HomeMy WebLinkAboutWatershed Management Advisory Board 2004th■
PrTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/04
February 13, 2004
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/04, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, February 13, 2004. The Chair Dave Ryan
, called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m.
PRESENT
Gay Cowbourne Member
Frank Dale Member
Cliff Jenkins Member
Shelley Petrie Member
Dave Ryan Chair
Nancy Stewart Vice Chair
Michael Thompson Member
RES. #D1 /04 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Cliff Jenkins
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/03, held on December 12, 2003, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Bruce Cudmore, Principal, EDA Collaborative Inc., in regards to item
7.2 - Transport Canada's Green Space Master Plan.
(b) A presentation by Scott Jarvie, Coordinator Watershed Monitoring Program, TRCA, in
regards to item 7.3 - Update on the Web -based Map Data Server - "Juturna" Project.
RES. #D2 /04 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Nancy Stewart
Michael Thompson
1
THAT above -noted presentations (a) and (b) be heard and received.
CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D3/04 - CITY OF TORONTO WET WEATHER FLOW MANAGEMENT MASTER
PLAN ( WWFMMP) FINAL REPORT
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) comments on the
Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, Wet Weather Flow Policy,
and opportunities for TRCA to assist the City of Toronto in the plan's
implementation.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
WHEREAS the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan provides
detailed recommendations for addressing stormwater, combined sewer overflow, and
infiltration /inflow problems, which have been identified by the Toronto and Region
Remedial Action Plan (Clean Waters Clear Choices, 1994) and local watershed
management strategies (Forty Steps to a New Don -1994, Legacy - A Strategy for a
Healthy 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 BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
AUTHORITY THAT the Chair of the Authority send a letter of congratulations to the City of
Toronto on the completion of the Wet Weather Flow 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;
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.
CARRIED
2
BACKGROUND
The Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan was initiated by the former 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." Following the
Class Environmental Assessment process, the plan is being developed in four stages. Stage
one, completed in 1998, involved collecting data on current environmental conditions and
developing goals and objectives to guide the process. Stage two focused on developing a
Wet Weather Flow Management Strategy for the City and was completed in August, 2003.
Stage three and four of the planning process will focus 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 of Toronto'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 to translate technical
study results and recommendations into policy form.
TRCA staff provided input to the WWFMMP throughout its 3 -year development as a member of
the 24 person steering committee, and through input to various sub - committees. TRCA
contributed significant environmental data and Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
mapping products to the study. Much of the information was drawn from previous watershed
planning and reporting initiatives. Regular reports via the TRCA's watershed groups assisted
in facilitating community input to the City of Toronto process.
TRCA staff conducted a review of the final draft technical documents and policy in July 2003.
Comments on the master plan were discussed among staff and summarized in a letter to the
City of Toronto, dated August 11, 2003. In the letter, staff commended the city on the
innovative and comprehensive nature of the plan, expressed support for the overall
management approach and encouraged the city to proceed with implementation. On specific
matters staff recommended that the city:
• integrate modelling and evaluation of upstream stormwater management measures into
further investigations regarding the potential benefits of the proposed deflector arms;
• adocate that the province develop improved stormwater management guidelines, including
areas such as rates of discharge for erosion protection and erosion and sediment control
during the construction phase;
• clarify the rationale for the extent of proposed restoration works, define restoration levels
(e.g. limited, moderate, significant, enhanced) as they apply to each proposed site, and
conduct detailed field assessments prior to proceeding with full scale planning for
implementation of all proposed stream restoration works;
3
• locate ponds, if possible, outside the 100 -year flood line, or at a minimum outside the
25 -year flood line, while continuing to have consideration for other factors such as natural
heritage features, public use needs and safety issues (as per TRCA's Valley and Stream
Corridor Program policies); b) construct these ponds by excavation only; and c) carefully
assess the cumulative hydraulic impact of all proposed ponds in valleys;
• develop stormwater policy implementation guidelines;
• continue to promote studies evaluating innovative stormwater best management practices
(BMPs) and other stormwater management issues;
• continue to recognize TRCA as an important partner and make use of existing resources
and programs, such as the Regional Watershed Monitoring Network, education, outreach,
stewardship and regeneration programs.
Comments received by the city during the public and agency review period were considered
and incorporated in the final master plan that 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 has
agreed to delay further environmental assessment study of the proposed deflector arm at the
mouth of the Humber River.
City staff are continuing to prepare Technical and Management Guidelines that will assist in the
application of Wet Weather Flow policy and projects.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff have considered opportunities to assist the city in implementation of the WWFMMP
and have proposed projects within the five -year workplans and budget forecasts. Key areas
include:
• modelling and evaluation of the water quality and stream flow benefits of stormwater retrofit
programs and agricultural best management practices in "905" municipalities, and
scenarios involving enhanced terrestrial natural heritage cover, as part of the Rouge and
Humber watershed planning studies;
• cooperate with the city on a Geomorphic Systems Study for the Highland Creek watershed;
• develop expertise on the use of the city's HSP -F models and apply them as part of
watershed planning studies;
• maintain up to date hydrologic, hydraulic and floodplain mapping and other environmental
databases and plans necessary to support detailed design studies associated with
implementation of WWFMMP recommendations;
• performance monitoring and evaluation of innovative stormwater management
technologies through the continuation of programs, such as the Stormwater Assessment
Monitoring and Performance (SWAMP) Program;
• watershed and waterfront monitoring and reporting, through continuation of the Regional
Watershed Monitoring Network and watershed report cards;
• education, outreach, stewardship and regeneration projects associated with specific
WWFMMP recommendations through a variety of TRCA programs;
• input to the preparation of the city's WWFMMP Technical and Management Guidelines
Report prepared by: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337 and Sonya Meek, extension 5253
For information contact: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337 and Glenn MacMillan, ext. 5212
Date: February 2, 2004
4
RES. #D4/04 - TRANSPORT CANADA'S GREEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
Overview of the draft master plan for Transport Canada's Federal Green
Space Lands and the proposed public consultation process.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Nancy Stewart
Michael Thompson
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff review the master plan for
Transport Canada's Federal Green Space Lands and prepare a follow -up report with
recommendations to enable the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to
provide comments directly to Transport Canada;
THAT staff be directed to participate in the outlined public consultation process;
THAT the TRCA continue to work with Transport Canada to ensure that planning for
Green Space Lands achieves the implementation of the A Watershed Plan for the Duffins
Creek and Carruthers Creek, the Rouge North Management Plan, the Eastern Markham
Strategic Review and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan;
AND FURTHER THAT staff prepare a report on the outcomes of the public consultation
process, proposed governance models for the Green Space Lands and future partnership
opportunities with Transport Canada.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Sustainable Communities Board meeting #3/03, held on October 3, 2003, a progress report
on the Federal Government Green Space Lands Study outlined the approach taken to prepare
a master plan for Green Space Lands that Transport Canada announced in March, 2001. In
total, the Green Space Lands encompass approximately 3,051 hectares of land (2,251 on the
Oak Ridges Moraine and 800 hectares in the Rouge watershed) on the Pickering lands site.
The progress report also provided background on potential issues in developing this master
plan and the unique opportunities that exist for Transport Canada to demonstrate their support
for implementation of A Watershed Plan for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek, the Rouge
North Management Plan, the Eastern Markham Strategic Review and the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan.
A Green Space Stewardship Advisory Committee (GSSAC) was formed in the fall of 2002. Mr.
Craig Mather was appointed by the Authority to this committee. Other representatives include:
Green Door Alliance, Rouge Park Alliance, tenant representative, Oak Ridges Moraine Land
Trust, Town of Markham, Township of Uxbridge, City of Pickering, York Region and Durham
Region.
A group of consultants led by EDA Collaborative and SENES Consultants Ltd. were retained by
Transport Canada to prepare the draft master plan which was completed in November, 2003.
The Green Space Master Plan was developed after six months of consultation with the Green
Space Stewardship Advisory Committee (GSSAC). Draft copies of the plan were received on
January 29, 2004, and staff are currently in the process of reviewing.
5
TRCA staff have not completed its review of this master plan. However, it appears that the
majority of the issues described in the October 3rd Sustainable Communities Board report
were investigated by GSSAC and the consulting team. One of the most important outcomes
was the sustainability vision for the Green Space Lands which states:
The Green Space Lands will showcase Canada's leadership in sustainable green space
management. The lands will provide compatible ecological, agricultural, recreational,
educational and economic functions while respecting cultural heritage, the existing
residential community and countryside within a management framework that can adapt
to change. Stewardship principles and best management practices will guide the long
term management of the Green Space Lands.
Goal
The goal of the Green Space Lands is to establish a sustainable balance among the physical,
social and economic environments that protect the countryside landscape and its ability to
support human health for future generations.
Objectives
The objectives for protecting the countryside landscape and ensuring sustainability include:
Ecological Function
Agricultural Function
Cultural Heritage
Airport Function
Community and Social Sustainability
Public Use
Transportation
Financial Viability
Landscape Protection
Proposed Management Areas
The draft master plan identifies three management areas for the Green Space Lands:
Ecological, Countryside and Community.
Ecological Management Area
The draft master plan adopted the management concepts of an enhanced terrestrial heritage
system, introduced in the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watershed plans, as an integral
element of function. In addition, the targeted natural heritage system developed through TRCA'
s Regional Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program, was employed as the ultimate natural
ecological management area for the Green Space Lands. This ecological management area
represents approximately 60% of the lands within the Green Space Lands.
Countryside Management Area
The countryside area protects and enhances agricultural uses and associated countryside
landscapes. Recreational use in the countryside areas will respect this intended use.
6
Community Area
The master plan recognizes an opportunity to revitalize the Village of Altona. Potential uses for
this hamlet will be investigated.
Special Study Areas
Two Special Study Areas within the Rouge watershed have been identified. The draft master
plan recognizes that these areas warrant future study in terms of their role within the natural
corridor of the Rouge and Little Rouge.
Implementation
A number of projects were identified to implement the draft master plan. The TRCA clearly has
an implementation role in each of these projects.
1. Governance and Management
• Governance Model
• Property Management Model
• Partnership Strategy
• Marketing Strategy
2. Planning and Integration and Strategies
• Integrated Pickering Lands Site Draft Master Plan
• Special Study Areas
• Green Space Transportation Strategy
• Agricultural Management Plan
• Airport Mitigation Plan
3. Detailed Planning and Design
• Public Use Trails and Recreational Facilities
• Ecological Monitoring Plan
• Local Heritage Structures and Cultural Heritage Evaluation
• Ecological Transition Study
Public Consultation Process
At the time this report was prepared, details on the proposed public consultation process were
unavailable. It is anticipated that these details will be included in the presentation by Transport
Canada. It is understood that TRCA staff will participate in the consultation process and offer
Transport Canada and the GSSAC any assistance they need in preparing for the consultation
meetings.
Report prepared by: Gary Bowen, extension 5385
Date: January 27, 2004
7
RES. #D5/04 - UPDATE ON THE WEB -BASED MAP DATA SERVER - "JUTURNA"
PROJECT
Report on the project close for JUTURNA (a pilot web -based data
management and Geographic Information System) under the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Regional Watershed
Monitoring Program in the Humber watershed.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to review the
options for the expansion of this web -based map /data system to report on additional
monitoring indicators in the Humber, other watersheds and the waterfront within the
TRCA jurisdiction.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 2001, the TRCA initiated a Regional Watershed Monitoring Program in order 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
will endeavour to bring together a group of like- minded, cooperative agencies and
organizations to collect, store, distribute and report on environmental monitoring data that
furthers the interests of all involved parties. This monitoring network builds upon 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 Remedial Action Plan (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.
8
The JUTURNA project focuses on the development a web -based data assessment and
reporting system to support the TRCA's Regional Watershed Monitoring Program. The project
evolved out of a partnership initiated in 2001 between TRCA, York University and Citizens'
Environment Watch, an environmental non - government organization housed at the University
of Toronto. At that time, a similar but smaller scale data system called MapReflections was
developed primarily for community monitoring data. The success of this initial project
demonstrated the value of the partnership and the potential for expanding the work to more
closely meet the objectives of the 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.
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.
For this pilot project, four indicators of stream quality are provided, namely the Fish Index of
Biotic Integrity, Benthic Invertebrate Aggregate Assessment, Thermal Stability and Basic Water
Chemistry. All indicators use data collected under the Regional Watershed Monitoring
Program, with the first three using established TRCA data analysis and interpretation
procedures. By using these data procedures, monitoring data can be "rolled -up" to provide a
stream condition that can be readily understood. For example, the Benthic Invertebrate
Aggregate Assessment uses a series of 10 common indices (e.g. Diversity, Hilsenhoff Biotic
Index) with regionally- specific criteria in terms of the level of stream impairment. By comparing
the criteria for each index (based on an unimpacted stream site) with the values from a stream
site of interest, an aggregate assessment can be performed over all 10 indices with the
designation of an appropriate stream condition. Sites can be designated as either impaired or
potentially impaired under this procedure. 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. Data provided through this website is also available in a raw format where users
can conduct their own analyses.
Beyond data analysis and interpretation functions, the project also provides the opportunity for
community stakeholders to become 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 connect with
existing community -based environmental organizations (e.g. Citizens' Environment Watch -
CEW) to consider participating in data collection, assessment and sharing information. A key
step towards better community engagement which this project provides, is for users to be able
to input their own data and generate analyzed reports for their monitoring sites. This provision
is key to positioning TRCA as a leader in the support of community -based monitoring activities.
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 toward integrating and reinforcing programs.
9
The pilot project is presently set to close February, 2004. It was presented and well received at
the 10th A.D. Latornell Conservation Symposium in November, 2003. A presentation to key
TRCA staff members was also made in December, 2003 for information, discussion and future
opportunity purposes. It has undergone a two week user - acceptance- testing period involving a
group of TRCA staff members and external partners (e.g. CEW). This resulted in the
identification of technical and layout issues which are currently being addressed.
RATIONALE
One of the key elements of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program is the data collected
for each of the indicators included in the program. The ability to analyze, interpret and report
on the data to the program stakeholders, including provincial agencies, municipal partners and
the general public, is critical to the overall success and effectiveness of the monitoring
program. Web -based reporting is yet another opportunity to make data available and
understandable in a watershed context.
The partnership with York University will not only facilitate the development of the web -based
application required for the data analysis and reporting /sharing, but will provide the Web /GIS
platform from which the application can be operated. This platform (ARCIMS) and the
infrastructure required to operate it are currently beyond the TRCA's IT and Web infrastructure
capabilities. Further, this partnership and work with York University also provides another
opportunity to further develop the monitoring "network" that has been identified under the
Regional Watershed Monitoring Program.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Once the work identified during the user - acceptance- testing period has been completed, the
project will be made available to the public through the TRCA website. Arrangements will be
made to present the completed pilot project to York, Peel, Durham and Toronto municipalities.
In addition, the results of the project will be shared in written venues such as EMAN's Monitor
publication.
Next steps for the project will include the evaluation of adding additional features within the
context of the Humber watershed, or to expand existing features to other watersheds. During
this process, funding to support this intensification or expansion of the project will be
determined. Funding is likely to come primarily from the Regional Watershed Monitoring
Program, in addition to new funding partners.
The website will continue to be hosted by York University as part of the Regional Monitoring
Network, or until such a time as the TRCA GIS and web infrastructure could facilitate it.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
For the work completed to date, TRCA has provided support at a total cost of $35,000,'with an
additional $12,000 provided by Environment Canada. York University has contributed
approximately $22,500 of in -kind contributions to the project related to software costs and the
provision of graduate assistants. In addition, York University will contribute (in -kind)
approximately $2,000 /year related to the platform hosting costs as long as the infrastructure
remains at York.
10
The further development of the application to intensify or expand this project will be considered
following completion. Funding opportunities to support this additional work will be reviewed at
that time.
Report prepared by: Jeff Borisko, extension 5333
For Information contact: Scott Jarvie, extension 5312
Date: October 10, 2003
RES. #D6/04 - UXVILLE PROPERTIES LTD. ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
HEARING
Township of Uxbridge, Regional Municipality of Durham. Authorization
for party status before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on referrals
related to a draft plan of subdivision and zoning by -law amendment to
permit an industrial subdivision on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT party status before the Ontario
Municipal Board regarding approval of a draft plan of subdivision and zoning by -law
amendment which are not in conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act
and Plan, be authorized;
THAT staff continue to work cooperatively with our municipal partners, provincial
agencies and appellants by ensuring that the requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Act and Plan are upheld;
THAT staff be authorized to retain legal counsel to pursue this appeal before the Ontario
Municipal Board;
AND FURTHER THAT the Ontario Municipal Board and all parties and participants to the
hearing be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The appeal of the Township of Uxbridge Zoning By -law 2003 -064 by the Durham Conservation
Association (DCA) and the Save The Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition relate to a parcel
of land approximately 37 ha (90 acres) in size and located north of Highway 47, west of the 2nd
Concession and east of Regional Road 30, in the Township of Uxbridge. The subject lands and
the adjacent partly built -out phase 1 industrial subdivision are located in the Countryside Area
designation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation (ORMC) Plan . All parties and participants
now agree that the subdivision and zoning applications fall under the "transitional" provisions of
the ORMC Act, and so must be in conformity with the "prescribed provisions" of the ORMC
Plan. Sections 22 (2) and 26 (2) of the ORMC Plan, which prohibit development and site
alteration within Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHF) and Hydrologically Sensitive Features
11
(HSF) and their Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone (MVPZ), are two of the prescribed
provisions with which decisions made under the Planning Act must be in conformity. A small
wetland on the property has been identified on the provincial Oak Ridges Moraine mapping,
which the proponent intends to fill in. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff
previously requested the proponent to provide detailed, site - specific data to demonstrate what
ecological attributes and functions were associated with this wetland, to determine if it met the
provincial (draft) criteria to be considered a KNHF /HSF. Insufficient information was provided
by the proponent in their submission in the fall of 2003 to make this determination.
RATIONALE
A pre- hearing on this matter was convened by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on January
6, 2004, prior to staff being able to bring a report forward to the Watershed Management
Advisory Board. TRCA staff attended the pre- hearing to request party status at the hearing and
were granted party status by the OMB. The decision /order issued by the OMB after the
pre- hearing identified that the principal issue for the hearing was whether an area of the
proposed subdivision is to be a KNHF as a wetland and not developed. The OMB has
scheduled a seven day hearing on the matter, commencing March 23, 2004.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff is requesting the authorization of the Authority to retain legal counsel to argue that the
commencement of the OMB hearing is premature until the appropriate studies to address the
ecological issues have been completed and reviewed. Staff and retained legal counsel will
continue to work with the parties and participants to the hearing to resolve the outstanding
issues and will continue to represent the interests of the TRCA before the OMB.
Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361
For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361
Date: February 02, 2004
RES. #D7/04 - ASIAN LONGHORNED BEETLE (ALHB)
Status report on the survey and eradication efforts and Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) expenditures in regard to ALHB
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority continue to provide staff to assist in with field survey
requirements at a total estimated cost of $365,000, to be reimbursed by the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), to the end of 2004;
THAT staff continue to assist in the development and implementation of ALHB survey,
data collection and eradication protocols, on a cost recovery basis;
12
THAT staff be directed to identify potential TRCA properties that may be suitable for
temporary wood collection and disposal operations in advance of the Ministerial Order;
THAT staff be authorized to engage certified arboricultural contractor(s) to support the
timely completion of the host tree removal program as requested by CFIA, subject to the
conditions of TRCA's Purchasing Policy;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on progress made towards a tree replacement
program and implications for the TRCA.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In September, 2003, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency positively identified the first ALHB
infestation in Canada in the Steeles Avenue West and Weston Road industrial area of Toronto
and Vaughan. Subsequent to the identification, CFIA enlisted the aid of the TRCA, along with
other partners including the City of Toronto, City of Vaughan, the Regional Municipality of York,
the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR).
Immediately, the CFIA implemented a program of ground and aerial surveys to delimit the
extent of the infestation. These survey efforts further revealed four satellite infestations which
are found in the Thistletown residential area in the City of Toronto, the Ansley Grove and
Russet Way areas in Woodbridge, and the Beechwood Cemetery in Concord. To date, no
infestation has been found on TRCA properties.
The ALHB is a pest native to Asia (China, Korea and Japan) and has no known natural
predators or controls in North America. Infestations in New York (1996), Chicago (1998) and
New Jersey (2002) have resulted in the removal of thousands of infected trees and the
expenditure of more than $100 million dollars by the United States Department of Agriculture to
combat the ALHB outbreaks. The survey and control programs in these American cities are
ongoing.
The ALHB feeds on many broadleaf tree species common to the urban landscape and forests
found throughout Ontario. Known host species include maple (Acer), birch (Betula), elm (
U/mus), willow (Salix), horsechestnut (Aesculus), poplar (Populus), hackberry (Celtis) and
mountain ash (Sorbus). Recent surveys of the infestation zones indicate that these species
represent approximately 55% of all species on both public and privately -owned lands.
The eradication plan calls for a variety of actions within four zones: primary, secondary, tertiary
and protection. All host trees within the primary zone (infested) are to be removed and
chipped during the winter months. The secondary zone - defined as a 400 metre swath
surrounding the primary zone - is to be treated in the same manner. The tertiary zone - a
further 400 metre swath beyond the secondary zone - calls for the treatment or removal and
chipping of all known host trees. Treatment is defined as four years of successive annual
application of the chemical imidacloprid, together with ongoing annual surveys of all treated
trees to look for signs of ALHB activity (oviposition sites and /or exit holes). Treatment with
imidacloprid is not yet approved as the chemical is not registered for this use in Canada. An
application is currently before the Pesticide Management Review Agency (PMRA) seeking an
emergency registration. The protection zone is a further 800 -metre band surrounding the
tertiary zone in which survey of host species for signs of ALHB will be ongoing.
13
As a further measure to control the spread of ALHB, the CFIA may issue a Ministerial Order
2
placing a quarantine on affected woody materials in an area approximately 48 km with
boundaries as yet to be advised.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The TRCA continues to support the CFIA -led initiative with staffing to assist in the delimitation
and data collection surveys. Together with other partners and stakeholders, staff also
represent TRCA interests on the Operational and Communications Subcommittees. TRCA
staff, drawn from all sections of the TRCA, have been participating since September, 2003, and
have collectively expended more than 5,300 hours of staff time as of the end of 2003.
The federal government has acknowledged to its partners that it will reimburse all costs
associated with survey, removal and disposal of trees in full. Recently, the TRCA submitted its
2003 invoice to the CFIA for reimbursement of expenditures incurred in the survey effort,
totaling $105,953. For the period of January 01 to March 31, 2004, the CFIA has requested that
TRCA submit monthly invoices for reimbursement. Staff are seeking commitment from the
CFIA to be able to better quantify its committment for support of the survey, data collection and
removal programs and to be able to effectively and efficiently deploy staff resources to service
this and other TRCA programs and initiatives.
The CFIA eradication protocol calls for the removal of all known host species within the primary
and secondary zones of the main infestation area representing some 11,000 trees. These trees
are scheduled to be removed by spring 2004 in an effort to halt the spread and eradicate the
ALHB population. TRCA may be called upon to assist in the removal program to meet the
target timelines. As such, it may be necessary for staff to engage arboricultural contractor(s) to
aid in the timely completion of the required removals. Such expenditures would be eligible for
complete reimbursement by the federal government.
Should the Ministerial Order come into effect, there will be a need for temporary sites to be
established to deal with the quarantined wood generated from commercial arboricultural
practices, residential landscaping and homeowner yard waste from pruning. The partners are
now looking to identify potential sites that may serve as local collection points for the various
communities to properly dispose of quarantined materials, subject to whatever restrictions
would be placed on such activities by the Ministry of Environment under its solid waste
management mandate. TRCA may be requested to provide temporary collection sites in
support of the Order.
The CFIA has stated that the replacement and replanting of trees is not a mandated activity
under the Plant Protection Act, and as such, there is no funding available from the agency to
support tree replacement. The TRCA and its municipal and regional partners have initiated
discussions on the mechanisms and potential funding sources available to provide for a
replanting program. A meeting, hosted by TRCA, has been set for February 9, 2004, to begin
to explore partnership possibilities that may lead to positive results in this regard.
14
FUNDING DETAILS
All expenditures related to the TRCA's costs of involvement in the ALHB survey and control
program are tracked 'in account 116 -77. Regular invoices are prepared for reimbursement by
CFIA. The status of funding for the 2004 federal fiscal year is as yet under review.
Report prepared by: Dave Rogalsky, extension 5378
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Dena Lewis, extension 5225
Dave Rogalsky, extension 5378
Date: February 03, 2004
RES. #D8/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
MEANDER BELT WIDTH DELINEATION PROCEDURES
To adopt a standard Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
protocol for meander belt width delineation.
Gay Cowbourne
Michael Thompson
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report entitled "Belt Width
Delineation Procedures ", prepared by Parish Geomorphic Limited, be adopted as the
standard protocol for delineating the meander belt width of watercourses within the
jurisdiction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to undertake the preparation of a guidance
document for the application of meander belt width delineation principles, as well as
other guidelines and objectives of the TRCA and its partner agencies, in the design of
watercourse crossings.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The development of the Belt Width Delineation Procedures document was initiated by the
TRCA in 1999. The purpose of the project was to develop a standard protocol for the
delineation of meander belt width for watercourses within the TRCA jurisdiction. The
development of a standard, defensible methodology for determining meander belt width was
required to support the TRCA Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, which uses
meander belt width in defining stream corridors and in determining limits of development
adjacent to valley systems. The meander belt is defined as the area within which a
watercourse may be expected to migrate and change, as a result of fluvial processes. As
such, the meander belt width is a useful tool for planning purposes to predict the area that the
watercourse will likely occupy in the foreseeable future, thereby minimizing risk to safety,
property and infrastructure.
15
Parish Geomorphic Limited (PGL) was retained by the TRCA to develop a protocol, based on
principles of fluvial geomorphology, for delineating meander belt width. PGL conducted an
extensive literature review to assess the current state of scientific knowledge regarding
watercourse channel migration and meander belt development. Based on the results, PGL
developed technical procedures that allow delineation of the meander belt for a variety of
scenarios that would be encountered in the jurisdiction of the TRCA. These were circulated for
review to a number of notable academics and fluvial geomorphology consultants, as well as
TRCA staff, and the resulting feedback was integrated into final Belt Width Delineation
Procedures document.
The final Belt Width Delineation Procedures document prepared by PGL contains the following:
• Introduction to the purpose of delineating meander belts and their context for use in the
Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program
• Overview of fluvial processes and watercourse movement, including a definition of the
meander belt and a summary of the processes of meander formation and migration.
• Summary of materials, general methods and preparatory work required prior to
undertaking a meander belt delineation.
• Procedure for delineating meander belt width for general planning studies, such as
subwatershed studies, to represent the general area that the meander belt occupies within
a study area.
• Procedures for accurate meander belt delineation as a component of detailed planning
studies, to assist in establishing limits for development or determining appropriate
configuration of watercourse crossing structures. Sub - procedures which address the
conditions of altered hydrologic regime and channel alteration that are found in the GTA are
included.
RATIONALE
A primary application of meander belt width delineation is in the design of watercourse
crossing structures. The TRCA Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program requires
that structural abutments for crossing structures be located outside the meander belt width or
the 100 - erosion limit of a watercourse. There are also criteria imposed by the TRCA and other
agencies related to hydraulics, terrestrial ecology, fish passage, and navigability that affect the
design of crossing structures. However, a comprehensive list of these requirements is not
available. As a result, it is often unclear which criteria apply to a particular crossing, which has
led to extensive debate between the TRCA and proponents during the permitting process.
It is proposed that a Stream Crossing Design Guide be developed that will provide proponents
with a set of consistent, clearly defined criteria for the design of crossing structures within the
jurisdiction of the TRCA. The development of the document will be guided by a technical
steering committee consisting of representatives from the TRCA, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Ministry of Transportation, regional
and local municipalities, and the Urban Development Institute.
16
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The final Belt Width Delineation Procedures report is complete and the document is ready for
circulation upon approval. Copies of the report are available to Authority members upon
request.
The development of the Stream Crossing Design Guide will include the following tasks:
• Establish a technical steering committee to guide document development.
• Prepare a detailed Terms of Reference for the project with input from TRCA staff and the
technical steering committee.
• Retain a consultant to undertake the literature review and preparation of the
document.Develop and publish the document with review and input from the technical
steering committee.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
A request for $25,000 in funding from Fisheries and Oceans Canada for the development for
the Stream Crossing Design Guide has been made and final approval is pending.
Report prepared by: Ryan Ness, extension 5615
For Information contact: Ryan Ness, extension 5615
Date: February 02, 2004
RES. #D9/04 - AMENDMENT TO TERMS OF REFERENCE
Humber Watershed Alliance: 2004 - 2006 and Don Watershed
Regeneration Council: 2004 - 2006. Amendments to Section 3 of the
Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance and Don
Watershed Regeneration Council: 2004 -2006.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the following amendments be
made to Section 3.0 of the Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance: 2004 -
2006 and the Don Watershed Regeneration Council: 2004 - 2006:
i) the membership from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) outlined
in Section 3.1 be amended to read: "the Chair is Ex-officio"; and
ii) the subsection reference to 3.1.3 in the second paragraph of Section 3.6 be amended
to 3.3, such that the paragraph read: "Resignations may be filled based on the
recommendation of the selection committee as described in Item 3.3 above. ".
CARRIED
17
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance: 2004 - 2006 and the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council: 2004 - 2006, were approved through Resolution A289/03
and A290/03, respectively, at Authority Meeting #10/03, held on January 9, 2004. Interviews
will be conducted on March 29th and 30th, 2004, for positions on both watershed committees.
Authority members interested in participating in the interview process are asked to advise staff.
RATIONALE
It was determined after approval of the Terms of Reference documents that there existed an
incorrect reference to subsection 3.1.3, rather than 3.3, within Section 3.6. In terms of meeting
quorum requirements, it was also advised that having the Chair of the Authority as Ex- officio on
TRCA's watershed committees would be prudent. Given that the membership for the Humber
and Don committees has yet to be finalized, staff are recommending the amendments to the
membership section of the Terms of Reference for these two watershed committees be made
at this time.
The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition expires at the end of
2004, therefore staff are suggesting the change in membership be considered when drafting
the new Terms of Reference. The Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces have
completed their mandates and as such are not functioning watershed committees at this time.
The staff recommendations contained in this report will be considered in any future committees
established for these watersheds.
Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
Date: January 28, 2004
RES. #D10/04 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE NATURALIZATION AND
FLOOD PROTECTION OF THE LOWER DON RIVER
Additional members to be appointed to the Community Liaison
Committee for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection
Project.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the positions available to
community associations on the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) that were still
vacant by the time Resolution #A198/03 was approved at Authority meeting #7/03, be
filled with the community representatives listed in the staff report, to assist the TRCA and
consultants in reaching out and maintaining contact with community residents, groups,
associations and organizations;
18
THAT the CLC provide community input to the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project, as
required;
AND FURTHER THAT additional members of the public, as indicated in the staff report,
be appointed to the Community Liaison Committee.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority meeting #7/03, held on September 26, 2003, Res. #A198 /03 on the establishment
of a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood
Protection Project was approved as follows:
THAT a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) be established as per the requirements of
the Conservation Authority Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and
Erosion Control Projects, to assist the TRCA and consultants in reaching out and
maintaining contact with community residents, groups, associations and organizations,
and that the CLC provide community input to the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA), for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project, as
required;
THAT the Terms of Reference, including the membership be approved;
THAT any costs incurred by the TRCA in establishing the CLC be attributed to the Lower
Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project;
THAT Cynthia Wilkey, Ron Fletcher and John Wilson be thanked for assisting in
identifying members for the CLC;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Board as required on the final list of
members in October 2003.
CLC Membership
At that time, the following community associations and representatives were apppointed to the
CLC (please note, several associations had yet to appoint representatives to the CLC):
The Task Force to Bring Back the Don
Taddle Creek Initiative
Toronto Field Naturalists
Don Watershed Regeneration Council
West Don Lands Business Community
Toronto Cycling Committee
Queen- Broadview Village BIA
West Don Lands Committee
Mississauga's of New Credit
Corktown Residents and Business Association
Gooderham & Worts Neighbourhood Association
Distillery District (Cityscape)
Southeast Downtown Economic Redevelopment Initiative
19
Tija Dirks
Eduardo Sousa
Alan Marsh
Julie Beddoes
David Jackson
Frank Burns
Port Lands Partnership
Citizens for the Old Town
Regent Park Tenants
St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association
South Riverdale Revitalization Project
Councillor Pam McConnell, Toronto Centre - Rosedale, Ward 28
MPP George Smitherman, Toronto Centre - Rosedale, Riding 13
MP Bill Graham, Toronto Centre - Rosedale, Riding 13
Paul Young
Rollo Myers
George Millbrand
Reid Henry
NEW CLC APPOINTEES
The following people are recommended to represent those community associations which had
not appointed representatives in time for approval at Authority Meeting #7/03:
Don Watershed Regeneration Council
West Don Lands Business Community (Food Share)
Toronto Cycling Committee
Queen- Broadview Village BIA
West Don Lands Committee
Mississauga's of New Credit
Margaret Buchinger
Helene St. Jacques
Richard Nelson
Ron Fletcher
Suzanna Mill
Margaret Sault
Following the first public meeting for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection
Project on January 19, 2004, Mary Kelly of the Riverside Area Residents Association identified
that a representative for their association (Mr. Don Barnett) would like to participate on the
CLC. As such, TRCA staff request that the Authority approve the appointment to the CLC of:
Riverside Area Residents Association Mary Kelley
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
New members will be provided with all materials previously circulated.
Report prepared by: Ken Dion, extension 5230
For information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230
Date: February 11, 2004
20
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:47 a.m., on Friday, February 13, 2004.
Dave Ryan
Chair
/ks
Brian Denney
Secretary- Treasurer
c.
..-1-HE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/04
April 16, 2004
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/04, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, April 16, 2004. The Chair Dave Ryan,
called the meeting to order at 11:35 a.m.
PRESENT
Frank Dale Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Shelley Petrie Member
Dave Ryan Chair
Nancy Stewart Vice Chair
REGRETS
Gay Cowbourne Member
Cliff Jenkins Member
'Michael Thompson Member
RES. #D11 /04 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Nancy Stewart
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/04, held on February 13, 2004, be approved.
RES. #D12 /04 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
CARRIED
THAT a delegation by Sandy Agnew, Member, Black Creek Project, be added to the
agenda.
CARRIED
22
DELEGATIONS
(a) Sandy Agnew, Member, Black Creek Project, speaking in regards to item 7.6 -
Groundwater Needs for Golf Courses in Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
Jurisdiction.
RES. #D13 /04 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Nancy Stewart
THAT above -noted delegation (a) be heard and received.
PRESENTATIONS
(a)
CARRIED
A presentation by Juli Abouchar, Solicitor, Wilims & Shier Environmental Lawyers, in
regards to the Nutrient Management Act and source protection.
(b) A presentation by Dena Lewis, Planning Ecologist, TRCA, in regards to item 7.1 -
Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy.
RES. #D14 /04 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THAT above -noted presentations (a) and (b) be heard and received.
CORRESPONDENCE
(a)
CARRIED
A letter dated March 4, 2004 from John W. Campbell, President and CEO, Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, in regards to the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic
Habitat Restoration Strategy.
(b) An email dated April 15, 2004, from Madeleine McDowell, Chair, Humber Heritage
Committee, in regards to item 7.9 - York Peel Durham Toronto / Conservation
Authorities Moraine Coalition Groundwater Study.
23
RES. #D15/04 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Nancy Stewart
THAT above -noted correspondence (a) and (b) be received.
CARRIED
24
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
March 4, 2004
TORONTO WATERFRONT
Mr. Brian Denney. P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 1S4
Dear Brian:
RECEIVED
µAR 10 2004
Chief Admfafstrator's Office
Re: Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy
Thank you for sending us a copy of the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration
Strategy, and a copy of your Board's resolution A195/03 requesting endorsement
The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation has been pleased to be a participant in the
process to develop this strategy. The TWRC sees the benefits to the strategy and its potential
to contribute to an improved waterfront, and a streamlined approach to dealing with fisheries
Issues (hcluding approvals).
This strategy Is supportive of the TWRC's Initiatives to transform the waterfront.
I would like to convey our endorsement of the strategy, and our commitment to continue
working with you and the other stakeholders to realize its implementation.
Yours truly,
JWCJai
207 %WENS QUAY WEST, SUITE 822, TORONTO, OH, M5J 1A7 Td: 416.214.1344 Fax: 416414.4591 www.toweterf0nt.Ca
25
CORRESPONDENCE (B)
"Madeleine McDowell" <m.mcdowell @sympatico.ca> on 04/15/2004 12:34:02
PM
Please respond to "Madeleine McDowell" <m.mcdowell @sympatico.ca>
To: Kathy Stranks /MTRCA @MTRCA
cc:
Subject: Watershed Mgmnt Adv.Board Agenda item 7.9
The Chair and Members of the Board, April 15th, 2004.
Watershed Management Advisory Board,
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,
5 Shoreham Drive,
Downsview, Ontario, M3N 1S4
Dear Chairman Ryan:
re: agenda item 7.9
The paths of the glacial River from the Kirkfield period and of the Laurentian River are referred to in
Guidebook # 4 of the Geological Survey, Department of Mines, Ottawa, 1913.
The principal of their continued subterranean flow differs little from that of any spring, except in
volume. Their role in the water table and groundwater movement in the area between Georgian Bay and
Lake Ontario is overwhelming.
Their recent documentation through bore holes and seismic surveys is important. The flows of these
Rivers were equivalent to, or greater than that of the St. Clair River. Their continued existence is a piece
of hydrogeology that excites the imagination, recreating eons old geography, prior to the sculpting of the
Earth's surface by the last Glaciers. The groundwater flows of these aquifers do not follow the surface
watershed geography, but relates to Mother Earth's bedrock.
Tampering with these flows must be viewed with great alarm. The reference in the YPDT
Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition groundwater study status update, to the possibility or
probability of the Laurentian flow becoming an additional municipal groundwater resource for Caledon
East is most disturbing.
Engineered meddling with groundwater flows is a dangerous practice, which can express its self in the
water table, already stressed by development and urbanization.
Dry wells in the Lake Wilcox area have been a phenomenon for the last decade.
The interrelationship of surface watersheds and subterranean ones is a worthy study, only just
commencing. It relates closely to the dangers of the transport of water from one watershed to another,
which seems to be o direction under pursuit. The importance of the YDPT groundwater study cannot be
over estimated and, as I have written previously, my Committee is overjoyed by the project and its support
at many levels.
But the concept of the tap of modern plumbing attached to an ancient artesian source is infinitely
alarming to us. It should also be viewed in the context of the 100 year plan of the excellent Natural
Terrestrial Heritage Strategy.
Would you please ask staff to address this issue?
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours sincerely,
Madeleine McDowell,
Chair, Humber Heritage Committee.
26
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D16/04 - TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE STRATEGY
Presentation of the draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy for
review and comment by municipalities and other key stakeholders.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY 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.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
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.
Map 3 (included in the agenda package) in the Strategy shows the target Terrestrial Natural
Heritage System (TNHS), which is comprised of existing natural cover and potential natural
cover.
27
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
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.
28
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.
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.
29
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.
30
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 Tess 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
Map 3 shows the recommended target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System. It 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.
31
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
Watershed
Hectares
% of
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
32
Implementation of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy depends on securing,
protecting and ultimately restoring the land base identified on the map of the target system.
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. A summary of the strategic directions and implementation actions
is appended to this report.
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.
Report prepared by: Dena Lewis, extension 5225
For Information contact: Dena Lewis, extension 5225, Natalie Iwanycki, extension 5298
Date: April 1, 2004
Attachments: 2
33
Attachment 1
Means of Implementation for the Strategic Directions of the Terrestrial
Natural Heritage System Strategy
STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
IMPLEMENTATION METHODS
THE TARGET SYSTEM
Secure and protect the target Terrestrial
Natural Heritage System (TNHS) and use
these lands to protect and enhance regional
biodiversity.
• Policy 1
•Incorporation into regional and municipal OPs
•Update municipal plan review agreements to include TNHS
•Through PPS review and Greenbelt legislation
Integrate land use policies into municipal
planning documents and sustainable
community design.
•TRCA involvement in new OPs and OP reviews
•Cooperation with municipal partners to advance policy
beyond requirements of the PPS
•Update plan review agreements
Advocate firm urban growth boundaries that
will preserve the rural zone in perpetuity to
enhance matrix values in headwater areas.
•Participation in development/review of provincial
government policies influencing growth.
•Assist municipalities with growth management studies,
strategic directions, and ecological implications of growth
through science of watershed studies
Ensure that new and expanded
transportation, infrastructure, and utility
corridors minimize intrusion into the TNHS.
•Policy 9
•Development must be justified through an EA that has
regard for all policies and principles in the Strategy
Continue to support and implement the
protection /restoration policies of the ORMCP
and NEP.
•Work with ORM Stewardship Partnership Alliance to
coordinate and increase stewardship activities
•As agency in development review process
•Policy 2d (key natural heritage features and MVPZ cannot
be removed from the system)
• Policy 3 (development and site alteration not permitted
within minimum areas of influence or MVPZ described in
ORMCP if this distance is greater than that determined by
Natural Heritage Study (NHS)
Integrate the TNHS Strategy into current and
future land acquisition and securement
programs.
•The TNHS Strategy will be included in the Natural Heritage
Lands Protection and Acquisition Project when updated in
2006
LAND MANAGEMENT AND STEWARDSHIP
Restore lands within the target TNHS using
techniques outlined within the Natural
Heritage Restoration Plan Guidelines
(NHRPG).
•Policy 5 - removal of lands from the System subject to NHS
and NHRP
•Encourage land owners to naturalize /restore portions of
their property based on the guidelines in the NHRP
Integrate the TNHS into current private land
stewardship programs and develop new
programs.
•In cooperation with partners, develop seminars and /or
guides for realtors, developers, and residents living /working
in the target system, ORM, NE
•Work with ORM Stewardship Partnership Alliance to
coordinate stewardship activities
34
Complete management plans for all
TRCA -owned lands within the target system.
•Develop environmental management plans for municipally
managed TRCA property within the target TNHS
•Consider relocation of intensive recreation /municipal
activities outside the System and develop restoration plan
Promote restoration and land use
modifications on other publicly owned lands
in accordance with the NHRPG.
•On municipally managed TRCA property, review
management agreements with respect to Strategy
•Determine how existing /new municipal by -laws could be
used to better protect/manage lands within the System
Limit future recreational uses in the TNHS to
only those activities permitted in accordance
with the proposed land use policies.
• Intensive recreation activities should be considered for
relocation outside the System
• Policy 8g (low intensity recreation activities that are
permitted in the System)
Develop emergency response committee and
protocol to deal with biological and
non - biological threats.
•Begin discussions with Federal, Provincial, and Municipal
partners
OUTREACH
Strengthen current and develop new
partnerships.
•As lands are secured, explore partnership opportunities to
ensure the Tong -term protection and benefits to the System
•Improve agreements for municipally managed property
•Encourage municipalities, other public authorities, and
volunteers to participate in monitoring of conditions and
collection of data
Integrate the TNHS into existing educational
programs and develop new ones.
•Educate realtors, developers, and residents on the TNHS
Strategy and its importance to the Region
• Update current school programs to educate students on
landscape ecology and conservation biology issues with
respect to the Strategy
• Incorporate the key messages of the Strategy into the Living
City curriculum being developed by TRCA
Promote the TNHS approach to federal and
provincial agencies and NGOs.
•Advocate more effective protection of natural heritage in
provincial legislation and policies
•Engage watershed advocacy groups to lobby governments
to adopt the policies and fund the programs outlined in this
Strategy
• Involvement of the federal and provincial governments
through the EA process for transportation, infrastructure,
and utility developments
FUTURE WORK
Continue to conduct biological inventories
through watershed studies and other
programs.
• Use TRCA staff and volunteers to collect detailed site data
•Encourage public and private landowners to support data
collection through monetary support or studies of their own
•Use current science to improve data collection and
reporting
35
Use the TNHS Strategy to formulate recovery
plans for species and vegetation communities
at risk.
•Steps of the NHRP Guidelines aid the recovery of species
and veg. communities at risk
•Policy 7a,e, and f (permits flora and fauna management
within the target System)
Integrate aquatic and hydrologic systems
through the watershed planning process for a
complete Natural Heritage System.
•The watershed response model allows the evaluation of
different land use scenarios and recommendation of a
preferred alternative based on specific environmental
indicators
Regular monitoring and reporting on the
condition of the target System using the 2002
SOTE as baseline data.
•Conduct 5 year reviews to assess progress towards TNHS
Monitor the evolving science and
development of other natural heritage
programs to adapt current and develop new
indicators of the ecological integrity of
terrestrial natural heritage systems.
•Continue to form partnerships with universities to share
data, expertise, and research results to refine natural
heritage planning methodologies in the TRCA
•Through SCOCA and other CA natural heritage discussion
groups
•Monitor Natural Heritage planning conducted by other
agencies - locally, nationally, and internationally
Use the science behind the Strategy to
develop or improve best management
practices for human activities in the System.
•Promote the development of environmental farm plans for
farms within the System
•Develop guides that teach residents good environmental
stewardship and the importance of a systems approach
•Promote green roof technology in urban and urbanizing
zones
• Such as use of 3rd pipe infiltration systems
Continued cooperation with partners to
ensure the effective implementation of the
TNHS Strategy.
•Maintain current and develop new partnerships with public
agencies, the academic community, watershed advocacy
groups, public action groups, and NGOs
36
Z 1U8Wg3CAV
Terrestrial Natural Heritage
Target System
Legend Target Term-trial TN-RS Menuiuy Zama
•eniaa [in.min. N.Isnl tterN,be Srcea Wy, +.w:
11,LnCpt,Hm [ 1 wbrt 0 &n*t, _ Pa" igatfif Ulmkine Zara
to0.rr b _Cita r,,t th1a wNnm OAIWNiam.Exatpngai yee
weewm gaNs Paaal NaJ Carer Mal 2.i«
11,2 !.miry MIL 2000.
Crsted 0y:
Mfirnmim Servlw!
t.o-„m.en, T.cmalora.
e
onservatron
for The tieing Oro
RES. #D17/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
PROVINCIAL POLICY FOR SECONDARY USES IN HYDRO
CORRIDORS
Report on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA)
participation in the Provincial Secondary Land Use Program for Hydro
Corridors and application of TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System
Strategy (TNHSS) to identify priority hydro corridor lands for their
potential for biodiversity conservation and contribution to the Terrestrial
Natural Heritage System.
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMEDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT WHEREAS the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has developed watershed management
strategies for the Don River, Humber River, Duffins Creek and Etobicoke and Mimico
Creeks watersheds, including recommendations for the protection and restoration of
greenspace throughout TRCA's jurisdiction;
WHEREAS the TRCA has developed the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy
(TNHSS) that provides for an improved terrestrial natural heritage system for the TRCA
jurisdiction;
WHEREAS the TRCA supports and recognizes that hydro corridors are important public
assets used for transit facilities, trails, parks, wetlands and stormwater ponds, and
provide an excellent opportunity for achieving the natural cover targets identified in the
TRCA's TNHSS;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the TRCA advise the Minister of Municipal
Affairs (MMA) that TRCA supports, in principle, the province's agreement with Hydro One
to acquire hydro lands for public uses;
THAT the protection and restoration of the target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System, as
identified by the TRCA's TNHSS be recognized by the province as an important
secondary use for hydro corridor lands, and that this use be considered compatible with
the hierarchy of priorities established under the Provincial Secondary Land Use Program
(PSLUP);
THAT staff present the TNHSS to the Provincial Working Group, Greater Toronto Area
(GTA) hydro corridors working group and municipal working committees;
THAT surplus hydro lands be evaluated under the TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage
Approach for their potential for biodiversity conservation and contribution to the
Terrestrial Natural Heritage System;
THAT the provincial government be requested to transfer to TRCA, surplus lands
considered priority for their potential contribution to biodiversity conservation as
determined by the TRCA TNHSS;
38
THAT staff be authorized to assist the Regional Municipalities of York, Peel, Durham and
the City of Toronto, as they develop secondary use plans for priority public uses for
hydro corridor lands within their jurisdictions;
THAT the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Humber Watershed Alliance,
Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, Rouge Park Alliance and Duffins and Carruthers
Creek Watersheds Task Forces be notified and given the opportunity to provide input to
the municipal secondary use plans via TRCA representatives on the working groups and
committees;
AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA), Ontario Realty Corporation
(ORC), Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Hydro One and the Regional
Municipalities of York, Peel, Durham and the City of Toronto be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The province enacted Bill 58, Reliable Energy and the Consumer Protection Act, into law on
June 27, 2002. On December 31, 2002 the province proclaimed that Section 23 of the Act
come into force and, as such, resulted in the transfer of ownership of approximately 50,000
acres of hydro corridor lands owned by Hydro One Networks Inc (`Hydro One') to the province.
The purpose of this transfer was to protect corridor lands so that they remained available for
uses that benefit the public. Hydro One retains the primary right to use the corridor lands for
electricity transmission and distribution purposes in the form of a statutory easement, as well
as the ownership of buildings and structures on the corridor land. However, the ORC has been
designated to act on behalf of the province to carry out real estate activities associated with the
ongoing management and administration of these lands.
One of these activities is the establishment of acceptable secondary uses. These uses must be
compatible with the hydro corridor's primary use of electricity transmission and distribution.
The PSLUP establishes a hierarchy of priority secondary uses for hydro corridors, and it is the
responsibility of the ORC to implement the PSLUP by working with municipalities (through the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario) to review proposals for secondary uses of hydro
corridors. While the primary purpose of the hydro corridors is for transmitting electricity, the
province will continue to allow access for secondary uses including parks and trails, road
crossings, water and sewer pipelines and parking Tots for transit and commercial facilities
which do not interfere with the corridors' primary use. The provincial policy gives public uses
priority over private uses in corridor lands and public uses that are linear and rely on
contiguous land will have priority over those that are not linear or in need of contiguous land.
The PLSUP applies only to those lands previously owned by Hydro One and used for the
transmission of electricity. This program does not apply to other provincially -owned lands or
private lands over which Hydro One has an easement to run transmission lines.
ORC will manage the sale of surplus corridor lands on behalf of the province. Surplus corridor
lands will now be disposed of in the same manner as other provincial surplus properties.
39
The province is providing a two -year planning period for municipalities to identify potential
linear municipal uses on contiguous corridor lands and to ensure that appropriate official plan
and zoning designations are in place. New private uses will be permitted in hydro corridors
during the two -year planning period, but the province will require provincial and municipal
approval for such permissions to ensure that private uses do not preclude potential municipal
uses.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs, with participation from a lead group of ministries and other
stakeholders, including the ORC, the Ministry's of Transportation (MTO), Food and Agriculture,
Mines, Culture and Heritage, Infrastructure, Environment and Energy and Natural Resources
(MNR), and the Smart Growth Secretariat, is coordinating provincial interest. The province
plans to develop a 20 -year plan for secondary use of hydro corridors based on municipal
secondary use plans that are currently being developed by the Regional Municipalities of York,
Peel, Durham and the City of Toronto. Representatives of these municipalities are also
participating on a GTA Hydro Corridors Working Group led by the Regional Municipality of
Peel. TRCA currently participates on the City of Toronto's Hydro Corridors Working Group.
RATIONALE
In the Greater Toronto Area, the greatest value of hydro corridors for biodiversity is probably
their capacity to support populations of native meadow (vegetative communities of concern)
and associated fauna species of concern. The same is true for wetland habitats within hydro
corridors and the flora and fauna species of concern that depend on them.
Maintenance and access issues impose restrictions that may limit the conservation potential in
some hydro corridors. However, where appropriate, corridors could support natural areas
such as old field and successional habitats, tallgrass prairies and sand barrens, wet meadows,
marshes and thicket swamps.
Natural areas provide important services that should be considered along with other secondary
uses, and should not be considered as excluding other secondary uses. Similarly,
conservation of biodiversity through restoration of hydro corridor lands is not warranted in all
areas. Instead, it may be more beneficial for the goal of biodiversity conservation to relocate a
use from within a primarily natural area to under a hydro corridor, to allow for the restoration of
higher priority habitat areas occupied by an existing use.
Any secondary use for hydro corridors, especially when adjacent to high quality natural habitat
patches must consider potential management options to deal with potential negative impacts
that the use might have on high quality natural habitat.
In urban areas of the TRCA jurisdiction, hydro corridor lands are one of the last opportunities to
work towards achieving the targeted Terrestrial Natural Heritage System. How this is achieved
requires detailed area specific investigation and analysis. This could be accomplished through
dissemination of information and technology, and direct participation of TRCA staff in the
secondary use review process mandated by the province.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Staff participation in this program is covered by existing TRCA budgets.
40
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Circulate TRCA board recommendations to provincial ministries, municipalities and
agencies identified in this report.
• Present TRCA's TNHS to the City of Toronto Hydro Corridor's Working Group.
• Meet with GTA Hydro Corridor's Working Group and assist the Regional Municipalities of
Peel, York and Durham as required.
• Meet with the Provincial Working Committee and assist as required.
Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
Date: April 6, 2004
RES. #D18/04 - AJAX WATERFRONT TRAIL
Assessment of Priority Waterfront Development Initiatives, Region of
Durham. To report on the request by the Town of Ajax for financial
assistance with the proposed completion of the waterfront trail to the
Ajax- Whitby border.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Town of Ajax's proposal to
extend the waterfront trail to the Ajax - Whitby border be supported as a priority waterfront
initiative as outlined in the Ajax Waterfront Management Plan;
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) provide in -kind
regeneration components and /or a direct contribution if appropriate, at a cost not to
exceed $40,000, subject to final approval of the Durham Waterfront Capital Budget by the
Regional Municipality of Durham;
THAT TRCA explore funding opportunities in 2005/2006 fiscal years to support the Town
of Ajax's request for in the order of 25% funding participation in the waterfront trail
proposal;
AND FURTHER THAT the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Town of Ajax be so
advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On August 25, 1995, the Authority endorsed the new strategic direction and vision outlined in
the Ajax Waterfront Management Plan.
The waterfront vision is illustrated in the master plan design which:
41
1. elaborates on the waterfront trail link, education centre / wildlife station and boat launch
ramp in the Duffins Creek node;
2. included the Harwood Point node with a public building; open space and gardens; and
3. provides for public use and wetlands protection within the Carruther's Creek waterfront.
This plan highlighted:
1. waterfront trail linkages (i.e. diversity of trail experience - Pickering Beach);
2. land acquisition (i.e. few remaining private properties in 4.0 km of waterfront);
3. terrestrial / aquatic habitat regeneration (i.e. Duffins /Carruthers Creek Marsh and Pickering
Beach); and
4. public use opportunities (i.e. integration of Paradise Park with beach front)
On December 11, 2003, the Town of Ajax requested support for and involvement in the
completion of the Waterfront Trail to their eastern boundary. In this regard, at Authority
Meeting #10/03, held on January 9, 2004, Resolution #A279/03 was approved in part as
follows:
...AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report on the types of assistance that the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority can provide to the Town of Ajax on this
important initiative, including assessment of the priority of waterfront development
initiatives in the Region of Durham, relative to the availability of funding from the region
and other potential sources for waterfront projects.
The Town of Ajax has set a priority on completion of the waterfront and waterfront trail between
Pickering Beach Road and the Ajax- Whitby border (Attachment 1). This series of projects
includes the completion of the waterfront trail, the installation of interpretive signage discussing
Great Lakes and Coastal Marsh Ecology, landscape works for environmental rehabilitation and
the installation of observation platforms.
RATIONALE
The Town of Ajax sector of the Durham waterfront is strategically located within the Lake
Ontario Greenway, along the Lake Ontario waterfront trail, which spans 740 km from
Niagara -on- the -Lake to Brockville.
The waterfront revitalization initiatives in Durham Region, and more specifically over 30 years
on the Ajax waterfront, have contributed to a strong economy and communities in addition to a
clean and healthy environment.
The opportunity exists to realize the Ajax Waterfront vision of over 30 years ago with this priority
initiative from Pickering Beach Road to the Ajax- Whitby border. The other priority for Ajax is the
continuation of the marsh rehabilitation project in Duffin's Creek.
The area of Pickering Beach and Carruthers Creek has experienced significant residential
development in recent years. Improvements to the waterfront are critical and integral to the
evolution of Ajax and their neighbourhoods.
42
These works will also complete another Zink in the Lake Ontario Greenway promoted by the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust. This waterfront trail work will provide an opportunity to
celebrate the town's 50th anniversary in 2005, and the tradition of partnership (i.e. TRCA) in
building an outstanding waterfront. These works can be balanced with the Pickering waterfront
priorities for Rotary Frenchman's Bay West, Frenchman's Bay restoration initiatives and the
Rouge Gateway Trail improvements.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
To work with Ajax staff on the details, designs and phasing for this project. There is significant
opportunity to undertake most of the environmental regeneration, plantings and other projects
through the TRCA.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Town of Ajax has estimated the capital works at $834,700. In partnership with the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust, a successful application was made for Provincial Public
Infrastructure Funding (formerly Super Build Funding) for 30% of the capital costs.
Ajax has requested a TRCA partnership contribution in the order of 25 %. It is the staff
recommendation that we support a total contribution of $150,000 - $200,000. It is our opinion
that through TRCA in -kind contributions, that the value of the partnership would exceed the
above contribution range.
Subject to approval of the 2004 Durham Waterfront Capital Budget by the Region of Durham,
up to $40,000 will be made available for the project. Subsequent contributions in 2005 and
2006 will be explored by TRCA. To meet the partnership request, the Ajax component will be
incorporated into the future Durham waterfront multi -year project.
Report prepared by: Larry Field, extension 5243
For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243
Date: February 23, 2004
Attachments: 1
43
Attachment 1
it
'0,4 • L\ 00° ono,
•; • 1I0 Q l LAKESIDE
1� PICK RING BEACH J RANGE Ro
.
(I w
I* a mow ST , l i % - •
y PARADISE PARK ° �UNKAGE PARK �` •
i gyp.
•
1
�� 1
LAKE ONTARIO I/� CARRU1HERS CREEK VARS.i
44
RES. #D19/04 - RECEIPT OF A REQUEST FOR LAMPRICIDE APPLICATION ON
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY PROPERTY
BY FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA
Receipt of a request from Fisheries and Oceans Canada for application
of lampricide to control sea lamprey on Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority property in the Rouge River and Duffins Creek
watersheds.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT WHEREAS the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Fisheries and
Oceans Canada (DFO) for the application of lampricide to control sea lamprey on TRCA
property within the Rouge River and Duffins Creek watersheds;
WHEREAS it is in the best interest of the TRCA in furthering its fishery management
objectives to cooperate with DFO in this instance;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the TRCA enter into a license agreement with
DFO for the application of lampricide on TRCA properties in the Rouge River and Duffins
Creek watersheds;
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance be advised and requested to provide input into the
agreement;
AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take
whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the execution of any
documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as
agents to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, currently conduct a program of integrated pest
management in the Great Lakes to control sea lampreys. Sea lamprey control is a critical
fishery management action delivered to support the Fish Community Objectives developed by
the Lake Committees as part of the Strategic Plan for Great Lakes Fishery Management.
Control activities include application of the selective lampricides 3- trifluormethly -4- nitrophenol
(TFM) and Bayluscide to tributary streams, operation of low -head barrier dams, trapping of
spawning adult sea lampreys and release of sterile male sea lampreys.
Treatment of streams with the selective lampricide TFM commenced in 1958 on Lake Superior.
It has been successful in suppressing lamprey populations in the Great Lakes and remains the
primary means by which sea lamprey are controlled. In the past decade, the USFWS and FOC
have reduced the dependency on TFM through the development and implementation of
alternative controls, refinement of assessment procedures and improvement of application
techniques to more efficiently treat tributaries.
45
Lampricide treatments are systematically scheduled for tributaries harbouring sea lamprey
larvae to eliminate or reduce the populations of larvae before they recruit to the lake as
parasitic adults. Treatments have been conducted on Lake Ontario tributaries since 1971 and
approximately 20 streams in Ontario waters are currently treated on a 3 -5 year cycle.
Lampricide can be applied at a concentration that will selectively kill larval sea lampreys while
having little of no effect on stream dwelling bony fishes. The maximum concentration of
Iampricide applied is normally no greater than 1.5 times the concentration required to kill larval
sea lamprey. For most fish species this provides an adequate safety margin, however some
fish species are more sensitive to TFM and some mortality may occur immediately below
application sites where Iampricide concentrations are higher. The more susceptible species
tend to be smaller warm water fishes and include the stonecat, logperch, trout perch and some
minnow species. Fish that are stressed by spawning and other environmental factors are
occasionally affected.
Given the fact that one adult sea lamprey can destroy up to 20 kg of fish during the parasitic
phase of approximately 18 months, the benefits of treatment far exceed any negative impact of
incidental fish mortality during Iampricide applications.
Lampricides, as all pesticides sold or distributed in the United States and Canada, must be
registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Health Canada Pest
Management Regulatory Agency. Because of advances in scientific knowledge, the law
requires that pesticides undergo review to assure that they meet today's more stringent
requirements. Registration is based on scientific studies that show they can be used with
minimal risk to people or the environment. Since 1988, $6 million has been spent by the
governments of the United States and Canada to investigate the risk posed by lampricides to
the environment and human health.
The EPA and Health Canada have reviewed human health and environmental safety data for
lampricides, and in 2003 concluded that lampricides pose no unreasonable risk to the general
population and the environment. Further detailed information is available at the EPAs web site:
http : / /www.epa.gov.REDS /3082red.pdf
The following statements summarize the risk associated with exposures to Iampricide- treated
water. The public should consider this information when determining whether or not to use
water from, or recreate in, treated streams.
Water Use:
• irrigation - agricultural irrigators must turn off irrigation systems for 24 hrs during and
following treatment. Exposure to lampricides may slow growth of some broad -leaf
plants.
•' livestock and pets - there is no restriction for exposure of animals to Iampricide. In
laboratory studies animals exposed to 500 times typical treatment concentrations for
extended periods of time showed no adverse effects.
• domestic use - there is no restriction for domestic use of water containing lampricides.
Studies have estimated that a person would have to drink greater than 360 gallons of
water at one time to exhibit harmful affects. However, as with any pesticide, the public
is advised to use discretion and minimize unnecessary exposure.
46
• recreational use — there is no restriction for recreational use of waters containing
Iampricide. Studies have shown that no adverse effects result from contact with
lampricides at greater that 15,000 times typical treatment concentrations. Again, the
public is advised to use discretion and minimize unnecessary exposure.
Fish Consumption:
• there is no restriction for consumption of fish caught from treated waters.
• lampricides do not bioaccumulate and are readily eliminated from fish tissue.
• persons concerned about exposure should consider catch - and - release during
treatment times and for 24 hours after.
Sea lamprey control activities in TRCA's jurisdiction have historically included Iampricide
treatments of the Rouge River, Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek; and trapping of spawning
adult sea lampreys on the Humber River and Duffins Creek. Since 1971, 11 Iampricide
treatments have been conducted on Duffins Creek, 8 on the Rouge River and 1 on Carruthers
Creek. Currently, the Rouge River and Duffins Creek are on a regular treatment cycle. The
need for treatment on individual streams is determined by surveys designed to assess larval
sea lamprey growth rates, abundance and distribution between treatment cycles. A population
estimate conducted in 2003 suggests that the Rouge River currently contains approximately
37,000 larval sea lamprey, 4,400 of which are expected to migrate to Lake Ontario as parasites
in the fall of 2004. The amount (stretch) of stream requiring treatment tends to be quite
variable and prior to treatment start-up, information on physical, chemical and biological
stream characteristics must be gathered to develop a treatment strategy and establish
Iampricide application parameters.
Pretreatment activities include the following:
• Set -up of a mobile laboratory to measure water chemistries and Iampricide
concentrations.
• Stream water chemistry is measured at a range of sites throughout the watershed to
determine toxicity levels to lampreys and non - target fish.
• Discharge measurements are conducted at critical sites to assist in calculation of
Iampricide application rates.
• Flow timing is examined (historical records or application of tracer dyes) to determine
start-up times for Iampricide applications and a schedule for monitoring Iampricide.
• Application sites are inspected to determine access routes and set up procedures for
application equipment.
• Sampling sites to monitor Iampricide concentrations are established and access routes
determined.
• Notification of riparian landowners where access is required.
Treatment activities include:
• Lampricide application for approximately 12 -14 hours to provide adequate exposure to
larval lampreys. Lampricide is applied and regulated by variable speed peristaltic
pumps.
47
• Monitoring lampricide concentrations hourly (measured to within 0.1 mg /I) at
predetermined sites and subsequent adjustment of application rates to maintain
desired lampricide concentrations. The mobile lab operators are constantly in contact
with application operators so that appropriate adjustment of application rates can be
made.
• On- stream monitoring of the effects of lampricide on larval sea lampreys and
non - target organisms includes collection of larval lampreys and non - targets.
RATIONALE
TRCA has worked closely with DFO in the past to control sea lamprey. Under a license
agreement DFO constructed, maintains and operates a physical barrier and lamprey tap on the
lower Duffins Creek. DFO also maintains and operates a sea lamprey trap on the lower
Humber River weir. However, there is no such agreement for access to TRCA property for
lampricide application. Given the need for regular lampricide treatments in the Rouge River
and Duffins Creek watersheds, staff are recommending a formal agreement for lampricide
application on TRCA's property be executed.
Duffins Creek was treated in 2003. In 2004, the Rouge River is scheduled for lampricide
application. This is to occur between June 9 -11, 2004 (alternatively May 18 -20, 2004) at
Steeles Avenue and at Meadowvale Avenue on the Main Rouge River and at Twyn Rivers Drive
on the Little Rouge Creek. Monitoring sites will be established at Steeles Avenue, Sewelis
Road, Meadowvale Avenue, Twyn Rivers Drive and Highway 2. The anticipated lampricide
concentration range is 6 - 7mg /L.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
As part of this agreement, TRCA will request formal notification by DFO for proposed
lampricide treatments on TRCA lands. As part of the overall notification process, DFO will send
information regarding the application to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the Rouge
Park and the City of Toronto. DFO will also obtain a permit to perform a water extermination
from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Furthermore, the public will be notified of the
application through an advertisement in the local media and signage at application and public
access sites. A similar notification process will be followed for applications in the Duffins Creek
watershed. The agreement will also include our standard save harmless and indemnification
clauses.
FUTURE BENEFITS / PROBLEMS
Sea lamprey management in the Great Lakes is a binational program. Reductions in control
may impact fish populations on the Canadian and United States sides of Lake Ontario.
Report prepared by: Jon Clayton, extension 5353, Ron Dewell extension 5245
For Information contact: Jon Clayton, extension 5353,
Date: March 12, 2004
48
RES. #D20/04 - ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE FORMATION
Formation of the Rouge Watershed Task Force and status of watershed
planning work.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue
working with the Rouge Watershed Task Force and other watershed partners on the
preparation of a watershed plan for the Rouge River watershed;
AND FURTHER THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force report back to the Authority in fall
2004 on its progress.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #5/03, held on June 27, 2003, Resolution #A129/03 was approved as
follows:
THAT the Rouge River Watershed Planning Study be initiated and undertaken in three
phases according to the general work program outlined in this report;
THAT in 2003 public /stakeholder input to the work program be obtained via reports to
the Rouge Park Alliance, meetings with municipal staff, and a community open house in
the fall and that the public /stakeholder involvement program for the remainder of the
study be confirmed at the end of Phase 1 (February 2004);
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back in fall, 2003 with a detailed work program and on
Phase 1 progress.
Rouge Watershed Task Force
At Authority Meeting #8/03, held on October 31, 2003, the Authority passed Resolution
#A223/03, which directed TRCA staff, in cooperation with Rouge Park staff, to proceed with the
formation of a Rouge Watershed Task Force, according to the membership and mandate
outlined in a Terms of Reference included with the staff report. The goal in establishing this
task force, as with similar advisory groups established in other Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) watersheds, is to provide a venue for all stakeholder groups to
work together in directing and having input to the development of the watershed plan.
As per the Authority's direction, letters were sent out in December, 2003 to watershed
municipalities and groups, inviting them to appoint a member and alternate to the task force. A
citizen application and selection process, as set out in the task force Terms of Reference, was
followed and completed in early March 2004. The resulting membership of the Rouge
Watershed Task Force to date is presented below:
49
Rouge Watershed Task Force Members and Alternates
Affiliation
Town of Markham
Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville
Town of Richmond Hill
City of Pickering
York Region
City of Toronto
Durham Region
Toronto Zoo
Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation
Aboriginal Community
Waterfront Regeneration Trust Corp.
Save the Rouge Valley System
Friends of the Rouge Watershed
Richmond Hill Naturalists
Rouge Valley Foundation
Milne Park Conservation Association
Agricultural Sector
Urban Development Institute
Golf Courses
Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario
Ontario Archaeological Society
Greater Toronto Airports Authority
Transport Canada
Environment Canada
Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans
Ministry of Agriculture & Food
Ministry of Culture
Ministry of Tourism and Recreation
Ministry of the Environment
Ministry of Municipal Affairs
Ministry of Natural Resources
Ministry of Transportation
Ontario Realty Corporation
Watershed Residents:
Markham
Pickering
Richmond Hill
Toronto
W h itch u rc h -S to uffvi l l e
50
Member/ Alternate Member
Frank Scarpitti/ George McKelvey
Clyde Smith/ Sue Sherban
Audrey Hollasch
Rick Johnson/ Tom Melymuk
Frank Scarpitti/ Jack Heath
Gay Cowbourne
David Ryan/ Alex Georgieff
Paul Harpley/ Cynthia Lee
Michael Scott
to be confirmed
Pauline Browes /Keith Laushway
Andre Flys
Jim Robb/ Tammy Chung
Natalie Helferty
Murray Johnston/ Del Fisher
Tupper Wheatley/ Michael Price
Terry O'Connor
David Charlton
Wendy Burgess /Jake Riekstins/Tim
Clarridge
*Peter White
to be confirmed
to be confirmed
Patricia Short-Galle
Rimi Kalinauskas
*Karen Ralph
Ray Valaitis
Chris Anderson
*Bob Far
Ellen Schmarje
Victor Doyle
Judi Orendorff/ John Pisapio
John Van Voorst/ April Marton
Gary Pringle
Lorne Smith
Bryan Buttigieg
David Tuley
Virginia Jones
Lionel Purcell
Rouge Park Alliance Chair Ron Christie
TRCA Chair Dick O'Brien
*Declined to participate fully as a task force member but will provide advice on specific issues
through a designated staff liaison.
The first meeting of the task force will take place on April 7, 2004, at which time a schedule of
meetings will be developed in consultation with the members. Efforts will be taken to avoid
conflicts with Rouge Park Alliance and TRCA meetings and to minimize the number of
meetings, while ensuring adequate and appropriate opportunities for meaningful engagement
of all partners.
At such time as TRCA establishes a Source Protection Planning Committee (SPPC), which is
expected to be a requirement of the anticipated source protection planning legislation, the
relationship between the SPPC and the Rouge Watershed Task Force will be clarified and the
task force Terms of Reference amended, as necessary.
Rouge Watershed Planning Process
The watershed planning process is divided into three phases, extending from March 2003 to
December 2005:
Phase 1 - Scoping and Characterization (March 2003 - May 2004)
Phase 2 - Analysis and Evaluation (March 2004 - December 2004)
Phase 3 - Plan Development (September 2004 - December 2005)
The scoping activities in Phase 1 are largely complete, and have resulted in the preparation of
a more detailed workplan that will be presented to the task force at their first meeting in April,
2004. The characterization studies will be reported in the form of a draft State of the Watershed
Report, which will be provided to the task force in May 2004 and circulated to municipal staff
for comment. In an effort to provide early, useable products from this study, the State of the
Watershed Report will incorporate a set of proposed watershed management goals, objectives
and associated targets. A rating of current watershed conditions will form a "report card" of
watershed health.
Modelling tools and data are in preparation to support the analysis of future anticipated
stresses on the watershed and potential management approaches. This work will take place
over the remainder of 2004.
Additional consultation with stakeholder and peer review groups on findings of the State of the
Watershed will take place in late spring 2004.
51
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the Rouge watershed planning studies in 2004 has been approved as part of the
York Region and City of Toronto capital budgets.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: March 26, 2004
RES. #D21 /04 - GROUNDWATER NEEDS FOR GOLF COURSES IN TORONTO AND
REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY'S JURISDICTION
Water Sources for Golf Course Irrigation.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Nancy Stewart
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT WHEREAS there are an
estimated one hundred and five golf courses in the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority's (TRCA) jurisdiction, of which, forty -four courses are currently using
groundwater and another twenty courses are considering the use of groundwater in the
future;
WHERAS new golf courses are entering into the planning process every year;
WHERAS the current informal protocol between TRCA and the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment (MOE) for reviewing Permits to Take Water is inefficient;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff continue to work with the MOE to develop
a formal protocol for water management at golf courses within the TRCA jurisdiction.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D22 /04
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Nancy Stewart
THAT the last paragraph of the main motion be amended to read:
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff continue to work with the MOE to develop
a formal protocol, including provision for public input, for water management at golf
courses within the TRCA jurisdiction.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
52
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #10/03 held on January 9, 2003, Resolution #A278/03 was approved, in
part, as follows:
... AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the possible number of golf courses within
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority jurisdiction which will be exploring the use of
groundwater to meet their future water needs.
Over the past year, TRCA staff have surveyed eighty -two of the estimated one hundred and five
golf courses currently operating in our jurisdiction. Based on extrapolation of the survey data,
combined with our existing Permit to Take Water (PTTW) files and discussions with golf course
planning consultants, we estimate that of the known courses in our jurisdiction:
• 55 are using surface water;
• 30 are using groundwater;
• 14 are using a combination of both surface water and groundwater, and
• 6 are using municipal water.
TRCA staff, together with the MOE, are involved in discussions with six golf courses which are
currently considering the use of groundwater. TRCA staff have also confirmed that another ten
to fifteen golf courses are considering use of groundwater in their future plans. These numbers
do not include new golf courses currently in the planning process.
RATIONALE
Staff anticipate that, over time, golf courses that are not using groundwater already will at least
consider the use of groundwater in the future. These changes may reduce the overall impacts
to surface water, but may add stress to the groundwater system. In addition, the complexity of
recent submissions has led to a very laborious review process. However, if TRCA and the MOE
were to develop a common protocol, and communicate this protocol with the golf courses, the
quality of submissions should increase, reviews will be more effective and efficient, and the
overall water resources will be better protected.
Although the TRCA and the MOE have been cooperating for several years regarding the
assessment of water takings for golf courses, we have not fully developed a formal protocol for
assessing such issues such as multi- sourcing of water supply, volume of water required, intake
methodology, low water response, irrigation system optimization (i.e., ability to water only
critical areas during periods of low water availability), and ongoing monitoring requirements.
TRCA staff recently presented the need for a formal protocol to the MOE, who are in favour of
working with TRCA to improve the process and are investigating potential funding
mechanisms.
Report prepared by: Donald Ford, extension 5369
For Information contact: Donald Ford, extension 5369
Date: March 24, 2004
53
RES. #D23/04 - IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK - A WATERSHED PLAN FOR
DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS CREEK
Approval to proceed with the implementation of A Watershed Plan for
Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT one member of the Watershed
Management Advisory Board and one member of the Sustainable Communities Board be
appointed to the Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group (DCWRG) to represent
the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA);
THAT TRCA staff work closely with municipal staff to assist in preparing their staff
reports to council in support of the implementation framework;
THAT other watershed residents and stewards be asked to consider opportunities to
implement the watershed plan, as part of, or in addition to, their existing programs;
THAT staff continue to consult with federal and provincial agencies, local and regional
municipalities and watershed residents to assign individuals to the DCWRG as outlined
in the implementation model;
THAT staff work closely with municipal and regional councils and staff to build capacity
within the local areas for the implementation of the watershed plan and to assist with the
recruitment of local residents and organizations for involvement;
THAT staff work with currently active local watershed residents and organizations to
create opportunities for further involvement and for consideration of opportunities to
implement the watershed plan, as part of, or in addition to, their existing activities and
programs;
THAT a report be submitted to the Authority identifying the proposed membership,
including the TRCA representation for formal approval;
THAT as defined by their Terms of Reference, the DCWRG report back twice a year to the
Watershed Management Advisory Board regarding the progress of implementing the
watershed plan;
AND FURTHER THAT the municipal clerks within the study area be so advised for the
information of their council.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #5/03, held on June 27, 2003, the Authority received A Watershed Plan for
Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek and adopted the plan as part of their plan input and review
process. At that time, staff requested the opportunity to consult with the watershed
municipalities to finalize a Terms of Reference for an "Implementation Team" and report back.
54
Unlike other watersheds in the TRCA's jurisdiction, a significant portion of the lands within
these two watersheds are in public ownership, are considered "healthy" as defined by the
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Area of Concern (AOC) and other standards, and have identifiable
local efforts underway in the various reaches. Based on these unique attributes, it was
determined that a new implementation model may be warranted.
In moving forward to implement the plan, TRCA retained Sue Cumming of Cumming and
Company to carry out independent stakeholder interviews to discuss various ways to put in
place an effective implementation strategy. Through the discussions a number of potential
scenarios were developed, and through over thirty stakeholder interviews and a full day
workshop session, the DCWRG model was developed.
The DCWRG is a strategic group of community -based watershed partners who will work with
TRCA towards resourcing the plan implementation through priority setting, advocacy,
stewardship and outreach, applied research and experimental management, and education
and science transfer. Membership of the DCWRG is intended to be representative of many
stakeholders and partners at the government and non - government levels, with opportunities
for residents and organizations to be involved in leading a particular function or in participating
through a project or ongoing activity. The DCWRG will work with local and regional
municipalities and watershed residents and organizations to build community capacity through
the creation of linkages with local initiatives and the recruitment of individuals and
organizations to assist with the implementation of the watershed plan.
In February 2004, the provincial government released a White Paper on Watershed Based
Source Protection Planning which includes the proposed actions to protect the quality of
Ontario's drinking water supplies. TRCA, through Conservation Ontario, has been actively
advocating a watershed -based approach to drinking water source protection. Mr. Justice
Dennis O'Connor led the Walkerton Commission of Inquiry. In the Part 2 report of this inquiry,
released May 2002, Justice O'Connor recommended that a watershed resource -based source
protection program be established as a part of a multi- barrier approach to drinking water
safety.
The province, in consultation with Conservation Ontario, is establishing "Watershed Regions"
for the purposes of timely and efficient delivery of source water protection plans. Although
discussions are ongoing, it appears that the Credit Valley, Toronto and Region and Central
Lake Ontario Conservation Authority's will be included as one Watershed Region for
administrative purposes. With this Watershed Region, source water protection plans will be
developed on a watershed basis.
The DCWRG will be requested to serve as an advisory group to TRCA in the development of a
source protection plan for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds.
The term of the DCWRG will coincide with the municipal council term, and as such will
commence in spring, 2004 and continue to November, 2006.
55
The DCWRG is comprised of a group of individuals from the federal and provincial
governments, local and regional municipalities, local watershed residents and organizations
who will collaborate on the following 6 key functions:
Advocacy and Networking
To build profile, advocate for, and seek commitment for, the implementation of the watershed
plan.
Funding and Resources
To facilitate ways and means of funding and resourcing the plan implementation.
Communication and Interface
To build awareness and keep all people informed about progress in Watershed Plan
implementation.
Stewardship and Outreach
To build capacity for implementation.
Education & Science Transfer
To educate and interpret scientific content of Watershed Management.
Applied Research / Experimental Research
To advance and promote the use of scientific knowledge of the watersheds and monitor
results.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Watershed municipalities will be taking reports forward to councils for appointments to the
Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group. Functional team members will be established
in consultation with watershed municipalities.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Provisions for these activities are provided through annual budget allocations.
Report prepared by: Gary Bowen, extension 5385
For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385
Date: April 7, 2004
Attachments: 1
56
Attachment 1
DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS CREEK
WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP
2004 - 2006
Goals, Membership, Organization and
Terms of Reference
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
April 2004
DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS
WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP
TERMS OF REFERENCE, GOALS, MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION
1.0 AUTHORITY DIRECTION
In October 2000, Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) launched a new vision -- The
Living City, a new kind of community where human settlement can flourish forever as part of
nature's beauty and diversity. The Living City is a broad vision that can be achieved with the
help of our partners and the community. The aim is to build a foundation of healthy rivers
and shorelines, regional biodiversity and sustainable communities.
In support of The Living City vision and building upon the experience gained from previous
watershed planning initiatives, TRCA advanced its community -based process and technical
approaches in the development of A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek.
At Authority Meeting #5/03, held on June 27, 2003, the Authority received A Watershed Plan
for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek and adopted the plan as part of TRCA's plan input
and review process. At that time, staff requested the opportunity to go back out and consult
with the watershed municipalities and key stakeholders to finalize a Terms of Reference for
an "Implementation Team" and report back to the Authority. The Duffins Carruthers
Watershed Resource Group (DCWRG), as defined in this Terms of Reference, is a result of
that consultation.
2.0 GOAL
The goal of the Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group is to work towards advocacy
and networking, funding and resources, communication and interface, stewardship and
outreach, education and science transfer and applied research /experimental design towards
the implementation of A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. The
DCWRG will work with local and regional municipalities and watershed residents and
organizations to build community capacity through support, direction and two -way
communication with existing local driven initiatives, and through the recruitment of other
individuals and organizations to assist with the implementation of the watershed plan.
3.0 MEMBERSHIP
Membership on the DCWRG is intended to be representative of the many stakeholders and
partners at the government and non - government levels, with opportunities for residents and
organizations to be involved in leading a particular function or in participating through a project
or ongoing activity.
The composition of the group includes the following representation and consist of
approximately 20 members under the following two headings:
58
Functional Team Members
Advocacy and Networking
Funding and Resources
Stewardship and Outreach
Communication and Interface
Education and Science Transfer
Applied Research
Partner Representatives
TRCA - Chair of the Authority, Ex Officio
- A member of the Sustainability Communities Board
- A member of the Watershed Management Advisory Board
- The Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Specialist
- Regional Municipality of York
- Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville
- Town of Markham
- Regional Municipality of Durham
- Township of Uxbridge
- City of Pickering
- Town of Ajax
- Federal Government
- Provincial Government
- Golf Course Industry
- Aggregate Producers
3.1 Locally Driven Initiatives
Many local initiatives are recognized within the study area and the individuals
leading these groups have been consulted regarding the structure of the
DCWRG. Rather than ask these group members to redirect their energy and
resources towards the DCWRG, they will continue with their work plans and be
supported in their efforts through the Functional Team Roles as outlined above.
TRCA staff and DCWRG will coordinate watershed actions with locally driven
initiatives to create opportunities for further involvement for mutual benefit.
The DCWRG will work with local and regional municipalities and watershed
residents and organizations to build community capacity through the creation of
linkages with local initiatives and the recruitment of individuals and organizations
to assist with the implementation of the watershed plan.
3.2 Appointment of Representatives
TRCA staff will request representation for the Authority members. Through the
ongoing consultative process, individuals have, and will continue to be,
approached regarding their roles as part of the Functional Team or Partner
representation.
59
3.2.1. Regional and Local Municipal Representatives
The regional and local municipalities will be requested by the TRCA to confirm
the participation of a council member to the Duffins Carruthers Watershed
Resource Group. A municipality may appoint a current Authority member. The
appointed member should represent an electoral ward within the Duffins or
Carruthers watersheds.
3.2.2. Federal and Provincial Representatives
Letters of invitation will be sent to the federal government (Environment Canada,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada) and the provincial
government (Ministries of Environment, Natural Resources and Agricultural and
Rural Affairs) requesting appointment of representatives.
3.2.3 Aggregate Producers
TRCA will request the Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario to appoint a
representative to the Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group.
3.2.4. Golf Course Industry
TRCA will request the golf course industry to appoint a representative to the
Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group.
3.2.5. Watershed Residents and Non Government Agencies
TRCA, in consultation with member municipalities, will identify candidates for the
functional team members to be ratified by the Authority.
3.3 Term of Appointment
The Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group roles, responsibilities and
representation will be reviewed on an ongoing basis. A formal review will take
place after a two -year term in 2006.
3.4 Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
The Chair and /or Vice -Chair will be elected by the Duffins Carruthers Watershed
Resource Group members. The Authority may appoint an interim chair until such
time that an election can be held. The TRCA staff representative on the DCWRG
will not be eligible to be Chair or Vice Chair.
3.5 Reporting Relationship
A DCWRG representative will report, at least on a semi - annual basis, on projects
and progress to the Watershed Management Advisory Board of TRCA.
4.0 RESOURCES AVAILABLE
4.1 TRCA Support
The TRCA will provide administrative and technical staff support for the DCWRG
as determined by the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Specialist and
budgets approved by the Authority.
60
4.2 Other Resources
Funding may be available for projects and activities based on available TRCA
funding. Watershed municipalities and partners will be encouraged to secure
other resources and partnerships for watershed projects and activities whenever
possible. In -kind or other support for projects and activities will be welcome
from businesses, industries, other government agencies, private foundations,
educational institutions and others in accordance with TRCA policies. In -kind or
other support will be coordinated with the assistance of The Conservation
Foundation of Greater Toronto, where appropriate.
5.0 COMPENSATION
DCWRG members will be eligible for travel expenses in accordance to the TRCA Travel
Expenses policy.
6.0 RULES OF CONDUCT
The DCWRG will adhere to the TRCA's Rules of Conduct.
7.0 RESPONSIBILITIES
7.1 Functional Areas
The DCWRG is a strategic group of watershed partners who work towards
implementing the watershed plan. They are the driving force in the model and
are comprised of partner representatives and six Functional Team Members
under the following headings:
7.1.1 Advocacy and Networking
Key Function: To build profile, advocate for, and seek commitment for,
the implementation of the watershed plan.
Sample Activities:
Keep the long term view and big picture at the forefront;
Keep it a priority;
Seek full endorsement and support politically;
Develop a Marketing Strategy.
7.1.2 Funding and Resources
Key Function: To facilitate ways and means of funding and resourcing
the plan implementation.
Sample Activities:
Explore opportunities to facilitate grants;
Where desirable coordinate applications for funding;
Identify and overcome barriers to resources;
Develop and implement a resource plan;
61
7.1.3 Communication and Interface
Key Function: To build awareness and keep all people informed about
progress in watershed plan implementation.
Sample Activities:
Link people to activities and projects;
Coordinate who's doing what, where (web, map, or
directory);
Develop and implement a communications plan.
7.1.4 Stewardship and Outreach
Key Function: To build capacity for implementation.
Sample Activities: Cultivate and acknowledge local champions;
Engage potential new players;
Outreach to environmental advisory committees.
7.1.5 Education and Science Transfer
Key Function: To educate and interpret scientific content of watershed
management.
Sample Activities:
Transfer latest knowledge about how watersheds work;
Move information between municipalities and
stakeholders;
Elevate scientific knowledge through seminars and
workshops.
7.1.6 Applied Research / Experimental Research
Key Function: To advance and promote the use of scientific knowledge
of the watersheds and monitor results.
Sample Activities:
Identify demonstration projects;
Monitor results;
Encourage senior governments, universities and colleges
to study the watersheds.
7.2 Ensure that the implementation of A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and
Carruthers Creek meets the requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan;
7.3 Serve as required as an advisory group to TRCA in the development of a source
protection plan for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek;
62
7.4 Work with the Town of Ajax and the TRCA to develop the planning area known
locally as A9 in accordance with the integrated resource management directions
outlined in the watershed plan;
7.5 Continue to work with the City of Pickering to apply A Watershed Plan for Duffins
Creek and Carruthers Creek in its municipal planning activities;
7.6 Continue to seek opportunities for Official Plan Amendments in support of the
policy changes required for full endorsement of the watershed plan;
7.7 Continue ongoing discussions with Transport Canada staff at the Pickering
Lands Site to ensure implementation is in line with the Green Space Master
Plan;
7.8 Advise the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) and Transport Canada on
the directions in the watershed plan studies relating to the proposed airport in
the Pickering lands;
7.9 Work with the Province of Ontario on planning for future development of the
Seaton Lands to ensure that the watershed plan goals, objectives and
recommendations are considered;
7.10 Support The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto and their delivery of
The Living City Campaign including healthy rivers and shorelines, regional
biodiversity, business excellence and sustainable communities;
7.11 Act as a united voice for addressing issues relevant to the municipal, provincial
and federal governments;
7.12 Provide a framework for meaningful community involvement in watershed
management;
7.13 Build capacity within the general community to deliver watershed management
products and services.
63
RES. #D24/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
LOWER DON RIVER WEST REMEDIAL FLOOD PROTECTION
PROJECT AND DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS
FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT
Project Updates - Fiscal Year 2003 -04.
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue with the
development of both the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project
(LDRW) and the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project
(DMNP), in concert with Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) activities
and funding availability.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Four priority projects were identified by the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation to
jumpstart the transformation of Toronto's unattractive and underdeveloped central waterfront
into a vibrant economic centre. This vision for a revitalized waterfront consists of prominent
cultural institutions, attractive parks and open spaces, and diverse and dynamic commercial
and residential communities. One of these priority projects identified that an environmental
assessment would be conducted to develop the best option to re- naturalize the mouth of the
Don River and to provide flood protection for the city's downtown core.
Flood protection for the lower Don River is a key component of Toronto's waterfront
revitalization. What's more, Toronto and Region Conservation has identified the lower Don River
as our number one priority for flood protection since 1980, due to the large population and
extensive infrastructure currently at risk to flooding.
TRCA is carrying out this priority project on behalf of the TWRC. Two undertakings, each
requiring a separate environmental assessment process, will be conducted to meet the
objectives for the Don Mouth Priority Project.
Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project
The LDRW Project will serve to remove approximately 210 hectares of land west of the Don
River from the regulatory flood plain. The natural, cultural, social and economic conditions of
the study area will be taken into account in eliminating the risk of flooding to this area.
The study for this project has been underway since May 2003 and will be completed by
October 15, 2004, the 50th anniversary of Hurricane Hazel. Between March 2003 and March
2004, the Notice of Intent was issued, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was
established, and after extensive review, proceeded to signing the delivery agreement with
Dillon Consulting for the LDRW Project.
64
Progress on the LDRW Project Environmental Assessment Process
Preliminary Studies
Three preliminary studies were initiated by the TRCA in March 2003. These studies will provide
background information for both the LDRW and the DMNP Projects. These projects include
the Lower Don River Environmental Assessment Aquatic Investigations, the Cultural Heritage
Study for the Lower Don River, and the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Study for the Lower Don
River.
Both the Terrestrial Natural Heritage and the Cultural Heritage Studies were completed in
January 2004 and are undergoing a review by members of the TAC and the Community
Liaison Committee (CLC).
The Aquatic Investigations Report was completed in March, 2004 and is currently undergoing
internal review by TRCA staff prior to distribution to the TAC and CLC.
Soils and Groundwater Characterization Study
The Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) was identified by the TWRC as the recipient agency to
conduct the soils and groundwater characterization study for the West Don Lands area, and to
provide comprehensive recommendations to address contaminated soils and groundwater
issues. ORC was originally scheduled to complete the review of past studies of the existing
conditions by mid -March and to initiate field operations to collect information where data gaps
in these past reports exist. Unfortunately, ORC and the TWRC have yet to sign a delivery
agreement as such Dillon was requested to conduct the gap analysis. A draft report has been
completed by Dillon and has recently undergone review by TRCA staff. ORC is, currently
developing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to conduct field data collection operations for this
area.
Hydraulic Modelling Study
Given Marshal Macklin Monaghan's (MMM) long involvement in hydraulic modeling activities in
the Lower Don, TRCA staff recommended that MMM should continue to provide this service for
both Lower Don projects as a cost savings measure. At Executive Meeting #8/03, held on
September 5, 2003, Resolution #B126/03 was approved allowing TRCA staff to retain MMM to
provide hydraulic modeling services for the LDRW Project at an upset cost of $20,000.00
excluding GST. MMM personnel have initiated their hydraulic studies by confirming the
existing baseline conditions and have started preliminary model runs of potential flood
protection measures.
Study Components being Conducted by Dillon Consulting
• Railway Corridor Study: A draft report of the existing railway operations and management
plans has been completed and TRCA staff have commented. The report will be submitted
to the TAC membership shortly for comment.
• Socioeconomic Study: Activities have been initiated. A report is anticipated by the end of
spring, 2004.
• West Nile Virus Study: This will be conducted in coordination with the evaluation of
alternatives.
• Developing Long -list of Alternatives: Completed. Undergoing preliminary evaluation of
alternatives to weed out options that cannot meet project objectives.
65
• Developing Evaluation Criteria: Draft criteria established. Still receiving comment for
refinement from TAC, CLC and public.
• Developing Short-list of Alternatives: Will be completed by mid - April, 2004.
Public Consultation
• Community Liaison Committee: At Authority Meeting #7/03, held on September 26, 2003,
Resolution #A198/03 was approved calling for the establishment of a Community Liaison
Committee. On November 26, 2003, CLC Meeting #1 was held to introduce the LDRW
Project to the committee members. CLC Meeting #2 was held on January 5, 2004, to
receive input from the CLC membership on the draft project newsletter, and to comment on
the proposed long -list of alternatives, the draft evaluation criteria, and the format of the first
Open House and Public Workshop that was scheduled for January 19, 2004. Members of
the CLC have received draft copies of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy and
the Cultural Heritage Study for review. The next CLC meeting is anticipated for April 20,
2004.
• Open House and Public Workshop Meetings: The first public meeting was held on January
19, 2004 at Metro Hall. More than 100 members of the public and agency staff attended
this meeting. The Open House component provided an opportunity for the public to read
about the LDRW Project and speak with TRCA staff and consultants on a one -to -one basis,
prior to the formal presentation. The formal presentation introduced the public to the
LDRW Project, provided a summary of the long -list of alternatives and evaluation criteria
being considered for the EA process, and invited the public to submit their own thoughts
on what should be done for the area. A meeting summary was compiled and will be placed
on the TRCA website shortly. The next Open House and Public Workshop Meeting is
scheduled for April 29, 2004.
• TRCA Environmental Assessment Website: A website has been placed online for the LDRW
Project. A link to this website is found at:
wvvw.trca.on.ca/water_protection/lower_don_ea.htm.
• Lower Don River West News: A project newsletter has been developed for the LDRW
Project. Edition One was distributed in January, 2004. Edition Two will be sent out shortly.
• West Don Lands Precinct Plans: The West Don Lands Precinct Planning Process is a TWRC
study that is moving in concert with the LDRW Project. TRCA staff and consultants have
been working closely with TWRC staff and the consultants for the West Don Lands Precinct
Plan to ensure that our EA and the planning process are coordinated to minimize
conflicting results, and to maximize improvements to the environment, minimize costs and
integrate land use opportunities.
66
Summary
The LDRW Project is scheduled for completion with the submission of the Class EA and
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) Environmental Screening Report on October
15, 2004, which is the 50th anniversary of Hurricane Hazel. Federal funding to the TWRC has
been a concern. However, the TWRC recognizes that this EA is a crucial component for
waterfront revitalization and has directed us to move forward cautiously with our project
activities until we receive more information on the status of Tong -term funding from the federal
government.
Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project
The DMNP Project will require detailed land -use planning and environmental studies to devise
the best solution to re- establish a natural, functioning wetland at the mouth of the Don River,
while providing flood protection to approximately 230 hectares of land south and east of the
existing Keating Channel. The consultant team selection process for this project began in
August, 2003, resulting the hiring of Gartner Lee Limited at Authority Meeting #2/04, held on
February 27, 2004. TRCA and Gartner Lee Limited are anticipated to sign a delivery agreement
for the DMNP Project later this spring (2004).
Summary
Upon signing of the Contribution Agreement between the TWRC and various levels of
government, Gartner Lee Limited will be authorized to commence with Stage 1 activities. Upon
a positive response to increase the Contribution Agreement from $2 million to $3 million, and
the receipt of provincial approval of the Individual EA Terms of Reference, Gartner Lee Limited
will be authorized to commence with Stage 2 activities of the Delivery Agreement.
Currently, the only other activities progressing with regards to the DMNP Project are the
drafting of the Delivery Agreement between Gartner Lee and TRCA, the DMNP Project website,
and meetings between TRCA staff and agencies involved in projects that will influence the
outcome of the DMNP Project (ie. East Bayfront Precinct Plan, Commissioners Park, Gardiner
Expressway, etc).
Report prepared by: Ken Dion, extension 5230
For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230
Date: March 25, 2004
RES. #D25/04 - YORK PEEL DURHAM TORONTO/ CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES
MORAINE COALITION GROUNDWATER STUDY
Status Update and 2004 Program. Update on status of tri- regional, York
Peel Durham Toronto (YPDT) and Conservation Authorities Moraine
Coalition (CAMC) groundwater initiatives and approval of initial YPDT
2004 budget components.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
67
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Conservation Authorities
Moraine Coalition (CAMC) staff be directed to implement the components of the 2004
work plan of the York -Peel- Durham - Toronto (YPDT) Groundwater Management Strategy
Study;
THAT an agreement be established with the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) to
provide ongoing geoscience services in 2004;
THAT an agreement be established with Earthfx Incorporated to continue to provide
ongoing modeling, database and website management services to the partner agencies;
AND FURTHER THAT staff extend an offer to the Planning and Public Works Committees
at the Regions of York, Peel, Durham and the City of Toronto, as well as the boards of the
partner conservation authorities, to make a formal presentation of the study progress.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The YPDT Groundwater Management Strategy Study was initiated in 2000 as a partnership
between the Regions of York, Peel and Durham, the City of Toronto and the associated six
conservation authorities (Credit Valley, Toronto Region, Lake Simcoe Region, Kawartha
Region, Ganaraska Region, and Central Lake Ontario) with a view to arriving at consistency in
groundwater management both from a technical, analytical perspective as well as from a policy
and management perspective. With similar goals and objectives, staff, acting on behalf of
CAMC, are also directing groundwater work across the entire Oak Ridges Moraine.
The joint YPDT /CAMC groundwater team referred to in this staff report is currently comprised
of three full time contract staff members, the hydrogeological and planning staff members from
the various partner agencies, as well as a core team of consultants from Earthfx Inc. and
Gerber Geosciences Inc. Project initiatives that are tied more closely to the interests of the four
municipal partners are part of the YPDT study and are approved through the TRCA, while
projects tied more closely to the overall moraine study are approved through Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority.
The YPDT /CAMC groundwater initiative continues to contribute insightful and practical
deliverables to the partner agencies. The key focus areas of the groundwater program
continue to be data management, geological understanding, numerical groundwater modeling
and policy development. A large part of the program's success has been the delivery of data
and tools at a practical level to partner agency staff and their consultants who are charged with
understanding the groundwater system for a variety of day to day issues.
The purpose of this report is to provide a brief update on the accomplishments of the
groundwater program in 2003 and to obtain support for the planned 2004 initiatives that the
YPDT Steering Committee has recommended at its December, 2003 and March, 2004
meetings. The YPDT Steering Committee is comprised of hydrogeological and planning staff
from the City of Toronto, Peel, Durham and York regions as well as the six associated
conservation authorities.
68
2003 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
2003 was a busy year for the YPDT and Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition
groundwater study programs. An annotated list of 2003 accomplishments is presented below:
• Conestoga Rovers Associates (CRA) baseflow report - this report summarizes the
baseflow measurement work that was approved by the TRCA in February, 2002 at meeting
#2/02). The study consisted of the measurement and analysis of about 300 low streamflow
measurements across York, Peel, Durham and Toronto. The YPDT committee reviewed the
draft report and had CRA finalize the report in late 2003. Final copies have been distributed
to the partner agencies.
• Modeling - the groundwater modeling studies progressed tremendously in 2003 with the
team making significant contributions to York Region, specifically for critical projects such
as the York Region deep trunk sewer project. The modeling effort has taken slightly longer
than expected partially due to several site specific projects that have distracted the
modeling team from completing the project and partially due to the complexities of
undertaking such a large -scale regional modeling project. The draft report is in circulation
with the staff and will be distributed to partner agencies in April, 2004.
• Website launch - in 2003 the YPDT pass -word protected website was set up for use by the
partner agencies. The website allows staff from the partner agencies to quickly retrieve and
analyze hydrological data from across the Oak Ridges Moraine area. The website directly
links to the extensive YPDT database. The website provides access to data in table, graph
and map format as well as access to a suite of over 2,000 scanned hydrogeological
reports.
• Beatty & Associates well record update study - this study was also approved by TRCA
in February 2002 at meeting #2/02 and consisted of the geographical locating and
recording of coordinates for nearly 6,000 water wells, which were then input to the
database.
• Caledon Seismic study - with support from the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) and the
GSC, the YPDT study undertook a seismic study in the Town of Caledon. The study was
designed to investigate a buried valley system that was first delineated in a borehole drilled
in 2002 by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (and supported financially through the
YPDT study). The seismic survey was successful in tracing the bedrock valley from Heart
Lake Road in the west through to Humber Station Road just west of Bolton. The valley
system is significant in that it conducts groundwater from the Credit River watershed into
the Humber River watershed and will have an influence on future water balance studies.
The valley is also significant in that it has a high likelihood of being able to supply additional
municipal groundwater resources to the community of Caledon East in Peel Region.
69
• High Park Borehole - with assistance from the City of Toronto, the YPDT study oversaw
the drilling of a strategic borehole in High Park in Toronto. The borehole was drilled as part
of the rehabilitation of two stormwater management ponds in the park. Based on the well
record for an old well drilled in the area, it was determined that a deep borehole in the area
would very likely intersect bedrock at a considerable depth allowing the sediment in the
bottom of the Laurentian Valley. The Laurentian Valley is thought to be a broad pre - glacial
channel that formerly connected Georgian Bay with Lake Ontario and which may have a
significant effect on both the local and regional groundwater systems. For example, it may
be transmitting significant quantities of groundwater from areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine
towards Lake Ontario. The borehole turned out to have tremendous artesian pressures
and initially flowed at an estimated rate of 2,000 to 4,000 litres per minute when the
confined aquifer was intersected at a depth of 40 m. The well had to be decommissioned
and was important in providing YPDT staff with a first glimpse of the hydrogeological
setting in this broad buried valley system.
• Rice Lake Borehole - with financial assistance from the OGS, the YPDT team oversaw the
drilling of another key strategic borehole in the vicinity of Centreton just south of Rice Lake.
The borehole location enabled the collection of key geological information in the east part
of the Oak Ridges Moraine where very little had previously existed. The well has also been
brought into the Provincial Monitoring Network as one of the Lower Trent Conservation
Authority's monitoring wells.
• Oak Ridges Moraine Fieldtrip - in cooperation with the GSC, the YPDT /CAMC team led a
successful field trip for staff from the partner agencies. The field trip allowed staff to visit a
number of geological /hydrogeological sites and gain an appreciation for the types of
groundwater flow systems that are operating on the moraine.
• Professional presentations /seminars - YPDT /CAMC team provided professional talks to
a variety of conferences during 2003:
• A.D. Latornell Conference (2 presentations);
• Joint Conference of the International Association of Hydrogeologists /Canadian
Geotechnical Society (4 presentations);
• MOE Threats Assessment Working Group (TAWG) as part of the province's source
water protection initiative;
• MOE Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch;
• LOROPON - Regional Long Range Planners of Ontario;
• Great Lakes Water Use Group.
• Schomberg seismic study - in cooperation with the OGS, the GSC and York Region, the
YPDT /CAMC team undertook a seismic survey in the vicinity of Schomberg to evaluate the
subsurface conditions in the Laurentian Valley. The data is currently being analysed,
however preliminary observations indicate that the survey was successful in delineating an
upper channel cut through the Newmarket Till aquitard as well as the deeper Laurentian
Channel.
70
• Summer student initiative — in cooperation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the
OGS, three summer students were retained under the joint supervision of YPDT /CAMC staff
to undertake office and field work with the goal of beginning to understand the groundwater
flow systems in Lower Trent Region, Nottawasaga Valley, and Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authority's. The data collected will prove valuable in the on -going calibration
of the numerical groundwater model.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Over the past few months the YPDT /CAMC team has been assessing the progress of both the
modeling study and the database project, both being undertaken by Earthfx Inc. Over 2003,
the modeling project has received accolades from a number of key internationally known
groundwater researchers including Dr. Frank Schwartz from the University of Ohio and Dr.
Alfonso Rivera from the Geological Survey of Canada. The database project is also
progressing well. The Regions of Peel and York have made extensive use of the database and
Earthfx staff continues to build on the framework that was assembled in 2003. Given the
successes that the partner agencies are having with these projects, staff recommends that the
modeling and the linked database project both be funded through 2004 to build on the
successes that have been achieved to date. Key aspects of the 2004 work include:
• a move to create a public component of the website where the public will be able to obtain
background material on the project;
• expansion of the "core" (100x100 metre grid) model eastward to include watersheds up to
the Ganaraska River, thereby incorporating all of Durham Region into the model;
• expansion of the model westward to incorporate the Credit River watershed, thereby
incorporating all of Peel Region into the model;
• the incorporation of a soil moisture water budgeting routine into the groundwater modeling
environment so that the estimates of groundwater recharge can be improved;
• the "cookie cutting" of specific watersheds out of the regional model so that agency staff
will have the ability to run various land use and climate change scenarios through the
model to evaluate impacts on stream flow and the overall groundwater flow system.
From 2001 through 2003 the YPDT /CAMC team has fostered and established a close working
partnership with the GSC. The GSC is nearing completion of their work on the Oak Ridges
Moraine; however Dr. Dave Sharpe and his colleagues from the GSC continue to meet with the
YPDT /CAMC team to provide their expertise pertaining to the geological and hydrogeological
setting in the Oak Ridges Moraine area. There continues to be internal pressure within the
GSC for having their staff focus on other areas across Canada, however in 2004 they remain
willing to make some of Dr. Sharpe's time available to the YPDT /CAMC team provided there is
some level of financial support. The YPDT steering committee has determined that this is a
priority for the study during 2004 and recommends that $50,000 be reserved and directed to
the GSC once an agreement is reached.
71
SUMMARY
The - York -Peel- Durham Toronto Groundwater Management Strategy study is an example of a
successful partnership initiative between the federal government, the province, municipalities
and conservation authorities. Through the initiative, the partner agencies have managed to
capitalize on the economies of scale to each agency's benefit by undertaking collective
initiatives only once rather than taking different approaches at each agency. The Oak Ridges
Moraine provides a common physiographic Zink to all of the partner agencies.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The initiatives described above can be implemented within the current 2004 budget for YPDT
study. No agreements will be signed with consultants or partner agencies until the finances
coming from the City of Toronto and York, Peel and Durham Regions are in place and the
appropriate approvals have been obtained from the Executive Committee.
Report prepared by: Steve Holysh, 905 - 336 -1158, extension 246
For Information contact: Steve Holysh, 905 - 336 -1158, extension 246
Don Ford, extension 5369
Date: April 06, 2004
RES. #D26/04 - THE CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION
PROJECT
Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, City of Toronto. To implement
shoreline improvements for the Fishleigh Drive sector of the Scarborough
Bluffs, City of Toronto
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
the 2004 construction program for the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Projects, at a cost
not to exceed $410,000 including GST.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project was approved under the Class Environmental
Assessment process in 1988. Construction of shoreline protection works commenced in 1990
and continued through to 1998. 375 metres of armour stone revetment was constructed
protecting 28 residential homes from erosion within this sector.
During 2001 W.F. Baird & Associates, Coastal Engineers, were retained to complete the final
design for 350 metres of shoreline at the west end of the sector. The final design received
includes the construction of four rock mound groynes and an armour stone revetment.
72
During 2003, staff obtained all necessary approvals for the construction of this phase of the
project. In 2003, three rock mound groynes were constructed along with approximately 60% of
the armour stone revetment. Negotiations with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) are
ongoing to complete the fisheries compensation plan to be incorporated into the project.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
During 2004 it is proposed to construct the fourth groyne and complete the armour stone
revetment as per W.F. Baird & Associates, Coastal Engineers final design. We will also
construct fisheries compensation structures as required by the DFO. As part of the project, the
creation ofscobble beaches between the groyne fields will also be constructed. Construction
and supervision will be carried out by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) field
staff utilizing the annual heavy equipment supply contractor. Environmental monitoring will
include fisheries and benthos surveys and substrate analysis to document any changes to the
aquatic environment. Monitoring of bluffs erosion and lakefill quality will be ongoing.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total cost of this project is $410,000 including GST, and funds are available in City of
Toronto capital budget, Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 2002 -2006.
Report prepared by: Joe DeIIe Fave, 416- 392 -9724
For Information contact: Joe DeIIe Fave, 416 - 392 -9724
Date: April 01, 2004
RES. #D27/04 - COATSWORTH CUT EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE DREDGING
Implementation of emergency maintenance dredging at Coatsworth Cut,
City of Toronto.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
emergency maintenance dredging of Coatsworth Cut at Ashbridge's Bay, City of Toronto,
at a cost not to exceed $150,000, including GST.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Coatsworth Cut is located in a sediment deposition zone. On -going maintenance dredging is
required on a regular basis to maintain a safe and navigable channel for use by the public,
local boating clubs and to provide for emergency access, as required. Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority staff are continuing to investigate options for a long term solution to
address this problem.
73
Maintenance channel dredging was undertaken in 2002 by the Toronto Port Authority with the
removal of approximately 3,500 cubic metres of the proposed 6000 cubic metres of materials
to be dredged. The balance of the work was not completed due to scheduling conflicts and
equipment breakdown. Dredging was undertaken again in 2003 to complete the removal of
the outstanding balance of material from 2002 and additional deposition, which occurred in
2002/2003. The total in -situ volume of material dredged in 2003 was approximately 9,000 cubic
metres. Due to the volume of siltation within this area on an annual basis, staff recommend
undertaking additional dredging of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic metres in 2004 to
maintain continued navigation for the upcoming season.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Maintenance dredging of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic metres from the navigation
channel using a water base operation will be conducted. The dredged material will be loaded
onto flat deck barges and off - loaded on shore for final disposal off site. Dredging operations
are tentatively scheduled to start in July 2004 with an expected duration of one month to
complete the work.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total estimated cost for this work is $150,000, including GST. Funds for this project are
available in the proposed 2004 capital budget.
Report prepared by: Mark Preston, 416- 392 -9722
For Information contact: Mark Preston, 416- 392 -9722
Date: April 01, 2004
RES. #D28/04 - 55 VAN DUSEN BOULEVARD BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT
Implementation of stream bank stabilization works at 55 Van Dusen
Boulevard,City of Toronto.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
the completion of the proposed stream bank stabilization project at 55 Van Dusen
Boulvard, at a cost not to exceed $68,000 including GST.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Staff were contacted by the resident at 55 Van Dusen Boulvard to inspect an on -going stream
bank erosion problem in the Mimico Creek adjacent to this property and immediately south of
Van Dusen Boulevard, in the City of Toronto. Based on site inspections staff recommended
that erosion protection work be undertaken only along the east bank of the Mimico Creek.
74
Subsequent to discussions with the owner of 55 Van Dusen Boulevard, Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) Property and Asset Management staff prepared an agreement
to undertake the remedial works. The agreement entails the transfer of ownership of a portion
of the property to the TRCA which includes the newly constructed erosion protection, in return
for the implementation of the stream bank protection along the east bank (west property limit)
of the Mimico Creek.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The erosion protection will consist of a stepped two -metre high armour stone wall. Additional
work will include: the placement of fieldstone at the toe of the wall to enhance fish habitat; the
installation of residential fencing at the top of bank; and final site restoration and planting.
Construction is to be completed by the end of April 2004.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total estimated cost for this work is $68,000 including GST. Funds are available for this
project from a grant from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and special funding from
the City of Toronto.
Report prepared by: Mark Preston, 416 - 392 -9722
For Information contact: Mark Preston, 416 - 392 -91722
Date: April 01, 2004
RES. #D29/04 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Appointment of Members. The formal appointment of watershed
residents, municipal and public agency representatives, representatives
from community groups, business and business organizations and
academic institutions.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance
appointments, as set out in the staff report, be approved.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December, 2003, were
approved through Resolution #A289/03 at Authority meeting #10/03, held on January 9, 2004.
The term of appointment for the members follow the approved Terms of Reference, as stated
below:
75
"3.6 Term of Appointment
Municipalities and other public agencies will be requested to appoint thei
rrepresentatives for the three -year period coincident with the three -year term of
municipal councillors. All other members will be appointed for a two -year period with
the provision for a one -year renewal without reapplication. Membership will be reviewed
on an annual basis. Members unable to fulfill their commitments will be replaced
normally at that time by the TRCA based on the nominees recommended by Authority
members, other Humber Watershed Alliance members and TRCA senior staff."
The opportunity for membership on the Humber Watershed Alliance was advertised throughout
the Humber watershed in community newspapers and posted on various websites. As well,
letters were sent to regional and local municipalities, the City of Toronto, public agencies,
community groups, businesses and business organizations, and academic institutions
requesting that they appoint delegates to the Humber Watershed Alliance. Two public
information sessions were held in strategic locations within the watershed.
Fourteen applications were received from new resident members, and sixteen came from past
resident members of the Humber Watershed Alliance wishing to re- apply. After careful
consideration, 26 applicants were chosen to serve as resident members of the Humber
Watershed Alliance. The Selection Committee consisted of Nancy Stewart, member of the
Watershed Management Advisory Board and Authority; Adele Freeman, Acting Director,
Watershed Management Division; and Gary Wilkins, Humber Watershed Specialist.
To date, the following individuals are recommended for appointment to the Humber Watershed
Alliance. Additional appointments will be brought to the attention of the Authority members for
approval once they are confirmed by their respective councils, business associations, agencies
and groups.
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEMBERSHIP 2004 -2006
Member Dick O'Brien, Chair of the Authorit , ex- officio
t/S e �� ♦�:E {: fix, i.: .. SG ''�;
Townshi." ofAd ala Tosiolontio
Member
Councillor Bill Boston
Alternate
Bill Fox
C' !6f Bram • tori
Member
Councillor John S•rovieri
Town, of Caledoh
Member
Councillor Gar Moore
Townshi• ;of'K in' � >=w.�yA ,,,\ _t
t`4e`�" >£`.�` , cF $ �
Member Ma Ma or Mar•aret Black
Member
Councillor Jane Underhill
Alternate
Gaspare Ritacca
Town of:Moho ..����, ��.��K. �y.
Member
Councillor Brenda Fowler
Re • ional Munici • ali of -Peel: .,
Member
Councillor Nanc Stewart
76
Alternate
(Andrea Warren
Town of Richmond Hill
Member
Councillor Vito Spatafora
Alternate
Dan Olding
Alternate
Tracy Steele
Alternate
Audrey Hollasch
Alternate
Kelvin Kwan
Alternate
David Collinson
City of Toronto
Member - Toronto N.
To be confirmed
Member - Toronto S.
To be confirmed
Member - Toronto W.
To be confirmed
City of Vaughan
Member
Councillor Tony Carella
Alternate
Councillor Bernie DiVona
Regional Municipality of York
Member
Councillor Linda Jackson
Alternate
Barbara Jeffrey
Environment Canada
Member
ITo be confirmed
Ontario Ministry of Culture
Member [To be confirmed
Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation
Member ITo be confirmed
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Member ITo be confirmed
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Member IRay
Valaitis Sassociate)
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Member [Ellen Schmarjelassociate)
BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
Member [Randall Reid, Etobicoke Chamber of Commerce
ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
Member
Bob Giza, Chaminade College School
Member
Richard McKnight, St. Basil the Great College School
Member
Brendan O'Hara, Don Bosco College Secondary
School
Member
Anyika Tafari, Umoja Learning Circle
Member
Judith Limkilde, Seneca College, King Campus
Member
Lynn Short, Toronto District School Board
COMMUNITY GROUPS
Action to Restore a Clean Humber
Member 'Luciano Martin
Black Creek Project
Member
Sandy Agnew
Alternate
Steve Joudrey
Friends of Claireville
77
Member
(John Willetts
Jane Goodall Institute - Roots and Shoots
Member
Michael Galli
Alternate
Michele Martin
Humber Arboretum
Member !Carol Ray
Humber Heritage Committee
Member
Mary Louise Ashbourne
Alternate
Joan Miles
Ontario Streams
Member THorst Truttenbach
Richmond Hill Naturalists
Member [George lvanoff
Save the Oak Ridges Moraine
Member . [To be confirmed
Trout Unlimited
Member . - (Len Yust
York Soil & Crop Improvement Association
Member [Hugh Mitchell
CITIZEN MEMBERS
Richard Whitehead
Town of Caledon
Bill Wilson
Town of Caledon
Harry Baker .
Town of Mono
Joanne Nonnekes
City of Vaughan
Deb Schulte
City of Vaughan
Ian Gray
City of Vaughan
lain Craig
City of Vaughan
Peter Telford
City of Toronto
Elaine Heaton
City of Toronto
Royce Fu
City of Toronto
Alyson Hazlett
City of Toronto
Lois Griffin
City of Toronto
Krisann Graf
City of Toronto
Arthur Mittermaier
City of Toronto
Miriam Mittermaier
City of Toronto
David Hutcheon
City of Toronto
Fernando Rouaux
City of Toronto
Madeleine McDowell
City of Toronto
Ron Hingston
Township of King
Lynda Rogers
Township of King
Yamile Rijo
Township of King
Aaron Fox
City of Brampton
Dianne Douglas
City of Mississauga
Yvette Fournier
City of Mississauga
Sharon Bradley
Town of Richmond Hill
Jim Bradley
Town of Richmond Hill
Kathrine Mabley
Town of Richmond Hill
78
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Confirm the remaining members of the Humber Watershed Alliance;
• Schedule and host the first meeting in May, 2004;
• Schedule an orientation bus tour of the watershed, in June 2004, for interested members.
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: March 31, 2004
RES. #D30/04 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL 2004 -2006
Appointment of Members. The formal appointment of watershed
residents, municipal and public agency representatives, representatives
from community groups, business and business organizations and
academic institutions.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council appointments, as set out in the staff report be approved.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council: 2004 -2006 were
approved through Resolution #A290/03 at Authority Meeting #10/03 held on January 9, 2004.
The Term of Appointment for the members follow the approved Terms of Reference, as stated
below:
"3.6 Term of Appointment
Municipalities and other public agencies will be requested to appoint their
representatives for the three -year period coincident with the three -year term of municipal
councillors. All other members will be appointed for a two -year period with the provision
for a one-year renewal without reapplication. Membership will be reviewed on an annual
basis. Members unable to fulfill their commitments will be replaced normally at that time
by the TRCA based on the nominees recommended by Authority members, other Don
Watershed Council members and TRCA senior staff."
The opportunity for membership on the Don Watershed Regeneration Council was advertised
throughout the Don watershed in community newspapers, through the Sustainability Network
and H2Inf0 - The Water Information Network's electronic newsletters, on the Toronto and
Region Conservation (TRCA) website, through the release of a Public Service Announcement
and through letters advising Don Watershed Regeneration Council members and others that
applications were being sought. A public meeting was held to provide potential applicants with
an introduction to the TRCA and the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council.
79
Fourteen applications were received from new members and thirteen applications came from
past members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council wishing to re- apply. After careful
consideration, 19 applicants were chosen to serve as citizen members of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council. The Selection Committee consisted of Councillor Nancy Stewart,
member of the Watershed Management Advisory Board and Authority; Adele Freeman, Acting
Director, Watershed Management Division; and Gary Wilkins, Humber Watershed Specialist.
The TRCA was contacted by Mr. Eli Garrett on behalf of Trout Unlimited Canada. He
expressed his interest in starting a Don chapter of Trout Unlimited. Mr. Garrett has been added
to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council as a representative of Trout Unlimited Canada
under the Community Groups category. Additionally, the TRCA has added Mr. Glen Abuja as
a representative of Mountain Equipment Co -op under the Don Watershed Business /Business
Organization category and Dr. Carmela Canzonieri, Professor, Environmental Planning &
Design, York University under the Academic Institutions category.
To date, the following individuals are recommended for appointment to the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council. Additional appointments will be brought to the attention of the Authority
members for approval once they are confirmed by their respective councils, business
associations, agencies and groups.
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
TRCA
Member
Dick O'Brien, Chair of the Authority, ex- officio
MUNICIPAL & REGIONAL STAFF
City of Toronto
Member - Toronto N.
To Be Confirmed - April 15, 2004
Member - Toronto S.
To Be Confirmed- April 15, 2004
Member - Toronto E.
To Be Confirmed - April 15, 2004
Liaison
To Be Confirmed - April 15, 2004
Region of York
Member
Brenda Hogg, Regional Councillor
Liaison
Barbara Jeffrey, Planning and Development Services Department
Town of Markham
Member
Erin Shapero, Councillor
Liaison
To Be Confirmed
Town of Richmond Hill
Member
Brenda Hogg, Regional & Local Councillor
Liaison
Jeff Walters, Engineering & Public Works Department
Liaison
Tracey Steele, Parks, Recreation & Culture Department
Alternate
Audrey Hollasch, Parks, Recreation & Culture Department
Liaison
Kelvin Kwan, Planning & Development Department
Alternate
David Collinson, Planning & Development Department
City of Vaughan
Member
Sandra Yeung Racco, Councillor
Alternate
Peter Meffe, Councillor
Liaison
Marlon Kallideen, Commissioner, Community Services
80
Environment Canada
Member
Carolyn O'Neill, Restoration Programs Division
Alternate
Rimi Kalinauskas, Restoration Programs Division
Ministry of the Environment
Member (Corresponding) !Ellen Schmarje, Water Resources Unit
Ministry of Natural Resources
Member
ITo Be Confirmed
BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
Member [Glenn Abuja, Mountain Equipment Co -op
ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
Member
Carmela Canzonieri, Professor, Env. Planning & Design, York Univ.
COMMUNITY GROUPS
Friends of the Don East
Member
James McArthur
Alternate
Andrew McCammon, Chair
North Toronto Green Community
Member 'Helen Mills
Richmond Hill Naturalists
Member 'Tom Waechter
Task Force to Bring Back the Don
Member
Janice Palmer
Alternate
John Wilson, Chair
Trout Unlimited Canada
Member
Eli Garrett, President, Toronto Chapter
CITIZEN MEMBERS
Barb Anderson
Town of Richmond Hill
Margaret Buchinger
City of Toronto
Cassandra Bach
City of Toronto
Stephen Cockle
Town of Richmond Hill
Don Cross
City of Toronto
Laurian Farrell
Town of Markham (Business Location)
Phil Goodwin
City of Toronto
Peter Heinz
City of Toronto
Moyra Haney
City of Toronto
Brenda Lucas
City of Toronto
Deborah Martin -Downs
Town of Markham
Roslyn Moore
City of Toronto
Douglas Obright
City of Toronto
Nancy Penny
City of Toronto
Mel Plewes
City of Toronto
Ron Shimizu
City of Toronto
Beverley Thorpe
City of Toronto
Catherine Wood
City of Toronto
Miao Zhou
City of Toronto
81
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Confirm the remaining members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council;
One other interested applicant was unavailable at the time interviews were held. This
individual will be interviewed for a position on the Don Watershed Regeneration Council
in the near future. One space remains under the citizen members category for an
additional representative. Any additional members to the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council will be submitted to the Authority when finalized.
• Host an orientation bus tour of the watershed for interested members, confirmed for
Saturday, April 24, 2004; and
• Host the first meeting, confirmed for Thursday, May 20, 2004.
Report prepared by: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: April 5, 2004
RES. #D31/04 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #9/03 and Meeting #10/03. The Minutes of Meeting
#9/03 held on November 20, 2003 and Meeting #10/03 held on
December 11, 2003.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THAT the Minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #9/03 and
Meeting #10/03, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the
Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the
formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the
Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed
Task Force's report "Forty Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed.
Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
For Information contact: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
Date: April 07, 2004
82
RES. #D32/04 - NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ACT
Update on Municipal Bylaws. Update on Municipal By -laws in support of
the Nutrient Management Act.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to monitor the
implementation of the Nutrient Management Act and opportunities to utilize its provision
in conjunction with the implementation of integrated watershed management plans;
AND FURTHER THAT the staff of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA),
In the course of reviewing regional and local municipal official plans and other planning
documents, advocate at the provincial and municipal level for the use of all available
powers to manage potential threats to human health and protect sources of drinking and
surface waters, including those tributary to Lake Ontario with respect to high risk
activities and land uses until source protection plans are approved and implemented.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #7/02, held on February 14, 2003, TRCA
staff reported on the status of Bill 81, the Nutrient Management Act (NMA) and TRCA's
involvement in Conservation Ontario's consultation process to submit a collaborative report for
the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF). In the interim, staff have been in receipt
of regular OMAF updates and attended information sessions to maintain their understanding of
the NMA and its implications to our partners and stakeholders.
The intent of Ontario's Nutrient Management Act, legislated through parliament in June 2003, is
to better protect water quality resources in our communities through the development of
individual Nutrient Management Plans in compliance with the NMA. This new legislation sets
standards for nutrient management on lands producing or receiving organic or synthetic
nutrients. Requirements for nutrient management are currently managed by municipalities
through the Planning Act using zoning, site plan controls and by -laws. Nutrient Management
Plan requirements are usually triggered through the issuance of building permits for new and
expanding livestock operations.
A number of rural municipalities have established Nutrient Management By -laws in an attempt
to provide a high standard of environmental practice in compliance with the mandatory
requirements of the NMA. The principals of municipal bylaws typically focus on Minimum
Separation Distance (MSD) criteria for separating new and existing land uses to ensure they
are compatible, thereby reducing the potential for conflict between neighbours. An estimated
85 municipal Nutrient Management By -laws have been adopted in Ontario. In the TRCA
jurisdiction, the Township of Uxbridge is the only municipality with a Nutrient Management
By -law.
83
A report detailing the status of municipal regulations in Ontario titled, "Managing the Transition
Between Municipal and Provincial Governance as Required by the Regulations Under the
Nutrient Management Act" was prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food by Wayne J.
Caldwell in June, 2003. This report provides more details and analysis on the status, content
and variances between the 85 existing Nutrient Management By -laws. In this report, Mr.
Caldwell describes the Nutrient Management By -laws at best, as a "patchwork" with
inconsistent levels of content and trigger mechanisms across Ontario. The variety of
categories within the by -laws included Nutrient Management Plan development, approval and
renewal, Expanding Operations, Minimum and Maximum Separation Distance,
Landownership, Wellhead Protection Areas, New Barn Construction, Site Plan Control,
Spreading of Biosolids and Manure Storage and Disposal. While the various Nutrient
Management By -laws reflect the diversity of the rural communities in which they were designed
to serve, there is a need to create more consistency within the categories as they relate to
farming practices in all municipalities.
Juli Abouchar, Solicitor with the environmental law firm Willms & Shier, will address the
members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board on legal aspects of Nutrient
Management. Ms. Abouchar served as commission counsel to Justice O'Connor during the
Walkerton Inquiry into contaminated drinking water and was recently (December, 2003)
appointed to the Source Water Protection Implementation Committee by Environment Minister
Dombrowsky. Ms. Abouchar's presentation is timely as TRCA staff proceed in the
development of integrated watershed management plans, and the role of conservation
authorities in the development of source protection plans.
The advisory committee report on Watershed -Based Source Protection Planning, titled
"Protecting Ontario's Drinking Water: Toward a Watershed Based Source Protection Planning
Framework," April 2003, recommended that:
17. The province, municipalities and conservation authorities use their available
powers to manage potential threats to human health and protect sources of
drinking water by taking action with respect to high risk activities and land uses
until source protection plans are approved and implemented.
The report identified that these powers include provisions under the Planning Act for new land
uses and the power of the Director of the Ministry of the Environment to manage risk in key
locations.
Further discussions with Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Nutrient Management Act
representatives indicate that municipalities face many challenges in developing a Nutrient
Management By -law, from a thorough understanding of the NMA and associated political
pressures, to the urgency of addressing local and regional water quality issues.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff through the development of integrated water management plans currently being
undertaken, groundwater studies, source protection planning and the review of development
permits will work within the powers available to the TRCA to continue to address the protection
of surface and subsurface water quality. TRCA staff, through its stewardship programs, will
continue to advocate and implement projects that assist in protecting water quality.
84
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Not applicable at this time.
Report prepared by: Patricia Lowe, 5365
For Information contact: Patricia Lowe, 5365
Date: March 30, 2004
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:35 a.m., on Friday, April 16, 2004.
Dave Ryan
Chair
/ks
Brian Denney
Secretary- Treasurer
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/04
June 11,2004
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/04, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, June 11, 2004. The Chair Dave Ryan,
called the meeting to order at 11:35 a.m.
PRESENT
Gay Cowbourne Member
Frank Dale Member
Cliff Jenkins Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Shelley Petrie Member
Dave Ryan Chair
Nancy Stewart Vice Chair
REGRETS
Michael Thompson Member
RES. #D33 /04 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Gay Cowbourne
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/04, held on April 16, 2004, be approved.
DELEGATIONS
CARRIED
(a) Dr. Doug Dodge of 12 Burningham Crescent, Ajax, speaking in regards to item 7.1 -
Lake Ontario Waterfront.
RES. #D34 /04 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by: Dick O'Brien
Seconded by: Cliff Jenkins
86
THAT above -noted delegation (a) be heard and received.
PRESENTATIONS
(a)
CARRIED
A presentation by Jim Butticci, Manager, Government Relations & Corporate Relations,
Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC), Chris Daffern, Asset Manager, GTA, ORC and Mark
Stephen, Structural Project Manager, Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, in regards to the
Whitevale Dam repair.
(b) A presentation by Russ Pooley, Community Development Coordinator, Community
Services, City of Mississauga, in regards to item 7.2 - Malton Community Action Area
Implementation.
(c) A presentation by Patricia Lowe, Supervisor, Outreach Education and Stewardship,
TRCA, in regards to item 7.3 - Community and Private Land Stewardship.
RES. #D35 /04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT above -noted
RES. #D36 /04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT above -noted
RES. #D37 /04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT above -noted
PRESENTATIONS
Gay Cowbourne
Nancy Stewart
presentation (a) be heard and received.
PRESENTATIONS
Frank Dale
Dick O'Brien
CARRIED
presentation (b) be heard and received.
PRESENTATIONS
Frank Dale
Cliff Jenkins
CARRIED
presentation (c) be heard and received.
CARRIED
87
CORRESPONDENCE
(a)
A letter dated June 1, 2004 from Dr. Doug Dodge of 12 Burningham Crescent, Ajax, in
regards to item 7.1 - Lake Ontario Waterfront.
(b) An email dated June 2, 2004 from Ian Buchanan, Manager of Natural Heritage and
Forestry Services, Transportation and Works Department, Regional Municipality of York,
in regards to item 7.1 - Lake Ontario Waterfront.
(c) A letter dated June 3, 2004 from Erling Holm, Assistant Curator of Ichthyology,
Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, Royal Ontario Museum, in regards to
item 7.1 - Lake Ontario Waterfront.
RES. #D38/04 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Nancy Stewart
THAT above -noted correspondence (a) - (c) be received.
CARRIED
88
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
June 1, 2004
Mr Dick O'Brien, Chair,
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,
5 Shoreham Drive,
Downsview, ON, M3N 1 S4
Dear Mr O'Brien:
Douglas P Dodge, BSA, MSc,
PhD, MIFM
12 Burningham Crescent,
Ajax, ON, L1 S 6A2
RE: Lake Ontario Waterfront: Tommy Thompson Park; Recommendation that the Cell One Pike Spawning
Area be dedicated to the Memory of Dr E. J. Crossman.
I support this recommendation, including the placement of a marker stone at part of the dedication.
I have known and worked with Ed Crossman since 1960. In various capacities, Ed made significant
differences in the way we managed aquatic resources, not just fish, but the complete aquatic ecosystem.
Although Ed was a 'pike- person', he had a bigger influence that was more than his work on pikes and
muskies.
Back in the 1960s and 70s, when advocates for management based on artificial propagation were
holding sway, Ed was a major proponent for the concept that natural resources management must first
protect and restore aquatic habitat and its functions, using artificial culture only as a means of starting
ecological restoration. He preached this thesis to his students and his colleagues, to provincial and
federal scientists, and in the Canada - United States forum of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Ed was a good teacher, with the ability and patience to explain fish taxonomy [a subject that many of us
still associate with the smell of formalin and wrinkled fingers at the end of each lab session] to all his
students. For Ed, taxonomy was an essential tool for managing natural resources; you must be able to
identify the animal or plant you want to save and conserve. In 1973, he and his co- author, Dr Bev Scott,
wrote the book, Freshwater Fishes of Canada, a 966 -page tome that every fish biologist in Canada still
uses today.
The TRCA last had the pleasure of Ed's company when he attended a 2003 workshop that supported the
development of the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy; he went about in his own
way making suggestions about the design of aquatic habitat for the Waterfront.
It seems very appropriate to me that a conservation - centred organization like the TRCA should honour Dr
Crossman with this dedication and marker stone.
Sincerely,
Douglas P Dodge
89
CORRESPONDENCE (B)
"Buchanan, Ian" < Ian.Buchanan @region.york.on.ca> on 06/02/2004
04:28:38 PM
To: Dick O'Brien /MTRCA @MTRCA
cc: Kathy Stranks /MTRCA @MTRCA, Andrea Feniell /MTRCA @MTRCA
Subject: Dr. E. J. Crossman dedication - letter of support
Dear Chair O'Brien:
I would like to indicate my support for the proposed dedication for Dr. E. J. Crossman. I had the pleasure
of working with Dr. Crossman at the Royal Ontario Museum for a number of years on fish identification
projects and esocid research programs. Through my involvement with the Toronto Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) and other Toronto waterfront management projects, as the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
Biologist and later as the York Durham MNR supervisor in the late 80's and through the 1990's, Dr.
Crossman was always available to provide sound fisheries management and technical advice.
The location and type of dedication being proposed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is,
feel, most appropriate. Dr. Crossman was a world renowned fisheries scientist, an educator, a champion
of sound research and restoration initiatives. The pike spawning area in Cell One of Tommy Thompson
Park is a reflection of past, present and future rehabilitation initiatives that continue to benefit our
freshwater fish communities. This location and rehabilitation project, provides excellent demonstration
value for ongoing fisheries management, and will represent educational opportunities for future
generations. I believe that this dedication is an appropriate gesture by the Conservation Authority, at a
location which is a good reflection of the type of project that Dr. Crossman was proud to support.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Thank you for your efforts
on this initiative.
Ian Buchanan
Manager of Natural Heritage and Forestry Services
Transportation and Works Department
Regional Municipality of York
PH: (905) 895 -1200 Ext. 5204
FX: (905) 853 -3674
90
CORRESPONDENCE (C)
kfo
ROM
3 June 2004
Mr. Dick O'Brien, Chair
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 1S4
Dear Mr. O'Brien,
Subject: E. J. Crossman Memorial Stone
As one of his long -time co- workers, I support Gord MacPherson's recommendation that the
Toronto Region Conservation Authority recognize Dr. E. J. Crossman with a memorial stone. Its
placement on the shores of a pike spawning wetland is an appropriate dedication to a man
who devoted himself to research on the pike family and was passionate about educating the
Ontario public about the biology and taxonomy of Canadian fishes. As freshwater Curator of
Ichthyology at the Royal Ontario Museum, Dr. Crossman was active in Ontario's fisheries and
angling communities and encouraged the rest of us in the Department to provide service to
organizations such as the Toronto Region Conservation Authority. During his nine years of
retirement, Dr, Crossman continued to act as my mentor and provided service and
encouragement to the Ontario freshwater fishes program of the Centre for Biodiversity and
Conservation Biology. During my 27 -year association with him, I found Dr. Crossman to be a
friendly and compassionate man that was always willing to listen and take the time to share his
knowledge and experience. This memorial stone will be a fitting reminder to us all of his love
for fish and the wetland habitats they occupy.
Thank you for considering this,
Erling Holm
Assistant Curator of Ichthyology
Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Biology
100 Queens Park
Toronto, ON
M5S 2C6
416- 586 -5760
91
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D39/04 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT
Dedication of the Cell One Pike Spawning Area at Tommy Thompson
Park in Memory of Dr. E. J. Crossman. To commemorate Dr. E. J.
Crossman's contribution to fisheries science, education, and his
assistance to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority by a small
marker stone at Cell One Pike Spawning Area
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the pike spawning area within
the Cell One Wetland at Tommy Thompson Park (TTP) be dedicated to the memory of Dr.
E. J. Crossman;
AND FURTHER THAT an appropriate marker stone be placed within the wetland to
commemorate Dr. Crossman's contribution to fisheries science, education and his
assistance with the work of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), at a
cost of $700 excluding applicable taxes, shipping and delivery.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Dr. E. J. (Ed) Crossman, Ph.D., was born in Niagara Falls, Ontario and received his education
at Queen's University, the University of Toronto and his doctorate in 1957 at the University of
British Columbia. He joined the University of Toronto in 1957 as Assistant Curator in the
Department of Ichthyology and Herpetology at the ROM. Dr. Crossman worked mainly with
freshwater fishes and particularly Esocidae (the family of fish that includes the northern pike
and muskellunge). His studies included the relationships and evolutionary history of this group,
their distribution and the biology of individual species. He was actively involved in a study of
the biodiversity of the fishes of the Great Lakes, and had a special interest in the phenomenon
of introduced fishes.
Dr. Crossman was the author or co- author of approximately 180 publications, both scientific
and interpretive, including the major text published in 1973 and co- authored with W.B. Scott,
entitled Freshwater Fishes of Canada (Bulletin 184, Fisheries Research Board of Canada,
Ottawa 1973). This comprehensive book continues to be one of the most important and
informative works on freshwater fishes in Canada. Dr. Crossman served as scientific advisor to
a number of provincial, federal, angler and international organizations in Canada, the United
States, England and Germany. Up until the time of his death, Dr. Crossman was the Curator
Emeritus of Ichthyology at the ROM, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Biology and
Professor Emeritus, Department of Zoology, University of Toronto.
Over the years, Dr. Crossman has help the TRCA further the goals'and objectives of our
fisheries related works. The TRCA and the ROM have fostered an excellent working
relationship around the collection, taxonomy and archiving of important fish species within the
Greater Toronto Area. Typically, each year we submit specimen of unusual or hard to identify
fish for positive identification and verification by ROM ichthyology staff. This service has saved
the TRCA thousands of dollars in consulting fees, improved the credibility of our collections,
92
and has led to the identification of unique species within our watershed such as the tadpole
madtom (Noturus cryrinus) and central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum). In the fall of 2003,
the ROM orchestrated the taxonomic and genetic investigations of the grass carp that was
collected in the Keating Channel.
In addition, Dr. Crossman had a keen interest in the habitat enhancement work of the TRCA.
Dr. Crossman provided guidance and direction on a number of pike spawning habitats
including Spadina Quay, TTP and the Toronto Islands. Recently, he participated in the
Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy and was very supportive of our fish
habitat related works.
To recognize this contribution to fisheries science and specifically his assistance and support
to the TRCA, staff would like to dedicate the pike spawning area within the TTP Cell One
wetland to the memory of Dr. Crossman. The dedication will consist of a dedication ceremony
with family and colleagues of Dr. Crossman and the placement of a small marker stone within
the pike spawning area. The stone will be etched with the following inscription:
"This pike spawning area is dedicated to the memory of
Dr. E. J. Crossman, Fisheries Scientist,
a world - renowned expert on Esocids,
a dedicated educator
and a committed conservationist ".
TTP is a unique waterfront area that is emerging as one of the most significant urban natural
heritage feature within the City of Toronto. The TRCA has conducted numerous investigations
into the environmental health of this area, developed and delivered a variety of habitat
improvement projects, and implements wildlife management activities on the site that ensure
this Important Bird Area is managed properly.
The largest and most ambitious activity to date is the design, development and implementation
of the Cell One wetland. Cell One is the repository of sediments dredged from the Keating
Channel and various other areas within the Toronto Harbour. The TRCA developed an
innovative method of isolating these dredged sediments by creating a wetland habitat within
the Cell. This site represents the largest wetland creation project on the north shore of Lake
Ontario. Staff are convinced that the habitats within Cell One will be the catalyst to improve the
ecological health of both TTP and the Toronto waterfront. This wetland will provide the critical
habitat required for the successful colonization of many important species including
Muskellunge, waterfowl and a variety of marsh dependent fish and wildlife.
To assist with the management of TTP, TRCA staff assembled a group of interested agencies
and individuals to provide advice and feedback on the planned activities within the park. The
dedication of the pike spawning area was brought forward to this group and concerns were
raised around the following issues:
• is TTP a suitable place for a dedication;
• is it an appropriate place for a permanent memorial marker; and
• what form should these markers take place.
93
Staff noted these concerns and suggested that a precedent for having dedication markers was
set by both the Vicki Keith point and Important Bird Area markers within TTP. The placement
of the Dr. Crossman dedication stone will be significantly different in the fact that it will be
placed within the wetland, will not be highly visible and it will form part of the functional habitat
of the spawning area.
In addition, a member of the advisory committee suggested that this dedication should not
proceed until a protocol is developed for naming and dedications within TTP. Staff presented
to the TTP Advisory Committee the TRCA naming protocol adopted by the Business
Excellence Advisory Board (Meeting #07/03). Staff suggested that in keeping with the intent of
this protocol, the Dr. Crossman dedication would be brought forward to the Authority for
approval. Also this dedication is a single effort reflective of Dr. Crossman's contribution to the
TRCA and fisheries science.
Dr. E. J. Crossman was a hands on practitioner bringing the best of fisheries science to habitat
restoration. The Cell One pike spawning area is most appropriate area for this dedication, as it
will endure as a habitat rehabilitation showpiece at a location that compensates for some of the
loss that was historically associated with the Ashbridge's Bay wetland complex.
FINANCIAL DETAIL
The cost of the marker stone is $700.00 excluding applicable taxes, shipping and delivery; and
will be financed by filming revenues generated at TTP.
Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
Date: May 25, 2004
RES. #D40/04 - MALTON COMMUNITY ACTION AREA IMPLEMENTATION
Announcement of funding and initiation of a four -year project within the
Malton Community Action Area of the Mimico Creek.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Nancy Stewart
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT a letter be sent to the City of
Mississauga, Malton Residents Association and the Mississauga Airport Rotary Club
thanking them for their support and efforts in developing the Malton Environmental
Stewardship Project and successfully obtaining a Trillium grant of $253,700 to undertake
a variety of community outreach, environmental enhancement and restoration activities in
the Mimico Creek watershed over a period of four years;
94
THAT staff be authorized to take such action as is necessary to implement the Malton
Environmental Stewardship Project, including the signing and execution of all necessary
documentation required;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the progress of the Malton CAA
of the Mimico Creek.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Malton CAA is located within the City of Mississauga. It is roughly bounded by Airport
Road on the west, the CN Rail tracks in the north and Hwy #427 on the east (the eastern
watershed boundary extends northwest from the Hwy #427 / Derry Rd. junction in an uneven
line to Finch Ave.). The area encompasses residential communities, an industrial commercial
business park, Wildwood Park, and Malton and Derry Greenways along Mimico Creek.
At Authority Meeting #2/02, held on February 22, 2002, Resolution #A34/02 was adopted in
part as follows:
THAT the Malton Community Action Area Stewardship Group be established to oversee
the implementation of the Malton Community Action Area Plan;
THAT the Stewardship Group develop annual implementation priorities and work plans,
congruent with "Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and
Mimico Creeks" subject to the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition's
approval;
THAT the Chair of the Stewardship Group be a member of the Etobicoke and Mimico
Creek Watersheds Coalition and provide regular progress reports and seek approval for
plan and project development;
THAT the Stewardship Group provide copies of all meeting minutes, as well as an annual
presentation on completed and proposed projects, to the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek
Watersheds Coalition;
The resolution established a Malton CAA stewardship group and allowed for the development
of work plans and updates to the Malton CAA Plan.
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 19 organizations (businesses, schools, resident
associations and community groups) attended the meeting. Building on the interest and
momentum of this meeting, a vision for implementing the CAA was developed over several
months and presented at a subsequent meeting in September, 2003 to a larger audience of
community representatives. They supported the direction of the vision and encouraged the
City of Mississauga and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff to establish a
committee of key partners to further refine the vision and develop funding proposals. A Trillium
funding proposal was submitted in December, 2003 for a community -based restoration and
stewardship program.
95
Seven restoration projects form the basis of the four -year implementation plan with associated
stewardship programs. These include:
• Planting of approximately 4,000 tress and shrubs resulting in:
• 1.5 ha of forest restoration
• 1.5 ha of meadow enhancement
• 1,000 liner metres of riparian planting
• 0.35 ha of wetland enhancement
• Installation of habitat structures at Wildwood Park including:
• 1 hibernaculum
• 11 nest boxes
• 1 turtle habitat
• 3 mammal habitat nodes
• Installation of interpretive signs.
• Community clean -up events during each spring and fall.
• Providing increased opportunities to Malton schools to participate in the Peel Children's
Water Festival.
• Developing a variety of environmental information resources for the area.
• A hands -on environmental stewardship program designed to engage local residents,
business, schools, and the many ethnic and culturally diverse communities.
• Delivery of existing TRCA stewardship and education programs including Watershed on
Wheels and conservation seminars.
• Soliciting business donations and participation in the community including outreach for
adopting best management practices.
These projects and programs provide an opportunity to create real environmental change in
Malton for participating organizations and individuals. 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 is designed to achieve
both the ecological restoration of selected sites and the bringing together of different
community organizations around a common goal.
RATIONALE
One objective in Greening Our Watersheds - Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico
Creeks is the establishment of CAA's throughout the watersheds, with the development of a
core group of supporters in each area. The group focus on the Malton community will
implement the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds management strategy at the local
level, providing a forum for public input.
The approach in the Malton CAA will involve 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 will focus on community organizations instead of individuals. The lead partners
in the initiative are the City of Mississauga, the Malton Residents Association, Rotary
International and TRCA.
96
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Complete all project - related documentation;
• Hire and train staff;
• Initiate project implementation; and,
• Raise matching funds for future activities, as required.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
A total of $253,700 Trillium funding has been approved over a four -year period.
The funding will be used to hire a staff person to assist in coordinating and promoting
community outreach and naturalization activities consistent with TRCA's business plan and the
environmental initiatives of the City of Mississauga within the Malton Greenway Area. Matching
funding from Region of Peel Natural Heritage Funds will contribute to the restoration activities
of the project. The City of Mississauga will provide office space and staff support to this project.
TRCA will provide staff supervision, technical support and budget administration. The project
will receive substantial in -kind support from the members of partner groups and community.
Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 and Paul Wilims, extension 5316
For Information contact: Patricia Lowe, extension 5365
Date: June 3, 2004
RES. #D41/04 - COMMUNITY AND PRIVATE LAND STEWARDSHIP
Annual Update. An annual update on the programs and projects related
to community and private land stewardship
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Shelley Petrie
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the community and private land
stewardship program update report be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The community stewardship and private land stewardship programs operate under the
Environmental Services Section of the Watershed Management Division of the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Thirteen full time staff are directly responsible for
stewardship related programs and projects, however, they engage a number of other staff,
agencies and community partners in the planning and implementation of their work.
The current operating budget for community and private land stewardship programs is
approximately $1.3 million. Regional municipalities contribute to approximately half of the total
and additional funds are raised through the preparation of a variety of funding proposals to
97
corporate and private foundations and other government agencies. The current suite of
stewardship programs is also supported by significant in -kind contributions from businesses,
private landowners, municipalities, institutions, community organizations and youth groups
with a vested interest in environmental stewardship across our jurisdiction.
A. Community Stewardship
As communities across our watershed take on the environmental challenges of restoring and
protecting the natural heritage of The Living City, our stewardship strategy provides a variety of
multi - stakeholder call to action products, programs and services.
Through the following community stewardship programs detailed below, youth, schools,
businesses, community groups and government partners are engaged in a variety of hands -on
restoration, habitat creation, maintenance and volunteer monitoring programs. Community
stewardship programs include:
• Conservation seminars
• The Bartley Smith Greenway Business and Community Outreach Initiative
• The Centreville Creek Community Outreach and Environmental Stewardship Program
(New)
• The Claireville Community Stewardship
• The Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project
• The Healthy Yards Program (New)
• The Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Program
• The Malton Environmental Stewardship Program (New)
• The Markham Backyards Naturalization Program
• The Multi- cultural Environmental Stewardship Program
• The Stewardship Resource Centre
• The West Shore Habitat Initiative - Frenchman's Bay (New)
• Preston Lake Management Plan
Bartley Smith Greenway Business and Community Outreach Program
Efforts continue in the Don watershed through the Bartley Smith Greenway Business and
Community Outreach Initiative to work with local businesses, community groups, schools and
municipal partners to further enhance this significant valleyland for wildlife and the local
community. Programs like the Earth Day art contest for children; an interactive web page,
complete with childrens environmental activities; a corporate planting challenge for 100's of
staff from local businesses; the opening of Rupert's Pond and the publication and distribution
of the 4 Pathways newsletters and the Bartley Smith Greenway Bird Checklist, have helped to
make this project successful in the City of Vaughan. To date more than 6,000 native trees and
shrubs have been planted by community volunteers furthering restoration, trail enhancment
and schoolyard naturalization initiatives, and more than 200 community members have
participated in local garbage cleanups, workshops on wildlife and backyard naturalization.
The Centreville Creek Community Outreach and Environmental Stewardship Program
New in 2004, TRCA, in partnership with Trout Unlimited - Humber River Chapter, will deliver the
Centreville Creek Community Outreach and Environmental Stewardship Program. This
three -year program is designed to increase awareness and educate the community about
environmental issues impacting the Centreville Creek subwatershed, while protecting, restoring
98
and enhancing the ecological health of the area through naturalization projects and
stewardship activities. This program will lead hands -on initiatives that will empower and involve
the community and, ultimately, instill a long -term commitment to the regeneration and
protection of natural areas within the watershed.
Conservation Seminars
Since this program began in 2002, Environmental Services staff have delivered over 60
conservation seminars at a variety of community action sites, conservation areas, public land
holdings and community facilities to provide watershed residents and their families with
knowledge about wildlife, environmental issues and stewardship actions to change the way we
all live within the landscape. These free events foster nature appreciation and interaction, while
also informing the public of important TRCA initiatives. In addition to these scheduled
seminars, additional outreach programs are designed to meet the needs of TRCA's watershed
advisory committees, The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto and other stakeholders
as required. In 2004, we estimate more than 1,500 participants will join us for 9 scheduled
conservation seminars.
The Claireville Community Stewardship Program
New for 2004, the Claireville Community Stewardship Program will build upon the existing
partnerships and stakeholder interests though the development of a comprehensive proposal
to further support outreach and stewardship activities in support of the Claireville Management
Plan and A Call to Action, report of the Humber Watershed Alliance. The HSBC Bank Canada's
Employee and Family Planting and Education Day was hosted at the Claireville Conservation
Area by Environmental Services staff to cultivate a long term partnership with HSBC Bank
Canada. Over 200 HSBC staff, clients and community volunteers planted an area of 2.5
hectares with 835 native trees and shrubs. Environmental Services staff competed the planting
with 1,200 seedlings. This event was in support of The Conservation Foundation of Greater
Toronto's The Living City Reforestation Program.
The Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project
This project, located in the City of Pickering, is now into its sixth year of delivering innovative
habitat restoration projects for public and private lands, and continues to strengthen its role in
the community as an environmental leader. Through the Volunteer Environmental Watch
Program, volunteers also collect data on local wildlife and water quality to support future
rehabilitation efforts for this important coastal wetland complex and its surrounding watershed.
Today this project is a leader in improvements to environmental health in the watershed,
engaging, on an annual basis, over 1,000 volunteers including elementary school groups, high
school students, scout and guide groups, and local community members. To date, with the
community's assistance, the project has successfully enhanced 7 hectares of forest, 4 hectares
of meadow and 5 hectares of aquatic habitat within the Frenchman's Bay watershed.
The Healthy Yards Program
New in 2003, a series of Healthy Yards fact sheets have been designed to help homeowners
create and maintain environmentally - responsible residential lawns and gardens. TRCA's
Healthy Yards web tool (www.trca.on.ca /yards) will be launched June 2004 and house
electronic copies of our Healthy Yards fact sheets and the Healthy Yards Connection. This
interactive resource provides an inventory of healthy yards related products and services
available in each neighbourhood within our jurisdiction. It also informs people of the bylaws
99
and restrictions regarding pesticide use, lawn watering, yard waste and encroachment within
their municipality. A bookmark has been completed to help promote the Healthy Yards
Connection to interested groups and individuals. In 2004 this program will engage more than
500 gardeners in changing their gardening practices to support our objectives for sustainable
communities.
The Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Program
In 2003, the Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Program was initiated to build
capacity within this small urban watershed and engage a multi - cultural community in a variety
of hands -on restoration activities. The program exceeded its expectations for the first year, and
continues to implement a variety of environmental enhancement projects at four community
action sites. The program supports a number of special interests including Centennial College,
the City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, Canadian Rivers Day and the
Great Canadian Shoreline Clean Up. To date, community partners and volunteers have
planted over 3,000 trees and shrubs, installed 43 bird boxes and collected over 13,500 kg of
garbage. Collectively, this work contributed to more than 2,300 volunteer hours - exceeding the
program's target by more than double.
The Malton Environmental Stewardship Program
New in 2004, TRCA, in partnership with the City of Mississauga, Malton Residents Association
and the Mississauga Airport Rotary Club, have entered into a four year project to initiate a
hands -on environmental stewardship and outreach education program in the Malton area of
Mississauga. This project will achieve the objectives of enhancing the ecological health of
Mimico Creek, while increasing community and business involvement, use and enjoyment of
the greenspaces and natural areas in Malton. This project supports Greening our Watersheds
prepared by the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watershed Task Force. Some of the intended
activities of the program include naturalization and clean -up projects as well as outreach
education and hands -on environmental experiences for Malton residents of all ages.
The Markham Backyard Naturalization Program
The Markham Backyard Naturalization Program was developed as a pilot project to give
residents of the Town of Markham an opportunity to engage in a variety of healthy yard
practices. Through educational workshops and the purchase of an implementation kit,
complete with native trees and shrubs, fact sheets, habitat planting plans and bird boxes, more
than 600 residents participated in the program, furthering the objectives of the Rouge Park to
address environmental impacts in the urban landscape. With the support of the Rouge Park
and the Town of Markham, this program will continue in 2004. Sixty residents participated in
the hands -on component of the program by requesting the plant kit which included trees,
shrubs, wildflower plants and bird boxes.
The Multi- cultural Environmental Stewardship Program
As we strive to serve a diverse cultural community across our watersheds, the Multi- Cultural
Environmental Stewardship Program supports the existing framework of community
stewardship programs through relevant education and call to action activities. This sensitivity
to language and cultural values provides opportunities to transfer skills and build capacity for
environmental stewardship. The program continues to build partnerships with a variety of
organizations, businesses, schools, settlement agencies and youth groups in support of
sustainable communities in our watershed. At the recent Wincott Wetland Environmental
100
Festival, more than 400 local residents from this diverse community participated in pond
studies, bird box building and educational activities to support the City of Toronto's Wet
Weather Flow Management Master Plan.
The Stewardship Resource Centre
Building on the success of the Landowner Resource Centre in Manotick, the TRCA's
Stewardship Resource Centre (SRC), located at the Boyd Field Centre, currently offers
watershed stakeholders a library of more than 750 publications, videos, fact sheets, cds and
reference material on a variety of land management issues and call to action environmental
initiatives. The SRC also offers a state of the art interactive computer database for research
and mailing services for printed information. In 2004, our goal is to incorporate the SRC on the
TRCA's website for watershed stakeholders with internet access, providing our clients with
access to information on stewardship - related topics in downloadable form, cutting down on
printing costs and paper resources.
The West Shore Habitat Initiative
New in 2003. Approximately 27 hectares in size, Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park (RFBWP)
in Pickering, is one of the largest significant upland habitats remaining in the Frenchman's Bay
watershed. The West Shore Habitat Initiative seeks to enhance ecological health by engaging
volunteers through naturalization efforts which include forest management, meadow creation
and terrestrial wetland enhancement. These efforts complement a master plan which includes
trails, boardwalks, improved access, playgrounds, washrooms and habitat creation. One of
the key restoration components of this project includes the creation of an ephemeral wetland to
provide natural habitat for migratory and resident songbirds and marsh dependent species
including reptiles and amphibians. To date, 464 volunteers have planted 4,700 trees and
shrubs, spread wildflower seeds and installed 40 bird boxes.
The Preston Lake Management Plan
The TRCA, in partnership with the Pride in Preston Lake community, is currently completing a
prescriptive lake management plan to inventory existing environmental conditions and chart a
call to action for the private and public lands associated with the 195 homes that surround this
kettle lake on the Oak Ridges Moraine. The plan provides the recommended actions to ensure
the continued health and sustainability of Preston Lake which considers the local natural
features, ensures long -term natural resource health and identifies urban and rural
environmental impacts, while facilitating the continued interaction of the lake residents.
Deliverables to date include the installation of habitat features such as wood duck boxes, an
osprey platform and the expansion of fish habitat through the construction of log cribs. Two
well attended conservation seminars were hosted, and an Earth Day event resulted in
hundreds of native trees and shrubs being planted to restore the shoreline.
B. Private Land Stewardship
The Private Land Stewardship Programs are designed to provide a variety of technical,
educational and financial assistance to landowners who want to improve their properties
ecological function through regeneration, restoration, protection or the adoption of new land
management practices. These programs include:
101
• The Rural Clean Water Program
• The Private Land Tree Planting Program
• Rouge Park Stewardship Program - Little Rouge River Landowner Contact Program
(2004)
The Rural Clean Water Program
Since 1995 this program has serviced over 200 rural landowners in the headwaters of the
Rouge, Duffins and Humber River, and the Etobicoke, Mimico and Carruthers Creeks,
contributing to our corporate objectives for water quality improvements. To date more than 50
best management projects have been implemented including livestock access restriction from
natural water sources, improvements to manure management, replacement of faulty septic
systems, modifications to barnyard runoff systems, creation of habitat features and protection
of woodlot and wetland resources. Staff have applied the Agricultural Non Point Source
(AgNPS) technology to measure the impacts of surface water flows, nutrient and sediment
inputs in two key subwatersheds. This computer model will assist the Rural Clean Water
Program staff in targeting priority areas for the implementation of Best Management Practices
in support of the Nutrient Management Act legislation. Accomplishments include hosting 15
Best Management Practices public workshops, attendance at over 30 rural events to promote
the program and distribution of over 50 "Conservation Partner" mailbox signs.
The Private Land Tree Planting Program
Offers technical and financial assistance to landowners (properties of more than 0.8 hectares (2
acres), to evaluate their reforestation objectives. These planting efforts target the enhancement
of riparian buffers, marginal agricultural land reforestation, windbreaks and habitat creation in
the rural headwater areas of our watershed. Staff perform site assessments, provide
recommendations for plant materials, site preparation and provide a planting plan. Native
plant material is serviced through the Conservation Services' Nursery and reforestation
seedlings can be sourced from private nurseries. Planting services are also offered to
landowners on a cost recovery basis through this program. This year, 46 private landowners
across the TRCA jurisdiction participated in the 2004 Spring Private Land Tree and Shrub
Planting Program. In total, more than 28,500 native trees, shrubs and reforestation seedlings
were planted in a variety of projects, ranging from riparian buffers and wetland enhancement
projects, to marginal farmland reforestation.
Rouge Park Stewardship Program - Little Rouge River Landowner Contact Program
This program is new for 2004 and has been designed to support the intent of the Rouge Park
North Management Plan to target privately owned lands located along or surrounding river and
tributary corridors in the Little Rouge Creek subwatershed. Approximately 200 landowners will
be contacted and provided with technical and financial support for the implementation of
riparian enhancements, habitat creation, agricultural best management practices and
environmental workshops.
Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5638, Patricia Lowe, extension 5365
For Information contact: Patricia Lowe, extension 5365
Date: May 20, 2004
102
RES. #D42/04 - CITY OF TORONTO WET WEATHER FLOW MANAGEMENT MASTER
PLAN (WWFMMP) BEACHES PROTECTION PIER
Mouth of the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek. Proposed beaches
protection piers in the City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow Management
Master Plan at the mouth of the Humber River and the Etobicoke Creek
to improve water quality along the Lake Ontario shoreline.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Nancy Stewart
Gay Cowbourne
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the proposed
beaches protection piers in the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan 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, the Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) and the Humber Watershed Alliance.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
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."
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.
103
TRCA staff were 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 #2/04 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 Plan provides
detailed recommendations for addressing stormwater, combined sewer overflow, and
infiltration/inflow problems, which have been identified by the Toronto and Region
Remedial Action Plan (Clean Waters Clear Choices, 1994) and local watershed
management strategies (Forty Steps to a New Don -1994, Legacy - A Strategy for a
Healthy 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 Flow
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;
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 mangement 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
104
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 have 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;
• 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; (i.e. 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 are committed to working with the City of Toronto through the environmental
assessment process by providing additional information as it becomes available to asist 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.
105
Report prepared by: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: June 03, 2004
RES. #D43/04 - 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.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Humber River Watershed
Planning Study be initiated and undertaken in three phases according to the proposed
workplan outlined in this report;
THAT staff engage stakeholder input to the workplan via reports to the Humber
Watershed Alliance, and meetings with municipal staff and other relevant stakeholders;
THAT staff notify municipalities of the watershed planning study and invite their
participation in scoping meetings and involvement in other components of the study;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back in fall 2004 on progress of the Humber Watershed
Planning Study.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1997, the Humber Watershed Task Force released the Humber River watershed strategy,
Legacy: A Strategy For A Healthy Humber, which provided thirty 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) 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 For A 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;
106
• 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 Toronto's 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 Strategy ForA Healthy Humber with 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.
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,
107
• 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:
Climate Terrestrial natural heritage
Air quality Land use
Groundwater quality and quantity Water use
Surface water quality Public use
Surface water quantity Cultural heritage
Fluvial geomorphology Human health
Aquatic habitat and species 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 Plan requirements.
108
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.
Report prepared by: Dean Young, extension 5662
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: May 20, 2004
Attachments: 1
109
Humber Watershed Planning Study
Process and Schedule
JAN APR
1
JUL OCT JAN APR JUL OCT
20p4 1 I. 2005
PHASE 1A - SCOPING
PHASE 1B —
CHARACTERIZATION
APR
JUL OCT
2q06 I
Finalization period
PHASE 2 — ANALYSIS &
EVALUATION
PHASE 3 — DEVELOPING THE
WATERSHED PLAN
ir
Partner nvoWemen t
Input on Input on proposed Input on proposed Input on
workplan fuhrre scenarios management draft plan
approaches
JAN
I. ;uewyoeUy
RES. #D44/04 - 2004 CITY OF TORONTO AND REGIONS OF PEEL, YORK AND
DURHAM HABITAT REGENERATION PROJECTS
Endorsement of the 2004 Habitat Regeneration Projects partially funded
by the City of Toronto and Regions of Peel, York and Durham capital
budgets.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be authorized to take such
action as is necessary to implement the 2004 Habitat Regeneration Projects partially
funded by the City of Toronto and Regions of Peel, York and Durham, including the
signing and execution of all necessary documentation required;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the progress of the 2004
Habitat Regeneration Projects.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Over the last several years, the City of Toronto and the Regions of Peel, York, and Durham
have provided capital funding to assist with the implementation of habitat rehabilitation,
stewardship and infrastructure projects, and the preparation of watershed management plans
as required by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) staff are usually successful at using the municipal contributions to lever
funding from other sources. Often the municipal funding is doubled or sometimes tripled by
other partner contributions.
Over the course of developing the capital project proposals, staff have met with municipal staff
to discuss previous years' accomplishments and to confirm projects and associated budgets
for 2004. The City of Toronto and the Regions of Peel, York and Durham have recently
confirmed capital budget funding allocations for habitat regeneration projects.
The City of Toronto and the Regions of Peel, York and Durham capital projects are developed
to integrate and expand joint environmental initiatives so that municipalities and TRCA will be
better positioned to meet their respective goals, objectives, strategic directions and priority
actions. The 2004 habitat regeneration projects have been chosen based on the
recommendations found in the fisheries management plans, draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage
System Strategy and other strategic documents. Over the course of the year adjustments to
the list of specific projects are made based on approvals and other limiting factors.
Following is a table listing the projects and associated budgets. Only the cash contributions
are shown. However significant in -kind products and services are also provided by many
partners depending on the projects. In some cases TRCA staff carry out projects on behalf of
municipalities where the municipality pays 100% of the costs.
111
2004 City of Toronto and Regions of Peel, York and Durham Habitat Regeneration
Projects
Protect Name
Total
Cash
(all
• artners
Deliverables
Multi- Watershed Benefits
Red Side Dace Recovery
Program
10,558
Develop a program to protect and expand the
range for Red Side Dace, a provincially threatened
species
Spills Background Report
7,500
Compile background report on spills within TRCA;
Dialogue with others to address issues; hold
public forums
West Nile Virus
40,000
Implement a monitoring and public awareness
program
Bioregional Seed Crop
Monitoring & Collection
52,500
Undertake field surveys to locate, inventory and
document seed sources, monitor & evaluate seed
crops
Propagation of Aquatic Plants
19,200
Propagation of 9,000 aquatic plants and wet
meadow herbaceous plants for use in
regeneration projects
Yellow Fish Road
2,600
Education program for improving stormwater
quality
Watershed on Wheels
85,000
In class environmental education program for
grades 1 -8
Aquatic Plants Program
20,000
Education program to grow aquatic plants and
learn about wetlands
Multicultural Stewardship
Program
57,000
Stewardship program and outreach to cultural
communities and agencies
Private Lands Stewardship
45,635
Rural Clean Water Program, Forestry Planning
Program and Private Land Tree Planting Program
Healthy Yards
36,000
Final production & distribution of information to
encourage best management practices at
individual lot level
Reforestation for Biodiversity
41,500
Reforestation on Authority lands
Peel - Private Land Tree
Planting Program
50,000
Private lands planting in Peel Region
Forest Pest Monitoring
9,000
Increase pest monitoring in forests by establishing
more monitoring sites
Peel Children's Water Festival
20,000
Develop activities, restoration projects, construct
permanent storage & display areas for Peel
Region
York Children's Water Festival
20,000
Develop activities, restoration projects, construct
permanent storage & display areas for York
Region
112
Business Outreach Projects
25,000
Partnership between TRCA and OCETA (Ontario
Centre for Environmental Technology
Advancement) to encourage businesses to
introduce and implement pollution reduction and
retrofit their manufacturing processes.
Multi- Municipal Benefits
Humber Habitat
Implementation Plan
91,250
6 sites in Humber Watershed to be determined -
based on Fisheries Plan and Terrestrial Natural
Heritage Plan
Rouge Park Public Lands
BMPs Programme
76,000
Rouge Watershed
Duffins Watershed Plan
Implementation
20,000
Implement watershed plan for Duffins Watershed
Treerstrial Natural Heritage
Implementation
50,000
Development of Habitat Implementation Plan and
regeneration plantings in Duffins and Carruthers
Watersheds
Fish Management Plan
Implementation
25,000
Riparian plantings and barrier mitigation in
Duffins and Carruthers Watersheds
Watershed Trails
50,000
Construction of the Trans Canada Trail on TRCA
property, Glann Major trail and watershed trails in
Ajax and Pickering
n;Braitpton,$zn
Etobicoke - Mimico Creeks
Brampton Stormwater
Management Pond Retrofit
40,000
Complete detailed design for Upper 9 Pond in
Brampton
Heart Lake Naturalization
17,500
Implementation of 03/04 Heart Lake Master Plan;
plantings, design for south shoreline, osprey
viewing platform.
Snelgrove Master Plan
Implementation
84,817
Riparian & upland plantings; habitat features,
interpretive signage, wetland enhancements
Humber Watershed
Claireville Habitat Restoration
& Stewardship
75,000
10 ha reforestation, 2 -3 ha wetland creation,
community outreach and education
Indian Line Campground
Claireville Reservoir
Naturalization
50,000
Shoreline naturalization, reforestation & habitat
enhancement
�. , -Caledon,
Humber Watershed
Bolton Community Action Site
15,000
Community tree and shrub planting
Caledon East Community
Action Site
20,000
Habitat restoration
Centreville Creek Stewardship
& Pond Mitigation
127,000
Stewardship and outreach programs, Feasibility
study for pond mitigation & Environmental
Assessment if necessary
Glen Haffy Pond Dredging
119,500
Sediment removal for water quality improvement
Palgrave Fishway & Riparian
Planting
11,000
Riparian plantings & fishway enhancements
113
TRCA Peel Forest
Management Projects
20,000
Forest management tending, thinning and
selective cutting
Taylor Pond
20,000
pond mitigation & stream work related to taking
pond off-line
King
Humber Watershed
Eaton Hall Wetland /Seneca
College
39,000
Develop restoration strategy, wetland design by
Ducks Unlimited, community outreach
Cold Creek Management Plan
Implementation
26,000
Habitat restoration plantings, trail development,
community outreach
I
Markham
Rouge Watershed
Milne Park Restoration Project
71,583
Final phase to complete the riparian plantings
around the constructed wetlands.
Bruce's Mill Barrier Mitigation
45,000
Removal of stop logs & sediment; fish partition;
wetland creation & channel naturalization
Markham Fairgrounds
600
The wetland feature associated plantings and
viewing platform is completed at the Markham
Fairgrounds. Stewardship staff will continue to
have a role in community outreach and any future
requirements for interpretive signage.
Mississauga
Etobicoke - Mimico Creeks
Malton Community Action
Area
70,500
8 habitat restoration projects
Rockwood Community Action
Site
2,500
Community habitat restoration projects
. _ . Mono Township`
Humber Watershed
Goulding Property Restoration
5,700
Community planting events to enhance vegetation
communities and wildlife corridor linkages
( Richmond Hill
Don Watershed
Richmond Hill Riparian &
Naturalization Plantings
45,748
Ongoing partnership with Richmond Hill to plant
riparian areas throughout presently developing
communities. These sites will eventually form part
of the Town's natural & open space areas.
Humber Watershed
Lake Wilcox Habitat
Improvement
12,462
Lake monitoring
East Humber Riparian
Planting
10,000
Riparian community plantings, community
outreach
Rouge Watershed
Richmond Hill Riparian &
Naturalization Planting
50,442
a
Ongoing partnership with Richmond Hill to plant
riparian areas throughout developing
communities
•
I: ; :SI , Toronto
Don Watershed
Don Watershed Environmental
Projects
42,340
Provide support to groups & stakeholders of the
Don to implement restoration projects
East Don River Instream
Barrier Mitigation Project
75,000
Barrier mitigation at north end of Donalda Golf
Club
Don Riparian Reforestation
7,000
Riparian plantings
Etobicoke - Mimico Creeks
Mimico Estate Community
Action Site
37,005
Wetland & habitat enhancements
Bonar Community Action Area
10,000
Restoration plantings
South Mimico Community
Action Area
45,000
Implementation of the South Mimico Community
Action Plan with local community, mitigation of 2
barriers under GREW
Highland Creek
Highland Creek
Environmental Projects
112,374
Assist community environmental stewardship
groups with regeneration projects
Highland Creek Weir
Mitigation
262,980
Provide passage for fish
Highland Creek Marsh
Environmental Management
Plan
40,000
Develop Environmental Management Plan
detailing existing conditions, provide a public
consultation process, and develop documentation
for Environmental Assessment approval process
Humber Watershed
Claireville Trail
96,772
Design and implement trail connection under Hwy
427 at Finch Ave.
Discovery Walks
46,885
Finalize trailguide and signage
Eglinton Flats Pond
Restoration
145,800
Complete pond dredging, habitat restoration,
enhance community access
Black Creek Mill Ponds
50,000
Dredge pond & make modifications to control
structure, habitat improvements, stormwater
management
Black Creek Lambton Golf
Course
6,060
Finalize feasibility study & detailed design
Humber Creek Restoration
Project (Sunrow)
5,945
Tree and shrub planting, community outreach
Humber Mede Pond CAS
25,000
Complete trail plan, shoreline enhancement &
monitoring
Humberwood Park
Naturalization
48,013
Complete wetland construction, wetland plantings
& habitat enhancement
Wincott Park Wetland
10,000
Community outreach and education
Lower Humber Carp Barrier &
Weir Mitigation
22,500
Assess fish passage opportunities upstream of
barriers between Bloor & Dundas St. (Ministry of
Natural Resources doing Environmental
Assessment & design for 1 structure), outfall
barrier to exclude carp from wetlands and
establish aquatic plants
115
W.hitchurch ;Stouffvifle4, .
Rouge Watershed
Preston Lake
13,027
The Preston Lake Management Plan is completed
and will be printed and distributed to the project
partners and residents of Preston Lake in 2004.
TOTAL . �
3,974,070
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Finalize approvals for specific projects;
• Seek additional partners and other funding sources to complement the municipal
contributions;
• Implement projects;
• Host community events to recognize partners and celebrate accomplishments;
• Prepare mid -year and final progress reports for all projects and present to staff at the City
of Toronto and Regions of Peel, York and Durham
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The 2004 budget is based on the approved contributions from the City of Toronto and the
Regions of Peel, York and Durham and the total contribution from all other partners at the time
of writing this report. Some of the other funding sources include the Great Lakes Sustainability
Fund, Trillium Foundation, TD Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation, local
municipalities and the Ministry of Natural Resources. In -kind contributions are not itemized but
include significant volunteer time, building materials and technical /professional services.
Report prepared by: Karen Sun, extension 5291
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: May 21, 2004
RES. #D45/04 - ASIAN LONG - HORNED BEETLE
Federal Funding. Announcement of federal funding for tree replacement
for the area affected by the Asian Long- horned beetle (ALHB).
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) express its appreciation to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri -Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for the funding of a
tree replacement program;
THAT staff be directed to continue to work in partnership with staff of CFIA, City of
Toronto, City of Vaughan, York Region and the Ministry of Natural Resources to
coordinate the allocation of other replanting funds;
117
Humber Community
Environmental Projects
20,000
Assist community environmental stewardship
groups with regeneration projects
Green Roofs for Stormwater
Management
149,042
Monitoring & data collection at York University
Computer Science building; Modelling on the
Highland Creek
Waterfront
Toronto Waterfront
Naturalization Initiative
20,000
Increase, enhance & maintain natural areas in
parks in partnership with volunteers, schools,
businesses
Toronto Waterfront Terrestrial
Natural Heritage Strategy
30,000
Develop strategy
Toronto Waterfront Aquatic
Restoration Strategy
17,200
Develop strategy
Waterfront/Oak Ridges
Moraine Migratory Bird
Corridor
17,000
Assess the ecological value of the existing Don
River migratory corridor and restore habitat
Tommy Thompson Park
115,646
Reforestation, wetland & habitat
creation /enhancements
Franklin's Gardens - Toronto
Islands
4,209
completion of pond construction work
Bluffers Park Wetland Creation
20,000
Public consultation, detailed design & project
approval
Maple Leaf Quay
25,000
Design & approvals for the creation of wetland
habitat in the SE embayment of Humber Bay Park
Climate Change Adaptation
Options for Coastal
management in the Great
Lakes Basin
5,000
To identify coastal features & processes that will
be affected by Climate Change & to determine
sustainable management practices which will
allow us to plan & adapt to changes
Toronto Islands Beach
Restoration Projects
30,000
Reforestation, wetland & habitat
creation /enhancements
Vaughan
Don Watershed
Bartley Smith Greenway
258,234
Habitat regeneration projects, trails
Baker's Woods Sustainable
Forest Management
10,000
Implementation in accordance to the forest
management plan - planting, trail & invasive
species plans still required to be completed
Maple Lands (former MNR)
10,000
Complete feasibility study
Humber Watershed
William Granger Greenway
270,442
Wetland creation, restoration plantings,
community outreach. post project monitoring
Boyd CA Barrier Mitigation
20,000
Design for box culvert and approvals prior to
implementation
Nashville Natural Area
Enhancement Plan
Implementation
20,000
Develop Nashville Natural Area Enhancement
Plan - wetland creation, habitat enhancements
Woodbridge Expansion Area
CAS
45,000
Initiate planning and develop detailed designs for
project implementation. Seek approvals and
community input.
116
THAT staff be directed to work with the partners and other agencies to promote
replanting to ensure there is no net loss of the urban canopy;
THAT staff be directed to prepare the necessary documentation and restoration plans for
TRCA lands where removals were undertaken;
THAT staff report back on the details of the funding programs and the administration
process;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to work in partnership with CFIA to continue
monitoring for the ALHB.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 2004, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada, announced the
implementation of the Introduced Forest Pest Compensation Regulations to compensate
property owners in Ontario and Nova Scotia for replacement of trees ordered destroyed to
control the spread of three invasive forest pests, including the ALHB in parts of Toronto and
Vaughan. CFIA has estimated that the replanting will cost approximately $6.5 million dollars.
Compensation is to be provided on the basis of the direct cost of replacing a tree to a set
maximum amount. The maximum amounts are $300 per tree ordered destroyed on
privately -owned land, $150 per tree on public land, and $40 per tree in woodlots. This
maximum amount will be applied to both the purchase of a tree and to reasonable costs for
planting.
Only those that received a Notice to Dispose issued by CFIA will be eligible for the funding.
Each person that wishes to apply for compensation must purchase and plant trees, before
applying for compensation which will be available only with a receipt. Compensation will only
be provided for the purchase and planting of tree species that are NOT susceptible to attack by
ALHB.
The program will run to December 31, 2005.
Report prepared by: Dena Lewis, extension 5225
For Information contact: Dena Lewis, extension 5225
Date: May 20, 2004
RES. #D46/04 -
GIBRALTAR POINT EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Gibraltar Point, Toronto Islands, City of Toronto. To implement
emergency shoreline protection works to protect a public building and
infrastructure, and initiation of the Class Environmental Assessment
process to develop a long term solution to stabilizing the shoreline.
118
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
the emergency shoreline protection works at Gibraltar Point, Toronto Islands as part of
the "City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project, 2002 - 2006 ", at a total
cost not to exceed $100,000;
AND FURTHER THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in
conjunction with the City of Toronto commence a design study including required Class
Environmental Assessment (Class EA) to develop a more permanent solution to
stabilizing the shoreline.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Shoreline erosion has been occurring at Gibraltar Point for many years. Various forms of
shoreline protection have been attempted over the years, but have since failed. During the
winter of 2004, storms continued to erode the shoreline to the point where a public washroom
facility is endangered. The building is now precariously perched right at the waters edge and
is at imminent risk. Due to the urgency of the situation the City of Toronto has designated the
project as emergency works. In February of 2004, the City of Toronto and the TRCA placed
rip rap stone on the eroding slope as a temporary measure to secure the building. It is
recommended that additional protection work be undertaken at this time. In addition, a Class
EA will be undertaken to develop a long term solution to the on -going erosion. Due to the
anticipated timing to complete the Class EA, emergency works are required at this immediate
time.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Emergency works will consist of the construction of an armour stone revetment in front of the
washroom building. The revetment will be 50 metres long and 3 metres above the lake level.
All construction materials have been stockpiled on site, and will take approximately 3 weeks to
complete construction. All necessary approvals for the emergency works have been obtained.
The planning and design phases for the long term solution to the on -going erosion will be
carried out under the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control
Projects (2002). The Class EA approach is considered a suitable means for the planning of
remedial flood and erosion control projects because it provides a consistent, streamlined
process that ensures compliance with Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) requirements.
The planning and design process of a Class EA project is illustrated on the following page:
119
Yes
INITIATE CLASS EA
PUBLISH NOTICE OF INTENT
4
ESTABLISH COMMUNITY
UAISON COMMITTEE
I EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL MEASURES &
SELECT PREFERRED MEASURE
1
PREPARE BASEUNE
ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY
1
1
CONDUCT DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
1
CAN ALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BE
AVOIDED, MITIGATED OR COMPENSATED?
No
PREPARE PROJECT PLAN
PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT
(ESR)
PROVIDE NOTICE OF RUNG TO
INTERESTED PARTIES
(Appendix E)
4
ARE IMPACTS DEEMED ACCEPTABLE?
PREPARE AND FILE NOTICE OF
ADDENDUM AS NECESSARY TO
ADDRESS COMMENTS
(Appendix E)
i
ARE ALL CONCERNS ADDRESSED?
(No Part 11 Order Requests)
PUBUSH NOTICE OF FIUNG FOR REVIEW
(Appendix E)
PREPARE INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL.
ASSESSMENT OR
REASSESS PROGRAM OPTION
(See Figure 1A)
4 Yes
PROJECT APPROVED UNDER EA ACT
PROVIDE NOTICE OF PROJECT APPROVAL
& PROCEED TO CONSTRUCTION
(see Figure 1C)
Part II
Order
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT I
REVIEWS PART 11 ORDER REQUEST
Request
Denied
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds are available in the Toronto Erosion Control Budget, Account No. 155 -01, in the amount
of $100,000 for the emergency shoreline works, and Account No. 151 -01 in the amount of
$50,000 to commence the design study.
Report prepared by: Moranne Hagey, (416)392 -9690
For Information contact: Jim Berry, (416)392 -9721
Date: May 21, 2004
RES. #D47/04 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Changes to Membership. Changes to the membership of the 2004 -2006
Don Watershed Regeneration Council
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
120
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council membership changes, as set out in the staff report be approved.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The membership of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council was approved at Authority
Meeting #4/04, held on April 30, 2004. The individual name for some of the positions were
vacan and have now been confirmed as outlined below. The Liaison member for the City of
Toronto and one citizen position remain vacant at this time.
ADDITIONS TO MEMBERSHIP
riii t'O� &IALrSTAFF�,�� t y�zg�:., �
t Sfi .•< xr y_,,z;f * :wr�i ys" :spa.' ,..
Crty of Toronto
ti,1
Member - Toronto N.
:;$;•._r
Councillor Peter Li Preti
Member - Toronto N.
Councillor Jane Pitfield
Member - Toronto S.
Councillor Paula Fletcher
Town of Markham
Liaison
Karen Boniface, Recreation & Culture
Liaison
Lilli Duoba, Environmental Planning
`Cir 1.eig MEMBEWS, . ..
, of =��r,. M�.:. :F ,,
Member
[Jane Darragh
City of Toronto Councillors were appointed to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council
following the Toronto City Council meeting held on April 15, 2004.
The staff liaisons for the Town of Markham were confirmed by the Town Clerk on April 21,
2004.
Jane Darragh was interviewed on May 20, 2004 and appointed as a citizen member to the
Council. Ms. Darragh was out of the country during the regularly scheduled interview times.
The following Don Council member has resigned:
RESIGNATIONS
C�TIZEM.iVIMBfrRS
r, .r
ti,1
's .
:;$;•._r
"� _ ,.
Member
fLaurian Farrell
121
Laurian Farrell accepted a job at the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as the Water
Management Coordinator for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds, and consequently
resigned her position as a member of the Don Council.
Report prepared by: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
For Information contact: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
Date: May 26, 2004
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF ANOTHER BOARD
RES. #D48/04 - ETOBICOKE- MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION
Minutes of Meeting #1/04, January 22, 2004. The minutes of
Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition Meeting #1/04, held on
January 22, 2004, are provided for information.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds
Coalition meeting #1/04, held on January 22, 2004, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, dated May 2002, and
adopted by the Authority at Meeting #5/02, held on May 24, 2002 by Resolution #A124/02,
includes the following provision:
Section 3.5 - Reporting Relationship
The Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition is considered a subcommittee of the
Watershed Management Advisory Board. The Watersheds Coalition Chair will report, at
least, on a semi - annual basis on projects and progress. Annual work plans will be
developed and submitted prior to the end of the first quarter of each year.
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
Date: January 15, 2003
122
RES. #D49/04 - ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meeting #1/04. The Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force
Meeting #1/04, held on April 7, 2004 are provided for information.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting
#1/04, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Rouge Watershed Task Force are forwarded to the Authority
through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal
record of the work of the Rouge Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority
members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Rouge Watershed Plan.
Report prepared by: Michelle Chamberlain, extension 5330
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: May 28, 2004
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:58 a.m., on Friday, June 11, 2004.
Dave Ryan
Chair
/ks
123
Brian Denney
Secretary- Treasurer
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/04
July 16, 2004
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/04, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, July 16, 2004. The Chair Dave Ryan,
called the meeting to order at 10:36 a.m.
PRESENT
Frank Dale Member
Cliff Jenkins Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Dave Ryan Chair
Shelley Petrie Member
Michael Thompson Member
REGRETS
Nancy Stewart
RES. #D50 /04 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by.
Frank Dale
Cliff Jenkins
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/04, held on June 11, 2004, be approved.
PRESENTATIONS
Member
CARRIED
(a) A presentation by Lisa Richardson, Eastern Coordinator, Great Canadian Shoreline
Cleanup, in regards to item 7.1 - The Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup.
(b) A presentation by Ralph Toninger, Coordinator, Environmental Projects, TRCA, in
regards to item 7.2 - Tommy Thompson Park: 2004 Interim Management and Master
Plan Implementation Programs.
RES. #D51 /04 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Cliff Jenkins
Gay Cowbourne
124
THAT above -noted presentations (a) and (b) be heard and received.
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) An email dated July 15, 2004 from Madeleine McDowell, Chair, Humber Heritage
Committee, in regards to item 7.3 - City of Toronto Harmonized Private Tree By -Law.
RES. #D52/04 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Michael Thompson
THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received.
CARRIED
125
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
"Madeleine McDowell" <m.mcdowell@sympatico.ca> To <Kathy_Stranks @trca on ca>
07/16/2004 01 46 AM
Please respond to
"Madeleine McDowell" <m mcdowell @sympatico ca>
The Chair and Members,
Watershed Management Advisory Board,
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive,
Downsview, Ontario M3N 1 S4
Dear Mr Ryan:
cc
Subject WMAB AGENDA ITEM #7 3 JULY 16,2004
ih
July 15 ,2004
Re: agenda item 7.3
While the Humber Heritage Committee strongly supports a Harmonized City -wide Private
Tree By -law in the City of Toronto, we have a serious concern with the simple 30cm callipered
aspect of the proposal. If this is the only standard it fails to protect some of the hardwood
treasures such as Oaks, Beeches and Butternuts, which frequently do not reach that diameter
for eighty years. The rare and endangered Sassafras never reaches that caliper although they
do have long life spans. These trees could be protected by incorporating an age factor for
certain species. Any arborist can identify them enough by approximate age at a glance.
With the recent threat of Asian Long Horn Beetle this By -law is particularly important in the
maintenance and preservation of the urban forest canopy which is one of the most significant
factors in Toronto's Heritage and identity. Extending it to other municipalities is also crucial with
the continuing urbanization of our watersheds. It is not simply an aesthetic but a factor in air
quality, ground water and storm run off control in our watersheds. We heartily endorse the
sentiments of the recommendations before you, but do wish to express the caveat with regard
to slower growing trees, trusting that you will see fit to make an appropriate comment to the
City and other municipalities.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours sincerely,
Madeleine McDowell
Chair, Humber Heritage Committee
126
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D53/04 -
THE GREAT CANADIAN SHORELINE CLEANUP
To gain support and generate participation in the Great Canadian
Shoreline Cleanup.
Moved by: Cliff Jenkins
Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Great Canadian Shoreline
Cleanup report be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup (GCSC) is a conservation program aimed at removing
litter from Canadian rivers, lakes, wetlands and oceans. This week -long annual initiative began
in British Columbia 12 years ago, and as of 2003 expanded to include every province and
territory. During the 2003 GCSC, 116 events took place across the country with the help of
20,000 volunteers in 70 communities, removing nearly 50,000 kg of debris from along
Canadian waterways.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) supported the September 2003 Ontario
launch of the GCSC and was involved in organizing cleanups at Lake St. George and in the
Highland Creek watershed. The Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Program held 4
events where over 250 volunteers collected more than 6,500 kg of garbage along Highland
Creek at Brimley Woods, Knob Hill Park, Morningside Park and Centennial College's Progress
Road Campus. In turn, the initiative assisted TRCA in building community capacity by offering
a communications and marketing framework under which to promote local cleanup events,
provide groups with cleanup materials, assist in obtaining site permits and arrange for garbage
collection.
The GCSC is sponsored by TD Friends of the Environment Foundation, coordinated nationally
by the Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre and is Canada's main contribution to the
Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanup (ICC). The goal of the GCSC is to reduce
aquatic debris through education, awareness, community stewardship, environmental
monitoring and restoration. To help achieve this goal, each debris item collected is recorded
on data cards and submitted to the Aquarium. They compile Canada's results, and forward
them to the Ocean Conservancy to be included with the international results.
An increased level of TRCA participation is anticipated in 2004, and promotional efforts will gain
additional support in communities across the TRCA jurisdiction. The 2004 GCSC will take place
September 11 -19 with an anticipated involvement of 35,000- 40,000 volunteers nation -wide.
More information is available on the GCSC website at www.vanaqua.org /cleanup.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA stewardship, watershed management and marketing /communications staff are working
closely with GCSC Eastern Coordinator Lisa Richardson to support and promote the initiative
and encourage additional community groups and volunteers in the Toronto region to join in the
clean up in order to increase the level of effort over and above the 2003 participation levels.
127
Report prepared by: Natalie Affolter, extension 5676
For Information contact: Natalie Affolter, extension 5676
Date: June 30, 2004
RES. #D54/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
2004 Interim Management Program and Master Plan Implementation. To
report on the Tommy Thompson Park 2004 Interim Management
Program and Master Plan Implementation including the recent federal
announcement for park implementation funding.
Cliff Jenkins
Gay Cowbourne
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue to
negotiate the Annual Access Agreement with the Toronto Port Authority regarding
access to Tommy Thompson Park and other such items deemed necessary for the 2004
activities;
THAT staff be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the
Interim Management Program, including the preparation of any documents and
agreements;
THAT the Authority acknowledges, as part of Toronto's waterfront revitalization, the
announcement by the Government of Canada on May 20, 2004, to invest in Lake Ontario
Park and more specifically $8 million for implementation of the Tommy Thompson Park
Master Plan;
THAT staff be directed in conjunction with the City of Toronto to enter into discussions
and preparation of an agreement with the federal government and the Toronto Waterfront
Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) for implementation of the Tommy Thompson Park
Master Plan by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA);
AND FURTHER THAT the federal government, TWRC and City of Toronto be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
This report provides an update to the current Authority members on the Tommy Thompson
Park 2003 activities, the 2004 work plan and information on the recent federal announcement
to fund Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan implementation.
128
In 1959, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (now known as the Toronto Port Authority or
TPA) began construction of a spit of land at the base of Leslie Street in the City of Toronto.
From 1959 until present day, a combination of lakefilling and dredging activities created the
current configuration of the Leslie Street Spit extending 5 kilometers into Lake Ontario, and
having a total land /water base of approximately 471 hectares. The TRCA currently owns 247
hectares of this land and water which is formally known as Tommy Thompson Park (TTP).
Those areas still under construction are owned by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
(OMNR) and are leased to the Toronto Port Authority. The OMNR indicated the intent to
transfer a further 224 hectares of land and water to the TRCA upon the completion of lakefilling
activities. The current lease (2001 -2011) makes provision for the transfer to TRCA of a portion
of these lands not required for TPA filling operations.
Tommy Thompson Park has evolved into one of the most significant features along the north
shoreline of Lake Ontario. It is home to numerous birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, mammals
and vegetation communities, which have distinguished Tommy Thompson Park as an
Important Bird Area (IBA) and as an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA #130). The IBA
international designation demonstrates Tommy Thompson Park's significance nationally, as
well as globally for its biological contribution to bird life. As an ESA, Tommy Thompson Park is
recognized as supporting an unusually high diversity of biological communities, including
provincially, regionally rare plant species, aquatic communities and wildlife.
Tommy Thompson Park has also established itself as a unique place for a variety of human
activities, attracting well over 100,000 visitors a year. These users only access the park on
weekends and holidays, and represent a very broad range of park users including;
birdwatchers, naturalists, cyclists, in -line skaters, pleasure walkers, joggers, researchers and
students.
The Aquatic Park Sailing Club (APSC) is a small community sailing club that has leased a
portion of the waterlot and Iandbase in Embayment C at Tommy Thompson Park since 1976.
The revenue from the lease currently supports the Interim Management Program. The current
three -year lease agreement was executed for the 2002 -2004 season under Resolution #A87/02
of the Authority, Meeting #4/02, held on April 26, 2002.
The Aquatic Park Sailing Club contributes $2,500.00 to annual operation of the TTP Van Shuttle
which services park users and APSC members on weekends and holidays from May through
to October. The Club also assists TRCA with a variety of projects including garbage clean -up
and tree wrapping for protection against beaver damage. The club has financially contributed
to shoreline naturalization and enhancement activities around their club house.
The Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan was completed in 1989, and then revised in 1992
through the Minister of the Environment's approval under the Environmental Assessment Act.
Implementation of the master plan, until 2003 had been very limited due to continued
construction and lake filling activities, the limitations for public access, and approvals required
for some of the habitat features. The master plan's main objectives are to achieve its goal of
an "Urban Wilderness Park ".
129
The Toronto Port Authority manages the filling operation at the Leslie Street Spit (also known
as TTP) including access from Monday to Friday, 7:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m. An access agreement
between TPA and TRCA sets out TRCA's responsibilities for public access and site security
outside filling operations
As part of our Interim Management Program, annual agreements are negotiated with the
Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO) (base parking lot) and the Toronto Port
Authority
The park is currently operated under the Interim Management Program in accordance with the
delegated responsibilities given to the TRCA by the Province of Ontario. The Interim
Management Program is in keeping with an agreement with the City of Toronto for the TRCA to
operate the site until such time that the master plan is implemented and a management plan
developed.
In 2003, for the first time since the competition of the master plan, funds were allocated directly
to the Master Plan Implementation Program.
2003 Tommy Thompson Park Interim Management Program
The following briefly outlines the regular activities and special events that occurred during
2003.
The park was open to the public on Saturdays, Sundays and Statutory Holidays commencing
January 4th, 2003. The public hours were as follows: 9:00 a.m to 4.30 p.m., January 4th to
April 6th; 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., April 12th to October 26th; and 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
November 1st to December 21st. In the interest of public safety, security and access, a staff
member was on duty at all times during public hours. Public transportation was provided by
means of a single shuttle van operating during public hours from May 3rd until October 13th.
A nature interpretation program was continued in 2003 and operated from June 4th to
September 5th. Guided walks were conducted on holidays focusing on different aspects of the
park's natural history. The interpretive "spit cart" was staffed on Sunday afternoons throughout
the summer, and the TTP Bird Research Station was open to the public on weekends and
holidays in the spring and fall migratory windows. In addition to the regularly scheduled
programs, staff offered a special TRCA spring birding event, aquatic planting events with local
schools, a winter waterfowl festival and numerous guided tours with various special interest
groups.
Wildlife management activities undertaken in 2003 included a ring - billed gull control program,
the Common Tern nesting raft project with the Canadian Wildlife Service, a Caspian Tern
recovery program, a Double Crested Cormorant Control Program, control of nesting Canada
geese and Mute swans, and a general wildlife enhancement and monitoring program.
Special Activities
In addition to the regular park programs, other special events and activities were held at
Tommy Thompson Park during the 2003 season. The following is an outline of these various
events:
130
• Lake Ontario Mid - Winter Waterfowl Inventory (January 12);
• TRCA Bird in the Hand Event (May 3);
• Numerous birding walks with special interest groups (May);
• Aquatic Park Sailing Club Spit Clean -up day (May 10),
• TRCA Bird in the Hand Event (May 3 );
• Aquatic Plants Program Planting Days (June 9 -20);
• University of Toronto Field Course (July 8,10,15,17);
• Lake Ontario Clean -up Event (September 11);
• TTP Winter Waterfowl Event (November);
• Annual Christmas Bird Count (December 28).
2003 Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Development Project
The following briefly outlines the activities and projects which have been completed in 2003.
As part of the original master plan process, a Natural Area Advisory Committee was
established with representation from a variety of governmental and non governmental groups,
local universities, naturalist groups, Friends of the Spit and the TRCA. The group was formally
known as the Tommy Thompson Park Natural Area Advisory Committee (NAAC). Upon
completion and approval of the master plan, the NAAC was disbanded.
In 2002, the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Design Project which updated the vision of
this "urban wilderness park" was formally endorsed by the Authority. Part of Resolution
#A97/02 is as follows:
...THAT staff be directed to establish a Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Committee with
broad representation of park users, interests groups, and the City of Toronto to assist
Toronto and Region Conservation staff with the development and implementation of
various Park Master Plan components;...
In 2003, a formal terms of reference for the Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Committee
(TTPAC) was completed. The TTPAC will assist TRCA with the planning and implementation of
activities that are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and guidelines of the Tommy
Thompson Park Master Plan and Environmental Assessment. The group represents a range
of stakeholders including; TRCA, Friends of the Spit, Toronto Ornithological Club, University of
Toronto Botany, Toronto Field Naturalist, Toronto Entomologists Association, Toronto Parks,
Aquatic Park Sailing Club, Toronto Port Authority, Toronto Cycling Committee, Volunteer
Naturalists, Park User /Resident, Toronto Bird Observatory and the Ashbridge's Bay Sewage
Treatment Plant. The committee convened for ten meetings in 2003.
Embayment D Observation Platform
The Embayment D nature viewing platform was designed and constructed, and represents the
first major park infrastructure project. The platform will be one of the focal points for the parks
interpretive and public access programs.
Nature Viewing Platforms
A total of five nature viewing platforms were constructed in various location of the park. The
platforms and seating were installed in areas that provide good vantage points of the City of
Toronto, areas of interest for nature enthusiasts and opportunities for interpretation.
131
South Shore Habitat Enhancement Project
The project site was located within a recently lakefilled portion of Tommy Thompson Park. The
project involved the creation of an 8.5 ha landscape along the southern portion of the park.
Through a variety of techniques including land form alterations, drainage design, soil
conditioning and paintings, diverse terrestrial and aquatic habitat communities have been
created.
Critical Wildlife Habitat Creation
Installation of habitat components that are critical to various life stages of wildlife and flora in
the form of reproductive, juvenile /nursery, resting /loafing and overwintering areas have been
created. Specifically, these include denning structures, small mammal / hibernaculi habitats,
nesting and perching structures, and basking structures.
Interpretive Signage
Interpretive signage was developed for various locations in the park which highlight points of
ecological and cultural significance.
Tommy Thompson Park Bird Research Station
The TRCA entered into an arrangement with the Toronto Bird Observatory to form the Tommy
Thompson Park Bird Research Station. A small banding laboratory was constructed and
outfitted with research supplies. A five -year memorandum of understanding was developed
between the groups, and a pilot project was commenced in 2003. The primary objective of the
partnership is to help in the protection and preservation of migratory birds and their habitats. It
will also include training volunteers and staff; public education programs; communicating with
the media and decision- makers about bird populations; bird banding and other research
techniques; bird and habitat preservation and related issues; and cooperation with other local,
regional, provincial, national and international organizations.
Self- Sustaining Outdoor Washrooms
Two washroom facilities were designed and purchased, and will be installed with the Aquatic
Park Sailing Club assuming maintenance. The self- sustaining outdoor toilets contain a
composting tank that is large enough to accommodate high public traffic, and the alternative
solar energy sources will power self- venting systems and lighting.
Cell 1 Capping Project
Tommy Thompson Park contains the confined disposal facility (CDF) for the Port of Toronto
and surrounding area with the primary source of dredgeate being from the Keating Channel
(Don River). This CDF complex consists of three disposal cells of which Cells 1 and 2 are filled
to operational capacity. Since 1990, the TRCA has been developing a capping and wetland
creation proposal for disposal Cell 1. The Cell 1 capping project began in 2003, and will
provide functional habitat for a wide variety of wetland dependent fish and wildlife species.
This habitat complex, when complete, will represent 7.7 ha of coastal wetland habitat, and
represents the largest wetland gain in the Toronto waterfront area supporting the Toronto
Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Strategy.
The following sets out the 2004 work plans for Interim Management Program and Master Plan
development.
132
2004 Interim Management Program
The 2004 Interim Management Program will continue as in 2003, with only slight modification.
The following activities were established with the assistance of the Tommy Thompson Park
Advisory Committee.
• Public access year round on weekends and statutory holidays;
• Public transportation in the form of a shuttle van operating from May to Thanksgiving,
• Staffing to offer interpretive opportunities and to operate public transportation;
• Gull Control /Monitoring programs;
• Double Crested Cormorant Monitoring and Discouragement programs;
• Habitat and Wildlife Enhancement and Monitoring;
• Summer nature programs on Sundays and holidays with coordinated volunteer walks;
• Park facilities operation, maintenance and improvements;
• Interpretive program development;
• Staffing for park management and coordination;
• License agreement with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club for sailing activities.
2004 Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Development Project
The Master Plan Development Project's main objective is to sequentially implement portions of
the approved Master Plan to achieve it's goal of an "Urban Wilderness Park ". The Master Plan
Development Project began in 2003, and has targeted a variety of public amenities, interpretive
facilities, habitat enhancement activities and research.
The following activities are set for 2004 and have been established with the assistance of the
Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Committee:
• Continued meetings of the TTP Advisory Committee;
• Improvements to the park entrance and gateway facilities;
• Improvements to the existing parking lot and shuttle van kiosk;
• Construction of the TRCA staff booth and interpretive station;
• Embayment D observation platform completion;
• Completion of the Phase 1 Nature Viewing Platforms;
• Implement the TTP Trail Master plan;
• Completion of the South Shore Habitat Enhancement Project;
• Completion of self- sustaining outdoor washrooms;
• Natural Areas Enhancements projects;
• Cell 1 capping public access and interpretive structures;
• Interpretive signage, park guide publications and web page improvements;
• Continued operation and expansion of the TTP Bird Research Station.
Federal Government Announcement
On May 20, 2004, the Government of Canada announced $125 million to be directed in
necessary investments to accelerate plans in support of world -class public spaces, sport and
recreational facilities along Toronto's waterfront. $4 million was allocated for the park planning
and scoping including a multi -media Discovery Centre for Lake Ontario Park and $8 million
specifically for implementation of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan.
133
RATIONALE
Recently there has been a growing interest in the City of Toronto's waterfront with the Central
Waterfront Plan and the establishment of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation.
The popularity of TTP has grown to where it currently hosts well over 100,000 people annually
who are restricted to access on weekends and holidays only. The park is currently under
servicing its existing users, and it has the potential to better accommodate its existing users as
well as increase the number of users if access was improved. With the bulk of the filling
operations near completion, the master plan vision of an Urban Wilderness Park is closer to
reality.
Working with the partners, including the TRCA, Parks Canada will bring its world -wide
reputation for park planning and ecological integrity to the creation of Lake Ontario Park.
Parks Canada will assist in park planning and development, and will develop and operate a
state -of- the -art multi -media Discovery Centre to bring all of Canada's national parks and
historic sites to Torontonians and tourists alike This funding will accelerate implementation of
the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan, Lake Ontario Park planning and the proposed
"Discovery Centre ". These initiatives will be key elements of Toronto's waterfront revitalization.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff is currently reviewing the Aquatic Park Sailing Club lease (2002 -2004) and will be
reporting later this year on a new lease commencing 2005.
Staff are requesting direction to negotiate the Annual Access Agreement with the Toronto Port
Authority.
Staff are also requesting direction to take certain action to facilitate the Interim Management
Agreement, including the preparation of documents and agreements.
Staff have had some preliminary discussions with the federal government and the Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Corporation on the $8 million targeted for implementation of the
Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan. Staff are seeking direction to continue discussions and
preparation of an agreement with the Government of Canada and the Toronto Waterfront
Revitalization Corporation for the implementation of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan
by TRCA.
Staff will work closely with the City of Toronto Waterfront Secretariat and other departments to
ensure consistency with City of Toronto's waterfront vision and policies, as reflected in the
planning and implementation of Tommy Thompson Park.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The following provides the budget allocation for the Interim Management Program and master
plan activities.
134
2004 Interim Management Program
Activity
Description
Budget
Gate Operations and
Park Management
Staffing, supplies and material to oversee park
management, and to undertake habitat and wildlife
management and monitoring programs.
$27,200
Gull control program
Equipment and staffing to conduct the gull control census
and discouragement programs
$25,000
Nature interpretation
programs
Equipment and staffing to offer nature interpretation
programs and monitoring
$17,000
Colonial waterbird and
wildlife management
Equipment and staffing to conduct waterbird management
programs
$15,000
Shuttle bus and
vehicle
Staffing, equipment and mileage to operate TTP shuttle van
$36,100
Facility /equipment
rentals
Staff office trailer rental, and contract services for washroom
and facilities rental
$12,400
Emergency services
Insurance, fire prevention, emergency services
$3,100
Staff training
Driving safety, first aid, search and rescue
$2,300
Project administration
$11,900
Revenue (Aquatic Park
Sailing Club)
($10,000)
TOTAL BUDGET
$140,000
2004 Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Development Project
Activity
Description
Budget
TTP Gateway Design
Project
Develop detailed architectural and construction drawings for
TTP Gateway Design Project
$20,000
TTP Gateway
Construction
TTP Gateway Construction Park Entrance, Bus shelter, kiosk
Washroom facilities, Parking lot, Staff Gatehouse &
Interpretive Area - - -- Staff office/ interpretive venue,
self - sustaining outdoor washroom facility, and /or plaza
gather area
$145,000
Embayment D Viewing
Platform
Embayment D Viewing Platform Completion including railing,
seating, landscaping and cleanup
$14,000
Viewing area
improvements
Small scale viewing area improvements, seating,
landscaping and cleanup
$10,000
Self- sustaining outdoor
washroom
Self- sustaining outdoor washroom structure, landscaping
and construction
$8,000
Pedestrian Bridge
Turnaround
Completion of the shuttle bus turnaround including roadway
improvements, seating, landscaping and site cleanup
$12,500
Trail Improvements
Trail Improvements, consolidation, surface improvements,
small bridge construction
$15,000
135
Embayment D Habitat
Enhancement
Wetland and terrestrial habitat creation and enhancement,
Critical habitat feature installation, tree planting, and seeding
South Shore (Toplands)
Habitat Enhancement
Wetland and terrestrial habitat creation and enhancement,
critical habitat feature installation, tree planting, and seeding
Terrestrial Habitat
Enhancement
Construction of bird boxes, brush bundles, nesting tubes,
and other critical nesting structures
Interpretive Signage
Development, production and installation of Interpretive
Signage in 4 locations
Publications / web
improvements
Design and printing of updated bird checklist, park brochure,
and web page improvements
Interpretive events
Meetings, Functions, Events for outreach, interpretive
programs, bird festivals, and TTP advisory committee
TOTAL BUDGET
$10,000
$25,000
$6,800
$24,000
$11,200
$9,000
$310,500
Funding is provided for in the 2004 Toronto Waterfront Capital Budget:
1) Master Plan Development - Account No. 210 -50; and
2) Interim Management - Account No. 210 -19.0
The 2005 -2009 capital budget for Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan implementation will be
developed to reflect the federal funding announcement and draft implementation schedule.
Report prepared by: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366
For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243
Date: June 02, 2004
RES. #D55/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CITY OF TORONTO HARMONIZED PRIVATE TREE BY -LAW
Proposal by the City of Toronto to introduce a Harmonized City -wide
Private Tree By -law.
Michael Thompson
Dick O'Brien
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) express its support for the Harmonized City -wide Private
Tree By -law that has been proposed by the City of Toronto;
THAT TRCA supports the proposal that the by -law apply to all land use types, including
single family residential, and all species of trees;
136
THAT the City of Toronto Harmonized City -wide Private Tree By -law be used as a model
by other municipalities considering private tree by -laws ;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto's Commissioner of Economic Development,
Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be so
advised.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D56/04
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Michael Thompson
Dick O'Brien
THAT the following replace the main motion:
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) express its support, in principle, for a Harmonized
City -wide Private Tree By -law for the City of Toronto;
THAT staff be authorized to provide comments to the City of Toronto on the proposed
tree by -law prior to Council consideration of the item;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the Harmonized City -wide Private Tree By -law
when more information is available.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At the June 11, 2004 Watershed Management Advisory Board meeting staff were asked to
report back on the proposed City of Toronto Harmonized City -wide Private Tree By -law.
Currently the protection of trees on private property outside of ravines is limited to the former
Cities of Toronto and Scarborough. These two by -laws are not consistent and in the remainder
of the City of Toronto there is no protection for private trees outside of ravines.
The proposal is to harmonize and expand the private tree by -law city wide.
The former City of Toronto tree by -law was passed in 1995. It prohibits the removal, cutting or
injuring of all trees having a diameter of 30 cm or greater measured at 1.4 m above ground
level unless authorized by a permit to do so. This by -law applies to all lands within the former
City of Toronto and there are no species specific exemptions.
137
The former City of Scarborough private tree by -law was passed in 1997 and prohibits the
removal, cutting or injuring of certain trees having a diameter of 30 cm or greater measured at
1.4 m above ground level unless authorized by permit to do so. The significant difference from
the former City of Toronto by -law is that it does not apply to trees on properties where a single
family dwelling exists and it exempts certain species of trees.
The exemptions currently in the former City of Scarborough by -law are problematic. Firstly, the
exemption of single family dwellings means that trees that are protected through the plan of
subdivision process are no longer protected once the single family dwellings are constructed
and sold to new owners. As well, trees located on single family dwelling property can be cut
prior to severing the property into two or more lots, and while the vacant portion of the severed
lot would be subject to the by -law, the trees may have already been removed.
Secondly, the exemption of species such as poplars, willows, silver maples and Manitoba
maples is a problem since these species are found in abundance throughout the city and can
be significant in the local community when they are growing in an appropriate location.
The city -wide private tree by -law is proposed to apply to all land use types, including single
family residential, and all species of trees with a diameter of 30 cm or greater measured at 1.4
m above the ground. The size limits were selected because trees of this size or larger make a
significant contribution to the urban forest canopy and protecting smaller trees would represent
exponentially more work.
The proposed private tree by -law and its budgetary requirements was reviewed by the Planning
and Transportation Committee of the City of Toronto in June. It was referred to community
councils for public consultation at meetings to be held on July 6, 2004. The community
councils will report back to the Planning and Transportation Committee on September 7, 2004
The item will then go to City Council for final debate.
RATIONALE
The urban forest canopy is vital to the quality of life in the city. In addition to the aesthetic
values and their contribution to the character of communities and neighbourhoods, including
the enhancement of property values and reduced energy consumption, trees also provide
many environmental benefits. Reduced air pollution, noise reduction, protection from
ultra - violet radiation, moderation of temperatures and winds, and reduced rain water runoff are
some of these benefits. These trees also provide a link to the natural environment and can
provide support for the terrestrial natural heritage system within the city:
• as sources of food for wildlife,
• by improving the connectivity between natural areas within the urban matrix,
• by buffering natural areas against some of the negative impacts of urban uses,
• as areas of refuge for birds on migration, and
• as habitat for urban tolerant species.
The private tree by -law can prevent unnecessary damage and destruction of trees. It can also
be used as a tool to educate the public and promote the maintenance of trees to ensure the
health and sustainability of the urban forest.
138
Report prepared by: Dena Lewis, extension 5225
For Information contact: Dena Lewis, extension 5225
Date: June 15, 2004
RES. #D57/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DAM SAFETY REVIEWS, CLAIREVILLE DAM, G. ROSS LORD DAM,
MILNE DAM AND STOUFFVILLE DAM
Assessment of safety reviews, key issues, recommended works and
preventative / mitigative actions related to the dam break analysis
component.
Cliff Jenkins
Michael Thompson
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to prepare
appropriate budgets to undertake the maintenance requirements within the
recommended time frames from the Dam Safety Review Studies;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to work with the downstream municipalities as
part of their emergency preparedness to integrate any risk that a potential dam break
may pose.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Natural Resources is proposing legislation to
require that all dams within the province undertake a review of their structural and operational
integrity. The development of Ontario Dam Safety Guidelines (ODSG) is in response to similar
legislation within other provinces and concerns over the status of dams in Canada put forward
by the Canadian Dam Safety Association (CDSA) over the last decade. The pending
provincial legislation will cover all dams, both publicly and privately owned. The components
of the required Dam Safety Study for each structure will be based upon the recommendations
of the Canadian Dam Safety Association and the requirements of the Ontario Dam Safety
Guidelines.
With the final draft ODSG from the ministry, and the knowledge that as an agency with several
dams we would be compelled to undertake such studies, in 2003 TRCA budgeted to initiate
Dam Safety Review Studies at our two largest structures, G.Ross Lord Dam on the West
branch of the Don River and the Claireville Dam on the west Humber River. While the TRCA
has undertaken structural and operational reviews at both these structures, a comprehensive
review of all aspects of the structures has not been undertaken to the level that the ODSG
requires.
139
Following the completion of our 2003 budgetary process, the Ministry of Natural Resources
announced a program of 5 million dollars in provincial grant funding that was available to
Conservation Authorities (CAs) to undertake major maintenance activities for flood and erosion
structures and included a component related to operational and maintenance studies such as
those TRCA staff had proposed. The existence of these provincial funds allowed the TRCA to
expand its studies to include our other two major dams, the Stouffville Dam on the Duffins
Creek and the Milne Dam on the Rouge River.
At Authority Meeting #10/03, held on January 9, 2004, amended Resolution #A276/03 was
adopted as follows:
THAT the consulting firm Mobec Engineering be retained to complete Dam Safety
studies at Claireville, G. Ross Lord, Milne and Stouffville dams at an upset cost of
$152,840 plus applicable taxes.
AND FURTHER THAT staff be requested as a follow -up to this report to provide
recommendations on subsequent work and costs with respect to recommendations of
preventative and emergency measures that could be implemented to mitigate the impact
if a dam break occurs.
The resolution provided approval to undertake these four studies. The four dam safety studies
have recently been completed and have looked at each structure in a comprehensive way in
terms of both the structural and operational aspects of each. The principle areas of study for
each structure included;
• a comprehensive visual inspection;
• a classification of risk related to each structure based upon criteria within the ODSG;
• an operational review of the effectiveness of current operational practices;
• a review of current maintenance practices,
• a review of structural integrity of both concrete and earthen sections;
• a dam break analysis, including mapping; and
• a review of emergency preparedness.
Following the completion of the overall dam safety review, a set of conclusions and
recommendations were developed along with an identification of the priority of any works or
operational changes that were recommended.
For the ease of defining an overall work program and priorities, the consultant was requested
to develop a single set of recommendations and priorities along with time lines to undertake
the recommended activities at all four dams. The overall priorities table prepared by the
consultant was modified by staff into three tables to reflect the works and priorities for major
maintenance, regular maintenance and operational needs which have been utilized in defining
our future budgetary needs.
The general reviews for each dam found them to be in good condition and structurally sound.
Although none of the dams are at risk of imminent failure, a number of deficiencies were
identified. Some of these were deemed as high priority in terms of our need to undertake
works.
140
Where specific high priority issues were identified throughout the study process, staff did not
wait for the conclusion of the studies, and have already begun works utilizing existing
maintenance budgets. For instance, the electrical system at Claireville Dam which is 40 years
old is currently being upgraded, as are repairs to the gates. At G Ross Lord Dam, works have
begun on the low level gates to deal with immediate concerns. A revision to the operations
manuals for the G.Ross Lord and Claireville dams has been completed to update the
emergency preparedness sections.
Although some works have begun to deal with the immediate needs, a significant amount of
work still remains and will be integrated into the budgetary requirements for maintenance at
each of the four dams.
One of the key products from these dam safety reviews was the analysis related to dam break
and downstream consequences. In keeping with provincial guidelines, the regulation of
downstream floodplains will not change as a consequence of a dam break analysis. However,
a review of the number and type of additional structures which may be impacted and the
determination of activities which can be undertaken to mitigate the risk should be undertaken.
In these studies, two types of dam break analysis was undertaken.
The first is known as a Sunny Day Break, where it is assumed that the dam fails in a non flood
condition when the reservoirs are at their permanent holding levels. Such a break could occur
due to a major geologic event or through man made failure (re: terrorist action). Failure is
assumed to occur almost instantaneously and result in a flood wave moving through the
downstream valley resulting in flash flood conditions. The second type of failure analyzed, was
through the passage of a major flood known as the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) through
the dam. The rainfall required to generate such a flood is known as the Probable Maximum
Precipitation (PMP) and the methodology to develop it is defined through requirements set
forth by the province. Both of these failure modes were analyzed for each of the four dams
and a hydraulic analysis undertaken to look at the downstream impacts. Mapping was
prepared for the affected stream reaches downstream and the number of structures which may
be affected were identified.
Elimination of the risk that exists in terms of a catastrophic failure is not possible as the
principle driving force of a failure is related to factors outside of our control. However, we can
minimize the risks over which we do have control. These include ensuring that the structural,
mechanical and operational components of each structure are maintained to the levels
required and that we work with the downstream municipalities to ensure that the level of
emergency preparedness by ourselves and the municipal responders recognizes the risks
associated with a dam break.
141
Another option to reduce risks would be to undertake a detailed analysis of impacted
structures and communities and the development of a remedial works program to deal with the
potential flood risk. This approach would be consistent with activities previously undertaken in
the form of remedial works to remove or reduce risks due to flooding. However, with the small
risk that exists related to a dam break, the other existing flood vulnerable sites would benefit
more from protection. Sites specifically related to dam break flooding will rank extremely low
on a remedial works priority list. While such an approach should not be discounted, it would
likely be a long term solution to this risk.
DETAILS OF WORKS TO BE DONE
As noted in the text of the report, the recommendations from the four reports were
consolidated into a single spreadsheet which staff modified to reflect the needs in the
operational, regular maintenance and major maintenance works components. The breakdown
was undertaken to assist staff in identifying components that were required in our ongoing
budgetary activities The TRCA has included in its preliminary capital budget forecasts for
2005, funding to initiate the high priority works recommended, such as a risk assessment of
public hazards at each site, installing additional gauging for groundwater at Claireville,
continuing electrical upgrades at G.Ross Lord Dam and regular maintenance on the low level
outlet valve at the Stouffville Dam.
The TRCA will also be scheduling meetings with emergency preparedness staff to review the
Dam Break Analysis component of each of the four studies with the City of Toronto and the
Region of York, including the Town of Markham and the Town of Whitchurch Stouffville. The
purpose of these meetings will be to review the outcome of the dam break analysis in terms of
the risk within each municipality and to determine the most appropriate process of integrating
the response to this risk within their emergency response procedures and within the TRCA
flood vulnerable data base. This work will be done in consultation with the affected
municipalities and will be completed by the end of 2005.
Report prepared by: Don Haley, extension 5226
For Information contact: Don Haley, extension 5226
Date: June 30, 2004
Attachments: 3
142
Attachment 1
TABLE 1
DAM SAFETY WORK PLAN MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
Note meter to euu4 uam aarety Assessment Kepons, uam, atounvuie uam, ivurne uam ana u Moss Lora uam, rreparea oy naneen maker eta, i.umming
Cockburn Ltd and Mobec Engineering, March 2004 )
Note Priorities are as identified in the individual reports for each site For budget and p arming pu pose, starting in 2004, assume Critical= to be completed within a year,
High= to be completed in 4 years or less, Medium= in 7 years or less, Low in 10 years or less
Dam Site
ITEM
STATUS
Priority
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Stouftville
All Concrete Structures Repairs
Medium
summer
Stouftville
Spillwall dewatered inspection or diving
inspection
Medium
summer
Stouffville
Vegetation removal and general site
maintenance activities
High
fall
spring
fall
fall
Stouffville
Earthfill Darn Increase Riprap Protection
at least to elev 275m
Medium
summer
Stouftville
Install and thereafter monitor a water
level gage
Medium
spring
Stouffville
Risk assessment of public safety
hazards at the site
High
summer
summer
Stouffville
Dam Safety Periodic Review (2014 or
earlier)
2004
High
Milne
Install and thereafter monitor a water
level gage
Medium
summer
Milne
Redress and support transmission pole
High
summer
Milne
Risk assessment of public safety
hazards at the site
High
spnnq
Milne
Dam Safety Periodic Review (2014 or
earlier)
2004
High
�a�,
..� �
ft` • 0
,4a 0 ..tea` ..
��,`r
> *i �,
_ �
�
�i,
`.
Claireville
South Training wall Investigate and
repair or replace
Medium
summer
Claireville
Electrical Equipment repair of
deficiencies identified (See Kestrel
Engineenng Report)
2004
HIGH /Cntical
ongoing
Claireville
Drainage gallery Piezometers DnOI,
obtain soils data and install 4 new
piezometers
High
summer
Claireville
Dam Safety Periodic Review (2014 or
earlier)
2004
High
G Ross Lord
Refine I- y'drologic study to review
recent PMF and carry out risk
assessment if PMF confirmed
High
ongoing
G Ross Lord
Emergency gates replace chain and
late liq with drum and cable
Medium
winter
G Ross Lord
Electrical Equipment repair of
deficiencies identified (See Kestrel
Engineenng Report)
High
summer
winter
G Ross Lord
Risk assessment of public safety
hazards at the site
High
spring
G Ross Lord
Dam Safety Periodic Review (2014 or
earlier)
2004
High
143
Attachment 2
TABLE 2
DAM SAFETY WORK PLAN OPERATIONAL ASPECTS
Note Refer to 2004 Dam Safety Assessment Reports, Clairevdle Dam, Stouffville Dam, Milne Dam and G Ross Lord Dam, Prepared by Shaheen Peaker Ltd, Cumming Cockbum
Ltd and Mobec Engineering, March 2004 )
Note Priorities are as identified in the individual reports for each site For budget and planning purpose, starting in 2004, assume Critical= to be completed within a year, High -
to be completed in 4 years or less, Medium= in 7 years or less, Low in 10 years or less
Dam Site
ITEM
STATUS
Priority
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Stouffville
OMS Manual update (and review annually
thereafter)
High
fall
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
Carry out and record Monthly and Annual
Inspections
High
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
Develop a site specific dam safety emergency plan
and review /update annually thereafter
High
spring
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
Milne
Earthfill Dam Inspect without snow cover, for
seepage, erosion and animal burrows
High
summer
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
OMS Manual Update (and review annually
thereafter)
High
winter
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
OMS Manual Clarify roles and responsibilities for
operations and maintenance including the fishway
High
winter
Surveillance carry out and record monthly and
annual inspections
High
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
Develop a site specific dam safety emergency plan
and review /update annually thereafter
Hi h
fall
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
Claireville
Earthfill Dam Inspect without snow cover, for
seepage, erosion and animal burrows
2004
High
summer
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
OMS Manual Update (and review annually
thereafter)
2004
High
ongoing
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
Surveillance carry out and record monthly and
annual inspections, quarterly record piezometers
readings
High
fall
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
Develop a site specific dam safety emergency plan
and review/update annually thereafter
2004
High
complete
Dam Site
ITEM
STATUS: Year
Completed
Priority
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
G Ross
Lord
Earthfill Dam Inspect without snow cover, for
seepage, erosion and animal burrows
High
summer
summer
summer
summer
summer
summer
summer
summer
Carry out annual inspection, full travel testing and
maintenance of the low level gates
High
winter
winter
winter
winter
winter
winter
winter
OMS Manual Update (and review annually
thereafter)
2004
High
complete
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
Operation document current practice and rationale
in the OMS manual
2004
High
complete
site maintenance regular program of vegetation
removal, testing and maintenance of gates and
operating mechanism, riprap repair and general
site maintenance
High
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
Surveillance carry out and record monthly and
annual inspections, quarterly record piezometers
readings
High
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
Intrumentation carry out periodic engineering
assessment of data recorded
Medium
fall
Develop a site specific dam safety emergency plan
and review /update annually thereafter
2004
High
complete
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
144
Attachment 3
TABLE 3
DAM SAFETY WORK PLAN REGULAR MAINTENANCE
Note Refer to 2004 Dam Safety Assessment Reports, Claireville Dam, Stouffville Dam, Milne Dam and G Ross Lord Dam, Prepared by Shaheen Peaker Ltd,
Cumming Cockburn Ltd and Mobec Engineering, March 2004 )
Note Pnorities are as identified in the individual reports for each site For budget and planning purpose, starting in 2004, assume Critical= to be completed within a
year, High= to be completed in 4 years or less, Medium= in 7 years or less, Low in 10 years or less
(Dam Site
ITEM
STATUS
Priority
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Stouffville
Spillwal Parapet Repair at fencing
High
fall
Stoutfville
Concrete spillway ice resistance Monitor ice
formation
Low
winter
Stoutly' Ile
Low Level Spillway Valve Testing and
Maintepapce
High
spring
Stouffville
artthhllilll L am Inspect without snow cover, tor
seepage, erosion and animal burrows
High
summer
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
Stouffville
Emergency Spillway Evaluate erosion
protection to resist overtopping
High
summer
4.40: \,i
A y ''' `•-: � ' s:
,
Milne
na�S
I:
nspet lois f concrete spillway under low
water level and repair Joint fillers as required
Medium
summer
Milne
Stilling basin dewatenng it required, must be
done gradually
when
required
summer
Milne
Site Maintenance regular program of
vegetation removal,Testing and maintenance
of gate and operating mechanism, and
High
summer
summer
summer
summer
Claireville
All Concrete Structures repairs
Medium
summer
Claireville
Gates Annual Inspection, testing and
LLp0amtenaq
2004
High
ongoing
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
annual
Claireville
Urarnage Gallery Clean gutter, remove and
inspect pump
High
fall
fall
fall
Claireville
'ne ivrdrnrendnue regular program ui
vegetation removal, testing and maintenance
of gates and operating mechanism, riprap
repair and general site maintenance
High
summer
summer
summer
summer
summer
summer
summer
Claireville
Risk assessment of public safety hazards at
the ste
High
spring
t igg
-t
G Ross Lord
Houtine maintenance and repair of concrete
structures
Medium
summer
G Ross Lord
Spillway tailrace slab inspect Joints, clean
vegetation and repair Remove silt and
rnsner t relief well
Medium
summer
G Ross Lord
Instrumentation Assess existing
instrumentation and reading frequency, carry
nut reneira and rearlinns
Medium
summer
145
RES. #D58/04 -
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)
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
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;
AND FURTHER THAT staff provide an annual project progress report that highlights the
milestones and the accomplishments of the program.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
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 (Attachment 1) 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.
146
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.
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 Tong -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.
147
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.
Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5638
For Information contact: Patricia Lowe, extension 5365
Date: July 2, 2004
Attachments: 1
148
CENTREVILLE CREEK SUBWATERSHED
fr)CTORONTO AND REGION " N.
onserva Lion
LEGEND
A/ Roads
/1/ Watercourses
IS Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs
Centreville Creek
Subwatershed Boundary
(4723 hectares)
Mor•noutura 640t
c UniaMeCroK Mows EsammintSavnelsry
OA Myr. MaaM/p+leY
G juawyae4lb
RES. #D59/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
PROPOSED DRINKING WATER SOURCE PROTECTION ACT
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) review of the
proposed Drinking Water Source Protection Act
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the proposed source protection
legislation and the role proposed for conservation authorities be supported, provided
that adequate and sustained provincial funding is available to fulfill conservation
authority responsibilities;
THAT staff be directed to complete a thorough review of the proposed legislation and
submit comments to Conservation Ontario for inclusion in their consolidated
conservation authority comments to the Ministry of the Environment;
AND FURTHER THAT the Chair forward a copy of the Authority resolution and staff
comments on the proposed Drinking Water Source Protection Act to the Minister of the
Environment, member municipalities, Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) and Conservation Ontario.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The provincial government released a draft Drinking Water Source Protection Act on June 23,
2004. The full legislation is intended to be introduced in the fall, but in the meantime the draft
has been posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR) for a 60 day commenting
period (until August 22). The draft legislation only covers the source protection plan
development component. The implementation component is expected to be added in the fall
prior to l st reading.
This draft legislation is a follow up to the White Paper on Watershed Based Source Protection
Planning, released by the provincial government in February, 2004, and broadly consulted
upon until April 2004. At Meeting #3/04, held March 26, 2004, the Authority expressed
comments and general support for the concepts outlined by the White Paper; endorsed a
proposed source protection planning region, which included the jurisdiction of TRCA and that
of Credit Valley Conservation and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority; and,
approved the role of TRCA as the lead conservation authority within this planning region. A
review of municipal comments from within the TRCA jurisdiction indicates general support for
the concept of watershed -based source protection as set out in the White Paper, but concerns
about the proposed role for the Conservation Authorities (CAs), particularly with regard to
approval of the source protection plan, and the need for provincial funding. It is expected that
many of the municipal concerns stem from the lack of information regarding the
implementation details.
Conservation Ontario and TRCA staff have completed an initial review of the proposed Drinking
Water Source Protection legislation and found no significant differences between it and the
White Paper. Many of the Conservation Ontario and TRCA comments were with the
implementation details which are being deferred to subsequent regulations.
150
Some relevant new highlights in the proposed legislation include:
• CAs in each watershed region will develop a local agreement to deal with the role of the
lead CA and the relationship between the lead CA and the other CAs in the region. This
would appear to give the CAs some flexibility in establishing their local working
relationships.
• More detail is provided on content of the terms of reference, watershed assessment report
and source protection plan. On initial review there are no significant concerns, although
again many of the details are deferred to regulations.
• More detail is provided on the ministry's approval and appeal processes.
• Should a CA fail to submit reports within prescribed times, the Minister may take over
responsibility for the planning process and issue orders to the CA requiring hand over of all
materials and repayment of provincial funds provided.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will complete a thorough review of the proposed legislation and submit comments to
Conservation Ontario.
Subsequent to the March 26, 2004 Authority resolution, TRCA staff have met with staff from the
CVC and CLOCA to discuss potential approaches for the membership, selection and mandate
of the Source Protection Planning Committee, anticipated technical work remaining to
complete source protection plans, and various administrative arrangements within this
planning region. Now that the province has indicated its intent to proceed with legislation, it is
timely that the three CAs meet with senior municipal staff to discuss these considerations and
work cooperatively to address any municipal concerns.
Staff are proceeding to develop a pilot source protection plan for the Duffins and Carruthers
Creek watersheds, as directed by Authority Resolution #A67/04 (March 26, 2004). This pilot
study is being pursued in partnership with municipalities and many other groups and is
intended to use the existing information for these watersheds as a basis for determining the
necessary scope and approaches for development of an effective source protection plan. This
pilot source protection plan will address municipal and private groundwater sources and
watercourse protection as it affects lake -based drinking water sources. Lessons from this
exercise will assist in guiding local source protection planning programs and contribute to the
work of provincial working groups, who are developing province -wide regulations and policy in
support of the proposed legislation.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: July 06, 2004
151
RES. #D60/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM STRATEGY
CONSULTATION WORKSHOPS
To provide a summary of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy
stakeholder consultation workshops.
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff revise the Draft Terrestrial
Natural Heritage System Strategy based on the comments and suggested changes
proposed at the consultation workshops and through written submissions;
THAT staff report back in September with a comprehensive summary of the comments
received;
THAT staff reference the terrestrial natural heritage system in reviewing the Provincial
Planning Reforms and Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt initiatives;
AND FURTHER THAT the finalized Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy be
brought back to the Authority for adoption in the fall.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/04, held on April 30, 2004, Resolution #A123/04 in regards to the
Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy was approved as follows:
THAT the draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (April 2004) be circulated to
its member 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 - governmental 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;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the comments received
regarding the proposed strategy to enable finalization and adoption.
Consultation Workshops, Other Presentations and Meetings
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Terrestrial Natural Heritage System
Strategy (THNSS) consultation workshops were a key part of a series of stakeholder
consultations that the TRCA is continuing throughout its jurisdiction. The objectives of the
workshops were to provide an overview of the strategy and its content in terms of other TRCA
programs; to provide an opportunity to answer any questions related to the strategy; and to
receive preliminary feedback on the strategic directions outlined in the strategy.
152
Invitations to participate in TRCA's consultation workshops, along with copies of the THNSS
were circulated to approximately 250 individual stakeholders with request to comment on the
document and to attend one of two facilitated workshops held on June 14 and 15, 2004.
Participation was invited from the following sectors:
• Municipal staff;
• Government agency staff;
• Watershed advisory group members,
• Public interest groups;
• Non Government Organizations (NGOs);
• Professional stakeholders - consulting industry, professional NGOs, development industry,
professional associations, academics.
Each of the two half -day workshop sessions that were held (one daytime, one evening) were
open to all, depending on their availability. Forty -seven individuals participated in the daytime
workshop, and 21 participated in the evening workshop.
A number of staff presentations introduced the rationale and methodology behind the strategy.
Staff were available to answer questions pertaining to the strategy and TRCA's recent work.
Participants were then separated into small round table discussion groups, each with a
facilitator. TRCA experts also joined in small group discussions to answer any questions that
participants raised. Participants were asked to respond to the following questions:
• Do you support an expanded Terrestrial Natural Heritage System?
• Do you generally support the Strategic Directions?
• Are there any Strategic Directions that you think should be changed?
• Is there anything that you think is missing?
In addition to the workshops, TRCA has posted the draft strategy on its website for a 30 day
commenting period, with comments due by July 9, 2004. TRCA has distributed to date nearly
500 printed copies of the draft strategy and over 50 CDs. Staff have also been responding to
requests to present the strategy. These presentations have included Peel Regional Council,
Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora District staff, the province's Natural Heritage Dialogue
Group, and Ontario Nature's (FON) workshop entitled New Directions in Natural Heritage
Planning for Southern Ontario held in Port Hope. Staff will also be meeting with Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) staff to present the strategy on July 7, 2004, with City of
Toronto staff for a half day workshop on July 20, 2004, and are also scheduled to present to
Caledon Council on August 10, 2004. Staff are continuing to seek opportunities to present the
strategy and receive input.
Through this stakeholder consultation process, the TRCA has been able to, and will continue
to, identify areas where the strategy can be improved and strengthened, to build support in
advance of approval by the Authority in the fall.
153
Summary of feedback from the two consultation workshops
There was a general agreement that the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy is a
positive, science -based step towards enhancing the natural environment and the quality of life
for those in the TRCA jurisdiction. There is also a general support for the Strategic Directions
within the strategy. However, staff from the municipalities and others were cautious about
implementation approaches. No formal comments have been received from the Urban
Development Institute to date.
Like other new initiatives, a number of questions were raised about the science and rationale.
Some common themes raised include:
• cost and equity issues associated with the plan for an expanded terrestrial system;
• coordination with other initiatives of other levels of government such as the Greenbelt Task
Force and the Provincial Policy Statement;
• necessity for cooperation between municipalities, NGOs, upper levels of government;
• the necessity to set interim targets and review and monitor the terrestrial natural heritage
system on an ongoing basis;
• the need to strengthen the link between an enhanced natural system and human health,
quality of life and a more natural water cycle, including source protection and ground water.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff are compiling comments and will be revising the strategy document as they continue to
meet with stakeholders. Comments are due July 9th, however, several municipalities and
agencies have requested additional time to complete their review comprehensively. Workshop
summaries will be provided to all workshop participants and other stakeholders who expressed
interest. The finalized strategy will be brought back to the Authority for adoption in the fall,
including specific implementation recommendations.
Report prepared by: Natalie Iwanycki, extension 5298
For Information contact: Natalie Iwanycki, extension 5298
Date: June 14, 2004
RES.#D61/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
MANITOBA STREET - BEAVERDALE ROAD EROSION CONTROL
PROJECT
Initiation of the Class Environmental Assessment process for the
Manitoba Street - Beaverdale Road Erosion Control Project, City of
Toronto, under the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration
Project, 2002 - 2006.
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
154
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to commence a
Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the Manitoba Street - Beaverdale Road
Erosion Control Project, City of Toronto, under the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project, 2002 - 2006.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1995 it was recognized that river bank erosion was becoming a threat to private homes
(townhouses) and existing structures along sections of the Mimico Creek between Manitoba
Street and Beaverdale Road in the City of Toronto. The site was added to the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Erosion Monitoring Priority List in 1995 and has been
monitored on an annual basis since that time. As the erosion has recently progressed to the
stage where it ranks high enough to warrant attention, TRCA staff recommend that remedial
works be undertaken and anticipate project commencement in 2004 - 2005, subject to
available funding and obtaining all required approvals
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The planning and design phases of this project will be carried out under the Class
Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (2002). The Class
EA approach is considered a suitable means for the planning of remedial flood and erosion
control projects because it provides a consistent, streamlined process that ensures
compliance with Environmental Assessment Act requirements.
The planning and design process of a Class EA project is illustrated below:
155
INITIATE CLASS EA
PUBLISH NOTICE OF INTENT
l
ESTABLISH COMMUNITY
LIAISON COMMITTEE
4
PREPARE BASELINE
ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY
1
EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL MEASURES &
SELECT PREFERRED MEASURE
4
CONDUCT DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Yes
PREPARE PROJECT PLAN
4
PROVIDE NOTICE OF FILING TO
INTERESTED PARTIES
(Appendix E)
4
PREPARE AND FILE NOTICE OF
ADDENDUM AS NECESSARY TO
ADDRESS COMMENTS
(ApP^ndhx r)
1
ARE ALL CONCERNS ADDRESSED?
(No Port 11 Order Requests)
1
PROJECT APPROVED UNDER EA ACT
PROVIDE NOTICE OF PROJECT APPROVAL
& PROCEED TO CONSTRUCTION
(see Figure IC)
1
CAN ALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BE
AVOIDED, MITIGATED OR COMPENSATED? No
lJrmHrltnn
PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT
(ESR)
I PUBLISH NOTICE OF FILING FOR REVIEW
(Appendix E)
IARE IMPACTS DEEMED ACCEPTABLE? I
1 Yee
No
PREPARE INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT OR
REASSESS PROGRAM OPTION
(Sao Frguro 1A)
Part II
i )rditr
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT f
REVIEWS PART 11 ORDER REQUEST 1
l itirll tft Al
Denit^d
FINANCIAL DETAILS
A budget of $50,000 has been identified within the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project, 2002 - 2006.
Report prepared by: Moranne Hagey, 416- 392 -9690
For Information contact: Moranne Hagey, 416- 392 -9690
Date: June 30, 2004
RES. #D62/04 - 1220 SHEPPARD AVENUE EAST EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Initiation of the Class Environmental Assessment process for the 1220
Sheppard Avenue East Erosion Control Project, City of Toronto, under
the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project, 2002 -
2006.
156
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to commence a
Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the 1220 Sheppard Avenue East Erosion
Control Project, City of Toronto, under the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project, 2002 - 2006.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1993 an erosion problem was identified along a section of the East Don River where river
bank erosion was becoming a threat to a commercial building located at 1220 Sheppard
Avenue East in the City of Toronto. The site was added to the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) Erosion Monitoring Priority List in 1993 and has been monitored
on an annual basis since that time. As the erosion has recently progressed to the stage where
it ranks high enough to warrant attention, TRCA staff recommend that remedial works be
undertaken and anticipate project commencement in 2004 - 2005, subject to available funding
and obtaining all required approvals
The erosion appears to be the result of several contributing factors, although an
over - steepened slope with minimal vegetative cover appears to be the primary considerations.
In addition, the continued impact of higher and more frequent flows of the Don River has
exacerbated the erosion problem, resulting in scouring at the toe and undercutting during
moderate to severe storm events.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The planning and design phases of this project will be carried out under the Class
Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (2002). The Class
EA approach is considered a suitable means for the planning of remedial flood and erosion
control projects because it provides a consistent, streamlined process that ensures
compliance with Environmental Assessment Act requirements.
The planning and design process of a Class EA project is illustrated below:
157
INITIATE CLASS EA
PUBLISH NOTICE OF INTENT
a
ESTABLISH COMMUNITY
LIAISON COMMITTEE
I EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL MEASURES &
SELECT PREFERRED MEASURE
1
PREPARE BASELINE
ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY
i
4
CONDUCT DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Yes
PREPARE PROJECT PLAN
1.
PROVIDE NOTICE OF FILING TO
INTERESTED PARTIES
(Appendix E)
4
PREPARE AND FILE NOTICE OF
ADDENDUM AS NECESSARY TO
ADDRESS COMMENTS
(App„nrw E)
r
1.
ARE ALL CONCERNS ADDRESSED?
(No Part 11 Order Requests)
Y�r4
PROJECT APPROVED UNDER EA ACT
PROVIDE NOTICE OF PROJECT APPROVAL
& PROCEED TO CONSTRUCTION
(srr Rpu,e 1C)
4
CAN ALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BE I
AVOIDED. MITIGATED OR COMPENSATED,
.j Uncertain
PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT
(ESP)
1
IARE IMPACTS DEEMED ACCEPTABLE?
1 WV,
PUBLISH NOTICE OF FILING FOR REVIEW 1
(Appendix 1-)
1
Nn
No
PREPARE INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT OR
REASSESS PROGRAM OPTION
(See F.guro IA)
Part II
Order
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT I
REVIEWS PART 11 ORDER REQUEST 1
Her)ufent
Denied
FINANCIAL DETAILS
A budget of $10,000 has been identified within the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project, 2002 - 2006, under Account No. 148 -01.
Report prepared by: Morranne Hagey, 416 - 392 -9690
For Information contact: Moranne Hagey, 416- 392 -9690
Date: June 30, 2004
RES. #D63/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
Changes to Membership and Appointment of Chair and Vice Chair.
Changes to the membership and appointment of Chair and Vice Chair of
the Rouge Watershed Task Force.
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
158
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Rouge Watershed Task
Force membership, as set out in the staff report, be approved.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The membership of the Rouge Watershed Task Force was approved at Authority Meeting
#4/04, held on April 30, 2004. Since then, there have been several changes to the
membership including: one filled vacancy; substitutions; reversals in member and alternate
member; and the addition of backup alternate members (shown in bold below). The member
positions for the Aboriginal Community and Greater Toronto Airports Authority remain vacant at
this time. At the second meeting of the task force, members elected a Chair, Mr. Bryan
Buttigieg, and Vice Chair, Mr. Frank Scarpitti. Mr. Buttigieg is a citizen member from Pickering
living on the banks of the Rouge River who has a strong interest in the watershed as an avid
canoeist, amateur naturalist and historian. Mr. Buttigieg is an environmental lawyer. Mr.
Scarpitti is a York Regional Councillor from the Town of Markham who serves on the Rouge
Park Alliance.
The current Rouge Watershed Task Force membership is as follows:
Rouge Watershed Task Force Members and Alternates
Chair: Bryan Buttigieg
Vice Chair: Frank Scarpitti
Affiliation Member/ Alternate Member
Town of Markham
Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville
Town of Richmond Hill
City of Pickering
York Region
City of Toronto
Durham Region
Toronto Zoo
Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation
Aboriginal Community
Waterfront Regeneration Trust Corp.
Save the Rouge Valley System
Friends of the Rouge Watershed
Richmond Hill Naturalists
Rouge Valley Foundation
Milne Park Conservation Association
Erin Shapero/ George McKelvey
Clyde Smith/ Sue Sherban
Elio Di lorio/ Audrey Hollasch/ Tracy Steele
Rick Johnson/ Tom Melymuk
Frank Scarpitti/ Jack Heath
Gay Cowbourne
David Ryan/ Alex Georgieff
Paul Harpley/ Cynthia Lee
Michael Scott
to be confirmed
Pauline Browes/ Keith Laushway
Andre Flys
Jim Robb/ Tammy Chung/ Kevin O'Connor
Natalie Helferty
Murray Johnston/ Del Fisher
Michael Price/ Tupper Wheatley
159
Agricultural Sector
Urban Development Institute
Golf Courses
Aggregate Producers Ass'n of Ontario
Ontario Archaeological Society
Greater Toronto Airports Authority
Transport Canada
Environment Canada
Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans
Ministry of Agriculture & Food
Ministry of Culture
Ministry of Tourism and Recreation
Ministry of the Environment
Ministry of Municipal Affairs
Ministry of Natural Resources
Ministry of Transportation
Ontario Realty Corporation
Watershed Residents:
Markham
Pickering
Richmond Hill
Toronto
Whitchurch- Stouffville
Rouge Park Alliance
TRCA
Terry O'Connor
David Charlton
Jake Riekstins/ Wendy Burgess/ Tim Clarridge
Peter White
Christine Caroppo
to be confirmed
Patricia Short -Galle
Rimi Kalinauskas
*Karen Ralph
Ray Valaitis
Chris Anderson
*Bob Farrow
Ellen Schmarje
Victor Doyle
John Pisapio/ Judi Orendorff
John Van Voorst/ April Marton
Gary Pringle
Lorne Smith
Bryan Buttigieg
David Tuley
Virginia Jones
Lionel Purcell
Chair Ron Christie
Chair Dick O'Brien
*Declined to participate fully as a task force member but will provide advice on specific issues
through the designated staff liaison.
Report prepared by: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624
For Information contact: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624
Date: June 30, 2004
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF ANOTHER BOARD
RES. #D64/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by.
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #1/04, May 20, 2004 and Meeting #2/04, June 17,
2004. The Minutes of Meeting #1/04, held on May 20, 2004 and #2/04,
held on June 17, 2004
Frank Dale
Gay Cowbourne
160
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council
Meeting #1/04, held on May 20, 2004 and Meeting #2104, held on June 17, 2004 be
received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the
Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the
formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the
Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed
Task Force's report "Forty Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed.
Report prepared by: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
For Information contact: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
Date: July 07, 2004
RES. #D65/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION
Minutes of Meeting #2/04, April 22, 2004. The minutes of
Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting #2/04, held on April 22,
2004, are provided for information.
Frank Dale
Gay Cowbourne
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition
meeting #2/04, held on April 22, 2004, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, dated May 2002, and
adopted by the Authority at Meeting #5/02, held on May 24, 2002 by Resolution #A124/02,
includes the following provision:
Section 3 5 - Reporting Relationship
The Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed
Management Advisory Board. The Watersheds Coalition Chair will report, at least, on a
semi - annual basis on projects and progress. Annual work plans will be developed and
submitted prior to the end of the first quarter of each year.
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
Date: June 24, 2004
161
RES. #D66 /04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #1/04, May 18, 2004 The minutes of the Humber
Watershed Alliance meeting #1/04, held on May 18, 2004, are provided
for information
Frank Dale
Gay Cowbourne
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting
#1/04, held on May 18, 2004, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December 2003 and
adopted by the Authority at meeting #10/03, held on January 9, 2004 by resolution #A289/03,
includes the following provision:
3_9 Reporting Relationship
The Humber Watershed Alliance is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed Management
Advisory Board The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, at least, on a semi- annual basis on
projects and progress. Annual work plans will be developed and submitted prior to the end of
the first quarter of each year.
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: June 24, 2004
RES. #D67 /04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meeting #2/04. The Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force
Meeting #2/04, held on May 27, 2004 are provided for information.
Frank Dale
Gay Cowbourne
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting
#2/04 be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Rouge Watershed Task Force are forwarded to the Authority
through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal
record of the work of the Rouge Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority
members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Rouge Watershed Plan.
162
Report prepared by: Michelle Chamberlain, extension 5330
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: June 23, 2004
NEW BUSINESS
RES. #D68/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
PRESENTATIONS
Michael Thompson
Shelley Petrie
THAT the presentation by Don Haley, Coordinator Floodplain Management, TRCA, in
regards to the July 15, 2004 flood event in the City of Peterborough, be heard and
received.
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:43 a.m., on Friday, July 16, 2004.
CARRIED
Dave Ryan Brian Denney
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
/ks
163
eir THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/04
September 17, 2004
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #5/04, was held in the Humber
Room, on Friday, September 17, 2004. The Chair Nancy Stewart , called the meeting to
order at 10:35 a.m..
PRESENT
Gay Cowbourne Member
Frank Dale Member
Cliff Jenkins Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Shelley Petrie Member
Nancy Stewart Vice Chair
Michael Thompson Member
REGRETS
Dave Ryan
RES. #D69 /04 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Michael Thompson
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/04, held on July 16, 2004, be approved .
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D70 /04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Member
CARRIED
TORONTO WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION CORPORATION
INITIATIVES
To provide a status report on the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Corporation initiatives with highlights of the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority's involvement and participation.
Gay Cowbourne
Shelley Petrie
164
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue with the extensive
participation with the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) and its
partners and report on specific initiatives as appropriate.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In late June and early July 2004, the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Contribution
Agreement(s) with the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto
were signed. This lifted the uncertainty around the future of the TWRC and the go -slow
operation mode in place since April 1, 2004.
The following will provide a status of the TWRC's activities, including the projects that Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is the implementing agency for.
PRECINCT PLANNING
East Bayfront
East Bayfront (90 acres) is a in a newly planned waterfront community stretching south of the
rail corridor between Jarvis and Parliament Streets which includes a public space system
designed to grant access to the water's edge. TRCA has provided comments on integrating
habitat improvements as per the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy
(TWAHRS). The planning for the area between Cherry and Parliament Streets will follow the
completion of the Environment Assessments (EA) for the naturalization of the mouth of the Don
River. It is anticipated the final plan will go to City of Toronto Council in early fall.
West Donlands
The West Donlands (80 acres) is located east of downtown between Parliament Street and the
Don River and King Street and the rail corridor. TWRC proposes park and public spaces plus
mixed commercial and residential use. On August 27, 2004 TRCA provided draft comments to
the TWRC with regard to the West Donlands Class Environmental Assessment Master Plan.
This precinct plan has incorporated the recommendations from the Lower Don River West
Remedial Flood Protection Project Class EA being undertaken by TRCA, on behalf of TWRC
and the three levels of government. This precinct plan will go to City of Toronto Council in
early fall
Commissioner 's Park
Commissioner's Park (41 acres) is located in the Port lands, between the Villiers and
Commissioner's Streets This park will provide active recreational opportunities for surrounding
waterfront communities in the midst of a tree canopy / "camouflage" landscape concept
integrating the Don Greenway and Lower Don naturalization. It is anticipated that the plan will
be completed by early 2005.
Lake Ontario Park
The goal of Lake Ontario Park is to assemble a variety of existing park assets into a unified
waterfront realm. The tentative site is located directly south of Tommy Thompson Park and will
connect Tommy Thompson Park with the Outer Harbour Water Park, the Eastern Beaches and
the new Woodbine Park. Lake Ontario Park would be designated a National Park with the
planning process guided by Parks Canada expertise. The precinct planning process should
begin in the fall of 2004. It is anticipated that TRCA will participate in this key planning effort.
165
Port lands Plan
The Port lands Plan creates development along the Quays and in relation to Lake Ontario Park,
stretching from Cherry Street to Leslie Street. The plan includes new urban plazas, a
continuous waterfront promenade, recreational playing fields, a regional sports complex,
natural habitat corridors, neighbourhood parks and a network of trails.
OTHER INITIATIVES
Dragon Boat /Rowing Course Feasibility Study
The City of Toronto, in co- operation with the federal and provincial governments, has lent its
support to a bid to host the 2006 International Dragon Boat Federation Club Crew World
Championships. The project to design and construct the facility, should it be approved for
implementation, will be managed through TWRC who will form and chair a small, focused
steering committee. TWRC received funding with which to conduct a "fast- tracked" feasibility
analysis and has retained a consulting team to perform that analysis. TRCA has been in
consultation with TWRC in regard to this initiative and will provide comments on the feasibility
study upon its completion.
Central Waterfront Public Spaces Framework
TWRC has developed a Central Waterfront Public Spaces Framework to set "the overall
context for public space design ", building upon past waterfront initiatives. This initiative
incorporated TWAHRS as the guiding document for the aquatic system.
Sustainability Framework
TWRC has developed a Sustainability Framework to identify redevelopment strategies and
actions for waterfront initiatives. The principles set out in the Sustainability Framework will be
incorporated in the development, environmental assessment (EA) and implementation for
projects which TRCA is undertaking on behalf of TWRC (Res. #A217 /04).
TRCA LED PROJECTS
Naturalization and Flood Protection - Mouth of the Don River
This project is being undertaken in two parts:
1. Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project Class EA
2. Don Mouth Naturalization and Portlands Flood Protection Project EA
Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project Class EA
On June 10, 2004 the three levels of government signed a contribution agreement with the
TWRC that increased the study funding from 2 million to 3 million dollars. This funding will be
directed to complete the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project, and to
conduct a second study, the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection
Project.
The concerted efforts of the TRCA, the Dillon Consultant Team, the Technical Advisory
Committee and the Community Liaison Committee have seen this environmental assessment
study nearing completion according to the timeline originally set out The draft Environmental
Assessment Study Reports should be completed by October 15, 2004, the 50th anniversary of
Hurricane Hazel - the TRCA's original goal for study completion.
166
Following receipt of provincial and federal approval, the project implementation process will be
initiated with the development of detailed construction drawings, based on the functional
design and the acquisition of all necessary lands and construction permits. Construction of the
culverts under the CN Kingston Line may commence by early summer 2005. Construction of
the flood protection landform to protect lands west of the Don River, will be constructed when
the culverts are in place. Construction of all flood protection components should be completed
by 2006 -07.
Don Mouth Naturalization and Port lands Flood Protection Project EA
The Don Mouth Naturalization Project will require detailed land -use planning and environmental
studies to devise the best solution to re- establish a natural, functioning wetland at the mouth of
the Don River, while providing flood protection to approximately 230 hectares of land south
and east of the existing Keating Channel. The consultant team selection process for this
project began in August 2003, resulting in the selection of the Gartner Lee Limited team. TRCA
has recently been given approval from TWRC to retain Gartner Lee Limited, and it is anticipated
that a delivery agreement for the project will be signed between TRCA and Gartner Lee by the
end of September 2004.
Upon signing of the Delivery Agreement, Gartner Lee Limited will be authorized to commence
with Stage 1 activities (see Authority Res. #A37 /04 for details). Upon receipt of provincial
approval of the Individual EA Terms of Reference, Gartner Lee Limited will be authorized to
commence with Stage 2 activities of the Delivery Agreement, which is anticipated to begin in
summer /fall 2005. This will be coordinated with the transportation planning for the area
Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project
On July 28, 2004, TRCA received approval under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. All approvals for this project are in
place. The Contribution Agreement has been signed by all levels of government as facilitated
by the TWRC, with a funding commitment of $16,000,000.
Phase I of the project was initiated in September 2002, involving the construction of a
Pedestrian Node at the foot of Port Union Road, a 1.44 kilometre link to the waterfront trail, four
armour stone headlands, six cobble beaches and a pedestrian bridge over Highland Creek.
Phase II of the project includes the extension of the Waterfront Trail from Port Union Road to
the Rouge River and is anticipated to start in 2006.
Construction Activities from September 1 - December 31, 2004 include:
• Wetland will be constructed in the lower reaches of Highland Creek;
• Planning and detailed designs will be initiated for the restoration of the lower reaches of
Adam's Creek;
• Headlands 4 and 3 will be completed;
• Beach cells 4 and 2 will be constructed in the fall;
• Construction of beach cells 4a and 3 will begin in the fall and will be completed in the new
year;
• Work will begin shortly on headland 2 with completion anticipated in the new year;
• Work will be initiated on detailed landscaped designs for Phase I;
• Bore holes will be taken to assist with siting of Highland Creek Pedestrian Bridge;
167
• Fall fisheries monitoring will be completed; and
• Coastal surveys will be undertaken
Mimico Waterfront Linear Park
On August 11, 2004, TRCA received approval under the Environmental Assessment Act by
Ontario Environment Minister Leona Dombrowsky. The project is subject to approval under
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; a decision is expected imminently. The
Contribution Agreement has been signed by all levels of government, as facilitated by the
TWRC, with a funding commitment of $6,500,000. It is expected that implementation of this
project will begin in early 2005.
Tommy Thompson Park
On May 20, 2004, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada announced that
$8,000,000 would be allocated to implement the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan,
achieving its goal of an "Urban Wilderness Park ". The Master Plan Development Project began
in 2003 and has targeted a variety of public amenities, interpretive facilities, habitat
enhancement activities and research. TRCA is currently preparing a work plan for the
implementation of the master plan and will meet with key stakeholders in the following weeks.
Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy (TWAHRS)
TRCA is in the process of setting up the TWAHRS Implementation Committee as per Authority
Res. #A5195 /03 (approved at Authority Meeting #7/03, September 26, 2003), integrating the
TWAHRS recommendations for current waterfront projects.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will continue to undertake the continued negotiations on new initiatives, the project
reporting and appropriate participation in all TWRC initiatives. Staff will report to the Authority
on specific projects as appropriate.
Report prepared by : Larry Field , extension 5243
For Information contact : Larry Field , extension 5243
Date: August 19, 2004
RES. #D71[04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
GREAT LAKES CHARTER ANNEX 2001
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.
Dick O'Brien
Frank Dale
168
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the position adopted by
Conservation Ontario on the draft Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources
Agreement, implementing the commitments within the Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001, be
endorsed;
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicate its support for
integrated watershed management as it contributes to the sustainability of the Great Lakes
Basin ;
THAT the TRCA support the integration of other Great Lakes initiatives (i.e. LAMP's under
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement) with this Agreement to support the restoration
and protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem;
AND FURTHER THAT the recommendations and comments be forwarded to the Minister of
Natural Resources, Conservation Ontario, Environment Canada, the Council of Great
Lakes Governors and the International Joint Commission.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D72/04
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Frank Dale
THAT the following be inserted before the last paragraph of the main motion:
THAT the Minister of Natural Resources, the Council of Great Lakes Governors ,
Environment Canada and the International Joint Commission be requested to ensure that
prior to finalizing this agreement the weaknesses of the agreement be addressed fully and
further extensive agency, public and legal review of the draft agreement take place;
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION , AS AMENDED , WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On July 19, 2004, the Province of Ontario posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry
(EBR# PB04E6018 - comment period ending October 18, 2004) drafts of the Great Lakes
Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement and Great Lakes Basin Water Resources
Compact. Both documents are part of the draft proposal to implement the directives outlined
in Annex 2001. The Agreement is a good -faith agreement among the ten Great Lakes states
and provinces while the Great Lakes Basin Water Resources Compact is an agreement among
the eight Great Lakes states to join together in an interstate compact to enhance joint decision
making about the use of Great Lakes water.
This item was also presented to Conservation Ontario with the following recommendations
adopted:
169
THAT the draft "Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement" be
supported based on the principle of managing the Great Lakes as a hydrological
system, consistent with Conservation Ontario's support for `integrated watershed
management"
THAT the strengths and weaknesses of the draft "Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water
Resources Agreement", as well as positive comments with regard to linked initiatives
relating to the Agreement, be endorsed and reiterated in a letter to the Minister of
Natural Resources and copied to the Council of Great Lakes Governors, Environment
Canada and the International Joint Commission.
THAT Conservation Ontario be represented by Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority at the September 20, 2004 public meeting in Toronto being hosted by the
Council of Great Lakes Governors.
The Great Lakes Charter was signed in 1985 by Great Lakes governors and premiers (Ontario
and Quebec) as a good -faith agreement to guide the regional management of the Great Lakes
Basin. The principles set forth in the 1985 agreement included:
• Integrity of the Great Lakes Basin;
• Cooperation among jurisdictions;
• Protection of the Water Resources of the Great Lakes;
• Prior Notice and Consultation; and,
• Cooperative Programs and Practices.
In 2001, the Great Lakes Charter Annex, a supplementary agreement to the Great Lakes
Charter, was signed to reaffirm the commitment to the five broad principles set forth in the 1985
agreement. Annex 2001 put forth directives to further the principles of the charter. These
directives included the:
• Development of a new set of binding agreements;
• Development of a broad -based public participation program;
• Establishment of a new decision making standard;
• Project review under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (US);
• Development of a decision support system that ensures the best available information; and,
• Further commitments including the implementation of legislation as well as undertaking a
planning process for protecting, conserving, restoring and improving the Great Lakes
Basin.
The Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement is applicable to Ontario and
Quebec. The Great Lakes Basin Water Resources Compact is not applicable as neither the
states nor provinces, under constitutional law, can enter into international agreements with
other jurisdictions. It is the intent of the Agreement that Ontario and Quebec will create or
amend existing legislation to make the Agreement legally binding
170
The objectives of the Agreement are.
a. to protect, conserve, restore, improve and efficiently and effectively manage the Waters
and Water Dependent Natural Resources of the Great Lakes Basin under appropriate
arrangements for intergovernmental cooperation and consultation;
b. to promote co- operation among the Parties;
c. to create a co- operative arrangement regarding Water Withdrawal management that is
simple, evolving and provides tools for shared future challenges;
d. to provide common and regional mechanisms to evaluate Water Withdrawal proposals;
e. to facilitate consistent approaches to Water management across the Basin while
retaining State and Provincial management authority over Water management decisions
within the Great Lakes Basin,
f. to facilitate the exchange of data, strengthen the scientific information upon which
decisions are made and engage in consultation on the potential effects of proposed
Water Withdrawals on the Waters and Water Dependent Natural Resources of the Great
Lakes Basin; and,
g. to prevent or minimize significant adverse impacts of Withdrawals on the Great Lakes
Basin's ecosystems and watershed.
ANALYSIS
Strengths of the Agreement :
• Identifies the principles of managing the Great Lakes as a hydrological system;
• Identifies the minimum standard for the protection, conservation, restoration, improvement
and management of the Great Lakes Basin (Article 200, 2);
• Provides a jurisdictional framework to managing withdrawals and diversions from the Great
Lakes Basin that are consistent in their fundamentals across the region (Article 200, 4);
• Includes the collection of baseline information (including all diversions, all withdrawals in
excess of 100,000 gallons per day and known capacity of existing systems) with a
commitment to collect and compile additional research on the Great Lakes Basin (Article
301) ;
• Establishes the "Great Lakes Water Resources Regional Body" to ensure a formalized
process, to monitor adherence with the Agreement, to facilitate consensus and conflict
resolution, monitor and report on the implementation of the Agreement and propose
amendments to the Agreement (Article 400);
• Gives emphasis to the assessment process and includes provisions for independent
assessments (Article 505).
Weaknesses of the Agreement :
• Does not take into consideration the stress currently placed upon the Great Lakes Basin for
existing withdrawals and diversions;
• Does not consider climate change, navigational systems, energy production, recreational
usage or the impact of invasive species as part of a management plan for the Great Lakes
basin;
• Does not examine demand side trends, but primarily utilizes historical water use;
• Does not adequately address the cumulative effects of smaller water diversion and
withdrawals not subject to regional review under the standard applicability (Article 201);
• Investigates cumulative impacts of regional water diversions and withdrawals every five
years, however this may be inadequate timing to mitigate these effects (Article 201, 5);
171
• Does not adequately supply provisions for the water management programs to protect,
preserve, restore and improve the "Waters and Water Dependent Natural Resources of the
Great Lakes Basin" (Article 300); and
• Does not place emphasis on conservation programs as an alternative to increased water
withdrawals and diversions; conservation programs are considered when withdrawals and
diversions are granted (Appendix 2, Procedure Manual, Section E).
LINKAGES TO OTHER GREAT LAKES /WATERSHED INITIATIVES
This agreement has a number of linkages to the following studies, proposals and actions within
the Great Lakes Basin.
International Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence River Study (LOSL)
This five year study commenced in December 2000 to assess and evaluate the International
Joint Commission's (IJC) Order of Approval used to regulate outflows from Lake Ontario
through the St. Lawrence River. The study is evaluating the impacts of changing water levels
on shoreline communities, domestic and industrial water uses, commercial navigation,
hydropower production, the environment and recreational boating as well as tourism. The
forecasted effects of climate change are being evaluated. It should be noted that
approximately 85% of Lake Ontario's volume flows through the Niagara River from the upper
lakes. The watersheds around Lake Ontario contribute approximately 15% volume.
Great Lakes Renewal Program - "Healthy Lakes through Healthy Watersheds" Program
Environment Canada has been working on a Great Lakes Renewal Program The program
option of "Healthy Lakes Through Healthy Watersheds" was accepted by the Program
Management Committee and Great Lakes Executive Committee in March 2004. The proposed
program recognizes that the health of the Great Lakes is being negatively impacted by
land -use and other activities in the surrounding watersheds and that ecosystem and human
health can be improved in the Great Lakes Basin by influencing watershed management
initiatives. This proposed program also recognizes that it can help to advance bi- national
objectives as defined by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The Great Lakes
Program goes forward to Cabinet this fall for renewal.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and Remedia /Action P /an
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is a joint commitment between Canada
and the United States with the purpose "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem ". The Remedial Action
Plan (RAP) operates in accordance with the GLWQA with the purpose of formulating an action
plan to restore the polluted waterways and waterfront within TRCA's jurisdiction.
Lakewide Management Plans ( LaMPs)
As part of the GLWQA, the governments of Canada and the United States made a commitment
to prepare LaMPs for the Great Lakes. The LaMPs unite a network of stakeholders in actions
to restore and protect the Great Lakes ecosystem. The goal is to restore and enhance
self- reproducing diverse biological communities and with the objective that the presence of
contaminants shall not limit uses of fish, wildlife and waters by humans and shall not cause
adverse health effects in plants, fish, animals and humans.
172
Great Lakes St . Lawrence Seaway Study
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Transport Canada have commenced
a 30 -month supplemental study to determine the viability of maintaining the current
navigational system until 2060. This is a supplemental study to the 2002 draft report by
USACE recommending a $20 million full feasibility study of major deepening and modifications
to the width and length of locks and channels within the Great Lakes ports to accommodate
Panamax sized ships. Modifications to the St. Lawrence Seaway System have the potential to
greatly impact environmental conditions and create additional shoreline hazards As per
Conservation Ontario Council resolution #06/03, it is therefore Conservation Ontario's position
that environmental and hazard prevention considerations must have overriding importance
when addressing modifications to the St. Lawrence Seaway System.
Draft Drinking Water Source Protection Act
In June 2004, the Province of Ontario released draft legislation regarding the development and
approval of watershed based source protection plans. The legislation establishes "source
protection areas" on a watershed basis. These plans will include at a minimum a water budget
and an assessment of the quality and quantity of water in the watershed. In Southern Ontario,
the area over which a conservation authority (CA) has jurisdiction will be a source protection
area. In northern Ontario and those parts of Ontario where CAs do not exist, discussions are
still underway as to the delineation of a "source protection area." The draft legislation indicates
that the Minister of the Environment has the authority to establish source protection areas for
all parts of Ontario that are not covered by a southern Ontario conservation authority.
The Great Lakes provide a major source of drinking water to areas like the Greater Toronto
Area and other communities throughout Ontario. The Great Lakes are also the recipient of
major discharges for the pollution control facilities (i.e. York Durham system and the Peel
system).
The Living City
TRCA adopted The Living City vision in 2000 setting out four key objectives of:
1) Healthy Rivers and Shorelines;
2) Regional Biodiversity;
3) Sustainable Communities; and,
4) Business Excellence
The Living City recognizes:
• the economic and social value of natural resources;
• that natural systems have limits; and,
• the true cost associated with degrading or destroying these systems.
With nature as our teacher and guide, we can find new and sustainable ways to live in our
cities and regions. That enriches our communities and improves the quality of our lives.
In the same manner, the waters of the Great Lakes and the contributing watersheds are
essential for the health and well -being of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem and for the nearly
40 million people Wise management and efforts to conserve water from all sources is
imperative.
173
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
On September 20, 2004 the Council of Great Lakes Governors will hold a public meeting in
Toronto. TRCA has agreed to represent Conservation Ontario at the meeting and will also put
forth the Authority approved TRCA position from this report. TRCA staff will continue to
participate on these Great Lakes initiatives in support of integrated watershed management as
it contributes to the sustainability of the Great Lakes Basin.
Report prepared by : Larry Field , extension 5243
For Information contact : Larry Field , extension 5243
Date: September 3, 2004
RES. #D73/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
TORONTO BIRD OBSERVATORY
Memorandum of Understanding. Finalization of the Memorandum of
Understanding for migration monitoring (bird banding).
Michael Thompson
Frank Dale
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to finalize the
Memorandum of Understanding for migration monitoring (bird banding) between The
Toronto Bird Observatory (TBO) and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA);
THAT staff members , Ralph Toninger and Tamara Chipperfield , be appointed as the TRCA
representatives to the Tommy Thompson Park Migration Monitoring Program Management
Committee , with additional TRCA staff appointed to participate in the Management
Committee as required ;
AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to execute
all necessary documentation required
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1959, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (now known as the Toronto Port Authority or
TPA) began construction of a spit of land at the base of Leslie Street in the City of Toronto.
From 1959 until present day, a combination of lakefilling and dredging activities created the
current configuration of the Leslie Street Spit extending 5 kilometers into Lake Ontario, and
having a total land /water base of approximately 471 hectares. The TRCA currently owns 247
hectares of this land and water which is formally known as Tommy Thompson Park (TTP).
Those areas still under construction are owned by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
(OMNR) and are leased to the Toronto Port Authority (TPA). The OMNR indicated the intent to
transfer a further 224 hectares of land and water to the TRCA upon the completion of lakefilling
activities.
174
Tommy Thompson Park has evolved into one of the most significant biological features along
the Toronto waterfront It is home to a huge variety of wildlife and plant species, however it is
best known for its migratory and breeding bird populations. In 2001, Tommy Thompson Park
was formally designated as a Globally Significant Important Bird Area (IBA) by BirdLife
International and its Canadian partners. The IBA program is an international initiative
coordinated by BirdLife International, a partnership of member -based organizations in over 100
countries seeking to identify and conserve sites important to all bird species world -wide.
The Tommy Thompson Park IBA designation demonstrates the park's significance nationally,
as well as globally for its biological contribution to bird life. In 2001, the Tommy Thompson
Park Important Bird Area Conservation Plan was completed by the Tommy Thompson Park IBA
Steering Committee. The plan outlined four goals for the Tommy Thompson Park IBA. They
are:
1. To conserve and manage the IBA as a public "urban wilderness ".
2. To protect the significance of Tommy Thompson Park for colonial and other resident
and migrating birds and other wildlife.
3. To encourage monitoring and research in the IBA.
4. To promote and develop educational and outreach programs and capacity in and for
the IBA
These goals are consistent with the TTP Master Plan.
The plan also emphasized the need for volunteer -based monitoring and research programs.
The TRCA has participated in a great variety of research and educational activities
independently, and in agreement with local naturalist groups, schools, universities and
agencies. In 2002, The Tommy Thompson Park Bird Research Project was established to
coordinate the activities of all the various interest groups, and to expand the quantity and
quality of the activities undertaken. In 2003 the TRCA began negotiations and entered into a
preliminary arrangement with the Toronto Bird Observatory to form the Tommy Thompson Park
Bird Research Station. A small banding laboratory was constructed and outfitted with research
supplies. The primary objective of the partnership is to help in the protection and preservation
of migratory birds and their habitats. It will also include training volunteers and staff; public
education programs; communicating with the media and decision - makers about bird
populations; bird banding and other research techniques; bird and habitat preservation and
related issues; and cooperation with other local, regional, provincial, national and international
organizations
A pilot migration monitoring program was run at Tommy Thompson Park in 2003. Spring
migration monitoring was conducted from May 3 - June 8. In total, 870 birds of 66 species
were banded from 30 days of coverage. Thirty-one volunteers contributed 727 total person
hours to the spring fieldwork. Fall migration was conducted from August 13 to November 12
(91 days). 3,327 birds were banded. Twenty -four volunteers contributed 1,285 hours to the fall
project.
175
The 2003 pilot year at Tommy Thompson Park revealed that the site is appropriate for
education. The number of visitors to the station was high and will increase in the near future
when the park is open on a daily basis. Overall, the pilot year of migration monitoring was a
success in light of both the ability to perform effective research and achieve the educational
mandate.
RATIONALE
Information that is collected at the station is used in a variety of ways. Data becomes part of a
collection of information from all migration monitoring stations across Canada for the analysis
of bird population trends. The information is also used more locally - as part of conservation
programs and planning activities in the park and in the rest of the Greater Toronto area.
The MOU will formalize the relationship between TBO and TRCA, and will assist in the
protection and preservation of migratory birds and their habitats, and the training of volunteers
and staff. It will also include training volunteers and staff; public education programs;
communicating with the media and decision - makers about bird populations; bird banding and
other research techniques; bird and habitat preservation and related issues; and cooperation
with other local, regional, provincial, national and international organizations. A long term
agreement with the TBO and community volunteers will insure that long term research and
education programs are continue at the park.
The MOU defines the general relationship between the TRCA and TBO, and the operation of
the Tommy Thomson Park Bird Research Station located on Peninsula D at Tommy Thompson
Park. This project and any other joint activities in Tommy Thomson Park shall be conducted in
compliance with the Tommy Thomson Park Master Plan and Environmental Assessment, and
the Tommy Thomson Park Advisory Committee shall be expanded to include a TBO delegate.
All joint activities shall be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, safety standards or
guidelines and ethics codes, as well as with TRCA policies. A Management Committee,
composed of two members from each Party, shall administer the joint project(s), and will
oversee the operation of the Tommy Thomson Park Bird Research Station. The MOU can be
renegotiate or amended at any time if both Parties agree to do so, and either Party may
terminate this MOU for any reason by giving the other party 60 days notice.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Tommy Thompson Park Bird Research Station is operated and staffed through agreement
between TRCA staff, Toronto Bird Observatory staff and volunteers, and community volunteers.
Existing TRCA Tommy Thompson Park staff oversee the coordination of the station and the
facilities. The TRCA contributes $20,000 annually from a variety of existing programs to the
operation and maintenance of the station. TBO has received Trillium funding in the amount of
$50,000 over three years (2004- 2006), and contributes an additional $10,000 of inkind salaries.
Community volunteers contribute approximately $25,000 in in -kind volunteer hours on an
annual basis.
Partial funding is provided for in the approved 2004 Toronto Waterfront Capital Budget.
176
Report prepared by : Tamara Chipperfield , extension 5248
For Information contact : Ralph Toninger , extension 5366
Date: August 24, 2004
RES. #D74/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by.
HURRICANE HAZEL
50th Anniversary Events. Chronology of events and activities planned to
commemorate the 50th anniversary of Hurricane Hazel.
Michael Thompson
Frank Dale
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) participate in the Hurricane Hazel events as outlined in the
staff report ;
THAT the partnering organizations be thanked for organizing the various events planned to
commemorate Hurricane Hazel ;
THAT the sponsors for the Hurricane Hazel documentary and website be thanked for their
contributions ;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA continue to develop and promote education and awareness
programs about the effects of flooding and severe weather occurences and how the
community can be better prepared for future severe weather events .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
October 15, 2004 is the 50th anniversary of Hurricane Hazel, a privotal event in today's
conservation authority movement in Ontario. In order to recognize the importance of this event
to conservation authorities and all of their watershed citizens, numerous initiatives are being
undertaken The following are the activities which TRCA is participating in:
Hurricane Hazel Documentary
To,kick -off the events for TRCA, the production of a historical documentary entitled Hazels
Legacywas contracted by TRCA and will be previewed at a Hurricane Hazel event immediately
following Authority Meeting #8/04, to be held on September 24, 2004. The sponsors of the
video will be invited to the unveiling to be thanked for their generous donations, and be invited
to make a cheque presentation to the Authority if they wish. The sponsors to date include:
• AON Reed Stenhouse Inc.
• Canadian Hurricane Centre, Environment Canada
• Harvest Television
• Lombard Canada
• MacViro Consultants Inc.
• Ministry of Natural Resources
• Ontario Clean Water Agency
177
Harvest Television and TRCA are currently negotiating a television airing of the 30- minute
documentary. The documentary will also be produced for sale on DVD and VHS, and TRCA is
developing a distribution plan for the video to the public and educators TRCA's education
programs at our field centres will include a segment of the video throughout October. Also,
TRCA's outreach education programs will profile Hurricane Hazel, and Black Creek Pioneer
Village will feature a still photo gallery in the Visitor's Centre.
September 24 2004
At 10:30 a.m , following the Authority Meeting, TRCA will be hosting an event including:
• launch of Hazel's Legacy, including viewing a short clip,
• sponsor recognition and cheque presentations;
• presentation on Hurricane Hazel by Ken Higgs, former General Manager, Metropolitan and
Toronto Region Conservation Authority;
• presentation on Climate Change by Jim Bruce, a climate change expert;
• presentation on the future directions of TRCA by Brian Denney, Chief Administrative Officer,
TRCA.
October 3, 2004
The Bolton Community Action Site Committee (BCASC) are planning a memorial service at
Dick's Dam. Activities will include: hikes, guided and self - guided tours of historic downtown
Bolton, speaker presentations, photo display, a planting event and musical entertainment.
Former Metropolitan and Region Conservation Authority General Manager, Ken Higgs, will be
the keynote speaker at the event, and will also be speaking to the Bolton Probis Club on
September 9th.
October 4, 2004
A Hurricane Hazel website ( www.hurricanehazel .ca) will be launched. The website will
feature personal accounts, a hurricane quiz, photo gallery, chronology of events, information
on Hurricane Hazel, the evolution of flood control management in Ontario, etc. The website
will supoprt conservation authorities and costs are being paid by Conservation Ontario TRCA
will be preparing postcards for insertion in community newspapers and other promotional
activities to drive people to the website.
October 9 - 11, 16 & 17, 2004
The Kortright Centre for Conservation will commemorate this historic event throughout their Fall
Colours Festival, where participants will hear the Hurricane Hazel story, enjoy guided walks,
hay rides, kid's activities, etc.
October 15, 2004
A presentation will be made at Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #6104, to be
held on October 15, 2004, by Joe Puopolo, the lead from Dillon Consulting, in regards to the
functional design and Class Environmental Assessment for the Lower Don River West
Remedial Flood Protection Project.
October 16, 2004
The following events will be taking place this day:
178
10:00 a m.
Hustle Up the Humber will be hosted by the City of Toronto, Inner City Outtripping Centre at
Etienne Brule Park. The event consists of running, paddling north canoes and bicycling from
the Old Mill to the mouth of the Humber River and back to the Old Mill.
The Weston Historical Society will lead a guided walk for the public, highlighting the
devastating results of the storm in the Weston area including the tragedy of a street that
disappeared, leaving 36 people dead. Participants are invited to visit a pictorial display at the
Weston Lions Arena at the conclusion of the walk. The walk will start at 10 a.m. at the entrance
to Cruickshank Park and finish at approximately 12 p.m. at Weston Lions Arena. A memorial
will follow.
12 :00 p. m
Steve Pitt, author of Rain Tonight, will bring together, for the first time in 50 years, two families
that together lived through the torment of Hurricane Hazel.
1:00 p.m. -1:45 p.m.
The Ontario Heritage Foundation will unveil a plaque to commemorate the 50th anniversary.
The event will take place at Kings Mill Park, one of the sites devastated by the hurricane. The
event, organized by the Ontario Heritage Foundation in partnership TRCA, the City of Toronto
and the Humber Heritage Committee, will be hosted by Mike Filey, author and columnist, and
will include the participation of representatives from the Ontario Heritage Foundation, the
Humber Heritage Committee and various levels of government One minute of silence will be
observed in recognition of those who lost their lives during the devastation. Toronto Firefighters
Services will have a colour guard and pipers in attendance as well as dignitaries.
Copies of the documentary, Hazel's Legacywill be available for sale (pending securement of a
broadcast licence).
The following books will be available for sale:
• Paths to The Living City: The Story of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA), by Bill McLean
• Hurricane Hazel.. Canada's Storm of the Century (Dundurn Press). Author Jim Gifford will
be signing books
• Rain Tonight (Tundra Books). Author Steve Pitt will be signing books
1:45 p.m.
Following the unveiling of the plaque, the Humber Heritage Committee will lead a public walk
along the Humber River. Description of the flooding and damage in the area will be
accompanied by historical photographs. The walk will start from Kings Mill Park and finish at
approximately 3:45 p.m. at the Old Mill Subway Station.
TRCA is undertaking numerous media activities to assist with the promotion of the various
events, the documentary and website.
179
Report prepared by : Kathy Stranks , extension 5264
For Information contact : Kathy Stranks , extension 5264
Deanne Rodrigues , extension 5359
Date: August 19, 2004
RES. #D75/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES IN THE TORONTO REGION
Update on the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's current
involvement with aquatic invasive species issues
Michael Thompson
Frank Dale
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 .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #3/04, 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.
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.
180
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 that 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.
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
181
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.
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.
182
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.
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
183
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.
Report prepared by : David Lawrie , extension 5268, Lisa Turnbull , extension 5325
For Information contact : David Lawrie , extension 5268
Date: March 23, 2004
RES. #D76/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
GLOBAL LESSONS FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
A Study by the US. Water Environment Research Foundation.
Comparison of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
watershed management programs to emerging international approaches
Michael Thompson
Frank Dale
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
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
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.
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:
184
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 Authoritys (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 Methodology
• 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.
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.
185
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 load (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
difficult to request voluntary sacrifices.
186
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, long -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.
187
Funding Challenges
In the U.S., less 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.
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
188
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.
189
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 Tong -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.
190
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
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 loss 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
Report prepared by : Gary Bowen , extension 5385
For Information contact : Gary Bowen , extension 5385
Date: June 11, 2004
RES. #D77/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
FOREST 2020 PLANTATION DEMONSTRATION AND ASSESSMENT
INITIATIVE
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), in support of
the Forest 2020 Program, a Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) and the
Trees Ontario Foundation's (TOF) Kyoto based tree planting initiative, will
act as the delivery agent for the tree planting program in TRCA's
jurisdiction.
Michael Thompson
Frank Dale
191
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed, under the
Conservation Ontario umbrella agreement already in place with the Trees Ontario
Foundation (TOF), to take the necessary steps to enable the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) to become the Local Program Delivery Agency (LPDA) for
the Forest 2020 - Plantation Demonstration and Assessment Initiative in TRCA's
jurisdiction .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The intent of the Forest 2020 program is to establish demonstration plantations to illustrate the
effectiveness of fast growing tree species as part of a national carbon sequestration strategy.
The plantations would be studied to determine the long term potential carbon sequestration
rates on different site types, climatic and geographic regions, and with different tree species.
The monitoring of sites will be carried out by NRCAN for a period of 10 years. Staff are in the
process of evaluating a number of TRCA properties in Peel and Durham as potential sites. The
program will only be available for the remainder of 2004, through the spring of 2005, and is
effectively a one year commitment for the TRCA.
RATIONALE
The LPDA, would administer the local program, select landowners and planting sites based on
Forest 2020 criteria, schedule and implement all necessary site preparations and tree
plantings, maintain records and provide the initial seedling assessments. Program criteria for
site selection are strict and the LPDA must meet quality standards and minimum seedling
survival targets. These are services TRCA staff now deliver through our private land
reforestation program and are well capable of fulfilling the delivery criteria This carbon
sequestration initiative is in keeping with The Living City strategy.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The LPDA will be funded by the TOF to facilitate and implement the program. Funds to be
based on a cost recovery formula to a maximum amount of $2,112 per hectare planted. 10%
of funds to plant a hectre will cover costs to adminster the program. Participation in Forest
2020 is open to all private landowners whose projects meet program criteria, including the
TRCA. Forest 2020 will fund approximately 75% of the plantation establishment costs, the
remainding 25% to be paid by the landowner. The private landowner can also contribute
inkind services as payment towards the planting. In the case of plantings on TRCA land, TRCA
will realize the 75% cost savings through the Forest 2020 program.
Report prepared by : Zoltan Kovacs , extension 5379
For Information contact : Zoltan Kovacs , extension 5379
Date: August 06, 2004
RES. #D78/04 -
NAMING WATERCOURSES IN THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED
Request by the Community Resource Centre to name three unnamed
watercourses located in the Rouge River watershed, within the Town of
Whitchurch - Stouffville.
192
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Michael Thompson
Frank Dale
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT WHEREAS the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the Community
Resource Centre to support their suggested names for three unnamed creeks in the
Rouge River watershed within the Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville ;
WHEREAS the Rouge Park Alliance has requested that the municipalities within the Rouge
River watershed provide an update regarding the official naming of Rouge River tributaries
within their jurisdictions and take a leadership role in assigning names to currently
unnamed watercourses ;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the TRCA supports the Rouge Park Alliance
requests that the municipality take a leadership role in the process for designating names
to currently unnamed watercourses in the municipality and seek input from stakeholders
on recommended names prior to approval;
THAT municipalities in naming unnamed tributaries coordinate with upstream or
downstream municipalities where a tributary crosses a municipal boundary;
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville , the Community Resource Centre
and the Rouge Park Alliance be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The TRCA received a request from the Community Resource Centre, a local community group
involved with natural restoration, on April 15, 2004 requesting support for the naming of three
tributaries of the Rouge River within the Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville as River Zhiwekana,
Mishiikenk Creek and Giiwedinong Creek. At Authority Meeting #4104, held on April 30, 2004,
Resolution #A97/04 in regards to the request was approved in part as follows:
AND FURTHER THAT correspondence (b) be referred to Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority and Rouge Park Alliance staff for a report to the Watershed
Management Advisory Board
On June 18, 2004, the Rouge Park Alliance reiterated its previous position that it considers the
municipality to be the appropriate stakeholder to lead the naming process as it is relevant to all
the residents within a municipality. As a result, Resolution #62/04 was approved by the Rouge
Park Alliance as follows:
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance request the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville to take a
leadership role in the process for designating names to currently unnamed watercourses
within a municipality.
193
RATIONALE
The TRCA supports the position of the Rouge Park Alliance in that the issue of naming
watercourses is a municipal -wide issue and the municipality should therefore take the lead,
with consultation from interested stakeholders. In the case of the suggestions put forward,
stakeholders should include but not necessarily be limited to
• Community Resource Centre;
• Rouge Park Alliance,
• TRCA;
• organized First Nations representation;
• the local historical society /museum; and,
• Transport Canada (the landowner in the vicinity of the three watercourses).
TRCA staff will provide comment on any watercourse names put forward by various
municipalities, in an effort to ensure that appropriate names reflecting historical, cultural and
community interests are approved.
Report prepared by : Kathy Stranks , extension 5264
For Information contact : Kathy Stranks , extension 5264
Lewis Yeager , 905 - 713 -7374
Date: September 6, 2004
RES. #D79/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DUFFINS CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP
Appointment of Members Approval of appointments to the Duffins
Carruthers Watershed Resource Group.
Michael Thompson
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Duffins Carruthers Watershed
Resource Group appointments , as set out in the staff report , be approved .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Duffins Creek Watershed Task Force and the Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Force
worked together to complete A Watershed P /an for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek in
2003. In moving forward to implement the plan, the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) retained Cumming and Company to develop an effective implementation
strategy. At its April 30, 2004 meeting, the Authority passed Resolution #A130/04, accepting
the proposed implementation strategy and the formation of the Duffins Carruthers Watershed
Resource Group (DCWRG), in part as follows:
THAT one member of the Watershed Management Advisory Board and one member of
the Sustainable Communities Board be appointed to the Duffins Carruthers Watershed
Resource Group (DCWRG) to represent the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA);
194
THAT staff continue to consult with federal and provincial agencies, local and regional
municipalities and watershed residents to assign individuals to the DCWRG as outlined
in the implementation model;
THAT staff work closely with municipal and regional councils and staff to build capacity
within the local areas for the implementation of the watershed plan and to assist with
the recruitment of local residents and organizations for involvement;
THAT staff work with currently active local watershed residents and organizations to
create opportunities for further involvement and for consideration of opportunities to
implement the watershed plan, as part of, or in addition to, their existing activities and
programs;
THAT a report be submitted to the Authority identifying the proposed membership
including the TRCA representation for formal approval,
THAT as defined by their Terms of Reference, the DCWRG report back twice a year to
the Watershed Management Advisory Board regarding the progress of implementing
the watershed plan;
Section 3.2.1 of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group Terms of Reference
states that:
The regional and local municipalities will be requested by the TRCA to confirm
the participation of a council member to the Duffins Carruthers Watershed
Resource Group. A municipality may appoint a current Authority member. The
appointed member should represent an electoral ward within the Duffins or Carruthers
watersheds.
Letters were sent to local municipalities and various provincial ministries, federal departments,
and businesses with an interest in the Duffins and Carruthers watersheds asking them to
appoint members to the DCWRG. Many of the people recommended were members of one of
the task forces who developed and completed the watershed plan. Invitations to some citizen
members of the task forces have been extended for their participation on the DCWRG but
other citizen members will be determined, over time, through consultation with our municipal
partners.
It was noted, particularly by staff and council at the City of Pickering, that a First Nations
representative should be appointed to the resource group. Although the First Nations were not
consulted during plan development, their participation in plan implementation may allow us the
opportunity to address issues and discover opportunities missed during plan development
The Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation, having jurisdiction in the Duffins and
Carruthers watersheds, were contacted and have suggested an appointee and an alternate to
the DCWRG as indicated below.
To date, the following representatives have agreed to be appointed to the DCWRG:
195
Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Grouo Members
Members
(Alternates)
Representing
TRCA
Mr. Dick O'Brien
Chair of the Authority, ex- officio
Regional Councillor Colleen Jordan - Ajax
Sustainable Communities Board
To Be Determined
Watershed Management Advisory Board
Mr. Gary Bowen
Watershed Specialist
Municipalities
Councillor David Pickles
(Alternate To Be Determined)
City of Pickering
Regional Councillor Scott Crawford
(Alternate - Councillor Joe Dickson)
Town of Ajax
Councillor John Webster
Town of Markham
Declined
Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville
Councillor Susan Self
(Alternate - Mayor Gerri Lynn O'Connor)
Township of Uxbridge
To Be Determined
Regional Municipality of Durham
Regional Councillor Jack Heath
Regional Municipality of York
First Nations
Mr. Kris Nahrgang
(Alternate - Ms. Angela Johnson)
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
Provincial Ministries
To Be Determined
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Mr. Keith West, Director
Central Region Office
Ministry of the Environment
To Be Determined
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Mr. Peter Waring, Area Supervisor
York /Durham - Aurora District
Ministry of Natural Resources
To Be Determined
Ministry of Transportation
Federal Departments
To Be Determined
Environment Canada
Mr Stephen Woolfenden
Fish Habitat Biologist
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Ms. Patricia Short-Gallo
Regional Manager
Transport Canada
Businesses
Mr. Peter White
Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario
Mr. Neil Acton
Golf Course Industry
Residents
Dr. Neil Burnett
Town of Ajax
Dr. Doug Dodge
Town of Ajax
Mr. Alan Wells
Township of Uxbridge
196
As well, the following municipal staff have been identified as resources in plan implementation
but will not be members of the DCWRG:
• Ms. Laura Atkins -Paul - Regional Municipality of York
• Ms. LiIli Duoba - Town of Markham
• Mr. Steve Gaunt - City of Pickering
• Mr. Kevin Heritage - Town of Ajax
• Mr Andrew McNeely - Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville
Report prepared by : Brent Bullough , extension 5392
For Information contact : Gary Bowen , extension 5385
Date: August 04, 2004
RES. #D80/04 -
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 ".
Michael Thompson
Frank Dale
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;
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 lake -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
197
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 long -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.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
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
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.
198
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
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.
199
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 Take -based sewer 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.
200
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 exercisq 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
environmental features and groundwater resources.
201
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
long -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.
202
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.
Report prepared by : David Burnett , extension 5361
For Information contact : David Burnett , extension 5361
Date: , 2004
Attachments : 1
203
Attachment 1
PLACES TO GROW
Better choices. Brighter Future.
A GROWTH PLAN
for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
Discussion Paper. Summer 2004
Map 4 : Future Growth Areas - Conceptual
Legend
nw. a Moe - mnayari
Mat; U Centres - Talbr 11 ,b Ian
rr�+9 leb,n ®QaPIRY
GM..
HAM wr
innrwseroI umre
Nbni OMMfI w.r Mr_. 1plu��ri
- calaparl
c3 caw aae.:ay. I- o..lradd.l rrarwe
�' cies*�tsma,lroe
lwot dfrfl I Mu* 4NS .4lo•IMC'IYRtlrI IYpMNYnnrtN
• MLr� Y Y.t>,11 AfL. N I W i r
Gc 1wwtIW1
]p tl Y t
I I t 1 4
204
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #D81/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
TORONTO AND REGION REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP) INTERIM
TARGETS 2002 -2007 AND THE 2004/2005 BUDGET
Receipt of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan Interim Targets
for 2002 -2007 and the 2004/2005 budget.
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan Interim Targets
for 2002 -2007 be received ;
THAT the 2004/2005 Budget for the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan
Memorandum of Understanding budget be received .
AND FURTHER THAT Environment Canada and the Ministry of the Environment be
thanked.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/02, held on April 26, 2002, Res. #A100 /02 was approved as follows:
THAT staff be directed to develop, in conjunction with Environment Canada and the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, a multi year agreement for the implementation of
the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan with the TRCA.
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has entered year three of a five -year
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Environment Canada and the Ministry of the
Environment as the lead implementation coordinator for the Toronto and Region Remedial
Action Plan (Toronto RAP).
The Stage 2 document for the Toronto RAP, Clean Waters, Clear Choices, details specific
goals and objectives for the Toronto RAP to move towards restoring impaired uses in the Area
of Concern (AoC). The Toronto RAP Team (consisting of staff representatives from
Environment Canada, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and TRCA)
have taken these goals and objectives and developed Interim Targets to guide activities under
the 2002 -2007 Toronto RAP MOU. Implementation of projects under the MOU and RAP
advocacy efforts will focus on meeting these targets. A copy of the interim targets is included
as Attachment 1.
The 2004/2005 Toronto RAP MOU budget is composed of $500,000 provided jointly from
Environment Canada and the Ministry of the Environment ($250,000 each annually). These
funds are used to implement key projects in association with the goals and objectives of the
Toronto RAP and the 2002 -2007 interim targets. In many cases funding from this MOU is used
to provide seed funding in order to leverage support for RAP projects and initiatives from other
key stakeholders and the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund.
205
FINANCIAL DETAILS
2004/2005 Toronto RAP MOU Budget
CLEAN WATERS
Greenroofs - $30,000
The Greenroofs for Stormwater Management project will continue to be carried out at two
locations to assess the potential of green roof infrastructure to reduce the quantity and improve
the quality of stormwater run -off in a new building (York University site) and in a retrofit situation
(Eastview Community Centre site) which involves the modification of an existing building to
accommodate a greenroof. Information and monitoring results will be shared among project
participants and partners The findings of this study (i.e. after sufficient data has been
collected) will be used to evaluate the potential benefits of implementing rooftop gardens on a
broader scale (i.e. subwatershed basis). The benefits will be quantified through a modelling
exercise using the HSPF model which was previously developed for the City of Toronto's Wet
Weather Flow Management Master Plan (WWFMMP). In addition, the benefits of rooftop
gardens, which will be clearly documented during this project, will potentially support the
implementation of new stormwater policies requiring rooftop gardens for new developments or
redevelopment projects within Toronto and surrounding regions.
Erosion and Sediment - $30,000
The objectives of this project are to enhance and assist in the development of guidelines for
effective control of sediment and other run -off pollutants from construction sites. A
performance analysis of the Richmond Hill sediment control pond will be conducted that
incorporates a continuous simulation model with ongoing field data, to increase awareness of
erosion and sediment control, and to implement an Erosion and Sediment Control By -law.
Porous Pavement - $30,000
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is preparing plans to install porous pavement
in one of the student parking lots at the Seneca College King Campus. Incorporating
monitoring considerations into the construction of this parking lot will provide an opportunity to
conduct a demonstration project that will assess the performance of this type of pavement and
its ability to contribute to improvements in stormwater management A key objective of this
project is to demonstrate the contribution of porous pavement to maintaining localized
hydrological balances and protecting ecological habitat The demonstration study will compare
typical parking lot stormwater run -off to stormwater infiltrated through permeable pavement
(quality and quantity). In association with Guelph University, a monitoring protocol will be
developed based on research experience at a site on the Guelph University Campus.
HEALTHY HABITATS
Terrestrial Natural Heritage and MetroQUEST Layers - $30,000
The Terrestrial Natural Heritage (TNH) Program Team has been synthesizing data and
inventory work into the formulation of the targeted natural heritage system. The draft Terrestrial
Natural Heritage System Strategy was released in the spring of 2004 and is currently in the
consultation stage.
206
MetroQUEST is a powerful computer simulation tool that allows users to quickly create and
compare 40 -year future scenarios of their region. MetroQUEST is an extremely useful tool for
groups interested in promoting smart growth, sustainability, visioning, long term strategic
planning, stakeholder and public engagement, collaboration and consensus building The
purpose of this project is to apply the MetroQUEST software in the Greater Toronto Area which
includes the Toronto Area of Concern. MetroQUEST clearly demonstrates the complex
inter - relationships between regional planning choices and consequences Support will
specifically be used to assemble the terrestrial natural heritage layers of the MetroQUEST
project.
Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds - $10,000
In order to establish a protocol for improving shorebird management practices, this project will
create a baseline study of current use and opportunities of existing habitat in urban areas. The
methodology will identify potential wetland sites and monitor them for shorebird activity. The
project will employ methodologys from the Canadian Shorebird Management Plan in support
of increasing the general understanding of factors affecting shorebird population dynamics,
ecology and migration systems. The project will focus on the Don River watershed.
EDUCATION AND NGO /COMMUNITY ACTION
Stewardship Projects - $70,000
Watershed on Wheels
TRCA delivers a wide array of exciting hands -on, outdoor educational experiences through
multiple facilities. Programs focus on natural systems and the consequences of our social and
economic interactions with the environment. Through life -long learning opportunities
individuals gain the knowledge and skills necessary for making wise environmental decisions
Aquatic Plants Program
Since 1995 the TRCA has offered people of all ages the opportunity to grow native aquatic
plants to improve the wetland habitats in their community. This is a seasonal program that is
offered from February to June each year. Participants are supplied with all the required
equipment, instructions and information on wetlands. An in -class presentation is optional. In
June volunteers join the TRCA at a local wetland for guided tours and planting.
Yellow Fish Road (YFR)
The YFR is a community -based program that has been designed to reduce the amount of
hazardous waste that enters our waterways via storm drains. Yellow Fish Road was developed
by Trout Unlimited in 1991. The TRCA has been delivering the Yellow Fish Road storm drain
marking program on behalf of Trout Unlimited in the Toronto area since 1998. Currently we are
revamping the program through the use of lexan storm drain markers, community signage and
improvements to the social marketing aspects of the program. Yellow Fish Road promotes
community participation in the prevention of water pollution. Through an in -class presentation
participants discover how the storm sewers in their neighbourhood drain into the nearest body
of water. The presentation relates information about the negative impact on aquatic
ecosystems caused by hazardous wastes entering the sewer system from poor land
management, spills or dumping. The volunteers then take the lessons learned into the
community by distributing educational leaflets to local households and painting yellow fish on
the storm drains that remind us of the sewers' connection to our local streams.
207
Stewardship Resource Centre
The resource centre offers our watershed residents a library of information on various land
management issues. The resource centre houses books, videos, pamphlets and fact sheets
which are available at little or no cost to the public. The TRCA website will provide some of this
information electronically to service those watershed residents with Internet access. This site
will provide the general public with information about the Toronto and Region RAP and provide
access to information on stewardship related topics in downloadable form, links to other
relevant sites and our partners (MOE and Environment Canada).
Stewardship Conservation Seminars_
These seminars provide a venue in which watershed residents can benefit from the knowledge
and experience of the experts in land stewardship. TRCA hosts a number of seminars on
various topics, such as: "green" lawn care, butterfly gardens, backyard naturalization and
urban wildlife. These seminars offer valuable information and a "hands on" learning
experience, without cost to the participants. In 2003 more than 50 seminars were delivered.
Multicultural Environmental Stewardship
The TRCA promotes community participation in stewardship based planning and monitoring.
The emphasis is on new Canadians and multicultural groups to participate in these activities
through the Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program Since 1998, this unique
program has been facilitating an active outreach program by engaging new Canadians in
habitat restoration and providing opportunities for environmental education. The goal of this
program is not only to preserve resources, such as land, water and habitat with multicultural
communities, but also to look at community development, health and access to information.
This program is one of the few environmental programs that has been able to engage the
growing ethnic community of Toronto and surrounding regions.
Private Land Stewardship Agricultural Program
This program supports the Rural Clean Water Program, an agricultural grant program geared
towards helping farmers and rural residents deal with the protection of water resources on their
lands. While the program has typically focussed on farmers as part of the problem, this project
will focus on celebrating some of the accomplishments, showcase partnerships and provide
educational messages and products which will assist in achieving specific Canada - Ontario
Agreement (COA) targets for rural non -point source water pollution, and serve to Increase ,
public awareness on the importance of rural water quality issues, source protection, watershed
management and best management practices.
Highland Creek Stewardship Program
In 2003/04, the Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Program (HCESP) was initiated to
build capacity within this priority urban watershed in support of the City of Toronto's WWFMMP.
The HCESP engages businesses, residents, schools and the overall community, in hands -on
restoration and sustainable living activities which target three Community Action Sites (CAS)
within the watershed. A Highland Creek Steering Committee has been established to reflect
the various interests of the community and further direct and support the outcomes of this
program.
208
Rouge Park Best Management Practices (BMPs) - $10,000
In the Rouge watershed Tess than a quarter of the agricultural land is owned by the farmer who
manages its operation. Another quarter of the agricultural land is owned publicly and leased
out to be farmed. The Rouge Park Public Lands BMPs Program will work with the farming
tenants of the publicly owned lands to complete environmental farm plans, prioritize
implementation of the plan to improve BMPs, and source funding to implement the priorities
identified.
MONITORING AND RESEARCH
Regional Monitoring Program - $35,000
The Regional Watershed Monitoring Program has been developed in order to provide a
comprehensive, integrated and coordinated approach to environmental monitoring in the
Greater Toronto Area, that fulfills the watershed monitoring and reporting needs of the Toronto
RAP, the TRCA and those of the individual watershed and waterfront councils and alliances,
while furthering the interests of municipal, provincial and federal partners. This annual
monitoring program was initiated in 2001 with a focus on four primary areas: aquatic habitat
and species /fluvial geomorphology (the physical features and processes of rivers), terrestrial
natural heritage, surface water quality and, flow and precipitation.
"Needs Further Assessment" - $35,000
The Clean Waters, Healthy Habitats - Progress Report 2001, identifies progress needed on
several fronts. Under the Assessing Progress section, one of the priority actions is to
undertake the specific studies to confirm the status of the three beneficial uses currently listed
as "Requires Further Assessment ". In 2003/2004 fish tumour and deformities was addressed
(results are pending). For the 2004/2005 RAP MoU, further action will be taken on deformities
in birds.
SUSTAINABILITY
Watershed Strategy Implementation - $100,000
Since 1989 the TRCA has been in the process of developing and implementing individual
watershed strategies for each of its watersheds. The Comprehensive Basin Management
Strategy for the Rouge Watershed was finalized in 1992, with Forty Steps to a New Don in
1994, Legacy for the Humber watershed in 1997, and the Greening our Watersheds strategy
adopted in 2002 for the Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek watersheds. Toronto RAP funding
has been utilized for the development of these strategies, and to support their implementation.
This work has contributed within the City of Toronto in developing a watershed constituency
interested and committed to protection and restoration of the watershed resources including
water quality, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats - within these watersheds. Public advisory
groups have been developed and regularly participate in, and contribute to, enhanced water
management efforts. Public outreach through events, publications and the development and
publication of watershed report cards has established a unique approach to fostering
watershed protection and restoration. In addition, strategy implementation increases upstream
understanding and attention to resource protection and thus benefits the receiving
watercourses with the City of Toronto.
209
The Living City Charette - $15,000
TRCA, through The Living City vision, intends to take a leadership role in developing the
Toronto area as one of the most sustainable and liveable urban communities in the world. The
Sustainable Communities Charette is a project that will help to accelerate the use of best
practices in green community design, including among many others, naturalization and
protection, pesticide use and stormwater management. It is proposed to engage public and
private- sector leaders and project managers who are working on sustainable community
developments to share best practices. The aim of this project is to enrich existing sustainable
community initiatives and to support transformation of the urban development market as a
whole.
RAP Annual Meeting - $3,000
Each year the Toronto RAP will hold an open public meeting to discuss progress and current
challenges. Costs associated include: planning, meeting space, materials and refreshments.
Communication Products - $22,000
Extensive updates will be made to the RAP website in order to improve the current availability
of public information. A design element, folio and exhibit will also be completed.
Technology Transfer Workshops - $20,000
Funding will be used to plan and deliver technology transfer workshops for the public and
stakeholder agencies on spills management (fall 2004) and stormwater management (winter
2005) .
Administration - $15,000
Supports senior staff time and part -time administrative costs for the RAP MOU are supported.
RAP Liaison /Supplies /Materials - $45,000
This allocation supports the salary, benefits and materials of one full -time staff member as the
RAP Community Liaison Officer. This also includes team meetings, communications and
project work expenses.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA will continue to work with Environment Canada, the Ministry of the Environment and
Ministry of Natural Resources to move the Toronto RAP agenda forward.
In 2004/2005 particular focus will be paid to updating some of the various communication
pieces for the Toronto RAP, including a re- vamping of the RAP website, among other activities.
The Toronto RAP Team will liaise with Environment Canada to assist in offering direction and
support for the renewal of the Federal Great Lakes Program in order to assure that the unique
characteristics of the Toronto RAP are considered.
The Toronto RAP is very pleased to have had the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) join the
RAP team in late 2003. The further integration and strategic thought around MNR and Ministry
of the Environment Canada - Ontario Agreement for the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem projects,
in relation to other RAP related activities and projects, will help to maximize efforts to restore
beneficial uses in the Toronto and Region Area of Concern.
210
Report prepared by : Lisa Turnbull , extension 5325
For Information contact : Lisa Turnbull , extension 5325
Date: September 04, 2003
Attachments : 1
211
Attachment 1
TORONTO AND REGION REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
INTERIM TARGETS
(2002 -2007)
CLEAN WATERS
Wet Weather Flow
• Support scheduled implementation of the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management
Master Plan (WWFMMP) - Phase one.
• Increase grassroots involvement in WWFMMP implementation (e.g., through community
delivery funding program).
Stormwater Management
• Complete and commence implementation of stormwater management retrofit strategies in
middle and upper portions of watersheds.
• Develop and initiate next generation Stormwater Assessment and Monitoring Performance
(SWAMP) Program, including assessments of stormwater optimization at the
sub - watershed level, and the severity of impacts of suspended sediment.
Spills Management
• Support the development and implementation of a multi - stakeholder strategy to enhance
watershed and waterfront spills prevention and response programs consistent with the new
interagency habitat compliance protocol.
• Complete Geographic Information Services (GIS) sewershed management database
(2004).
Urban and Rural Best Management Practices
• Research, develop and promote Green Roofs as a fundamental design option for
commercial, industrial and institutional uses.
• Support the development of guidelines for more effective construction site erosion and
sediment control
HEALTHY HABITATS
Terrestrial Habitat
• Complete the Target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (2004); Develop
implementation policies (2005); and, support incorporation of the strategy into municipal
official plans.
212
Riparian Regeneration
• Regenerate stream corridors to meet targets established in watershed strategies and the
WWFMMP (e.g. 23% of Etobicoke - Mimico by 2006).
• Complete evaluations of historic and existing Area of Concern wetlands in the Area of
Concern's watersheds.
Aquatic Habitat
• Complete fisheries management plans - including multi -year implementation schedules -
for all watersheds: Humber (2004); Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks (2004); Don River (2005);
Highland Creek (2005); and, Rouge River (2007).
• Connect the Rouge River from Lake Ontario to Major Mackenzie Drive for all native species
of the watershed (2005).
• Connect the Humber River from Lake Ontario to Highway 9 for all native species.
Waterfront
• Complete the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy (2003) and
implement priority plans and projects.
• Complete Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy for the Toronto waterfront (2004).
SCIENCE AND MONITORING
Monitoring
• Provide ongoing, necessary information to assess the health of watersheds and waterfront
ecosystems in the Area of Concern through regular reporting.
• Sustain integrated monitoring network for watersheds and the waterfront with federal,
provincial, municipal and academic partners.
Beneficial Use Impairment Assessments
• Complete assessment of beneficial uses: Fish tumours and other deformities (2005); Bird
or animal deformities or reproductive problems (2006); Degradation of phytoplankton and
zooplankton populations (2007).
• Complete analysis of a 15 year fisheries data series for the Toronto waterfront to help in the
revision of objectives for the nearshore aquatic community.
• Develop interim targets (2004) and continue to develop and assess Tong -term ecological
end - points and specific targets.
SUSTAINABILITY
• Support the development of new or next generation watershed strategies for the Rouge
(2004), Highland and Humber (2005), Don (2006) and Etobicoke and Mimico (2007) -
Watershed strategies will address, source water protection, water balance, quality and
quantity, and the integration of ground water study information.
• Enhance and sustain the watershed council based implementation model.
213
• Support the development (2004) and implementation of the Toronto Waterfront
Revitalization Corporation's Waterfront Sustainability Framework.
EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT
• Develop (2003) and implement Toronto RAP Communications Strategy including a
redesigned web -site (2004), information folio (2004), and display (2005).
• Sustain key education and community stewardship initiatives (e.g., Watersheds on
Wheels).
• Support the development of social marketing tools (e.g., The Living City Report Card and
Sustainable Communities Charrette).
Last Updated: July 16, 2004
214
RES. #D82 /04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ETOBICOKE -MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION
Minutes of Meeting #3/04, July 22, 2004. The minutes of
Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting #3/04, held on July 22,
2004, are provided for information.
Gay Cowbourne
Michael Thompson
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition
meeting #3/04, held on July 22, 2004, as appended , be received .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition, dated May 2002, and
adopted by the Authority at meeting #5102, held on May 24, 2002, by resolution #A124/02,
includes the following provision:
3.5 Reporting Relationship
The Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed
Management Advisory Board. The Watersheds Coalition Chair will report, at least, on a
semi - annual basis on projects and progress.
Report prepared by : Lia Lappano , extension 5292
For Information contact : Chandra Sharma , extension 5237
Date: September 02, 2004
RES. #D83 /04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #2/04, July 20, 2004. The minutes of the Humber
Watershed Alliance meeting #2/04, held on July 20, 2004, are provided
for information.
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance #2/04, held
on July 20, 2004, as appended , be received .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December 2003 and
adopted by the Authority at meeting #10/03, held on January 9, 2004 by resolution #A289/03,
includes the following provision:
215
3.9 Reporting Relationship
The Humber Watershed Alliance is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed Management
Advisory Board. The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, at least, on a semi - annual basis on
projects and progress.
Report prepared by : Lia Lappano , extension 5292
For information contact : Gary Wilkins , extension 5211
Date: September 02, 2004
RES. #D84 /04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meeting #3104. The Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force
Meeting #3/04, held on June 24, 2004 are provided for information.
Gay Cowbourne
Cliff Jenkins
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting
#3/04 be received .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Rouge Watershed Task Force are forwarded to the Authority
through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal
record of the work of the Rouge Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority
members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Rouge Watershed Plan.
Report prepared by : Patricia Mohr , extension 5624
For Information contact : Sonya Meek , extension 5253
Date: September 1, 2004
NEW BUSINESS
RES. #D85 /04 - MIMICO WATERFRONT LINEAR PARK
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Michael Thompson
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA), the City of Toronto and the Toronto Waterfront
Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) staff be congratulated on the approval of the provincial
environmental assessment for the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park;
216
THAT the Chair of the Authority be requested to discuss with the Minister of the
Environment the protocol for such announcements at a suitable time ;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to work with all partners to develop suitable events
to celebrate publicly the approval and other significant milestones in the implementation of
the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park and the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project .
CARRIED
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:00 a.m., on Friday, September 17, 2004.
Nancy Stewart
Vice Chair
/ks
217
c.
erTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/04
October 15, 2004
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #6/04, was held in the South Theatre,
Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, October 15, 2004. The Chair Dave Ryan, called the
meeting to order at 10:48 a.m..
PRESENT
Gay Cowbourne Member
Frank Dale Member
Pamela Gough Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Dave Ryan Chair
Nancy Stewart Vice Chair
REGRETS
Cliff Jenkins Member
Shelley Petrie Member
Michael Thompson Member
RES. #D86/04 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Frank Dale
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/04, held on September 17, 2004.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Joe Puopolo, Partner, Dillon Consulting Limited on item 7.1 - Lower
Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project.
(b) A presentation by Gary Bowen, Specialist, Duffins /Carruthers, Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) on oblique low level aerial photography of TRCA
watersheds and waterfront.
218
RES. #D87 /04 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Dick O'Brien
THAT above -noted presentations (a) and (b) be heard and received .
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A letter dated October 4, 2004 from Lelio C. Angelantoni of 76 Kiloran Avenue,
Woodbridge, in regards to Humber Alliance - Policy in choosing members'
representation.
RES. #D88 /04 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Nancy Stewart
THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the Chair send a letter of response to Lelio Angelantoni .
CARRIED
219
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
L.C. Angelantoni
76 Kiloran Avenue, Woodbridge, On. Canada L4L 3A8
905 - 851 -3670, Fax 905 - 851 -3670, Cell 905 - 851 -3670
Iange11030 @rogers.com, Collingwood 705 - 445 -6209
October 4, 2004
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario, M3N 1 S4
Via Fax
Attention : Chairman Dick O'Brien, Members of the Executive Committee
and Advisory Board Members
Re. Humber Alliance - Policy in choosing members' representation.
Chair O'Brien and Members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board.
Last April I applied for a position advertised in the newspaper as a volunteer to the Humber Alliance.
During the interview carried out by TRCA'S acting director, Adele Freeman, when asked my reasons for
volunteering, I explained that the subdivision in which I reside, Wycliffe Subdivision, parallels Islington
Ave. and the Humber river, from Rutherford Rd to Willis Ave., along side Boyd Park.
During the last ten years the subdivision's residents have witnessed the ravaging of this section of Boyd
Park, from Rutherford Rd. south to Langstaff Ave. and the raping of the banks of the Humber River down
to Woodbridge Ave. The TRCA and the Humber Alliance not only did not object to the damage being
done to the Park and the forest, but actually helped in the destruction by selling a piece of Boyd Park
(Islington near Rutherford) to a developer. That portion of Boyd park is now the Arista Gate Subdivision.
Most of the Pine Valley forest at the South East corner of Islington and Rutherford has been transformed
into the "Pinewood subdivision" and the banks of the Humber River at Islington and Willis, only a few feet
from the river itself will soon sport a condominium built, (with special permission by the TRCA), on land
located several meters below the regional flood guidelines or the one hundred year storm guidelines.
To our knowledge, while the community tried to mitigate the damage by appealing all the way to the
OMB, in one case in conjunction with the Sierra Club, neither the Humber Alliance, not the TRCA
appeared to be interested in the Humber River and Boyd Park south of Rutherford Rd. When I asked a
member of the Humber Alliance why the lack of interest, I was told that they were not aware of these
happenings.
I also explained to acting director Adele Freeman that during the recent Pine Valley Link class EA the
recommended alternate to the preferred solution, the linkage of the Pine Valley Dr., was the widening of
Rutherford Rd. Islington Ave, Langstaff Ave. and Weston Rd. to six lanes.
To make room for two extra lanes on Islington Ave., the study found that at least another 4 acres of Boyd
Park south of Rutherford will be partly asphalted over, in addition to an undefined chunk at the southern
tip of Boyd Park at Langstaff road, where Islington Ave will have to be realigned to cross the Park.
Senior members of your staff are on record that they do not care of what happens in this area of Boyd
Park.
220
I volunteered because I thought that by becoming a member of the Humber Alliance I could at least
advocate for this section of the Humber River and Boyd Park.
No surprisingly, neither myself, nor another resident of this community applying at the same time, was
chosen to represent the community at the Humber Alliance.
It is our impression that despite the fact that the majority of the park is located south of Rutherford Road,
volunteers are not normally chosen from this area. Volunteers living in Kleinburg and North appear to
be acceptable.
The area surrounding Boyd Park, both east and west of the Humber River, possibly has one of the
largest concentrations of Canadians of Italian origin in Canada. It would seem advantageous to an
organization and particularly to any governmental agency funded by our tax dollars, to seek members of
this specific group to reach the community in which the agency operates.
My enquiries to date have yet to uncover a member of this ethnic group being accepted as a "volunteer"
in the Humber Alliance, I cannot imagine that the lack of a volunteer of Canadian /Italian origin within the
alliance is a matter of policy, but I would like to know what action you will be taking to remedy the
situation.
Perhaps you will also be so kind as to direct me to a volunteer member within the Humber Alliance with
whom I can discuss the south section of Boyd Park and the Humber River to Woodbridge Ave. in order
to try to formulate an action -plan to safeguard this area. The vociferous members living north of us may
not qualify. Some give the impression that it does not matter what happens to Boyd Park south of Major
Mackenzie, so long as traffic is kept away from their area.
Please try to answer before October 30, 2004.
Sincerely,
(Original Signed By)
L.C. Angelantoni
A resident of Vaughan and a tax payer
cc. Hon. Greg Sorbara
Hon. Leona Dombrowsky
Mayor Di Biase and Members of City of Vaughan Council
Chair Bill Fisch and Members of York
221
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D89/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
LOWER DON RIVER WEST REMEDIAL FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT
Transition Planning. Moving from the Environmental Assessment for the
Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project to
implementation of the functional design.
Pamela Gough
Nancy Stewart
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff develop a detailed scope of
work, schedule for work, operating budget, phasing plan and monitoring plan that will be
required to implement the functional design for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood
Protection Project;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to expedite the required contracts or agreements with
the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) necessary to implement all flood
protection components identified under the functional design of the Lower Don River West
Remedial Flood Protection Project as per the above scope of work , schedule for work,
operating budget, phasing plan and monitoring plan .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #7/03, held on September 26, 2003, Resolution #A179/04 was resolved in
part as follows:
THAT the Consultant Team led by Dillon Consulting Limited be retained to work with the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff to develop a functional design
for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project through a coordinated
approach to address the provincial and federal Environmental Assessment
requirements using a Conservation Authority Class Environmental Assessment and an
Environmental Screening Report, respectively, at an upset cost of $421,520.00,
excluding GST,•
The Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project (LDRW Project) is the first of two
projects to proceed as part of the Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower Don River
Delivery Agreement signed on December 6, 2002 between the TWRC and the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). The objective of the project is to provide a permanent
flood protection solution that will remove 210 hectares of Toronto from the regulatory
floodplain, west of the Don River.
Currently, a draft Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Screening Report for the LDRW Project
is nearing completion for review. It is anticipated that the Class EA will be released for review
between the end of October and mid - November, 2004. To maintain our current inertia, staff
have initiated the development of a scope of work to detail the transition from the
Environmental Assessment process through to implementation of the functional design.
222
Determining the Preferred Alternative and Functional Design
A long -list of flood protection alternatives were carried through a two -stage evaluation process
to derive the preliminary preferred alternative. Key components of the preferred alternative
include:
• a flood protection landform that extends up to 3.5 m high and more than 160 m wide along
the west side of the Don River that is bounded by the Queen Street flyover in the north and
CN's rail crossing over the Don River (Kingston Line) in the south. To convey the
anticipated volume of water under the regulatory flood, this flood protection landform will
require a 40 metre setback from the water's edge;
• a flood conveyance structure (a culvert system or bridge) will be constructed under the
Kingston Line to convey flood flows in the Don River under the Kingston Line;
• a combination of dykes and a retaining wall will be constructed on private- and
publicly -owned lands on the east side of the Don River, south of the Kingston Line to
mitigate against increases in flooding that would result from the increased conveyance of
floodwaters under the Kingston Line;
• a modification to the Eastern Avenue utility bridge to improve local flow conditions; and
• continued dredging of the Keating Channel to ensure that the desired flood protection is
achieved and maintained.
Benefits of the preferred alternative include:
• low impacts on the natural environment during construction and operations;
• the least number of constraints on planning and land use issues;
• no intrusion into other parts of the valley nor will it act as a visual intrusion to the landscape;
• the provision of attractive greenspace, connections between the waterfront and Don
watershed, and a wide range of recreational opportunities;
• low to moderate cost to build and maintain; and
• readily adaptable in the future as may be required due to the impacts of global warming.
Public Consultation
The evaluation process underwent public scrutiny at two public workshops: the first was on
January 19, 2004 and the second on April 29, 2004. During workshop #1, the public was able
to comment on the project objectives, the range of alternatives being considered and the
criteria to be used to evaluate each alternative. At workshop #2, the public commented on the
results of the evaluation and the components of the preferred alternative. Public feedback was
supportive of the results. TRCA is confident that the results will provide flood protection,
enhance recreation and aesthetic values in the area and generally improve the local
environment in the City of Toronto.
An in -depth analysis of the preferred alternative was conducted to determine its environmental
impacts during construction and long -term operation phases. The results of this analysis and
details on the resulting preliminary functional design were presented to the general public for
comment at the third public workshop on September 21, 2004. While numerous questions
were raised regarding the details, the public is highly supportive of the project.
223
Looking Ahead
All public comments submitted to TRCA will receive consideration before the design becomes
finalized. Once finalized, the functional design will be submitted to provincial and federal
authorities in conjunction with the Class EA report and Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act (CEAA) Environmental Screening Report, respectively
TRCA staff are currently in the process of developing a scope of work, schedule for work,
operating budget, phasing plan and monitoring plan that will represent the basis for
negotiations with the TWRC to develop a delivery agreement for the implementation of the
Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project functional design.
Detailed designs will be developed for the various flood protection components, and all
necessary permits will be acquired during the winter, 2005.
Construction of the flood conveyance structure under the CN Kingston Line may commence by
early summer, 2005. Construction of the flood protection landform to protect lands west of the
Don River will be constructed when the flood conveyance structure is in place. Construction of
all flood protection components should be completed by 2006 -07.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Initial estimates provided in 1999 to implement the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood
Protection Project were $14 million. Due to inflationary costs and other technical requirements
arising through the Environmental Assessment project the actual cost to implement this project
will likely be higher, and the TWRC has been so advised.
On this, the 50th anniversary of Hurricane Hazel, staff and Joe Puopolo, project lead for Dillon
Consulting, will be making a presentation on the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood
Protection Project. This initiative is a significant step forward in addressing flooding concerns
at the Mouth of the Don.
Report prepared by: Ken Dion, extension 5230
For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230
Date: September 30, 2004
RES. #D90/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DON WATERSHED PLAN UPDATE STUDY
Workplan. Initiation of consultations and workplan preparation for the
Don Watershed Plan Update.
Pamela Gough
Nancy Stewart
THAT the Don Watershed Plan Update Study be initiated and undertaken according to the
general work program outlined in this report ;
224
THAT public /stakeholder input to the development of a detailed work program be obtained
through the Don Watershed Regeneration Council , meetings with municipal staff and a
community open house;
THAT staff report back in early 2005 with a detailed work program and on the study progress ;
AND FURTHER THAT staff work with Pollution Probe to undertake the Don River
Retrospective /Prospective project and coordinate findings with the Don Watershed Plan
Update Study.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1994, the Don Watershed Regeneration Strategy, Forty Steps to a New Don, was published,
identifying watershed protection and regeneration priorities. Subsequently, three watershed
report cards, Turning the Corner (1997), A Time for Bold Steps (2000) and Breathing New Life
into the Don (2003), have tracked changes in conditions and progress at implementation of the
strategy. Numerous efforts by municipal, industry and community partners have contributed
toward addressing the key issues found in this very urbanized watershed, including stormwater
management in new and existing developments, combined sewer overflow remediation, habitat
regeneration and backyard stewardship, however, it is recognized that much remains to be
done to achieve the vision for the Don watershed.
Recent policy initiatives, particularly the Oak Ridges Moraine Act, and the anticipated
enactment of the Drinking Water Source Protection Act, necessitate a consolidated update of
strategic planning direction for this watershed. The Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) Act (2001) and
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) Regulation (2002) require the Region of York,
City of Vaughan and Town of Richmond Hill to have a watershed plan completed by April 2007,
and its recommendations incorporated into the municipal official plans before any major
development can be approved. Although there are limited undeveloped /rural lands remaining
in the ORM portion of the Don watershed, the watershed planning study will ensure ORMCP
requirements are met for these lands.
Watershed -based source protection plans will likely become a legislated requirement within the
next year, as the provincial government has indicated its intent to implement recommendations
from the Walkerton Inquiry. At such time as the requirements become known, they will be
incorporated into the ongoing workplan for this watershed planning study to the extent
possible.
In 2003, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) adopted The Living City vision
and objectives, which are to be realized, in part, through watershed management programs.
The updated Don watershed plan will provide an opportunity to identify the programs and
actions necessary to fulfill The Living City objectives within the Don watershed.
New technical data for the Don watershed in the areas of terrestrial natural heritage,
groundwater, baseflow, water use, water budget and climate change projections, to name a
few, are now available and can be integrated with existing watershed information to update the
management strategy and provide improved direction for implementation.
225
Given the policy requirements, new information and degree of previous work, the proposed
Don Watershed Plan Update Study will adopt the following principles in its approach:
• focus on filling gaps and developing an updated, integrated plan;
• simple and user - focussed documentation; and
• implementation oriented.
The following study objectives have been identified:
• fulfill the municipalities obligations for watershed planning under the ORM Act and ORMCP;
• incorporate requirements for completing a source protection plan into the workplan to the
extent possible, at such time as the requirements become known;
• guide the ongoing implementation of existing policies and programs of the watershed
municipalities, TRCA, and other agencies, as they affect watershed management; and
• guide official plan updates of the Region of York, City of Toronto and the local municipalities
within the watershed;
• guide stewardship and regeneration priorities of private landowners, agencies and
community groups.
Key aspects of the analysis proposed in this study will address:
• hydrological benefits of implementing the targeted terrestrial natural heritage system;
• downstream benefits of implementing the stormwater management retrofit plans in the
"905" part of the watershed, as a complement to the implementation of Toronto's Wet
Weather Flow Management Master Plan;
• implications of climate change;
• integration of the G. Ross Lord Dam break analysis study and the updated hydrology study
results with watershed management recommendations;
• fluvial geomorphology and instream erosion study needs (scope of work to be determined);
• implications and opportunities associated with large scale development;
• public use pressures (e.g. over -use, user conflicts);
• opportunities for employing improved sustainability practices; and
• overall integration of all new and existing information to provide improved direction for
achieving The Living Cityobjectives through watershed management.
Based on this planning context, the final implementation- oriented products will provide:
• Model policy, databases and tools to guide the remaining urbanization and re- development,
including the natural areas to be protected, stormwater management criteria (recharge,
flood flow, low flow, water quality, erosion), sustainable community design concepts and
targets to meet public use, cultural ecology, aquatic and terrestrial objectives.
• Priorities for stewardship and regeneration projects, including several key "concept site"
blueprints, similar to those prepared for Forty Steps to a New Don. Implementation
priorities will address stormwater retrofit needs, terrestrial natural heritage, aquatic habitat,
public use, education and interpretive opportunities.
226
• Early products that can immediately contribute to decision - making, during ongoing
development approvals and regeneration project implementation.
Further details of the workplan and final products will be developed in consultation with
watershed partners.
Don River Retrospective /Prospective
Concurrent with the update of the Don Watershed Plan, Pollution Probe, in partnership with
TRCA and others, has proposed to lead a retrospective review of the last 35 years of progress
in the Don watershed. This initiative is timely in that 2004 marks the: 35th anniversary of
Pollution Probe's "funeral" for the Don; 15th anniversary of Toronto's creation of its Task Force
to Bring Back the Don; and 10th anniversary of TRCA's Forty Steps to a New Don. The
retrospective project will produce a report which will summarize past progress, sketch a vision
for the next 10 -35 years and characterize a process for getting there. The report is to be
developed with input from prominent players in the Don and written by a well- recognized writer.
The report and /or parts of it could form a "forward" for the updated Don Watershed Plan, and
generally contribute to its recommendations for priority implementation action. A joint funding
program will be developed and provided to the Business Excellence Advisory Board as
appropriate.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Planning Process
The watershed planning process will consist of three phases, over two and a half years,
consistent with the approach being followed by other TRCA watershed planning studies. The
following is a summary of the activities and deliverables associated with each phase:
Phase 1A: Designing the Planning Framework (July 2004 - Dec. 2004)
• establish administrative structure;
• develop public involvement program; and
• prepare detailed work plan and budget.
Phase 1 B: Characterization (by June 2005)
• review existing information;
• define key issues, concerns and opportunities;
• collect new information and set up modeling and evaluation tools;
• report on existing conditions; and
• define watershed management goals and objectives.
Phase 2: Analysis and Evaluation of Alternatives (by December 2005)
• define future scenarios (i.e. terrestrial natural heritage, stormwater retrofit, climate
change, habitat regeneration etc.);
• predict system response to future scenarios;
• evaluate management alternatives and priorities; and
• report on analysis and evaluation work.
227
Phase 3: Developing the Watershed Plan (by June 2006)
• select the preferred management approach;
• develop watershed management priorities and implementation mechanisms;
• finalize targets;
• develop monitoring recommendations; and
• prepare the watershed plan.
Consultation
A detailed workplan will be developed in consultation with the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council, municipal staff and the community during fall, 2004. The resulting workplan will
recommend a process for involving partners throughout the study.
Sound, technical information arising from the update study will be shared with the Pollution
Probe retrospective /prospective project, and findings from the retrospective project will be
reviewed as part of the watershed planning process, to ensure that the vision and
recommendations for priority implementation actions arising from both initiatives take
advantage of the fullest range of partner input and perspectives.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the 2004 preliminary characterization studies was provided for in the TRCA's
capital budgets from the Region of York and City of Toronto . The 2004 projects include:
• Watershed water budget model development.
• Water use assessment.
• Hydraulics study and floodplain mapping updates.
• Aquatic resource studies (riparian surveys, management plan update).
• Terrestrial natural heritage inventories.
• Public use (trail planning).
• Project planning and administration.
Funding proposals to cover the projected 2005 study costs are included in TRCA's 2005
Preliminary Capital Budget.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: October 4, 2004
RES. #D91/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
SPILLS MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE
To provide an update on the spills management initiative which has been
lead through the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan in partnership
with the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition.
Pamela Gough
Nancy Stewart
228
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue with the
consultation process, in partnership with the Ministry of Environment , Ministry of Natural
Resources, Environment Canada, regional and local municipalities within Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority's (TRCA) jurisdiction and watershed groups through the Toronto and
Region Remedial Action Plan (Toronto RAP), to address spills prevention and management
within TRCA's watersheds;
THAT staff be directed to seek the necessary funding to further the spills management
consultative process and associated activities from the 2005/2006 Toronto RAP Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) budget;
AND FURTHER THAT staff bring back the final outcomes report and recommendations from
the spills workshop for approval .
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 TRCA's jurisdiction. 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. In January 2004, the Toronto RAP team endorsed and sponsored the spills
management initiative. Resources were allocated through the Toronto RAP MOU budget to:
prepare a background report, build a consultative process and host a workshop.
Project Objective
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 throughout 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.
229
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, Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and
Environment Canada (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 EC, 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, non - governmental organizations
(NGOs), municipalities and agencies interested in spills within the TRCA watersheds. A copy of
the background report will be available at the Water Management Advisory Board 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 representatives, local and regional municipal
staff, provincial and federal staff involved with spills, representatives from the International Joint
Commission (IJC), Ontario 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, MOE 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. 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 TRCA's 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 TRCA's jurisdiction as they operate spills action centres and
develop emergency plans. MOE and 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, greenspace and biodiversity, 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 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 RAP, identifies the "Improvement of Spills
Response and Prevention" as an action item under the stormwater section.
230
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 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.
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.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The 2004 budget for sponsoring this project was $5,000 from the Toronto RAP MOU.
Discussion with RAP team members are currently underway regarding future commitments to
this initiative.
Report prepared by: Lisa Turnbull, extension 5325, Paul Willms, extension 5316
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
Date: October 06, 2004
RES. #D92/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
HIGHLAND CREEK ECOACTION PROGRESS REPORT
An update on the Highland Creek EcoAction Progress Report and
direction to seek additional funding.
Pamela Gough
Nancy Stewart
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to pursue funding
sources to support the continuation of the Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship
Program in future years.
CARRIED
231
BACKGROUND
The Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Program (HCESP) was launched in March of
2003 as a partnership initiative between the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
and the City of Toronto. The program was granted $137,800 in financial support over a two year
period. The EcoACTION Community Funding Program granted $85,000, the Toronto and
Region Remedial Action Plan (Toronto RAP) Regeneration fund provided $46,800 and the
combined efforts of three community groups contributed $6,000. To date, the HCESP has also
received in -kind contributions from the City of Toronto and various community groups,
businesses and schools totalling $103, 500.
The purpose of the program is to raise environmental awareness in the Highland Creek
watershed and initiate the regeneration of three priority community action sites: Brimley Woods,
Knob Hill and Dean Parks. Birkdale Ravine Park was adopted as an additional action site in the
Spring of 2004.
To date, the HCESP has successfully engaged participation from local residents, businesses,
schools and the diverse communities that make up the watershed. More than 20 schools and
post- secondary institutions have been involved with the program in various capacities and over
15 local community associations, ratepayer groups and service organizations have participated
in and promoted program events and activities. Scarborough politicians have supported the
program and made use of its outreach and education services to help facilitate special events
and community consultation processes. In addition, many local businesses including Owens
Corning, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., Fuji Graphic Systems, IBM and Rohm & Haas have
co- hosted and participated in various planting and clean up events and made numerous in kind
contributions to the program. The HCESP is also involved with "StandUP Scarborough ", a
community pride campaign whose mandate is to celebrate and promote the best in
Scarborough's people, places and events.
As a result of over 3,500 volunteer hours, hands -on accomplishments to date include:
• over 3,000 native trees and shrubs planted at four community action sites;
• over 50 songbird, waterfowl and bat boxes installed in various locations throughout the
watershed; and
• over 18,000 kg of garbage collected at the four action sites and in local parks and natural
areas.
Additional community successes resulting from HCESP capacity building initiatives include the
completion of a school native wildflower garden. Initiated by a local resident and parent, this
project was the result of a collaborative effort between TRCA, Edgewood Public School and the
City of Toronto Parks & Recreation and Forestry Departments, with funding support from TD
Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation. Over 400 students and their teachers
participated in this project which will serve as a demonstration model to the community and
neighbouring schools.
232
Ongoing HCESP support for environmental initiatives at Centennial College include bi- annual
shoreline restoration and clean up events at its Progress Campus, outreach through annual
Enviro Fairs and presentations to the Centennial College Student Association Board
highlighting the HCESP and other TRCA stewardship initiatives. As a result, HCESP has been
successful in engaging students as volunteers and providing opportunities for learning skills
sought by potential employers. The experience of two of these volunteers has lead to their
employment with TRCA.
The HCESP also supports the City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan
(WWFMMP). The program provides venues for informing the public about stormwater
management issues (e.g. at our resident information seminars) and HCESP staff promote the
Downspout Disconnection Program and distribute rain barrels and water efficiency kits as
prizes at community events.
In addition to working with key stakeholders, the HCESP continues to support internal initiatives
such as Port Union projects, including the creation of pike spawning habitat and development
of an environmental management plan for the lower Highland Creek.
An informal steering committee has guided the HCESP since its inception. The committee
supports the implementation of core program deliverables, provides a framework for
collaboration and facilitates community capacity building opportunities. Committee members
represent a cross section of the community, with representatives from local businesses, a post
secondary institution, community organizations and youth groups. Members have promoted
the program to the Scarborough Chamber of Commerce and local business associations, and
will provide promotional support to the Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology
Advancement (OCETA) Pollution Prevention (P2) initiative within the watershed.
Most recently, the HCESP steering committee hosted an open house where 38 participants (23
representatives from local community associations, schools, businesses and politicians and 15
core steering committee members) provided valuable input on how our stewardship efforts can
best serve the Highland Creek community. The ideas generated from this meeting will help
direct planning for future stewardship projects and will form part of the basis for an upcoming
Trillium funding application to sustain the Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Program
over the next 3 -5 years. Based on the 2005 deadline for this submission we are well positioned
to move forward with a comprehensive and strategic community supported proposal in line
with The Living City objective for Sustainable Communities.
Report prepared by: Natalie Affolter, extension 5676
For Information contact: Natalie Affolter, extension 5676
Date: August 18, 2004
233
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:37 a.m., on Friday, October 15, 2004.
Dave Ryan
Chair
/ks
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/04
December 10, 2004
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #7/04, was held in the Humber Room,
Head Office, on Friday, December 10, 2004. The Chair Dave Ryan, called the meeting to
order at 10:05 a.m..
PRESENT
Gay Cowbourne Member
Frank Dale Member
Pamela Gough Member
Cliff Jenkins Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Shelley Petrie Member
Dave Ryan Chair
Nancy Stewart Vice Chair
Michael Thompson Member
RES. #D93/04 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pamela Gough
Michael Thompson
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #6/04, held on October 15, 2004, be approved.
CARRIED
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Gay Cowbourne declared a conflict with item 6.1 in regards to possible acquisition of Toronto
District School Board property located on Wanita Road.
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A cheque presentation by Wayne Ostermaier, Manager, Land Assessment and
Remediation, Hydro One Networks Inc. in regards to Frenchman's Bay watershed
rehabilitation project.
235
(b) A presentation by Tracy Smith, District Manager, Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora
District, speaking in regards to item 7.1 - Ontario Living Legacy Funding Final Report
Summary.
(c) A presentation by Greg Grabas, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada,
speaking in regards to item 7.2 - Durham Region Coastal Wetlands Baseline Monitoring.
RES. #D94 /04 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Nancy Stewart
Frank Dale
THAT above -noted presentations (a) - (c) be heard and received.
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) City of Toronto Works Committee Report 9, October, 2004, in regards to Possible
Acquisition of Toronto District School Board Property Located on Wanita Road for
Stormwater Management Purposes.
RES. #D95 /04 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Frank Dale
THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the status of , and the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority's interest in, the surplus Toronto District School Board property located
on the south side of Wanita Road .
CARRIED
236
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
Litfl TonoNlo CITY CLERK
Consolidated Clause in Works Committee Report 9, which was received, for information, by
City Council on October 26, 27 and 28, 2004.
13
Other Items Considered by the Committee
(The Committee is authorized to take certain actions without Council's approval.
These actions are listed in this Clause for Council's information.)
City Council on October 26, 27 and 28, 2004, received this Clause for information.
(a) Possible Acquisition of Toronto District School Board Property Located on Wanita
Road for Stormwater Management Purposes
(Ward 44- Scarborough East)
The Works Committee:
(1) unanimously recommended to the Administration Committee that City Council
adopt the following resolution :
"BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Toronto express an interest in the acquisition
of the Toronto District School Board Wanita Road property ;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff be directed to negotiate with the
Toronto District School Board and report back to the Works Committee on the
cost to acquire the Wanita Road site at its December 2004 meeting;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City staff be directed to work with
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff and report back to the Works
Committee on how the site could be utilized to meet the goals of the Wet
Weather Flow Master Plan, the Centennial Creek Subwatershed Study and the
TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Policies , including aspects such as storm
water management, water quality improvement, habitat restoration and
increased tree canopy." and
(2) requested that the Commissioner of Urban Development Services :
(i) report back to the appropriate committee on whether this site is an
environmentally sensitive area; and
237
(1)
(ii) examine methods of ensuring that school properties remain zoned as
institutional.
(September 22, 2004) from the Acting Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services advising, in response to the Works Committee request of September 8,
2004, to report back on Councillor De Baeremaeker's communication, that the
Toronto District School Board property located on Wanita Road in Scarborough
is not required for stormwater and flood management purposes, and that the site
presently only receives local overland flow from a grassed area and construction
of a stormwater management pond /wetland cannot be justified at this site; and
noting that should the site be developed in the future, stormwater management
measures to achieve water quality and quantity requirements consistent with the
City's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan will have to be addressed at
that time.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
(ii) Communications from the following:
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
13,2004) from Denise Dagenais and Scott Margerison;
16,2004) from Louise van Doomik;
16, 2004) from Sue Kirton;
16,2004) from Nick and Joan Burd;
16,2004) from Robert J. Lehrnan;
16,2004) from Lori Lockrey;
16,2004) from J. Powlson;
16,2004) from Maurine and Charles Johnson;
16,2004) from Joy Wood;
16, 2004) from Brenda and Colin Broughton;
16,2004) from Terry Fitzgibbon;
16,2004) from Josephine Raylas;
16,2004) from Simon Ma;
16, 2004) from Kiki Li;
16,2004) from Dennis Huang;
16,2004) from Ho Shun Lam;
16,2004) from Martin Jun;
16,2004) from Gerald Tassie;
16,2004) from Georgia Abela;
20,2004) from Mary Anne Sait;
20,2004) from Marilyn Hodge;
20, 2004) from Anne Robson;
20,2004) from Anthony Sibley;
20, 2004) from Bob and Rosita Britton;
21,2004) from Mr. and Mrs. B. D'Costa;
21,2004) from Larry L. Heide;
21,2004) from Gerry Snore;
22,2004) from Mr. and Mrs. Marcel Brandstatt;
238
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
(September
22, 2004) from Janet Chisholrn;
22, 2004) from Alex Hutchison;
22,2004) from Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Karsh;
22,2004) from Dieter Skom;
23,2004) from Karly Jones;
24, 2004) from B. Pachulska;.
24, 2004) from A. Czerwinski;
24,2004) from Rosemarie Lall;
24,2004) from Carlos Lorencez;
25, 2004) from Ms. K. Sullivan;
25, 2004) from Mike and Julie Coleman;
25, 2004) from D. Kircoff;
25, 2004) from James and Patricia Heikkila;
25,2004) from Earl Bolton;
25,2004) from Ralph Bolton;
26,2004) from Wanda Wierzbicki;
26, 2004) from Heather Lemieux;
26, 2004) from Len and Myrna Cox;
26, 2004) from Leo Pavone;
26,2004) from Cathy Groen;
26, 2004) from Debbie and Daryl Boyce;
26, 2004) from Melody Munro;
26, 2004) from Anne Fealy;
27,2004) from Avan and Vijay Sahai;
27,2004) from Mireille Glor;
28, 2004) from Patricia Cruickshank;
29,2004) from Doug and Diane Cote; and
29, 2004) from David D'Costa.
The following persons appeared before the Works Committee:
Jeff Forsyth;
Kathy Sullivan;
JeffPowlson; and
Tony Sobczak.
239
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D96/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ONTARIO LIVING LEGACY FUNDING FINAL REPORT SUMMARY
A summary of accomplishments resulting from Ontario Living Legacy
funding.
Nancy Stewart
Frank Dale
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Chair of the Authority thank the
Minister of Natural Resources for the opportunity to administer the Ontario Living Legacy
funds on behalf of its community project partners within Durham Region .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #7/03, held on September 26, 2003, resolution #A202/03 was approved
as follows:
THAT the project for the Ontario Living Legacy Funds involving an investment of
provincial funding of $325,000 for habitat restoration projects within the Duffins Creek
watershed and at Frenchman's Bay be approved
A memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed on September 22, 2003, between the
Province of Ontario and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to formalize the
reporting relationship and the transfer of funds. As outlined in the MoU, $200,000 of the project
funds were to be divided among 5 projects throughout the Duffins Creek watershed and the
balance of $125,000 was to be split evenly between the two waterfront projects for the Duffins
Marsh Restoration Plan and the Frenchman's Bay West Shore Initiative.
The following table summarizes the projects that were implemented during 2003 and 2004:
Project Name & Ontario
Living Legacy (OLL) Funds
Site Description
Deliverables of Ontario Living
Legacy (OLL) Funding
Frenchman's Bay West Shore
The 27 hectare Rotary Frenchman's
An ephemeral wetland was
Habitat Initiative
Bay West Park is located at
enhanced, meadow habitat was
$ 62,500
Westshore Blvd. on the Lake
Ontario shoreline in the City of
created and native trees and
shrubs were planted and
Pickering. These public lands had
complemented by the installation of
been identified as having potential
a variety of habitat structures. A
for community involved
project brochure was produced to
naturalization initiatives including
create a call to action for this
forest management and terrestrial
wetland habitat creation, monitoring
and outreach education.
community waterfront destination.
Duffins Creek Marsh
The provincially significant coastal
Installation of a carp barrier, water
Restoration Action Plan
marsh was showing signs of decline
control structure and berm.
$ 62,500
in the health of its aquatic
vegetation due to fluctuations in
240
water levels and an abundance of
carp.
Rodar Property
$22,500
This site comprises the north end of
the Greenwood Conservation Area
in the City of Pickering. Its former
use was for group camp activities.
The Greenwood Management Plan
identified the area for restoration.
The site required native tree and
shrub cover and the creation of
nodes for wildlife habitat.
In addition to a native tree and
shrub planting, a 2.8 ha upland
area was prepared and planted
with 6,000 conifer seedlings. A
kiosk was installed adjacent to the
existing parking area to post
education and outreach information
about the natural features of the
site.
Paulynn Park
$7,500
This community park located in the
Town of Ajax was traditionally used
for group picnics and summer
camp activities. With active public
recreation uses shifting to other
areas within the town, the mown
grass areas provide the opportunity
to increase the natural cover
adjacent to Duffins Creek.
The riparian buffers were widened
and enhanced through native tree
and shrub planting to enhance and
maintain an existing cold water
fishery for resident Rainbow Trout.
A kiosk was installed for the
purpose of interpretive signage to
engage residents in the
environmental efforts in their
community park.
Glen Major Trail Head
$15,000
This 20 acre parcel of public land in
the Township of Uxbridge in the
headwaters of Duffins Creek
presented opportunities to increase
natural cover and create safe public
access to existing local and
regional trail systems.
Established safe public access to
the existing trail network and
increased natural cover through
planting of native trees and shrubs.
Brush piles and habitat structures
were installed. A community
planting and sign unveiling were
hosted
Conservation Easement
Restoration
$25,000
Private landowners with
conservation easements on their
property requested assistance in
restoring the natural features within
the easement boundaries.
Seven landowners on the Oak
Ridges Moraine were assisted with
riparian buffer planting, woodlot
expansion, old field and wildlife
habitat planting. Forest inventory,
forest management and stand
tending services were also
provided.
Timbers Gravel Pit
Restoration
$130,000
This 38 ha rehabilitated former
gravel pit on the Oak Ridges
Moraine in Uxbridge is part of the
Glen Major Complex of publicly
owned lands. The opportunity to
increase natural cover on this site
was consistent with the objectives
of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan and the Duffins
241
An on -site habitat design workshop
in consultation with the Ministry of
Natural Resources was convened.
This resulted in the final design and
the installation of topsoil from
external sources, nodal planting
sites, habitat enhancements, and
upland and reforestation planting.
An information kiosk was installed
Creek Watershed Plan.
and the creation of parking area
provided safe public access to the
local and regional trail system.
In addition to the specific site deliverables noted above, an Ontario Living Legacy site tour was
hosted by TRCA staff on June 24, 2004 to mark the completion of the project and share the
accomplishments with staff of the Aurora District Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) office,
and those involved in the administration of the Living Legacy funds from Queen's Park.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will continue to work with the province and its community partners to seek additional funds
and profile the Living Legacy projects.
Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5638
For Information contact: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5638
Date: November 25, 2004
RES. #D97/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DURHAM REGION COASTAL WETLANDS BASELINE MONITORING
Durham Region Coastal Wetlands Monitoring Program - baseline
conditions and study findings.
Nancy Stewart
Frank Dale
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) staff work with other project partners and continue the monitoring efforts
associated with Durham Region coastal wetlands within Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority's (TRCA) jurisdiction.
CARRIED
242
BACKGROUND
Wetlands are complex and ecologically important ecosystems that are often defined as areas
that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, or where the water table is close
to or at the surface. This specific hydrological condition allows for a variety of water - tolerant
wetland plant and animal species to thrive. All wetlands provide environmental functions that
are important to both humans and wildlife. These functions may vary among wetlands
depending on the size of the wetland, its soils, plant community and position in the landscape.
Great Lakes coastal wetlands are a unique wetland type that have formed at the mouths of
streams and rivers where they empty into the lakes, and in open or protected bays along the
shoreline.
Coastal wetlands are feeling the pressure of land -use intensification. Vast areas of Great Lakes
coastal wetlands have been filled in or drained for agriculture, residential and industrial
development, and recreational facilities. For those that remain, the loss of natural areas, both
adjacent and further up the watershed, decreases water quality and habitat availability within
the wetlands. As a result, wetland functions decline and values diminish. For example, wildlife
sightings become less frequent, fish production suffers, and birds lose nesting habitat.
Durham Region coastal wetlands are particularly affected by the Great Lakes basin -wide trend
of wetland loss and disturbance. This stretch of coastal wetlands begins just east of the City of
Toronto and extends 50 kilometers eastward along Lake Ontario's north shore from the City of
Pickering to Port Newcastle. Land holdings of TRCA include significant portions of the coastal
wetlands at the Rouge River, Frenchman's Bay, Duffins Creek and Carruthers Marsh.
To investigate the health of these important systems, TRCA participated in a multi- agency
partnership that was coordinated by Environment Canada and included Durham Region
conservation authorities, Bird Studies Canada, Ontario Power Generation, Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, University of Toronto, Ontario Streams,
Trent University and Ducks Unlimited Canada. This partnership developed and delivered a
monitoring program that was designed to establish baseline conditions and determine trends in
ecological health of the Durham Region wetlands. Monitoring activities focused on
investigating water quality, submerged aquatic vegetation, aquatic macroinvertebrates,
amphibians, birds and fish community conditions. These baseline conditions and study
findings have been summarized in a report that will be available at the meeting.
The results of this monitoring program are highlighted in a report card format for each wetland.
These report cards indicate that typically, for each parameter investigated, conditions ranged
from poor to fair. The good condition of the fish communities within Frenchman's Bay and the
Rouge River were an exception, as well as the good condition of the benthic invertebrate
community found in Carruthers Creek Marsh. This monitoring effort is expected to be a long
term program and like any other monitoring effort the utility and importance of this work will
increase with each additional sampling year.
243
In addition, this body of work summarized critical wetland statistics for each site. This
information includes wetland classification, major vegetation types, wetland size, watershed
size and percent of natural cover within the watershed. Of equal importance as the report card
indicators and wetland statistics, this program developed a scientifically based suite of physical
and biological wetland health indicators. Utilizing these indicators within the Durham Region
coastal wetlands has provided insight into a number of unique biological conditions. For
example, through this program Environment Canada has developed a relative abundance
index for benthic Invertebrates. This index predicts the level of disturbance associated with a
coastal wetland and is based on the presence of mayfly and caddisfly larvae, and the
abundance of midge larvae.
RATIONALE
This monitoring program is an excellent partnership that allows us to co- operatively collect
baseline information about coastal wetlands within Durham Region. This monitoring program
also allows staff to directly compare TRCA wetlands to other healthier wetlands outside our
jurisdiction. It is critically important for the TRCA to reference local wetlands to other areas in
Durham Region that have better ecological conditions. Also, this monitoring program is very
valuable as a baseline set of data from which staff can track the affects and efficiencies of our
restoration projects and our other monitoring efforts. Working within this partnership, staff plan
to continue with wetland monitoring efforts at the Rouge River, Frenchman's Bay, Duffins Creek
and Carruthers Creek during the 2005 field season.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for this project is in the Durham Waterfront Monitoring Program budget, Account No.
229 -01.
Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
Date: November 23, 2004
RES. #D98/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT- FRENCHMAN'S BAY
Hydro One Oil Spill Into Pine Creek - Restoration of Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority Owned Land.. Rehabilitation of Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority owned land as a result of the October
2003 spill at the Hydro One Cherrywood Transfer Station (City of
Pickering).
Nancy Stewart
Frank Dale
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Hydro One be advised that the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA's) issues surrounding the restoration of
Authority owned lands have been addressed .
244
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On Wednesday, October 1, 2003, a spill of transformer fluid occurred at the Cherrywood
Transfer Station and an undetermined amount of oil was released into the Frenchman's Bay
watershed at Pine Creek. At Authority Meeting #8103, resolution #A220/03 was approved as
follows:
THAT Mr. Tom Parkinson, President, CEO of Hydro One be advised of the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority's concerns about the spill of transformer oil into Pine
Creek and be requested to provide all the resources necessary for full restoration of the
impacted area;
THAT staff be directed to assist the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham in any
monitoring and restoration activities,.
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue their efforts to raise awareness about spills
management issues and ensure effective measures are implemented to monitor, control
and prevent harmful substances from entering our watersheds and waterfront"
To date, staff have been involved in many aspects of the clean up and restoration activities
associated with this spill. When the spill initially occurred, TRCA staff visited the site on a
number of occasions to observe the containment effort, assess the impacts to TRCA properties
and determine the significance of impacts to the Frenchman's Bay and Pine Creek ecosystem.
In addition, TRCA staff have participated in an ad hoc committee to assist the interested parties
in communication activities, additional restoration and monitoring efforts, and to ensure that our
concerns about the restoration of Pine Creek were met.
Based on staff assessment, the long term impacts to the TRCA properties along Pine Creek
have been nominal. Minor disturbance was limited to impacts associated with the movement of
people, materials and equipment through the site during the recovery operations. Recent
restorative plantings along these access trails have proved effective and will allow the site to
mature into the surrounding natural habitats. TRCA staff provided direction and guidance to
this restoration activity.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Restoration activities on TRCA properties are complete and satisfactory to TRCA staff. Staff will
assess these plantings over the next few years to ensure they mature and provide the
anticipated level of natural cover. TRCA will continue with ongoing monitoring activities
including the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program and Durham Waterfront Monitoring
Program to determine the health of the Frenchman's Bay ecosystem.
Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
Date: November 23, 2004
245
RES. #D99/04 - BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY
Business and Community Outreach Initiative Update.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Nancy Stewart
Gay Cowbourne
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the City of Vaughan be requested to
reinstate the capital funding to enable the completion of the trail system and the environmental
improvements as per the recommendations of the City of Vaughan Special Committee of the
Whole, Report no. 17, item 14 of March 4, 2002.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #6/02, held on June 21, 2002, Resolution #A169/02 was approved as
follows:
THAT the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce and the members of the Langstaff Ecopark
Steering Committee be congratulated on their successful application to the Ontario
Trillium Foundation which will result in a five year program of stewardship outreach for
the West Don;
THAT staff be directed to develop and sign an appropriate agreement with the Vaughan
Chamber of Commerce with respect to the staffing and related issues for the five year
period commencing July 1, 2002;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed, in partnership with the staff of the City of
Vaughan, and the members of the Langstaff Ecopark Steering Committee, to develop a
terms of reference for the establishment of a Friends of the West Don /Bartley Smith
Greenway Group to continue the stewardship activities within the Don watershed and in
particular, the regeneration and trail access developments for the West Don /Bartley
Smith Greenway.
The Bartley Smith Greenway (BSG) is a 15 kilometre natural corridor located within the valley of
the Upper West Don River as it flows from Teston Road south to Steeles Avenue, through the
City of Vaughan.
The Langstaff Eco -park Steering Committee is comprised of representatives from local
businesses, the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce, Vaughan residents, Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff and City of Vaughan staff. In 2001, the steering committee
agreed to seek funding to further community involvement in expanding the stewardship efforts
to the entire west don subwatershed. A successful proposal was prepared by TRCA staff to the
Ontario Trillium Foundation in 2002 on behalf of the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce. This
resulted in the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce receiving a grant of $280,000 over a five year
period to deliver the Bartley Smith Greenway Business and Community Outreach Initiative.
246
As per Authority Resolution #A169/02, in July of 2002, The Bartley Smith Greenway
Stewardship and Planning Advisory Committee (BSGAC) was established through the
preparation of a collaborative terms of reference and the hiring of a full time project ecologist.
The role of the project ecologist has been to implement the work plan outlined in the Ontario
Trillium Foundation proposal with support of the BSGAC. To date the committee has played a
key role in delivering stewardship outreach activities, identifying regeneration opportunities,
and working to develop further trail linkages in the BSG corridor. Over the past two and a half
years, restoration and outreach efforts have concentrated on the section of the BSG located
south of Major Mackenzie Drive.
The highlights and accomplishments from 2002 -2004 are as follows.
Trails and Openings
A pedestrian bridge was installed at Rupert's Pond in 2003. In the fall of 2003, the final stages
of restoration were completed and an official opening of Rupert's Pond was held with 90
participants from the community. In 2004, a trail was installed from Langstaff Road to Jacob
Keffer Parkway. One thousand meters of new trail was installed at the mid -point of the
greenway called Tudor Valley, along with a small wetland feature. Staff are currently in the
planning stages to connect the trail north of Rutherford Road to Waterside Marsh at the top of
the BSG.
Habitat Enhancements
In addition to trail enhancements, more than 4,000 native trees and shrubs have been planted,
and100 songbird and 2 raptor nesting boxes have been installed. Currently TRCA staff, along
with input from the BSGAC, are working to rehabilitate Waterside Marsh, a 1 hectare wetland
located north of Rutherford Road.
Outreach - Communications
A variety of publications and media products have been produced and distributed to provide
volunteers, residents and businesses with a source of environmental awareness products.
These communications include 4 BSG full color newsletters printed and distributed to over
1,000 residents and businesses, a bird checklist which describes seasonal occurrence and
abundance of species within the BSG, a website which receives 250 hits per month,
environmental workshops to more than 500 participants, workshop ads and BSG articles in
three local papers.
In addition, the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce "Corporate Planting" continues to engage
local businesses in this annual event, raising $15,000 over a three year period to purchase
plant material.
Pollution Prevention
BSGAC adopted the Ontario Centre For Environmental Technology Advancement (OCETA)
program to develop and demonstrate a community based approach for improving sustainable
practices and the economic and environmental performance of small to medium size
businesses. The role of the BSG project ecologist is to promote this program within the BSG
business sector.
247
Resources
A biological inventory of BSG has been completed for flora and fauna, utilizing the TRCA's Draft
Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy.
Project Partners
Ontario Trillium Foundation, community groups, environmental non - government organizations,
private business, Vaughan Chamber of Commerce, York Region, City of Vaughan, Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources and special interest groups.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Continue to implement Ontario Trillium Foundation deliverables as outlined in the 5 year
project workplan.
• Further development of a volunteer base for continued involvement in BSG activities as
outlined in the workplan.
• Engage the business manufacturing community to adopt pollution prevention measures as
outlined in OCETA protocols.
• Seek out partnerships that will give financial and in -kind assistance to projects which will
further the natural regeneration of the upper west Don River subwatershed.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The project has secured the necessary funding support to complete the workplan as outlined in
the Ontario Trillium Foundation proposal.
Capital funding has been provided in the past from the City of Vaughan. Due to budgetary
problems in 2004, Vaughan City Council did not approve any funding for this project. It is
recommended that the Authority request the City of Vaughan to reinstate the funding.
Report prepared by: Greg Sadowski, extension 5668
For Information contact: Greg Sadowski, extension 5668
Date: November 30, 2004
Attachments: 1
248
Attachment 1
Fran
Rabsc
Park
Langstaff
Ecopark
Barbey Smith
Greenway
-- Trail
-Or Trail Entry Points
Don River
MAP NOT TO SCALE
249
RES. #D100/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
SALT MANAGEMENT PLANS IN THE TORONTO AND REGION
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY'S JURISDICTION
Status of municipal and road authority salt management plans in Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority's jurisdiction.
Nancy Stewart
Gay Cowbourne
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the municipal /road authority's
undertaking a salt management plan in Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 's ( TRCA's)
jurisdiction be congratulated for their efforts in controlling the use of road salt .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Approximately 130,000 to 150,000 tonnes of road salts are applied in the City of Toronto every
year. Road salts have been shown over years of use to reduce accidents, injury and mortality
associated with icy and snowy conditions. Unfortunately, the salts also infiltrate into the soil,
spray onto nearby vegetation or are transported through runoff into streams and lakes where
they pose a risk to aquatic ecosystems. Concerns about these impacts and other abiotic
effects of road salts (e.g. lake mixing dynamics) prompted the federal government to conduct a
five year scientific risk assessment of road salts beginning in 1995. This assessment concluded
that road salts are entering the environment in quantities that have, or may have, adverse
effects on freshwater ecosystems, soil, vegetation and wildlife. Accordingly, in 2001, the
Government of Canada included road salts on the second Priority Substance List (PSL2) under
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).
Classification of road salts as toxic under CEPA committed the federal government to develop
management measures to reduce the impacts of road salts on the environment, while
maintaining roadway safety. This requirement led to the Environment Canada publication in
April 2004 of a Code of Practice for the environmental management of road salts. The Code of
Practice was developed in consultation with a multi - stakeholder working group for road salts,
and has received support from provincial and local governments that own and operate public
highways. The code recommends that road authorities and municipalities using more than 500
tonnes of road salt annually (based on a 5 year average) prepare salt management plans
(SMP) identifying actions they will take to improve their practices in salt storage, general use on
roads and snow disposal. Agencies using fewer than 500 tonnes of road salt per year are not
required to prepare SMPs but are encouraged to follow best practices in the management of
road salts.
Although salt management planning remains a non - regulatory requirement, Environment
Canada strongly urged that road authorities and municipalities submit a letter of intent by
October 3, 2004 expressing the municipality's intention to develop a SMP. The deadline for
completion of SMPs is April 3, 2005, one year after publication of the Code of Practice, and the
road authorities /municipalities are to submit their first road salt annual report to Environment
Canada by June 30, 2005.
The following table indicates the status of SMPs for regional and local municipalities and road
authorities operating within TRCA's jurisdiction:
250
SUMMARY OF SALT MANAGEMENT PLANS
MUNICIPALITY /ROAD AUTHORITY
STATUS OF SMP
City of Toronto
Complete
Region of Peel
Complete
Region of York
Draft Plan Complete
Region of Durham
Draft Plan Complete
City of Brampton
Underway
City of Mississauga
Complete
City of Pickering
Underway
Town of Ajax
Underway
City of Vaughan
Underway
Town of Mono
Letter of intent not yet sent
Town of Caledon
Underway
Town of Markham
Underway
Town of Richmond Hill
Underway
Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville
Underway
Township of Adjala - Tosorontio
Underway
Township of King
Underway
Township of Uxbridge
Underway
407 ETR
Draft plan complete
Ministry of Transportation
Underway
The City of Toronto has undertaken a comprehensive approach to managing road salt use that
includes reducing salt use at storage depots, evaluating mitigation measures at snow disposal
sites, moving towards use of alternative road salt application practices and initiating a salt
management training program for staff. Early results indicate that the SMP and staff training
has reduced mean salt use by close to 37,000 tonnes over two winter periods, which is roughly
equivalent to a decrease in salt use of 13% per year.
Other regional and local municipalities have also shown leadership in salt management but in
most cases the benefits of improved practices have not been comprehensively evaluated.
Practices that have been investigated or are currently being adopted as part of municipal SMPs
include:
• optimizing equipment through the use of improved spreader controls on vehicles,
infrared thermometers and pre- wetting to avoid loss from bouncing, blowing and
sliding of salt;
• employing advanced road weather information systems to provide precise
information on temperature, pavement conditions, the presence and concentration
of salt on the road, and precipitation prior to spreading;
• using alternatives to rock salt, including salt brine and implementing anti -icing
programs to assist melting and resist the formation of a bond between ice and the
pavement surface; and
• improving storage and handling practices.
All of these practices help to ensure that road salt is applied at the right time, in the right place
251
The TRCA uses approximately 140 tonnes of road salt per year on its properties, and therefore
is not required to prepare a SMP. To assess current practices, conservation area (CA) and
dam staff were surveyed. Initial survey results indicated that several CAs either do not use salt
(Heart Lake, Indian Line, Tommy Thompson Park and Petticoat), use pickled sand (Boyd, Glen
Haffy, Lake St. George, Albion Hills and Eastville) or use a salt sand mix (Black Creek Pioneer
Village and Bruce's Mill). Claremont applies road salt to only 1 of 3 km of roadway when the
snow plow is unable to penetrate through the ice to the pavement. Pure road salt was also
applied at Claireville and G. Lord Ross Dams - approximately 3 tonnes per year each. These
results suggest that while opportunities may exist to improve salt management on TRCA
properties, current practices at most conservation areas already minimize the use of road salts.
Chloride concentrations in the watersheds are monitored as part of TRCA's Regional
Watershed Monitoring Network. These data are useful in identifying potential problem areas
and evaluating trends in road salt use over time. Staff have provided chloride data to
municipalities developing SMPs and are currently exploring municipal interest in a partnership
pilot study that evaluates the relative merit of commonly employed salt application best
management practices. The study would help to develop and refine a set of standard salt
application practices that could be applied by partner municipalities across the TRCA
jurisdiction, thereby reducing the need for each municipality to conduct its own separate
monitoring program.
Report prepared by: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337
Don Haley, extension 5226
For Information contact: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337
Date: November 26, 2004
RES. #D101/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
URBAN FORESTRY UPDATE
Status report on recent outbreaks and infestations of the Asian
Longhorned Beetle (ALHB), Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) and other current
forestry pests that threaten Ontario forest resources.
Nancy Stewart
Gay Cowbourne
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to support and work
cooperatively with all levels of government to monitor trends and conditions of current forest
insect and invasive pest populations and to formulate and implement strategies and
methodologies directed at the control and eradication of these pests ;
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 's (TRCA) Nursery continue to propagate
and supply ash tree species as a minor component of a diverse and sustainable ecosystem
through its Indigenous Plant Propagation program and ongoing environmental regeneration
efforts;
252
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on any changes in the status of forest pests in Ontario .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The forest resources of Ontario are under constant attack and threat of infestation from a wide
variety of insects and diseases. This is not a new situation, however, we are fortunate that the
very resources that are affected by these pests are extremely resilient and adapative in dealing
with the threats. So too are the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources (OMNR), who cooperate to maintain a program of monitoring and reporting
on insect and disease infestations in Ontario's forests.
There are 30 to 40 invasive forest pests that have been catalogued within the Great Lakes
Basin. The impact of these pests include the loss of native species, decline in biodiversity, the
loss of culturally important species, financial impacts to the timber industry and impacts on
municipal (urban) forest resources and budgets to address Toss and control programs.
The increase in the number of exotic pests in the past half century is alarming. With the advent
of world trade practices and the ever increasing suite of trading partners, it is not surprising that
these pests have arrived here. Container traffic is known to be the primary vector for arrival in
North America, and 70% of all container traffic in Canada comes to the Greater Toronto Area
(GTA). Current estimates of Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) inspections of shipping
containers is set at approximately 2 %.
Coupled with these realities, southern Ontarions are both fortunate and at the same time
unfortunate to have the diversity of forest types we do. This diversity appeals to and supports
our imported invasive pests with an ideal mix of climate and vegetation species.
At the 28th Annual Forest Health Review, held October 28, 2004, CFS /OMNR staff presented an
overview of the current threats in Ontario including:
• Emerald Ash Borer;
• Asian Longhorned Beetle;
• Beech Bark Disease;
• Hickory Bark Beetle; and
• other major forest disturbances (forest tent caterpillar, jack pine budworm, pine false
webworm, drought, gypsy moth, aspen mortality, etc.).
The following is a brief synopsis of current infestation and expected trends for the major pests
noted:
Asian Longhorned Beetle
On September 4, 2003 an insect was found in the Steeles and Weston Road area which was
subsequently confirmed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to be an Asian Longhorned
Beetle. Immediate delimitation surveys were launched and three separate population centres
were located in the north Toronto and Woodbridge vicinities. Scientific investigation and
subsequent operational plans went into force in an effort to eradicate the ALHB from this
region.
253
The CFIA is continuing to implement an aggressive campaign to control and eradicate this
unwanted pest with the full cooperation of its partners - CFS, City's of Toronto and Vaughan,
Region of York, TRCA, OMNR and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Winter
2003/2004 host species tree removal resulted in some 15,000 trees being removed and
destroyed in accordance with the eradication protocol. A quarantine zone encompassing some
125 km2 is in place with federal regulation governing the movement of all host species (wood in
all forms - nursery stock, brush, firewood) into, through and out of the zone.
On November 6, 2004, the CFIA -led partnership announced a new finding of three exit -holes in
the Weston Road /Highway No. 7 (northeast quadrant) area. Removal of host trees within a 400
metre radius of the new finds, in accordance with the eradication protocol, has been
completed. Field surveys are ongoing to monitor for any potential new finds within the
quarantine area.
CFIA officials have stated that in order to declare this ALHB outbreak eradicated, they must
have two full years of intensive survey with no finds.
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)
The Emerald Ash Borer is another invasive exotic pest that has had devastating impacts on the
forest resources of southwestern Ontario (City of Windsor and Essex County) and the State of
Michigan (City of Detroit and vicinity). This pest feeds exclusively on ash tree species, resulting
in mortality of the host. Given that ash species comprise between 25% and 50% of
southwestern Ontario's forest resources, the implication is enormous. By the end of 2004, it is
estimated there will be 12 million dead or dying ash trees in the United States and Canada as a
result of EAB. Estimates of ash tree resources in Ontario are set at 1 billion trees.
CFIA is leading the fight in an effort to contain the EAB within the current area of infestation,
however, the "firebreak" - an ash -free zone implemented in 2003 resulting in the destruction of
100,778 ash trees - has not proved to be as successful a barrier as envisioned in slowing or
halting the spread. New finds of EAB in the Chatham area mean that the EAB has been found
some 10 km east of the "firebreak ". Province -wide surveys have not revealed the EAB in other
areas of Ontario, but it is known to exist in Ohio, Indiana and northern Michigan.
The CFIA's goal with respect to EAB, as reported in the press, is to control the spread of the
pest until effective countermeasures can be found. Countermeasures may include the use of
insecticides in addition to cutting and destruction of infected wood /trees, until such time as
ecological adaptation can express itself in terms of a resistant genotype.
Beech Bark Disease (BBD)
First introduced to North America in 1890, BBD has now spread widely in the GTA. BBD is a
combination of a scale insect and a fungal infection that work together to kill beech trees. The
disease is non - selective in that it can affect both healthy and stressed trees. Even after 100
years, there is no known method to combat BBD.
BBD opens up hosts to secondary infections which in time will kill the trees. There are
approximately 70 known species of fungus that attack beech trees.
254
Hickory Bark Beetle (HBB)
The HBB is a native forest pest, related to the elm bark beetle, that follows forest disturbances
such as drought. HBB attacks hickory species, but also has been known to infect pecan and
butternut species.
The HBB selects stressed trees to attack, starting in the crown of the tree and feeding on leaf
petiole. Entry and exit holes are definitive signs of infestation and when found on the lower
bole indicate several years of infection. Trees die after a few years of attack.
The HBB was first identified in 1912 and found in New York State in the 1940's. First detected
in Ontario (Middlesex county) in 2001, the 2004 population has been found in 250 woodlots
covering some 2,133 hectares. Mortality is measured at 70% in host species within affected
woodlots.
Other Introduced Exotic Pests
Sudden Oak Death (SOD) - known to cause mortality in species of red /black oak group that are
native to California as well as rhododendron species. It is currently not known whether, or how,
SOD will affect our native red and black oaks.
Oak Wilt (OW) is now found in the central United States, moving slowly in both a northerly and
southerly direction. OW kills oak species. Spread is known through the natural phenomenon
of root grafting and distribution by sap beetles. Control methods include eliminating pruning of
oaks between April and July, controlling the movement of firewood, and when pruning, using a
wound dressing.
ADAPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
In response to the ALHB infestation, the TRCA has participated in all aspects of the eradication
program led by CFIA. Staff are cognizant of the ALHB regulated area and have implemented
the applicable protocols to comply with the federal regulation in all aspects of the TRCA's
business, including commenting on plans and proposal and issuance of permits with
conditions in respect of landscaping, forest management and environmental regeneration
activities.
TRCA does not plant ALHB host species within the core areas of infestation, however, it may
continue to plant these species (ie. maple, willow, poplar, etc.) within the regulated area in an
effort to maintain diversity within the urban forest canopy of these neighbourhoods. This
practice is in keeping with the directions of our municipal partners. It is anticipated that upon
achieving eradication of the ALHB, the core area would be re- populated with host species to
enhance the canopy and diversify the represented species mix.
The case for EAB is Tess clear cut. Ash species are a component of the natural forests and
planted ecosystems in the GTA. Ash is an important and adaptable species for site reclamation
and as such plays a valuable part in planting site amelioration as a primary regenerator species
acting as a nurse crop for other species. Poplar and elm species are employed in a similar
manner, despite problems associated with them.
253
Elimination of the propagation and planting of ash species will do nothing to prevent the spread
of EAB. While TRCA has supported the City of Toronto's directive to eliminate ash species from
all restoration plans within the City of Toronto, TRCA staff continue to approve ash use as part
of a diverse and sustainable urban forest in all other areas of TRCA's jurisdiction, where and
when appropriate to the needs of the ecosystem.
Discussions with other government and industry professionals supports the continued use of
ash as part of a biodiverse and balanced ecosystem. There has been no move by the OMNR
or Conservation Ontario to limit or discourage the planting of ash species.
In response to this reasoning, staff propose that TRCA's Nursery continue to propagate ash
seedlings in an effort to maintain the maximum diversity of species available in TRCA's attempts
to enhance and improve terrestrial natural heritage and biodiversity values and opportunities
across our watersheds. In order to ensure a balanced approach, TRCA staff will regulate ash
species use to not more than ten percent of hardwood trees species planted for a particular
site. In reforestation plantings, ash will comprise less than two percent of the total planting
effort of the TRCA.
Report prepared by: Dave Rogalsky, extension 5378
For Information contact: Dave Rogalsky, extension 5378
Date: November 29, 2004
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #D102/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES
Minutes of Meeting #3/04, July 15, 2004, Meeting #4/04, September 16,
2004 and Meeting #5/04, October 14, 2004. The Minutes of Meeting
#3/04, held on July 15, 2004, Meeting #4/04, held on September 16,
2004 and Meeting #5/04, held on October 14, 2004.
Michael Thompson
Pamela Gough
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council
Meetings: #3/04, held on July 15, 2004; #4/04, held on September 16, 2004; and #5/04, held
on October 14, 2004 be received.
CARRIED
256
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the
Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the
formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the
Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed
Task Force's report "Forty Steps to a New Dori' and to regenerate the watershed.
Report prepared by: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
For Information contact: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
Date: November 30, 2004
RES. #D103 /04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
HUMBER ALLIANCE MINUTES
Minutes of Meeting #3/04, October 19, 2004. The minutes of the Humber
Watershed Alliance meeting #3/04, held on October 19, 2004, are
provided for information.
Shelley Petrie
Nancy Stewart
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance #3/04, held on
October 19, 2004, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December 2003 and
adopted by the Authority at meeting #10/03, held on January 9, 2004 by resolution #A289/03,
includes the following provision:
3.9 Reporting Relationship
The Humber Watershed Alliance is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed Management
Advisory Board. The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, at least, on a semi - annual basis on
projects and progress.
Report prepared by: Lisa Turnbull, extension 5325
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: November 03, 2004
RES. #D104 /04 -
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES
Minutes of Meeting #4/04, September 23, 2004.. The Minutes of Meeting
#4/04, held on September 23, 2004, are provided for information.
257
Moved by:
Seconded by
Michael Thompson
Pamela Gough
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4104,
held on September 23, 2004, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Rouge Watershed Task Force are forwarded to the Authority
through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal
record of the work of the Rouge Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority
members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Rouge Watershed Plan.
Report prepared by: Sylvia Waters, extension 5330
For Information contact: Sylvia Waters, extension 5330
Date: November 19, 2004
RES. #D105/04 -
Moved by.
Seconded by:
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE MINUTES
Minutes of Meeting #4/04, June 18, 2004. The Minutes of Meeting #4/04,
held on June 18, 2004, are provided for information.
Michael Thompson
Pamela Gough
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Rouge Park Alliance Meeting #4/04, held on
June 18, 2004, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Rouge Park Alliance are provided to the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authortiy through the Chair of the Authority, who is a member of the Rouge Park
Alliance, and forwarded to the Watershed Management Advisory Board for their information.
Report prepared by: Andrea Fennell, extension 5254
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: November 29, 2004
258
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:43 a.m., on Friday, December 10, 2004.
Dave Ryan
Chair
/ks
erTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #8/04
February 11, 2005
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #8/04, was held in the South Theatre,
Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, February 11, 2005. The Chair Dave Ryan, called the
meeting to order at 10:35 a.m..
PRESENT
Frank Dale Member
Pamela Gough Member
Cliff Jenkins Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Shelley Petrie Member
Dave Ryan Chair
Nancy Stewart Vice Chair
Michael Thompson Member
REGRETS
Gay Cowbourne Member
RES. #D106/04 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Nancy Stewart
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #7/04, held on December 10, 2004, be approved.
DELEGATIONS
CARRIED
(a) Margaret Catto, Conservation Councillor, Toronto Ornithological Club, speaking in
regards to management of Double- crested Cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park.
(b) John Carley, Co- Chair, Friends of the Spit, speaking in regards to management of
Double- crested Cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park.
260
RES. #D107 /04 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Michael Thompson
Frank Dale
THAT above -noted delegations (a) and (b) be heard and received.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Steve Holysh, Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition, in regards
to the York -Peel- Durham - Toronto Groundwater Study.
RES. #D108 /04 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pamela Gough
Cliff Jenkins
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A letter dated February 4, 2005 from Gregor Beck, Executive Director, Ontario Nature, in
regards to management of Double- crested Cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park.
(b) A letter dated January 31, 2005 from Margaret Catto, Conservation Councillor, Toronto
Ornithological Club in regards to Proposed Cull of Wild Birds at Tommy Thompson
Park.
(c) A letter dated February 5, 2005 from AnnaMaria Valastro, Co- Director, Peaceful Parks
Coalition, in regards to management of Double- crested Cormorants at Tommy
Thompson Park.
(d) A letter dated February 8, 2005 from John Carley, Co- Chair, Friends of the Spit, in
regards to the Double- crested Cormorant Cull.
(e) An email dated February 8, 2005 from Jess MacKenzie, Member, Toronto Ornithological
Club in regards to management of Double- crested Cormorants at Tommy Thompson
Park.
(f) A letter dated February 10, 2005 from Councillor Paula Fletcher, City of Toronto, in
regards to Possible Cormorant Cull at Tommy Thompson Park.
261
RES. #D109/04 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Shelley Petrie
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT above -noted correspondence (a) -
(f) be received;
THAT the individuals and groups contacting the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in
regards to management of Double- crested Cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park be advised
that the Environmental Assessment has not yet been initiated and they will be formally advised
when, and if, it is;
THAT given a number of the correspondents have also contacted the Ministry of Natural
Resources, that staff report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board on the
response from the Ministry of Natural Resources as it may affect cormorant management
issues at Tommy Thompson Park;
AND FURTHER THAT staff's assurance that a lethal cull of Double - crested Cormorants not be
conducted in 2005 be acknowledged.
CARRIED
262
CORRESPONDENCE 6.1
rcOt1111TIOR Or 01111410 NIITi+11AlISTS
February 4, 2005
Watershed Advisory Board
c/o Chief Administrative Officer
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
S Shontham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 1$4
Fax: 4116-661.6270
Dear members of Watershed Advisory Baard,
This letter is in regard to proposed management options mud environmental assessment relating
to the `‘management of double - crested cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park" in Toronto.
Ontario Nature recognizes the double- crested cormorant as a native species of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Its presence as a high-order consumer within an aquatic ecosystem has mule n an
effective barometer of changes in Great Lakes community structure and also of changing levels
of persistent toxic chemicals. The near-complete extirpation of the cormorant Ilona the Great
Lakes in the mid 1400 has been directly linked to bioconcctration of toxins, notably
organachloriuc contaminants such as PCBs and DDT (and derivatives).
With falling concentrations of these and other oontammanta in the Great Lakes watershed during
the late 1900s, cormorant populations have recovered (perhaps accelerated due to the presence of
non, native fish species, such as alewife and rainbow smelt) and Ontario Nature believes that this
recovery must be viewed as an environmental success story that reelects decreasing
concentrations ofsoane toxic chemicals in the environment The population of double-crested
cormorants has inrrsed significantly in recent decades for numerous reasons, and we believe
that it will ultimately plateau and perhaps decrease, fluctuating around a natural carrying
opacity.
Ontario Nature also recognizes that the ecology of the Great Lakes is highly complex and is
incompletely understood. Tbc complexity, both in tetras of community structure and water
chemistry, has been increased further over the last 100 to 159 years by the iahoduction of
numerous exotic species (both accidental and intentional), significant fluctuations in levels of
nutrient and cncrtaminsnta, and not infrequently through unsustainable levels of both commercial
and sport fisheries.
263
Top order consumers, such as cormorants, have often been vilified and blamed for declines in
game species such as sport fishes. Such claims are frequently wnubstentistcdby► scientific
research, and dc+disning sport fish populations are more likely the result of a great many factors,
including the impacts of our - harvesting and non - native spy land which may also =chide the
effect of naturally - occurring predator species, such as the double - crested cormorant).
Ontario Nature does not support the suppression of predator species to enhance hunting and
fishing opportunities'
pp ities, which webdieve is a major factor behind the-desire to '-control' cormorant
numbers across the Great Lakes basin and continentally. Consequently. Ontario Naium has
opposed —and continues toteppose - the Minisny of -Matra# 3t " lethal control programs
in the Georgiim Bay/ North Channel Area of Lake Teton Rnd at Presqu'ilc Provincial Park (as
outlined in earlier Milk submission!)_
The protection of biological diversity is central tee the mandate of Ontario Nature, as is the
protection and recovery of species at stet[. imilarrIy. Ontario Nature supports the protection and,
where required, the restoration of natural systems. Natural systems are dynamic and change over
time for a variety of reasons, including, foreaampk, the effects of natural succession. One of the
beat examples of natural succession in reedit decadent has been at the Tommy Thompson Park
(also known as the Lcaiie Street Spit or the-Spit") - a designated Important Bird Area,
The Spit is one of the finest, and most easily accessed locations to witness natural succession in
action -- from the colonization by various plant species to the evolving communities of colonial
water birds. Ontario Nature believes that the Spit's population of double - crested cormorants is a
natural part of this dynamitic system Further, Ontario Nature is not aware of evidence at this time
that would indicate that there is a significant threaten ether colonial waterbirds or skies -at -risk„
or that there is a threat to the broader Spit ecosystes'n. Consequently, Ontario Nature opposes any
proposal for a lethal control program of cormorants at the Spit.
Ontario Nettut strongly encourages the Toronto Region Conservation Aurthoxrity.and the Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources not to implement a lethal control program for cormorants at
Tommy Thompson Par*.
Yours sincerely,
Igor
A/ Executive Director
c.c, The Hon. David Ramsay, Minister of Natural Resources
Mr. Gerd Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
264
CORRESPONDENCE 6.2
The Toronto Ornithological Club
(Founded 1934)
294 Bessborough Drive
Toronto M4G 3L1
January 31, 2005
Tamara Chipperfield, Environmental Technician
TRCA
Fax: 416- 667 -6277
Dear Tamara,
RE: PROPOSED CULL OF WILD BIRDS AT TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
The Toronto Ornithological Club vigorously opposes the "lethal cull" (i.e. killing) of an
unknown number of native birds, called Double- crested Cormorants, at their nests, in Toronto's
premier waterfront park. This cull is proposed for spring 2005 by the Toronto Regional
Conservation Authority in partnership with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. A request
for an environmental assessment is to be posted shortly.
Cormorants are fascinating, intelligent, large, black waterbirds that nest in colonies. They are an
important part of the wildlife biodiversity that TRCA claims to encourage in the Park, and which
has earned it the internationally recognized designation, Important Bird Area (IBA).
Cormorants have co- existed with other colonial waterbird species since long before the last ice
age, fluctuating in numbers as living conditions altered. They nest both on the ground and in
trees. After a few years their droppings destroy the trees, and the birds either move on to a new
location or resort to ground- nesting.
TRCA's current rationale for resorting to lethal measures of connorant control (the options
presented are unthinkable: shooting, cannon - netting and leg -hold trapping) is that management
staff are unwilling to lose any further tree cover at the Park. We agree that cormorants' gradual
destruction of trees may well impact other tree - nesting birds, including Black- crowned
Night- Herons. Herons, however, are apparently viewed by wildlife managers as a more desirable
species, although their droppings also kill trees.
Possibly the Black- crowned Night- Herons, which are relative newcomers to the Park from an
abandoned colony at Muggs' Island, may move again if the trees they nest in are destroyed.
Certainly what will seriously discourage them and many other birds from nesting at Tommy
Thompson will be the daily disruption of their breeding cycle by whatever horrific method of
"lethal cull" TRCA puts into effect against the cormorants. This was demonstrated only one year
ago at Presqu'ile Provincial Park after the appalling slaughter of 6030 cormorants there; as a
direct result the fledging success of Black- crowned Night- Herons was reduced by one - third. The
265
shooting at Presqu'ile was carried out in contravention of both the stated management aims for
cormorant control at the Park and the Ministry of Natural Resources' policies and guidelines for
acceptable activity in a viable heronry.
It is our belief that the rationale provided for resorting to lethal culling measures in the
management of Double - crested Cormorants is completely faulty. The killings will be ineffective,
since non- breeding cormorants already at the Park, or birds from other colonies, will rapidly
replace the culled individuals. A cull does not reduce the local area's desirability to cormorants,
nor its carrying capacity; it merely removes a single season's cohort of breeding birds.
This internationally famous Park has been evolving for 50 years on the Toronto waterfront.
During this time its biodiversity has increased as plants, birds and other animals adapted to
conditions on "The Spit ". A minimum of cormorant management activity will allow this gradual
evolution to continue. The instigation of the planned lethal cull will needlessly stress other Park
wildlife, may well jeopardize the Park's status as an IBA, will outrage the Toronto citizenry, and
will completely undo the goodwill that TRCA has built up over many years at this and other
Toronto parks.
Toronto Ornithological Club urges you put a stop to this unnecessary and intolerable proposal to
kill wildlife in a Toronto park.
Yours sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Margaret Catto
Conservation Councillor
Toronto Ornithological Club
416 - 485 -5188
TO:
Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario
Hon. David Ramsay, Minister of Natural Resources
Hon. Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of the Environment
Mr. Gordon Miller, Provincial Environment Commissioner
His Worship Mayor David Miller
Councillor Paula Fletcher, Ward 30, Toronto - Danforth
Mr. Brian Denney, CAO, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Mr. Donald Burton, President, Toronto Ornithological Club
266
CORRESPONDENCE 6.3
February 8, 2005
Councillor Paula Fletcher
100 Queen Street West, Suite 44
City Hall
Toronto, Ontario M5H 2M2
Dear Councillor Fletcher,
The Ontario government, in conjunction with state governments from the United States, has
initiated a plan to cull tens of thousands of double- crested cormorants from the Great Lakes
basin. This initiative is primarily driven by a desire to enhance the sport fishery.
In some cases, such as the Leslie Spit here in Toronto, government agencies argue that
double- crested cormorants are "destroying" trees and ground vegetation, and must be culled
to "preserve biodiversity". The same argument is being made across the southern Great Lakes
where cormorants typically nest in trees. Such a massive cull of a native species is
unprecedented, equal only to the bounty placed of wolves decades ago.
Three years ago, the Peaceful Parks Coalition initiated a campaign to protect the
double- crested cormorant from government actions that arbitrarily targeted these birds for
fisheries and vegetative depletion because these arguments are not substantiated in scientific
literature.
Double- crested cormorants are not a problem. They are not an ecological problem. They are
not responsible for fisheries depletion nor to they "destroy" vegetation. Double- crested
cormorants are colonial birds typically found nesting in large colonies of hundreds and
thousands of birds. They are top of the food chain predators, like wolves, and feed exclusively
on live fish. When nesting in trees, their guano will eventually kill the host tree.
This process of prematurely killing live trees is a natural process found throughout the natural
world. It is necessary in the development of "snags" (dead or dying trees). Snags are crucial
habitat for a different array of wildlife, such as woodpeckers. So while cormorants may alter the
vegetation, this process of natural succession is necessary in preserving biodiversity.
In fact, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has recently erected artificial snags
down at the Spit immediately adjacent to the colony of double- crested cormorants.
Therefore, killing these birds is more a matter of "grooming" the landscape for the purpose of
aesthetics or arbitrarily promoting one species over another.
We oppose any further actions to manipulate bird species at the Leslie Spit or anywhere in
Ontario. We want to preserve wilderness values and these birds are currently wild - their
population fluctuating and stabilizing with natural forces. Once management begins, you will
need to manage into perpetuity because management ultimately changes the course of an
otherwise natural process.
267
And culling in particular, often exacerbates the situation by creating a vacuum in habitat and
food availability, encouraging expansion in recruitment through reproduction. In other words, if
the birds believe there is room to grow, they will expand their population either through
immigration from other areas or reproduction.
Thirty years ago, the double- crested cormorant was on the brink of extinction on the Great
Lakes because of high pollution levels. Its recovery should be a celebration, and it is to many
people, because it means the waters of the Great Lakes are cleaner and support greater
diversity. The minority of people who support culling, often do so solely because these birds
are colonial and highly visible, and not because they are an ecological problem.
Please support our campaign to protect one of the most dynamic colonial bird colonies on
Lake Ontario. We are lucky to have the opportunity to host such a colony at the Leslie Spit, and
learn from this natural process.
Sincerely,
AnnaMaria Valastro
Co- Director
Cc: Watershed Management Advisory Board
Mayor David Miller
Premier Dalton McGuinty
Minster of Natural Resources, David Ramsay
268
CORRESPONDENCE 6.4
Friends of the Spit
P.O. Box 51518
2060 Queen Street East
Toronto ON 114E 3V7
Tel: (416) 699 -3143
e -mail: fos@interlog.com
8 February 2005
Mr. Brian Denney, CAO
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 1S4
Dear Brian,
We understand that a lethal cull of Double- crested Cormorants is under consideration as one of the
management techniques to be applied to the cormorant colony at the Spit.
Friends of the Spit is absolutely against a lethal cull of these colonial nesting waterbirds It is our
understanding that the need for any management has not been proven. Especially in light of the
disastrous results and deeply flawed inconclusive data obtained from the Presqu'ile slaughter, we feel the
TRCA should not proceed until a full review has been done.
To that end, we are adamant that a full EA take place, with full consultation, prior to the execution of any
management techniques. We do not wish a situation such as that occurred at Presqu'ile, where the
slaughter proceeded by ministerial approval. We recognize your staff's commitment to a full and open
process, and wish to ensure that such includes the EA process.
In addition to the fact that the need for management has not been proven, there are three other main issues
to deal with: land use issues, scientific issues, and most importantly, moral and ethical issues of killing
wildlife.
Regarding land use issues, Friends of the Spit has always espoused a "let it be" philosophy. The Spit
should develop as nature wills it, with minimal management. The Spit will never be complete• it is a
dynamic ecosystem, the cormorant colony is a part of that ecosystem, as it has been a part of the Great
Lakes' ecosystem for millennia.
In response to the excellent habitat created, and the success of colonial nesting species, the Spit was
named an Important Bird Area (IBA) by BirdLife International. To kill birds, with this designation in
place, makes no sense.
A lethal cull would have to be conducted with guns, or perhaps even more damaging methods such as
269
cannon netting, strangulation, poisoning, or leg -hold traps These are inhumane ways to achieve an end.
Equally undesirable is the prospect of guns in parks.
Finally, in terms of land use, a lethal cull will demand exclusion zones on The Spit and throughout the
Outer Harbour, drastically affecting public access to land and water recreation.
Scientifically, the need for management is not proven. No one can say whether this expansion of
population is a long term effect or simply a cycle within the ecosystem. Others, more expert, have
pointed out that the ecology is not understood fully. Therefore it is a folly to intervene
A lethal cull embarks the TRCA on a project of dubious scientific footing, and one which will require
expenditure year after year. Killing some cormorants will not solve anything, as a replacement cohort
will quickly move in Does the Conservation Authority want to be party to successive years of culls, with
the attendant cost, staff diversion, and adverse publicity?
Further, lethal culls and other management techniques drive away the very species that the cull is
purporting to serve and protect. There is absolutely no evidence that cormorants are impeding species at
risk, according to the information that we have received Again, all bird populations are dynamic
systems, and presumably the populations of cormorants will peak naturally, and then ebb off.
To quote Gregor Beck of Ontario Nature.
"The Spit is one of the finest, and most easily accessed locations to witness natural succession in
action -- from the colonization by various plant species to the evolving communities of colonial
water birds Ontario Nature believes that the Spit's population of double- crested cormorants is a
natural part of this dynamic system. Further, Ontario Nature is not aware of evidence at this time
that would indicate that there is a significant threat to other colonial water birds or species -at -risk,
or that there is a threat to the broader Spit ecosystem. Consequently, Ontario Nature opposes any
proposal for a lethal control program of cormorants at the Spit."
Finally, the moral and ethical questions are most important. Why would a Conservation Authority
become an organization not of protection, but of killing? Why would one presume to suppress one
species at the expense of the other? Is, as has been widely said, the suppression of a predator species
required simply to enhance fishing opportunities? Why, when an organization has as its slogan "The
Living City ", would it even consider adding a lethal cull to its activities?
In conclusion, Friends of the Spit pleads with the TRCA to remove the lethal cull from consideration, and
to ensure that an EA with full public participation takes place to evaluate all management methods for
Double - crested Cormorants at the Spit.
The Conservation Authority has invested a great deal of time, effort, care, and consideration into the
developments of the Leslie Street Spit /Tommy Thompson Park Those efforts have met with success.
Friends of the Spit has been pleased to see the public urban wilderness evolve according to the Master
Plan under the care of the Conservation Authority With all the good will accruing to it from its work at
the Spit, why would the TRCA risk the wrath of an appalled citizenry if cormorants were killed? Why
would the TRCA risk the removal of the IBA status? Why would the TRCA wish to kill cormorants and
generate a major public relations disaster?
270
Yours sincerely,
FRIENDS OF THE SPIT
per:
ROBERT CARLEY, Cu _ JACQUBL[NE COURVAL, Co -Chair
4814889 Bus. (416) 481- 291 Bus. Fax (416) 6994442 Bus.
c.c. Other interested parties
271
CORRESPONDENCE 6.5
Dear Ms. Stranks:
The Toronto Ornithological Club (TOC) will be attending the Watershed
Management Advisory Board meeting on Friday, February 11, 05. I am a member of the
TOC and have sent the letter below and the attached items to Nancy Stewart and Dave Ryan.
I would appreciate it if you could ensure that these materials are made available to all the
other Board members.
Thank you very much.
Yours truly,
Jess MacKenzie
Dear Ms. Stewart:
I spoke to your husband earlier today about the proposed killing of cormorants in Tommy
Thompson Park and he suggested that I write to you about our concerns. I am a member of
the Toronto Ornithological Club.
I telephoned to let you know we are alarmed because we have been made aware there is a
proposal under discussion amongst the staff of the TRCA to carry out a lethal cull of the
Double- crested Cormorant at their nests in the Park this spring. There is widespread alarm in
the Toronto environmental community about this idea. Members of the Toronto
Ornithological Club are asking that the slaughter option be rejected in favour of the present
non - lethal control measures.
Although the cormorants' numbers plummeted in the 1960s and 1970s due to PCB and DDT
contamination in the Great Lakes, over the last number of years they have recovered and now
return to the Park each spring to nest. They provide an inspiring example of how a species can
recover from an endangered status. Many other fish - eating birds, such as
herons, are also experiencing similar surges in their numbers because there are fewer
pollutants in the lake and there is an abundance of food.
Those who support the cull say the cormorants are destroying the "tree canopy" at the Spit.
This is a gross exaggeration. As you know, trees were never planted by the Parks Department
there. They have grown from seeds transported by the wind and by birds. No one denies that
cormorants, over time, damage the trees they nest in. All the colonial birds - gulls, terns and
herons - kill the vegetation around their nests, but admittedly at a slower rate than the
cormorants. This, however, is a normal process at bird nesting colonies whether they be
penguins, albatrosses, puffins or cormorants.
As you will note from our letter to you, we feel that at Tommy Thompson Park there should be a
minimum of cormorant management and that the natural biodiversity of the Park should be
allowed to evolve without interference in what is one of our most important and accessible
bird - watching areas in the City.
272
For your information, I am attaching a copy of a letter, dated January 14th, 05, sent to Mr. Brian
Denney of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and other parties of interest from
Margaret Catto of the Toronto Ornithological Club. I'm also attaching a copy of a
letter from Ontario Nature, dated February 4, 05, to the Board.
If you need further information about this matter, I would be pleased to help. My phone number
is: 416- 653 -6420
Yours truly,
Jess MacKenzie
273
CORRESPONDENCE 6.6
Paula
FLETCHER
City Councillor
Ward 30
Toronto-Danforth
IV h
Kt t = t {lsi
Holly Pentound
Itisa*ochiatant
Pat Chostang
consne,erirkatie.n
Susan Baker
towns*, s*, r, 41.,I
Clty Hall
100 Queen St. W.
Sutte C44
Toronto ON
M5H 2N2
ink 41 ti.392.4060
Fax: 4183973100
coureskr Ascher.
:nor ara
'Mew pen lApIrlwra
•
February 10.2005
Chair and Members, Watershed Management Advisory Board
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
S Shoreham Dnve
Toronto, ON M3N 1 Sd
Subject: Possible Cormorant Cull at Tammy Thompson Park
Dear Chair and Members:
As the Councillor for Ward 30,1 am writing ng to express my concern about the
possibility of a cormorant cull in Tommy Thompson Park this spring. I am sure
that members of the Board and the TRCA understand the need for caution in
snaking a decision on this issue, given the park's situation within the city.
My office has received many cotnntunicatioas fmm people and organizations
concerned about bird and ecosystem impacts; noise levels; and the potential for
human harm asso;:iated with conducting a lethal cull in such close proximity to
residential neighborhoods and business areas. Experts and organizations such as
Ontario Nature/Federation of Ontario Naturalists, The Toronto Ormthological
Club, the Peaceful ['arks Coalition, Eartluouts, and the Toronto Esivirotmental
Alliance suggest that there simply is not enough evidence to conclude that
cormorants pose a substantive risk to other colonial bird populations in either the
park or the local ecosystem. They are concerned that once initiated, a lethal cull
could replace other less controversial, but equally effective, methods of
controlling the oarmomnt population
While I understand that some authorities are in favour ea lethal eull, the
potential risks and lack of consensus warrant a deeper look at this issue before a
decision is made; therefore, I am asking that you agree to undertake a Category
C, Class Environmental Assessment in order to provide a forum for
consultation amongst public stakeholders as well as an in-depth study of the
relative eificacy of a variety of alternative control options As a mussy, I would
also ask that the TRCA inform me of any firearm permits whit!' must be issued
in order to perform a cull prior ro the Authority's decision to do so.
Yours truly,
44066"%`
Councillor Paula Fletcher
Ward 30, Toronto- Danforth
ce: Mayor David Miller
274
RES. #D110/04 -
Moved by.
Seconded by:
REGION OF PEEL EDUCATION CURRICULUM RESOURCE FOR
WATER
Promotion and integration of the Peel Water Story Project.
Frank Dale
Nancy Stewart
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to work with the Peel
Water Story Project partners to facilitate the program within the Regional Municipality of Peel
and promote and integrate this work and its resources into other Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) education programs, projects and initiatives.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 2002, the Region of Peel Public Works Department expressed the desire to have educational
resources available to teachers in Peel Region that provided local, relevant context to water
concerns and issues in the region. Representatives from TRCA , Credit Valley Conservation,
Peel District School Board and the Dufferin -Peel Catholic District School Board were contacted
to form the Peel Water Curriculum Resource organizing committee. The objectives established
for this project were to develop an education resource that:
• demonstrated an innovative design encouraging exploration of the local watershed across
all subjects and /or learning strategies (i.e. arts, science, social science, drama, music, etc.);
• allows for flexible application to all levels, kindergarten to grade 12;
• provides relevant, local information about water use in Peel Region, past and present;
• provides sufficient resource information and support to enable teachers and students to
become the experts on water in their local community;
• supports and inspires the education community to initiate action projects that improve the
health of local watersheds; and
• provides a forum for teachers and students to share project ideas and successes.
The development process over the last 2 years has resulted in the completion of the Peel Water
Story Project, an education resource that promotes local, watershed based, learning about
water and the environment.
RATIONALE
The Peel Water Story Project successfully achieves all of the project objectives. Its resources
emphasize awareness and understanding of watershed management within the region and
taking action within the community.
275
Three integrated facets make up the project:
1. The Peel Water Story - A book which assists educators in learning about water
systems and water issues in an integrated and locally - relevant fashion, especially as
they relate to the sustainability of water resources in Peel Region. Within the book,
the watersheds of Peel Region are explored through natural and human systems
using the Jonathan Swift allegory of a giant in L / / /iput (adults /teachers see the
watersheds from Gulliver's perspective while students perceive the environment as a
Lilliputian). The written story is supported by relevant photographs and unique
graphics produced specifically for the resource. Using case studies and an action
project guide, the Peel Water Story assists teachers and students in initiating and
undertaking environmental action projects.
The story is accompanied by a resource CD that links teachers and students to
supporting web -based resources, including a digital fly -over of Peel Region,
Teacher /Student geographic information system (GIS) tools and water -based
learning activities for all grades.
2. Community Action Projects - Action projects provide many opportunities for
experiential learning while making a contribution to the community. Educators
involved in the delivery of the Peel Water Story curriculum resource are provided
with guides and resources to mentor action projects that contribute to the
sustainability of the local watershed. Examples demonstrating how educators can
facilitate students' exploration of their local watershed through creative writing,
scientific study, art, drama and other learning areas are provided. Existing, ongoing
action projects are highlighted as case studies.
3. Peel EcoFair - Action projects that demonstrate a benefit to Peel Region's
watersheds are eligible to participate at the annual Peel EcoFair, held during the
Peel Children's Water Festival at the TRCA Heart Lake Conservation Area. The Peel
EcoFair is the forum by which projects are recognized and celebrated for their
contribution to the community. It provides project participants an opportunity to
share ideas, promote their achievements and explore other ways of reaching out to
their community. In 2004, youth from grade 4 to university participated in the
EcoFair.
Beginning in January 2005 and for five months, the Peel Water Story Project will be field tested
by a focus group of Peel Region teachers. Thereafter, teacher feedback will be incorporated
into the finished Peel Water Story Project resource, which is scheduled to be distributed to all
Peel Region schools in October 2005.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Peel Water Story Project supports many initiatives of the TRCA, including healthy rivers and
biodiversity within the communities of Peel Region. It offers an exciting and innovative
approach to learning. Through participation in the development of the resource and the
ongoing implementation, TRCA staff have formed new and important relationships within the
education community.
276
To continue to build on the successes to date, TRCA staff will work with Peel Region on the
following priority actions:
• Provide continued partnership support for the field testing and the finalized Peel Water
Story Project curriculum resource.
• Work with the Region of Peel to promote and market The Peel Water Story resource guide
to other school boards, conservation authorities and municipalities.
• Work with the region to investigate the incorporation of The Peel Water Story in the Ontario
EcoSchools program.
• Establishing website links that connect the TRCA education webpage to The Peel Water
Story resources available online.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The program development and ongoing implementation is supported by the Region of Peel
Public Works Department with in -kind support by the other participants.
Report prepared by: Dave Green, extension 5234
For Information contact: Renee Jarrett, extension 5315
Date: January 21, 2005
RES. #D111/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
OAK RIDGES MORAINE WATERSHED PLANNING STUDIES
To provide an update on status and 2004 accomplishments of Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) watershed planning studies
within the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Frank Dale
Nancy Stewart
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue with on -going Oak
Ridges Moraine watershed planning studies in accordance with the five year work plan and
individual study work plans;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back in one year on status and 2005 accomplishments of
Oak Ridges Moraine watershed planning studies .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
(ORMCP) requires upper tier and single -tier municipalities to ensure that up -to -date watershed
plans are in place for all rivers and streams originating on the Oak Ridges Moraine by April 23,
2007.
277
With the introduction of the ORMCP, staff from York Region, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority and TRCA, together developed a generic outline of plan components and a five year
work plan to fulfill the ORMCP watershed planning requirements. Detailed work plans have
subsequently been developed for the individual watershed planning studies at the onset of
each study process
The four TRCA watersheds draining from the Oak Ridges Moraine are the Humber River
watershed, Don River watershed, Rouge River watershed, and Duffins Creek watershed.
Watershed planning studies have been completed to various degrees in all four watersheds
through partnerships between the TRCA, its member municipalities and the community.
Therefore, the approach to fulfilling the ORMCP watershed planning requirements has been
tailored to fill information gaps and address the needs of each watershed and its community.
RATIONALE
The final delivery of each of these watershed plan updates is staggered between the end of
2005 and the end of 2006. A draft of the Rouge watershed plan is scheduled to be completed
by the end of 2005 with final delivery by June 2006. For the Humber and Don Rivers, a draft
plan is scheduled for delivery by the end of June 2006 with finalization towards the end of 2006,
and for Duffins Creek the watershed plan has been completed and the implementation policies
are scheduled for completion in the first half of 2005.
Oak Ridges Moraine watershed planning study accomplishments as of December 31, 2004, by
watershed, include:
Rouge Watershed Plan
• Established a 35 member, multi - stakeholder task force to guide the development of the
watershed plan.
• Published a draft state of the watershed (SOW) report, including an assessment of
watershed functions and current conditions, based on a set of watershed management
goals and objectives. Incorporated stakeholder and peer review comments and will
maintain the SOW report as a draft document during the study, so that updates can be
made as new information emerges.
• Interpretation of newly collected field data and results of other ongoing regional studies in
an integrated watershed context, addressing groundwater systems and their interaction with
stream baseflow, surface water use, thermal monitoring, water quality, and aquatic and
terrestrial natural heritage systems.
• Defined future scenarios of watershed land use and management approaches for modeling
analysis to determine watershed response and effective management strategies. Initiated
modeling and analysis studies.
• Formed an implementation subcommittee of the task force to guide the development of
more strategic implementation directions for the final watershed plan.
Humber Watershed Plan
• Prepared a detailed work plan in consultation with municipal staff and with the broader
community via the Humber Watershed Alliance.
• Completed 2004 data collection and assessments including baseflow monitoring, water use
assessment, surface water and groundwater quality and quantity, and aquatic and terrestrial
natural heritage systems.
278
• Set up and calibrated a hydrological /water quality /water budget model.
Don Watershed Plan
• Prepared a study work plan in consultation with the Don Watershed Regeneration Council
and municipal staff.
• Completed 2004 data collection and assessments including baseflow monitoring, field
verification of water use and terrestrial natural heritage system.
• Initiated water budget model development.
Duffins Creek Watershed Plan
• A Watershed Plan for the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed was completed in 2003.
• Model implementation policy project has been initiated, but was delayed pending the
completion of a broader generic policy project.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Work to be completed in 2005 is summarized as follows:
Rouge Watershed Plan
• Completion of the modelling and analysis of future land use scenarios and management
strategies (Phase 2 Report).
• Preparation of a preliminary watershed plan (draft Phase 3 Report), including summary of
background conditions, preferred management strategy and implementation plan.
• Development of draft model implementation policy, including water budget and water
allocation strategy.
• Consultation and partner involvement in reviewing analytical results and developing the
draft plan.
Humber Watershed Plan
• Completion of reports on current conditions pertaining to groundwater quality and quantity,
surface water quality and quantity, fluvial geomorphology, and aquatic and terrestrial
natural heritage systems.
• Completion of modelling and analysis of future land use scenarios and management
strategies (Phase 2 Report).
• Preparation of preliminary watershed plan including summary of current conditions and
preliminary management strategy (draft Phase 3 Report).
• Development of implementation plan outline, including model policy.
• Consultation and partner involvement in reviewing analytical results and developing the
draft management plan.
Don Watershed Plan
• Development of an updated and integrated understanding of current watershed conditions,
based on new technical information, including groundwater modelling, water budget,
terrestrial systems, aquatic systems and surface water modelling.
• Preliminary screening to identify regeneration priorities to direct additional field work.
• Definition and analysis of a limited number of future scenarios describing potential
management approaches, including retrofits of stormwater management infrastructure to
determine effectiveness.
• Consultation and partner involvement.
279
Duffins Creek Watershed Plan
• Completion of model policy to guide implementation of the watershed plan.
Delays in assembling required data sets and preparing models for the Rouge watershed and
Humber watershed surface water flow and water quality modelling /analysis studies have
delayed those projects by approximately four months. Due to the nature of the integrated
watershed plan, these delays in turn cause delays in other inter - related study components (e.g.
groundwater and aquatic systems) which rely on this data also. However, these delays allowed
access to several improved databases that will enhance the final products and should not affect
the end -date for delivery of the overall watershed plans.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds for the work to be conducted in 2005 on TRCA's watershed planning studies within the
Oak Ridges Moraine have been identified in the 2005 preliminary capital budget discussions
with the Regional Municipality of Peel, Regional Municipality of York, Regional Municipality of
Durham and City of Toronto.
Report prepared by: Dean Young, extension 5662
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: February 02, 2005
RES. #D112/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
YORK REGION FOREST CONSERVATION BY -LAW
York Region's proposed Forest Conservation By -Law, replacing the
existing Tree By -law.
Frank Dale
Nancy Stewart
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT WHEREAS the Tree By -laws or
Forest Conservation By -laws have been identified as one of the tools to assist in the protection
and management of the terrestrial natural heritage system consistent with Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority's (TRCA) draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy ;
WHEREAS York Region has demonstrated an ongoing commitment to protecting forest
resources and supporting the natural environment through its land use planning and Greening
Strategy initiatives, including such things as the significant woodlands study , stewardship, and
public education and awareness;
WHEREAS harmonization with local municipal Tree By -laws would regulate cutting in
woodlands between 0.2ha (0.5 ac) and 1 ha (2.5 ac) (similar to the existing regional by -law)
and provide a consistent, streamlined approach to regulating forest management and tree
cutting;
280
AND WHEREAS conservation authority forest management activities would be subject to the
new permitting process under the Forest Conservation By -law;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT York Region be notified of TRCA 's support for the
proposed Forest Conservation By -law and York Region's ongoing commitment to the
protection and management of the region 's natural heritage system ;
THAT the region and local municipalities be encouraged to seek a harmonized approach to
regulating forest management and tree cutting to include woodlands greater than 0.2 ha.;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to meet with the region to clarify and streamline the
permitting process as it relates to TRCA 's forest management activities to ensure the effective
and efficient delivery of these programs .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
York Region, is proposing to enact a new Tree By -law under the Municipal Act, 2001. The
region's current Tree By -law was enacted in 1991 under the Trees Act. Tree cutting by -laws
under the Municipal Act have generally been referred to as forest conservation by -laws. This
reflects the natural heritage or ecosystem based intent of the administration of the by -laws. The
proposed new by -law demonstrates York Region's continuing commitment to protecting forest
resources and supporting the natural heritage system.
In the past 200 years in southern Ontario, the landscape has been altered from a predominantly
forested landscape to one dominated by a wide variety of agricultural, industrial and urban land
uses. Over 70% of the original woodlands have been lost in southern Ontario. By the early 20th
century in York Region, many areas had lost over 90% of their original forest cover. It is
recognized that woodlands provide a variety of important environmental and economic
benefits. These benefits include erosion prevention, water retention, provision of wildlife habitat,
recreation and the sustainable harvest of woodland products.
While the provisions for Tree By -laws set out in the Municipal Act, 2001 can help regulate the
destruction or injuring of trees, this may not result in a healthier forest if used alone. Initiatives
such as stewardship, public education and awareness, are critical to the overall protection of
forest resources.
York Region has an important strategic role to implement sustainable planning and regulation
of woodlands, through the official municipal planning process, and through the enactment and
implementation of a forest conservation by -Law
A copy of the new Forest Conservation By -law is available upon request or is available at
www.region.york.on.ca. Changes from the existing Tree By -law are highlighted in Table 1. The
following are the key elements or changes in the proposed by -law:
• Restriction of the region's jurisdiction to woodlands greater than one hectare (currently
0.2 hectares) in accordance with the Municipal Act.
281
• Expansion of regional tree protection abilities and powers through agreements with
local municipalities. The region can protect woodlands less than one hectare in size
through an agreement with the local municipalities. Through this arrangement, the
region's by -law would apply to woodlands greater than 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres) in size
(as it does today under the existing by -law).
• Exemptions - statutory exemptions, most of which applied to the existing by -law, are
carried forward in the new legislation. These include: activities undertaken by a
municipality or a local board, activities conducted under the Surveyors Act, or according
to a Planning Act approval. Additional exemptions have been included for (a) personal
use of up to five cords of wood per 12 -month period, and (b) building permits involving
the clearing of less than one hectare of forest. Forest management and tree cutting
activities undertaken by conservation authorities are not exempt under the new by -law.
• More effective administrative instruments, including a permit system for tree cutting
activities. The current by -law does not provide for permits, but allows Council to
consider tree clearing activities and grant minor exceptions. The proposed permit
system comprises the following 3 categories of permit:
Good Forestry Practices Permit (1A) - permit fee $25.00. For sustainable selective
harvest activities. Where the services of a Registered Professional Forester (R.P.F.)
have been secured to prescribe and direct the harvesting activities. A harvest
prescription is written, the woodlot is marked and the trees are cut according to the
prescription. Region staff review the application and issue a permit with conditions.
Harvest Permit (1 B) - permit fee $250.00. For sustainable selective harvest activities.
Where a woodlot is marked in accordance with good forestry practices and /or where
the basal area and minimum circumference limits are met as set out in the by -law.
Region staff review the application in accordance with the by -law and the decision
tree screening process, and issue a permit with conditions.
Special Permit (2A and 2B) - permit fee $500.00. This permit would be available to
consider tree destruction activities not consistent with good forestry practices e.g.
clear cutting. Region staff will review the proposal in accordance with policies
adopted by Regional Council, particularly with reference to the special criteria and
principles developed for agricultural applications, with a decision by staff for 'minor'
tree clearing of Tess than 0.2 hectares of forest (2A), and a Council decision on all
other proposed 'mayor' tree clearing applications (2B), similar to the Minor Exception
review process under the existing by -law.
• A right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board in accordance with the Municipal Act.
Under the current By -law Council decisions on Minor Exceptions are final.
• Enhanced enforcement tools and penalties; including the ability to use a 'set fine'
process for ticketable offences, and "stop work" order provisions.
282
Tree By -law Harmonization
The region is proposing that in partnership with the local municipalities, and at their request, the
region would assume local powers to regulate tree cutting in woodlands between 0.2 hectares
(0.5 acres) and one hectare (2.5 acres). Once the new Forest Conservation By -law is in place,
local municipalities will be advised of individual permit applications as part of the review
process.
The intent is for local municipalities to evaluate their needs and define tree protection which
best suits their purposes. The Town of Aurora has a new Tree By -law in place, and the Town of
Markham, Town Newmarket and the Township of King are currently reviewing or advancing the
development of Tree By -laws under the new Municipal Act.
Under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 (ORMCA), local municipalities with
lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine may be required to pass Tree By -laws. It is anticipated that
the region's woodlot protection harmonization efforts with local municipalities will reflect the
intent of the ORMCA.
Public review and consultation has been ongoing for the past year. The final draft of the Forest
Conservation By -Law is proposed to be submitted for Council endorsement in February, 2005,
for enactment in April, 2005, following a communications campaign.
Table 1
Existing Tree By -law Compared to a Forest Conservation By -law
Provisions
Existing Tree
By -law
(Trees Act)
Proposed Forest Conservation
By -law
(Municipal Act)
Woodland Protection
> 0.2 ha (0.5 acres)
> 1 ha (2.5 acres)
by York Region
> 0.2 ha (0.5 acres) < 1 ha*
by York Region in agreement with
local municipalities
Notification/
applications
• Minor Exceptions
(Regional Council)
• Permits (staff/ Regional Council)
Appeal Process
• None
• Ontario Municipal Board
Enforcement Tools
• Charges
• Charges
• Ticketable fines
• Stop work orders
Penalties
• $5,000 per occurrence
• 3 months imprisonment
• Replant court order
• $10,000 or $1,000 per tree
• Subsequent conviction $25,000 or
$2,500
• Replant court order
* In York Region 681 ha (1.7% of all woodlands) of woodlots are between 0.2 and 1 ha.
NOTE: > means greater than, and < means less than
283
IMPLICATION FOR TRCA'S PROGRAMS AND OPERATIONS
As the population of the region expands, the need for forest protection and restoration is
increasing. The need for an expanded and improved terrestrial natural heritage system has
been highlighted in TRCA's draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy as critical to
achieving The Living City" objective for Regional Biodiversity. The development and
administration of a Forest Conservation By -law linked to the regional Official Plan and the
promotion of good forestry practices demonstrates York Region's commitment to protecting
forest resources and the natural environment and is consistent with TRCA's draft Terrestrial
Natural Heritage System Strategy.
The refinement of the region's Tree By -law to a Forest Conservation By -law within a sound and
complimentary policy and administrative framework, will provide more effective tools, raise the
profile of forest management and advance forest cover protection in York Region.
Under the Municipal Act, TRCA would be subject to the permitting provisions of the new Forest
Conservation By -law for our forest management and tree - cutting activities. TRCA is currently
acquiring the necessary credentials to comply with the "Good Forestry Practices" Permit and
many of our lands are already covered by a Managed Forest Tax Incentive Plan (MFTIP).
However, there is concern that the process for permit applications could cause delays
tendering and implementing our management activities in a cost effective manner. In addition,
if local Tree By -laws are not harmonized with the region's Forest Conservation By -law there
may be additional delays. TRCA staff have had preliminary discussions with region staff to
outline the concerns. Regional staff have indicated a desire to clarify and streamline the
permitting process for conservation authority tree cutting and forest management activities and
further discussions are planned. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority has expressed
interest in joining these discussions to ensure a consistent approach in the region.
Report prepared by: Dena Lewis, extension 5225
For Information contact: Dena Lewis, extension 5225
Date: January 28, 2005
RES. #D113/04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
YORK - PEEL - DURHAM - TORONTO GROUNDWATER STUDY
Update on status of tri- regional, York Peel Durham Toronto (YPDT) and
Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition groundwater initiatives and
approval of initial YPDT 2005 budget components.
Pamela Gough
Cliff Jenkins
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT WHEREAS the
York -Peel- Durham - Toronto Groundwater Management Strategy Study continues to provide an
example of a successful partnership initiative between the federal government , the province,
municipalities and conservation authorities ;
284
WHEREAS through the initiative, the partner agencies have managed to capitalize on the
economies of scale to each agency's benefit by undertaking collective initiatives only once
rather than taking different approaches at each agency ;
WHEREAS the Oak Ridges Moraine provides a common physiographic Zink to all of the
partner agencies;
AND WHEREAS this partnership is supported by key staff at the Geological Survey of Canada
(GSC) and Earthfx Incorporated,
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to implement the following
components of the 2005 work plan of the YPDT Groundwater Management Strategy Study :
• establish an agreement with the GSC to provide ongoing geoscience services in 2005;
• establish a multi -year agreement with Earthfx Incorporated to continue to provide ongoing
modeling, database and website management services to the partner agencies ; and
• make formal presentation (s) of the study progress to the Planning and Public Works
Committees at the Regions of York, Peel, Durham and the City of Toronto, as well as the
boards of the partner conservation authorities .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The York -Peel- Durham - Toronto Groundwater Management Strategy Study was initiated in 2000
as a partnership between the Regions of York, Peel and Durham, the City of Toronto (YPDT),
and the associated six conservation authorities (Credit Valley, Toronto and Region, Lake
Simcoe Region, Kawartha, Ganaraska Region and Central Lake Ontario) with a view to arriving
at consistency in groundwater management both from a technical and analytical perspective,
as well as from a policy and management perspective. With similar goals and objectives, staff,
acting on behalf of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition, (CAMC) are also directing
groundwater work across the entire Oak Ridges Moraine.
The joint YPDT /CAMC groundwater team referred to in this staff report currently consists of
three full time contract staff members, the hydrogeological and planning staff members from
the various partner agencies, as well as a core team of consultants from Earthfx Inc. and Gerber
Geosciences Inc. Project initiatives that are tied more closely to the interests of the four
municipal partners are part of the YPDT study and are approved through the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority, while projects tied more closely to the overall moraine study are
approved through Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority.
285
The YPDT /CAMC groundwater initiative continues to contribute insightful, practical deliverables
to the partner agencies. The key focus areas of the groundwater program continue to be data
management, geological understanding, numerical groundwater modeling and policy
development. A large part of the program's success has been the delivery of data and tools at
a practical level to partner agency staff and their consultants who are charged with
understanding the groundwater system for a variety of day -to -day issues.
The purpose of this report is to provide a brief update on the accomplishments of the
groundwater program in 2004 and to obtain support for the planned 2005 initiatives that the
YPDT Technical Steering Committee recommended at its December 2004 meeting. The YPDT
Technical Steering Committee comprises hydrogeological and planning staff from the City of
Toronto, Peel, Durham and York regions as well as the six associated conservation authorities.
2004 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
2004 was a busy year for the YPDT and Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition
groundwater study programs. An annotated list of some of the 2004 accomplishments is
presented below:
• Modeling - the groundwater modeling studies progressed significantly in 2004 with the
team continuing to make significant contributions to York Region, specifically for critical
projects such as the York Region deep trunk sewer project, but also for their ongoing
Permit to Take Water (PTTW) requirements. A significant thrust is being made to expand
the model both to the east and the west to encompass all of Peel Region and Durham
Region at the same level of understanding as has been achieved in York Region and the
City of Toronto. This will bring all of the municipalities to a similar level of understanding.
The final report on the first phase of modeling is being finalized in early 2005. The report
will document the modeling approach and methodologies.
• Database - Several key changes were made to the database. Of particular note, an
additional set of boreholes was received from the Ontario Geological Survey. This dataset,
known as the Urban Geological Automated Information System (UGAIS), added some
30,000 borehole locations to the database. The Geological Survey of Canada also provided
access to their database of geological outcrops across the area, which have also been
added to the database. Key information (new boreholes and well location information)
taken from the South Simcoe Groundwater Study has also been incorporated. Many key
boreholes drilled as part of ongoing or historical projects were also added by the
YPDT /CAMC team in 2004.
• Data Release to Partner Agencies - in the fall of 2004 the YPDT /CAMC team released the
first "official" version of the database, coupled with geological interpretive layers and
modeling files. This release, known as "Version 1" establishes the template for future data
releases and allows all partners to communicate with each other knowing that they are all
using the same set of tools to understand and manage the water resources within their
jurisdictions. The distributed dataset was structured so that locations of interest could be
readily mapped in the project software (e.g. all flowing wells, all active municipal wells, all
Environment Canada climate stations, all drought susceptible wells, etc.). Cross - sections
show the interpreted geological layers and provide the opportunity for staff to evaluate and
provide feedback on the geological layers that have been constructed so that they can be
updated.
286
• Website - in 2003 the YPDT /CAMC password protected website was set up for use by the
partner agencies. In 2004 progress has been made in assembling a public front end to the
website. An official domain name has been secured and the public part of the website will
be launched officially in 2005. This will provide to the public a site where they might gain an
understanding of the geology and hydrogeology of the Oak Ridges Moraine and the
surrounding area.
• Source Water Protection - staff from the YPDT /CAMC project were invited to participate in
the Ministry of the Environment's (MOE) Technical Experts Committee as part of the source
water protection initiative. This provided staff with an opportunity to help direct this
important initiative that will shape many aspects of municipal and conservation authority
decision making in the coming years.
• Policy Direction - Through much of 2004 the YPDT /CAMC team was leading a study to
better link watershed plans to municipal official plans. The project was undertaken through
a consulting team with input provided by key conservation authority and municipal staff
from the partner agencies. The report is to be finalized in early 2005 and will be made
available throughout the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) so that planning and watershed staff
can begin to use the recommended approaches laid out in the report.
• MOE Water Budget Guidance Document - In 2004 the YPDT /CAMC staff were asked by the
MOE to assist with the development of a water budget guidance document to assist with
the implementation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. This report was
produced and delivered to the MOE in 2004 and will be circulated on the EBR
(Environmental Registry) in 2005.
• Professional presentations /seminars - YPDT /CAMC team provided professional talks to a
variety of groups and conferences during 2004:
• January - Invited to speak to the Ottawa section of the Canadian Geotechnical
Society;
• January - Presentations to the Quaternary Science Section of the Geological Survey
of Canada and to the Chief Hydrogeologist of the Geological Survey of Canada (a
very favourable write up on our project was presented in their spring newsletter);
• January to March 2004 - Invited to make presentations at the province's Well Aware
sessions in the Ganaraska, Lake Simcoe and Lower Trent conservation authority
areas;
• March 2004 - Invited to present at the Annual Canadian Groundwater Association
Conference;
• Oct. 2004 - Two presentations at the Joint Conference of the International
Association of Hydrogeologists /Canadian Geotechnical Society (the keynote
groundwater speaker, Dr. de Marsily from France, commented favourably on our
project in his keynote speech);
• Nov. 2004 - invited to speak at the A.D. Latornell Conference (Source Water
Protection Presentation);
• Dec. 2004 - Invited to speak at a special session on source water protection by the
Ontario Water Works Association.
287
• Barrie Seismic Study - in cooperation with the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS), the GSC,
Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority and the City of Barrie, the YPDT /CAMC team
undertook a seismic survey in the vicinity of Barrie and Angus in the Nottawasaga
watershed. With the tremendous growth pressures in the City of Barrie and the need for
additional water supplies, the purpose of the seismic study was to assist with tracing
favourable aquifer conditions westward from the Barrie area. The study was also designed
to help in further understanding the Laurentian Valley, which was studied in the Schomberg
area in 2003. The data is currently being analysed, however preliminary observations
indicate that coarse grained aquifer materials have definitively been found in parts of the
seismic lines.
• Port Perry Seismic Study - in cooperation with the OGS, the GSC and the Region of
Durham, in late 2004, the CAMC/YPDT team undertook a seismic survey in the vicinity of
Port Perry to assist the Regional Municipality of Durham with finding additional water
supplies. The seismic study was successful in delineating subsurface conditions to the
west of Port Perry, however, aquifer conditions are not as favourable as found in other
seismic studies. Plans are underway to drill targets along the seismic line.
• Earl Bales Borehole - in cooperation with, and with funding from, the City of Toronto, the
YPDT /CAMC team oversaw the drilling of a strategic cored borehole in Earl Bales Park at
Sheppard and Bathurst Streets. The core has been sent to the GSC for further analysis and
the monitoring wells may become part of the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network.
• GRPS Reports - YPDT /CAMC staff continued to work with the OGS to produce a series of
documents on the groundwater resources across the Oak Ridges Moraine.
2005 PROGRAM
YPDT /CAMC team continues to assess the progress of both the modeling study and the
database project, both being undertaken by Earthfx Inc.. Over the past two years, the modeling
project has received accolades from a number of key internationally known groundwater
researchers. Given the successes that the partner agencies are having with these projects,
staff recommend that a multi -year (5 year) agreement be established with Earthfx Incorporated
to continue the modeling and database. This will provide Earthfx Incorporated, whom have a
limited, although very high quality, capacity to focus attention on the YPDT /CAMC project.
Groundwater modeling is a rare special consulting service in southern Ontario and with the
amount of work that will be flowing from source water protection in 2005, it is key that the
YPDT /CAMC project secures the services of Earthfx Inc. staff to continue to build on the
achievements of the past few years.
Since inception, the YPDT /CAMC team has fostered and established a close working
partnership with the GSC. Dr. Dave Sharpe and his colleagues from the GSC continue to meet
with the YPDT /CAMC team to provide their expertise pertaining to the geological and
hydrogeological setting in the Oak Ridges Moraine area. There continues to be internal
pressure within the GSC for having their staff focus on other areas across Canada, however in
2005 they remain willing to make some of Dr. Sharpe's time available to the YPDT /CAMC team,
provided there is some level of financial support. The YPDT steering committee is
recommending that some level of financial support for the GSC continue in 2005.
288
Key aspects of the YPDT /CAMC 2005 work program include:
• public launch the website where the public will be able to obtain background material on
the project;
• establishment of data sharing and ownership agreements amongst the partner agencies to
more readily permit the exchange of information;
• the roll out of a series of training seminars on various aspects of the database and the
software used in the YPDT /CAMC study,
• finalization of the model expansion eastward to include watersheds up to the Ganaraska
River, thereby incorporating all of Durham Region into the model;
• finalization of the model expansion westward to incorporate the Credit River watershed,
thereby incorporating all of Peel Region into the model;
• the "cookie cutting" of specific watersheds out of the regional model so that agency staff
will have the ability to run various land use and climate change scenarios through the model
to evaluate impacts on stream flow and the overall groundwater flow system; and
• preliminary work to explore the potential linking of groundwater and surface water modeling
within a pilot area on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
OUTCOMES
The YPDT initiative has resulted in a groundwater management tool that is already in use by
TRCA and our partner agencies. Technical staff have used, or will be using, the model output
for the following:
• identification of significant recharge areas for input into the provincial Greenbelt Plan;
• confirmation of existing groundwater recharge rates for input into the development review
process;
• identification of significant groundwater discharge zones for input into surface water
baseflow monitoring programs and fisheries management plans;
• delineation of wellhead protection zones (i.e. Whitchurch /Stouffville) and calculations of
water budgets (including locations of previously unknown aquifer systems) for input into
future drinking water source protection plans; and
• targeting of hydrogeologically sensitive areas for input into TRCA's land acquisition strategy.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The initiatives described above can be implemented within the current 2005 budget for the
YPDT study. No agreements will be signed until the financial contributions from the City of
Toronto and York, Peel and Durham regions are in place and the appropriate approvals have
been obtained from the Executive Committee.
Report prepared by: Donald Ford, extension 5369,
Steve Holysh, 905 -336 -1158, extension 246
For Information contact: Donald Ford, extension 5369,
Steve Holysh, 905 - 336 -1158, extension 246
Date: February 07, 2005
289
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
RES. #D114/04-
Moved by:
Seconded by:
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FLOOD
FORECASTING AND WARNING PROGRAM
2004 Status Report and 2005 Work Plan. Annual update on status of
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Flood Forecasting
and Warning Program.
Pamela Gough
Michael Thompson
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the 2004 status report and the 2005 work plan for the TRCA
Flood Forecasting and Warning Program , as they relate to the GTA (Greater Toronto Area)
Flood Group Standards, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #10/03, held on January 9, 2004, Resolution #A282/03 was approved as
follows:
THAT the 2004 Work Plan based on GTA Flood Standards be approved;
THAT staff be directed to base Flood Warning and Forecasting budgets and future work
plans on fulfilling compliance with the GTA Flood Standards;
THAT staff report annually on compliance progress to the Watershed Management
Advisory Board;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the liability of flood programs and the
reliability of the flood standards, and on the public consultation process.
TRCA staff have continued to work throughout 2004 to achieve the objectives outlined in the
2004 work plan as approved by the Authority. The work plan was developed with the intention
of moving the TRCA Flood Forecasting and Flood Warning Program towards meeting or
exceeding our obligations under the adopted GTA Flood Standards. The GTA Flood
Standards were adopted at Authority Meeting #5/03, held on June 27, 2003, by Resolution
#A130/03. The standards identify four program delivery areas: Program
Delivery /Administration, Forecasting, Communications and Flood Operations. A status report
outlining the works completed in 2004 and the 2005 work plan is attached to this report.
Staff of the TRCA, including the Director, Watershed Management and the Director, Finance
and Business Development met over the past year to discuss the issue of TRCA's liability in
adopting the GTA Flood Standards as a means of direction for the development and
implementation of TRCA's Flood Forecasting and Warning Program. Following a discussion
around past and current standards related to this program, it was determined that the risk to the
TRCA will be reduced by delivering this program with a defined set of standards to which we
either currently meet, or are working towards meeting, than to be in a position where we have
no specified set of delivery standards. Therefore, by adopting the GTA Flood Standards, TRCA
would be reducing our current risk with respect to this program.
290
In terms of the reliability of these standards, the GTA Flood Standards were forwarded to the
province through the Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning Committee ( PFFWC ). The
PFFWC is the body that reviews flood warning and forecasting issues and provides direction on
behalf of Conservation Ontario and the Ministry of Natural Resources. This committee has
reviewed the GTA standards and found them to be both comprehensive and functional. More
recently, the GTA Flood Group standards have been used as a template for the development of
a provincial set of program standards through the PFFWC. The provincial committee has just
released its Draft Generic Standards for Flood Forecasting and Warning to Conservation
Ontario for review and comment.
The delivery of the Flood Forecasting and Warning Program is carried out in accordance with
achieving the goals of the Natural Hazards Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, section
3.1 of the Planning Act. The development of the standards has been seen as an
implementation or a set of technical guidelines and as such has not required a formal public
process. Such a process was undertaken for the provincial Planning Act.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds have been identified in the 2005 preliminary budget to undertake the activities identified
in the 2005 work plan.
Report prepared by: Don Haley, extension 5226
For Information contact: Don Haley, extension 5226, or Patricia Lewis, extension 5218
Date: November 22, 2004
Attachments: 1
291
Attachment 1
TRCA Flood Forecasting and Warning Program
Section 1. Program Delivery/Administration - to develop and maintain an administrative framework to
facilitate and support flood forecasting , flood warning and flood operations .
GTA Flood Standard Component
Maintain Liaison with Municipalities and
Work Completed in 2004
Work to be carried out in 2005
Develop Baseline Knowledge of
•
field visits carried out to flood
•
field inventory, assessment and
Watershed
•
forecast locations to familiarize staff
flood control channel inspections
prioritization for all flood control
facilities to be carried out
carried out, sites prioritized for
maintenance works
•
flood control channel capacity
assessment to be carried out at
•
watershed response descriptions
priority sites
developed and included in Flood
Warning Manual
•
•
flood protection and remedial works
study to be completed (to include
filed inventory, development of
database and location map, flood
risk assessment and cost - benefit
analysis)
develop and implement program to
review rainfall /runoff events to
determine better understanding of
watershed response
Establish Monitoring Network
•
three new stream gauges installed
•
installation of five new precipitation
•
five new precipitation gauges
monitoring stations
installed
•
upgrades to 10 existing precipitation
•
review of existing snow course
stations to allow for remote access
network carried out and manual
developed
•
installation of approximately ten new
stream gauge stations
•
continued operation and
maintenance of 18 existing stream
•
continue operation and maintenance
of 21 existing stream gauges
gauges
•
continue operation and maintenance
•
continued operation and
of 22 existing precipitation gauges
maintenance of 17 existing
precipitation gauges
•
continue monitoring at 10 snow
course locations
•
continued monitoring at 10 snow
course locations
•
need to review need for ice
monitoring program and prepare
•
completed annual report for City of
documentation
Mississauga Monitoring Program
•
annual report to be completed for
Mississauga Monitoring Program
Undertake Yearly Training of Staff
•
weather training provided by The
•
media training (Spring 05)
Weather Network and through the
annual workshop of the Provincial
•
Emergency Response Training
(Spring 05)
Flood Forecasting and Warning
Committee
•
annual refresher training for flood
duty officers
•
snow course monitoring training
•
Metronet training
provided
•
ice monitoring (if required)
•
•
G. ROSS Lord operations training
provided
staff attended Emergency
Management Courses offered
through Toronto Office of Emergency
Management
Document Historical Flow Events
•
consultant to be hired to prepare
analysis of historical events in TRCA
jurisdiction
GTA Flood Standard Component
Work Completed in 2004
Work to be carried out in 2005
Maintain Liaison with Municipalities and
• ongoing as needed
• ongoing as needed
292
Local Emergency Response Groups
Maintain Adequate Flood Plain Mapping
•
hydrology for Don Watershed
•
finalize hydraulic and mapping
and Hydraulic Model in Accordance with
completed
updates for West Don north of
FDRP Technical Standards
•
hydraulic updates and mapping
Steeles and the East Don
completed for Don south of Steeles
•
finalize Mimico hydrology
•
Humber hydraulics and mapping
•
initiate Mimico hydraulics
completed
•
finalize Rouge hydraulics and
•
Mimico hydrology update initiated
mapping
•
•
Etobicoke hydrology update ongoing
Etobicoke hydraulic update initiated
•
finalize Petticoat Creek hydrology,
hydraulic and mapping updates
•
•
Rouge hydrology update completed
Rouge hydraulics and mapping
•
finalize Etobicoke hydrology,
hydraulics and mapping
update 90% completed
•
initiate hydraulic and mapping
•
Petticoat Creek hydrology and
updates for Highland
hydraulic updates initiated
•
initiate hydrology, hydraulic and
•
•
hydrology update completed for the
Highland
hydraulic and mapping updates
completed for Duffins
mapping updates for Carruthers,
Pine, Amberlea, Dunbarton, Krosno
Develop and Maintain the Flood
•
input parameters calculated for
•
input parameters to be calculated for
Forecasting (FFOR) Model
Duffins, Rouge and Humber and Don
remaining watersheds
Develop and Maintain a Flood Site
Database
•
Data input completed for Duffins,
Humber, Krosno, and Rouge as per
•
spatial link with GIS - ongoing
customization
updated flood plain mapping
•
data input ongoing as hydraulic
•
spatial link with GIS underway
updates completed
Conduct Yearly Update of Flood
Contingency Manual
•
update completed and distributed to
partners
•
annual update to be completed
Develop and Maintain Operations Manual
•
ongoing updates to Flood Warning
•
finalize G Ross Lord and Claireville
Manual
Operation, Maintenance and
Surveillance Manuals as per
recommendations from Dam Safety
•
Reviews completed in 2004
review of operating procedure for G.
Ross Lord Dam to be completed by a
consultant
Prepare for Emergency Operations
•
completion of Dam Safety Reviews
for Claireville, G Ross Lord, Milne
and Stouffville Dams
•
risk assessment and emergency plan
update to be completed for G Ross
Lord and Claireville Dams
•
electrical upgrades completed at
Claireville Dam
•
electrical upgrades to be completed
at G Ross Lord Dam
•
•
Probable Maximum Flood modelling
refinement for G Ross Lord Dam
testing and maintenance of spillway
valve to be carried out at Stouffville
•
Dam
borehole drilling and piezometer
installation at Claireville Dam as per
recommendations from Dam Safety
•
Review
implementation of safety booms and
public safety signage at Claireville
and G Ross Lord Dams
293
Section 2. Forecasting - to understand and quantify the response and potential impacts within
watersheds to specific events
GTA Flood Standard Component
Work Completed in 2004
Work to be carried out in 2005
Follow Daily Planning Cycle
• ongoing on a daily basis with
improvements /modifications as
needed
• ongoing on a daily basis with
improvements /modifications as
needed
Section 3. Communications - to inform clients of the potential or actual impact of flood events in a
concise and timely manner
GTA Flood Standard Component
Work Completed in 2004
Work to be carried out in 2005
Establish Internal and External
Communications Protocol
• updates completed to
communications system (fax, email,
Internet, voice messages) for
dissemination of flood messages
• continue following established
protocol
Section 4. Flood Operations - to provide on -going information and advice to municipal clients and CA
staff
GTA Flood Standard Component
Work Completed in 2004
Work to be carried out in 2005
Maintain an Emergency Operations Centre
• corporate initiative underway
• ongoing
Monitor Flood Events
• ongoing
• ongoing as needed
Follow Reasonable Safety Procedures
• ongoing as needed
• ongoing as needed
Document Flood Events
• Hurricane Isabel - communication to
Water Board
• ongoing as needed
Document Communications with Internal
and External Clients
• communications documented on
daily planning cycle spreadsheet and
in log book - all documents on file
• ongoing as needed
Support Internal and External Clients
• ongoing as needed
• ongoing as needed
Debrief Authority Staff
• ongoing as needed
• ongoing as needed
Debrief River Watch Personnel
• no formal program in place at this
time
• review and update required to River
Watch Program followed by training
of appropriate personnel
294
RES. #D115 /04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES
Minutes of Meeting #6/04, November 18, 2004 and Minutes of Meeting
#7/04, December 16, 2004. The Minutes of Meeting #6/04, held on
November 18, 2004 and Meeting #7/04, held on December 16, 2004.
Pamela Gough
Michael Thompson
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting
#6/04, held on November 18, 2004 and Meeting #7/04, held on December 16, 2004, be
received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the
Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the
formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the
Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed
Task Force's report "Forty Steps to a New Dori' and to regenerate the watershed.
Report prepared by: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
For Information contact: Alex Blasko, extension 5280
Date: February 03, 2005
RES. #D116 /04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DUFFINS CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP MINUTES
Minutes of Meeting #1/04, held on September 15, 2004. The Minutes of
Meeting #1/04, held on September 15, 2004, are provided for
information.
Pamela Gough
Michael Thompson
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group
Meeting #1/04, held on September 15, 2004, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group are forwarded to
the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute
the formal record of the work of the Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group, and serve
to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement A
Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek.
Report prepared by: Brent Bullough, extension 5392
For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385
Date: January 20, 2005
295
RES. #D117 /04-
Moved by.
Seconded by:
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #5104, October 8, 2004. The Minutes of Meeting
#5/04, held on October 8, 2004, are provided for information.
Pamela Gough
Michael Thompson
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of Rouge Park Alliance Meeting #5/04, held on
October 8, 2004, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Rouge Park Alliance are provided to the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority through the Chair of the Authority, who is a member of the Rouge Park
Alliance, and forwarded to the Watershed Management Advisory Board for their information.
Report prepared by: Andrea Fennell, extension 5254
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: January 25, 2005
RES. #D118 /04 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES
Minutes of Meeting #5/04, October 28, 2004 and Minutes of Meeting
#6/04, December 9, 2004.. Minutes of Meeting #5/04, held on October
28, 2004 and Minutes of Meeting #6104, held on December 9, 2004 are
provided for information.
Pamela Gough
Michael Thompson
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force meetings #5/04
and #6/04 held on October 28, 2004 and December 9, 2004, respectively, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Rouge Watershed Task Force are forwarded to the Authority
through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal
record of the work of the Rouge Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority
members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Rouge Watershed Plan.
Report prepared by: Sylvia Waters, extension 5330
For Information contact: Sylvia Waters, extension 5330
Date: January, 2005
TERMINATION
296
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:42 a.m., on Friday, February 11, 2005.
Dave Ryan
Chair
/ks