the Environment which requests that the Pine Valley Zink be removed from the Draft Terms of Reference for the Pine Valley Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment . RES. #G33/04 - Moved by: Seconded by: Deb Schulte Sharon Bradley THAT the Humber Alliance send a letter to the Minister of the Environment requesting that the Pine Valley Zink be removed from consideration in the Draft Terms of Reference for the Pine Valley Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment based on its designation as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), protection under the Provincial Policy Statement (2.3.1), and natural, cultural and recreational values CARRIED DOOR PRIZE As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Humber Alliance, G. Wilkins drew two names for door prizes. Vince De'Elia won a copy of Paths to the Living City and two books on Hurricane Hazel. Joanne Nonnekes won a copy of the Hurricane Hazel DVD. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m., October 19, 2004. Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney A/Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer /L. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES OF MEETING #1/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #6/04 JUNE 25, 2004 Rouge Park SCAIW; 0 NCTORONTO AND REGION' ,- onserva tion for The Living City MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #1/04 April 7, 2004 Page ii The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at the Toronto Zoo in the City of Toronto, on Wednesday, April 7, 2004. Dick O'Brien, Chair of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Interim Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT Bryan Buttigieg Member David Charlton Member Ron Christie Chair, Rouge Park Tim Clarridge Alternate Victor Doyle Member Del Fisher Alternate Alex Georgieff Member Paul Harpley Member Jack Heath Alternate Murray Johnston Member Virginia Jones Member Rimi Kalinauskas Member Cindy Lee Alternate Dick O'Brien Chair, TRCA Kevin O'Connor Alternate Terry O'Connor Member Michael Price Altermate Garry Pringle Member Lionel Purcell Member Jim Robb Member Frank Scarpitti Member Michael Scott Member Patricia Short -Galle Member Clyde Smith Member Lorne Smith Member David Tuley Member John Van Voorst Member GUESTS Suzanne Barrett Consultant Nestor Chornobay Director, Strategic Planning, Region of Durham Mark Garvey Citizen L2 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE # 1/04 April 7, 2004 STAFF Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer, TRCA Lewis Yeager General Manager, Rouge Park Barb Davies Manager, Natural and Cultural Heritage, Rouge Park Maryam Nassar Manager, Interpretation & Communications, Rouge Park Sonya Meek Watershed Planning Supervisor, TRCA Patricia Mohr Watershed Planning Project Manager, TRCA Michelle Chamberlain Administrative Assistant, TRCA April7, 2004 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #1/04 L3 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Dick O'Brien brought the meeting to order and welcomed members and guests. Round table introductions of members, alternates, staff and guests were made prior to the start of the meeting. D. O'Brien pointed out the Rouge Watershed Terms of Reference and the Rules for the Conduct of the Authority in the agenda package. PRESENTATIONS ROUGE PARK AND TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY'S WATERSHED APPROACH Brian Denney made a presentation on Rouge Park and TRCA's watershed approach, focusing on the Rouge watershed. He provided a brief history of the Authority and its nine watersheds, and how Rouge Park Alliance came into being due to urban pressure. Brian described the Living City Objectives of the Authority and their importance to a healthy, living, breathing city. Healthy rivers and shorelines, regional biodiversity, sustainable communities, and business excellence were mentioned as the objectives of the Living City. He provided examples of ways of meeting the Living City objectives such as the greening of hospitals, purchasing environmentally responsible products, conserving energy, etc. Brian noted the importance of partnerships to the TRCA and Rouge Park in undertaking their work, and specifically in the preparation of the Rouge Watershed Plan. On behalf of the two organizations, he expressed interest in working with all Task Force members on this project. PROPOSED ROUGE WATERSHED PLANNING PROCESS Sonya Meek provided a detailed presentation on the proposed workplan for the Rouge Watershed Planning Process. In the early stages of the workplan development, meetings were arranged with municipal and Ministry of Natural Resources staff; Rouge Park Heritage Committee; and community open houses for public and partner input. From these sessions, and a review of the previous studies of the Rouge watershed, the proposed workplan was prepared. Sonya emphasized the importance of coordinating and building upon the existing plans (e.g., Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy (CBMS) for the Rouge watershed, Rouge Park North Management Plan, etc.) and ongoing studies. Sonya highlighted the special areas and key issues of the Rouge watershed such as operation and maintenance of parks and stormwater management (SWM) ponds, stream stability, implementation of the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, water use, development pressures, Federal Minister's Zoning order, and connections with Petticoat and Duffins Creeks, etc. L4 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #1/04 April 7, 2004 • Sonya explained what was new and different about this study (e.g., filling data gaps such as groundwater and water budget modelling, emphasis on analysis /prediction /integration and development of specific implementation direction rather than on data collection, reports wil be concise, and study will not delay action); and why a watershed plan is needed (e.g., to provide a watershed context for the Rouge Park Management Plans, fulfill watershed planning requirements of ORMCP, define watershed scale objectives for TRCA's Living City vision, to provide updated watershed information, etc.). A discussion followed with respect to the use of a watershed plan and what the final products invovle. An example was provided in the case of the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan where the Town of Ajax adopted the plan into their official plan - an important planning document to be used by municipal planners. It was also emphasized that each watershed plan is different and unique to its watershed. It was suggested that a presentation on previous watershed planning studies be provided at a future meeting. REPORTS RES. #L1/04 ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN WORKPLAN Moved by: Seconded by: Lionel Purcell Bryan Buttigieg THAT the Rouge Watershed Plan Workplan, dated March 2004, be adopted; AND FURTHER THAT any recommendations for substantive changes in scope, products or time lines be brought back to the Rouge Task Force for approval .CARRIED BACKGROUND Staff of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Rouge Park convened a series of meetings and public open houses during the period of June 2003 to January 2004 to obtain input on the development of a Watershed Plan for the Rouge. Meetings were held with planning, works and parks department staff of each municipality in the watershed during June to October 2003. In addition to specific technical issues unique to their municipality, municipal staff expressed the following feedback regarding their interests for the planning process and deliverables: Process • Coordinate with existing plans and ongoing studies. • Don't let study delay action. • Involve municipal staff in report review and workshops, rather than on formal committees. April 7, 2004 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #1/04 L5 Deliverables • Provide early products and guidance. • Produce clear final deliverables and implementation framework • Consolidate with existing plans. • Develop policy concepts to guide implementation. • Keep reports concise. • Ensure adequate monitoring networks are in place. The Ministry of Natural Resources staff provided input d uring a meeting in January 2004: • Be user - friendly; consider separate citizen's guide. • Set performance targets, defended by silence and economics. • Give planners and developers guidance, but flexibility in how to reach targets. • Address key issues of water and natural heritage. • Address east -west corridor linkages. Members of the community had an opportunity to provide input at three open houses, held in. Toronto (November 24, 2003), Markham (November 25, 2003), and Richmond Hill (November 27, 2003). This is what we heard: • Concerns about surface and groundwater. • Interest in continued opportunities to be involved in the planning process. • Interest in learning about the Rouge watershed. Reports containing draft work plans were taken through the Rouge Park Alliance and its Heritage Committee, and through the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Full Authority in June and October 2003. This is what we heard: • Provide better direction for implementation (priorities, policy). • Define expectations of all stakehdders during the process. • Provide opportunities for the general public to be involved in the planning process. • Determine role /benefits of natural heritage and agricultural land uses in protecting baseflow, especially under climate change. • Define carrying capacity. • Look into ways of demonstrating the economic benefits of watershed management. Comments received during all of these sessions were considered and addressed in the revised workplan, dated March 2004. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the Rouge Watershed Planning Study in 2004 has been approved by the Region of York and the City of Toronto. L6 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #1/04 April 7, 2004 WORKSHOP ROUGE WATERSHED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES A discussion on the Draft Rouge Watershed Goals and Objectives was facilitated by Suzanne Barrett. Members were asked to fill out the worksheets and return them by April 13, 2004. Suzanne will be compiling a summary of the comments received from the Task Force members and proposing revisions to the draft goals and objectives, based on comments received. NEXT MEETINGS/WORKSHOPS A discussion on future meetings and workshops concluded that the meetings are to remain 2 to 3 hours in length, in the evenings (6:00 p.m. earliest start- time), and preferably on a Thursday. Proposed dates will be provided to members and dates will be determined from their responses. NEW BUSINESS Frank Scarpitti informed us that he is listed as a member on both the Town of Markham and Region of York for the Rouge Task Force. Erin Shapero will represent the Town of Markham, and he will represent York Region. A letter of appointment with the above changes will be provided. AUDIO VISUAL PRESENTATION At the end of the meeting, the presentation "Working Together for the Living City" was shown to those who wished to stay. April 7, 2004 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #1/04 L7 NEXT MEETING The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday May 27, location TBD. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:25 p.m., on April 7, 2004. /mc Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES OF MEETING #2/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #7/04 JULY 23, 2004 e 4. . Rouge Park thkTORONTO AND REGION Y- onservation for The Living City MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #2/04 May 27, 2004 Page L.$ The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at the Cedar Grove Community Centre in the Town of Markham, on Thursday, May 27, 2004. Sonya Meek, Watershed Planning Supervisor, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority(TRCA), acting on behalf of Dick O'Brien, Chair, TRCA and Interim Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT Bryan Buttigieg Member Christine Caroppo Member Ron Christie Chair, Rouge Park Tammy Chung Alternate Gay Cowbourne Member Victor Doyle Member Del Fisher Alternate Alex Georgieff Member Paul Harpley Member Murray Johnston Member Virginia Jones Member Rimi Kalinauskas Member Dick O'Brien Chair, TRCA Terry O'Connor Member Michael Price Altermate Garry Pringle Member Lionel Purcell Member Jim Robb Member Kathi Oke for Patricia Short-Gallo Member Clyde Smith Member Lorne Smith Member David Tuley Member John Van Voorst Member Tupper Wheatley Alternate Peter White Member GUESTS Mark Garvey Citizen STAFF Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer, TRCA Lewis Yeager General Manager, Rouge Park Gary Bowen Duffins - Carruthers Specialist, TRCA Sonya Meek Watershed Planning Supervisor, TRCA Patricia Mohr Watershed Planning Project Manager, TRCA Michelle Chamberlain Technical Administrative Clerk, TRCA L10 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #2/04 May 27, 2004 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Sonya brought the meeting to order and welcomed members and guests. Round table introductions of members, alternates, staff and guests were made prior to the start of the meeting. PRESENTATIONS OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS WATERSHED PLANNING STUDIES: DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED PLAN AS A CASE EXAMPLE Gary Bowen, TRCA, made an informative presentation on the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Planning Process and made copies of the final reports available on CD -Rom. Rouge Watershed Task Force has a similar structure as the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces. The Rouge study is following a similar planning process as the Duffins study. Gary mentioned, as part of developing the watershed plan, a management philosophy was defined by task force members which included: net gain, environment first, balance land use, human health and safety, and lastly, everybody is a player and is a part of the process. He stressed the importance of key partners such as Transport Canada, Golf Courses, Urban Development Institute, Agricultural sector, elective officials, residents, etc., and their input to the watershed planning process. Their participation has led to the immediate implementation of Watershed Plan recommendations through ongoing initiatives, such as the Federal Greenspace Strategy and Pickering Growth Management Study. Gary made reference to a database that provides aerial photos of the Duffins -Carruthers Creeks, Rouge River, and Don River watersheds that can be easily accessible. ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORT UPDATE Sonya Meek provided a presentation on the overview of the SOW report. She went through each chapter and described the next steps in the review process. Four sample copies of the Draft Report were provided for members to look through. There is still a bit more refinement before members receive their own copy, expected within two weeks. May 27, 2004 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #2/04 L11 RES. #L2/04 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Bryan Buttigieg Michael Price THAT the Minutes of Rouge Meeting #1/04 , held on, April 7, 2004 be approved CARRIED REPORTS RES. #L3/04 Moved by: Seconded by: ROUGE WATERSHED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES - TASK FORCE COMMENTS AND PROPOSED REVISIONS Clyde Smith Alex Georgieff THAT the revised goals and objectives be adopted as a "living" set of goals and objectives to serve as a basis for further consultation and use during the Rouge Watershed Planning study; AND FURTHER THAT the goals and objectives be reviewed periodically during the study and finalized by the Task Force prior to incorporation into the final Watershed Plan ..CARRIED BACKGROUND A draft set of watershed management goals and objectives were presented for discussion at the Rouge Task Force Meeting #1/04, held April 7, 2004. The draft goals and objectives were written by TRCA staff and were based on a review of goals and objectives in other recent, local watershed plans, Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, Rouge Park and Rouge Park North Management Plans, and other municipal plans relevant to the Rouge watershed. Suzanne Barrett facilitated a workshop discussion of the draft goals and objectives among Task Force members during the meeting. Many Task Force members provided additional written comments on the goals and objectives subsequent to the meeting. Suzanne has summarized all comments in the attached report, dated April 21, 2004. Many comments were constructive in refining and clarifying the management direction. A number of Task Force members recommended that these be considered "living" goals, which can be tested and revised as the study proceeds. Suzanne Barrett has proposed a revised set of goals and objectives by considering and incorporating input received from the Task Force members. The revised goals and objectives are shown in the attached report dated May 11., 2004. L12 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #2/04 May 27, 2004 RES. #L4/04 ROUGE RIVER STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORT Moved by: Seconded by: Christine Caroppo Ron Christie THAT Task Force members review the draft State of the Watershed Report and provide comments to Patricia Mohr, Rouge Watershed Project Manager by July 30, 2004; THAT TRCA staff circulate the draft State of the Watershed Report to municipal staff contacts and request their review and comments by July 30, 2004; THAT the draft State of the Watershed Report be provided to experts invited to participate in a Rouge and Humber Watershed Planning Studies' Peer Review Workshop, tentatively scheduled for June 23, 2004; AND FURTHER THAT a summary of all comments be brought back to the Task Force in early fall, 2004 AMENDMENT RES. #L5/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Peter White Bryan Buttigieg THAT the following be inserted after the main motion: THAT Task Force members advise Patricia Mohr of the chapters they are most likely to focus on and indicate any issues or aspects of the review process they wish to discuss at the June 24th meeting; AND FURTHER THAT the draft State of the Watershed Report review process be included as an item on the June 24th Task Force meeting agenda; THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND The State of the Watershed Report represents a summary of the key findings from the Phase 1, Characterization, component of the watershed planning study. The primary role of the report is to develop an understanding of the watershed systems and their interdependencies, report on current conditions and issues, and establish a working set of watershed goals, objectives and targets. May 27, 2004 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE # 2/04 L13 As part of the scoping phase of this planning study, comments were provided from various partners on the desired documentation and form of final study products. Based on this input, the following design considerations for the Rouge River State of the Watershed Report were identified: • Recognize the amount of available information in the watershed, consolidate it, and produce early, useable products from the study; • Establish ecological targets based on available information; • Ensure the report is concise, yet accessible to many readers; and • Consider ongoing initiatives, such as the Greenbelt legislation, that may benefit from information gathered in the early stages of the Rouge study. With this direction in mind, TRCA and Rouge Park staff have developed a report consisting of two main parts including, Part I: Conditions; and Part II: Existing Management Framework. These parts follow a brief set of introductory chapters. A Table of Contents is attached. The Report will be provided at the May 27, 2004 meeting. Part I - Conditions Part I of this report establishes a current understanding of the watershed system and its condition, according to the scope of issues contained in the watershed management goals. Recognizing that the watershed system is a complex network of inter - related components, the discussion is divided into a set of simpler component systems to facilitate an understanding of each one and its contribution to the whole. A set of objectives and associated indicators, measures and targets accompany each component goal. Where available, targets were derived from established, recognized sources and in other cases they have been proposed for review during the study. Rationale and references are stated. All targets should be considered "working targets ", to be finalized with the final watershed plan. This consolidation of watershed management targets may serve as an interim reference guide for projects being planned, while the watershed plan is being developed. These "ecological targets" should not be confused with management criteria or targets, which will be developed as part of the final Watershed Plan and which will guide land use activities such that they can contribute to efforts at fulfilling the ecological targ ets. The management criteria will be determined in study phases 2 and 3 as part of the preferred management strategy for the watershed. In keeping with the overall intent of the Rouge Watershed Plan, the State of the Watershed chapters are written in a concise, yet comprehensive style, accessible to a wide range of readers. Following a brief introduction to the chapter, is a section discussing basic terms and concepts needed to understand the component and a section relating primary influences from rural and urban land use activities. The next section presents data collection methods and sources of information used to measure the existing condition of the component, and the subsequent section details the results of the measuring. The final section is a quick summary of results along with a review of their management actions. L14 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #2/04 May 27, 2004 The State of the Watershed Report was formatted in this way to permit the reader to concentrate their examination on the sections appropriate to their needs. Those wishing to focus on a particular component may do so. Readers who al ready have a sound understanding of the subject, may skip to the existing conditions or summary sections. Part 11 - Existing Management Framework Part II reviews the current framework of management fools available, and can serve as a reference when preparing the implementation strategy for the watershed plan. Report Review Process Although it is intended that the draft State of the Watershed Report will remain draft until it can be finalized with the Watershed Plan and all other reports from this study, the overall study will benefit from a thorough review of this report within the next two months. This time frame will assist in ensuring that, if there are any major omissions or errors in interpretation, they can be addressed as necessary in the Phase 2, "Analysis ", work before it proceeds too far. Furthermore, if comments are such that the Task Force members feel a revised draft of all or part of the report needs to be circulated before work on the final Watershed Plan commences, then this step can be incorporated into the work schedule. At this time, feedback on the following areas will be particularly helpful: - any sources of data or information that have been missed? - comments on data interpretation and key findings? - proposed targets? - overall format and accessibility? Task Force members are asked to review the report and consult with their constituent groups as necessary. TRCA staff would like to send copies of the draft report directly to municipal staff in the parks, planning and works departments of each watershed municipality for their review. A peer review of the proposed technical study methods and overall planning processes for the Rouge and Humber Watershed Planning Studies is being planned for June 23, 2004. Staff would like to provide expert peer reviewers with a copy of the draft State of the Watershed Report, as it can serve as an important backg round reference. The report will give peer reviewers an understanding of the watershed systems and available data, such that they can provide better advice and critique of the proposed study methods. Furthermore, peer review of the draft State of the Watershed Report will assist in confirming the initial data interpretation and lending to the defensibility of this work. It should be noted that the final State of the Watershed Report will be desk -top published and include additional photographs, illustrations and graphics, as necessary to aid presentation and interest It is proposed that a supply of hard copies of the final published report will be available and widespread access to the final report will be via the internet. Downloadable versions of each chapter can be posted on the Rouge Park and TRCA websites. Any suggestions regarding the graphics or distribution are welcome anytime during the study. May 27, 2004 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #2/04 L15 Dick O'Brien, Chair, TRCA and Interim Chair of the Task Force, joined the meeting and resumed role as Chair of the meeting. RES. #L6/04 ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR Moved by: Lionel Purcell THAT Frank Scarpitti be nominated to stand for the position of either Chair or Vice -Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force. Dick O'Brien explained that Frank Scarpitti could not be in attendance at the meeting , but had sent a letter by fax expressing an interest and willingness to serve in either position. Moved by: Ron Chrisite THAT Bryan Buttigieg be nominated to stand for the position of Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force. Bryan Buttigieg accepted the nomination. Dick O'Brien asked, three times, if there were any other nominations or expressions of interest from members around the table. Bryan Buttigieg made a few remarks about his background and interests in the Rouge watershed and work of the Task Force. Bryan answered several questions from members. He stated that, in his capacity as an environmental lawyer, he has not worked for any clients on matters affecting the Rouge watershed and that he would declare a conflict of interest should this issue ever present itself in the future. Moved by: Seconded by: Lionel Purcell Ron Christie THAT nominations be closed. Moved by: Seconded by: Lionel Purcell Del Fisher THAT Bryan Buttigieg be appointed as Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force; AND FURTHER THAT Frank Scarpitti be appointed as Vice -Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force CARRIED L16 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #2/04 May 27, 2004 BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Rouge Watershed Task Force, dated 2003 and adopted by the Authority at Meeting #8 held on October 31, 2003 by Resolution #A223/03, includes the following provision: "Section 5.0 Rules of Conduct "A Chair and Vice Chair of the Task Force will be nominated from among the Task Force membership, and will be elected by the Task Force at their second meeting. The TRCA Chair will chair the first two Task Force meetings, until a Task Force Chair is elected. All subsequent meetings will be chaired by the Task Force Chair or Vice Chair. All meeting agendas will be set by TRCA and Rouge Park staff, with input and approval of the Task Force Chair. The Chair and Vice Chair will be ex- officio members of all working groups." Election Process Nominations for Chair and Vice -Chair will be accepted followed by a show of hands. A formal election by ballot for Chair and Vice -Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force will be held only if necessary. RES. #L7/04 Moved by: Seconded by: ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING SCHEDULE Ron Christie Garry Pringle THAT the schedule of Task Force meeting dates for 2004, as set out in this report be approved; THAT a schedule of proposed 2005 meeting dates be brought back to the Task Force for approval in Fall 2004; AND FURTHER THAT the meetings be convened at locations around the watershed. .CARRIED BACKGROUND At Task Force Meeting #1/04, members were polled as to their preferences of meeting times and days of the week. Considering the input provided and the anticipated project work schedule, the following meeting dates and key agenda topics are proposed: June 24, 2004 - SOW Report and Future Scenarios Sept. 9, 2004 - Watershed Tour October 28, 2004 - Evaluation Criteria /Approach December 9, 2004 - Implementation Plan Framework May 27, 2004 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #2/04 L17 Agendas will be set with input from the Task Force Chair and Vice - Chair. The above - listed agenda topics are not meant to preclude other items, including regular progress reports and reports brought back to the task force from issues discussed at a previous meeting. Furthermore, this schedule of Task Force meeting dates does not preclude the formation of ad- hoc committees or working groups that meet separately to discuss certain issues in more depth than can be addressed during a Task Force meeting. A proposed schedule of meetings for 2005 will be brought to the Task Force in Fall, 2004. NEXT MEETINGS /WORKSHOPS A municipal staff review of the report will take place on June 22nd, followed by a peer review workshop on June 23`d NEW BUSINESS NEXT MEETING The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday June 24, 2004 at the Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville council chambers. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m., on May 27, 2004. /mc Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES OF MEETING #3/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #8/04 SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 Rouge Park SCANNED TORONTO AND REGION The--, •onserva tion for The Living City MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3/04 June 24, 2004 Page L18 The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at the Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville Council Chambers, on Thursday, June 24, 2004. Bryan Buttigieg, newly elected Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT Bryan Buttigieg Chair Christine Caroppo Member David Charlton Member Alex Georgieff Alternate Audrey Hollasch Alternate Murray Johnston .. Member Rimi Kalinauskas Member George McKelvey Alternate Terry O'Connor Member John Pisapio Member Michael Price Member Garry Pringle Member Lionel Purcell Member Jake Riekstins Member Jim Robb Member Kim Gavine for Michael Scott Member Sue Sherban Alternate Patricia Short-Gallo Member Clyde Smith Member David Tuley Member Peter White Member STAFF Lewis Yeager Sonya Meek Patricia Mohr Michelle Chamberlain General Manager, Rouge Park Watershed Planning Supervisor, TRCA Watershed Planning Project Manager, TRCA Technical Administrative Clerk, TRCA June 24, 2004 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3/04 L19 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Bryan Buttigieg, newly elected Chair of the Rouge Task Force, brought the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. He welcomed members and guests. It was noted that Tom Melvmuk from the Citv of Pickering was in attendance at the last meeting held on Mav 27, 2004. It was also noted that Alex Georgieff from the Region of Durham is referred to as member but should be referred to as alternate on the minutes attendance list. In reference to the Election of Chair and Vice Chair. page L15. last paragraph it reads, "He (Bryan Buttigieg) stated that, in his capacity as an environmental lawyer, he has not worked for any clients on matters affecting the Rouge watershed and that he would declare a conflict of interest should this issue ever present kself in the future." Bryan Buttigieq requested a correction to the above to read "... that he would declare an interest should this issue ever present itself in the future." RES. #L8/04 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Terry O'Connor Alex Georgieff THAT the Minutes of Rouge Task Force Meeting #2/04 , held on May 27, 2004, be approved as amended CARRIED L20 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3/04 June 24, 2004 WORKSHOP Task Force members broke into groups to review the State of the Watershed (SOW) Report and to consider the folbwing questions: • overall format of the report, • content (to the extent your review time has allowed), • how you might like to proceed with the review, • other comments. Feedback from task force members was as follows: Report Format • logical. • organization of chapters from general to specific is good and user friendly. • need colourful graphics for general public. Content • appropriate levels of detail, however, some sections (e.g., natural heritage systems, planning and aquatics) are lacking provincial scope in some cases (e.g., fisheries management plan, provincial significant wetlands.) • results of monitoring are often too broad of a context to narrow it down to specific site level. Current standards, in terms of development review, are inadequate. Suggests several pilot projects in watershed to monitor at site level. • data not speafic enough to address specific day -to -day issues to make decisions (e.g., deal with buffers). • technical information is good. • rating system is good. • user friendly, but could be even more user /community friendly like Humber Report Card. • found technical findings /ratings to be optimistic. Rouge is better than the rest of the watersheds but it could be better. • some figures need orientation. • Some chapters are lacking depth and do not go into specifics (e.g., Chapter 9 - Terrestrial System talks about habitat not species (e.g., does not mention white oak as a specific species), and Chapter 19 - Land Securement). • Chapter 7 - Fluvial Geormorphology has some inconsistency (i.e., erosion /stable bank). June 24, 2004 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3/04 L21 Content • requires more focused research in the context of development review; need detailed information to make an informed decision. • key findings are well done (goes from simple to complex). • aquatic section should address 16th Avenue. How to proceed with review • helpful to have groups focus on certain topics based on interest and /or technical expertise. • need input back from all municipalities. • important that all task force members review report and provide comments. TRCA to summarize comments. Other Comments • raise the bar of being proactive vs. reactive. • what exactly will this document be used for? Who is it written for? Who will be doing the work? • some recommendations are hidden. They need to be pulled out at the end of the chapter, be part of key findings or have their own section. Also, there should be a clear set of recommendations in the Executive Summary with goals. • would like to make a statement of principles. • include York - Durham Sewer in key findings. • Part II seems thin and the context is in flux. Many planning and similar initiatives are currently under review. • need to know where we are going with this report - the vision. • are the targets do -able, affordable. • Rating of some conditions are inaccurate (i.e., only 5 monitoring stations but some don't work, beach is closed soley due to E. coli count). • air quality - need to address trucking issue (trucks going to Michigan) and its link to air pollution. We need to do better at re- use, reduce and recycle of waste. • exactly what position will this document take in the context of actual planning and regulations? • need to do cross - referencing and include all ACTS governing policies. L22 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3/04 June 24, 2004 Other Comments • Executive Summary should include recommendations and key findings. • need to have integration of all chapters and what it all means and written for the general public. • Needs to be Tess technical for general public. Perhaps engage a writer. • concern in getting more material - then this report becomes a reference. • vision for museum with artifacts. • aggregate section requires more attention - need to include more on gravel pits and landfill sites and their social impacts. Include environmental benefits from retirement of aggregate pits. • Chapter 11, p. 11 -8, remove the word "immediately" from sentence "... immediately north of Highway 401". • co- generation energy at Beare Road landfill. • we need a vision because there will be no new money to implement. • Zoo wants stormwater management for whole zoo. ACTION: Task force members are to comment on their chapters of interest/expertise and send their comments to Patricia Mohr, TRCA (pmohr @trca.on.ca) before July 30, 2004. TRCA staff will collate all comments including comm ents received from the concurrent municipal staff review and other external peer reviewers. Staff will develop a summary of comments and recommendations for addressing them in consultation with the Task Force Chair, for circulation to the Task Force prior to its September 9th meeting. June 24, 2004 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3/04 L23 REPORTS Sonya provided a verbal update on the Watershed Initiatives Workshop (June 22, 2004) and the Peer Review Workshop that was scheduled for June 23, 2004. The Watershed Initiatives Workshop went well with approximately 50 people in attendance. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an update on the status of a number of ongoing initiatives, such as the launch of the Toronto Wet Weather Flow Master Plan, the York -Peel- Durham- Toronto groundwater study, the watershed plans and highlight their inter - relationships. It also was an opportunity for workshop participants (staff from the parks, planning, works, and health departments of all regional and local munidpalities within the TRCA jurisdidion)to share comments and discuss the relevance of the various projects to their own areas of interest. Due to low numbers for the Peer Review Workshop, scheduled to be held June 23, 2004 was postponed to a later date (after peer reviewers have been sent out the documents for review over the summer). ACTION: It was suggested that a list of Peer Reviewers be sent to task force members in order to avoid duplication when requesting for further peer reviewers of the SOW Report. RES. #L9/04 Moved by: Seconded by: DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE SCENARIOS FOR ANALYSIS DURING PHASE 2 OF THE WATERSHED PLANNING STUDY David Tuley Patricia Short-Gallo THAT comments on the proposed future scenarios received from the Task Force durrig its June 24, 2004 meeting, and comments from other municipal staff and external reviewers during recent workshops, be incorporated by TRCA staff into a revised outline; AND FURTHER THAT the revised draft future scenarios and an overall workplan for the Phase 2 analysis be brought back to the Task Force at its September, 2004 meeting. CARRIED Task Force members reviewed the 9 scenarios and their initial comments included: • Scenario #3 - should have both scenarios of intensification vs. build out. • Scenarios 8 and 9 - recommend to have one as the worse case scenario. • suggested to apply climate change to all scenarios, however, it would be difficult since it is hard to predict accurately. • need good weather stations in Rouge for data collection to measure precipitation. L24 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3/04 June 24, 2004 BACKGROUND As set out in the Rouge Watershed Planning Study Work plan, dated March 2004, and adopted by the Task Force at its first meeting (held April 7, 2004, RES. #L1/04), the watershed planning process consists of three main phases: Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: (A) Scoping and (B) Characterization (March 2003 -May 2004) Analysis and Evaluation (March 2004 - December 2004) Plan Development (September 2004- December 2005). Phase 1 provides an understanding of issues and opportunities associated with the current conditions and future changes anticipated in the watershed. This information is summarized in the State of the Watershed Report. During the Phase 2 studies, the issues and opportunities identified in Phase 1 are formulated into a set of defined scenarios of future land use, resource use, and various management strategies. These scenarios are analyzed using predictive models and other tools to evaluate the watershed's response (i.e., where positive or negative impacts will occur). Although an infinite number of scenarios cannot usually be modelled due to resource and time constraints, a carefully selected set of scenario "runs" can provide insight to how the watershed functions, where greater or lesser areas of sensitivity lie, and which management strategies are relatively more effective than others in various parts of the watershed. Based on the results of the Phase 2 analysis, the Task Force will be able to formulate a watershed management plan that may draw upon elements from one or more scenarios. The resulting watershed plan should then be relevant to the future issues facing the watershed and should provide sound, defensible direction for the effective management of these issues. Proposed Scenarios Figure 1 illustrates a conceptual framework for the development of future scenarios. The first column identifies several main elements that may be common to all scenarios. From these elements, it is possible to identify future stresses anticipated in the Rouge Watershed (i.e., urban growth, increased water supply needs, climate change) and potential management opportunities (i.e., establishment of Rouge Park and associated enhanced terrestrial natural heritage system, implementation of stormwater retrofit plans, etc.). The second column illustrates a gradation in the level of effort, time to implement, etc. that may distinguish one scenario from another. Needless to say there are numerous combinations of the above -noted variables that could be formulated into an endless list of scenarios. The challenge will be to establish a "reasonable" number of distinctive scenarios that will give an understanding of the watershed and how it responds to change. Some considerations in this task include: staff expect that the current budget would support about 5 -6 main scenarios with perhaps 2 -3 additional, minor variations; • the primary model will require about 5-6 months to run scenarios; • scenarios should be discrete enough, such that the primary factors causing change can be distinguished from one another; model capabilities need to be considered; and June 24, 2004 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3/04 L25 • data must be available to define the scenario in modellable terms. Based on these considerations, an initial set of nine conceptual scenarios has been drafted by staff for discussion purposes: POTENTIAL ROUGE SCENARIOS a) Existing land use. b) Future land use (Municipal Official Plans - "OP ") + current management practices c) Future land use (Municipal Official Plans - "OP ") + implementation of Toronto's 25 year Wet Weather Flow Master Plan ( WWFMP) stormwater retrofits + implementation of stormwater retrofit plans in "905" municipalities. d) #3 + innovative SWM in build out e) #4 + enhanced terrestrial natural heritage cover (TNH) f) #5 + sustainable community design principles in all new developments and existing urban areas + implementatiop of Toronto's 100 year Wet Weather Flow Master Plan (WWFMP) stormwater retrofts. g) "Worst Case" Scenario: Future land use (OP) in 416 and 905 + Full build out to the boundary of the ORM + current management practices h) a) #6 + climate change 2020 b) #6 + climate change 2030 c) #6 + climate change 2050 i) a) #7 + climate change 2020 b) #7 + climate change 2030 c) #7 + climate change 2050 Concurrent with a review of the conceptual outline of the proposed scenarios, is the need to ensure that data/maps are available and defensible to define the scenarios in an adequate level of detail for modelling purposes. Staff are in the process of gathering data sets and can elaborate on these data sources at the Task Force meeting and at more detailed stages of this work. Modelling, Analysis, and Evaluation Methods A "Watershed Response Model" shown in Figure 2 illustrates the sequential order in which changes occur in the watershed, in response to changes in land cover, climate, or management practices (i.e., from top of diagram to the bottom). A predictive model or tool is being identified for each study component, and the results from one will be used as input to the next model, thus fostering an integrated study approach. L26 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3/04 June 24, 2004 A set of watershed management goals, objectives, and associated indicators, measures and targets are used as one set of evaluation criteria to assess the acceptability of each scenario. The Task Force will assist in developing a full set of evaluation criteria, which may also address other considerations of public /political acceptability, cost, time to implement, etc. Other watershed task forces have defined its "management philosophy" which has also contributed to the setting of priorities and approaches. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Input and direction on the scenario development is being sought from the Task Force, municipal staff, and other experts who are invited to participate in the peer review process. All comments will be incorporated into an overall work plan for Phase 2, which can be circulated to the Task Force for comment by email and for discussion at future meetings. As the modelling will take a considerable amount of time, staff would like to determine an approximate number of conceptual scenarios for analysis by July 2004, with the aim of having the actual scenarios confirmed and associated data /mapping detailed by late summer. It is expected that this timing would still allow the work to be completed within the scheduled timeframe. Figure 1 - Conceptual Framework for the Development of Future Scenarios Stresses and Management Approaches 1 Scales of Time and Level of Effort Land Cover Current... Future OP... Full Build Out Water Use Current...... Future Climate Current .....2020....2030....2050 Best Practices, Stewardship, O &M Current... SW Retrofit.... Innov. SWM Innov. Dev't Design ...... Sustainable Design Terrestrial Natural Heritage Current targeted TNH cover June 24, 2004 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3/04 L27 Figure 2 - Watershed Response Model Integration Model for the Rouge Watershed Climate Natural Land Cover Changes In Watershed Hydrology Changes In Stream Hydrology Changes n Stream Morphology Changes in Air Quality Changes n Cultural Hentage Changes in Groundwater Quality and Quantity Changes in Surface Water Quality Changes in Aquatic Systems Changes in Terrestrial System IRONMENTAL INTEGRITY Recreation Quality of Life Human Health Agriculture and Food Water Supply Tourism and Economics L28 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3/04 June 24, 2004 NEW BUSINESS It was suggested that, on behalf of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, a statement of principles be sent to the Green Belt Task Force to show the vision of how the Rouge fits in with other linkages and land securement. ACTION: Peter White, Alex Georgieff and Lewis Yeager to draft letter and circulate to task force members by July 7, 2004 and receive their comments by July 12, 2004. Peter will deliver letter to the Green Belt Task Force prior to the July 16, 2004 deadline. Moved by: Seconded by: George McKelvey Murray Johnston THAT Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, send a letter on behalf of the Rouge Task Force to take green belt into consideration. CARRIED It was discussed and agreed that an Implementation Subcommittee be formed and meet over the summer to think about the implementation and assist with the completion of Part 2 of the State of the Watershed Report. The members of this newly formed group include: • David Tuley • Jim Robb • Audrey Hollasch • Clyde Smith Moved by: Seconded by: Murray Johnson Lionel Purcell THAT an Implementation Subcommittee be formed to meet over the next few months (before September 9 meeting) to think about implementation and completion of Part 2 of the State of the Watershed Report CARRIED June 24, 2004 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3104 L29 NEXT MEETING It was discussed and agreed that the Bus Tour scheduled for September 9 be rescheduled for another day and keep the September 9 date as a regular task force meeting, therefore, the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday September 9, 2004. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m., on June 24, 2004. /mc Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Acting Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES OF MEETING #4/04 AUTHORITY MEETING #11/04 JANUARY 7, 2005 Rouge Park SCANNED TORONTO AND REGION -The^ onservat►on for The Living City MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #4/04 September 23, 2004 The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at the OMB Room, Town of Richmond Hill 1st Floor, 225 East Beaver Creek Road, on Thursday, September 23, 2004. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Page L30 PRESENT Bryan Buttigieg Chair Christine Caroppo Member Alex Georgieff Alternate Audrey Hollasch Alternate Murray Johnston Member Michael Price Member Garry Pringle Member Lionel Purcell Member Jim Robb Member Patricia Short-Galle Member Clyde Smith Member David Tuley Member Kevin O'Connor Alternate Frank Scarpitti Member Erin Shapero Member Lorne Smith Member Tupper Wheatley Alternate Elio Di'lorio Member Jack Heath Alternate Virginia Jones Member Ron Christie Member Victor Doyle Member STAFF Brian Denney CAO, TRCA Sonya Meek Watershed Planning Supervisor, TRCA Patricia Mohr Watershed Planning Project Manager, TRCA Sylvia Waters Technical Administrative Assistant, TRCA Maryam Nassar Manager, Interpretation & Communications, Rouge Park GUEST Tracey Steele Parks & Rec., Town of Richmond Hill L31 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/04 September 23, 2004 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, brought the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. He pointed out the hand -outs available to Task Force members which included: • added item to the #4/04 Rouge Watershed Task Force Agenda - Master Plan for Bruce's Mill Conservation Area • background information report on Morningside Heights • background information report on 16th Avenue Dewatering • extra copies of. #4/04 Rouge Watershed Task Force Agenda • extra copies of the Rouge River Watershed Task Force Tour Booklet • Implementation Committee Workshop Handout for discussion Bryan Buttigieg introduced Sylvia Waters as the new Technical Administrative Assistant of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, requesting that all correspondence be filtered through Sylvia. In the review of the last minutes, it was noted by Christine Caroppo that, on page 5, under Other Comments, that the statement, "vision for museum with artifacts" did not capture fully the discussion at the time of the meeting. Christine Caroppo requested a correction to the above statement. "need for a cultural heritage facility /museum to house artifacts and to be used as an educational tool" RES. #L9/04 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Clyde Smith Alex Georgieff THAT the Minutes of the Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/04, held on June 24, 2004, be approved as amended CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE Letter dated July 14, 2004 from Bryan Buttigieg, Chair, Rouge Watershed Task Force to the Chair, Greenbelt Task Force - regarding Rouge Watershed Task Force comments on proposed approaches outlined in the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, thanked Peter White and Alex Georgieff for their assistance in drafting the July 14th, 2004 letter to the Greenbelt Task Force - regarding Rouge Watershed Task Force comments on proposed approaches outlined in the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper. Elio Di'Iorio gave compliments on the letter sent. Rouge Park • 50 Bloomington Road West Aurora, Ontario L4G 3G8 Phone 905 - 713 -7426 Fax 905- 713 -6028 rougepark(a)rougepark.com www.rougepark.com TORONTO AND REGION Y �onservat►on for The Living City 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 Phone 416 - 661 -6600 Fax 416 - 661 -6898 www.trca.on.ca July 14, 2004 Mayor Robert Maclsaac - Chair, Greenbelt Task Force Mayor of the City of Burlington c/o Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Provincial Planning and Environmental Services Branch 777 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 Dear Mayor Maclsaac: Re: Comments on proposed approaches outlined in the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper On behalf of the Rouge River Watershed Task Force, the attached document sets out some general principles which we believe should be taken into consideration by the Provincial Greenbelt Task Force. We appreciate the work being undertaken by the Greenbelt Task Force and, as we trust you can see from the attached, believe that there are many common principles that underpin the work of both groups. It is our hope that the Greenbelt Task Force can adopt the enclosed principles as signposts by which it can evaluate ongoing site - specific efforts to provide sound ecological management within the Provincial Greenbelt concept. Yours Very Truly Bryan J. Buttigieg Chair, Rouge River, ff{ershed Task Fori c Encl. L33 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/04 September 23, 2004 EBR Registry #PF04 #0002 Greenbelt Task Force Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 14th Floor 777 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5 greenbelt @mah.gov.on.ca GENERAL PRINCIPLES PRESENTED TO THE PROVINCIAL GREENBELT TASK FORCE ON BEHALF OF THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED TASK FORCE. There is considerable value in the planning approach taken by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority in its efforts to do watershed planning. The incorporation of local views into a document that addresses environmental and development issues within an ecologically based area -the watershed- makes eminent sense as water is a fundamental component of all things natural. While the concept of watershed planning is not found in legislation, it is an easily identifiable and well understood component that people can identify with and hence is more likely to foster public involvement. From the specific goals and objectives of the Rouge Watershed Task Force it is possible to ascertain the basic principles that guide the commitment of localized watershed task forces. We believe that the Provincial Task Force should understand these principles and adopt them as signposts by which it may evaluate ongoing site - specific efforts to provide sound ecological management within the Provincial greenbelt concept. 1. Preserve the Past: Society values linkages to the past use and history of an area both to help understand what occurred, but also to guide us in the present and future. 2. Protect and enhance the present: Not all we did or are doing is for the betterment of the watershed and we must evaluate the impacts of past and present activities. 3. Plan for the Future: Our capability to see the past and present, to identify our errors and conceive of how to change will allow us to sustain the watershed values into our future. 4. Adherence to broad ecological philosophies and their adaptation to the watershed scale such as sustainable development, ecosystem management, linkages, biodiversity, multi - dimensional management, the triple bottom line, net environmental gain, etc. September 23, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4104 L34 5. Scientific based recommendations: Watershed Task forces should strive to develop scientific defendable recommendations to assist in decisions about land use. 6. Recognition of the value and the fostering of multi- interest task force: Within such task forces the establishment of a common ground of goals, objectives and workload priorities provides a dynamic forum that energizes the activities of many individuals and groups across the watershed. 7. Maintaining attainable work targets and proiects amongst the people: Each person or group has to be able to achieve a part that is within their capability and be able to celebrate the success that is achieved by individuals and as a cumulative total i.e. "I planted 75 trees ", "we planted as a group 3000 trees ", "within the watershed 15,000 trees have been planted ". 8. Consistent positive reinforcement that work is benefiting societal values: At the watershed level, each improvement is monitored as to its contribution to protection, public education or public use and enjoyment; thus maintaining a sense of good momentum and achievement through out the task force membership. 9. Education and knowledge are keys to the future of the watershed: Awareness of the health of the watershed is critical to ensure valued resources can be used and not diminished. When the public understands, they will be Tess destructive. Submitted by: Bryan J. Buttigieg, Chair on behalf of the Rouge River Watershed Task Force L35 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/04 September 23, 2004 REPORTS RES. #L10/04 DRAFT ROUGE STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORT - REVIEW OF COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO DATE Moved by: Seconded by Lionel Purcell Frank Scarpitti THAT the summary of comments to date on the Rouge State of the Watershed Report be received; THAT a reminder letter be sent to any outstanding reviewers; THAT staff proceed to act on recommendations for the incorporation of additional information; AND FURTHER THAT a full report of comments and recommendations on how to address them be brought to the next Task Force meeting. CARRIED BACKGROUND The draft Rouge State of the Watershed Report (dated June 2004) was circulated to the members of the Rouge River Watershed Task Force and 23 government and NGO contacts with final comments requested by August 31, 2004. It was subsequently distributed to 17 peer reviewers, along with the overall watershed planning study workplan and the more detailed outline of the proposed Phase 2 work with comments requested by September 17, 2004. Comments are still being received. •To date, eight of the recipients have sent back comments, including five from the Task Force, one from the government and three peer reviewers. In general, the comments were good and no substantive changes were requested. Task Force and Government Draft SOW Comments Action Overall Report Format - will improve definition - will clarify link through discussion of targets - purpose of the report needs to be clarified - there should be a clear Zink between impacts and required mitigations, and specific development pressures in order to provide specific direction to management and development review Indicators, Measures, Targets and Rating - will refine targets and support them with references - will improve description of role of "working" targets in SOW; final targets and objectives will be included in the final watershed plan - applied criteria and targets should be more specific and well supported; where they are not it should be indicated that they are still being developed - targets and objectives are more appropriately addressed in the Implementation Report Definition Section - will add - should be provided to define terms where the meaning is variable such as in "greenspace" and "wilderness" September 23, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/04 L36 Rouge Park Boundary Delineation Criteria - the Rouge Park North Management Plan will be added to the beginning of Chapter 9 and will be featured as site -level management direction - Rouge North Management Plan should be the foundation for the Watershed Plan and the vision, policy and implementation commitments must be integrated into the report Chapter 6 - Surface Water Quality - - references to sources of bacteria outside the watershed will be substantiated or removed - landfill and farming information will be added - criticism of the treatment of bacterial contamination: reference to the Rouge River watershed as not the only source of bacteria at the mouth and the rating of fair for manageable e.coli when the waterfront is unsafe for swimming for most of the summer - Scarborough landfill data, NMA and farming Best Management Practices should be added Chapter 9 - Terrestrial System - the TNHS is a measure of the terrestrial system and the TNHSS a management consideration (and not a policy) that belongs in this chapter - Rouge North criteria will be added in, along with the Natural Features Study and reference to invasives - emphasis on provincial initiatives and ratings will be increased - should confine this chapter to the terrestrial system and move the TNHSS and Rouge Park Boundary Criteria to Part II, Planning and Policy: TNHSS is a policy program and should be described as such in Chapter 14 - if TNHSS remains in this chapter, Rouge North Ecological Criteria must be included here - the TNHSS should be endorsed by watershed municipalities before it forms a basis for the Rouge Watershed Plan - should include Markham's 1993 Natural Features Study and invasive species - needs to increase references to provincial and federal initiatives such as PSWs, ORM and SARA; and species at risk designations (provincial COSSARO and federal COSEWIC) to maximize the effectiveness of the watershed plan Chapter 11- Cultural Ecology - already changed - will be investigated - to be added - remove specific reference for the Gandatsekiagon location and make more general by removing "north of" - - include conclusions as to environmental change such as in the water table, prevalence of fish species - need to include Scarborough study and the numerous artifacts in storage waiting for a suitable display facility in the watershed Chapter 12 - Public Use - locations to be verified - to be added - ?? - to be added - some of the parks are in the Don Watershed - should explain the criterion used to identify public use areas - active recreational use should be included as an important use that is tracked and will have impact on park and land use - include locations for swimming areas L37 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/04 September 23, 2004 Chapter 13 - Land and Resource Use - we acknowledge that there is additional information to add to this chapter and that the whole structure needs to be reviewed, at which time these comments will be incorporated - Markham should be added to the list of municipalities where the Oak Ridges Moraine Act applies - should be a clearer picture of land ownership - should include under the Provincial Initiatives section the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Planning Reforms along with the Greenbelt Protection Plan - need to add the future Pickering airport and Markham Airport to the transportation section - the lands in Markham are not part of the "Duffin - Rouge Agricultural Preserve" but should be referred to as the "Provincial Tenants Purchase Program"; their location in the watershed needs to be clarified - should include co- generation at the Beare Road Landfill in the Energy section - include NMA and NMP's in the Agriculture section - include impact of tracking aggregates on air quality; poor reuse policies for construction waste; lack of fill sites for excavation material and lack of consideration for total energy impacts of new construction in the Aggregate section. - how many of the pits and quarries are in the watershed - questions the value of many paragraphs and the detail provided, including: the impact of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, details of and use - the term "Minister's Freeze Zone" is incorrectly named and defined - airport lands are not in the watershed and should not be included in the text and many historical references are incorrect - population figures should be for portion within watershed otherwise is misleading - Pickering needs to be added to the inset map - Chapter 14 - Planning and Policy - we acknowledge that there is additional information to add to this chapter and that the whole structure needs to be reviewed, at which time these comments will be incorporated - status and authority of Rouge Park plans, how they are implemented and by whom should be included - it should not be suggested that TNHSS has been adopted by municipalities into their official plans - should include Municipal Act, EPA, OWRA, NMA, SWPA, EA Act in Provincial Initiatives - Ravine Protection and the Natural Heritage Study are missing from the City of Toronto section . - questions the value of many paragraphs and the detail provided, including: the discussion of the roles of the different levels of government, status of official plans, descriptions of planning tools - should mention major planning reforms underway to the PPS, OMB, Planning Act, and Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe - should note the proposed amendments to the Planning Act through Bill 26, such as "must be consistent with" will change; the key components covered by the main policy areas - questions whether enough of the study area is in the Oak Ridges Moraine to warrant discussion - municipal policy updates to reflect the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan have not been approved by the province Chapter 16 - Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance - to be added - many are missing from the City of Toronto September 23, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4104 L38 Chapter 20 - Stormwater Management - should include efforts taken by local municipalities; and emerging issues such as design modifications for waterfowl control in proximity to the future Pickering Airport and proposed Federal Airport zoning restrictions - that provisions of new legislation as of January 1, 2003, be included in the "Erosion and Sediment Controls" section which establish the authority for local municipalities to prohibit or regulate the placing or dumping of fill and the alteration of grades; and allow local municipalities to prohibit or regulate the removal of topsoil. - to be added Peer Review Draft SOW Comments Action Draft SOW Review: Overall Report Format - need to review our overall goal with potential need for Task Force vision as time goes by; to make clearer connection between goals and targets as a means of explaining goals - needs to be made clearer - inherently, our studies are integrated and we are continuing to strive for improved methods of integration and presentation of an integrated understanding . - connection between goals and objectives needs to be made clearer - a clearer "shared vision" is needed - "resilience" should replace "stability" as a target, to allow for adaptive environmental management - it is not clear whether monitoring is being designed and started during the planning phase of this watershed plan - the interdisciplinary nature of the plan is not apparent and this is what is needed for integration and synthesis . Phase 2 Review: Scenarios - need to clarify how some scenarios are designed to inform us of what impacts will happen in the future and others to evaluate effect of possible management - need to Zink vision and goals to scenario definition - 4 X CO2 will be looked into - scenarios are very appropriate as a way to explore different aspects of the desired future state, but should not replace visioning; how is future scenario planning different from visioning? - due diligence in planning for hazards and natural disasters suggest that 4 X CO2 should replace the 2 X CO2 currently proposed for modeling climate change in the watershed Note: - comments from two peer reviewers could not be included yet as they were provided at the time of printing this Task Force report For information contact: Patricia Mohr (416) 661 -6600 ext. 5624. Date: September 14, 2004 Patricia Mohr gave a brief synopsis of comments received to date on the draft SOW report, dated June 2004. • • The report was circulated to the members of the Rouge Watershed Task Force and 23 government and NGO contacts. It was subsequently distributed to 17 peer reviewers, along with the overall watershed planning study workplan and the more detailed outline of the proposed Phase 2 work; To date, nine of the recipients have sent back comments, including five from the Task Force, one from the government and three peer reviewers; In general, the comments were good and no substantive changes were requested; Comments are still being received. ACTION: Bryan Buttigieg suggested if you wish to still submit comments please do so ASAP. L39 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/04 September 23, 2004 RES. #L11/04 REVISED PHASE 2 (ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION) WORKPLAN Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Christie Patricia Short-Galle THAT staff proceed with the development of scenarios and modeling analysis, as laid out in the Phase 2 workplan; AND FUG ETHER THAT a discussion on the evaluation process and criteria be held at the next Task Force meeting. BACKG OUND - Phase 2 is part two of a three phase process - is a means of determining a preferred management strategy for achieving the watershed plan goal, based on the issues and opportunities identified in Phase 1 - achieved by comparing watershed response to a selection of potential future scenarios to existing conditions through modelling exercises, evaluating the results in terms of management alternatives; and, reporting on this work. - June Task Force meeting presented a preliminary list of scenarios - since then, Phase 2 has been revised based on input from the Task Force and municipal and tech team staff. STATUS While still in the process of developing the database and mapping in adequate detail for technical analysis, we want to provide an update on the current status of this phase. The revised Phase 2 identifies 8 possible scenarios, which are presented in Table 2. Following the modelling analysis, the next steps will be to evaluate the results, where the primary criterion will be the ability for watershed conditions to meet defined watershed management goals and objectives, under each of the future scenarios. The proposed watershed management, goals, objectives and associated indicators, measures and targets were set out in The Rouge State of the Watershed Report (Draft June 2004). Other criteria to be used in evaluating the scenario modelling results will be developed in consultation with the Watershed Task Force and may include: consistency with task force management philosophy /principles; long term sustainability; cost; public acceptance; ease and time to implement; multiple benefits; and the principles submitted to the Greenbelt Task Force. Table 2: Eight Possible Scenarios Existing Conditions Existing conditions as of 2002 2 Approved Official Plan (OP) Build -out Approved OP build -out with current management practices, implementation of Rouge Park on public lands and federal greenspace strategy 3 Approved OP and Stormwater Retrofit 2 + Implementation Toronto's 25 yr Wet Weather Flow Master Plan (WWFMP) and "905" municipalities' stormwater retrofit plans 4 Approved OP and Enhanced Natural Cover 2 + enhanced natural cover as per TRCA's targeted terrestrial natural heritage system (TNHS) September 23, 2004 Houge Watershed I asK I-orce /f4 /U4 L4U DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE O O O assemble data and maps necessary to define scenarios and document assumptions in adequate detail for technical analysts proceed with modelling develop evaluation criteria and process for the next Task Force meeting For information contact: Lewis Yeager (905) 713 -7374 or Sonya Meek (416) 661 -660.0 ext. 5253. Date: Sept 14, 2004 Patricia Mohr presented a step by step review of the Watershed Analysis Process O an example of groundwater was used to demonstrate the Watershed Management Framework: Watershed Management Framework Overall Goal Groundwater Goal Groundwater Objective Groundwater Indicator Groundwater Measure Groundwater Target each of the future scenarios in Phase II - analysis and evaluation was reviewed, looking at variances in land cover, water use, climate, stormwater retrofit and development design .,' yi 14 '_ u � ' ts� i e� gi 4"1 -'. ,Y � C r e, 0fQ' y p. i 'F'.Yt Mt Xr . 6: ` • "C".I', 5 Approved OP, Stormwater Retrofit and Natural Cover 2 + 3 + 4 6 Full Build -out Full build -out to boundary of Oak Ridges Moraine Protection area with current management practices (e.g., SWM valley corridor protection) and target of TNHS in urban growth area 7 Full Build -out Using All Opportunities 5 + sustainable community design, implementation of Rouge Park on private lands and targeted TNHS in urban growth area, 100 yr Storm Water Retrofit plan 8 a) Climate Change 2050 with Approved OP and Enhance - ment(s) 5 + climate change 2050 b) Climate Change 2080 with Approved OP and Enhance - ment(s) 5 + climate change 2080 c) Climate Change 2050 with Full Build -out and Enhance - ment(s) 7 + climate change 2050 d) Climate Change 2080 with Full Build -out and Enhance - ment(s) 7 + climate change 2080 DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE O O O assemble data and maps necessary to define scenarios and document assumptions in adequate detail for technical analysts proceed with modelling develop evaluation criteria and process for the next Task Force meeting For information contact: Lewis Yeager (905) 713 -7374 or Sonya Meek (416) 661 -660.0 ext. 5253. Date: Sept 14, 2004 Patricia Mohr presented a step by step review of the Watershed Analysis Process O an example of groundwater was used to demonstrate the Watershed Management Framework: Watershed Management Framework Overall Goal Groundwater Goal Groundwater Objective Groundwater Indicator Groundwater Measure Groundwater Target each of the future scenarios in Phase II - analysis and evaluation was reviewed, looking at variances in land cover, water use, climate, stormwater retrofit and development design L41 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/04 September 23, 2004 • • , Task Force members expressed comments and questions during the presentation: the ratings in the State of the Watershed Report seem too generous for describing health in urbanized areas. Question - Is it possible to separate the evaluation for rural and urban area? Answer - Yes, the watershed is broken into smaller subwatershed basis for modelling purposes so distinctive areas can be assessed seperately Question - is it possible to show the scenario maps with a backdrop that shows cold water and warm water courses? Answer - Good suggestion for presenting issues, findings. • stormwater retrofit ponds shown in scenarios should be broken into Rouge River and Little Rouge Creek to assess urban and rural impacts separately; • The most current scientific Predictive Tools for modelling are being used in the scenarios; • Following the modelling of the various scenarios we must look at whether our goals are being met; also must consider other criteria (e.g. cost); • In the Duffin's Watershed Plan, 3 scenarios were modelled. Modelling showed up to 25% decrease in peak flow when the targeted TNHS was implemented; • suggest that targeted TNHS should include the Little Rouge Corridor; there was concern expressed of the accuracy of the modelling; has the model been calibrated to pre development flows; Question - Does this model erosion? Answer - Past models have not effectively modelled erosion; • must be precautionary in relying on targets based on modelling of peak flows; • a margin of error in modelling be must clearly stated; recommended building in feed back loop to allow future generations to revisit the current science used in the modelling and fill in gaps which currently we are unable to do; • Municipal Plans are set to maintain pre - development peak flows, however, erosion still results from flash floods; would like to move towards recreating a natural flow to rivers; climate change scenarios 8(a) & (b) may be modified to use full build out as the base Iandcover, will be viewed in scenario 6; Toronto WWFMMP will be accounted for in scenarios; Markham's study on small streams and water courses will be reviewed in the Sustainable Design Scenario September 23, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/04 L42 ACTION: ACTION: WORKSHOP Frank Scarpitti suggested having a presentation of Markham's Small Streams Study at next Task Force meeting . Task Force members were asked to e-mail Sylvia Waters with any further comments on Rouge Watershed Planning Study Phase 2 - Workplan. - Implementation Committee Report - verbal report David Tuley presented a Workshop hand -out and audience sample form of proposed target audiences for implementation of the Watershed Plan David Tuley led a workshop which consisted of forming break -out groups to flush out audiences and key message delivery mechanisms within the following categories: - recreation - government/policy - residents - business - missing items ACTION: Please forward any further comments to David Tuley. ACTION: David Tuley will compile results of break -out group and report back to Task Force at next meeting Watershed Tour Observations - verbal report • 24 members /alternates and 9 TRCA and Rouge Park staff attended a Watershed Tour on September 9th, 2004, visiting 12 sites with speakers giving information on each site ACTION: Task Force members are asked to approach the Chair if you would like to speak on any site or topic missed on tour Patricia Mohr noted the sites of concern on the bus tour, namely 16th Avenue dewatering and Morningside Heights and reiterated that background information was available at the meeting. ACTION: Sylvia to organize a site visit of Morningside Heights for interested Task Force members (Christine Caroppo, Lorne Smith, Kevin O'Connor, Jim Robb, Lionell Purcell, Virginia Jones, Lewis Yeager) and (York Region staff members), facilitated by various TRCA staff with familiarity of the site. A meeting will be organized for the same participants and including staff members following the site visit to address "lessons learned" from both the 16th Avenue dewatering and Morningside Heights issues in preparation for the presentation at the next Task Force meeting. DISCUSSION - there was a round table discussion on the suggestion and /or possibility of an Appendix /Chapter on "Lessons Learned" (eg. Morningside Heights, 16th Avenue) in the L43 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/04 September 23, 2004 final report; - suggested we must recognize caution in putting this in the final report and would want to have acceptance by all municipalities involved; - it was suggested that this is the group and report which should be examining this situation; - suggestion to deal with "Lessons Learned" on a more general basis. NEW BUSINESS AND ADJOURN RES. #L12/04 MASTER PLAN FOR BRUCE'S MILL CONSERVATION AREA Moved by: Seconded by: Lionell Purcell Murray Johnson THAT Clyde Smith and Elio Di'lorio be appointed as the Rouge Watershed Task Force representative and alternate respectively, on the Advisory Committee for the preparation of the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area (BMCA) Master Plan; AND FURTHER THAT reports be brought back to the Rouge Watershed Task Force for information and broader input at appropriate stages in the preparation of the BMCA Master Plan KEY ISSUE The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) would like to inform the Rouge Watershed Task Force of the undertaking of a Master Plan for Bruce's Mill Conservation Area, which is situated in the Rouge Watershed, and to request that a Rouge Watershed Task Force representative and an alternate be appointed to the Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND BMCA is located in the upper reaches of the Rouge River in the Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville, in York Region. BMCA is approximately 118 hectares in size with 89.5 ha of natural cover comprising 52 ha of forest, 2.5 ha of wetland (1.2% of watershed total for forest and wetland combined) and 35 ha of meadow /successional habitat. The property is owned and operated by TRCA. The TRCA has initiated the preparation of a Master Plan for the area to guide its future management. BMCA currently hosts a variety of passive and active public use activities including hiking and picnicking. There are also several lease agreements for activities occurring on BMCA lands, including soccer, a driving range, and agricultural uses. Additionally, this conservation area hosts a yearly Maple Syrup Festival and an annual Children's Water Festival in partnership with York Region. The TRCA has also entered into a long term lease agreement with the Regional Municipality of York (Community Safety Village of York Region) for lands situated within the BMCA. The area subject to this lease consists of approximately 2 hectares of land, all of which is table land. Access is provided via the Bruce's Mill main entrance road. The parking lot located adjacent to the south of the leased lands will be shared by both parties. The safety village will provide a learning centre for students from York Region, and will create opportunities for students to participate in Bruce's Mill programs and activities, as well as ongoing promotion of the BMCA. September 23, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/04 L44 BMCA functions as a significant greenspace area for local residents, and the broader region. Portions of Bruce's Mill have experienced an intensification of uses, including trail use and the development of soccer fields and a driving range. There is currently also agricultural use occurring on the BMCA lands, in the north -west corner of the property. While portions of the BMCA lands may be undergoing intensification, other areas are being actively regenerated and enhanced through changes in public use activities and environmental practices. This includes the discontinuation of swimming, the decommissioning of the dam and the increase in naturalizing areas and native plantings. RATIONALE It is an appropriate time to complete a Master Plan for BMCA, as there currently exists no comprehensive plan encompassing the current and future uses for the area. Land uses within and surrounding the park have changed significantly over the past twenty years. As a result, a Master Plan is needed to provide direction for the area to ensure that it can respond to the changes in the availability of public funds and evolving concepts in conservation and sustainability, and move the TRCA towards its goal for The Living City - a vision for sustainable communities based on a healthy ecosystem. A Master Plan will evaluate the public uses and facilities, as well as the proposed changes to the site, and determine appropriate management actions to ensure the long -term environmental and economic sustainability of the area. Furthermore, a Master Plan will evaluate the compatibility of these various public uses and make recommendations for the future. BMCA is located in the headwaters of the Rouge River and within the boundary of Rouge Park. The TRCA, in partnership with Rouge Park and other partners, are currently developing a Watershed Plan for the Rouge Watershed. It is therefore important to develop a Master Plan for Bruce's Mill which is well integrated and aligned with the overall Watershed Plan. Additionally, the Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville has prepared a Recreation Plan to guide public uses within the Town, and to address growing recreational needs as a result of increases in population growth. The Plan points to a shortage in the availability of recreational space within the municipality. A Master Plan for BMCA can help address and complement some of these municipal open space needs. This provides an opportunity to develop a partnership with the Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville, which municipal staff have acknowledged. The Master Plan for BMCA will thus aim to address property management and public safety issues, respond to future demands and growth in the region, integrate and implement Rouge Watershed Plan management strategies, establish appropriate environmental protection and restoration techniques, receive public input regarding appropriate use, development and management of lands and create a sense of stewardship among users and adjacent land owners. The Master Plan will complement a number of TRCA initiatives, including: TRCA Living City Vision and Strategic Plan; The Rouge Watershed Plan (in progress); and, TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy. The goal of the BMCA Master Plan process will be to protect, conserve and manage the property within an ecosystem framework, and in consultation with the community ensuring watershed health, public enjoyment and environmental sustainability. L45 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/04 September 23, 2004 For the Master Plan process, staff will modify the TRCA model for developing a Management Plan that has been successfully used at Claireville, Boyd North and Glassco Park, Cold Creek and Greenwood Conservation Area (CA). The Master Plan model will include a description and evaluation of the property. The Plan will also identify specific management zones within which a certain type of activity may be undertaken. In addition, a detailed site development and environmental restoration plan will be included along with design guidelines, public use market analysis, user impact analysis and an implementation strategy. Staff have recommended the establishment of an advisory committee to provide an integrated approach to the development of the Master Plan. The Committee will assist with determining management zones and management recommendations, and provide direction and comment on the public use development and restoration plans. The TRCA will select and invite agency and community representatives to be members of the advisory committee. Suggested advisory committee membership may include representation from each of the following groups: TRCA - Board and staff; Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville Councillors and staff; Town of Markham staff; York Region staff; York Region Tourism representative; Rouge Watershed Task Force members; Rouge Park Staff Representative; Rouge Alliance Representative; Safety Village Representative; Community Residents; Local Business Representatives; and, Public Interest Group Representatives. The Advisory Committee will operate for the duration of the Master Plan project with is expected to be completed in approximately one year (December 2005). The Advisory Committee will meet on average once every 6 -8 weeks to guide the preparation of the Master Plan. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE A project Terms of Reference will be developed by staff and it will include the scope of work responsibilities and projected timelines. Staff will also establish an Advisory Committee and compile all relevant background material on the subject lands into a background report that will be distributed to the Advisory Committee. Following the establishment of management zones, TRCA staff will hire a consultant to undertake a public use market analysis, user impact analysis, 'green' design guidelines and an implementation strategy. It is anticipated that the Master Plan will be completed by December 2005. FINANCIAL DETAILS Provision for the development of the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area Master Plan has been included in the Authority's 2004 Capital Budget. September 23, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/04 L46 Report prepared by: For information contact: Brian E. Denney Chief Administrative Officer /slw Lisa Roberti, MES (Planning), Conservation Land Planner, TRCA Lisa Roberti, TRCA, 416- 661 -6600, ext. 5661, or Mike Bender, TRCA, 416- 661 -6600, ext. 5287 THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES OF MEETING #5/04 erTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #5/04 October 28, 2004 The Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5104, was held at the Toronto Zoo 361A Old Finch Ave., Administrative Building, Atrium, on Thursday, October 28, 2004. The Chair Bryan Buttigieg, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Bryan BUTTIGIEG Member Christine CAROPPO Member David CHARLTON Member Elio DI'IORIO Member Victor DOYLE Member Del FISHER Alternate Alex GEORGIEFF Alternate Paul HARPLEY Member Audrey HOLLASCH Alternate Murray JOHNSTON - Member Virginia JONES Member Tom MELYMUK Alternate Kevin O'CONNOR Alternate Terry O'CONNOR Member Judi ORENDORFF Alternate Michael PRICE Member Garry PRINGLE Member Lionel PURCELL Member Jim ROBB, Member Frank SCARPITTI Member Erin SHAPERO Member Patricia SHORT -GALLS Member Clyde SMITH Member Lorne SMITH Member David TULEY Member Tupper WHEATLEY Alternate Peter WHITE Member L47 STAFF Sonya Meek TRCA Patricia Mohr TRCA Barb Davies for Lewis Yeager Rouge Park Sylvia Waters TRCA GUESTS John Miner City of Toronto Tom Melynuk City of Pickering LiIIi Duoba Town of Markham Mark Garvey Resident Don Haley TRCA Jamie Duncan TRCA REGRETS Pauline BROWES Member Wendy BURGESS Alternate Tammy CHUNG Alternate Tim CLARRIDGE Alternate Gay COWBOURNE Member Andre FLYS Member Jack HEATH Alternate Natalie HELFERTY Member Rick JOHNSON Member Rimi KALINAUSKAS Member Keith LAUSHWAY Alternate Cindy LEE Alternate George MCKELVEY Alternate John PISAPIO Member Jake RIEKSTINS Member David RYAN Member Michael SCOTT Member Sue SHERBAN Alternate John VAN VOORST Member 48 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION Brian Buttigieg announced the fact that in addition to our two guest speakers, Don Haley and Jamie Duncan from the TRCA, that there were several guests from various municipalities such as City of Toronto, City of Pickering and Town of Markham joining us tonight. RES. #L13/04 Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES Lorne Smith Christine Caroppo THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/04, held on September 23, 2004, be approved. CARRIED REPORTS Brian Buttigieg introduced David Tuley, Chair, Implementation Committee. David Tuley reviewed the workshop results from the previous Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting #4104. The Task Force was split into groups to identify and discuss draft implementation target audience and associated problem statement lists, within the following categories: recreation, policy, resident, business and other. As a result of the workshop, two dozen additions were made and 20 new problem statements registered. David since that time developed the form into a website to make it more accessible for continued review and additions by Task Force members (see report for website addresses and instructions). There exists a diversity of information not yet fully developed, but with time this information will be built upon and form the basis of a general report. Brian Buttigieg - David Tuley - Is the Implementation Committee working on other implementation mechanisms in anticipation, of the scenario and modelling results? The committee is starting with this approach because it gets us to understand our target audiences, and then we will review other mechanisms that need to be explored. 49 RES. #L14/04 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE REPORT OF "TARGET AUDIENCE" WORKSHOP RESULTS. Summary of the results of the Implementation Committee workshop on the Rouge Watershed Plan's implementation audience. Moved by: Seconded by: Alex Georgieff Peter White THAT the Summary Report of the results of the Implementation Committee workshop at Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting #4/04 held on September 23, 2004 on the Rouge Watershed Plan's implementation audience be received; THAT Rouge Watershed Task Force members review and contribute to this report by visiting the interactive web site http: / /ca. briefcase .yahoo.com /watershedtaskforce; AND FURTHER THAT the Implementation Committee report back on progress in advancing the implementation aspects of the Rouge Watershed Plan to the Rouge Watershed Task Force at meeting #6/04 on December 9, 2004. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting #4/04, held on September 23, 2004, the Implementation Committee of the Rouge Watershed Task Force lead a workshop discussion regarding proposed target audiences for the final watershed plan and key messages associated with each audience. During the workshop, Task Force members were divided into break -out groups. Each group was assigned a different section of audience (i.e. government, recreation groups, agriculture, environmental groups, etc.) and asked to review and comment on a draft list of audience sector members and identify key messages and delivery mechanisms for each. David Tuley, Chair of the Implementation Committee prepared a summary of the workshop results in an online form accessed by e-mail. This form allows users to both add and modify information in the report. Task Force members are encouraged to continue reviewing and contributing to this report either through the online form directly or by sending their comments by fax or e-mail to Sylvia Waters at TRCA for her to incorporated into the form. Web site directions http: / /ca. briefcase .yahoo.com /watershedtaskforce and; 1)click the "sign in" button on the upper right -hand side of the screen; 2) enter Yahoo ID (watershedtaskforce) and password (committee); 3) click on the link to "Your Briefcase Address" (toward the upper center part of the screen); 4) click on the link to the "Blank Form" Document (to be renamed more appropriately later). Web site contents The web site contains a list of target audiences and a form for key management issues associated with them. The following table summarizes the target audiences for implementation of the Rouge Watershed Plan as identified to date: 50 Target Audience BUSINESSES RESIDENTS RECREATION ORGANIZATIONS 51 Communities - Beaver Creek Business Park - Headford Business Park - Buttonville Airport - Brown's Corners - (Woodbine & John) - (Stouffville Business Park ?) Shopping Centres /Districts -First Pro Major Mac (at Bayview) - Goldenview Centre - Doncrest Marketplace - Jubilee Square -Times Square - Shoppes on the Parkway - Woodside Centre -First Markham Place - Markham Town Square - Cachet Centre -Shops on Steeles & 404 - Markham Market Village - Pacific Mall - Markville Shopping Centre -Old Markham Village Unionville Historical Village - (Stouffville downtown ?) (Stouffville strip ?) - Morningside (theatre) The Village of Abbey Lane Malvern Town Centre Landlords Horticultural Trades - Garden Centres - Seaver Greenhouses - Wholesale Nurseries Developers Health Care Large Corporations (Markham >350 employees) IBM (5000) Amex (2300) IBM R &D (2100) Miller Paving (2050) ATI (1700) TD Bank (1250) Economist & Sun (908) AC Nielson of Canada (850) Communities - Stouffville - Unionville - Markham - Richmond Hill - Pickering - Toronto /Scarbouro ug h Neighbourhoods - Altona - Bayview Hill - Bayview North -Elgin Mills - Jefferson - Dickson Hill - Bethesda - Ringwood - Gormley - Victoria Square - Quantztown - Cachet -Mount Joy -Buttonville - German Mills - Doncrest -Box Grove -Cedar Grove - Cornell - Locust Hill - Vinegar Hill - Hagerman Corners - Underwood - Milliken - Woodlands -Rouge River - Malvern -Rouge Hill - Milliken Backyard Gardeners New Canadians Multi_Cultural Groups AGGREGATES Organizations Quarries 52 Golf Courses - Brookside GC - Cedarbrae CC -Rouge River Golf Centre - Parkview GC - Markham Green GC - Cresthaven GC -York Downs CC - Unionville Fairways GC - Angus Glen GC - Family Golf DR - Mandarin GC - Meadowbrook CC - Rolling Hills GC - Spring Lakes GC - Bushwood GC - Station Creek GC - Summit CC - Markham GC - Buttonville Fairways GC Mountain Bikers Motorcross /ATVs Snowmobiles Stables Campgrounds -Rouge Park Outfitters Attractions - Bruce's Mill CA - Toronto Zoo - Markham Museum AGRICULTURE Organizations -York Soil & Crop - Ontario Feed.. -OMAF, OFA Sod Farms Large or Corporate Farms Family Farms /Agribusiness - Whittamore's Berry Farm & Winery - Willow Creek Winery - Applewood Winery Lionel's Farm - Forsythe Farm Nature /Environmental - Richmond Hill Field Naturalists -FON -Ducks Unlimited - Horticultural Societies? -Brid watchers? Churches /Religious Org. Recreation Organizations Camps - Robin Hood - Willow Grove -Green Acres -Camp Chimo Youth -Girl Guides - Scouts Canada Heritage Groups Service Clubs EDUCATIONAL Colleges /Universities /Schools Education (other) - Hillside Education Centre GOVERNMENT (municipalities, counties, towns, regions) - Public Works (incl. Roads, Water, Sanitation, Sewer) - Planning -Parks & Recreation - Operations - Heritage Federal - Transport Canada Provincial -MNR Tranist Services u..n, nn7 The key management issues are separated under the following headings: Water quality & quantity Geomorphology Aquatic & Terrestrial Species Air quality & climate change Cultural Ecology /Archeology Public use & recreation Land & resource use Planning & policy Each heading has several "message delivery strategy" fields to fill out, as indicated below. KEY WORDS FOR INDEXING: PROBLEM STATEMENT: DISCUSSION: MESSAGE OR SLOGAN: BENEFIT (what's in it for them!): DELIVERY (delivery mechanisms are presented according to each relevant audience) The Implementation Committee is still in the process of collating and presenting the workshop results and will report at the next Task Force meeting. Report prepared by: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 For Information contact: David Tuley, 905 - 737 -6797 Date: October 18, 2004 53 RES. #L15/04 Moved by: Seconded by: DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED TARGETS - TASK FORCE REVIEW PROCESS. Thorough review and discussion of the watershed targets. Lionel Purcell Patricia Short-Galle THAT staff continue to provide opportunities for the Task Force to contribute to the identification of targets for achieving Rouge Watershed Plan goals, through a series of four to five workshops held at regular Task Force meetings but subject to change in format, if requested by the Task Force; AND FURTHER THAT staff incorporate the results of the Task Force target workshops in a revised target framework. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Draft Rouge State of the Watershed Report (June, 2004) described existing conditions in the watershed and, in order to provide interim planning direction, included goals and a framework of objectives, indicators, measures and targets for achieving the goal of each of the watershed components. Each component received a rating for existing conditions in relation to the selected target. Targets are used not only in rating existing conditions, but also in evaluating watershed response to the future scenario analyses and in ensuring long term conformance with goals through monitoring programs. As highlighted in the last Task Force meeting, targets are critical to the success of the watershed plan because they set the standard for health in the watershed. The targets listed in Table 1 are a synthesis of the ones provided in the Draft State of the Watershed Report. They were selected by TRCA technical specialists based on how well they reflect critical thresholds in condition and on what supporting data were available. Though precise, quantitative targets were sought, they were not always available and as an alternative, qualitative statements were used. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Task Force will be provided the opportunity to review and contribute to the targets selected for the Rouge River watershed through a workshop process. Due to the number of targets involved and the often complex nature of the subject matter, there will be a series of workshops held over several Task Force meetings focusing on a few targets at each. We will endeavour to have appropriate technical support available at these workshops to address their targets and answer questions. The proposed schedule, outlined below, is subject to change as we gauge the effectiveness of the process. The Task Force may decide to alter the format of these workshops, or may feel that committees separate from regular Task Force meetings are the preferred mode for achieving results. 54 Task Force Meeting October 28, 2004 December 9, 2004 January, 2005 March, 2005 April, 2005 Proposed Schedule for Target Workshops Targets Surface Water Quantity Groundwater Quantity and Quality; Surface Water Quality Aquatic System; Fluvial Geomorphology; Cultural Ecology Terrestrial System; Land and Resource Use Public Use; Air Quality and Climate Change Table 1: Draft Rouge State of the Watershed Targets, June 2004 55 Groundwater Quality and Quantity • less than 15 % overall watershed imperviousness • maintain baseline piezometric surfaces (York -Peel- Durham - Toronto (YPDT) Model Data) • maintain or enhance baseline infiltration rates and distribution (YPDT Model Data) • maintain baseline discharge rates (YPDT Model Data) • the more stringent of MOE Ontario Drinking Water Standards or MOE Provincial Water Quality Objectives • maintain or reduce chloride levels • no restrictions in groundwater use - Surface Water Quantity • maintain or reduce baseline flow volume (Environment Canada, 2001. HYDAT CD -ROM version 2.01) • maintain or enhance baseline seasonal and annual baseflows (interim Reference: TRCA, Rouge River Baseflow Study 2002 and Geologic Survey of Canada 1997. NOTE: Baseline baseflows to be finalized pending completion of an ongoing study into seasonal fluctuations) • all surface water users offline from watercourse • maintain existing peak flows (2 -100 year and Regional events. Marshall, Macklin, Monahan, 2002) • maintain baseline floodlines (Clarifica, 2003) • maintain or reduce existing flood vulnerable areas and roads (Clarifica, 2003) • maintain the number of sites and frequency of ice jams Surface Water Quality 55 • greater than 75% of surface water samples meet the PWQO of 100 coliforms /100mL • Rouge Beach is open for an average of at least 95% of the swimming season • Concentrations of conventional pollutants meet available guidelines, as follows: • suspended solids: 30 mg /L 1 • phosphorus: 0.03 mg /L2 • nitrate: 1.0 mg /L (eutrophication)3; 2.5 mg /L (amphibians)4 • unionized ammonia: 0.02 mg /L2 • DO: 6.0 mg /L warm water biota • 9.5 mg /L cold water biota 5 • chloride: 250 mg /L6 1. (EIFAC, 1965); 2. Provincial Water Quality Objectives (MOE, 1999b); 3. (CAST, 1992); 4. (Rouse et al., 1999); 5. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CCME, 1999); 6. (EC & HC, 2001) • concentrations of metals and organics meet PWQOs. • banned priority toxics are not detected in surface waters. • organic contaminant levels in young -of -the year fish meet IJC and CCME guidelines. • restrictions on sport fish consumption have not increased from 1999 levels Fluvial Geomorphology • maintain baseline (TBD) natural channel structure (Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (RWMP)) • maintain baseline erosion index • maintain baseline erosion rates (RWMP) • 100% natural stream corridors Aquatic System 56 • maintain or restore historical distribution of native target species, as specified in the • Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan (OMNR and TRCA, 1992), until the updated • plan is completed. • minimum 80% of stations have an IBI score of "good" • minimum 80% of stations "unimpaired" • coldwater minimum 25 %; maintain or enhance existing in cool and warm water • maintain or increase in baseflow and maintain or reduce annual flow • thermal stability should reflect the target species, specified in the updated Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan • only strategic barriers to remain • maintain or increase current wetland area • 100% cover with riparian vegetation; 75 %of the riparian vegetation is woody • no additional loss of stream length • reduce the number and distribution of invasive species • reduce reliance on stocking of exotic species • no consumption advisories beyond the monthly maximum of no more than 8 meals per month • increased angling opportunities and locations • maintain existing level of baitfish harvest Terrestrial System • increase the percent natural cover to at least the minimum target defined by the regional terrestrial natural heritage system • improve natural cover distribution in accordance with the regional targeted terrestrial natural heritage system • distribution improvements will also be addressed using minimum values for percent natural cover at a subwatershed scale or other local scale (future work) • increase the amount of natural cover that has some measure of protection' as defined by TRCA's Living City partners(The Living City Report Card ). • increase patch sizes by restoring land to natural cover • average habitat patch size scores determined by the watershed's target terrestrial natural heritage system (based on regional targets) • enhance patch shape to be more round with lower edge to area ratios • average habitat patch shape scores determined by the watershed's target terrestrial natural heritage system (based on regional targets) • mitigate negative external influences of the matrix • average matrix influence scores or a targeted ratio of urban /rural /natural land uses to be determined by the watershed's target terrestrial natural heritage system (based on regional targets) • expand terrestrial system . • average total scores to be determined by the watershed's target terrestrial natural heritage system (based on regional targets) • enhance native habitat and species type representation in terrestrial system • abundance and distribution of vegetation community types and species Air Quality and Climate Change . 57 • AQI of "Very Good" (AQI does not exceed 15) • 0 smog days and smog advisories issued per year • Index of Atmospheric Purity (IAP) values (TBD) Cultural Ecology • increase the database of known archaeological, historic and burial sites, and built structures Public Use • no incompatible uses • 100% of planned trail systems Land and Resource Use • establishment of land and resource use targets are under the mandate of provincial and municipal governments and will be guided by analysis in further phases of this watershed planning study. • the final watershed plan will provide recommended management criteria /targets and guidance on best management practices for land and resource activities. Target Review Process In reviewing the targets, you may wish to refer to some of the factors considered by the technical specialists as part of their selection process, such as whether the target: • demonstrates achievement of goal • addresses key issues in the watershed • is defensible, with credible published references • is practical or feasible with respect to data collection, monitoring and reporting • is reasonably achievable The accompanying rating should also be reviewed, in terms of its appropriateness across the watershed and logic of the rationale. The surface water quantity targets selected for review at this Task Force meeting are provided again below, in the context of their associated goals, objectives, indicators, measures and rating for each of the targets, to facilitate review. Surface Water Quantity Goals, Objectives, Indicators, Measures, Targets and Ratings Overall Rouge Watershed Plan goal: To achieve a healthy, sustainable Rouge watershed by protecting, restoring. and enhancing its ecological and cultural integrity within the context of a regional natural heritage system. Surface Water Quantity and Quality Goal: Surface waters of a quality, volume and naturally variable rate of flow to: • protect aquatic and terrestrial life and ecological functions; • protect human life and property from risks due to flooding; 58 • contribute to the protection of Lake Ontario as a domestic drinking water source; • support sustainable agricultural, industrial,' and commercial water supply needs; • support swimming, fishing and the opportunity to safely consume fish; and • contribute to the removal of Toronto from the Great Lakes list of Areas of Concern Objective: , Protect and restore the natural variability of annual and seasonal stream flow. indicator'" Streamflow _.Measure..: Average annual flow volume (m3 /yr) Fair Tar s et maintain or reduce baseline flow volume* The rating for this objective reflects a watershed where the historical variability of rainfall runoff characteristics has changed and annual stream flows have increased. Compared to other watersheds within the TRCA jurisdiction, the Rouge River Watershed is ranked fair as there are some basins, such as the Little Rouge Creek, that still exhibit a rural response. This ranking also indicates room for improvement in the ability to maintain existing infiltration rates during the development process and in the restoration of natural evapotranspiration rates and rainfall runoff characteristics through enhanced terrestrial natural cover. 59 Objective: Maintain and restore natural levels of baseflow. Indicator Baseflow Surface Water Withdrawals - Seasonal and annual average baseflow discharge at indicator sites (m3 /sec) - Seasonal baseflow volumes at withdrawal locations (Litres / Second) - Number of online vs. offline surface water withdrawals Overall Rating Good Target:. - Maintain or enhance baseline seasonal and annual baseflows *. - Maintain or enhance baseline seasonal and annual baseflows *. -All surface water users offline from watercourse Baseflow data are insufficient at this time to provide a basis for setting targets and a rating. An overall rating of "Good" for surface water use reflects the general level of impact of water users to the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems reliant on the Rouge River. Preservation of the existing baseflow volumes is the primary target for management of water users. A threshold value of 60% of mean summer baseflow is currently used to define minimum environmental flow to maintain existing aquatic health. Conservation Ontario and the Ministry of Environment are currently conducting studies in an attempt to develop an "environmental flow" threshold level for surface water. Objective: Eliminate or minimize risks to human life and property due to flooding. indicator peak flow water level flood vulnerable areas and roads ice jams -peak flow rate - water level (flood lines) - number of flood vulnerable areas and roads - number of ice jams Good - maintain existing peak flows (2 -100 year and Regional events)* - maintain baseline flood lines+ - maintain or reduce existing flood vulnerable areas and roads+ - maintain the number of sites and frequency of ice jams 60 An overall 'rating of 'Good' for flooding reflects that the watershed has met some but not all of the targets outlined above and that there is room for improvement. Specifically, practices have been implemented to control existing peak flows, limit changes to flood levels and restrict development within the Regional floodplain. While maintaining existing peak flows, flood levels, and the natural function of the floodplain would infer that the number of flood vulnerable areas and roads has not increased, further work is required to confirm the existence of such structures. Flooding due to ice jams. Report prepared by: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 For Information contact: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 Date: October 18, 2004 RES. #L16 /04 Moved by: Seconded by: MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS - LESSONS LEARNED "Lessons Learned" Report resulting from the Morningside Heights Site Visit Lionel Purcell Garry Pringle THAT the "Lessons Learned" Report from the Morningside Heights site visit held on Tuesday October 19, 2004 be received; AND FURTHER THAT the recommendations from the "lessons learned" report be considered in the development of the Rouge Watershed Plan. AMENDMENT RES. #L17 /04 Moved by: Seconded by: MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS - LESSONS LEARNED "Lessons Learned" Report resulting from the Morningside Heights Site Visit Lionel Purcell Garry Pringle THAT the "Lessons Learned" Report from the Morningside Heights site visit held on Tuesday October 19, 2004 be received along with Jim Robb's recommendations as distributed at the meeting; THAT the recommendations from the "lessons learned" report and Jim Robb's recommendations be considered in the development of the Rouge Watershed Plan; AND FURTHER THAT a letter of thanks be sent to Paul Villard, Russel White, Dena Lewis and Jim Robb for their efforts in reviewing the circumstances of Morningside Heights THE AMENDMENT WAS THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS BACKGROUND 61 CARRIED CARRIED Two issues featured on the Rouge Watershed Task Force bus tour held on September 9th, 2004, went beyond the scope of the tour and were identified at Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting #4104 held on September, 23rd, 2004 as requiring further investigation in order to determine 'lessons learned" that could benefit the Rouge Watershed Plan. A site visit was held to address the Morningside Heights issue on October 28th, 2004. It was facilitated by the Rouge Watershed Task Force Chair, Bryan Buttigieg and attended by eight other Task Force members, six TRCA staff, two City of Toronto staff and four private consultants. Draft recommendations were formulated by TRCA staff and circulated to the Task Force members present on the site visit for their review. The final "Lessons Learned" Report incorporates recommendations made by the Task Force. It will be used to develop recommendations for the Rouge Watershed Plan and help ensure the successful implementation of this Plan. The "Lessons Learned" are provided in the table below. Draft Recommendations Concern Recommendation The construction practices used in Morningside Heights, though current accepted practice, are inadequate in controlling sediment and temperature impacts. Silt continues to collect on channel beds and increased nutrient levels and temperatures are leading to algal blooms. Monitoring will be important to determine to what extent the system returns, post construction. 1 - minimize the construction period, through phasing, proper planning, and mitigate with best practices to reduce impacts during the construction phase (e.g. water quality, thermal, hydrology, etc.). - promote stronger erosion and sediment control criteria. - promote improved on -site supervision during construction. The synthetic geotextiles used in Morningside Heights for erosion control are designed to photo- degrade but may not degrade as efficiently as other products which may provide comparable soil stability. 2 - geotextile options should be investigated further to ensure the application of the most environmentally - friendly technologies available. Non - native species were planted on site, though native plantings are specified in the site plan. 3 - require that a biological consultant conduct construction site inspections to verify planting plan implementation, as a condition of approval of plan of subdivision. 62 Much of the modification of the urban landscape in Morningside Heights was to permit a functioning sewer system. With a naturally wide, shallow floodplain and a desire to have gravity -fed storm drainage systems, the tributary channel and valley floor needed to be lowered. 4 - promote alternatives to standard servicing design, or seek opportunities to change land use designations or configurations that may avoid the need for lowering the channel. Monitoring is not always required in development projects and if it is, it is often limited to within a five year time frame. 5 - require compliance monitoring financed through Development Charges and have a provision to extend the standard monitoring period to ensure adequate time for the site to show signs of stability. Success in re- establishing native vegetation on sites cleared for development is limited by the reduced fertility of the soil, which tends to favor colonization by invasive species that under these conditions are able to out - compete natives ones. Poor soil can also reduce the long term health of a species. 6 - take greater care with topsoil removal and replacement and avoid unnecessary compaction. - investigate options for improving the fertility of soils and the potential longevity of plantings. Watercourses evolve over time to support complex biological systems and functions and when they are exposed to radical change such as channel diversion, they must begin the long process of re- establishing a dynamically stable channel, a supportive riparian zone and a productive, diverse instream community. 7 - stream diversion should be prohibited unless absolutely necessary. Where necessary, "natural channel design" principles should be applied. The Morningside Heights development was approved in the eighties and the designs no longer conformed to current practice. It was only through the application for a re- zoning by the developer that opportunities for updating the design arose. 8 - that an agreed upon protocol be established for all agencies reviewing existing plans, using tools of negotiation /moral suasion and, in specified instances, land acquisition, to update outdated development plans that no longer meet current standards. 63 More attention should have been directed at the examination of development alternatives to the Morningside Heights development. 9 - unapproved development projects with a large potential for altering environmental conditions should require full Environmental Assessments to allow public consultation and the examination of alternatives. 64 Morningside Tributary Demolition and Reconstruction (Retrospective) October 2004, Jim Robb, for FRW Concerns Recommendations 1. SubWatershed Planning and Protection The Morningside subwatershed plan was only months from completion but the land use review process and OMB hearing proceeded without a deferral request by the TRCA so that the sub - watershed plan could be completed. Require completion of SubWatershed plans prior to land use changes. Protect flood plains, riparian zones and natural heritage systems through applicable legislation, subwatershed planning, land use planning, land dedications and land acquisition. 2. Rare and Sensitive Species at Risk DFO acknowledged that red side dace are a "species of concern" which is particularly sensitive to siltation due to erosion, removal of streamside vegetation & water quality deterioration ". Do not allow widespread destruction of riparian vegetation and habitat around streams, - particularly streams with rare species. 3. Flawed Fisheries Act and CEAA Review Despite the sensitive species and the large scale and duration of the proposed changes, DFO and TRCA did not require a thorough public examination of this proposal and alternatives pursuant to the Fisheries Act and federal EA Act. Seek the staff, resources and political will to conduct thorough Environmental Assessments of landscape alterations which have a significant potential for harmfully altering, disrupting or destroying wildlife and /or fish habitat (HADD). 4. Lowering Stream & Narrowing Floodplain The tributary channel and riparian zone were cleared of all vegetation and soil and lowered and reconstructed to permit gravity stormwater sewers and a narrower floodplain with more land for development.Require alternatives to floodplain lowering or narrowing through subwatershed planning, EA consideration of stormwater manage ment alternatives and dedication or acquisition of hazard lands. 5. Large Scale and Long Duration Impacts All flora and fauna along a sensitive Rouge Park stream were destroyed or displaced over a large area (1400 metre X 100+ metres) and a lengthy time frame (stream channelized and diverted for 18+ months) including beaver, muskrat, wood ducks, red side dace, frogs, turtles, cedar, willow, turtlehead & closed gentianStream diversion and channel reconstructions and riparian zone changes should be subject to stricter limitations on size and duration and they should be required to protect native flora and fauna refuges and nuclei. Performance standards /conditions should require improvements in channel shape and streamflow and prompt assisted regeneration of riparian areas to native vegetation to restore habitat and reduce invasive species colonization. 65 6. Destruction of Fertile Fluvial Soils Rich deep fluvial soils along a 1400 metre stream section were removed by heavy equipment and only a thin layer of topsoil was put -back over the less productive subsoils. This significantly reduces riparian zone productivity and native vegetation growth and soil disturbances favour invasive species colonization.Large scale disturbance of fluvial soils should be avoided, particularly for compaction -prone clay and silt soils. Performance standards/ conditions for soil alterations should require the reconstruction of a soil profile of similar or enhanced depth, permeability and fertility. 7. Wide and Shallow Reconstructed Channel The reconstruction of the stream channel has resulted in a much wider and shallower stream with a bottom covered by silt and sand and invasive non - native weed species such as elodea and choking blooms of brown and filamentous blue green algae, - poor fish habitat.Large scale stream channel alterations should be avoided. Smaller scale alterations should be designed to restore or enhance stream depth, substrate, water quality and native species. Performance standards /bonds should ensure that stated standards are achieved within 3 years. 8. Ground - truthing, Follow -up & Assessment Before, during and after site visits, by approving authorities, are not regular enough to allow good ground - truthing and compliance monitoring. It is essential to compare predictions and results to improve future decisions through accurate and timely feed -back loops.Develop performance bonds and financial assurances to ensure that what happens on- the - ground is consistent with prescribed performance standards. Require independent compliance monitoring (financed through Development Charges) to enforce performance standards prior to the release of the bonds or assurances. 9. Stream Sedimentation & Eutrophication The construction practices used in Morningside Heights, though currently accepted, are inadequate to control sediment, nutrient and temperature impacts to the stream. Silt is collecting on channel beds and increased nutrient levels and temperatures are leading to algal blooms and invasive exotic weeds which degrade cool water fish habitat.Minimize the area and time -frame of disturbance of riparian soils and vegetation to reduce silt and nutrient movement. Require more frequent compliance monitoring, water quality testing and enforcement by authorities, to promote better application and maintenance of erosion and sediment control barriers and best management practices. . 10. Plastic Erosion Control Netting Litters Site Some synthetic geotextiles used for erosion control take years to photo- degrade, get tangled around wildlife and may degrade into chemicals that have implications for ecosystem and human healthSpecify the use of natural (organic) erosion control materials which biodegrade into environmentally benign or beneficial byproducts. Further investigate geotextiles to ensure the application of environmentally - friendly technologies. 66 11. Improper Planting & Non - native Species Poor quality stock was planted in July 2003 resulting in increased mortality. Non - native species were planted, although native species were specified in plan.Require appropriate timing of plantings, the use of good quality native stock and a one year survival or replacement guarantee. Conduct site inspections to ensure planting implementation and survival before subdivision plan approval or bond release. 12. Updating of Bad Old Approvals Morningside Heights had an old streamflow diversion EA and a City /Landowner agreement (1981/82) that planned the elimination of the floodplain and channelization of 1000 + metres of the stream. However, some landowners between the Rouge Valley and the Morningside Tributary did not participate in this agreement and their land remained in open space and agricultural designations. In 1997, the landowners applied for a change from agricultural and industrial to residential land uses to increase land value and accelerate development potential.Before land -use designations are changed or further development rights or approvals are granted, outdated stream diversion and channelization plans should be fully updated by tough application of current laws, policies, practices and standards (e.g Fisheries Act and Policy, federal Environmental Assessment Act, Rouge Park Plan, TRCA Stream Corridor Program, PPS). Seek better funding for land acquisition of threatened streams, floodplains and natural heritage areas. * This summary does not address the serious cultural heritage damage done by the digging -up of important First Nation Village sites beside the Morningside Tributary. Report prepared by: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 For Information contact: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 Date: October 18, 2004 WORKSHOP Bryan Buttigieg introduced this item by explaining he felt further discussion on targets is required. The targets form the foundation for the watershed plan and the basis upon which analysis and decisions will be made. Therefore members need adequate time to discuss and understand the implementing of the proposed targets. Over the next few meetings TRCA staff will present the proposed targets followed by a discussion period. Task Force members are to think about whether the format and concepts are OK. Task Force recommendations for the revisions to targets as a result of the workshops will be incorporated by staff and brought forward to the following Task Force meeting. The pages which follow are the PowerPoint presentations, delivered by Patricia Mohr, Don Haley and Jamie Duncan of TRCA and discussions which occurred throughout the presentation. 67 Audrey Hollasch Based on what we are seeing with regards to peak flows, doesn't that mean what we are doing isn't working? Don Haley Yes Question How are we going to decrease peak flow? Answer volume control; WWFMMP will help manage some of the peak flow Erin Shapero Are we going to look at porous pavement in new Tots being built? We always look at runoff after the fact; need to start looking at lot level Comment Look at new technology - Chicago, Washington (reuse, recycle, cisturns) Jim Robb How do we account for climate change? Don Haley Must re do hydrologic models every 5 -10 years to look at effectiveness of modeling with climate change. Jim Robb What was the 2004 Peterborough flood classified as? Answer Peter White What about stopping development in SPA areas? Comment SPAs (Special Policy Area) - are flood prone areas. If buildings have significant heritage value, they are allowed to remain with SPAs. Erin Shapero Markham is allowing SPAs to have new development placed on them, because developer is saying TRCA is allowing it. 68 The monitoring of baseflow is new and has only been done for 4 years. Could not set a baseline interim target because of not having sufficient data. Lorne Smith Jamie Duncan Jim Robb Jamie Duncan Jim Robb Surface Water Withdrawal Are data being skewed by dewatering? Reference to 1997 data avoids this. Spoke of the ratio between peak flow and baseflow. Concerns of just maintaining the baseflow, because it is already too low. Difficult to do because don't have original baseline; would need historic data of well records. May be able to look at old municipal wells and historic records of old mills from the past to be able to estimate baseflow, at least to say that baseflow is lower than what it was in the past. • significant local impacts were found which must be mitigated • there exists non - regulated sources such as livestock watering; regulated sources - PTTW (MOE's Permit to Take Water program) • TRCA, other, CAs, and Conservation Ontario are working on collecting data to establish ecological baseflow targets. Jim Robb Tupper Wheatley Jamie Duncan Jim Robb Peter White Jamie Duncan spoke of pie chart from Jamie Duncan's powerpoint - withdrawal amounts are an average (look at SOW for this chart) eg. Aquaculture Do we distinguish between water taking that infiltrates back down into the ground and water taking that doesn't filter back to the water table? No Have seen first hand a decrease in baseflow in the Little Rouge even though there isn't development; what is at the root of this decrease in baseflow; beavers, storm water systems leaking into and out -of the creek? Did you only look at PTTW of surface water? Yes; you will be having Don Ford, TRCA ground water specialist, to speak of ground water issues on a watershed basis at a future Task Force meeting. Tupper Wheatley How do you monitor compliance with PTTW? Jamie Duncan Interviews, photographs, geographic positioning system 69 Peter White Terry O'Connor Peter White Commented that Halton Region requires new golf courses to build a pond reservoir with the capacity to produce 50% of water needed. Are golf courses charged for their water taking? No Charging for water implies ownership - which means it is a part of NAFTA. Comment MOE and TRCA must have the proper funding to implement source protection. Question Answer Brian Buttigieg Jim Robb Is ground water getting back into the streams? This depends on how it is being used. Do we want further discussion on this topic? It was suggested that when possible, Task Force members be given powerpoint presentations prior to Task Force meetings or to have copies at beginning of the night for members to read and formulate thoughts and questions over dinner. Targets need to be on leading edge of attainability would rather not work towards 80% and attain 60% would prefer to strive for 90% and possibly get 80% MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS "LESSONS LEARNED" Brian Buttigieg introduced the Morningside Heights "Lessons Learned" report. He noted the Task Force has limited scope to do anything. However, suggested keeping the example of Morningside Heights in mind when reviewing targets and making recommendations for the final plan. The following questions and comments arose during the discussion: Lorne Smith Jim Robb Lionell Purcell Audrey Hollasch Commented on a site at Major Mackenzie /Hwy 48, Town of Markham which he was concerned was another Morningside Heights. Spoke of his passion and suggested for offence not to be taken; felt the mistake made with Morningside Heights was going ahead without finishing the subwatershed plan; would have had chance with DFO to counteract Morningside Heights; Would still like to see something about Morningside Heights in watershed plan. Has there ever been a similar problem as that which has occurred at Morningside Heights Did the group have any recommendations on how to deal with bad planning decisions? 70 Sonya Meek Murray Johnson Judi Orendorff Christine Caroppo Brian Buttigieg Jim Robb Paul Harpley Brian Buttigieg Morningside Heights is a legacy of past decisions for that particular site; it would seem that approvals that were made at that time on state -of- the -art information are now reviewed in a different light; have spoken with planners who have said there are probably no more complex sites like Morningside on the Rouge. The group recommended a need to investigate the option of setting time limits on approvals. Concerns of no control on site, no procedures, no inspections, policing and monitoring of construction on sites. Can't emphasize enough the importance of lessons learned. Should take a long look at the targets, must take the words on paper and make sure it is implemented. CVC has been seeing that natural channel design may not be the way to go. Spoke of the regulations of planting native species; permits are issued - fines can be given for non - compliance. Sometimes fines do not work. Have to go at it in another way, possibly get funds up front. Difficulties arise from responsibilities crossing over many agency boundaries. Should there be a Target based on construction or maybe a case study? Suggested using Morningside Heights as one separate target or when looking at each target look again at Morningside Heights. Too much was given up and not enough compensated, difficult to count on our regulatory agencies. Frank Scarpitti Commented on Lorne Smith's concern about the site at Major Mackenzie /Hwy48; it is not another Morningside Heights. Mike Price Must have better cooperation and coordination between agencies and environmental groups. Morningside Heights is the worse case scenario and will never happen again. Noted the million dollars put in a trust account that can only be applied with the agreement of the developers and SRVS Brian Buttigieg Has heard of this trust account; is willing to spend time outside the table of the Task Force to investigate and asked for members to let him know if they are interested in working with him on this matter. Tupper Wheatley Who makes the decisions of compensation? 71 Judi Orendorff Suggested having specific agencies come in and give presentations on legislation, Acts (MNR, DFO, TRCA, maybe a conservation officer); should bring this into the Implementation Committee. Christine Caroppo Have come to table all thinking the same way; would like a framework to be developed. 11. NEW BUSINESS RES. #L18 /04 Moved by: Seconded by: 2005 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING SCHEDULE. Approval of the 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting Schedule Lionel Purcell Elio Di'lorio THAT the proposed 2005 meeting date schedule of Rouge Watershed Task Force be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the meetings be convened at locations around the watershed. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting #2104 held on May 27, 2004 RES. # L7/04 was approved THAT a schedule of proposed 2005 meeting dates be brought back to the Task Force for approval in Fall 2004; 72 g�posed Anticipated,Age d #terns ;M z ; 3 oi / Jan. 27, 2005 • Target Workshop: Aquatic, Fluvial G, Cultural Ecology • generic model policy for implementing watershed planning recommendations • sustainable community scenario development • implementation framework Mar.10, 2005 • Target Workshop: Terrestrial, Land and Resource Use • implementation framework Apr. 21, 2005 • Target Workshop: Air Quality, Public Use, Climate Change • preliminary results Phase 2 modelling analysis Jun. 2, 2005 • preliminary results Phase 2 modelling analysis • peer review and consultations summer • tentative Sub - Committee meetings /workshops Sep. 15 • management strategy development Oct. 27, 2005 • partner consultation and peer review • consultation results • draft plan formulation Dec. 15, 2005 • draft Watershed Plan Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Lorne Smith Frank Scarpitti Victor Doyle In the Rouge Watershed Task Force Minutes of #4104 it was suggested we convene a meeting on 16th Avenue. Will we be having this meeting at any time? Will be happy to convene a meeting at a later date; would be unfair to place that additional burden on staff at this time; will make an effort to arrange a meeting before the end of the year. Gave highlights of the Provincial announcement of the Greenbelt Plan (see www.mmah.gov.oh.ca) Clyde Smith Announced availability of Charles Sauriol Dinner tickets TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:05 p.m.., on Thursday October 28, 2004. 73 THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES OF MEETING #6/04 to•-- Rouge Park SCANNED TORONTO AND REGION "- onserva Lion for The Living City MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #6/04 December 9, 2004 The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at Cedar Grove Community Centre, Markham on Thursday, December 9, 2004. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. L �3 PRESENT Bryan Buttigieg Member Del Fisher Member Alex Georgieff Alternate Jack Heath Alternate Murray Johnston Member Virginia Jones Member George McKelvey Alternate Tom Melymuk Alternate Terry O'Connor Member Mike Price Member Garry Pringle Member Lionel Purcell Member Jim Robb Member Frank Scarpitti Member Patricia Short-Galle Member Clyde Smith Member Lorne Smith Member David Tuley Member GUESTS Bill Snodgrss City of Toronto Tracey Steele Richmond Hill STAFF Lewis Yeager General Manager, Rouge Park - Member Dick O'Brien Chair, TRCA - Member Sonya Meek Coordinator, Water Management Patricia Mohr Watershed Planning Project Manager Don Ford TRCA Tim Van Seters TRCA Sylvia Waters TRCA Tim Rance TRCA L74 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/04 December 9, 2004 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Bryan Buttigieg opened the meeting and acknowledged that at this time we did not have a quorum for voting. We carried on with the meeting schedule holding votes until the end to allow other members to arrive. There was a brief discussion over voting, quorum and rules of conduct. Members were referred back to The Terms of Reference brought to the first meeting of the Task Force. MINUTES OF MEETING RES. #L19104 MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Scarpitti Lionel Purcell THAT the Minutes of Rouge Meeting #5/04, held on, October 28, 2004 be approved. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES AMENDMENT MINUTES RES. #L20/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Scarpitti Lionel Purcell THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting scheduled for January 27, 2005 be changed to February 3, 2005; AND FURTHER THAT an updated Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting schedule be sent to Rouge Watershed Task Force members COMMENTS Jim Robb CARRIED Questioned whether the Morningside Heights "lessons learned" would be communicated to the TRCA Watershed Management Advisory Board. He wanted to be reassured that this issue would not be forgotten and that we would learn from it. Bryan Buttigieg Explained that the minutes from the Task Force meetings are presented (once approved by the Task Force) to the TRCA's Watershed Management Advisory Board ( #5/04 Rouge Task Force Minutes to the February 11, 2005 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/04). Dick O'Brian Commented that Jim Robb could request to be a delegation at the next Watershed Management Advisory Board meeting concerning this matter. December 9, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/04 L75 Bryan Buttigieg Introduced a Draft Greenbelt letter (attachment 1) asking members to please review for discussion later in the meeting. In addition, Jim Robb has submitted for our review several draft motion statements (attachment 2) . L76 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/04 December 9, 2004 attachment 1 r-460. Rouge Park 50 Bloomington Road West Aurora, Ontario L4G 3G8 Phone 905 - 713 -7426 Fax 905- 713 -6028 rougeparkProuq epark.com www.rougepark.com TORONTO AND REGION' - onservation for The Living City 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 Phone 416 - 661 -6600 Fax 416 - 661 -6898 www.trca.on.ca DRAFT Minister Gerretsen Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 777 Bay Street, 14th floor Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 Dear Minister, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Rouge Park have engaged a number of citizens and associations to assist in the development of a watershed plan for the Rouge River in eastern Toronto. It is as Chair of that Task Force that I am writing to you, concerning the Greenbelt Plan We applaud the efforts of your government to establish a green area as a divide between major growth both current and anticipated. On a micro -scale the Rouge watershed is similarly a green divide between Toronto and Durham. Defined by the ecological and physical boundary of a watershed, the Rouge does not bear the stigma of artificial boundaries created to address other agendas. The Rouge watershed represents a major existing link in your Greenbelt between the ORM and the shoreline of Lake Ontario. As such and in accordance with the provincial philosophy of protecting Iakeshore, it is unfortunate that the initiative of the Greenbelt has failed to capture the rest of the Lake Ontario shoreline. The TRCA and others have thus far invested tremendous effort and substantial monies, in creating and maintaining isolated pockets along the waterfront and it is opportune that the Greenbelt Plan vision of the government includes the waterfront. We strongly encourage you to consider this addition in your second iteration of the Plan. The areas shown in beige in the Greenbelt Plan were explained as land where growth may /will occur and we note portions of the Rouge system fall into this category. The development of this area is under the authority of the municipality and should be subjected to analyses that assess the possible impacts on the Rouge watershed and demonstrated to be consistent with the recommendations of the watershed plan. We will be requesting your support that these reviews are both meaningful and thorough in order to protect the Rouge portion of your Greenbelt vision. December 9, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/04 L77 The existing transportation network that provides east -west travel across the Rouge will, no doubt, be considered for expansion both in scale and type. We strongly urge you and the government to consider what the visual, ecological and social impacts are for these routes and structures. All too often, transportation systems are designed to achieve the primary goal of moving people in a safe and efficient manner. The Greenbelt and in particular, the Rouge watershed should not be subjected to engineered solutions that destroy their heart and soul. Again we will be looking to you to champion the Greenbelt values with your Cabinet colleagues when considering the transportation needs of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Before you is the challenge of balancing values and growth. Your government has in its grasp the opportunity to be measured by what you leave as a Greenbelt legacy. We are working to shoulder our part; please commit your government to its part. Establish as the Greenbelt, a jewel of interconnected and valued natural areas that all peoples and sectors support, maintain and enhance long into the future. Respectfully submitted, Bryan Buttigieg Chair, Rouge Watershed Task Force cc Chair, TRCA Members, Rouge Watershed Task Force L78 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/04 December 9, 2004 attachment 2 Draft Motion Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting December 9, 2004 Whereas, the province is completing legislation and plans for the GTA Greenbelt, Source Water Protection, Places to Grow and related planning initiatives; Whereas, the Rouge Watershed Task Force commends the provincial government for the vision and intent of the Greenbelt, Source Water Protection and Places to Grow initiatives, Whereas, the Greenbelt Plan proposes to include stream corridors of at least 120 metres width in the rural areas between the ORM and the existing urban envelope; Whereas, the aforementioned stream protection may not be sufficient to protect and enhance water quality, groundwater recharge, stream flow, natural heritage systems, biodiversity and watershed health; Whereas, other studies are well underway which will provide scientific rationale for the establishment, protection and enhancement of the stream corridors and the Greenbelt Area; Therefore, be it resolved that the Chair and members of the Rouge Watershed Task Force respectfully recommend the following to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: A) the Greenbelt Act and Plan should have a provision which extends the moratorium on urban expansions into rural areas, pending the outcome of: 1 - Source Water Protection Plans; 2 - Strategic Watershed Plans and water budget evaluations; 3 - Rouge Park North Management Plan and Implementation Manual; 4 - the TRCA's Natural Heritage System Planning; 5 - the MNR's Biodiversity Strategy for Ontario; 6 - updated monitoring and scientific information on watershed and air -shed health. B) the Greenbelt Act and Plan should have a provision for the timely inclusion of additional areas within the Greenbelt Plan, based on the outcomes of: 1 - Source Water Protection Plans; 2 - Strategic Watershed Plans and water budget evaluations 3 - Rouge Park North Management Plan and Implementation Manual; 4 - the TRCA's Natural Heritage System Planning; 5 - the MNR's Biodiversity Strategy for Ontario; 6 - updated monitoring and scientific information on watershed health. December 9, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/04 L79 REPORTS RES. #L21/04 Moved by: Seconded by: PROVINCIAL SOURCE PROTECTION FUNDING Overview of provincial funding contributions to conservation authorities and municipalities for source protection Virginia Jones Del Fisher THAT the Report entitled PROVINCIAL SOURCE PROTECTION FUNDING to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority(TRCA), Executive Board held on December 3, 2004 be received; AND FURTHER THAT a report be brought to a future meeting of the Rouge Watershed Task Force outlining the implications of the anticipated Drinking Water Source Protection legislation to the Rouge Watershed Task Force and the Rouge Watershed Planning Study. CARRIED Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Date: December 9, 2004 L80 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/04 December 9, 2004 Attachment 3 TO: Chair and Members of the Executive Committee Meeting #11/04, December 3, 2004 FROM: Adele Freeman, Acting Director, Watershed Management Division RE: PROVINCIAL SOURCE PROTECTION FUNDING KEY ISSUE Overview of provincial funding contributions to conservation authorities and municipalities for source protection. RECOMMENDATION THAT the province be congratulated on their work in furthering source protection; AND FURTHER THAT staff prepare a detailed report for Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #7/04, to be held on December 10, 2004. BACKGROUND On Wednesday, November 17, 2004, the provincial government announced that it is investing more than $12.5 million to enable conservation authorities (CA) and municipalities across the province to undertake the preparatory work and technical studies needed to support the development of drinking water source protection plans. This 2004 -2005 funding will likely be transferred to CAs, under agreements with the Ministry of Natural Resources. It is expected that additional funds will be available in future years to support the further development and implementation of plans. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is expected to receive approximately $700,000 of this provincial funding, to be directed to start-up activities within our source protection planning region. This region includes the jurisdictions of the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, and of course that of the TRCA. TRCA will act as the lead CA within this region. This start-up funding is generally intended to be used to support the following activities: • capacity building and communications; • preliminary watershed characterization; • water budgets; and, • work plan development. A memorandum of agreement between the three conservation authorities is being developed, which will outline the administrative arrangements and the relative roles of each CA. Discussions are underway with some of our key partners regarding the role and membership of the source protection committee, that will be required by the new legislation. A technical workplan is also being prepared, with consideration for the extensive watershed planning and groundwater studies that have already been completed by the CAs and the municipalities. This workplan will provide a basis for identifying start-up priorities and developing a budget. December 9, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/04 L81 Source protection planning is a component of watershed planning. It is concerned with protection of the quality and quantity of current and future sources of drinking water. Source protection is an important first step in a multi- barrier approach to drinking water management. A more detailed report will be taken to the December, 2004 Watershed Management Advisory Board. More information about the provincial announcement can be found on the Ministry of the Environment web site at www.ene.gov.on.ca COMMENTS Sonya Meek Dick O'Brien Introduced this report as an information item for the Task Force. The involvement of the TRCA in Source Protection Planning (SPP) was explained and how the Rouge Task Force and similar groups would be used as a forum to hear the views and comments of SPP on a watershed basis. Took the opportunity to inform the Task Force of Sonya's extensive involvement as a representative for Conservation Ontario as well as TRCA in the Walkerton Inquiry. Jim Robb What is the status of SPP, where and when will there be an opportunity for public consultation? Sonya Meek The full Legislation is expected to be released early in the new year, and regulations and guidelines will follow. The TRCA will be integrating SPP into.the ongoing watershed planning studies. Legislation is focussed on drinking water source protection. A source protection committee will be required as a means of guiding the development of source protection plans. Committee members will likely be prescribed to a large extent by the legislation. Jim Robb Are any actions being taken of the other recommendations from Justice O'Connor Report? Sonya Meek The Minister of the Environment at the A.D. Latornell Conference reaffirmed the committment to implementing all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations Jim Robb Commented on the fact that the Ontario Water Resources Act as it stands is not consistent with the Fisheries Act Dick O'Brien Dick suggested that Sonya Meek report back to the Task Force at the February 3rd meeting, on the Conservation Ontario meeting on December 14, 2004. Sonya Meek Commented that the intent of the Source Protection Legislation is that a Source Protection Plan be developed for each watershed in Ontario. L82 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/04 December 9, 2004 RES. #L22/04 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE REPORT Update from the Implementation Committee of the Rouge Watershed Task Force regarding an implementation framework for the watershed plan and a preliminary workplan for the Committee. Moved by: Seconded by: RECOMMENDATION Alex Georgieff Garry Pringle THAT the Report from the Implementation Committee of the Rouge Watershed Task Force be received; THAT Task Force members provide feedback to the Implementation Committee on the following matters: a) comments on the Implementation Committee report, b) any available reference materials, guidelines, handbooks, etc. for "backyard" residential stewardship, c) suggested locations for demonstration projects associated with each of the primary target audiences; AND FURTHER THAT the Implementation Committee report back at the March 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting on progress in advancing the implementation aspects of the Rouge Watershed Plan. CARRIED BACKGROUND RES. #L14/04 at Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting #5/04, held on October 28, 2004, was approved as follows: AND FURTHER THAT the Implementation Committee report back on progress in advancing the implementation aspects of the Rouge Watershed Plan to the Rouge Watershed Task Force at meeting #6/04 on December 9, 2004. Since the October 28, 2004 Task Force meeting, the Implementation Committee has met on two occasions, November 9 and November 25, 2004, to identify several activities which could be pursued by the Committee and other interested Task Force members, as a means of advancing strategic implementation aspects of the watershed plan. To guide their discussions, the Committee considered an overall framework of implementation tools available for the watershed plan and incorporated this framework into their earlier work involving the review of individual target audiences and effective delivery mechanisms for each. Based on this background information, the Committee discussed a broad range of potential strategic activities, including promotional materials and community outreach, investigations into current barriers to implementation, development of implementation tools, and demonstration projects. December 9, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/04 L83 The following report summarizes the "work in progress" of the Implementation Committee and is being presented for Task Force comment. The Committee intends to convene again in January, 2005 to finalize their workplan and discuss ways to advance the strategic activities. Watershed Plan Implementation Tools In the final watershed plan, the Task Force will have to recommend the most appropriate means of implementing the preferred management strategy that arises from the modelling and analysis work being carried out in Phase 2 of the watershed planning study. Following a review of watershed plans from other jurisdictions and "lessons learned" type evaluations, the Implementation Committee found that the most effective watershed plans included a mix of voluntary and regulatory implementation tools. Different tools will be appropriate for different target audiences. The appropriateness of a given implementation tool depends on the type of activity being managed, property ownership (public vs. private), and the degree of "risk" or sensitivity of the issue being managed, among other considerations. The Implementation Committee defined a general framework of implementation tools, commonly found in other watershed plans: • PLANNING AND POLICY (includes plans, policies, permits, regulations, inspection, enforcement, land securement, etc.) • REGENERATION AND RETROFIT PROJECTS • EDUCATION AND STEWARDSHIP (includes formal and informal education, "BMPs ", operations and maintenance, may also encompass land securement on private lands) • INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES (may include financial or profile /prestige) • MONITORING AND REPORTING • FURTHER RESEARCH Target Audiences and Delivery Mechanisms The Implementation Committee summarized the long list of target audiences for the watershed plan, as discussed at the last Task Force meeting, by identifying six "typical" audiences: . . . Business /light industry Developer Resident Farmer School Public Agency As shown in Table 1, for each audience, the Committee identified the top possible initiatives L84 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/04 December 9, 2004 that could be undertaken by that audience to help in managing the watershed. They also identified mechanisms for delivering the implementation messages, according to the framework of implementation tools described above. Based on this background information, the Committee has begun to identify strategic activities that could be pursued to advance certain implementation directions, including the identification of demonstration project sites ( "concept sites "). Although the Committee is still completing Table 1 and considering strategic activities, the table is presented as a "work in progress" for Task Force input. Pre /iminary Workplan of Strategic Implementation Activities The following items represent a few of the strategic activities that are beginning to emerge as being strong candidates for the Implementation Committee's workplan: A) Rouge Watershed Promotional Materials It is felt that we need to begin "branding" the Rouge Watershed and promoting the watershed plan, especially among members of primary target audiences and audiences who may not be as well represented on the Task Force. This will be important so that we can engage stakeholders as the plan is being developed and they will be in a position to implement our recommendations more readily. B) Preparation of a Resident's Handbook As the private homeowner will be a significant target audience for the watershed plan, we should begin to assemble educational and "how to" information that could be distributed to assist in raising awareness of stewardship practices that are especially important in the Rouge watershed. It is recognized that many materials are already available, so the Committee's intent is to build on the available materials by filling gaps, improving access, and making it "Rouge" relevant. C) Preparing "Concept Site" Plans Specific sites could be identified in the Rouge watershed, which could be used to develop conceptual management plans to demonstrate the implementation of innovative watershed management practices. The process of developing these concept site plans could inform the Task Force on the practicalities of implementation challenges, that in turn could assist in fine - tuning the final watershed plan. The sites could also be a mechanism to engage the local community and target audience in the watershed planning study. Above all, having plans in place will expedite "in the ground" implementation Some initial, candidate concept sites have been identified, in association with specific target audiences, on Table 1. Task Force members are invited to suggest other potential sites, or types of demonstrations. December 9, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/04 L85 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Task Force members are invited to comment on this "work in progress ". More details will be reported to future Task Force meetings. The Implementation Committee will welcome additional Task Force member participation in the pursuit of the strategic activities. Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 For Information contact: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 Date: December 1, 2004 David Tuley RES. #L23/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Chair, Implementation Committee summarized the two occasions on which the Committee had met to discuss activities to be pursued. He invited other interested Task Force members to give comments, as a means of advancing strategic implementation aspects of the watershed plan. Currently, the Target Audiences encompass all land owners and these audiences are linked to possible initiatives and then key delivery mechanisms. COMMENTS ON DRAFT ROUGE STATE OF THE WATERSHED (SOW) REPORT Comments on the Draft Rouge SOW Report and proposed actions to respond to them. Murray Johnston Clyde Smith RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the report of comments on the Draft Rouge SOW Report, as of December 1, 2004 be received; AND FURTHER THAT staff proceed with actions as indicated in the report. BACKGROUND RES. #L10 /04 at Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting #4/04 held on September 23, 2004 approved, AND FURTHER THAT a full report of comments and recommendations on how to address them be brought to the next Task Force meeting. The draft Rouge State of the Watershed Report (dated June 2004) was circulated to the members of the Rouge River Watershed Task Force and 23 government and NGO contacts L86 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/04 December 9, 2004 with final comments requested by August 31, 2004. It was subsequently distributed to 17 peer reviewers, along with the overall watershed planning study workplan and the more detailed outline of the proposed Phase 2 work with comments requested by September 17, 2004. A deadline of November 5th, 2004, was established to accommodate additional and late reviewers and the attached report has incorporated these comments. Although we haven't yet received all the comments expected, we will report back to the Task Force again if substantive new comments are received. The subsequent table of comments includes the responses from a total of 9 Task Force members /alternates, 2 government staff and 6 peer reviewers, along with the actions proposed by technical staff members to address them. The content of the review comments can be summarized as follows: • • For the most part, reviewers were pleased with the overall format of the report in that it was a valuable source of information on the Rouge Watershed presented in a well organized comprehensive way. No chapter rewrites are required. In some cases sections need to be added to include missing subject matter: Key new sections are: a more detailed water budget discussion to precede the Part I Conditions - a discussion that integrates the Rouge Park North Management Plan into the Terrestrial System chapter Frequently, edits are required to clarify points and to increase understanding Peer reviewers specifically remarked that the document was well researched and they agreed with the overall philosophy and scope, but felt there was a need for increased data collection. Peer reviewers expressed support for the methodologies being developed to improve the technical integration of watershed components although they have suggested areas for improved integration in the discussions in the SOW Report. Report prepared by: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 For Information contact: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 Date: December 1, 2004 Patricia Mohr Gave thanks to all Task Force members who commented on the Draft Rouge SOW. It was discussed that the check marks placed in the ACTION column of the table refer to comments that will be addressed. Members may find that there exists conflicting comments under the same section, this is due to several persons commenting with opposing views. December 9, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/04 L87 WORKSHOP (DISCUSSION) 7.1 DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED TARGETS TASK FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - Groundwater Quantity and Quality Don Ford Introduced himself as the TRCA Senior Hydrogeologist. Don went through his powerpoint presentation which was attached to the #6/04 Rouge Watershed Task Force Agenda. He reviewed the desired overall goal for the Rouge Watershed and the specific groundwater goals. It was stated that the TRCA is focused on a whole watershed approach and that each watershed plan will specifically address the implementation of SPP. He spoke of the intended management approach and directions for groundwater in the watershed plan. Don went through the State of the Watershed (SOW) groundwater indicators and their measures and whether the targets will address the key issues in the watershed. We discussed the issues with water quality information, in the context of the information currently being the property of consultants. It is difficult to set groundwater quality targets. For example if you set a target for drinking water standards, the levels of some chemicals and /or minerals may be at levels which are toxic to other species such as fish (used as an example copper). Another Rouge target is Water Conservation. There is a goal of no restriction in the use of groundwater, therefore the issue of water conservation must be addressed. Groundwater Recharge /Discharge - TRCA does not have a long term data set. We have increased the number of wells being monitored from 9 to 22 in the last 2 years. Jim Robb What of the well records from the past? Don Ford These records are only of depth at time of drilling, not over time. Jack Heath Do we have data from other watersheds to allow for comparison Don Ford TRCA has 22 wells within its jurisdiction that are monitored and Provincial monitoring sites. However, it is difficult to compare data between watersheds because precipitation can vary, even over a small geographic area, which in turn skews the data. Jack Heath Questioned that there must be a means of measuring and calculating what the groundwater levels are. Don Ford It must be realized that the Rouge Watershed is 330 sqkm and consists of 8 layers of soil, this makes measuring and calculating values very difficult. How many wells are required to obtain an accurate estimate? TRCA has 4 wells to monitor this area. Is this enough? NO. A situation such as 16`h Avenue requires 100's of wells to monitor effects and changes in L88 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/04 December 9, 2004 • groundwater, and that may not even be adequate. Bryan Buttigieg Suggests that there is a consensus among the comments; that there is a lack of data. Should the Task Force be commenting on whether there are adequate wells available for monitoring on the Rouge Watershed? Don Ford Jim Robb Don Ford Don Ford Yes, the Task Force should definitely be commenting on the adequacy of the number of wells for monitoring on the Rouge Watershed. Pointed out that a great deal of the data has been collected by consultants and some are unwilling to release their data. There are agreements being negotiated for data sharing. As that data is released to us, it then requires time to be assessed and catalogue, Which is what we are working towards in the Watershed Plan. Suggested that groundwater use targets are not consistent with Rouge Park Management Plan, the Watershed Plan target is not set high enough. Is concerned about increasing the target too much, would be harmful to human health downstream. Showed a map which illustrated the Rouge Watershed recharge /discharge areas. The Oak Ridges Moraine and the Iroquois Sands were chosen as the key areas to help with groundwater level issue. The approach would be to mitigate the other areas with lower charge. A graph of groundwater levels monitored in a well at Bruce's Mill, was shown to illustrates how levels change throughout the seasons. This graph lead to a discussion of 16th Avenue and the impact of this dewatering. Jim Robb Questioned the zone of watershed which is being affected by the dewatering at 16th Avenue; has gone from 2 -3 km to 8 -10 km radius from 16th Avenue. Don Ford We must realize that groundwater does not uphold the boundaries of watersheds. Groundwater recharge /discharge - Why a ranking of FAIR? This designation of Fair was reached due to the fact of known significant development pressures. Yes the ORM will be protected by the Greenbelt Legislation, however the surrounding area is not protected. Also, there has been a 1 metre decline per year for the last 40 years in the Yonge Street aquifer which is located north of the Rouge Watershed. Clyde Smith Whitchurch- Stouffville is currently entirely on wells and septics. When the 9th Line goes through, all the well water will be going down to Lake Ontario with nothing returning. Don Ford Suggested there will be some supplementation that will occur. Jim Robb Has a water budget been developed for the Rouge Watershed? December 9, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/04 L89 Don Ford Not yet. Jim Robb When at a meeting regarding the big pipe, persons on wells were concerned about their Toss of well water with no ability to hook up to the pipe. Tracey Steele Suggested the development of a Policy similar to the Clean Air Act - that would say - after using a set portion of groundwater you must return it back to the same area, instead of moving it to Lake Ontario NEW BUSINESS Bryan Buttigieg noted our time constraints following Don Ford's presentation. He suggested two options for the remainder of the meeting 1) to use the remaining time to hear Tim Van Seters' presentation on Surface Water Quality, however there would be no time allotted for discussion; OR 2) to review and discuss the draft Greenbelt letter It was unanimously decided to review the draft Greenbelt letter due to the December 20 deadline for submission of comments. Tim Van Seters presentation on Surface Water Quality would be heard at following meeting. DISCUSSION COMMENTS ON DRAFT GREENBELT PLAN LETTER Bryan Buttigieg Explained that Peter White and he drafted the letter based on input from others. The authors do not suggest it represents the opinion of the entire Task Force. Thus this discussion is important if this letter is to represent the consensus opinion of the Task Force. The comment deadline to the Minister of MMAH has been extended to December 20th. Bryan suggests Task Force members have comments in by Monday December 13th. A revised letter will be sent out the following Tuesday or Wednesday for review and final version prepared for deadline. Frank Scarpitti Commented, excellent letter, although some points may need to be modified to gain a consensus. The Town of Markham would like to see the Rouge Park corridor in OPA 116 represented in the Greenbelt. That area has been referred to the OMB, so having it provincially recognized would take it out of the hands of the OMB. The Town of Markham and the Region of York have already committed to this protection, so the provincial recognition would be helpful. L90 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/04 December 9, 2004 EQUITY ISSUE Terry O'Connor The agricultural community is generally supportive of the Greenbelt Plan, but is concerned about loss of equity on their land. They are requesting compensation. Frank Scarpitti Noted that Markham also supported the need for some provisions of equity to agriculture, such as tax credits, ecological gifts programs, etc. in their Greenbelt Plan letter. P. Short -Galle Does not think it is the Task Force's position to give recommendations regarding equity as it is not as relevant to the watershed perspective. Bryan Buttigieg Dick O'Brien Pointed out that it may be a barrier to implementation of our Watershed Plan, so he thinks it is relevant. Acknowledged he is aware of some farm loans that have been called in already, because of loss of equity. GREENBELT EXPANSION Jack Heath Garry Pringle Must clarify that the Rouge is not just a divide between Toronto and Durham, must include York. referring to draft letter - "the triangle of land north of Steeles and east of the 9th line in Markham" - "all lands south east of the Havelock Rail line in Markham "are same thing. Headwaters of Little Rouge is covered under point #1 (re lands between ORM and urban boundary. The jigsaw piece (land east of Little Rouge and west of federal land) should be included. To say no further urban expansion in Markham is a loaded statement. Markham has about 10 more years of development already planned. He's not opposed to expanding Greenbelt there but he wants everyone to know it's not a benign statement. He would need to talk about the conflict of interest of this matter for provincial government Task Force members with ORC , MNR and MMAH members, as all had worked on the Greenbelt Plan. We may need to remain silent. Bryan Buttigieg Concerned that we need to say something about the "no man's land" between ORM and urban boundary because it's the most vulnerable remaining land in the watershed and it will become under the most pressure because of Greenbelt. December 9, 2004 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/04 L91 Jim Robb Tracy Steele Lorne Smith Durham says it has 30 years more growth that it can accommodate with current densities.- Pembina Institute says overall GTA has 20 years more growth Suggests the Task Force state our support of expanding the Greenbelt Plan into lands between ORM and urban boundary, but if not possible, these are the minimum areas to protect (refer to bulleted list on pg.2 of draft Greenbelt letter. Noted there are only 75 acres which are owner operated in the block of land in which he lives. The rest is developer owned. Suggests we promote protection of corridors. Jim Robb Proposed a moratorium on those "no man's lands" until the SPP, Watershed Plans, etc. are in place to provide a principled approach. Jake Heath Referring to bulleted list on pg.2 of draft Greenbelt letter. Add East Markham Strategic Review (EMSR), Rouge Park North and Markham Small Streams. Virginia Jones Does not want farm land preserved, if there isn't also a support network for it to be used sustainably. Clyde Smith Referring to bulleted list on pg.2 of draft Greenbelt letter. Suggested last bullet be edited to read: "- additional lands in the headwaters of the Little Rouge River in southern Stouffville and east of the Little Rouge in Markham" CONSENSUS regarding 3`d paragraph of the draft letter leave in 1st two sentences of the 3rd paragraph and delete the remainder Mike Price Does not agree with the 3`d paragraph of the draft letter re- Iakeshore. He thinks it diminishes the effect of the rest of the Greenbelt. How do you define it. Below the bluffs? Above? Note, there is also the ongoing Robert Fung Waterfront Revitalization work, s� how would the two relate? • Jim Robb Still felt that having a Zink along the shoreline will be important. Bryan Buttigieg, Dick O'Brien and Mike Price were all in agreement, that speaking on matters beyond the Rouge Watershed such as the Iakeshore, could dilute our specific comments on the Greenbelt Plan. Bryan Buttigieg Encouraged anyone to send in comments as an individual or promote their agenda through other vehicles outside the Rouge Watershed Task Force. Frank Scarpitti When municipalities have to amend their OPs to conform with the L92 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/04 December 9, 2004 Greenbelt Plan, those amendments should not be subject to the OMB. There have been Greenbelt Plans in Toronto before and they've been dissolved. Suggested a mechanism to solidify, make Greenbelt Plan more permanent (eg. as with an Environmental Easement which is only removed with agreement of Provincial, Regional, Local and CA). Bryan Buttig /eg How close to expropriation is that? Jim Robb Conforms with an Order -in- Council. Frank Scarpitti Government can do this. MOTION THAT the letter be revised based on comments provided at the December 9'h meeting and re- circulated for comment and then finalized and sent to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing by December 20`", 2004. Moved by: Seconded by: George McKelvey Lionel Purcell 7.2 DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED TARGET TASK FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - Surface Water Quality (Tim Van Seters, TRCA, PowerPoint Presentation available at meeting) deferred TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:30 p.m., on December 9, 2004. /slw Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer