Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Watershed Management Advisory Board 2005
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/05 April 15, 2005 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/05, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, April 15, 2005. The Chair Dave Ryan, called the meeting to order at 10:55 a.m. PRESENT Gay Cowbourne Member Frank Dale Member Pamela Gough Member Cliff Jenkins Member Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority Dave Ryan Chair Nancy Stewart Vice Chair REGRETS David Gurin Member Shelley Petrie Member Michael Thompson Member RES. #D1/05 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Pamela Gough Nancy Stewart THAT the Minutes of Meeting #8/04, held on February 11, 2005, be approved. DELEGATIONS CARRIED (a) Jim Robb, Member, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, speaking in regards to the Morningside Heights Tributary. 1 RES. #D2 /05 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Dick O'Brien Frank Dale THAT above -noted delegation (a) be heard and received. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Angela Porteous, Project Ecologist, Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project on item 7.1 - Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project 2005 Workplan. RES. #D3 /05 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Stewart Pamela Gough THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received. CARRIED SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D4 /05 - FRENCHMAN'S BAY WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT 2005 WORKPLAN Highlight 2004 activities of the Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project and an outline of the 2005 work priorities. Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Stewart Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue with the Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project in cooperation with Pickering East Shore Community Association (PESCA), the City of Pickering, Ontario Power Generation Pickering Nuclear, EcoAction Community Funding Program and the Ontario Trillium Foundation. CARRIED 2 BACKGROUND The Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project began in September 1998 as a two -year community driven environmental initiative when EcoAction 2000 granted funds in the amount of $69,000. Since that time the project has received two additional funding grants from EcoAction to extend the project until September 31st, 2005. Also, the Ontario Trillium Foundation granted this project funding in the amount of $125,000 to allow the Frenchman's Bay project to continue until December 31st, 2007. The project's 2004 targets and achievements are summarized below. 2004 Targets 2004 Achievements Engage 700 individuals Engaged 1,660 Enhance 1 hectare of forest, 0.5 hectares of wetland and 2.5 hectares of meadow Enhanced 4.5 hectares of forest, 1.5 hectares of wetland and 2.5 hectares of meadow Plant 1,200 trees, shrubs, wildflowers and aquatics Planted 5,800 trees, shrubs, wildflowers and aquatics Install 50 wildlife habitat structures (bird boxes, snakes hibernaculums, etc.) Installed 50 wildlife habitat structures Deliver 12 educational workshops (recognition night and garbage clean -ups) Hosted 70 events (this includes both public workshops and group events) Complete 8 monitoring programs Completed 8 monitoring programs These deliverables were achieved through the following program components: • Natural Alternative Program; • Hands on the Earth Program; • Volunteer Environmental Watch Monitoring Program; and • West Shore Habitat Initiative. Work plan priorities for 2005, as agreed upon by all project partners, include: • Engage 700 individuals; • Enhance 2.5 hectare of forest, 0.5 hectares of wetland and 0.5 hectares of meadow; • Plant 750 trees, shrubs, wildflowers and aquatics; • Install 35 wildlife habitat structures (bird boxes, snake hibernaculums, etc.); • Install 3 interpretative signs; • Complete 1 butterfly release program with 2 local schools; • Develop 21 plans (energy /natural ways audits, property plans and stream plans); • Deliver 10 educational workshops; and • Complete 8 monitoring programs. The Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project, since September 1998 has achieved the following: • Hosted over 250 public and group events; • Engaged over 8,000 individuals from the local community; • Planted over 15,000 trees, shrubs, wildflowers and aquatic plants; • Installed over 350 wildlife habitat structures; and • Enhanced 3 hectares of wetland, 2.5 hectares of meadow and 8.5 hectares of wooded habitat. . 3 Through the Planning Advisory Committee, a committee with representatives from each of the project partners listed above, which recently had its first quarterly meeting, project partners receive quarterly updates with regards to the progress of the 2005 work plan, program changes and funding updates. FINANCIAL DETAILS EcoAction funding, as discussed above, will be ending September 31st, 2005. In anticipation of this a new proposal titled 'Pickering Healthy Communities Project' has been compiled and submitted to EcoAction, requesting $70,000, to extend beyond October 1st, 2005 to September 31st, 2007. Additional funding sources are being sought to ensure that the 2005 deliverables are achieved. This includes a submission to TD Friends of the Environment for a request of $7,500. A new partnership with Hydro One has also resulted in a three year commitment to the Frenchman's Bay Project in the amount of $10,000 per year; for a total of $30,000 from 2005 to 2007. Report prepared by: Angela Porteous, 905 - 420 -4660, extension 2212 For Information contact: Angela Porteous, 905 - 420 -4660, extension 2212 Date: April 6, 2005 RES. #D5/05 - FRENCHMAN'S BAY WATERSHED SCOPING EXERCISE City of Pickering in the Region of Durham. Direction to work in partnership with municipal staff to initiate a scoping exercise designed to outline a coordinated planning framework and workplan to direct future action related to the Frenchman's Bay in the City of Pickering. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Cliff Jenkins THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff work with the City of Pickering on a scoping exercise, involving stakeholders with an interest in Frenchman's Bay, which will result in a workplan to direct future action related to the Frenchman's Bay watershed; THAT in preparation for the meeting with stakeholders, Waterfront and Environmental Planning Consultant, Suzanne Barrett be retained to facilitate meetings between staff, relevant agencies, and stakeholders, prepare background information relevant to the watershed, record proceedings from stakeholder meeting, and prepare an advice paper which outlines the workplan at a cost of $4,952, plus applicable taxes; THAT Nicole Swerhun be retained to assist with preparation of background information and facilitate a workshop between staff and stakeholders which will create a framework for collaboration and identifies next steps at a cost of $4,890, plus applicable taxes; 4 THAT staff comments related to the Remediation of an Urban - Impacted Watershed and Lagoon Frenchman's Bay, City of Pickering - Final Report, June 2003 be received; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Pickering be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND For over a decade, substantial studies have been undertaken to understand the impacts of urbanization on Frenchman's Bay. These studies include: • Remediation of an Urban Impacted Watershed and Lagoon - City of Pickering /University of Toronto /McMaster University (2003); • Durham Region Coastal Wetlands: Baseline Conditions and Study Findings (2002 and 2003); • Krosno Creek Downspout Disconnection Project (2003); • Biodiversity Study and Natural Areas Management Plan, Ontario Power Generation; • Mayor Arthur's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront (2001); • Krosno Creek Preliminary Stormwater Management Strategy (2002); • Krosno Creek Floodplain Mapping Study (2002); • Amberlea Creek Hydrology and Floodline Mapping Study (2003); • City of Pickering Retrofit Study (2003); and • Frenchman's Bay Environmental Monitoring Results, 2003 (Draft). This large body of work provides an understanding of the upstream influences on the Bay as they relate to water quality and ecology. The results of these studies reveal the link between urban stormwater and the declining health of Frenchman's Bay. The most recent study to address the need for improved stormwater management was carried out by the University of Toronto and McMaster University with funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Ontario Innovation Trust and the City of Pickering. The results of this study are published in the report entitled "Remediation of an Urban - Impacted Watershed and Lagoon: Frenchman's Bay, City of Pickering - Final Report". The purpose of the study was to collect environmental data from Frenchman's Bay and contributing watercourses to determine main causes of environmental degradation within the Bay and to present recommendations regarding key remedial actions. At Authority Meeting #2/99, held on February 26, 1999, Resolution #A53/99 was approved, in part, as follows: THAT staff be directed to work with the Town of Pickering and their departments, and the Waterfront Co- ordinating Committee on the implementation of the various waterfront initiatives on a priority basis; 5 At a recent Waterfront Co- ordinating Committee meeting held on December 9, 2004, discussions occurred of possibly implementing the recommendations identified in the Remediation of an Urban - Impacted Watershed and Lagoon: Frenchman's Bay, City of Pickering - Final Report. TRCA staff committed to further review of the report and preparation of recommendations for moving forward with remedial actions that would improve the health of Frenchman's Bay. TRCA staff reported back to the co- ordinating committee on February 10, 2005 with the suggestion that an overall plan for Frenchman's Bay is required to address issues related to public access, trails, recreation, terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancement opportunities, safe navigation, community stewardship and education, etc.. TRCA staff also committed to providing the City of Pickering with detailed comments on the Remediation of an Urban - Impacted Watershed and Lagoon: Frenchman's Bay, City of Pickering - Final Report. These comments have been prepared and are attached. The recommendations based on an in depth review of the report are: • That a stormwater management master plan be completed for the Frenchman's Bay watershed; and • That the report be amended to include future study requirements and identify that the recommended remedial actions are conceptual and subject to further study, environmental assessment and approvals. RATIONALE In addition to the extensive study of the Frenchman's Bay watershed, TRCA, the City of Pickering and many other stakeholders have been working on various projects within the watershed. Some of these projects include: the Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project, the Pickering Harbour Waterfront Regeneration Project, and implementation of the Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park Master Plan. Many of these projects are the result of recommendations that were made by Mayor Arthur's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront. The final report prepared by the task force was released in June 1998. This report, entitled "Waterfront 2001 - Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront ", describes the need for a watershed management plan given that the viability of Frenchman's Bay and associated watercourses are dictated by urban activities within the contributing watershed areas. TRCA and the City of Pickering are committed to investigating the opportunity to work with interested agencies and stakeholders on a scoping exercise that would explore the creation of a co- ordinated planning and watershed management framework for the Frenchman's Bay watershed. As a first step towards this commitment, TRCA and the City of Pickering have identified a diverse group of stakeholders and agencies with an interest in the future of the Frenchman's Bay watershed. These stakeholders include local restaurants and retailers, developers, the boating community, schools, environmental organizations, sport and social clubs, anglers, waterfront trail users, resident associations, Ontario Power Generation and academia. By working with these stakeholder groups, as well as agencies such as the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment Canada and Region of Durham, we hope to collectively identify the issues and opportunities related to the future of Frenchman's Bay as they relate to aesthetics; public access; trails; public greenspace /parks; recreational water use, including boating and fishing; habitat protection, restoration and creation; community stewardship and education; stormwater management; and water quality. 6 Waterfront and Environmental Planning Consultant, Suzanne Barrett and Nicole Swerhun are both highly qualified and skilled, with extensive waterfront related public consultation experience. Suzanne Barrett brings special expertise in waterfront planning related to her involvement through the Waterfront Regeneration Trust in the Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront. Nicole Swerhun has had extensive involvement as a public facilitator through, for example, her work with the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE With the assistance of consultants Suzanne Barrett and Nicole Swerhun, TRCA and the City of Pickering will host a stakeholder workshop on May 14, 2005. The purpose of the workshop will be to share information on related initiatives and to explore the issues and opportunities related to the management of Frenchman's Bay watershed. The expected outcomes of the workshop are the identification of information gaps, an understanding of planning and regulatory requirements, and a framework for future collaboration. In preparation for the stakeholder workshop, staff will work together with our consultants to initiate exploratory discussions between both internal and agency staff. The project team will also develop an information package for the workshop which captures information about the ongoing projects and studies associated with the watershed. During the workshop, the consultants will provide a framework for discussion and stakeholder input. The results of the workshop will be captured by the consultants in the form of an advice paper. The advice paper will propose a planning framework and workplan to direct future action, including priorities, stakeholders' roles, proposed timelines and funding sources. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding of $20,000 is identified in the 2005 Durham Capital Budget. TRCA has proposed a cost sharing agreement with the City of Pickering for the consultant costs related to this scoping exercise. Report prepared by: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243 Date: March 11, 2005 Attachments: 1 7 Attachment 1 WTORONTO AND REGION Y onserva ton for The Living City March 11, 2005 Re: TRCA staff comments on "Remediation of an Urban - Impacted Watershed and Lagoon Frenchman's Bay, City of Pickering - Final Report, June 2003. The report entitled "Remediation of an Urban Impacted Watershed and Lagoon - City of Pickering was completed by the University of Toronto and McMaster University in 2003 with funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Ontario Innovation Trust and the City of Pickering. The purpose of the study was to collect environmental data from Frenchman's Bay and contributing watercourses to determine main causes of environmental degradation within the Bay and to present recommendations regarding key remedial actions to be undertaken to ensure long term viability of the Bay as an ecological, educational and recreational resource. The report collected both historical background information and completed an extensive monitoring program including: • Surface water flow, temperature and water chemistry in contributing watercourses as well as several points within the Bay; • Water level, temperature and chemistry of ground water ; and • Bathymetric, magnetic and conductivity surveys in and around the Bay area. The monitoring data was used to conclude that the Bay has been impacted from urban development within the watershed; specifically by the Highway 401 transportation corridor located to the north of the Bay. Based on the findings of the monitoring program and comparison of historical data, key remedial actions were identified including: • • Construction of a flow balancing system within the north portion of the Bay; • Construction of a wetland at the mouth of Krosno Creek /flow diversion from Krosno Creek to the Flow Balancing System in the Bay; • Habitat enhancement, dredging of the sediments in the bay and widening of the entrance, reduction in road salt application; and, • Additional monitoring and development of educational and recreational initiatives. Based on a review of the report it is recommended that a Stormwater Management Master Plan be completed for Frenchman's Bay (similar to process utilized by the City of Toronto in the development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. The scope of the master plan should include the entire Frenchman's Bay Watershed (possibly a city wide) and follow an EA process which would comprise a full environmental impact assessment of proposed alternatives as well as cost benefit analysis and public consultation process. Approved remedial actions and mitigation strategies resulting from the study could then be implemented directly or through a further Municipal Class EA process. 8 In Tight of this, the current study should be revised to include future study requirements (as noted above or equivalent) and should also clearly qualify that the recommended remedial actions, specifically the proposed Flow Balance System, are conceptual and subject to completion of further study, environmental assessment and approval. The following provides a summary of specific comments based on a review of the above noted 2003 final report: • Section 2.0 - The drainage area for Krosno Creek is listed as 784 ha. The Krosno Creek Stormwater Management Strategy Study (TRCA, 2000) measured a drainage area of 650 ha. Additional sampling locations, including storm sewers discharging directly into the Bay, are required to develop a complete understanding of the factors which influence the quality of water within Frenchman's Bay. • Section 2.4 - The report indicates that groundwater discharges from the base of the bluff provide baseflow to Pine, Amberlea, Dunbarton and Krosno Creeks. While much of Pine and Dunbarton Creeks remain open watercourse systems, both Amberlea and Krosno Creek are enclosed in storm sewer systems. As a result, it is unclear how baseflow enters the system. Does the report suggest that the storm sewers are intercepting groundwater? • Section 2.5 - The report suggests that the Highway 401 transportation corridor is a "fish killer "_due to the severance of the watercourses which prevents fish and other organisms from moving upstream. Although it is recognized that the corridor does present a barrier to movement, it should be noted that there are other road and culvert crossings located downstream of the transportation corridor that also present a barrier to the movement of fish and aquatic life therefore, this statement may be considered misleading. The report also makes reference to erosion sites on Figure 5, however there is no reference to these locations on the report figure. • Section 2.7 - The report infers that the sediment in Frenchman's Bay is contaminated. It appears that this conclusion has been made through chemical analysis of water and suspended sediment. Sediments exceeding the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines can only be confirmed through sediment sampling regime which encompasses the entire bay. • Section 3.1.2 - The report findings indicated the presence of contaminants at well MW 02 -03 (Pine Creek south of the CN Rail) resulting from leaking storage tanks. It should be noted that a former gas station was located at the northwest corner of Liverpool and Bayly Street which may be the source of the contaminants. Monitoring wells were observed at the site and should be obtained to confirm the findings of this study. The report also confirms that the highest levels of chloride were observed in MW02 -02 and MW02 -05, located downstream of the Highway 401 transportation corridor. Notwithstanding the findings, it should also mentioned that large commercial development is also located upstream of both monitoring locations (i.e., Supercentre, Pickering Town Centre) which maintain large parking areas that are subject to winter de- icing. • Section 3.2 - The report indicates that water quality monitors were installed upstream on Pine Creek and downstream on Amberlea Creek to provide a picture of changing water quality both above and below the Highway 401 transportation corridor. Given that the gauges were installed on different watercourse systems, it is unclear how the results can be used to accurately confirm the impacts form the transportation corridor. 9 • Section 3.2.1 - The report suggests that a through picture of water quality was obtained on the three main tributaries including Krosno Creek. However, no surface water monitoring or gauging has been identified on Krosno Creek (Refer to Figure 31). • Section 3.3.2 - The report provides water temperature observations for the watercourses as well as within the Bay but does not compare the results to air temperature in order to explain the variations and diurnal patterns that were experienced over the monitoring period. • Section 3.4 - The report suggests that water temperature in Amberlea Creek is several degrees cooler that Pine Creek due to a higher contribution of groundwater. It is unclear whether this would be the case given that a majority of the system has been enclosed in a storm sewer system. • Section 3.6 - The study provides an estimate of salt loading from Highway 401 to demonstrate the impact to the watercourses downstream of the corridor. However, additional calculations for the upstream contributing areas would assist in confirming direct highway impacts. • Section 3.8 - Increases in water temperature recorded in the Bay between 2002 (11 to 27 Deg C) and a study 10 years ago (7 to 22 Deg C) were compared to infer that the increase is most likely a result of an increase in hardened surfaces associated with urban development. Although this may be correct, it recommended that additional information be examined such as air temperatures etc. in order consider other influential factors such as climate. • Section 6.2 - The flow balance system proposed within the north portion of Frenchman's Bay does has not been supported by any impact assessment. Further, the report suggests that some of the wetland area is formerly part of a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). A review of our files indicates that the northern portion of the Bay is both a PSW and Environmentally Sensitive Area. • Section 6.3 - The two alternatives provided for Krosno Creek comprising the construction of a wetland at the mouth of the watercourse or diversion west to the proposed flow balancing system in the Bay has not been supported by any impact assessment. • Section 6.4 - The report concludes that any remedial measures implemented upstream of the Highway 401 transportation corridor (i.e., retrofit SWM ponds) would not result in any appreciable improvement to water quality in the Bay. It should be noted that the SWM retrofit study completed by TRCA (2003) recommends a number of new facilities and retrofit of existing SWM ponds that would achieve water quality treatment for approximately 400 ha of existing urban area currently draining to the Bay. 10 RES. #D6/05 - 2005 TOMMY THOMPSON PARK INTERIM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM To report on the Tommy Thompson Park 2005 Interim Management Program. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Cliff Jenkins THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 2005 Interim Management Plan for Tommy Thompson Park be received; THAT staff be directed to continue to negotiate the formal agreement with the Toronto Port Authority regarding access and other such items deemed necessary for the 2005 program; AND FURTHER THAT staff be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the Interim Management Program including the execution of any documents and agreements. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1959, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (now known as the Toronto Port Authority) 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 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (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. 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 and regionally rare plant species. Tommy Thompson Park has also established itself as a unique place for a variety of human activities, attracting well over 250,000 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. 11 The Aquatic Park Sailing Club (APSC) is a small community sailing club that has leased a portion of the waterlot and landbase at Tommy Thompson Park since 1976. The revenue from the lease currently supports the Interim Management Program. The current three year license agreement (2005 -2007) is currently under review by staff. The Aquatic Park Sailing Club contribute $2,500.00 to annual operation of the TTP van shuttle which services park users and APSC members on weekends and holidays from May though to October. The club also assists staff with the a variety of projects including; garbage clean -up, tree wrapping for protection against beaver damage, and have financially contributed to shoreline naturalization and enhancement activities around their club house. The master plan for Tommy Thompson Park was completed in 1989, and then revised in 1992 through the Minister of the Environment's approval under the Environmental Assessment Act. Implementation of the master plan, until 2003 had been very limited due to continued construction and lake filling activities, and the lack of implementation dollars. Instead, the park vision has been realized through funds directed to the Interim Management Program, and through partnered habitat creation and enhancement projects. 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. 2004 Tommy Thompson Park Interim Management Program The following briefly outlines the regular activities and special events that have occurred during the 2004 Interim Management Program. The park was open to the public Saturdays, Sundays and statutory holidays commencing January 3rd, 2004. The public hours were as follows: 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. January 3 to April 4, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. April 10 to October 17, and 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. October 23 to December 19. 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 1st until October 11th. A nature interpretation program was continued in 2004 and operated from July 3rd to September 6th. 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 fall bird festival and numerous guided tours with various special interest groups. 12 Wildlife Management Activities undertaken in 2004 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 Management Program, management of nesting Canada Geese and Mute Swans, a study of reproductive success and morphological deformities in colonial waterbirds, and a general wildlife enhancement and monitoring program. Special Activities In addition to the regular park programs, other special events and activities have taken place at Tommy Thompson Park during the 2004 season. The following is an outline of these various events: Lake Ontario Mid - Winter Waterfowl Inventory (January 11) University of Toronto Field Course (April 26) TRCA Bird in the Hand Event (May 15) York University Field Course (May 18) Numerous birding walks with special interest groups (May 1 -30) Aquatic Plants Program Planting Days (June 10, 11, 16, & 17) Deloitte Impact Day (June 25) Lake Ontario Clean -up Event (September) Fall Bird Festival (October 20) Seneca College Field Course (October 22) Annual Christmas Bird Count (December 18) Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Committee As part of the original master plan process, an 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 discontinued. At Authority Meeting #2/02, held on April 26, 2002, the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Design Project was formally endorsed by Resolution #A97/02 which resolved in part the following: ...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;... 13 In 2003, a formal terms of reference for the Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Committee (TTPAC) was completed. Regular meetings of the TTPAC continued in 2004. 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 seven meetings in 2004. Tommy Thompson Park Bird Research Station In 2003, TRCA entered into a partnership with the Toronto Bird Observatory to form the Tommy Thompson Park Bird Research Station (TTPBRS). A small banding laboratory was constructed and outfitted with research supplies. A 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. In 2004, the research station was in operation from April 1st to June 8th and, August 3rd to November 12th, 2004. A total of 6,389 birds of 104 species were banded at TTPBRS in 2004. In 2004, a study was conducted on the reproductive success, frequency of morphological deformities, and heavy metal and organochlorine contaminant levels in eggs of colonial waterbirds at Tommy Thompson Park. This study will assist in developing clear and measurable criteria for comparative environmental monitoring by: a) evaluating reproductive success through species- specific nest monitoring; b) quantification of morphological deformities through monitoring statistically significant samples of nesting populations and comparing these with reference areas on uncontaminated sites in the lower Great Lakes; and, c) measurement of egg contaminant levels from randomly selected eggs for each of the study species. Additional data and further studies will be conducted during the 2005 nesting season. 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. 14 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. Refurbishing of the tern rafts located in Cell 2 and Embayment D also occurred in 2004. RATIONALE Recently there has been a growing interest in the City of Toronto's waterfront. With this renewed interest, numerous waterfront plans and strategies have emerged, and have even been implemented. This has resulted in new funding opportunities, and the allocation of additional funds to begin the implementation of the TTP Master Plan. The popularity of TTP has grown to where it currently hosts well over 250,000 people annually who are restricted to access on weekends and holidays only. The park is currently underservicing 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 can now be realized. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE 2005 Interim Management Program The 2005 Interim Management Program will be run as in 2004, with only slight modification. There will be an increase in staffing costs to provide an additional park interpreter /gate attendant on holiday weekends and selected weekends from May until October on which the shuttle van is in operation. This will be done to better accommodate and engage the growing number of park users, ensure public safety and maintain the ecological integrity of the site. The staffing and park users will be closely monitored and evaluated in the 2005 season. This is to insure that the parks vision and ecological integrity is not only maintained, but improved, and that the Interim Management Program is run in a cost effective and fiscally responsible fashion. Activities include: • 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 • Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Committee meetings • bird monitoring programs at the Tommy Thompson Park Bird Research Station • gull management/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; and, • a licence agreement with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club for sailing activities. 15 FINANCIAL DETAILS The total budget for the 2005 Tommy Thompson Park Interim Management Program is $155,000. Funds are provided through the City of Toronto Waterfront Capital budget. Report prepared by: Tamara Chipperfield, extension 5248 For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243 or Ralph Toninger extension 5366 Date: January 25, 2005 RES. #D7/05 - WATERFRONT REGENERATION TRUST Request by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust to participate in the Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail Collaborative Communications and Promotions Program 2005 -2007. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Cliff Jenkins THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) approve a funding commitment of $5,000 per year, subject to available funding, to the Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail Collaborative Communications and Promotions Program 2005 -2007; AND FURTHER THAT the Waterfront Regeneration Trust be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND Between 2002 - 2004, TRCA was a partner in the implementation of the Waterfront Trail (740 km from Niagara -on- the -lake to Brockville) through the Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail Collaborative Communications and Promotions Program. Major progress was made on a $9.2 million trail infrastructure, funding partnership, trailhead signage, web site design, and promotions and communications. The 2005 -2007 program includes the following activities: 1. Extension of the trail by 140km east of Brockville with key Quebec partner, Vello Quebec. 2. Launch of the new Signature Signage Program for trailheads. 3. Phase Two website re- design including the addition of a resource centre, interactive bulletin board for trail users and a search function on the site. 4. Completion of a 2006 Waterfront User Survey as an update to the 2002 User Survey. 5. Provision of partners' meetings and distribution of monthly newsletter (Ezine). 6. Provision of various promotional tools including brochures, events and website information as well as advertisements in recreational and tourism brochures. 7. Launch of expanded trail in 2007. 16 RATIONALE TRCA's 42km of Lake Ontario shoreline and the various waterfront projects in TRCA's partner municipalities have benefited from being part of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail Collaborative Communications and Promotion Program. Maintaining and building the expanded interest in the waterfront trail has provided significant support for strategic acquisition and key projects (i.e. Port Union, Mimico, Pickering and Ajax). The new Signature Signage Program will include TRCA's logo as a trail partner. Recently, TRCA has had input to the final trail alignment and identification of high profile locations, especially in the City of Toronto, as part of their major waterfront naturalization initiative. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will continue to support the Waterfront Regeneration Trust through our technical staff in addition to our funding. In addition, TRCA will seek Waterfront Regeneration Trust support for key waterfront initiatives in the City of Toronto and Region of Durham (City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax). Other potential partners include CIBC. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for 2005, in the amount of $5,000, is identified in the Toronto Capital Budget. The two following years of the program will be subject to available funding. Report prepared by: Larry Field, extension 5243 For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243 Date: April 1, 2005 RES. #D8/05 - GUILDWOOD PARKWAY EROSION CONTROL PROJECT - PHASE 2 Direction to proceed with construction of the Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Project - Phase 2. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Nancy Stewart THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff initiate construction of the Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Project - Phase 2; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is proposing to carry out remedial erosion control and slope stabilization works along a portion of Lake Ontario shoreline known as the Guildwood Parkway Shoreline Sector, located at the base of the Scarborough Bluffs below Guildwood Parkway in the City of Toronto. This shoreline sector stretches approximately 770 metres along the shoreline, from the Guild Inn property in the west to Morningside Avenue in the east. 17 The Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Project was originally developed in 1987 to provide protection for twenty -three (23) residential dwellings along the Scarborough Bluffs, however due to unresolved property issues, protective works were not completed along the entire length of the Guildwood Parkway sector. Currently, 600 m of the most westerly portion of the Guildwood Parkway sector is provided with shoreline protection in the form of an armourstone revetment, constructed as part of the original Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Project. RATIONALE Phase 2 of the project was initiated in 2004 to complete shoreline stabilization and erosion control works for the remaining nine (9) properties not protected in the first phase. The proposed remedial works will provide protection for 170 m of shoreline, from the end of an existing revetment to below 483 Guildwood Parkway, just west of Morningside Avenue. The objective of the Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Project - Phase 2 is to provide long -term, low maintenance protection against erosion for this sector of shoreline that will reduce the risk to public safety and property; maintain and enhance the existing beach; and improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat conditions wherever possible. On January 17, 2005 TRCA received Class Environmental Assessment approval for the Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Project - Phase 2. The design selected through the Class Environmental Assessment process includes: two very small groynes, a sand and gravel beach, an armourstone beach curb and an offshore breakwater. The western groyne will tie into the existing revetment. This groyne will offer the beach flank protection from wave energy by turning the end of the revetment landward. It will then extend lakeward to increase the offshore extent of the revetment to allow finer grained material to be retained. This will result in the formation of a larger beach profile than currently exists. The offshore breakwater will anchor and thus stabilize the beach cells on either side. The breakwater will be constructed with random armourstone placement with a crest elevation of 76.0 to ensure that it will be visible from the lake to prevent navigational hazards. The crest of the breakwater will be wave swept during severe storm events and therefore constructed with a 2:1 slope on the landward side to withstand overtopping. The beach curb will form a low armourstone wall at the toe of the bluffs. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Upon receipt of all approvals, the project will be phased over the course of five years, due to fiscal constraints. Each phase of in -water construction will take place outside of the in -water construction window, March 31 to July 1. Work will be initiated on the westerly headland in July, 2005. In year two, the offshore breakwater will be constructed. In year three, the easterly headland will be constructed. In years four and five, the construction of the beaches will be completed. 18 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding of $75,000 is identified in the 2005 Toronto Capital Budget and the total project cost is estimated at $880,000. Report prepared by: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 For information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243 Date: March 24, 2005 RES. #D9/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: GUILD INN SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT Direction to proceed with construction of the Guild Inn Shoreline Regeneration Project. Gay Cowbourne Nancy Stewart THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff initiate construction of the Guild Inn Shoreline Regeneration Project; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Guild Inn Shoreline Regeneration Project is located at the base of the Scarborough Bluffs on the north shore of Lake Ontario Shoreline (Easting 645829.05, Northing 4845176.22), in the City of Toronto, Ontario. The project area begins at the foot of Livingston Road and extends east 1,100 m to Galloway Road. The project includes on -site fish habitat compensation, as well as off -site compensation located at Bluffers Park which is located to the west of the project site at the foot of Brimley Road on the shores of Lake Ontario. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has maintained temporary shoreline protection along the shoreline at the foot of the bluffs adjacent to the Guild Inn tablelands for over 20 years. These interim erosion control works have been essential in maintaining an access road which is used to service the Sylvan Ave, South Marine Drive and Guildwood Parkway shoreline sectors. The access road provides the local community safe passage from the top of the bluffs to the shoreline and is used as an informal waterfront trail system. Geotechnical reports and ongoing surveys indicate that several portions of the bluffs along the access road are, or will be, subject to mass wasting. In order to provide a long -term solution to the shoreline erosion and slope instability at the Guild Inn, TRCA completed a Class Environmental Assessment process in 2004. The objectives of this project were to protect the shoreline from erosion, reduce the risk to public safety and infrastructure, enhance the existing passive recreation opportunities, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat conditions and improve aesthetics. 19 RATIONALE The primary objective of the Guild Inn Shoreline Regeneration Project is to provide remedial protection against shoreline erosion by (i) reducing wave energy and enhancing natural processes; (ii) protecting the shore from wave energy; and (iii) stabilizing slopes. Secondary project objectives include the protection of existing recreational uses, improved aesthetics, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat. A number of alternatives to achieve these objectives, including: headland beach systems, revetments, islands and shoals, and improving internal /surface drainage were explored by TRCA through a Class Environmental Assessment process. These alternatives were evaluated and a preferred alternative was selected based upon the ability of the design to achieve the project objectives. The preferred alternative incorporates headlands with dynamic beaches. This alternative offers public access to the water's edge, protects public safety and property, and incorporates habitat improvements. Habitat would be enhanced via the creation of beach cells which emulate natural shoreline conditions, while the offshore islands will shelter the beaches by reducing wave energy and the headlands will prevent the beach substrate from being transported along the shoreline. This shoreline engineering was favoured by the public as it created a more unique shoreline feature which would meet the community's expectations for passive recreation, while satisfying TRCA's interest in creating a shoreline treatment that allows for enhancement of aquatic and terrestrial environments. The headland -beach alternative was also generally considered the more aesthetically pleasing alternative. This option was selected as the final design alternative for the Guild Inn Shoreline Regeneration Project for the following reasons: • lakefilling is limited to headland and beach construction; • project design maximizes the amount of beach and nearshore restoration; • final designs best mimics the natural shoreline profile and historic substrate composition; • creates a transition between the existing armour stone revetment to the east and the beach and groyne system to the west; • project objectives are consistent with the key management recommendations of the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan developed for the section of waterfront between Frenchman's Bay and Tommy Thompson Park; • meets goals, objectives and principles of the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy; • improves public safety; and • creates opportunities for fish habitat enhancements and fish habitat creation. 20 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Upon receipt of all approvals, the Guild Inn Shoreline Regeneration Project will be phased over the course of five years, due to fiscal constraints. Each phase of in -water construction will take place outside of the in -water construction window, March 31 to July 1. Work will be initiated from east to west to ensure minimal disturbance to completed sections of the project. In July, 2005 TRCA proposes to commence construction on the most easterly headland. In year two, the first and second headland and the breakwaters between them will be constructed. In year three, the third and fourth headland and the breakwaters will be completed. In year four, the fifth headland will be constructed, as well as the associated breakwater. Work will also begin on the revetment. In year five, the remaining work, including the construction of the beaches will be completed. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding of $150,000 is identified in the 2005 Toronto Capital Budget and the total project cost is estimated at $2,550,000. Report prepared by: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 For information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243 Date: April 01, 2005 RES. #D10 /05 - ASIAN LONGHORNED BEETLE REGULATED AREA Ministry of Natural Resources Funding to Implement a Revegetation Plan. Revegetation Plan for the Asian Longhorned Beetle regulated area. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Cliff Jenkins THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report describing the revegetation plan for the Asian Longhorned Beetle regulated area, be approved; THAT a detailed proposal be sent to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), City of Vaughan and City of Toronto for replanting projects in the Asian Longhorned Beetle regulated area totalling $350,000; THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect hereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the execution of any documents; AND FURTHER THAT a letter be sent to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) reiterating an earlier request from the Asian Longhorned Beetle Intergovernmental Task Force that CFIA increase their funding compensation for municipal trees to $300 per unit to be consistent with the funds they allocate for tree replacement on private land. CARRIED 21 BACKGROUND In September, 2003, trees infested by the Asian Long- Horned Beetle (ALHB) (Anoplophora glabripennis), were found for the first time in an industrial area close to the Steeles Avenue and Weston Road intersection on the City of Toronto -City of Vaughan boundary. The ALHB poses a great risk to our forest ecosystem. Attempts to eradicate the ALHB have resulted in the removal of more than 15,000 trees in the Cities of Toronto and Vaughan between November, 2003 and March, 2004. At Authority Meeting #6/04, held on June 25, 2004, the resolution #A193/04 was approved as follows: 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; 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. Re- planting new trees in the infested area is a priority in order to protect and renew declining urban forests. The priority for re- establishing urban forests in the regulated areas involves efforts to increase natural linkage corridors by enlarging and enhancing existing treed areas, and establishing vegetation cover in untreed areas within the ALHB regulated zone. Planting a diversity of native non -host trees and shrubs will reduce the threats posed by invasive pests such as the ALHB. The ALHB Revegetation Subcommittee has proposed planting sites in the City of Vaughan, City of Toronto and on TRCA property. The TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage System target model was used to assist with the selection of sites that would most benefit the terrestrial natural heritage system. These sites are illustrated in Attachment 1. York Region is also a collaborative partner of the ALHB Revegetation Subcommittee and has been involved with the development of this revegetation plan. However, York Region did not put forth any recommended planting sites because the region only owns several large road corridors in the regulated zone and only a few trees were directly affected by the infestation. Nevertheless, staff of the Natural Heritage and Forestry Services Section at York Region is in support of this undertaking. 22 In response to the loss of tree cover within Southern Ontario due to the presence of outbreaks of Asian Longhorned Beetle and Emerald Ash Borer (EAB), the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has proposed $1 million of provincial funding to replace and establish forest cover in an effort to reduce the impact that these threats have caused. Control and population monitoring programs, spearheaded by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and supported by their working partners, are ongoing. MNR has proposed that approximately $350,000 of the $1 million be allocated to address forest cover and habitat Toss within the ALHB regulated zone, covering portions of the City of Toronto and City of Vaughan. As a partner in the control and eradication of the ALHB, TRCA also has a mandated interest in ensuring the infestation is contained and eradicated and, further, to contribute towards the regeneration of affected areas - both in terms of forest canopy and habitat value. TRCA's extensive land holdings provide a significant opportunity for enhancing and maintaining these values within the ALHB regulated area. CFIA has offered financial compensation to replace trees which were ordered destroyed due to the ALHB infestation. Private landowners are eligible to claim up to $300 per tree, including installation. Municipalities are eligible to claim up to $150 per tree, including installation for street trees. However, the City of Vaughan continues to object to this level of compensation since it does not cover the real cost of street tree replacement. Public landowners can also apply to CFIA for tree replacement in natural areas. The maximum allowance is $40 per tree, including installation. TRCA has until the end of 2005 to apply to CFIA to claim $2,000 for the 50 trees ordered destroyed in the vicinity of Black Creek Pioneer Village. Although every effort has been made to encourage private landowners to replace trees with native non -host species, it is likely that some of the allocated funding will not be applied for. Therefore, it is important that CFIA maintain the public's attention on this issue to maximize the number of trees replanted on private property. However, if there are unclaimed funds for private land planting, the ALHB Intergovernmental Task Force has asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada to make the remaining funds available for plantings on public land to reduce the net loss of urban forest cover. No response has been received to date. The CFIA funding does not cover replacement planting on provincially -owned land including rights of way, utility corridors and woodlands, or on Canadian National Railway (CN) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) rights of way. Since there has been a loss of thousands of trees on transportation corridors, the ALHB Intergovernmental Task Force has also sent letters to CN, CP and the Ontario Realty Corporation requesting their assistance in re- establishing trees on their land or allocate plantings to other sites to reduce the net loss of urban forest cover. No response has been received to date. Ministry of Natural Resources Funding Criteria MNR is committed to the re- establishment of natural heritage values in the ALHB regulated area. The following are offered for consideration as mandatory criteria, all of which would need to be met prior to release of MNR funding for tree planting in this program. 23 1. Availability of MNR funds in the amount of $350,000.00; 2. A commitment from the proponent and landowner to provide MNR with access to the planting site and information on request regarding the project's implementation and progress relative to the proposal submission; 3. A clear proposal from the proponent with full accounting of the trees to be planted, budget allocation, budget sources, map(s), project schedule and description demonstrating that the tree planting will: a) not be already covered by the federal compensation /replacement program; b) be in a regulated primary or secondary zone of ordered tree removal (first priority) or in the remainder of the regulated area (second priority subject to increased precedence with confirmation of important connectivity or other natural heritage value enhancement such as linking disconnected woodlands /wetlands, providing cover near watercourses, or improving the native species composition of remnant woodland communities) www. inspection. gc. ca /english /plaveg/ protect / pestrava / asialong /mc /20040916zone2.jpg); c) be on lands with ownership commitment and land use planning compatibility for long -term tree cover as shown by the municipality and accepted by MNR; d) occur with appropriate site preparation, protection and tending as approved by a forestry professional; e) use MNR funds only for species native to southern Ontario and suited to the site conditions, with source locations identified and acceptable to MNR (current non -hosts native to southern Ontario include species of oak, hickory, basswood, beech, cherry, ash, walnut, butternut, honey - locust, Kentucky coffee -tree, tulip -tree, hop- hornbeam, serviceberry, blue- beech, plum, black gum, magnolia, red mulberry, sassafras, crab apple, speckled alder, paw -paw, American chestnut, redbud, dogwood, sumac, nannyberry, witch - hazel, hawthorn, wahoo burningbush, button -bush, bladdernut, hop -tree, pine, spruce, hemlock, cedar, fir, juniper and tamarack); f) not use host species (maple, buckeye, elm, birch, willow, poplar, sycamore, hackberry or mountain -ash) until approved by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency; g) apply at least 75% of MNR planting stock funding to the use of seed, seedlings, whips, bare -root, container or balled and burlapped stock without wire baskets; and 24 h) apply at least 75% of MNR planting funding to enlarge or enhance an existing treed area or to establish, in a currently untreed area, at least 50 trees at an average spacing not greater than three metres (ie. a rate of not less than 1,100 trees per hectare) and justify any other arrangement for the remainder on the basis of natural heritage values (eg. the only way to build treed connections through the urban area). The ALHB Revegetation Subcommittee recommended that a joint proposal by the City of Vaughan, City of Toronto and the TRCA be prepared and sent to MNR with a request for funding. The ALHB Intergovernmental Task Force, at their meeting held on March 9, 2005, received a summary of the proposal and referred it to Vaughan Council for approval. A summary of the proposal is as follows: Objective: Increase natural corridor linkages within the Asian Longhorned Beetle regulated area. Description Sites Details Cost Estimate City of Vaughan a) Humber River - Hwy. 7 north to Woodbridge Ave. • large caliper trees including oak, basswood, ash and sumac • streambank planting using large caliper trees to frame triangular patches of smaller trees and shrubs $15,000 b) Marco Park - Rutherford Road and Pine Valley Drive • large caliper trees including Kentucky coffee -tree, beech, redbud, oak, walnut and white spruce • increases forest cover in the park, enhances natural corridor, provides visual barrier and slows surface runoff $32,000 c) Weston Downs Stormwater Pond - north of Langstaff Road between Weston Road and Pine Valley Drive • 40 to 250 cm bareroot and potted stock including oak, walnut, butternut, hickory, alder, tamarack, spruce, dogwood and nannyberry • naturalize the pond to enhance linkages to adjacent forest cover $31,000 d) Boulevard Corridors to enhance linkage between forests • build treed connections through urban areas $60,000 TOTAL TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED IN VAUGHAN 5,995 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE TOTAL REQUESTED FUNDS $138,000 $120,000 25 Description Sites Details Cost Estimate City of Toronto a) Emery Works Yard - north of Finch Avenue and west of Weston Road • enhances linkage between the Emery Works Yard and the Humber riparian zone • 15 caliper trees and large evergreens • 200 bare root deciduous • 20 bare root evergreens • 100 shrubs $22,500 b) Lindylou Park - south of Finch Avenue and west of Weston Road • enhances linkage between Emery Works Yard and the Humber riparian zone • 20 caliper trees and large evergreens • 440 bare root deciduous • 40 bare root evergreens • 200 bare root shrubs $37,500 c) Major roadways in the Steeles Avenue and Weston Road area • enhances forest cover along roads to link existing forests and the riparian zone of the Humber River • 165 caliper trees $40,000 TOTAL TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED IN TORONTO 1,200 Plant Material Quantity Caliper Trees and Large Evergreens 200 Deciduous Trees - Bare Root Stock 640 Evergreens - Bare Root Stock 60 Shrubs - Bare Root Stock 300 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $100,000 Description Sites Details Cost Estimate Toronto and Region Conservation Authority a) Elder Mills - southeast corner of Rutherford Road and Hwy. 27 • 40 ha site • enhances valley land core forests and forest connectivity • 8,160 deciduous whips bare root 100 -150 cm • 1,300 wildlife shrubs • 3,473 coniferous 3 + 0 seedlings (hand planted) • 15,300 coniferous 3 + 0 seedings (machine planted) • 1,257 deciduous 2 + -0 seedlings • 1,172 coniferous FC /B &B 60 -100 cm $230,000 TOTAL TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED ON TRCA PROPERTY 30,662 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $468,000 26 FINANCIAL DETAILS The estimated cost to implement the three replanting projects proposed by the City of Toronto, City of Vaughan and the TRCA is $468,000. MNR has tentatively agreed to contribute $350,000. Of this sum, both the City of Toronto and the City of Vaughan have been allocated $100,000 each, and TRCA has been allocated $150,000. The remaining funds must be raised from other sources. For example, the Regional Municipality of York and Tree Canada may contribute some funding but the sum is not known at this time. TRCA staff will also seek other funding sources for the TRCA revegetation site such as the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund and through in -kind contributions from local residents and groups. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Finalize a funding agreement with MNR to carry out the work; • Confirm other funding sources; • Obtain approvals from York Region and the City of Vaughan to access the site scheduled for planting by TRCA staff; • ALHB Intergovernmental Task Force to follow up with CFIA regarding the re- allocation of unspent private land planting funds to public lands; • ALHB Intergovernmental Task Force to follow up with Ontario Realty Corporation, Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway regarding their participation in replanting their properties, or other sites, to reduce the net loss of urban forest cover; • Send a letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency reiterating an earlier request from the Asian Longhorned Beetle Intergovernmental Task Force that CFIA increase their funding allocation for municipal trees to $300 per unit to be consistent with the funds they allocate for tree replacement on private land. Report prepared by: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 For Information contact: Dena Lewis, extension 5225 Date: March 21, 2005 Attachments: 1 27 Attachment 1 3Conraitioon for rho IbMs toy TRCA's Target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System W i t h i n A s i a n L o n g h o r n e d 1=1.__ 9 1 F woo t• Legend ■ Non- BIgbie Sites • City of Toronto Tree Advocacy Program A Reneaz¢NzatlarvRaatoratbn City of Vaughan & York Region Increase Streetscape Canopy -" Watercourse Wiley and Stream Corridor Restoration =NM aninnareamfiertadmvio wIr►rrriwrmloom aim r nrrrimom sow no raaswir rwr w4Yn..M+..wwMYirrWw+ $4.01141115.1110 wVe0WWW oow4r - MfYYY1 .BIMirr�r Y. M.r.+i.6411044 Aliiww iY}IIiIM • Aelan Longhomed Beette Regulated Area Existing Forest al Existing Wetland NH Expansion Needs ▪ Higher Value • Lower Vakie 28 RES. #D11/05 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT Establishment of a Community Liaison Committee for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Cliff Jenkins THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) be established to assist the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and consultants in maintaining contact with community residents, groups, associations and organizations; THAT the CLC provide community input into the project and in particular to the design of the public consultation process; THAT staff be directed to work with the Technical Advisory Committee to identify community members for the CLC and in particular with the citizen members, Cynthia Wilkey and John Wilson; THAT the Terms of Reference including the interim membership be approved; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority for formal endorsement of the membership of the CLC by June 2005. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #9/02, held on October 25, 2003, Resolution #A246/02 was approved as follows: WHEREAS the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) has requested that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a delivery agreement with TWRC to undertake certain works for the Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower Don River; AND WHEREAS it is in the interest of TRCA under its authority and mandate as set out in the Conservation Authorities Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. 27) to enter into such an agreement; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority agrees to enter into the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization - Naturalization and Flood Protection For The Lower Don Delivery Agreement, subject to all terms and conditions being finalized in a manner satisfactory to Authority staff and the Authority's solicitors, Gardiner Roberts LLP; AND FURTHER THAT Authority officials be authorized and directed to take all necessary actions as may be required, including the signing of documents, for the execution of the Delivery Agreement. 29 The Delivery Agreement for the Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower Don consists of two separate projects, each requiring their own separate Environmental Assessment (EA) process: the Class EA for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project; and the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project. To facilitate stakeholder and agency comment through the EA process for each of these projects, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was authorized at Authority Meeting #9/01 held on November 23, 2001, with the approval of Resolution #A243/01 as follows: THAT a Lower Don Environmental Assessment Technical Advisory Committee be established to provide effective agency and regulatory input into the Environmental Assessment and Functional Design Study for the Flood Protection and Naturalization of the Mouth of the Don; THAT the Terms of Reference, including the membership be approved; THAT the Terms of Reference be reviewed following the development of a contract between the Waterfront Revitalization Corporation /Interim Corporation and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to determine any changes; THAT any costs incurred by the TRCA as a result of the establishment of this committee be attributed to the Lower Don EA project; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Board as required. The first project, the Class EA for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project, was initiated in March 2003. A key component of the Conservation Authority Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Protection Projects requires the establishment of a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) to provide public advice and support throughout the Class EA process. A CLC for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project was approved at Authority meeting #7/03, held on September 26, 2003 through Resolution #A198/03, in part, 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;... 30 The second project, the Individual EA for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project (DMNP Project), was initiated in January 2005, with the signing of a Letter of Commencement between TRCA and Gartner Lee Limited. On February 28, 2005, a TAC meeting was held to initiate the DMNP Project EA. It was recommended at the TAC meeting that a CLC be established as part of the DMNP Project EA, and that community representatives Cindy Wilkey (West Don Lands Committee) and John Wilson (Task Force to Bring Back the Don) help staff identify the appropriate community representatives to sit on the CLC. The Individual Environmental Assessment process, which is being undertaken for the DMNP Project, does not require the establishment of such a committee. However, given the benefits derived from the CLC throughout the Class EA for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project, it was deemed that a similar CLC for the DMNP Project would provide similar results with regards to public consultation. The CLC Terms of Reference for the DMNP Project outlined in Attachment 1 has been revised with a reduced scope of work to better integrate with the public consultation elements of the Individual Environmental Assessment. Included in the Terms of Reference below, are the initial representatives to sit on the CLC for the DMNP Project. Cindy Wilkey and John Wilson will advise staff as to the remaining composition of the committee over the next couple of months. Staff will also consult with local City of Toronto Councillors regarding the composition of the CLC. Staff will report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board as new members are appointed to the CLC. Report prepared by: Ken Dion, extension 5230 For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Date: April 11, 2005 Attachments: 1 31 Attachment 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE COMMUNITY LIAISON COMMITTEE (CLC) FOR AN INDIVIDUAL EA FOR THE NATURALIZATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION OF THE DON RIVER MOUTH PURPOSE OF THE CLC The main purposes of the CLC is to: • assist the TRCA in obtaining public input; • identify issues of concern regarding the project; • review information and provide comments to the TRCA to be utilized during the planning and design process; and • disseminate information. FUNCTIONS OF THE CLC Specifically, the functions of the CLC will: • provide input in defining the project objectives, range of alternatives and alternative methods, and evaluation criteria as part of the Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference process; • identify items of public concern and interest with regard to the impact and design of the proposed alternatives; • provide direct input on the proposed alternatives to the Conservation Authority throughout the planning and design process; • assist in the design of the public consultation framework; and • attend and assist at public meetings organized by the Authority to facilitate the resolution of concerns relating to the proposed project. MEMBERSHIP OF THE CLC The TRCA has long been involved with issues within the Don Watershed, particularly along the Lower Don River. During this period of involvement, the TRCA has established relationships with many of the key community associations, groups and interests within the study area. The TRCA will invite representatives from these interest groups to participate on the CLC. A preliminary listing of CLC members is provided below. The Task Force to Bring Back the Don - Don Watershed Regeneration Council Toronto Field Naturalists - Toronto Bay Initiative - Toronto Ornithological Club - Gooderham & Worts Neighbourhood Association - Julie Beddoes Southeast Downtown Economic Redevelopment Initiative - Paul Young and Terry Lee - Contacts for Port Lands Partnership, Port lands Coalition, South Riverdale Revitalization Project, South Riverdale Community Health, Queen- Broadview Village BIA, Destination Carlaw, Citizens for a Safe Environment and FOLD 32 Toronto Cycling Committee - Clay MacFaden Corktown Residents and Business Association Riverside Area Residents Association - Mary Kelly Citizens for the Old Town - Rollo Myers St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association - West Don Lands Committee - Woodgreen Community Services - Mississauga's of New Credit - Toronto Metis Council - Councillor Pam McConnell, Ward 28 Councillor Paula Fletcher, Ward 30 MPP George Smitherman, Riding 13 MPP Marilyn Churley, Riding 15 MP Bill Graham, Riding 13 MP Jack Layton, Riding 15 Members of the CLC will be asked to recommend additional groups to participate on the Committee if they believe key members of the community are missing. The committee will be held to approximately 20 active members. APPOINTMENT OF CLC MEMBERS Formal invitations will be sent requesting the appointment of members to form the CLC. A final list of members will be provided to the Authority at a subsequent meeting. MEETINGS It is anticipated that the CLC will meet on weekday evenings approximately six times a year and will be established for the duration of the Individual EA process commencing in May 2005. Meetings will be held at an appropriate centralized facility, preferably at Metro Hall, or as near as possible. The formality of a CLC's structure and composition will be proportional to the amount of public interest in an undertaking. Given the high level of public interest and exposure for this project, rules of order will be established, including the election of a Chair, and a spokesperson and facilitator (if it is deemed necessary by the CLC). 33 SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES. #D12/05 - PRESTON LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2004 The completion of the Preston Lake Management Plan. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Preston Lake Management Plan 2004 be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Preston Lake, one of many kettle lakes on the Oak Ridges Moraine, is located on the northeast side of Woodbine Avenue and Bloomington Road in the Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville and the Regional Municipality of York. For decades, the people living around the lake have been true stewards of the land, the lake, and the fish and wildlife that share it with them. For a number of years, residents of Preston Lake have been actively involved in restoration activities and monitoring of the water quality and aquatic and terrestrial habitats in their community. At a meeting of the Whitchurch - Stouffville Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), the members, including residents of Preston Lake, discussed with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff the potential steps that could be taken to develop a management plan for Preston Lake. Working with members of Pride in Preston Lake (PPL), a not - for - profit corporation that represented the local residents, TRCA staff developed a work plan and approached a number of funding partners to accomplish the task. With a total budget of $25,000 including funding from Human Resources Development Canada, a TRCA staff person was hired to coordinate this community stewardship project. Many other partners including the Region of York, Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville, York Environmental Stewardship Council, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, Rouge Park, TD Friends of the Environment Foundation and TRCA joined with PPL to contribute funds, in kind support and expertise to move this initiative forward. During the research and writing of the plan, a number of in- the - ground objectives were implemented. In 2003, the following stewardship demonstration projects and monitoring initiatives were undertaken: • water quality analysis; • installation of habitat features including wood duck boxes and an osprey platform; • expansion of fish habitat through the construction of fish cribs; • Earth Day native tree and shrub plantings for shoreline restoration and naturalization; • breeding bird survey; • benthic invertebrate survey conducted by the Ontario Stewardship Rangers; • fish community analysis; • participated in the creation of the Preston Lake Homeowner's Guide; • two conservation seminars for the Preston Lake community; and, • a Preston Lake residents questionnaire 34 In December of 2004, the management plan was edited and desktop published in both a CD format and limited hard copy reports. Two hundred copies of the CD were provided to the President of PPL for distribution to the 195 homes in the community. In January 2005, a set of one report and CD were sent to each of the project partners with a letter of thanks from Dick O'Brien, Chair, of TRCA. Copies of the CD will be made available at the meeting. Based on identified goals and objectives, the Preston Lake Management Plan suggests best management practices and priorities to protect, enhance and rehabilitate the natural kettle lake ecosystem within the Oak Ridges Moraine. A number of recommendations were prioritized under the following headings: • Healthy Water Quality and Quantity; • Shoreline Enhancements; • Landform Conservation; • Habitat Expansion; • Canada Goose Management; and, • Lawn Care and Maintenance. In March 2005, TRCA provided the President of PPL with Next Steps: A Resource Guide for the Residents of Preston Lake. This binder is a companion document to the Preston Lake Management Plan which provides practical "how to" information to the residents as they work to implement the plan. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA has been requested to make a presentation at the Annual General Meeting of PPL at the end of April and to Whitchurch- Stouffville Council on May 3, 2005. Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5638 For Information contact: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5638 Date: April 04, 2005 RES. #D13/05 - GREENBELT PLAN, 2005 Summary of the final approved Greenbelt Plan, 2005 Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report titled Greenbelt Plan, 2005 be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff have been actively involved in reviewing, commenting and meeting with provincial staff and other stakeholders on various aspects of the Greenbelt Plan for the past 16 months. Previous board reports included: 35 • Executive #12/04, January 16, 2004; Res. #B197 /03 - Bill 27, Greenbelt Protection Act, 2003; • Executive #6/04, July 9, 2004; Res. #B155 /04 - Towards a Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt: Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper; • Authority #10/04, November 26, 2004; Res. #A306 /04 - Greenbelt Draft Plan and Greenbelt Act, 2004; and • Authority #11/04, January 7, 2005; Res. #A327 /04 - Greenbelt Draft Plan. The Greenbelt Act, 2005 was passed by the Legislature on February 24, 2005 with the final Greenbelt Plan approved by Order in Council on February 28, 2005. In addition to the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and the Greenbelt Plan, two related regulations made under the Act were also approved to designate certain lands as the Greenbelt Area and to provide transitional provisions for certain prescribed applications, matters or proceedings that were commenced prior to the effective date of the Greenbelt Plan (December 16, 2004), but for which no decision had yet been made. Highlights of the Greenbelt Plan, 2005 The Greenbelt Plan effectively prohibits new urban (residential, industrial, commercial) growth with the plan area, except within existing settlements (or their approved boundaries) in the Protected Countryside (PC). The plan does provide policies to allow certain types of development to occur in the PC, but that development is restricted to uses that serve the agricultural and rural community or recreational, infrastructure and natural resource uses. Staff are still in the process of reviewing the Act and Plan to assess its implications for TRCA watersheds, policies and programs. The main structure of the document and its policy framework appears to have been largely carried forward from the October 2004 draft to the final plan. The plan includes greenbelt area lands designated as "Protected Countryside ", with specific policy sections for an Agricultural System, a Natural System and Settlement Areas. A General Policies section includes policies for Infrastructure, Natural Resources, Existing Uses, Lot Creation and Non - Agricultural Uses. Attachment 1 provides a summary of the detailed policies in each topic area. Several of the recommendations that TRCA proposed through the consultation process have been incorporated into the final plan, including: • the addition of the Boyd complex south of Rutherford Road to the Greenbelt Area; • a new document section on the Rouge watershed and Rouge Park, confirming a 600m corridor for the Little Rouge River and requiring planning and resource management matters within the Protected Countryside to comply with the provisions of both the Greenbelt Plan and the Rouge North Management Plan; • the addition to the Greenbelt lands of additional lands that are areas of high groundwater recharge in the vicinity of the Lake Iroquois shoreline in the City of Pickering; • clarifying the requirements for Natural Heritage and Hydrologic evaluations for development proposed within 120m of Key Natural Heritage or Key Hydrologic Features; • requiring that major development within the Protected Countryside be required to conduct a water balance assessment; and • that transitional policies be formulated for prescribed applications. 36 Some of the key policies from the Greenbelt Plan which are of particular importance to TRCA include: • refinement of the Natural Heritage System boundary through the municipal official plan conformity process; • where conservation authority or other regulations or hazards exceed the policies of the Greenbelt Plan, the most restrictive will apply; • that municipalities and conservation authorities "should ensure" that watershed plans are completed and used to guide planning and development decisions; • protected features generally match those of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and no development is permitted within the feature or its vegetation protection zone (subject to a few exceptions, such as infrastructure); • settlement areas outside the Greenbelt can not expand into the plan area; • sewage and water infrastructure are to reflect the standards and targets of water budgets and watershed plans; and • a requirement for stormwater management plans for development in Protected Countryside and that the plans must comply with the watershed plan and water budget. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff continue to review and assess the implications of the Greenbelt Plan, attend training sessions hosted by the province and consult with other conservation authority and municipal planners. The Greenbelt Plan has implications to 2 current Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearings in which TRCA has a role - the Rouge Park Amendment OPA 116 hearing in Markham and the North Leslie hearing in Richmond Hill. The Rouge Park OPA 116 prehearing on April 1st was deferred to July 21st in order to allow Town of Markham staff to meet with the province and assess the implications of the Greenbelt Plan, and any potential requirements for plan conformity efforts and public process. There is a prehearing date set for North Leslie on April 13th, at which time there will be discussion regarding the implications of the Greenbelt Plan and how the agencies and landowners want to proceed. Since the Greenbelt Plan prescribes the natural heritage system, we anticipate a discussion about a reduced role and re- scoping of the issues for OMB hearing continuance. Issues regarding groundwater and lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine are still, for example, outstanding as well as others. Should staff determine any other major implications to TRCA programs, work plans or budgets from the implementation of the Greenbelt Plan, staff will report back at that time and will continue to update on OMB hearing matters. Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361 For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361 Date: March 09, 2005 Attachments: 1 37 Greenbelt Plan 2005: Key Policy Summary GREENBELT PLAN DESIGNATIONS GOVERNING POLICIES GREENBELT PLAN SUBDESIGNATIONS SUMMARY OF MAIN POLICIES ORM ORM Conservation Plan N/A - as In ORMCP NE Niagara Escarpment Plan N/A - as In NEP PROTECTED COUNTRYSIDE PROTECTED COUNTRYSIDE GEOGRAPHIC- SPECIFIC POLICIES 3.1 AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM - Specialty Crop - None in TRCA junsdiction • Prime Agricultural - No non - agricultural uses, Re- designations restricted to settlement expansion, infrastructure & resource use - Allows full range of normal farm practices, agnculture related & 2ndry uses. - Rural Areas - Allows agriculture, tounsm, recreational & resource -based indust/comm uses (defined by OP) + settlement expansion. - No new multiple lots /units for permanent dwellings i e No estate residential, adult lifestyle communities. 3.2 NATURAL SYSTEM - Natural Hentage System - Existing agricultural and related uses & normal farm practices to continue - New agncultural buildings permitted in NHS but outside of features. - Other Rural Areas uses permitted in NHS subject to stnct criteria' connectrvny, impervious surface limns, etc - NHS boundary can be refined through OP conformity - NHS does NOT apply within existing boundary of Settlement Area, but DOES apply in Settlement Area expansions • If CA or other regulations/hazards exceed Greenbelt Plan policies, the most restrictive apply - watershed planning, stewardship and expanded VPZs are encouraged for urban nver valley external connections - Water Resource System - Municipalities & CAs'should ensure' watershed plans are completed /used to guide planning /development decisions. - Municipalities to protect vulnerable surface & groundwater areas in accordance with Provincial direction on source water protection. - Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features - Protected features generally match those in ORMCP+ Alvars. - No Development within feature & Vegetation Protection Zone IF within NHS (conservation uses & other exceptions) - KHF beyond NHS but within Protected Countryside afforded same protection as if within NHS - KNHF beyond NHS but within Protected Countryside defined by & subject to PPS - KHF + Fish Habitat + Significant Woodlands to have minimum Vegetation Protection Zone (VPZ) of 30m - Development within 120m of KNHF within NHS requires NH & Hydrologic Evaluation to identify appropnate VPZ. - Development within 120m of KHF (anywhere) requires NH & Hydrologic Evaluation to identify appropnate VPZ. - Existing agricultural structures and dwellings may expand into features subject to no alternative, minimwm impacts • New agricultural buildings NOT permitted within features, require 30m VPZ, exempt from establishing natural cover - NEW section on Rouge Watershed & Park - supports Rouge North Mgmt Plan & 600m Little Rouge corridor 3.3 PARKLAND, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS - Encourage development of publicly accessible parkland, open space & trail system & support connectivity to NHS 3.4 SETTLEMENT AREAS - Towns and Villages + Hamlets - Range of uses permitted, Policies and boundaries are as found in municipal planning documents . Settlement areas outside Green Belt can NOT expand into Plan Area - Expansion of T &V possible at 10 yr review if sustainable local full municipal servicing, but NOT onto NHS - Infill and minor rounding out of Hamlets is permitted I. luawq e1Id PROTECTED COUNTRYSIDE PROTECTED COUNTRYSIDE GENERAL 4 1 Non - Agricultural uses - General - Recreational - Shoreline - Not permitted In Specialty Crop or Prime Agricultural Lands - Permitted in Rural Areas only when not impacting on features and functions, servicing and siting cntena listed - New or expanded major Recreational uses in NHS requires Vegetation Enhancement Plan - New or expanded major Recreational use in Protected Countryside requires conservation plan for water, nutrients etc - No associated residential dwellings will be permmed with recreational uses (except for employees) - small -scale structures for recreational uses permrtted In KNHF & KHF subject to minimum Impacts - Shoreline Areas defined as areas of existing /approved shoreline development - only Rouge mouth in TRCA'n 4 2 Infrastructure - General - Sewage & Water - SWM - Permitted where rt supports existing development in the GB, or to accommodate long -term growth outside - Must avoid KNHF & KHF, unless no reasonable alternative; optimize use of infrastructure corridors - use best practices to minimize impacts and maintain/Improve connectNity In NHS. - Sewage & Water infrastructure to reflect standards and targets of water budgets and watershed plans. - extensions of Lake -based sewer and water to settlements currently without, NOT permitted unless health issues - SWM ponds prohibited in KNHF & KHF and VPZ EXCEPT for major valleys connecting ORM to L Ontario - in these areas, naturalrzed SWM ponds are permitted provided a minimum 30m from stream edge and in VPZ of abuttlng KNHF or KHF - SWM plan required for development/site alteration in Protected Countryside, must comply with w/s plan & w/budget 4 3 Natural Resources - Renewable resource uses (eg forestry, water taking) permitted across GB, must comply with w/s plan & w/budget - Non - renewable (eg aggregates) not permitted in some features, and must demonstrate no adverse effects on water resources or natural system linkages - Higher standard for rehab. than under PPS. 4 5 Existing Uses - All lawfully existing uses, including single dwellings on zoned lots of record, are permitted. - Expansions to existing buildings and accesory uses outside Settlement Areas are permitted if no new urban servicing is required and best efforts to avoid features/minimize impacts. 4 6 Lot Creation - Permitted for uses allowed by the Plan, for conveyance to public bodies, and minor lot adjustments with no fragmentation of features - In Specialty Crop and Prime Agricultural Lands, only permitted for existing agnculture- related uses or surplus farm dwellings, subject to minimum lot sizes 5. IMPLEMENTATION - Transition & Municipal Implementation - All land use applications commenced on /after Dec. 16/04 are required to conform to the Greenbelt Plan - Minister may pass transition regulations for applications commenced prior to Dec 16/04 and where no decision made. - Municipalities are required to amend their OP in conformity with Greenbelt Plan - OP conformity amendment to include policies + maps of boundaries of NHS, KNHF, KHF, VPZ, WHPA, Vulnerable areas - Except for agncultural and aggregate uses, municipalities may be more restnctive than Plan's requirements - Boundaries - Outer boundary established by cabinet regulation, as defined by Surveyor General - Ont Reg XX105 - Plan Review - To be done every 10 years, coordinated with the reviews of the NEP and ORMCP - Modifications to urban boundanes may only be considered with comprehensive municipal jusoficahon /growth study - Plan Amendments - Can only be proposed by the Minister and are subject to Cabinet approval for Protected Countryside - Can not reduce the total land area of the Plan. - Considered only at 10 year review (or earlier d significant arcurrrstances warrant) • Advisory Council - Province may establish a council with an evolving mandate to coordinate multi - Jurisdictional issues (eg Trails, Implementation issues), give input to 10 year review and establishment/monitoring performance measures of Plan RES. #D14/05 - PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT Provide a summary of key changes in the Provincial Policy Statement issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, which came into effect March 1, 2005, that relate to the mandate and programs of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the Provincial Policy Statement be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The following comments were provided to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on the Provincial Policy Statement: Draft Policies issued June 1, 2004 through Resolution #B160/04, from Executive Committee Meeting #7/04, held on August 6, 2004: THAT the Province of Ontario be advised that with respect to the proposed Draft Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, TRCA: • commends and supports the province for incorporating several previous TRCA comments such as using wording that better balances economic, environmental and community issues; significantly enhances the policies for water; and, adds new policies requiring targets for intensification, redevelopment and minimum densities,and the undertaking of a comprehensive review prior to the alteration of settlement area boundaries; • recommends strengthening the language used in many of the policies from "should" to "will' or from "promote" to "require ", particularly in policies 1.3.3 (d), 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.1 and the last sentence of part IV; • recommends that a new policy be added to section 2.1 - Natural Heritage, which recognizes the importance of locally significant natural heritage systems in supporting the ecological integrity of provincially significant features and areas, and which directs municipalities to plan for and protect a locally significant natural heritage system as an integral and sustainable component of a well - planned and complete community; • recommends that policy 1.1.1.4 (b) be amended to incorporate the additional criteria of financial and ecological sustainability; • recommends that policies 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 (b) #4 (v) be amended to incorporate the term "natural heritage system"; • recommends that in policy 2.2 - Water, the term "sensitive" be replaced with "significant"; • recommends that in part 4.0, that #5 be amended to "encourage" municipalities to go beyond the minimum standards of the PPS, and that #8 be amended to include the Conservation Authorities Act; • recommends that policy and guidelines for Special Policy Area (SPA) be refined to include clarity around increased intensification in these areas and requirements for risk management; 40 • recommends that policies be developed to encourage the use of green building technologies that reduce energy consumption and improve air quality, including provisions for renewable energy sources; Provincial Policy Statement - Issues March 1, 2005 As noted in the approved resolution, staff were generally positive about the changes being proposed in the draft Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). While only some of the above " word - smithing" comments were incorporated into the new PPS that was issued by the Province of Ontario on March 1, 2005, several of the improvements noted in the draft PPS remained in the final version, with a few additional significant changes that will be of benefit to the work of TRCA. Positive changes that were carried forward from the draft to the final PPS include: • the requirement from Bill 26 (Strong Communities Act) that decisions affecting planning matters "shall be consistent with" the PPS; • a significant expansion of the PPS section 2.2 Water, which lays the foundation for source protection planning, and includes direction to protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by using the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for planning; • a better balancing of economic, social and environmental policies; and • requiring municipalities to identify specific targets for intensification, redevelopment and minimum densities within existing built -up areas and as a prerequisite to expanding urban boundaries. Improvements to the final PPS regarding intensification within Special Policy Areas (SPA) are reflective of the ongoing discussions between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Natural Resources and TRCA staff over the past year and the comments made on the draft PPS. It is the opinion of staff that these changes clarify the province's role and direction on development within a SPA. In policy 3.1.3 of the PPS, the province has confirmed that the designation of a SPA, and any change or modification to the site - specific policies or boundaries applying to a SPA, must be approved by the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Natural Resources prior to an approval authority approving such changes or modifications. The province has provided further clarity on the issue of increased intensification within these areas by adding the following sentence to the definition of a SPA: "A Special Policy Area is not intended to allow for new or intensified development and site alteration if a community has feasible opportunities for development outside the floodplain." In addition, the matter of intensification within natural hazards has also been addressed within the Building Strong Communities section of the PPS. Policy 1.1.3.3 - Settlement Areas has been expanded by the following "Intensification and redevelopment shall be directed in accordance with the policies of Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources and Section 3: Protecting Public Health and Safety." Furthermore, policy 1.1.3.4 has been added which states that "Appropriate development standards should be promoted which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety." The addition of these policies will direct municipalities to evaluate flood risk management with respect to the scope of development proposals when contemplating intensification. 41 There are two new additional changes to the PPS that are significant in terms of the TRCA mandate and programs. First is the change to the definition of Natural Heritage System. The previous version of the PPS (Feb. /97, revised) did not even contain a definition for this term - only for natural heritage features and areas - so its inclusion in the June 2004 draft PPS was very welcome. The final PPS (March 2005) has expanded on the definition from the draft PPS to include the following additional sentence to the definition of Natural Heritage System: "These systems can include lands that have been restored and areas with the potential to be restored to a natural state." This new definition is beneficial to the implementation of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS), which seeks to increase the amount of natural cover in TRCA watersheds from the current and declining level of 17% to a naturally self- sustaining target of 30 %. Staff believe that this new definition provides increased authority and legitimacy to efforts to restore natural cover in the Target System lands identified in the draft TNHSS. TRCA staff have been intensively promoting the draft TNHSS over the past year, at meetings with provincial and municipal staff and other stakeholders, and at consultation sessions related to the PPS, Greenbelt Plan and Places to Grow Growth Plan. This represents a rewarding result of those efforts. The second significant change from the draft PPS to the final version is the incorporation of an entirely new section: 1.8 Energy and Air Quality. New policies are included that: • promote the use of renewable energy systems and alternative energy systems; • support energy efficiency and improved air quality by promoting compact development forms, increased use of public transit and urban design measures to maximize use of alternative /renewable energy sources; and • permit alternative energy systems and renewable energy systems in settlement areas, rural areas and prime agricultural areas. These policies directly address the comments made by TRCA on the draft PPS and provide strong support for the Sustainable Communities objective of The Living City. Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361, Laurie Nelson, extension 5281 For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361, Laurie Nelson, extension 5281 Date: March 24, 2005 RES. #D15/05 - ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION Minutes of Meetings #4/04 and #1/05, held on October 28, 2004 and January 27, 2005, respectively. The minutes of Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meetings #4/04 and #1/05, held on October 28, 2004 and January 27, 2005 respectively, are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough 42 IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meetings #4/04 and #1/05, held on October 28, 2004 and January 27, 2005 respectively, as appended, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, dated May 2002, and adopted by the Authority at Meeting #5/02, held on May 24, 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: March 1, 2005 RES. #D16/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Minutes of Meeting #1/05, January 18, 2005. The minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #1/05, held on January 18, 2005, are provided for information. Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance #1/05, held on January 18, 2005, 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: Lia Lappano, extension 5292 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: March 01, 2005 43 RES. #D17/05 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES Minutes of Meeting #1/05, January 20, 2005, Minutes of Meeting #2/05, February 17, 2005 and Minutes of Meeting #3/05, March 17, 2005. The Minutes of Meeting #1/05, held on January 20, 2005, Minutes of Meeting #2/05 held on February 17, 2005 and Minutes of Meeting #3/05, held on March 17, 2005 are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #1/05, held on January 20, 2005, Minutes of Meeting #2/05 held on February 17, 2005 and _MinuteC*Meeting #3/05, held on March 17, 2005, 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: Priya Kobeer, extension 5241 For Information contact: Amy Thurston, extension 5283 Date: April 13, 2005 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:35 a.m., on Friday, April 15, 2005. Dave Ryan Chair /ks 44 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer c. Q"THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/05 June 10, 2005 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/05, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, June 10, 2005. The Chair Dave Ryan, called the meeting to order at 10:40 a.m. PRESENT Gay Cowbourne Frank Dale Pamela Gough David Gurin Cliff Jenkins Dick O'Brien Shelley Petrie Dave Ryan Nancy Stewart REGRETS Michael Thompson RES. #D18/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: THAT the Minutes DELEGATIONS (a) MINUTES Frank Dale Nancy Stewart of Meeting #1/05, held on April 15, 2005, be approved. Member Member Member Member Member Chair, Authority Member Chair Vice Chair Member CARRIED Sandy Agnew, Member, Black Creek Project, speaking in regards to item 7.5 - Oakdale Golf and Country Club. 45 RES. #D19 /05 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Stewart Dick O'Brien THAT above -noted delegation (a) be heard and received. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Laurie Nelson, Senior Planner - Policy Initiatives, TRCA, in regards to Generic Regulation: "Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses" Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Conformity Exercise as Required under the Conservation Authorities Act (b) A presentation by Dr. Bruce Morrison, Lake Ontario Manager, Ministry of Natural Resources Lake Ontario Fish Assessment Unit, in regards to Long -term Fish Community - Toronto Waterfront. (c) A presentation by Bruce Johnson, Manager of Design Services, Planning and Development Services, Town of Ajax and Eha Naylor, Landscape Architect, Envision - The Hough Group, in regards to Town of Ajax Waterfront Management Plan - 2005 RES. #D20 /05 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Cliff Jenkins THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received. RES. #D21 /05 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Shelley Petrie Dick O'Brien CARRIED THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received. RES. #D22 /05 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Pamela Gough CARRIED THAT above -noted presentation (c) be heard and received. CARRIED 46 CORRESPONDENCE (a) A letter dated June 5, 2005, from Sandy Agnew, Member, Black Creek Project and Humber Watershed Alliance, in regards to item 7.5 - Oakdale Golf and Country Club. RES. #D23/05 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Stewart Dick O'Brien THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received. CARRIED 47 CORRESPONDENCE (A) June 05, 2005 To: Chair and Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Committee Meeting #2/05, June 10, 2005 -06 -02 From: Sandy Agnew, Black Creek Project and Humber Watershed Alliance member. RE: Report on the Proposed Use of TRCA Property in Downsview Dells Park for a Well for the Oakdale Golf and Country Club, Humber River Watershed I wish to take issue with several aspects of the above report. Firstly the rational that there is a net environmental gain is tenuous. Oakdale Golf and Country Club's (OGCC) own consultants have stated that the Black Creek is too polluted with salt to continue to be used for irrigating the golf course. OGCC is not able to use the surface water from the creek. Therefore dam is no longer of any value to them and could be removed without any negative consequence for OGCC. The golf course should remove it without expecting compensation from TRCA. Also, any runoff from the clean ground water used to irrigate may well be flushing salt and other chemicals from the now polluted soil back into Black Creek. Secondly, the report neglects to mention that there was considerable vocal concern and opposition expressed at the Humber Watershed Alliance (HWA) meeting. The HWA resolution #G25/05 passed at that meeting specifically requests that HWA members be invited to " participate" in future discussions with OGCC. The staff report recommends that HWA only be "advised" of discussions. As a member of HWA I want the opportunity to comment on the terms of an easement agreement as they are being negotiated not after they are finalized. I have major concerns that TRCA staff are not giving enough weight to either the real value of the publicly owned groundwater versus the frivolous and wasteful end use of watering grass or to the precedent of TRCA assisting golf courses to waste our most precious resource, clean ground water. I understand that TRCA and MOE are developing a protocol for water taking by golf courses. No agreement should be made with OGCC until the terms of that new protocol are finalized. Finally, I am requesting delegation status to address the Watershed Management Advisory Board meeting on June 10, 2005. Sandy Agnew, Black Creek Project and Humber Watershed Alliance member 48 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D24/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: TORONTO REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN AND TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION SPILLS MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE AND BILL 133 - ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT AND THE ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES ACT CONCERNING SPILLS Update on Toronto Remedial Action Plan and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's spills management initiative and Bill 133. Gay Cowbourne David Gurin THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT WHEREAS spills are a major issue impeding the water quality and aquatic habitat of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) watersheds and waterfront; WHEREAS the TRCA is committed to protecting ground and surface water from spills and illegal discharges of hazardous material; WHEREAS the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Toronto Area of Concern (AoC) highlights spills prevention and response as a priority action; WHEREAS spills are identified as a potential threat, and a strategy for addressing threats at the individual watershed level is recommended within the Interim Technical Workplan for Source Protection Planning within the CTC Region (CTC Region is comprised of the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, TRCA and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority); WHEREAS the TRCA, together with Toronto RAP, federal, provincial, regional, municipal, and non - governmental organizations, and watershed groups recently completed work on phase 1 of Toronto RAP and TRCA spills management initiative; WHEREAS Bill 133 would strengthen environmental legislation regarding spills; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to continue working with TRCA's partners to initiate work on phase 2 of TRCA's spills management initiative during 2005 -2006, including implementation of recommendations from September 2004 Spills Management Workshop Outcomes Report; THAT the Ministry of Environment (MOE), be thanked for their current support to Toronto RAP and TRCA's spill management initiative and encouraged to continue to work towards a comprehensive program to prevent and manage spills; THAT the City of Toronto, the regional municipalities of Peel ,York and Durham and Environment Canada be thanked for their participation and support throughout Phase 1 of the spills management initiative; 49 AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND Each year, many spills occur throughout TRCA watersheds, especially in the urbanized and industrialized areas, that impact water quality, aquatic habitat of watercourses, and ultimately, Lake Ontario. The TRCA is responsible for advocating for the planning and delivery of programs to meet the objectives of the Remedial Action Plan in order to delist the Toronto AoC through an agreement with the Ministry of Environment and Environment Canada (RAP Team). Clean Waters, Clear Choices, the Stage 2 report for the Toronto RAP, identifies the "improvement of spills response and prevention" as a priority action under the stormwater criterion. Water quality in Lake Ontario and the watercourses has been adversely impacted due to the frequency and volume of spills. A recent report prepared by TRCA and Toronto RAP revealed that there were 6,936 reported spills in the Toronto region between 1988 and 2000, with almost 4,059 having measurable water quality impacts. RECENT INITIATIVES To enhance watershed and waterfront spills prevention, response and understanding of the issues, a spills management workshop was hosted in September 2004 by Toronto RAP in partnership with TRCA, Environment Canada, MOE (Spills Action Centre), regional municipalities, non - governmental organizations's and watershed groups. A technical advisory committee was convened in order to explore issues and produce a brief backgrounder report. A workshop outcomes report was produced with positive feedback from workshop participants, as well as the RAP Team. Some of the key recommendations form this workshop included: • Need for better coordination and communication between agencies and clarification on decision - making structure and roles and responsibilities. • Opportunity for more collaboration amongst partners and sharing of information & approaches. • More enforcement and follow- through. • More transparency with the public. • Public outreach and education on spills prevention and consequences. • Hotlines and 24 hour reporting and follow -up. • Industry- specific outreach. • Improved tools and infrastructure: sewer mapping, better use of MOE and municipal data, tracking of spills, assessment and monitoring. • Mandatory requirement for spills plans both at the municipal level and for industry. • Improved base line data and sharing of information between agencies and organizations. • Use of internet for posting of municipal spills management plans. • Involvement with municipal organizations (AMO, OGRA, OCMBP) for education and outreach. • Training for frontline staff and enforcement officers. • Better reporting on nature of spill and on -site coordination. 50 This important initiative complements the recent work by the Industrial Pollution Action Team (IPAT) and will continue through 2005 and beyond with the support of TRCA's community -based watershed groups and partners. The Industrial Pollution Action Team The Minister of the Environment announced the formation of the eight- member IPAT in February 2004. The mandate of IPAT was to "examine the causes of industrial spills and dangerous air emissions and recommend to the government prevention measures for industry and others." IPAT released its discussion document in August 2004 with 15 findings and 35 recommendations. Bill 133 The Ministry is currently reviewing the report, but has moved on two of the recommendations (administrative penalties and a dedicated environmental compensation fund) through its introduction of Bill 133 in October 2004. Bill 133 would amend the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) and introduce administrative penalties for spills. The amounts of the penalties may be as high as $20,000 a day, in the case of individuals, and $100,000 a day, in the case of corporations. Penalties would be paid into a special purpose account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Payments could be made out of the special purpose account to compensate persons who suffered losses as a result of a spill of a pollutant, to provide financial assistance to persons who undertake environmental remediation projects, and for other purposes prescribed by the regulations. The Ministry carried out consultations in the fall of 2004 and TRCA staff submitted a letter of support in principle for Bill 133 in January 2005. On April 5, 2005 - Bill 133 was referred to Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly before receiving Second Reading, and therefore allowing for the possibility of significant amendments to be introduced. The Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Humber Alliance and Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition sent letters in support. Recently, on May 5, 2005 the Ministry of Environment published "Industrial Spills in Ontario" an 18 -page report which focuses on 2003 / 2004 spills, MISA - regulated industries, several large -scale spills, and presents a supportive rationale for the administrative penalties in Bill 133 as part of the Ministry's enforcement "toolkit." Current Status of Bill 133 The Standing Committee held several days of public hearings in mid -May and conducted a clause by clause review of Bill 133 on May 19, 2005. Many industry and environmental groups gave deputations for, or against, the bill. The committee may now make amendments to Bill 133 before sending it to the House for Second Reading. TRCA's Response to Bill 133 A letter of support was sent by TRCA's Chief Administrative Officer to the Standing Committee on May 12, 2005. The letter notes TRCA's support for institutionalizing the "polluter pays" principle through the use of administrative penalties, commitment to natural habitats and their regeneration through dedicated compensation funds, and protection of drinking water from toxic substances. 51 TRCA called for a more broad -based spectrum of potential spillers that may include those persons who are not regulated under the Act through a Certificate of Approval, or MISA to be recognized in the legislation. TRCA suggested that a knowledge gap exists and that the Ministry, in consultation with its partners, should develop an understanding the impacts spills have upon freshwater ecosystems. It was also stressed that the current approach to remediation projects is inadequate to address the impacts of spills and the intent of part X of the Environmental Protection Act ( "restoration of natural environment "). Restoration,projects must be consistent with watershed restoration plans and result in a net gain, and that the concept of "supplemental environmental projects" should be further developed in consultation with municipalities, watershed groups and conservation authorities. It was recommended that explicit clarification be made that conservation authorities and /or municipalities are considered corporate "persons" under the provisions in order to be able to make applications to the Minister to access the special purpose account for remediation and restoration. TRCA further recommended that "settlement agreements" be considered and defined as instruments under the Environmental Bill of Rights and therefore, posted on the Environmental Registry for comment which would greatly enhance transparency and accountability. Finally, the TRCA supported the requirement for mandatory spills prevention and contingency planning. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Future work will primarily focus on the following recommendations from the Spills Management Workshop: • coordinate a working group to initiate work on Phase 2; • carry out gap analysis and develop tools in regards to data gathering, documentation mapping and reporting and monitoring on a watershed scale; • integrate work with watershed source protection plans and other TRCA initiatives as appropriate; • host a follow -up workshop to facilitate information sharing; and, • ongoing public outreach and education. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this initiative is available in account 118 -76 through Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan Memorandum of Understanding. In -kind support will be provided by TRCA, City of Toronto, Environment Canada , region's of Peel and York, and watershed groups. Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Paul Willms, extension 5316 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Date: June 2, 2005 52 RES. #D25/05 - COMMUNITY LIAISON COMMITTEE FOR THE DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT Membership. Membership of the Community Liaison Committee for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project is provided. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the composition of the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project be approved as contained in the staff report; AND FURTHER THAT additional community associations, as indicated in the staff report, be appointed to the Community Liaison Committee. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #3/05, held on April 29, 2005, Resolution #A89/05 on the establishment of a CLC for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project was approved as follows: THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) be established to assist the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and consultants in maintaining contact with community residents, groups, associations and organizations; THAT the CLC provide community input into the project and in particular to the design of the public consultation process; THAT staff be directed to work with the Technical Advisory Committee to identify community members for the CLC and in particular with the citizen members, Cynthia Wilkey and John Wilson; THAT the Terms of Reference including the interim membership be approved; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority for formal endorsement of the membership of the CLC by June 2005. CLC Membership At that time, the following community associations and representatives were appointed to the CLC (please note, several associations had yet to appoint representatives to the CLC): Gooderham & Worts Neighbourhood Association - Julie Beddoes Paul Young and Terry Lee - Contacts for Port Lands Partnership, Portlands Coalition, South Riverdale Revitalization Project, South Riverdale Community Health, Queen- Broadview Village BIA, Destination Carlaw, Citizens for a Safe Environment and FOLD Toronto Cycling Committee - Clay MacFaden 53 Riverside Area Residents Association - Mary Kelly Citizens for the Old Town - Rollo Myers Councillor Pam McConnell, Ward 28 Councillor Paula Fletcher, Ward 30 MPP George Smitherman, Riding 13 MPP Marilyn Churley, Riding 15 MP Bill Graham, Riding 13 MP Jack Layton, Riding 15 NEW CLC APPOINTEES The changes are recommended to represent those community associations which had not appointed representatives in time for approval at Authority Meeting #3/05: Task Force to Bring Back the Don - Martin German Don Watershed Regeneration Council - Carmela Canzonieri and Don Cross (alternate) Toronto Field Naturalists - No response Toronto Bay Initiative - Joanna Kidd and Sharon Howarth (alternate) Southeast Downtown Economic Redevelopment Initiative (SEDERI) - Frank Burns Corktown Residents and Business Association - Suzanne Edmunds.and Caroline Matthews (alternate) Riverside Area Residents Association - Mary Kelly (only requests project updates) West Don Lands Committee - Cynthia Wilkey Mississaugas of New Credit - Margaret Sault (only requests project updates) Toronto Metis Council - Stewart Kiff Port Lands Action Committee - Dennis Findlay The Port Lands Action Committee is a new association. Report prepared by: Ken Dion, extension 5230 For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Date: June 1, 2005 RES. #D26/05 - GENERIC REGULATION: "DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES" TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY CONFORMITY EXERCISE AS REQUIRED UNDER THE CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is required to update its current Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation, Ontario Regulation 158, to conform to the provincially approved Generic Regulation under the Conservation Authorities Act by May 1, 2006. 54 Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Cliff Jenkins THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff proceed with the Generic Regulation conformity exercise in consultation with member municipalities and the public as per the Comprehensive Generic Regulation Work Plan; AND FURTHER THAT following the municipal and public consultation process, staff report back to the Authority for final endorsement of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Generic Regulation. CARRIED BACKGROUND On May 1, 2004, the province approved Ontario Regulation 97/04 entitled "The Content of Conservation Authority Regulations under Subsection 28(1) of the Act: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Wetlands", which is referred to the as the "Generic Regulation ". Each of Ontario's 36 conservation authorities (CA)is required to bring their individual regulations into conformity with the Generic Regulation by May 1, 2006. The development of the Generic Regulation and development of local regulations to implement the Generic Regulation are direct requirements of the amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) in 1997 that were the result of the Ontario government's Red Tape Reduction initiative to streamline the regulatory framework for development approvals. The purpose of the Generic Regulation is to provide consistency in key terminology and policy intent between the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) governing natural hazards, development and site alteration under the Planning Act and Section 28(1) under the CA Act; it ensures consistency between policy direction and legislative implementation tools. The Generic Regulation is consistent with the policy direction of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement to manage resources in a sustainable way and protect public health and safety. Updated technical data based upon current standards and information will assist member municipalities and TRCA staff in evaluating development applications and making sound environmental decisions. This information will be of particular assistance to our member municipalities in the developing 905 headwater area of the TRCA jurisdiction, where current regulations and technical data require enhancement and updating. Key Changes: The Generic Regulation defines the activities and the areas that conservation authorities can regulate. The following is a summary of the key changes: - Current TRCA Ontario Regulation 158: Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways The current regulation allows the TRCA to regulate the following: • placement of fill within areas identified on registered fill schedules; • construction within any area subject to flooding under a regulatory flood event; and, • alterations to watercourses Generic Regulation: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses The new Generic Regulation permits the regulation of the following areas: • Hazardous Lands (flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, unstable soil or bedrock); 55 • River or Stream Valleys (both confined and unconfined); • Wetlands; • Watercourses; and, • Other Areas - although not specifically defined in the Generic Regulation, Section 28(5(e)) of CA Act allows the Minister to permit the regulation of 'other areas'. A major difference in the new Generic Regulation is the inclusion of wetlands and hazards associated with the shoreline of Lake Ontario as regulated areas. The new Generic Regulation permits the regulation of the following activities: • Development within a regulated area; • Interference & alterations to watercourses; • Interference & alteration to wetlands; and, • Interference & alterations to shorelines. A further difference is the inclusion of a definition of "Development" that is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. The distinction between "fill" and "construction" activities of the current Regulation have been incorporated in a more comprehensive definition of " Development" defined as follows: a) the construction, reconstruction, erection or placing of a building or structure of any kind, b) any change to a building or structure that would have the effect of altering the use or potential use of building or structure, increasing the size of the building or structure or increasing the number of dwelling units in a building or structure; c) site grading; or d) the temporary or permanent placing, dumping or removal of any material, originating on the site or elsewhere. Assistance from Conservation Ontario: Conservation Ontario established various committees to examine some of the issues involved in the task of preparing a local regulation which will conform to the Generic Regulation requirements. Three documents were developed by these committees to assist CA in the development and approval of new regulations. They are: • Generic Regulation - Approval Process Document; • Guidelines for Developing Schedules of Regulated Areas; and, • Section 28(3) Conservation Authorities Act - Hearing Guidelines. At the outset of the conformity exercise, the first two documents are important in order to determine the best approach for developing new regulations for individual CAs given that each will have their own unique set of information and resource circumstances. The Hearing Guidelines were developed to provide direction to all CAs in conducting hearings. In addition to the documents, to assist staff through the process the 36 CAs have been divided into four regional groups, chaired by a regional representative. The regional groups meet on a monthly basis and allow for consistency on a regional scale. 56 Conservation Ontario has reconvened a Technical Committee to which TRCA has appointed a member, which meets to respond to technical issues raised by conservation authorities and review Terms of Reference for mapping the Generic Regulation criteria. A Peer Review Committee of Conservation Ontario has been established for the purpose of confirming that the individual CAs regulation (text and schedules) conform to the Generic Regulation and the approval process have been followed prior to the CA advancing to the Minister of Natural Resources for approval. To maintain continuity and consistency, the members of the Peer Review Committee are comprised of the four regional representatives (includes a staff member from TRCA), two members of the previous committees (including the TRCA staff representative) and two representatives of MNR. WORK PLAN: TRCA staff have prepared a detailed work plan to undertake a Generic Regulation conformity exercise within the time line prescribed by the approved legislation. An overall comprehensive work plan is attached to this report and the various stages of the process are summarized as follows: Mapping Exercise: Since the fall of 2004, an internal TRCA technical working group has been meeting to establish the most efficient and accurate means to map the various Generic Regulation criteria. A Terms of Reference for each of the criteria is required for review and approval by the technical committee to ensure the methodology is in conformity with the mapping guidelines document. The map limit of the following criteria will be generated in -house by TRCA staff and technical resources: meander belt, wetlands, erosion hazards and shoreline flooding and erosion. TRCA has recently updated, or is in the process of updating, the existing Regulatory flood plain mapping which covers the majority of the larger watercourses within TRCA's jurisdiction and this new information will be used for the flood plain criteria. The TRCA requires an estimate of the extent of the Regional Storm flood plain for those currently unmapped headwater valley corridors to support the delineation of the areas subject to the Generic Regulation. Through Resolution #B38/05, approved at Executive Committee Meeting #2/05, held on April 8, 2005, the TRCA retained Dillon Consulting Limited to provide Digital Flood Plain Estimation Mapping for 1,000 km of headwater tributary area that is not currently mapped. As a result of the mapping exercise, the TRCA's existing registered fill and flood plain schedules on the major valley systems and the unregistered fill line extension mapping in the 905 headwater areas will be updated. The 'Regulation Limit', (area of interest), of the Generic Regulation will be displayed on 2002 ortho photo base mapping and will be available in a digital format for use both internally and externally. Text Regulation and Schedules: As part of the conformity exercise, a Text Regulation will be prepared that describes the regulated areas, including reference to map schedules, and the permit approval process. It is the content of the Text Regulation, as approved by the Minister of Natural Resources, that prevails in the implementation of the Generic Regulation. 57 Municipal and Public Consultation: Consultation with our municipal partners and the public will be an integral part of the Generic Regulation conformity exercise. TRCA staff will meet with municipal staff to explain the lands and activities to which the Generic Regulation applies and to review the draft mapping. Every effort will be made to provide updated mapping for all of our municipal partners within the legislated time frame of the conformity exercise. Municipal consultation will occur prior to the public consultation process. It is anticipated that the public information meetings will be held in the fall of 2005. Policy Review: Implementation polices to deal with the transition from the previous Regulation to the implementation of the new updated Regulation will need to be in place. As well, the existing TRCA policy framework will be reviewed and updated as required to address the criteria to be regulated under the Generic Regulation. Any policy revisions will be brought forward to the Authority for consideration and endorsement. Authority Endorsement: Following the municipal and public consultation process, staff will seek approval from the Authority in January/February 2006, to submit the Regulation to the Conservation Ontario Peer Review Committee for review and approval. Peer Review Committee Endorsement and MNR Submission: Following approval from the Authority, TRCA staff will provide a submission and make a presentation to the Peer Review Committee to demonstrate that the updated TRCA Regulation is consistent with the Generic Regulation. Upon endorsement from the Peer Review Committee, the Regulation will be submitted to the Minister of Natural Resources for final approval. Post Approval Process: TRCA staff will notify each member municipality and provide public notification in area newspapers of the effective date and implementation of the updated Regulation. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project from the Regions of Peel, York, Durham and the City of Toronto have been accounted for in TRCA's 2005 Capital Budget. Report prepared by: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281 For Information contact: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281 Date: May 25, 2005 Attachments: 1 58 Generic Regulation Comprehensive Work Plan Tasks Subtasks 2005 2006 JF :A /ICJ; :A S 0.1t1 D J Fili1A'PA:J Group Meetirgs TRCA Internal Working Group • . . - . • i• Shoreline Hazards Working Group Central Reg on Conservaton Authors Working Group * Reg bra! Re p rese ntatrve . Laure Nelson • Conservation Ontario Peer Review Committee * Laure Nelson & Glenn MacMillan Consenraton Ontarb Technical Committee * Genn MacMillan Work Plan Draft Work Plan Finalize Work Plan • • . • i t • . : .:. : • • ... Endorsement by Full Authority Terms of Pete re nce Draft Terms of Reference on a criterion basis Finalke Terms of Reference Endorsement by Technical Comm tee • . . . : I • : .. . . ... : - Preparation of Map &hed ules . mapplrg and data req ui re me nts and reeds Devebp strategy to undertake mapping exercise . g . . ._ 4. Pre pare d raft maps Review maps Refire and finalke maps Endorsement by Full Authority Preparation of Text Feg ulation Identify reg ulated areas & exempt areas and activites Consultation Devebp communbations mate r ia Is Municipal Consultatbn - ' : . Public I nformaton Meetings * Ccord inate with re g hbourirg Conservation Authorites where appropriate - Fespord to Public Information Meetirg enquiries Present to Full Authority Obtain Resoluton of Endorsement Sub m isson to Conservation Ontarb Peer Review Com m tee Submission to MNR Notificatbn of Approval Advise Munc ipaIrtes ani Pubic Implementation Devebp transitional polcies and prcced ures + . • • : i i ...... Amend internal d cc uments 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Last Fevised May 26, 20051 1. )uawyoend RES. #D27/05 - TORONTO CATCHMENT PILOT STUDY Mimico Creek Watershed Urban Contaminant Fate and Effects. Partnership project to initiate an integrated study of an urban Catchment (Mimico Creek watershed) in the Toronto region. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to participate in the Toronto Urban Catchment Study; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on study results after completion. CARRIED BACKGROUND The purpose of this study is to provide data and evidence with which to construct an understanding of urban chemical dynamics. The intent is to develop a general understanding that is transferable over space and time. This understanding will be used to address the following questions related to sustainability and to assess policy, regulatory, and development changes: 1. The suburbs have enticed people seeking a "cleaner" environment than the dense neighbourhoods of old cities. Considering the continuing increase in vehicle use, over what time can we expect these suburbs to be perceived as "contaminated "? 2. Does urban form and function influence per capita resource use and emissions, and if so, can we use planning and policy levers to minimize these? 3. Have the urban planning measures taken to protect the aquatic environment been successful (e.g., set - backs)? What is the interplay between planning for protecting land forms and the increase in land use that accompanies these strategies? 4. Has the decentralized management of stormwater been successful? Given past trends, how sustainable are these practices? (e.g., consequences of stormwater infiltration, Tong -term efficacy of stormwater ponds) 5. With the high concentrations of some constituents (e.g., nutrients, sodium - chloride) and the persistence of others (e.g., PAH), are local stormwater management schemes effective? This question extends to new management schemes such as green roofs. 6. The GTA and the Golden Horseshoe are situated within the large regional area of the industrial northeast. What percentage of chemical loads in the city and specifically our stormwater can be attributed to regional versus local inputs? The answer to this question informs our expectations for treatment. Through coordination with the Centre for Urban Health Initiatives (CUHI) and the Centre for Urban and Community Studies at the University of Toronto, this proposal is being woven into plans to link the physical urban environment with public health concerns. Thus, a critical aspect of the study design is its integrated nature. The integration is with respect to: • environmental media: air, surface water, and soil; • ecosystem and human health; • chemicals of concern ranging from nutrients and suspended solids to trace past- and current -use persistent organic pollutants and mercury; 60 • monitoring and process studies; • micro- to catchment scale effects; and, • transdisciplinarity (physical, social and health sciences) Partner Agencies University of Toronto, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, City of Toronto, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada. Choice of the Catchment Mimico Creek watershed is one of the most developed and degraded watersheds in the Toronto region. Throughout the cities of Brampton, Mississauga, Toronto and much of Peel Region, the watershed is heavily populated and highly urbanized with historical industrial areas, current light industrial regions, major highways, and residential areas. RATIONALE In the Toronto Area of Concern (AoC), watershed non -point sources, which deliver pollution to the rivers, creeks and waterfront from the rural and urban areas in the watershed, represent a serious, hard to manage pollution problem. Watershed non -point sources are a target for the Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP). In order to better manage non -point sources, the RAP Team needs to better understand contaminant sources, fate and effects within Toronto AOC watersheds. The Toronto RAP Team has developed the following initial set of questions that it would like to see addressed through the study: 1. What are the sources, fate and effects of contaminant emissions in urban areas? 2. What are the contaminant constituents of stormwater and where do they come from? 3. Do our current lists of 'priority' contaminants reflect our best knowledge of contaminant sources, fate and effects in urban areas? 4. What are the fate and effects of contaminants entering our stormwater treatment facilities (e.g., ponds)? Should we be infiltrating, given the need to protect source water? 5. What are the implications of the fate and effects of contaminants for fish and wildlife (food chains)? 6. What are the implications of projected business as usual growth and development in our catchment with respect to contaminants? 7. What are the impacts of the Toronto City Region airsheds and watersheds on the Lake Ontario ecosystem? 8. How can we best build and /or retrofit our "communities" to reduce the negative effects of contaminants on our ecosystems? The study will help in fulfilling a number of commitments under the 2002 Canada - Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, including: the Areas of Concern Annex, Result 2 relating to loadings of nutrients, pathogens and trace contaminants from urban stormwater; the Harmful Pollutants Annex 3, Result 9 - relating to knowledge of the occurrence, fate and impact of harmful pollutants on human and environmental health; and the Lakewide Management Annex, Result 1 - relating to reductions in the release of harmful pollutants on a lake -by -lake basis. 61 The study will also addresses aspects of public health and urban development in consultation with members of the Centre for Urban Health Initiatives, notably the St. Michael's Hospital Inner City Health Unit and the Centre for Urban and Community Studies. In addition, this work complements Human Influences and Stormwater Management objectives identified in Greening Our Watersheds : Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA Resource Science and Watershed Management staff will provide technical support to assist the study team with the following: • Sampling Activities - an intensive sampling regime for 1 -2 weeks in late summer 2005 to collect preliminary data on a wide range of chemicals in air, precipitation, stormwater and surface water. The 1 -2 week period is seen as tractable and sufficiently long to provide guidance on continued sampling through the following year. • Determination of schedule for future activities (additional years or timeframe for continuing and /or repeating the study on a temporal scale (e.g. 5 years). • Exploration of larger grants, possibly in conjunction with health partners, to continue and /or expand particular aspects of the study. • Present a final report to the Watershed Management Advisory Board on the study results. FINANCIAL DETAILS This project will be dependent on funding from several sources, and will rely on in -kind contributions of study participants and linkages to other ongoing studies. Cash contributions from Toronto RAP has been confirmed. Cash contributions will be directed to support a post - doctoral fellow who will manage the project as well as graduate and undergraduate students who will work on individual components of the work. In kind contributions: TRCA : technical support MOE: water sampling equipment • analysis of some samples for a range of analytes MSC: high volume air sampler (organics) and Tekran sampler (Hg) NSERC Strategic: Some student support and operating resources awarded through a NSERC Strategic grant to University of Toronto. Report prepared by : Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 For more information contact: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337 Date: May 26, 2005 62 RES. #D28/05 - OAKDALE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB Humber River Watershed. Report on the consultants hydrogeological investigations and recommendation to negotiate an easement agreement with Oakdale Golf and Country Club for the installation of two wells and water line on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned land in Downsview Dells Park, City of Toronto, Humber River watershed. Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Stewart Frank Dale THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to negotiate an easement agreement with Oakdale Golf and Country Club for the installation of two wells and water line on TRCA -owned land in Downsview Dells Park, City of Toronto, on the following basis: (a) Oakdale Golf and Country Club prepare and implement a comprehensive water management strategy approved by TRCA; (b) Oakdale Golf and Country Club be responsible for all costs associated with the well development program and preparation of the easement agreement; (c) Oakdale Golf and Country Club obtain required approvals under Ontario Regulation 158 for applicable works; (d) Oakdale Golf and Country Club obtain required approvals under Ontario Regulation 128/03 (wells) and Ontario Regulation 387/04 (water taking and transfer); (e) City of Toronto, through the Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department approve the use and the easement agreement; (1) (g) Market value compensation for the use of public land is achieved; Members of Humber Watershed Alliance be invited to participate in future discussions when appropriate regarding the terms and conditions of the proposed easement agreement; AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the Executive Committee at the earliest possible date regarding the terms and conditions of the proposed easement agreement. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #10/03, held on January 9, 2004 Resolution #A278/03, was approved as follows: THAT above -noted correspondence (a) - (d) be received; 63 THAT staff be directed to continue to meet with Oakdale Golf and Country Club staff and interested stakeholders to review the outcomes of the groundwater test drilling in Downsview Dells to determine the potential options for withdrawal of groundwater, and report back to the Authority as required; THAT Oakdale Golf and Country Club be encouraged to continue to work on developing an integrated watershed management plan, including the possibility of utilizing grey water; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the possible number of golf courses within Toronto and Region Conservation Authority jurisdiction which will be exploring the use of groundwater to meet their future water needs. The Oakdale Golf and Country Club currently has a Permit to Take Water from the surface flow of the Black Creek. The TRCA encourages golf course owners to reduce their dependency on surface water takings since these takings have the greatest impact on watercourses, particularly during low flow periods when the golf courses need the most water. The Oakdale Golf and Country Club needs an alternate water supply for quantity and quality reasons. Currently their primary water source for irrigation purposes is an on -line pond, thereby drawing down the base flow of the Black Creek. Extensive surveys of their lands have been conducted with no source of groundwater supply found. Golf course representatives subsequently approached TRCA regarding exploration of Downsview Dells for groundwater resources. TRCA considered this as an opportunity to request the Oakdale Golf and Country Club to carry out a comprehensive water management strategy for the course, including the removal of the on -line irrigation pond. Permission was granted for them to determine if: a) sufficient groundwater resources are present in the area (both quality and quantity); and if b) extraction of the groundwater resource would negatively impact the creek. The club agreed to proceed with the exploratory work at their cost and risk. R. J. Burnside and Associates Limited, consultants for the club, arranged for two test wells to be installed, together with stream bed monitors installed at several locations in the Black Creek, in Downsview Dells Park, in the vicinity of the groundwater well. A hydrogeological study outlining the findings from pump test has been submitted for review be technical staff. The consultant's report confirmed that there is suitable water quantity for irrigating the golf course, and that the groundwater withdrawal had no impact on water levels or flow in Black Creek. The consultants have also indicated that a preliminary water line alignment has been chosen that will have minimal impact on vegetation. In addition, the water line will be installed using directional boring methods which will minimize disturbance to the park and help to reduce potential impacts on vegetation. During the investigation period the Black Creek Project has been kept informed in writing about the investigation work and the findings. A presentation of the findings was made to the Humber Watershed Alliance at Meeting #2/05, held on April 19, 2005. Resolution #G25/05 was approved at the meeting as follows: 64 WHEREAS the Humber Watershed Alliance expresses significant concern about setting a precedent for groundwater taking from TRCA land for irrigating a private golf course; and WHEREAS the existing Ministry of Environment water taking permit allows Oakdale Golf and Country Club to take surface water at rates that exceed the capacity of Black Creek; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT TRCA be requested to invite representatives from the Humber Watershed Alliance to participate in future discussions regarding terms and conditions for permitting a water well and water line from Downsview Dells Park to the Oakdale Golf and Country Club; THAT the following Humber Watershed Alliance members volunteer to participate in future discussions related to proposals by the Oakdale Golf and Country Club to install a pump house and water line on TRCA land and associated environmental improvements to Black Creek and its watershed: Sandy Agnew Elaine Heaton David Hutcheon Luciano Martin Madeleine McDowell THAT, as part of the terms and conditions of a lease to install a well, pump house and water line on TRCA land, the opportunity for charging an annual fee for the water be considered and that significant net environmental gains be obtained for Black Creek in exchange for permitting the Oakdale Golf and Country Club to install a pump house and water line on TRCA land for the removal of groundwater to service their golf course; AND FURTHER THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance advise the Ministry of Environment that water taking permits not be issued in perpetuity and that removal quantities be strictly controlled to assure adequate baseflows in watercourses are maintained. RATIONALE The hydrogeological investigation carried out by R. J. Burnside & Associates has demonstrated that there are no negative impacts on the Black Creek due to the development of a new well in Downsview Delis Park. The implementation of a comprehensive water management plan by Oakdale Golf and Country Club, including the removal of the existing dam to improve fish passage and the reduction of water taking from the Black Creek, together with the use of groundwater combined with an on -site storage reservoir for irrigation will provide a net environmental gain. As a result staff are recommending that TRCA enter into a easement agreement with the Oakdale Golf and Country Club, subject to negotiating terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA. For Information contact: Ron Dewell, extension 5245 Date: May 17, 2005 65 RES. #D29/05 - WATERSHED PLANNING - FROM RECOMMENDATIONS TO MUNICIPAL POLICIES: A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT To summarize the results to date of the project to develop model policies to help implement the recommendations of watershed plans. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the interim working document titled Watershed Planning - from Recommendations to Municipal Policies: A Guidance Document be distributed to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) member municipalities and conservation authorities with watersheds on the Oak Ridges Moraine for their use over the next year; AND FURTHER THAT comments for improving the model policies be requested from those agencies by September 2006, in order that the guidance document may be finalized based on user feedback and practical application of the document. CARRIED BACKGROUND Municipal planning documents have long been regarded as a primary means of implementing the recommendations of watershed plans. However, experience has shown that watershed plan recommendations do not easily translate into municipal official plan policies or zoning by -laws. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) requires watershed plans to be undertaken for all watersheds on the moraine and to incorporate by amendment into municipal official plans, the objectives and requirements of each watershed plan. To help bridge this gap the York, Peel, Durham, Toronto (YPDT) Groundwater study, in conjunction with the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC), initiated a project to conduct a series of facilitated workshops to develop model policies for ground and surface water resources, natural heritage systems, Iandform conservation and infrastructure. TRCA resolution #B64/04 authorized the hiring of the consulting partnership of Ogilvie, Ogilvie & Company and Anthony Usher Planning Consultant to provide facilitation and planning policy services. During the project, the provincial government was also active in undertaking a number of policy initiatives such as the Greenbelt Plan, Source Water Protection and updating the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). These initiatives potentially give the model policy project an even wider application as the value of and direction for undertaking watershed plans is recognized in both the Greenbelt Plan and the new PPS. MODEL POLICIES The consultant created model policies based on seven facilitated workshops. A core group of regional and local municipal planners and conservation authority watershed planners attended each workshop. Technical experts attended the workshops relevant to their area of expertise. A total of 28 people, including biologists, hydrogeologists, ecologists, water resource engineers and planners, shared their expertise over the course of the seven workshops. 66 The document identifies for each of the four policy topics (water resources; natural heritage; landform; infrastructure) the mandate of and authority for the policy, candidate planning goals and key planning issues. A number of policies have been developed for each of the four policy topics. Each policy contains discussion on why the issue is important, how the policies could be varied for different municipal circumstances and other possible implementation mechanisms. The water resource policies provide guidance on defining, mapping and protecting important ground and surface water areas. Policies that address source water protection, stormwater management best practices, cumulative effects assessment, among others, are included. The natural heritage policies provide guidance on defining, mapping and protecting a present and future natural heritage system. Policies are included, which provide guidance for achieving net gains to the natural heritage system and for restoring natural cover and connections in the proposed future system. Similarly, policies are included which provide guidance for identifying and conserving important Iandforms. The infrastructure policies establish a hierarchy of first avoiding environmental features and functions, then minimizing impacts through mitigation and finally, compensation. The decision of the project steering committee was that this document be treated as an interim or working draft. The model policy guidance document would then be circulated in electronic format to all agencies conducting watershed plans on the Oak Ridges Moraine for their use over the next year. Printed copies of the document will be available for TRCA Members at the Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting. Based on real use "in the field ", the document would then be finalized based on any feedback received. TRCA will use the guidance document, in conjunction with our municipal partners, in the ongoing watershed planning studies for the Rouge and Humber watersheds. Due to the length of the document, only an excerpt has been attached to this report, including the table of contents and project overview. Contact David Burnett to receive the full document. Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361 For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361 Date: May 26, 2005 Attachments: 1 67 Attachment 1 Watershed Planning From Recommendations to Municipal Policies: A Guidance Document Interim Version - April 2005 68 - 1 - OVERVIEW This Guidance Document describes model municipal planning policies that should be considered when preparing watershed plans. Each watershed plan would recommend appropriate policies to partner municipalities for adaptation into their planning documents. These policies deal with ground and surface water, terrestrial and aquatic natural heritage, landforms, and infrastructure, and were designed with the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) in mind. Section 24 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan requires upper -tier and single -tier municipalities to prepare watershed plans and to incorporate the objectives and requirements of the watershed plans into their official plans. This requirement spurred the development of this Guidance Document. The project objective was to formulate model policies that will accomplish this requirement in a consistent way for the municipalities and conservation authorities across and downstream from the Oak Ridges Moraine within the Greater Toronto Area. Accordingly, the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC), representing the nine conservation authorities covering the Moraine, and the Regional Municipalities of York, Peel, and Durham and the City of Toronto (YPDT), commissioned this project. It builds on technical work undertaken over the past few years through the YPDT/CAMC Groundwater Study, by formulating policies for the management and protection of groundwater resources, as well as for other topic areas commonly addressed in watershed plans, such as surface water, terrestrial and aquatic natural heritage, landforms, and infrastructure. Sections 1 and 2 of the Guidance Document provide the background, rationale, assumptions, and purpose for the project to translate recommendations, objectives, and targets which are commonly found in watershed planning documents, into policies that can be incorporated into regional and local' official plans, secondary or block plans, and zoning bylaws. Section 3 identifies, for each policy topic, mandates, as set out by provincial policy; candidate planning goals; and key planning issues. Also discussed are complementary actions (education, incentives, regulation other than planning) that could help address the issues identified, and reinforce the model planning policies. Section 4 describes, for each policy topic, model planning policies that should be considered when preparing watershed plans, The policies all seek to achieve enviromental improvement, within the present -day planning process and policy framework. The Guidance Document indicates the planning levels at which each policy could be applied (often more than one }, while leaving to individual municipalities the selection of the planning instruments most appropriate to their planning traditions and approach. Watershed Planning Guidance Document Interim Version - April 2005 69 - 2 - The model planning policie.$ were developed by a team of 27 experienced planners and environmental and resource scientists from GTA conservation authorities and upper- and lower -tier municipalities, through a facilitated process with consultant assistance. The team recommends this interim- version of the Guidance Document be distributed to GTA municipalities. and Oak Ridges Moraine conservation authorities and used for one year, following which it will be reviewed and improved based on user feedback. 70 RES. #D30/05 - TOWN OF AJAX WATERFRONT MANAGEMENT PLAN - 2005 Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham. To approve the Town of Ajax Waterfront Management Plan - 2005, Report and Master Plan Design Update and to support the Town of Ajax with implementation of the plan's recommendations and waterfront priorities. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Town of Ajax Waterfront Management Plan - 2005, Report and Master Plan Design Update be approved pending final approval by the Council of the Town of Ajax; THAT the Town of Ajax Waterfront Management Plan - 2005, Report and Master Plan Design Update be the master plan required under the waterfront agreement dated January 1, 1980 between the Town of Ajax and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to guide future waterfront park development; THAT the Town of Ajax Waterfront Management Plan - 2005, Report and Master Plan Design Update provide the basis for subsequent annual or multi -year capital projects with the Region of Durham for the Ajax portion of the Durham waterfront; AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Ajax and the Region of Durham be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1970, TRCA was designated as the implementing agency for the Waterfront Plan for all sectors over which it had jurisdiction except for the central harbour areas including the Town of Ajax waterfront. The goal of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program as approved in 1981 is as follows: "To create a handsome waterfront, balanced in its land uses, which will complement adjacent areas, taking cognizance of existing residential development and making accessible, wherever possible, features which warrant public use." In 1992, the Ajax Waterfront Plan Study was initiated with the purpose of developing a long range strategy to establish a management plan to embody the vision and values of the community through a public participation process and the principles outlined in "Regeneration" by the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. 71 In May 1995, the Town of Ajax released the Waterfront Plan. The waterfront vision was illustrated in the master plan design which acted as a guideline for the future development of the waterfront and made provisions for protection of marsh areas, public use, development of trails, habitat regeneration, parking and washroom facilities, and an interpretive centre and marina. The plan identified improvements to three activity nodes located at the mouth of Duffins Creek, the foot of Harwood Avenue and the mouth of Carruthers Creek. The master plan also elaborated on the public use of the more passive and naturalized waterfront corridors which connect these activity nodes. The original plan was the result of extensive public consultation and represented the input of the full spectrum of stakeholder interest groups and agencies including the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, TRCA, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA), local and regional planning authorities and the Ajax Waterfront Advisory Committee. At Authority Meeting #7/95 , held on August 25, 1995, Resolution #A197/95 was approved, as follows: THAT the Ajax Waterfront Management Plan be endorsed; THAT the Master Plan required under the Waterfront Agreement with the Town of Ajax be amended to incorporate the strategic direction and vision outlined in the Ajax Waterfront Management Plan; THAT the Revised Master Plan provide the basis for subsequent multi -year capital projects for the Durham Waterfront within the jurisdiction of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Ajax, the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust be so advised. Since the establishment of the 1995 Ajax Waterfront Management Plan, there have been considerable changes on the Ajax waterfront. Some of these more recent changes include completion of Harwood Point Gardens, the Rotary Pavilion, the first two phases of the waterfront trail and park linkage in the Lakeside Community, and the construction of the Region of Durham Water Treatment Plant. Along with these major public works the Town of Ajax has continued with waterfront tree and bench dedication projects, and has worked in partnership with TRCA and the Region of Durham to acquire shoreline properties in the Pickering Beach area. To reflect the changes that have occurred on the waterfront over the past ten years and to reflect the current policy environment, the Town of Ajax began to review and update the 1995 plan in early 2004. Phase 1 of this review process culminated in a community meeting on May 18, 2004 as the first major public participation session. The first phase included preliminary research into the current planning and regulatory framework, analysis of progress in implementing the 1995 plan, and consultation with Council, senior staff, government agencies, TRCA, CLOCA and special interest waterfront stakeholders. In large part, phase 1 of the project was to begin the public outreach and community consultation process to fine tune the community vision in preparation for the update of the plan. 72 Phase 2 continued this public consultation through a series of focus group workshops in September and October of 2004 and two general public meetings in late November. These sessions included presentations of waterfront concepts and roundtable discussions by participants. The following are the highlights of the public views and preferences expressed during the consultation process: • Character of the waterfront - the main message is that the waterfront is highly valued as a peaceful, green "retreat by the lake" that requires modest changes and improvements; • Environment - there was a strong degree of support for increasing the environmental values of the waterfront; • Land Acquisition - completion of public ownership and waterfront access in the east end both to facilitate the completion of the Waterfront Trail and to serve as environmental buffers for Carruthers Marsh and Warbler Swamp; • Arts and Culture - support for a small scale outdoor performance space at Rotary Park or perhaps at or near the Water Supply Plant. The resulting Town of Ajax Waterfront Management Plan - 2005, Report and Master Plan Design Update describes the overall framework for future improvements, recommends policies and management strategies, and outlines projects or actions for specific sites. The management plan details the initiatives and planning changes which have occurred since 1995 which are relevant to the Ajax waterfront. The plan also articulates the values of Ajax residents and the future objectives for the waterfront. The plan provides general recommendations for the overall waterfront organized by key themes (i.e. environment, amenity areas, buildings and structures, trails, interpretation, public art, etc). The plan (see attachments), based on significant public comments, makes recommendations for various places along the waterfront as illustrated by the following: • West of Duffins Creek - focus on environmental protection and restoration, interpretation and welcoming people to Ajax on the Waterfront Trail; • Harwood Point - highly valued as a place of quiet commemoration, cultural space and a " gateway" to the waterfront; • Paradise Park - park plan to be developed with the community to retain the existing tennis courts, playground and softball diamond and relocate Lakeview Boulevard; • Pickering Beach - extend the Waterfront Trail to Shoal Point Road, expanding sand beach or adding backshore dunes with boardwalk /trail system, and investigate feasibility of lakefront lookout/pier. The plan sets out an "Implementation and Phasing Strategy" addressing such matters as: • Land Acquisition and Stewardship; • Policy Directives; • Partnerships and Funding; • Phasing and Costs; and • Maintenance and Operations. The phasing and cost section has been broken down into manageable "packages" that consider first order priorities based on current projects, public preferences, logical sequencing and grouping of like components for tendering and construction purposes. This section sets out priorities and capital cost estimates for: 73 • Phase 1 - Short Term Projects (1 - 4 years); • Phase 2 - Medium Term Projects (5 - 7 years); and • Phase 3 - Long Term Projects (8 -10 years. RATIONALE The Town of Ajax Waterfront Management Plan - 2005, Report and Master Plan Design Update reflects a slightly modified list of principles from 1995, identifying that "The Ajax waterfront should be natural, clean, green, attractive, diverse, open, accessible and connected ". The plan also builds extensively on the direction outlined by the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program (TRCA), the Town of Ajax 1995 Management Plan and the extensive public views and ideas. The Implementation and Phasing Strategy of the plan provides the ten year framework for strategic build out of the Ajax waterfront. Staff of TRCA has provided input to the plan and support the direction as consistent with TRCA' s watershed and waterfront planning principles for the Ajax sector of the waterfront. The 2005 plan is a key component of, for example, the Draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy and The Living City objectives of Healthy Rivers and Shorelines, Regional Biodiversity and Sustainable Communities. With inclusion of the Duffins Marsh back -bay areas for "wetland restoration" (Attachment 1) the plan will recognize the benefits of healthy coastal estuary wetlands to the waterfront and the Duffins /Carruthers watersheds. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will support the Town of Ajax with implementing the recommendations proposed in the plan. TRCA will specifically work with the Town of Ajax to accomplish the following: • address waterfront water quality concerns through improved watershed management practices; • resolve shoreline management issues related to shoreline stability and public safety; • develop detailed plans for habitat restoration, both terrestrial as well as aquatic; • detail plans to implement the "Recommendations for Places "; and • secure provincial and federal funding agreements or grants for any major capital projects or shoreline protection programmes that may be applicable to the Ajax waterfront. FINANCIAL DETAILS Included in the Ajax Waterfront Management Plan - 2005, Report and Master Plan Design Update is an implementation and phasing strategy which includes project costs and priorities for the next ten years. This information will be utilized by TRCA to develop a multi -year project and annual budget requests to Durham Region. The plan will also assist in pursuing other funding sources with the Town of Ajax for major shoreline protection, aquatic habitat or other capital work projects consistent with the plan. Report prepared by: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 For information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243 Date: May 19, 2005 Attachments: 3 74 Attachment 1 — Waterbaat Trail 75 Attachment 2 76 z 1 -11 13 II IF 1I I 1!. J• • ■v 011111 aims • I sd 1 Li it situ Attachment 3 OLT gisT D g. 77 0 1167 — 2 5 d = g = - RES. #D31/05 - GREAT LAKES AND ST. LAWRENCE CITIES INITIATIVE Formation of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. Moved by: Seconded by: David Gurin Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Chair of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) provide a copy of the resolutions of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative to the mayors within TRCA's Jurisdiction who were not in attendance or represented at the Quebec conference with a recommendation that this important initiative be supported; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of the resolutions be provided to the Chair of Conservation Ontario with a request that all conservation authorities support the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiatives. CARRIED BACKGROUND Councillor Colleen Jordan, representing Mayor Parish of Ajax and Adele Freeman, on behalf of the TRCA, attended the International Association of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Mayors Conference in Quebec City, May 25 -27, 2005. The meeting resulted in the joining of the International Great Lakes and St Lawrence Mayors which has been operating since 1992 and the Great Lakes Cities Initiative which was formed in 2003 to provide one strong and more effective voice for cities in Great Lakes and St. Lawrence matters. The new association will be known as the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. This new Initiative will have its home office in Chicago and the Canadian Secretariat in Toronto, with an additional office in Quebec City as funding permits. The association is currently funded in part by the Joyce Foundation. The Initiative will be seeking additional funds to support the Canadian secretariat. Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago, is the Chair. David Miller, Mayor of Toronto is the Vice Chair. The mayors of Racine, Duluth, Quebec City, Montreal, Toledo, Gary, Erie, Rochester, Marquette, St. Catharines, Collingwood, Thunder Bay, Windsor and Salaberry- de- Valleyfield are the other directors. The next meeting is planned for 2006 and will be held in Parry Sound, Ontario. Sessions were held on the topics of water quality, invasive species resulting from ballast water, water diversions and withdrawals, water level management,including concerns for potable water and lake levels in Georgian Bay, best management practices currently being undertaken by municipalities and future challenges. 78 Resolutions were passed on the following topics: 1. Preventing and Controlling Aquatic Invasive Species 2. Reducing Combined Sewer overflows 3. Regional Collaboration 4. Swimming Bans 5. Great Lakes Charter Annex 6. Great Lakes Protection and Restoration 7. Reducing Mercury Contamination of the Great Lakes 8. Devil Lakes Diversion 9. Link with International Association of Cities on Water Issues 10. St. Clair River Channel Erosion Issue and its influence on Level of Lakes Huron and Michigan Copies of the full set of resolutions will be available at the Authority Board meetings and can be accessed through Great Lakes Cities Initiative Website www.greatlakescities.org This new initiative is an important step forward in reigniting interest in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basin, and in drawing attention to the necessity of federal and provincial collaboration with the cities on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence to provide the necessary management, protection, research and action to address long standing and emerging issues. Increasingly there is recognition that Conservation Authorities, in their various roles in watershed management, waterfront management and source water protection are important allies of this initiative. It is recommended that the TRCA lend its support to this initiative and that a copy of the resolutions from the conference be forwarded to the Mayors of all the municipalities within the TRCA's jurisdiction who were not in attendance at the meeting and to the Chair of Conservation Ontario for future action at a Conservation Ontario meeting. A current and important issue is the candidate plans to regulate the outflows from Lake Ontario through the St. Lawrence River. Larry Field is representing Conservation Ontario on the International Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence River Study. Public meetings are being held in June and July. Information on time and locations is available at www.losl.org. Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: June 9, 2005 Attachments: 1 79 Water Level Study Presents Candidate Plans Before the International Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study prepares its final. ?pottwith candidate plans to regulate the outflows fitaltinke Ontario through the St Lawrence River, we need to hear f om yruzl Please mark the date of the meting nearert3rou on your calendar and post this notice in your areal There will be an open house beginning at 6:30 p.m. before each meeting. Our presentation will begin at 7 p.m. followed by a question and answer session. Unite States Wednesday, June 22, 7'p.m. Quality' Ts 10 West 4vis Street r NT 13662 Thuradajtolune 23, 7 p.m. Bonnie Castle Year -Round Resort 31 Holland Street Alexandria Bay, NY 13607 `Wednesday, July 13, 7 p.m. Crlickets Central School Multi- Purpose Room 215 South Broad S Sockets Harhol4M 43685 'Thursday, Jul 141 "%p.m.' Captain's Steak & Seafood 27 East First Street Oswego, NY 131. Wednesday, Joey =20, 7 p.m. Cutter's Restaurant 6481_catehpole Shore Road North Rose, NY 14516 Thursday, July 21, 7 p.m, Greece Town Hall Eastman Room 1 Vince Tofany Boulevard Greece, NY 14612 Thursday, July 28, 7p*1. Olcott:Fioa Hall 16911, ort -Olcott Road Oleott,NY 14126 Canada Wednesday, June 22, 7 p.m. Beacon Harbourside Best Western 2793 Jordan Boulevard Win, ON LOR 1S0 Mundy June 23, 7 p.m. Delta Toronto East Hotel 2035 Kennedy Road Toronto, ON IT:302 Thursday, Jand3 Kawehnoke Community Center 10 Conutty Center Road Cornwall Inland, ON K6H 5H7 Wednesday, July 13, 7,p.m. City Hall ,,,387:Front Street Belleville, ON K8P 2Y8 Thursday, July 14, 7 p.m. Atuttgoncy Hall $irMachenzie Bowel Room (34 Floor) 30 King Street East Oananoyue, ON K7G 2T6 Wednesday, July 20, 7 p.m. COntwall Civic Center 100 Water Street Cornwall, ON K6H 6G4 Thursday, July 21, 7 p.m. Hampton Inn and Suites 1900 Tran - Canada Highway Dorval, Quebec H9F 21414 Thursday, July 28, 7 p.m. Auberge de la Rive Sud. 165 Chemin Sainte Anne Sorel- Tracy, Quebec 13P 6.17 For additional information or to be added to the Study mailing list, please call: United States (716) 879 -4438 Canada (613) 992 -5727 L luawy3eud SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES. #D32/05 - ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARINGS AND THE OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONSERVATION PLAN Summary of the results of five Ontario Municipal Board hearings where conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan has been an issue. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Shelley Petrie IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report titled Ontario Municipal Board Hearings and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND With the approval of the Authority, TRCA planners and ecologists have been involved in a number of Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearings where conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan has been one of the central issues in a hearing. To date, five such hearings have been completed where the OMB has made a decision. Staff is submitting this report to summarize the results achieved in these OMB decisions with respect to conformity of planning applications with the Act and Plan. While other municipal issues may have been involved, this report focuses strictly on the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) conformity issues that were before the OMB. SUMMARY OF THE FIVE OMB CASES 1) Sandhi!! Aggregates, Township of Uxbridge. This application was for a regional and local Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and zoning by -law amendment that proposed to rehabilitate an exhausted gravel pit in the Countryside Area designation to permit the development of a 750 unit residential and golf course development as an expansion to the hamlet of Coppins Corners in the Township of Uxbridge. The application was a transitional application and therefore subject only to the prescribed provisions of section 48 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP). Part of the development proposed encroachment into a Key Natural Heritage Feature (KNHF) - a significant woodland - which is prohibited by section 22 (2) of the ORMCP, and which is one of the prescribed provisions of section 48. Negotiations with the developer successfully resulted in a minor reconfiguration of the golf course layout to eliminate development within the KNHF, provide an enhanced buffer and additional plantings of native species to promote connectivity of several small adjacent woodland pockets. While TRCA issues focused primarily on environmental concerns, some of the other issues argued had more far - reaching implications than just to the specific site. The OMB interpreted section 17 (1) of the ORMC Act very broadly to allow post -ORMC Act applications for subdivision and zoning to shelter under an approved pre -Act application for OPA. The effect of interpreting those post -Act applications as conditions required for implementing the pre -Act approved application (the OPA) meant that the subdivision and zoning applications were also subject to only the prescribed provisions rather than the whole of the ORMCP. 81 The public agencies argued that this was too broad an interpretation of section 17 (1) and that it should apply only to conditional approval for subdivisions and consents, and not to OPAs. Provincial staff supported this more restrictive interpretation but declined to intervene in the hearing. The broad interpretation by the OMB of section 17 (1) in this hearing was repeated in several subsequent hearings by other Board members. In June 2004 however, Bill 27, An Act to Establish a Greenbelt Study Area and to amend the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, was passed by the provincial legislature. This Act amended the ORMC Act to confirm the interpretation of the public agencies that only subdivision, consent and condominium pre -Act applications will trigger section 17 (1). 2) R. Johnson, City of Pickering. An application for minor variance to permit a private dwelling to be built on a property that does not front onto an opened street maintained at public expense, was approved, with conditions, by the Committee of Adjustment. The dwelling was proposed on lands designated as Countryside Area and was subject to section 48, prescribed provisions, as a transitional application. Conditions of approval required that the access road for the dwelling, an unopened road allowance in the Natural Core Area, be widened and improved to meet standards for emergency vehicle access. This would have required site alteration (filling, grading of land and removal of trees) within Key Natural Heritage Features (significant woodland and ANSI - Area of Natural and Scientific Interest). This was contrary to ORMCP section 22 (2), which only permits development and site alteration in KNHF for transportation and infrastructure uses if it is undertaken by a public body. The conditions were appealed by the City of Pickering, the TRCA and a local citizens' conservation group because of the non - conformity of the decision by the Committee of Adjustment with the ORMCP. Ultimately, the issue was settled on consent of all parties by the repeal of the original conditions and the substitution of new conditions. The new conditions allowed for the use and maintenance of the traveled portion of the existing access road (within the unopened road allowance) but permitted no widening or the installation of services or utilities outside of the existing 3.65m traveled portion of the access road. The decision of the Board upheld the appellants' interpretation of the ORMCP that transportation, infrastructure and utilities uses which infringe on KNHF can only be undertaken by a public body (as per the definition of development and site alteration in section 3) and not by a private landowner. 3) U. Basso, King Township. In this file, the applicant appealed the refusal of King Township to approve a zoning by -law amendment to permit a proposed bed and breakfast establishment on a vacant parcel of land. The parcel was a vacant lot of record as of November 15, 2001 (s. 7) but did not possess zoning rights for single dwelling uses as it did not have frontage onto a public road. The applicants, therefore, submitted an application to establish a bed and breakfast operation, arguing that it was a permitted use in the Natural Core Area (section 11 (3)) - a principal use of land and not an accessory use to a permitted principal residential use. 82 The Township and several residents were parties in opposition to this new application, which was subject to all relevant policies of the ORMCP. TRCA supported the position of the Township but required only participant status in order to ensure, should the application be approved, that conditions were applied to require a natural heritage evaluation, a building envelope defined with TRCA input and approval by TRCA of a natural heritage restoration /planting plan. Prior to the pre- hearing the Province issued a written response to the Township's inquiry which confirmed King's position that a bed and breakfast establishment can only be created in conjunction with a single dwelling on a lot of record that permits a single family residential use. Further, provincial staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing testified to this effect on the applicant's motion at the pre- hearing. In dismissing the motion and denying the application the board stated: "The clear intent of the Conservation Plan is to limit uses and the intensity of uses within the whole of the Conservation Plan area, but particularly to do so within the Natural Core Area. The applicant's interpretation would allow for the creation of new single family dwellings, and then provide the means for their intensification, where no such right exists today. This interpretation would clearly defeat the purpose of the legislation and the Conservation Plan." 4) Uxbridge Industrial Limited, Township of Uxbridge. The principal issue for this hearing was whether a portion of lands in a proposed industrial subdivision should be identified as a Key Natural Heritage Feature (KNHF) and therefore protected from development. The 37 ha parcel of land was phase 2 of an adjacent built -out industrial subdivision located on ORM lands designated as Countryside Area. As a transitional application, it was subject only to section 48 Prescribed Provisions of the ORMCP. Section 48 requires adherence to, among other parts, sections 22 and 26, which prohibits development and site alteration in KNHF and Hydrologically Sensitive Features (HSF), both of which include wetlands. Consultants for the applicant initially provided only a bare -bones Natural Heritage Evaluation (NHE) and claimed that the wetland on site was not a wetland, but only a wet depression. TRCA staff ecologists disputed this and were supported by staff from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), who also made site visits to the wetland. It was their joint opinion that the wetland did meet the definition of a wetland, as defined in the ORMCP. Additionally, the wetland feature was shown on KNHF mapping provided by the province. Consultants for the applicant held firm in their original position that the feature was not a wetland, pointing also to the fact that the feature was Tess than 0.5 ha in size and thus should not be classified as a KNHF /HSF, and not subject to the development prohibition of section 22(2) and 26(2). This stalemate brought into play the draft ORMCP implementation guidelines being prepared by the province, in particular ORM Technical Paper 1 -02, Identification of Key Natural Heritage Features on the ORM. The document lists specific criteria for defining wetlands as KNHF. Although the ORMCP includes all wetlands as KNHF, the technical paper appropriately provides criteria which must be met if a small wetland pocket (less than 0.5 ha) is to be deemed not a KNHF and not protected. TRCA, through earlier comments and as a party to the hearing, insisted that a more comprehensive Natural Heritage Evaluation be undertaken to demonstrate whether or not the criteria, such as providing ecological linkages or rare species habitat, were met. Again, the applicant and their consultants refused to undertake this additional work, claiming that the guidelines were only draft and therefore had no status. As the 7 -day hearing approached, with TRCA staff and MNR staff (under friendly subpoena) set to 83 testify, the applicant changed their mind and committed to doing the required studies. The additional work included mapping of vegetation communities, assessment of hydrological function and further botanical and amphibian breeding assessment in the appropriate season. In the end, this additional work did prove that the wetland was not a KNHF and was not required to be protected. Citizen appellants and public agency staff both agreed, however, that the draft MNR guidelines, in addition to technical support by MNR staff, did prove to be effective and were instrumental to ensuring that the appropriate level of environmental study was carried out. 5) Dreamworks Property Inc., City of Vaughan. The application at issue in this file was unique in that it was a brand new (revised) application for a plan of subdivision, partly in the Settlement Area designation and partly off the moraine. The site contained a locally significant 2 -part wetland complex, with one small wetland being located completely off the moraine while the other wetland was located half -on /half -off the moraine. The developer had received previous OMB approvals for a residential development, prior to the enactment of the ORM Conservation Act, which did not require preservation of any portion of the wetland complex. Due to changed market demand, the developer was seeking approvals for a rezoning and new plan of subdivision, which triggered the full application of the ORMCP. The initial submission of the revised /new application proposed to completely fill in and develop the wetland portion completely off the moraine. The half -on /half -off portion of the wetland was proposed to be preserved as a KNHF, including a 10m buffer, but with a road and residential lots encircling the wetland. Subsequent negotiations with the developer resulted in an offer to provide an amphibian corridor, by way of a culvert underneath the road, to connect the tableland wetland to the adjacent Natural Core Area woodlands and valleylands, some 80m distant. TRCA staff felt that this proposal still would not meet the requirement of the ORMCP to maintain the ecological integrity of the moraine in this area, and not provide for the continuation of several species of concern including breeding populations of salamanders and frogs. As a result of this impasse and other City issues, the developer appealed to the OMB from the failure of the City to make a decision on the application. Further negotiations leading up to the hearing resulted in a much improved solution to the environmental issues that were finally settled on consent of all parties (Figure 1). The parties agreed that the small wetland completely off the moraine, which was severely degraded by runoff from adjacent development and past agricultural uses, and which exhibited minimal biological diversity, could be filled and developed. The remaining half -on /half -off wetland was completely protected with an expanded buffer. The proposed subdivision road surrounding this wetland was replaced with two cul -de -sacs separated by a tableland amphibian connectivity corridor approximately 80m in length by 55m wide. Conditions of draft plan approval included: • extensive plantings of native species in both the connectivity corridor and the adjacent valleylands; • the placement of signage and the preparation of ORM educational materials for distribution to prospective home purchasers; • enhanced stormwater management techniques and the development and implementation of a monitoring plan to ensure maintenance of the water balance for the wetland; and 84 • the setting aside of a contingency fund by the developer to remediate any problems from the engineered approach to maintaining wetland water balance on a seasonal and annual basis. The noteworthy outcome in this file is the attainment of the connectivity corridor to enable survival of the resident "species of concern" amphibian populations. Section 20 of the ORMCP requires maintaining and enhancing connectivity between KNHF, but only within Natural Core Areas, Natural Linkage Areas and Countryside Area designations. In this case, the requirements of section 23, components of a Natural Heritage Evaluation, were used to justify the need for a connectivity corridor to connect KNHF in Settlement Area lands to Natural Core Area lands. Time and the monitoring program will determine if this negotiated settlement results in meeting one of the key tests of the ORMCP: to maintain, improve or restore the ecological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine. CONCLUSIONS The province was initially reluctant to get involved when the ORMC Act and Plan were interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the original provincial intent. However, subsequent provincially initiated amendments to clarify the original ORM legislation, plus provincial staff involvement to support OMB hearings indicate a new willingness to ensure the original provincial intent is carried out. One might assume that this involvement will continue to be forthcoming as both the Greenbelt and Places to Grow Acts and Plans are tested at the OMB. In 4 of the 5 case studies presented the issues were ultimately resolved on consent of all parties, with all outcomes conforming to the requirements of the ORMCP. In the 5th case (Basso) the applicant's motion arguing for acceptance of their legal interpretation of the ORMCP was defeated. In many instances, the prescriptive nature of the ORMCP allows for a clear determination of conformity and encourages parties to resolve issues rather than argue them at length before the OMB. The similarly prescriptive nature of the Greenbelt Plan should produce similar results. The province would be well- advised to carry this level of prescriptive policy into the Sub -Area Growth Strategies required by the Growth Plan in order to overcome the anticipated NIMBY opposition to proposed requirements for intensification. Prior to issuing decisions, several of the OMB members expressed clear interest in gaining more knowledge about the ORMCP and in ensuring that the public agencies were satisfied that potential decisions conformed to the ORMCP. In most of the case files presented, this was the first time the Board member had dealt with an ORMCP file. They were clearly eager to learn more about the requirements of the Plan in order to ensure that their decisions were also in conformity with the ORMCP, as required by the ORMC Act. One might also assume that OMB members will be equally keen to ensure their decisions reflect the intent of the Greenbelt and Growth Plans and adhere to the new Planning Act standard to "be consistent with" the new Provincial Policy Statement. 85 Despite the implementation guidelines still having only draft status, they are being used and relied upon by ORMCP implementing /commenting agencies. Additionally, despite their draft status, they have been used effectively to convince applicants to do sufficient environmental studies to clearly show that proposed development conforms to the ORMCP. The eight MNR Guidelines need to be finalized and approved by the province as soon as possible. The seven MOE guidelines still have not seen the Tight of day, except for a limited technical peer review circulation. They also need to be finalized and made available as soon as possible. Once finalized, these guidelines should be able to be quickly and easily modified into guidelines to assist in the implementation of the Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan. Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361 For Information contact: David Burnett, extension Date: May 24, 2005 Attachments: 1 86 Attachment 1 f 1• :" 87 • 8 as 0 0 0 'E as c 0 t0 v b n 2 W o. �i a e as as -0a a w 0 76 } 'O C C tt q7 c c 'u. 0 .3 RES. #D33/05 - CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES MORAINE COALITION - 2004 ACCOMPLISHMENTS Update on the 2004 Accomplishments of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Shelley Petrie IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the report and brochure on the 2004 Accomplishments of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The nine conservation authorities with watersheds on the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) partnered together in late 2000 as the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC). The mission of the CAMC is to: • Advance the science and understanding of the Oak Ridges Moraine; and • Work towards government, agency and community support for the form, function and linkages of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The goals of the CAMC are to: • Define and protect natural heritage and water resource systems of the Oak Ridges Moraine through watershed studies and monitoring; • Support an accessible trail system; • Ensure effective stewardship services on the moraine; and • Build partnerships to provide education, information and land securement opportunities on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Ian Macnab, General Manger of Kawartha Conservation, served as Chair of CAMC for 2004. David Burnett, Senior Planner /Oak Ridges Moraine at TRCA, has been the coordinator of the CAMC since mid 2001. 2004 ACCOMPLISHMENTS The brochure outlined in Attachment 1 details the accomplishments of the CAMC in 2004. Highlights include: • continuation of hydrogeological studies and groundwater modeling as the lead partner in the York, Peel, Durham, Toronto groundwater program; • managing the watershed planning studies required by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP), on behalf of our municipal partners; • undertaking research activities that will lead to improved water quality and the restoration of major natural heritage systems; • providing technical and planning advice to related provincial initiatives such as the development of ORMCP guidelines, Greenbelt planning and model watershed policies; and • working with the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation and other partners to develop comprehensive stewardship and land securement programs and projects for ORM landowners. 88 The CAMC has distributed the 2004 accomplishment brochure to municipal councils and senior staff, provincial MPPs, federal MPs, CAMC partners and ORM stakeholders. The brochure is also posted on the TRCA website. Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361 For Information contact: David Burnett, extension Date: May 26, 2005 Attachments: 1 89 Attachment 1 Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition 2004 Accomplis The Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC) includes the nine Conservation Authorities whose watershed boundaries include the Oak Ridges Moraine. Central Lake O.ntarro Cnnserwation Credit Valley Conservation Ganaraska Region Conservation Kawartha Conservation Lake Soo Region Conservation talkie Lower Trent Conservationt� :N Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Ctonabas Conservation Toronto and Region Conservation To advance the science and understanding of the Oak Ridges Moraine. To work toward government, agency and community support for the conservation and protection of the form, function and linkages of the Oak Ridges Moraine, To define and protect natural heritage and water resource systems of the Oak Ridges Moraine through watershed studies and monitoring. To support an accessible trail system. To ensure effective stewardship services on the Oak Ridges Moraine. To build partnerships to provide education. information and land securement opportunities on the Oak Ridges Moraine. 90 The Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC) was established five years ago, as nine Conservation Authorities with watersheds extending onto the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) came together to advance the sci- ence and understanding of the Moraine. Our mission is to work towards government. agency and oommunity support for the conservation and protection of the form, function and linkages of the ORM. A groundswell of public, agency, and government support, as well as media attention, culminated in legislated protection and a provincial plan fa the ORM much sooner than anyone had expected. Although the Moraine is no bnger front page news, the implementation of the ORM Conservation Plan and resulting protectionienhancement efforts are on- going. Together, with the support of many dedicated individu- als and organizations, the CAMC has accomplished a great deal. Some of the highlights fran 2004 are fea- tured in this report. Thank You To Our Partners ORM Municipalities Nature Conservancy of Canada Seneca College - King Campus Ontario Nature ORM Foundation South Simcoe Groundwater Study Academic Institutions Various Private Sector Agencies, Foundations and Corporations Province of Ontario Ontario Geological Survey Geological Survey of Canada ORM Stewardship Councils ORM Land Trust Landowners Oak Ridges Trail Association 91 7iHind11.11i7' i\ j11. ^'4)12,t4'r!L Activities The CAMC oontinued to work with the Regions of York, Peel and Durham, as well as the City of Toronto (YPDT) on a groundwater program that focuses on data managamant geological understanding, numerical groundwa- ter modeling and policy development. Achievements in 2004 include: • ongoing expansion of the core groundwater model west into Peal and east into Durham Region; • epplioation of the mod& in critical projects such as the York Region deep trunk sewer and related water - taking permits; • aeiamic studies to locate additional water sup- plies for the City of Berrie and the Town of Port Parry; • increasing the accuracy and extent of groundwa- ter information through the addition of data col- tooled by the Ontario Geologicael Survey. Geological Survey of Canada and South Simcoe Groundwater Study; • native s° of version 1.0 of the database, modeling files and geological interpretive layer* to all ftsaijsaiion on the MOO) Technical Experts CAMCIYPDT partners to provide alt partners with Committee for Source Protection Planning; and a consistent level of knowledge and sutra of tools • CA IC/VPDT groundwater protect presentations to understand and manage water resources with- made to eight professional assooiationsfconfsr- it their jurisdioiions; erases. Activities Central to the mission of the CAMC and the mandate of individual odlteervation authorities, a nurriber air research projects were completed or lnktatad in 2004 to advance the Wane. and understanding of the Oats Ridges Moraine and ensure its protection M the future, these projects include. • wager budgets, fisheries and benthio assess= • a biological inventory, of the Ganaraska Forest ments, natural heritage inventories and fluvial and'oohiputer'rtod+iling to determine priorities for geomorphology (the sciernoe of stream,channeh the restoration 0f degraded tall grans prairie coM- dynamics) required by the ORM Conservation munkies; Plan: • a biological Inventory and development of • man- • an assessment of the benefits of porous pave- agement plan for the Aidervkte Woods Natural ment - which could be used to control surface Habitat :Area; and runoff and reduce watercourse degradation; • an assessment of the water chemistry and biotic • e biological invantay of the East Cross Pelmet community of the Tottenham Pond, by the (1,382 ha) end computer modeling to determine Nottaw'asaga'Valley Conservation Authority and priority areas for acquisition and restoration; local oommunity groups, ii i CAMC advanced partnerships and natural heritage sciatica • developing prinoiptes for Aquafc Natural Heritage Conservation and Restoration in theOR A • working with the Ministry of Natural Raseuroas and Conservation Authorities to produce dataled regional Mapping for the entire ORM at the oom- ritunity e`erta6 level of Ecological Land Classification; • serving on .a committee to generate a Restoration Strategy for the ORM which will, in turn, help the Oflia Poundation prioritize funding for steward- ship projects; on the ORM in 2004 by workebop presentations. in partnerohip with On$arlo Nat re, to municipal planners on the mathodotoylssused •b define natural heritage features:ia Official plan% and partiolpetirig in the des,& palest of an Invasive Species eirategY for the ORM and in the review of the draft Ontario Blodkrers4ly Strategy. 92 The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan requires that municipalities with lands extending onto the Moraine conduct watershed plans, and then incorpo- rate the results into their official plans. As a result, the CAMC and its members have been actively involved in: • managing the watershed plan process and under- taking required technical studies on behalf of our municipal partners; • mapping environmental features for the Township of Atnwicla?iatdimand and Township of Cramaha; • developing model policies for official plan amend- ments; • presenting the model policy project to the Canadian Institute of Planners; and • defending the ORM Conservation Plan policies at Ontario Municipal Board hearings. In 2004, CA14C members reviewed and commented on ORM- related provincial policy initiatives and tech- nical documents including: • Bill 27. Greenbelt Protection Act and Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper: • MNR's ORM Conservation Plan natural heritage - related and landform technical guidance docu- ments; • MOE's ORM Conservation Plan water budget and related technical guidance documents; and • NATO's ORM Highway Design, Construction, Operation & Maintenance guidance document. The CAMC also participated in planning and porno- bona! activities led by the: • Oak Ridges Trail Strategic Plan Advisory Committee; • ORM Biosphere Reserve Committee; and • ORM Foundation Education and Communication Project. As a founding member of the Oak Ridges Moraine Stewardship Partners Alliance (ORMSPA) the CAMC was involved with: • co- hosting 2 consultation workshops and generating a Long Term Stewardship Strategy for the ORM; • developing a program/strategy to contact landowners and monitor projects consistently across the moraine; • funding, reviewing and field testing a draft `Caring for Your Land° guide for private landowners; and • contributing funds needed to hire a Moraine Project Research Officer. With the assistance of more than 30 organizations, plus private landowners, the CAMC was able to: • restore over 56 hectares of wildlife habitat on the ORM through the completion of 35 projects; • permanently protect more than 140 hectares of habitat, by acquiring two large parcels of land, in the Central Lake Ontario watershed; and • permanently protect an additional 76 hectares of land through 4 con- servation easements and 8 Land acquisitions by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. owe ' roperty • n • • ges Moraine To Be Preserved On May 17, 2004 Russ Powell (CI.00A Ctael Administrative Oltirss :aril Dawn Sword donated a 198 acre •:onscrvation easement on the Oak ledges Merarto. I ho property is designated a Natural Core Area in the Oak Ridges Maas Conservation Plan I1 Ixiders a hectare parcel awned by the Onta cloritago Foundation callod the Fleetwood Creek property, which tv part of an wino:eve 940 hectare Area of Natural and Scientific Interns (ANSI) callod tho Fleetwood Karnes 93 RES. #D34/05 - COMMUNITY OUTREACH ACCOMPLISHMENTS Community stewardship spring 2005 accomplishments. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Shelley Petrie IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Community Stewardship Spring 2005 Accomplishments be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND As a result of the new Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) organizational structure, the Stewardship and Outreach Education staff and their community stewardship programs, operates within the Education, Stewardship and Outreach section in the Watershed Management Division. The intent of the community stewardship programs provides TRCA watershed stakeholders with the knowledge and tools required to support our watershed strategies to ultimately achieve The Living City vision. Fundamentally, the goal is to begin changing people's attitudes and behaviour to help TRCA and its stakeholders create sustainable communities throughout TRCA's jurisdiction. One technique or tool used to engage people in environmental stewardship activities is to host public events across TRCA's jurisdiction: This spring, TRCA will have hosted more than 35 events across the Toronto region during the months of April, May and June. Thanks to the many partners, stakeholders, funders, corporate support from all business units and a dedicated group of staff, TRCA has had the opportunity to share many watershed moments this spring in our communities. More than 6,500 volunteers and participants have been directly engaged in these programs, assisting with the planting of 17,000 native trees, shrubs and wildflowers. The annual community spring cleaning picked up 1,300 kilograms of garbage from our natural areas and parks. In Durham Region, the collected garbage was used to create an exceptional piece of public art through the Durham Arts Council Youth Enviromonsters Program. Tremendous crowds were drawn to TRCA's conservation seminars and Healthy Yards workshops. Many of TRCA's watershed residents learned how to adopt healthy gardening habits, experienced a variety of bird interpretation programs, even witnessing a sandhill crane at Tommy Thompson Park. Through TRCA's Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Programs, new Canadians were welcomed at a Canadian Citizenship Ceremony at the Kortright Centre and others were introduced through the Environmental Experience Program to their first ever Maple Syrup Festival at Bruce's Mill. The following summarizes the scope of the efforts and diversity of programs and products. Etobicoke Creek Watershed • Train the Trainer Yellow Fish Road Program • Aquatic Plants Program at the Peel Children's Water Festival Mimic() Creek Watershed • Malton Environmental Stewardship Day 94 Humber River Watershed • A Canadian Citizenship Ceremony in partnership with Kortright Centre • Centreville Creek Community Stewardship Plantings and Creek Cleanups • Toronto Catholic District School Board Plantings at Albion Hills and Claireville Don River Watershed • Vaughan Chamber of Commerce Corporate Planting Challenge • Opening of MacKenzie Glen Park in partnership with City of Vaughan • Waterside Marsh Bird Interpretive Walk • Corporate Environmental Fairs with Tesma Manufacturing, Rolark Steel and Sonofi Aventis Highland Creek Watershed • Native Plant Gardening Workshop • Songbirds and Waterfowl in Highland Creek at Colonel Danforth Park • Community and school plantings at Knob Hill, Birkdale Ravine and Centennial College • Highland Creek Valley Bike Tour with City of Toronto Cycling Ambassadors • Rivers Day at Morningside Park Duffins Creek Watershed • Mayors Earth Day - Whitchurch Stouffville and Preston Lake • Enviromonsters Durham West Arts Centre Youth Council Cleanup Project • Community Plantings in partnership with Ajax Environmental Advisory Committee Waterfront • Community Plantings at Ashbridges Bay and Humber Bay West Park • Bring Back the Birds Conservation Seminar at Tommy Thompson Park • Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project Community and School Plantings • Frenchman's Bay Pickering Pride Event, Tour of the Bay, Volunteer Environmental Watch (VEW )Monitoring Training • West Shore Habitat Initiative Butterfly Garden and Release, Wildflower Planting and Bay of Fun Programs Conservation Areas • Volunteer Deer Census at Claireville Conservation Area • Friends of Claireville Community Tree Planting Event • Palgrave Mill Pond Planting Watershed Wide • Aquatic Planting Programs with 40 schools across the GTA at 15 community wetland restoration sites DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE While regional and local municipalities contribute to approximately half of the total operating budget for these programs, additional funds are raised through the preparation of a variety of funding proposals. To date, staff has prepared more than 20 funding proposals to various organizations, foundations and sponsors, with the potential to leverage an additional $400,000 in funding for salaries, communications and project implementation to sustain these programs over the next year and beyond. Report prepared by: Patricia Lowe, extension 5365 For Information contact: Patricia Lowe, extension 5365 Date: May 20, 2005 95 RES. #D35/05 - LONG -TERM FISH COMMUNITY - TORONTO WATERFRONT Cooperation with Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Management Unit to share near shore fisheries data, western basin Lake Ontario. Moved by: Seconded by: Shelley Petrie Dick O'Brien IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the report titled Long -term Fish Community - Toronto Waterfront, dated May 26, 2005, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Over the past 25 years, the TRCA has been extensively involved with the investigation and management of the fisheries within our watersheds and waterfront. Since the early eighties, electrofishing has replaced index gill netting as the principle method for assessing fish communities along the waterfront. In comparison to entrapment nets, electrofishing allows the quick and efficient sampling of a variety of habitats and locations; it is a non - lethal method of collecting fish and is cost effective from a staff and equipment perspective. Since the inception of electrofishing surveys on the waterfront, TRCA staff has established long term and project specific fish community collection programs. Our fisheries work has been integral to many projects and programs along the waterfront. First and foremost, fisheries data provides a critical understanding of ecological conditions associated with our project sites. Under the regulatory requirements of both the provincial and federal governments, many waterfront projects would not be approved or proceed without this understanding. The following are selected examples of fish community enhancements at waterfront locations that are a direct result of our monitoring efforts: • Lake Trout Spawning Shoals • Habitat Island • Wetland Creation • Gravel/ Cobble Beach • Shoreline Regeneration • Coastal Wetland Regeneration Colonel Sam Smith Park Humber Bay Shores Tommy Thompson Park Port Union Millennium Square, Pickering Duffins Creek Marsh. Our corporate commitment to delineating fish communities has improved many of our projects to the net effect that the TRCA is considered a leader in ecologically based shoreline management, habitat restoration, andrfish habitat monitoring. This recognition provided the support that allowed the TRCA to develop and deliver an aquatic habitat strategy for the Toronto Waterfront. This aquatic habitat strategy was based on our scientific investigations into the biological health of the fish community. These ongoing fisheries investigations have contributed to a database of knowledge that has also been instrumental in developing habitat restoration projects. 96 Until 1998, the TRCA worked with a number of agencies to partner, borrow or rent an electrofishing boat to conduct this work. Under this arrangement it was increasingly difficult to fulfill our commitments. In 1998, the TRCA had the opportunity to purchase a used 1989 model year electrofishing boat from the Ontario Hydro's assets department. With this acquisition our corporate programs benefitted from the availability and utility of conducting fish surveys with our own equipment. In 2005, TRCA once again found the need to upgrade it electrofishing vessel and purchased a 2005 model year electrofishing boat to continue with its fisheries commitments. With TRCA's renewed commitment to excellence in environmental science the electrofishing program plays a significant role in the monitoring requirements imposed as conditions of approvals for major works and it also improves our ability to assess and report on the effectiveness of all of our efforts. TRCA has become dependent on this program to deliver our fisheries based projects. In 2005, no less than 35 programs and projects are directly dependant on TRCA's electrofishing program. The TRCA has also worked with outside agencies with a collaborative interest in fish community health. Coordinated sampling efforts often support programs such as the Sport Fish Containment Program and the investigations and surveillance for invasive species i.e. round goby and grass carp. In addition, we have collaborated with academia to support post graduate scientific research on northern pike distribution /movement within the Toronto Harbour and the correlation between habitat and fish community health. The TRCA recently partnered with the Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Management Unit to understand long term trend with this data. The Lake Ontario Management Unit became an entity in the late 1970s. Since that time it has undergone significant reductions in budget and staffing but remains responsible for ensuring the long term sustainability of the Lake Ontario ecosystem, and the socioeconomic benefits the lakes natural resources provide to Ontarians. LOMU manages most resource users, monitors status of several fish populations and plays an important role in fish culture programs in the Canadian portion of the lake from Niagara Falls to Kingston, and includes the Saint Lawrence River to the Quebec border. LOMU has 3 managers at Glenora who are supervised by the Lake Manager out of Peterborough. There are 3 permanent assessment biologists, 5 permanent technicians, 1 operations coordinator and 2 administration persons. As well, LOMU has 3 Conservation Officers at Glenora and 2 at Darlington. The unit swells to more than 25 people when the field season begins in June. The Province of Ontario is the consignee to the Strategic International Great Lakes Fisheries Management Plan (SGLFMP). This requires the Province to jointly create with our United States counterparts, fisheries management plans for the Great Lakes. As such, LOMU managers also sit on the Lake Ontario Committee, and Lake Ontario Technical Committee of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission as well as the Council of Lake Committees, and the Lake Ontario Management Plan (LaMP) Management Board and Working Group. LOMU works very closely with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the US Geological Survey in New York for both management and scientific collaboration. LOMU is also involved in several remedial action plans around the lake including Toronto. 97 LOMU conducts or contracts a wide variety of assessment programs ranging from the eel ladder at the Moses Saunders dam, acoustics and trawling offshore, creel surveys in the Bay of Quinte (summer and winter recreational fisheries) and the boat fishery in western Lake Ontario to index netting in the 1000 Islands, Bay of Quinte and Kingston Basin. Index gill netting is still in use in these situations as it is the only feasible sampling method for large offshore settings. In all, there are over 17 field programs in operation almost every year. The community index netting program is a peer reviewed fixed site gillnetting and trawling program that has been in operation since the 1950s. This program provides the cornerstone for many of the assessment programs LOMU deploys on Lake Ontario and has shown us changes in fish populations that short term programs would not provide. But, this program is limited as it does not assess the near shore coastal zone. RATIONALE One of the key issues facing LOMU was a reduction in assessment programs in western Lake Ontario following 1996. At present only offshore acoustics and the western basin creel of the boat fishery occur west of Brighton; the latter focusing on Pacific salmon and trout. There are several tributary programs along the north shore of the lake higher up in the watersheds that focus solely on salmonid stocking, survival and reproduction. In 2004, LOMU met with the TRCA to discuss the TRCA field programs and to access their data because it would provide invaluable insight into near shore production of fishes such as bluegill and pumpkinseed sunfishes, largemouth and smallmouth bass, walleye and the prey fishes particularly alewife and rainbow smelt. Currently, the TRCA data would represent LOMU's only knowledge of near shore fish production in the lake, west of Brighton. At first glance, the most significant stories emerging from the TRCA data are is its long term coverage over a wide geographic area making it invaluable to lakewide assessment of the near shore, the overwhelming high species diversity in the near shore embayments, lower complexity in coastal areas, abundance of alewife and gizzard shad, and presence of sport fish in and around most of Toronto's waterfront. LOMU next steps are to use the TRCA data, particularly the electrofishing data to estimate biomass (tonnage of fish), fish densities, and then suggest the potential for fisheries around Toronto and what level of fishing pressure they can support. One must remember that Toronto's near shore coastal zone is quite complex and provides a relatively small area of warm water and a much larger area of cold water habitats. This means managing expectations of anglers and those promoting angling should be done carefully and kept relative to the actual /potential fish production in Toronto waters. From a LOMU perspective, the TRCA data provides a mid lake assessment of near shore fish populations that will be important in the next writing of the Lake Ontario Fish Community Objectives and also for LOMU Environmental Objectives. As well, LOMU is currently tasked with rewriting the fish population section of the Lake Ontario LaMP. This too will benefit from the TRCA data as the LaMP requires a whole lake perspective and until recently was heavily focused on the offshore fish populations. From TRCA's perspective, the use by the LOMU of TRCA's long term fish monitoring data not only benefits the Toronto Region but also provides a lake wide perspective and highlights how the Toronto Waterfront and surrounding region fits into the entire Lake Ontario system. 98 Finally, LOMU's partnership with the TRCA is not exclusive and LOMU is currently partnering with Trent River CA, Quinte CA, Ganaraska CA and those in the Hamilton Harbor watershed. The purpose is to build at least a meta database available to all partners, showing who has done what, where, when and to provide a tool for those monitoring fish, fishing, designing new studies, etc.. FINANCIAL DETAILS In 2004, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Unit provided funding of $13,000 through the COA to complete this initiative. This funding was over and above the $40,000 annual fishery initiative of the TRCA's waterfront monitoring program (account no. 240 -01). This was a one time grant to consolidate TRCA's fisheries data into a single data base which now can be used by external partners as well as TRCA. Report prepared by: Rick Portiss, extension 5302 For Information contact: Rick Portiss, extension 5302 Date: May 26, 2005 RES. #D36/05 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES Minutes of Meeting #4/05, April 14 2005. The Minutes of Meeting #4/05, held on April 14, 2005 are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Shelley Petrie IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #4/05, held on April 14, 2005 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: James Fieldhouse, extension 5280 For Information contact: Amy Thurston , extension 5283 Date: May 27, 2005 99 RES. #D37 /05 - DUFFINS CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP MINUTES Minutes of Meeting #1/05, January 19, 2005. The Minutes of Meeting #1/05, held on January 19, 2005, are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Shelley Petrie IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group Meeting #1/05, held on January 19, 2005, 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: May 20, 2005 RES. #D38 /05 - ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION Minutes of Meeting #2/05, April 28, 2005. The minutes of Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition Meeting #2/05, held on April 28, 2005, are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Shelley Petrie IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition Meeting #2/05, held on April 28, 2005, 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: 100 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. Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292 For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Date: May 19, 2005 RES. #D39 /05 - Moved by: Seconded by: HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Minutes of Meeting #2/05, April 19, 2005. The minutes of Humber Watershed Alliance Meeting #2/05, held on April 19, 2005, are provided for information. Frank Dale Shelley Petrie IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of Humber Watershed Alliance Meeting #2/05, held on April 19, 2005, 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: Lia Lappano, extension 5292 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: May 16, 2005 RES. #D40 /05 - ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES Minutes of Meeting #1/05, February 3, 2005 and #2/05, March 10, 2005.. The Minutes of Meeting #1/05, held on February 3, 2005 and #2/05, held on March 10, 2005, are provided for information. 101 Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Shelley Petrie IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05, held on February 3, 2005 and #2/05, held on March 10, 2005, 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: April 20, 2005 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:24 p.m., on Friday, June 10, 2005. Dave Ryan Chair /ks 102 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer erTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/05 July 15, 2005 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/05, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, July 15, 2005. The Chair Nancy Stewart, called the meeting to order at 10:48 a.m. PRESENT Gay Cowbourne Member Frank Dale Member Pamela Gough Member Nancy Stewart Vice Chair REGRETS David Gurin Member Shelley Petrie Member Dave Ryan Chair Michael Thompson Member RES. #D41 /05 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Pamela Gough Gay Cowbourne THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/05, held on June 10, 2005, be approved. DELEGATIONS CARRIED (a) A delegation by Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, in regards to item 7.1 - Morningside Heights Tributary. RES. #D42 /05 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Pamela Gough 103 THAT above -noted delegation (a) be heard and received. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Russel White, Senior Planner, TRCA, in regards to item 7.1 - Morningside Heights Tributary. RES. #D43 /05 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Pamela Gough THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D44 /05 - Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS TRIBUTARY Overview of Project Construction and the Proposed Restoration Plan. Update on the restoration program for the Morningside Tributary within the developing Morningside Heights Community in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area). Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to review the monitoring conducted by the applicants representatives on the Morningside Tributary as part of the development of the Morningside Heights Community in the City of Toronto; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA require the incorporation of the 'recommendations of the monitoring program in any future restoration works to be undertaken within the Morningside Tributary. AMENDMENT RES. #D45 /05 Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough THAT the following be inserted after the main motion: 104 AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on a regular basis on the progress of the restoration. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND At Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/05, held on April 15, 2005, the members requested a report on the Morningside Tributary restoration plans, and a summary of the environmental impacts of the stabilization materials used on the Morningside Tributary during the construction and restoration process. The Morningside Tributary is located within the developing Morningside Heights Community and is part of the Rouge Park. The lands are generally bounded by the Rouge River to the east, Finch Avenue to the south, the existing CP Rail line to the west and Steeles Ave. to the north. The realignment, daylighting and restoration of this tributary was established through a lengthy planning process including a hearing and eventual settlement before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The settlement included acceptance of the realignment and restoration of the Morningside Tributary by the Save the Rouge Valley System (SRVS), the land developers, the City of Toronto, Ministry of Natural Resources and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). The implementation of the realignment, daylighting and restoration program was the subject of a permit application under Ontario Regulation 158 approved by the TRCA Executive Committee and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). The majority of the works are complete. There is additional restoration to be undertaken by SRVS as per an agreement between SRVS and the landowners who have contributed $1 million for the program. Historically, the tributary had been realigned through the development of the Brookside Golf Course (Attachment 1), had been piped in sections and was slated for elimination (by diversion of flows to the main Rouge River) as per an approved Environmental Assessment conducted as part of the original plan to develop the lands for industrial uses. The lower portion of the tributary was to be realigned with flows diverted to a large pond within the main Rouge River Corridor. Parts of the works were implemented including a large diversion structure and pond within the Rouge River Corridor, but a proposal to change the land use from industrial to residential provided TRCA staff with the opportunity to require the re- establishment of the tributary. Although initially not supported by the applicant, the settlement before the OMB resulted in the establishment of a minimum 100 metre corridor to contain a re- established tributary using natural channel design principles. These natural channel design principles were supported by the most current scientific methods for channel recreation as presented through Parish Geomorphic and Ecoplans. The tributary was also designed factoring the flood conveyance requirements and the stormwater management and servicing requirements for the adjacent developing lands. A small offshoot tributary of the Morningside Tributary know as the Neilson Tributary was also realigned as part of this project. TRCA staff have provided several reports to the Authority on the project, during and after the planning approval. These reports are available for review and include information reports, request for direction from the Authority, the Rouge Park Alliance and permit reports for detailed design. 105 Through the permit process under Ontario Regulation 158, TRCA technical staff reviewed and approved detailed design and restoration drawings, sediment and erosion control plans and planting plans. As part of the sediment and erosion control program a large temporary diversion channel was constructed to allow for the recreated channel and corridor to be implemented in dry conditions. The diversion structure conveyed upstream flows through the area. In addition, after the channel and riparian zone were graded the applicant promoted the placement of a photo - degradable erosion fabric typically used in large restoration projects, in order to stabilize the soils and eliminate rill erosion from rains and streambank erosion, while the vegetation and corridor established. While TRCA staff were initially concerned with this solution, it was determined to be the best measure to secure the natural channel and stream corridor immediately after construction while allowing for vegetation growth. The works were supported by City of Toronto engineering staff. TRCA staff have reviewed the potential impacts of the photo - degradable erosion control geo- textile blanket and note that there are potential impacts to wildlife in the short term after construction which are reduced once the valley vegetation establishes. It is noted that the material can trap small mammals and can also trap snakes and reptiles prior to its degradation. However, in order to minimize erosion downstream sedimentation during construction and during the establishment of the new stream corridor using natural channel design principles, these impacts were considered to be minimal. A recent and ongoing monitoring exercise being conducted as a requirement of DFO and the City of Toronto, has confirmed that the tributary is continuing to improve as the vegetation establishes and the watercourse moves towards a more mature stable system while retaining the natural dynamic character of a free flowing watercourse within the corridor. Fish have returned to the watercourse reach and habitat for flora and fauna is improving. A recent request has been made by the applicant to remove Beaver which are damaging the newly planted trees. Overall, staff consider the project to be moving forward to success. However, we have learned some lessons from the project which will be applied to any future project of this magnitude. It should be noted that the approval of this project was based on the historical planning and environmental circumstances and such a project is the exception rather than the practice in TRCA jurisdiction as the TRCA policies promote the insitu protection of all watercourses and habitats. The Rouge Watershed Task Force has put together a series of draft recommendations to be considered for future projects based on the concerns perceived with the project including concerns of Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed. These recommendations are contained in the table below for reference and will be considered as part of any works to be undertaken as a result of the monitoring exercise and any subsequent restoration works. In addition the table outlines actions that TRCA has or will take for any future projects of this type: 106 Rouge Watershed Task Force Draft Recommendations (2005) and TRCA Actions Concern Recommendations TRCA Actions The construction practices used in Morningside Heights, though current accepted practice at the time, are inadequate in controlling sediment and temperature impacts. Silt continues to collect on channel beds and increased nutrient levels and temperatures are leading to algal blooms. Monitoring will be important to determine to what extent the system returns, post construction. 1 • • • minimize the construction period, through phasing, proper planning and mitigate with best practices to reduce impacts during the construction phase (e.g. water quality, thermal, hydrology, etc.). promote stronger erosion and sediment control criteria. promote improved on -site supervision during construction. • projects of this magnitude are not the norm, however the importance of very detailed staging /phasing plans cannot be over emphasized. The synthetic geotextiles used in Morningside Heights for erosion control are designed to photo- degrade but may not degrade as efficiently as other products which may provide comparable soil stability. 2 • geotextile options should be investigated further to ensure the application of the most environmentally - friendly technologies available. • TRCA is continuing to investigate options and limit the use of this material to extreme circumstances. Non - native species were planted on site, though native plantings are specified in the site plan. 3 • require that a biological consultant conduct construction site inspections to verify planting plan implementation, as a condition of approval of plan of subdivision. • species were flagged removed and replaced. • species are being mislabelled by the nursery trade, therefore it is important that qualified professionals review plant material as it is delivered. Part of the rationale for the modification of the urban landscape in Morningside Heights was to permit a functioning sewer system. With a naturally wide, shallow floodplain and a desire to have gravity -fed storm drainage systems, the tributary channel and valley floor needed to be lowered. 4 • promote alternatives to standard servicing design, or seek opportunities to change land use designations or configurations that may avoid the need for lowering the channel. • TRCA staff concurs. Monitoring is not always required in development projects and if it is, it is often limited to within a five year time frame. 5 • require compliance monitoring financed through Development Charges and have a provision to extend the standard monitoring period to ensure adequate time for the site to show signs of stability. • monitoring of the tributary was part of the DFO Authorization and necessary prior to the lands being assumed by City of Toronto. • TRCA staff concur that the longer the monitoring period, the better. 107 Success in re- establishing native vegetation on sites cleared for development is limited by the reduced fertility of the soil, which tends to favour colonization by invasive species that under these conditions are able to out - compete natives ones. Poor soil can also reduce the long term health of a species. 6 • • take greater care with topsoil removal and replacement and avoid unnecessary compaction. investigate options for improving the fertility of soils and the potential longevity of plantings. • TRCA staff concur. Watercourses evolve over time to support complex biological systems and functions and when they are exposed to radical change such as channel diversion, they must begin the long process of re- establishing a dynamically stable channel, a supportive riparian zone and a productive, diverse instream community. 7 • stream diversion should be prohibited unless absolutely necessary. Where necessary, " natural channel design" principles should be applied. • • TRCA staff concur and note that opportunities to renaturalize the channel were an important consideration in this instance. This is the process undertaken with the Morningside Heights Tributary. The Morningside Heights development was initially approved in the eighties and the designs no longer conformed to current practice. It was only through the application for a re- zoning by the developer that opportunities for updating the design arose. 8 • that an agreed upon protocol be established for all agencies reviewing existing plans, using tools of negotiation /moral suasion and, in specified instances, land acquisition, to update outdated development plans that no longer meet current standards. • In this instance the agencies used the planning opportunities to revisit the old approvals and seek a better solution more in keeping with current standards. More attention should have been directed at the examination of development alternatives to the Morningside Heights development. 9 • unapproved development projects with a large potential for altering environmental conditions should require full Environmental Assessments to allow public consultation and the examination of alternatives. • The public process was served through the land use planning process and the Ontario Municipal Board. 108 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Morningside Tributary restoration is subject to a monitoring program as a requirement of DFO approval. The applicant is also required to undertake a two year monitoring program upon completion of the works and prior to the assumption of the property by the City of Toronto. Initial monitoring to address DFO and TRCA requirements were initiated at the time of permit approval in 2002 and the monitoring requirements for the City of Toronto were initiated in January 2005, the completion date. The City of Toronto monitoring program focuses on terrestrial habitat, stormwater facility function and channel stability. The DFO monitoring program focuses on instream habitat, water quality (including temperature) and channel stability. DFO staff are generally satisfied with the performance of the watercourse and associated restoration. TRCA staff will continue to review the monitoring of the project and will provide a more detailed report on the restoration plan after the 2 -year City of Toronto monitoring period which started in January 2005, is complete. TRCA staff are of the opinion that the watercourse and the related stream corridor continues to improve as the watercourse and vegetation stabilizes. We are also of the opinion that this project will be beneficial in the longer term to the overall health of the Rouge River watershed, particularly given that this tributary was once approved for elimination. TRCA staff will continue to work with the City of Toronto, the community interest groups and the owners to implement the recommendations of the various monitoring programs and to implement the recommendations raised by the Rouge Technical Group with this and future projects. Report prepared by: Russel White, extension 5306 For Information contact: Russel White, extension 5306 Date: April 19, 2005 Attachments: 4 109 Attachment 1 NTS � Dl via444 s- nwertme- •••••••i 6AsiStow Pita iMotAnN4sia. 140616HT5 EXISTING CoN6tTCNS 110 ■ Attachment 2 iannnnuwmlmw IIIL.. tlIIII1IH m unuu'i muirr, `NINeprIi• unuonll 11C. ..�uealmlllmnm� l III 1a��0Umu1 =- luuuiilll= X11111111111= 1�� \gllUlllj II G \ \ \ \; \11111'%1 2000 -2261 FEBRUARY 2001 SCHAEFFERS Consulting Engineers i 1 SCALE: N.T.S. CATCHMENT BOUNDARY MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS POST— DEVELOPMENT WATERSHED BOUNDARY 111 Attachment 3 112 Attachment 4 113 RES. #D46/05 - PICKING UP THE PACE TO RESTORATION - A RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE LOOK AT THE DON RIVER A Funding Request by Pollution Probe. Direction to work with Pollution Probe and provide funding for the development of a retrospective and prospective review of the Don River watershed. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff enter into an agreement with Pollution Probe based on their proposal to undertake the Don River retrospective /prospective project with a proposed title "Picking up the Pace to Restoration - A Retrospective and Prospective Look at the Don River"; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed and authorized to execute any necessary documents to give effect thereto with terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff; THAT TRCA provide $20,000 funding to Pollution Probe to initiate the development of the report; THAT staff coordinate findings from the Pollution Probe report with the Don Watershed Plan Update Study which is currently underway; AND FURTHER THAT Pollution Probe be so advised. RECORDED VOTE Gay Cowbourne Nay Frank Dale Yea Pamela Gough Yea Nancy Stewart Yea THE MOTION WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND Pollution Probe, a national environmental organization, is proposing to lead, in partnership with TRCA and others, an initiative that looks toward re- energizing a shared vision for the Don River watershed. A report will be produced with the proposed title Picking up the Pace to Restoration - A Retrospective and Prospective Look at the Don River, and will draw on historical records and lessons learned over the past 35 years to review and help define strategies necessary to advance restoration and regeneration efforts in the Don watershed. The report will review the history of the Don watershed, highlighting past achievements and disappointments; it will identify current barriers (both infrastructural and institutional) to further restoration; and will assist in defining a process for achieving the shared vision within the current governance framework. 114 The report will be a Pollution Probe document and will follow a similar format as other reports produced as part of Pollution Probe's 'primer series'. The report is to be developed with input from key stakeholders in the Don watershed and will undergo an intensive review process to ensure that it is unbiased as well as scientifically and factually correct. Pollution Probe will hire a well- recognized researcher /writer to produce the report, however final editorial control will remain with Pollution Probe's Executive Director. RATIONALE This initiative is well -timed in that it has been over 35 years since the anniversary of Pollution Probe's "funeral" for the Don; 15 years since the City of Toronto created its Task Force to Bring Back the Don; and more then 10 years since the publication of Forty Steps to a New Don. Many efforts by government, business and community partners have contributed toward addressing the key issues found in this extremely urbanized watershed, however, it is recognized that much remains to be done to restore the Don watershed. Significant projects currently underway include the EA for the flood protection of the Port Lands and naturalization of the mouth of the Don, as well as the detailed designs and final approvals for the flood protection of the west side of the Don River. In order to overcome barriers to restoration, the local community and Don watershed stakeholders must be re- engaged and re- energized. It is also imperative to involve all levels of government in the process in order to gain greater support, resources and capacity for the continued restoration of the watershed. The report will be completed in parallel to the TRCA's Don Watershed Plan Update which is currently underway. An executive summary of the Pollution Probe report will be produced and could form a "forward" for the Don Watershed Plan Update. Picking up the Pace to Restoration - A Retrospective and Prospective Look at the Don River will help to contribute to the general development of the Don Watershed Plan Update and will assist in guiding recommendations, strategies and tools for prioritizing implementation actions. This report will serve as a useful tool for stakeholders, watershed advocates at various levels and decision - makers in the Don watershed. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff will continue to work with Pollution Probe to ensure the proper integration of Pollution Probe's report with work underway on the Don Watershed Plan Update. FINANCIAL DETAILS Pollution Probe's Proposed Budget: $15,000 - 20,000 Research & Writing $15,000 - 20,000 Project Management (includes technical & expert review, revision and approvals) $30,000 - 40,000 Total Optional Expenses: $20,000 - 25,000 for editing, graphic design, images & printing. 115 Funding, in the amount of $20,000 will be provided by the TRCA to Pollution Probe to help begin the development of the report. These funds will be used to support the writer in their research and written work as well as project management within Pollution Probe. Funds will be transferred to Pollution Probe based on an agreed upon schedule of deliverables. Pollution Probe will seek the additional $10,000 - $20,000 required from other partners to complete the writing and project management components of the report as well as pursuing the additional funds required for the optional components. Funding provided by TRCA will assist Pollution Probe in leveraging this additional funding. Funds for this report are available in the Don Watershed Strategy account, 118 -10. Report prepared by: Amy Thurston, extension 5283 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: July 06, 2005 RES. #D47/05 - FRAMEWORK FOR A FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PICKERING WATERFRONT AND FRENCHMAN'S BAY City of Pickering in the Region of Durham. Joint City of Pickering/Toronto and Region Conservation Authority report - Framework for a Five Year Implementation Plan for the Pickering Waterfront and Frenchman's Bay and its recommendations and the actions of Pickering Council at its meeting held on Monday, June 27, 2005 requesting TRCA participation in this initiative. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report entitled "Framework for a Five Year Implementation Plan for Pickering Waterfront and Frenchman's Bay" prepared by Suzanne Barrett and Nicole Swerhun for the City of Pickering and TRCA dated June 24, 2005 be received; THAT the development of a Five Year Implementation Plan for Pickering Waterfront and Frenchman's Bay be endorsed as requested by the City of Pickering Council at its meeting held June 27, 2005; THAT staff be directed to work with the City of Pickering in the development of a Five Year Implementation Plan for Pickering Waterfront and Frenchman's Bay with priority emphasis on the development of a stormwater management master plan for Frenchman's Bay watershed as a major initiative to improving watershed health; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Pickering be so advised. CARRIED 116 BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #3/05, held on April 29, 2005, staff were directed to work with the City of Pickering on a scoping exercise, involving stakeholders with an interest in Frenchman's Bay, which will result in a workplan to direct future action related to the Frenchman's Bay watershed. Consultants Suzanne Barrett and Nicole Swerhun were retained to help design and implement a stakeholder workshop to discuss the many issues and opportunities related to Frenchman's Bay and the Pickering Waterfront. Preparatory sessions were held in March 2005 with City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and other agency staff to share information about studies, plans and projects. On Saturday, May 14, 2005, TRCA and the City of Pickering were host to 41 community representatives at the Ontario Power Generation Information Centre. Part 1 of the workshop focused on the need for a stormwater management master plan for Frenchman's Bay and its watershed. Participants were asked to provide advice regarding the objectives of the plan, the process for developing the plan, the studies that should be considered, and previous stormwater management recommendations. Part 2 of the workshop included discussion of other issues relating to Pickering's waterfront. Participants considered a list of current and planned initiatives and provided their comments as well as suggestions for additional initiatives. Following the workshop the consultants prepared the attached report entitled "Framework for a Five Year Implementation Plan for Pickering Waterfront and Frenchman's Bay ". This report recommends that a five year plan is needed to identify and coordinate the implementation of ongoing and planned waterfront and watershed projects. Such a plan would work towards achieving the objectives established by the Mayor Arthur's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront (2001). It will also integrate the recommendations and conclusions of previous reports such as: the Krosno Creek Downspout Disconnection Project (2003); Krosno Creek Preliminary Stormwater Management Strategy (2002); the City of Pickering Retrofit Study (2003); and Remediation of an Urban - Impacted Watershed and Lagoon: Frenchman's Bay, City of Pickering - Final Report. Building on the success of existing projects, the plan will Zink to other initiatives and create a mechanism to chart successes and report back to the community to show progress. The report suggests that the plan would include, but not be limited to, projects such as: • Stormwater Management Master Plan; • Harbour Entrance; • Waterfront Trail and Signage; and • Outreach, Education and Awareness. City of Pickering Council at its June 27, 2005 meeting adopted the following recommendations: 1. That Report OES 28 -05 regarding a framework for a Five Year Implementation Plan for Pickering Waterfront and Frenchman's Bay be received; and that 2. Council endorse the development of a Five Year Implementation Plan by staff through collaboration with the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), as adopted by the Waterfront Coordinating Committee (WCC), based on the framework attached to this report; and that 117 3. Staff be authorized to commence preparation of the Terms of Reference, in consultation with the TRCA, the WCC and other agencies to retain a consultant to prepare the Stormwater Management Master Plan and public consultation process; and that 4. The Terms of Reference be brought to the Executive Committee for approval at the regular meeting scheduled for September 26, 2005; and that 5. This report be forwarded to the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority for endorsement and acceptance to participate with the City of Pickering on this initiative. RATIONALE The TRCA, the City of Pickering and the Pickering Waterfront Coordinating Committee, are committed to working with other agencies and community stakeholders towards creating a comprehensive multi -year implementation plan for Frenchman's Bay and the Pickering Waterfront. As suggested, this plan would include development of a comprehensive stormwater management master plan for the Frenchman's Bay watershed, as well as the development of a harbour entrance project which are both consistent with TRCA's previous recommendations to the City of Pickering and the Pickering Waterfront Coordinating Committee. Pickering Council has set as a top priority the preparation of a stormwater management master plan with terms of reference to be approved by the City of Pickering in late September 2005. This master plan will follow the first two steps in a Class C Environmental Assessment (EA), including public consultation. In the last five years TRCA and the City of Pickering have undertaken numerous studies on Amberlea Creek, Dunbarton Creek, Pine Creek and Krosno Creek which will provide a significant component of a stormwater management master plan for the Frenchman's Bay watershed. The master plan will provide the comprehensive strategic direction towards achieving healthy watersheds, implementation priorities, agreement on phase 1 and 2 of a Class EA and major infrastructure funding partnerships. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE By September 2005 the City of Pickering will prepare a terms of reference in order to retain a consultant to prepare the stormwater management master plan component of the Five Year Implementation Plan. The master plan will be prepared such that it addresses, at a minimum, Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process. By doing this, any projects that are Class EA Schedule B or C projects would have the supporting master plan document as its basis. Due to its nature and connectivity to stormwater management, the issue of water flow between Frenchman's Bay and Lake Ontario may be included in the stormwater management master plan. TRCA staff and the Waterfront Coordinating Committee will assist in the development of the Terms of Reference. A Five Year Implementation Plan for Pickering waterfront and Frenchman's Bay will be prepared following the master plan completion. 118 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding is identified in the 2005 Durham Capital budget to provide for in -kind assistance in the stormwater management master plan. City of Pickering 2005 Capital Budget includes an allocation of $145,000 to support the development of a stormwater management master plan for Frenchman's Bay watershed and Krosno Creek. Report prepared by: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243 Date: June 28, 2005 Attachments: 1 119 Attachment 1 FRAMEWORK FOR A 5 YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PICKERING WATERFRONT AND FRENCHMAN'S BAY Prepared by Suzanne Barrett and Nicole Swerhun for the City of Pickering and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority June 24th 2005 1. BACKGROUND For over a decade, Frenchman's Bay and the Pickering waterfront have been the subject of numerous studies, plans and recommendations. Many projects have been implemented, resulting in success stories like Millennium Square, Beachfront Park, Petticoat Creek Bridge, improvements to Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park, restoration of the OPG woodlot, the West Shore Habitat Initiative and Home Place, to name a few. Despite progress on specific projects, serious concerns remain about the environmental health of Frenchman's Bay and its sub - watersheds. In response to these concerns, the Waterfront Coordinating Committee resolved in December 2004 to hold a strategic planning workshop with stakeholders to build a framework for an action plan for Frenchman's Bay and the Pickering Waterfront. Consultants Suzanne Barrett and Nicole Swerhun were retained to help design and implement the workshop. Preparatory sessions were held in March 2005 with City of Pickering, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and other agency staff to share information about studies, plans and projects. Forty one people, representing a wide range of stakeholders, attended the workshop on Saturday May 14th 2005 at the OPG Information Centre. Part 1 of the workshop focused on a stormwater management master plan for Frenchman's Bay and its watershed. Participants were asked to provide advice regarding the objectives of the plan, the process for developing the plan, the studies that should be considered, and previous stormwater management recommendations. Part 2 of the workshop included discussion of other issues relating to Pickering's Waterfront. Participants considered a list of current and planned initiatives and provided their comments as well as suggestions for additional initiatives. The workshop report, workbook and backgrounder are attached in the Appendices. The following action framework has been developed in response to the stakeholder input received at the May 14th workshop. 2. DEVELOPING A 5 YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2.1 What is it? The 5 Year Implementation Plan will identify and coordinate the implementation of ongoing and planned waterfront and watershed projects. 2.2 Why is this Implementation Plan necessary? The Implementation Plan will: 120 • ensure coordinated and timely action, • focus public sector, private sector and volunteer activities on an agreed course of action, • bring clarity to roles and responsibilities, • establish accountability and reporting mechanisms, and • provide a compelling and substantiated framework to assist in securing funds and other resources. The Implementation Plan will also directly contribute to the objectives outlined in the 1998 report of the Mayor's Task Force as received by Council, which made a commitment that that the Pickering Waterfront should become: 1. A Place where public access is maximized and opportunities exist for visitors to choose safe waterfront activities, compatible with the natural environment and adjacent neighbourhoods. 2. A Place that is effectively linked to commercial areas by special design themes along connector roads. 3. A Place where the waterfront trail harmonizes with the environment and links the different landscapes in a way that minimizes automobile use. 4. A Place where residents can study nature and contribute to its enhancement, as well as learn about the early settlement of our community and Port Pickering's historic role. 5. A Place where economic activities are encouraged to enhance the waterfront landscape and promote the waterfront experience. 6. A Place where development maintains a pedestrian scale that reinforces the waterfront experience, protects waterfront vistas, supports the ecosystem and remains compatible with the adjacent neighbourhood. 7. A Place that makes an important contribution to the development of a town -wide tourism strategy and helps attract future businesses and residents. 8. A Place where landscaping, public art, and other enhancements work together to mitigate the impact of existing negative land use. 9. A Place that recognizes and celebrates Pickering's multicultural mosaic. 10. Above all, a Place that fosters a healthy ecosystem, sustainable for the enjoyment of future generations. 2.3 What proiects will the Implementation Plan include? The projects include, but are not limited to: A. Stormwater Management Master Plan for Frenchman's Bay and its sub - watersheds B. Harbour Entrance C. Waterfront Trail and signage D. Outreach, education and awareness Additional details on each of these projects are included in Section 3. 121 Organizing framework for irnp$e ingP ic. ing .Waterfro-nt and FrenchmaWs.13avooleetig, 5 YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ,WATERFRONT TRAIL AND StGNAGE 2.4 Who will guide development of the 5 year Implementation Plan? PROMOTION EDUCATION AND AWARENESS The five year Implementation Plan will be developed through collaboration between the City of Pickering and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), with advice from the City of Pickering's Waterfront Coordinating Committee (WCC). Recommendations may be forwarded to Council by the Waterfront Coordinating Committee. 2.5 Implementation Approach The 5 Year Implementation Plan will: •, Build on Existing Work. The 5 year Implementation Plan will build on the 1998 report "Waterfront 2001 - Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront" as well as other recent studies and completed /ongoing projects. • Bring Consistency to Project Implementation. The following information will be included about each of the projects: - Objectives - Project team and responsibilities Workplan and timelines Budget - Public and stakeholder consultation plan Plan to secure funding and in -kind support Regulatory requirements 122 Performance measures and benchmarks to assess progress - Reporting methods and schedule • Coordinate information and projects. There are many existing and potential linkages among the individual projects in the 5 year plan. The Plan will indicate opportunities for information - sharing and collaboration among partners, reducing duplication and increasing coordination. Overall coordination will be provided by the Waterfront Coordinating committee, assisted by specific staff and /or citizen sub - committees for individual projects. • Assist in securing resources. The plan will provide the rationale and documentation required to undertake fund - raising for the entire waterfront and /or for specific projects. It will assist in identifying and securing opportunities for federal and provincial grants, public - private partnerships, in -kind support and volunteer involvement. • Link to other Initiatives. The Plan will be implemented in the context of the policies and programs of other levels of government and related initiatives by the private sector and community groups. Examples include, but are not limited to: - Province of Ontario's "Places to Grow" (Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Management Plan); - TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy, Integrated Shoreline Management Plan, Valley and Stream Corridor Management Plan, - OPG's Hydro Marsh Report and Biodiversity Study; - City of Pickering stormwater studies, - Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources fisheries plans; - Region of Durham policies including designation of Frenchman's Bay as a tourism node; and - Region of Durham Regional Bicycle Plan and Regional Trail Network. • Include ongoing citizen participation and regular evaluations. The City of Pickering Citizen's Report and website will be used to communicate the five year plan to the public and to provide annual reports on progress for each of the component projects. Workplans will be reviewed on an annual basis and adjusted if necessary. During the fifth year of the plan, an overall review will be conducted in order to update the plan for the next five years. 3. PROJECTS A. Stormwater Management Master Plan for Frenchman's Bay and its sub - watersheds The stormwater management master plan will encompass all the watersheds related to Frenchman's Bay, including the sub - watersheds of Krosno Creek, Amberlea Creek, Pine Creek, Dunbarton Creek and Hydro Marsh. 123 The stormwater management master plan will be undertaken to fulfil the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of a municipal Class Environmental Assessment which include identifying and describing the problem and assessing alternative solutions. The many existing studies for Frenchman's Bay and its watersheds will be incorporated into the environmental assessment. Terms of reference will be developed by City of Pickering staff, in consultation with other agencies, by September 2005. Consultants will be retained to prepare the Plan and public consultation will be an important part of the process. Following the completion of the stormwater management master plan, individual projects may be implemented immediately, others will require further environmental assessment (Phases 3 and 4) to consider alternative designs and develop an environmental study report. While the plan is being prepared, efforts should be initiated to secure sources of funding for project implementation. The following diagram illustrates how the stormwater management master plan will be developed. It illustrates a timeline of approximately 1 year to complete the overall plan (Phases 1 and 2) plus up to 6 months to undertake Phases 3 and 4 for specific projects. 124 Stormwater Management Master Plan Development Process Jen 2005 Jul Aug SeprOct 2006 Fal 2006 — Spring 200s 2006 — 2011 Summer 2606 — Summer 2011 B. Harbour Entrance TRCA has initiated a multi -year waterfront development project that will achieve sustainable marine function for Frenchman's Bay. It will include construction of a new harbour entrance, a Tong -term plan for dredging and improvements to public access. This project will require approval by all marine interests and all levels of government. C. Waterfront Trail and Signage The City of Pickering has prepared a Waterfront Trail plan and is implementing it in collaboration with the TRCA and the Waterfront Coordinating Committee. Immediate priorities include: Finalizing trail alignment in the Marksbury Road area; Design and implementation of Monarch Trail; Rouge Gateway; and Connections between west and east spit of harbour entrance. The Mayor's Waterfront Task Force recommended a series of interpretive signs across the waterfront. The Waterfront Coordinating Committee has prepared some preliminary signage concepts. Further discussions between the Committee and Pickering staff are required to finalize design, locations, budget and fundraising strategy. 125 D. Outreach, education and awareness The Pickering waterfront and Frenchman's Bay have tremendous potential for ecotourism and environmental education. The Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project is already undertaking excellent work to engage residents, increase environmental awareness and encourage sustainable living practices. The project began in 1998 and plays a strong role in the community as an environmental leader. It is a collaboration between the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Pickering, with a number of other partners. The project delivers innovative habitat restoration projects on public and private lands. In addition, the 1998 Mayor's Waterfront Task Force report recommended establishment of an education facility and programs on the Pickering Waterfront. The June 2003 report Remediation of an Urban - impacted Watershed and Lagoon (Universities of Toronto and McMaster) also recommended public education, including signage and an interpretive pavilion with a meeting room, demonstration laboratory and environmental library. The Waterfront Coordinating Committee needs to discuss these ideas further in order to develop a project description. 4. WATERFRONT COORDINATING. COMMITTEE - TERMS OF REFERENCE The Waterfront Coordinating Committee (WCC) was established by Pickering Council in 2000 to assist with the implementation of the Mayor's Waterfront Task Force 1998 recommendations. In 2006, appointments to the WCC will be reviewed. Therefore it is timely, in conjunction with the preparation of the 5 year plan for the waterfront, to establish specific terms of reference for the committee. Suggestions are provided below. 4.1 Suggested WCC Role The suggested roles of the WCC are to assist the City of Pickering Council and staff by providing: • Oversight for implementation of the five year plan to ensure accountability and progress as measured against the benchmarks established in the 5 year plan; • Coordination to improve effective use of resources and avoid duplication; • Clearing house for information exchange; • Network with the broader community; • Establishment of community priorities; and • Assistance in securing funding and in -kind support. 126 4.2 Membership Membership of the WCC is currently comprised of the Mayor, two other Members of Council, eight persons appointed from the community, and representatives from relevant agencies and landowners. The WCC is chaired by a member of City Council. The WCC needs to review its membership to ensure that it is structured effectively for its work on the 5 year plan and individual projects. For example, at the May 14th workshop, it was suggested that representatives from school boards and universities should be added to the Committee. Another recent suggestion is that agency staff should participate as dedicated resource people on the WCC and appropriate sub - committees (rather than being members of the WCC). Term of appointment is three years. 4.3 Meeting schedule The WCC will meet on a quarterly basis, subject to need. Additional meetings may be scheduled by the Chairperson if required. 4.4 Public and stakeholder consultation The WCC will assist the teams responsible for specific projects to engage stakeholders and the general public in meaningful and timely discussions. It will also assist with overall consultation for the implementation plan, progress reporting and plan review. APPENDICES Appendix A. Backgrounder for May 14th Workshop - Addressing Stormwater Impacts on Frenchman's Bay Appendix B. Workbook for May 14th Workshop - Addressing Stormwater Impacts on Frenchman's Bay Appendix C. Workshop Report - Addressing Stormwater Impacts on Frenchman's Bay, May 14th 2005, OPG Information Centre 127 RES. #D48/05 - REVISION OF THE WEST NILE VIRUS STANDING WATER COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE FOR TRCA Revision of an existing protocol to better assist in dealing with complaints surrounding standing water on authority property, participation in the West Nile Virus Advisory Committee, monitoring populations of mosquitoes on TRCA property. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the updated protocol, as amended, to address public complaints about standing water and West Nile Virus (WNV) related inquiries on TRCA property be received; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to participate in the West Nile Virus Advisory Committee for the Regions of Peel, Durham,York and Toronto and continue to monitor mosquito larval densities on TRCA property. CARRIED BACKGROUND To minimize the risk of WNV infection in humans, Public Health Units of Ontario have set out to identify and eliminate preferred breeding sites of the two key enzootic vectors. In February 2003, the TRCA was asked by the Regional Health Departments of Peel, Durham, York and Toronto to assist in the monitoring of larval mosquito populations in natural areas. At Authority meeting #3/03, held on April 25, 2003, resolution #A64/03 was approved as follows: THAT staff develop and implement a larval mosquito monitoring program across the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) jurisdiction; THAT staff be directed to participate in the City of Toronto West Nile Virus Advisory committee; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to request funding assistance from the TRCA's Municipal partners and health departments. An addendum was included to the Authority report (meeting #3/03) that outlined the protocol for responding to standing water complaints on Authority lands. In 2003 and 2004, TRCA conducted an Authority wide monitoring program to characterize the mosquito species of marshes, ponds and woodland pools and to identify breeding sites for the two key WNV vectors (Culex pipiens and Culex restuans). The results from this study showed that healthy, functioning wetlands pose little to no risk to the public in terms of breeding high densities of WNV vectors. However on a few occasions, WNV vectors could be found in exceedingly high numbers in isolated pockets of stagnant water. The TRCA is committed to identifying these high risk sites on our property and managing them appropriately. To help assist in the management of WNV in natural areas, the TRCA will continue to be involved in: 128 1. Public Education. By continuing to respond to public inquiries on WNV and to reports of standing water on TRCA property in addition to providing information for both the public and TRCA staff. 2. Regional Collaboration. Staff will continue to participate in WNV advisory committees for each of the Regions of Peel, Toronto, York and Durham. 3. Surveillance and Source Reduction. Staff will continue to identify sites of concern for WNV on TRCA property through larval monitoring and by performing housekeeping duties to reduce the number of potential breeding sites for the major WNV vectors. RATIONALE Staff anticipate aggressive requests from neighbouring private property owners for actions to be taken on Authority lands to address perceived mosquito breeding potential in standing water. It will be important for staff to have a protocol to follow to ensure consistent responses and avoid a major commitment of staff time to respond to complaints. The protocol also establishes the review and approval process to be followed in the event that WNV vectors are found in sufficient densities to warrant control measures by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC). The protocol has been updated from the addendum previously received by the Authority and contains additional detail regarding follow up and monitoring of WNV vectors on lands managed by TRCA. Specifically the protocol details the process for receiving, documenting and screening complaints to determine the appropriate follow -up actions. The actions include determining whether or not the lands in question are owned and managed by the TRCA, and if not the provision of the appropriate contact information. The protocol, which was developed in consultation with the various municipal Health Departments, also outlines the standardized sampling procedures (developed by the Province) for collecting mosquito larvae at the site. Although mosquito controls have not been previously undertaken on TRCA lands, the protocol also outlines the approval process if control measures are required from the Medical Officer of Health. If the investigation reveals that there are high numbers of vector species (ie. Culex pipiens, Culex restuans) the complaint is forwarded onto the appropriate health unit for review by the local Medical Officer of Health (MOH). The local MOH will determine if control measures are needed and if they will achieve a reduction in the threat of WNV to the human population and fits in with their WNV program. Should treatment be required, the TRCA will be notified. This process is reinforced in the "2003 West Nile Virus Preparedness and Prevention Plan for Ontario" put out by the Ministry of Health and Long -term Care where it states that: Wetlands must not be drained or altered in any way, unless there is an exceptional circumstance of significant human health risk from disease - vector mosquitoes. Consultation with, and permission from, the MNR and the appropriate Conservation Authority will be required. At the time of notification, funding issues, if any, will be discussed. All proposed control measures on TRCA land, along with any funding issues, will be recommended to the Authority for approval. If time does not permit due to a set compliance date being prior to a board meeting, approval will be granted by the Director, Ecology at TRCA and a subsequent report will be brought to the board for information. 129 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue surveillance activities at 30 sites on TRCA -owned lands and will continue to liaise with Regional Health Units throughout the 2005 field season. Complaints will be reviewed following the protocol. A report summarizing the results of the WNV surveillance program will be compiled in the Fall of 2005. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the TRCA's 2005 WNV surveillance program is available from TRCA's municipal funding partners as part of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (124 -34). This funding is sufficient to support the 2005 surveillance field work and staff support to liaise with the Regional Health Units and to respond to complaints. The funding will not cover costs associated with any control measures if deemed necessary. Staff are continuing to discuss funding options with the regional and provincial health departments in the event that control measures are required. Report prepared by: Nicole Lauro, extension 5665 For Information contact: Nicole Lauro, extension 5665 Date: June 29, 2005 Attachments: 1 130 Attachment 1 Title: West Nile Virus Standing Water Complaints Procedure for TRCA Step 1. Complaint Complaints about standing water are received either directly or indirectly from the public, staff or regional health units. Complaints will be forwarded to the Authority's lead WNV staff (Nicole Lauro, Boyd Office - 416- 661 -6600 ext. 5665) Complaints should be handled promptly and with every incidence given serious attention. All complaints will be logged to determine potential breeding sites for WNV vectors for future years. Step 2. Screening The person receiving the complaint should conduct a brief interview with the caller using a standard set of questions and messages. • Take information on the caller's name, address, phone number, email address and location of the complaint • Take information on the nature of the complaint • Advise the caller that TRCA has previously and is currently monitoring a representative sample of natural areas within our jurisdiction • Provide the caller with information about WNV • Advise the caller that the results from TRCA's monitoring has consistently shown that healthy functioning wetlands pose little to no risk to the public in terms of breeding high densities of WNV vectors. On a few occasions, WNV vectors could be found in high numbers in isolated pockets of stagnant water • Advise the caller that the TRCA is committed to identifying these high risk sites and will manage them appropriately • Advise the caller that the Regional Health Departments are the lead agencies dealing with WNV and that the TRCA will be following the directions provided by the Regional Medical Officers of Health (MOH) and that larvacides will only be applied to an area by the Regions or City under an order from the MOH. Step 3. Property Ownership Investigation All complaints should be processed through our Property Management division to verify that the property in question is owned by the TRCA. IF the property is not in ownership by TRCA refer the caller to the appropriate regional health unit. IF the property is TRCA's but under a management agreement, direct the caller to the appropriate regional health unit. TRCA staff will investigate sites of concern on lands they directly manage and take appropriate remedial action if required (see Step 4) Step 4. Standing water complaints on property directly managed by TRCA Staff should be sent out to investigate standing water complaints on property directly managed by TRCA using the following standardized sampling: 131 1. At each site information on the date, time and location should be recorded on a standard field sample form 2. Use a standard white plastic mosquito dipper (sampler diameter = 13 cm) to take samples of mosquito larvae 3. At each site under investigation take up to four samples with'each sample consisting of 10 dips of the mosquito dipper 4. Mosquito larvae should be transferred to specimen containers using an eyedropper and the number of larvae per dip should be recorded 5. At no time should samples be taken if there is rain falling 6. Samples should be transported back to Boyd Field Centre in coolers for species identification Based on the average number of mosquito larvae, a site is ranked as: nil if no larvae are collected in 10 dips low if the average number of larvae collected in 10 dips is between 1 -2 moderate if the average number of larvae collected in 10 dips is between 2 -30 high if the average number of larvae collected in 10 dips is greater than 31 If the investigation reveals that there are high risk indicators (ie. Culex pipiens, Culex restuans) the complaint is forwarded onto the appropriate health unit for review by the local Medical Officer of Health. The local MOH will decide if the proposed measures will achieve a reduction in the threat to WNV to the human population and fits in with their WNV program. Should treatment be indicated, the TRCA will be notified. This is reinforced in the "2003 West Nile Virus Preparedness and Prevention Plan for Ontario" put out by the Ministry of Health and Long -term Care where it states that: Wetlands must not be drained or altered in any way, unless there is an exceptional circumstance of significant human health risk from disease - vector mosquitoes. Consultation with, and permission from, the MNR and the appropriate conservation authority will be required. At the time of notification funding issues, if any, will be discussed. All proposed control measures on TRCA land, along with any funding issues, will be recommended to the Authority for approval. If time does not permit due to a set compliance date being prior to a board meeting, approval will be granted by the Director, Ecology at TRCA and a subsequent report will be brought to the board for information. 132 RES. #D49/05 - TORONTO AND REGION REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP) 2005/06 WORKPLAN Receipt of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan Workplan for the 2005/2006. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 2005/06 Workplan for the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan Memorandum of Understanding be received; AND FURTHER THAT Environment Canada and the Ministry of the Environment be thanked for their continuing support. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #4/02, held on April 26, 2002, Resolution #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 four 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. The 2005/2006 Toronto RAP MOU budget is composed of $530,000 provided from Environment Canada ($250,000 annually) and the Ministry of the Environment ($280,000 for 2005/2006). These funds are used to implement key projects in association with the goals and objectives of the Toronto RAP. 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. FINANCIAL DETAILS 2005/2006 Toronto RAP MOU Budget 133 CLEAN WATERS Development of Improved Design Criteria for Construction Sediment Ponds - $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. Greenroofs - $30,000 The Greenroofs for Stormwater Management Project will continue to assess the potential of greenroof infrastructure to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of stormwater run -off. Model simulations of a greenroof scenario applied to the Markham Branch of the Highland Creek will be summarized and documented in a report. A technical brief on water quality leachate testing results for selected greenroof substrates will be completed. A monitoring protocol will be developed for the anticipated monitoring to be undertaken at the Earth Rangers Centre greenroof at Kortright. Updates to the sustainable technologies website are planned and the TRCA will host a workshop on stormwater best management practices to highlight the findings of this and other innovative stormwater technologies being developed. Porous Pavement - $30,000 TRCA installed porous pavement in one of the student parking lots at the Seneca College King Campus last year. Incorporating monitoring considerations into the construction of this parking lot provided 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. An interim report including all monitored data observations, conclusions and recommendations will be completed this year. A workshop on stormwater best management practices will be hosted by TRCA to discuss the key findings of this and other studies exploring stormwater management technologies. Technology Transfer Workshop - $9,000 Three technology transfer workshops are planned for this year. The focus for these workshops will include: 1. Stormwater Monitoring and Maintenance Technology transfer between agency representatives (topics to be covered will include Regional Monitoring Network /Juturna, SWAMP results, Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP), Vaughan Stormwater Maintenance Plan, Richmond Hill Monitoring Plan and Mississauga Stormwater Pond Sediment Management Strategy). 2. Community Involvement in Stormwater Management - The purpose of this workshop is to promote community awareness of stormwater management issues and the technologies being developed to help mitigate stormwater impacts. 3. Climate Change - the intent of the workshop is to build a consensus and knowledge base on climate change issues, identifying research gaps and highlight and encourage, if necessary, new research linking to watershed management techniques and climate change. 134 Spills Management- $23,000 In Clean Waters, Clear Choices, the Stage 2 report for the Toronto and Region RAP, " improvement of spills response and prevention" was identified as a priority action under the Stormwater criterion. In 2004, the RAP supported activities to develop and implement a multi - stakeholder constituency - building process to enhance watershed and waterfront spills prevention, responses and understanding of the issue. Plans for 2005/2006 are: • to continue the development of this initiative by producing a baseline of spills data to be used for monitoring purposes; • to help facilitate the coordination of data sharing among agencies; • the continual support of a technical advisory committee on specific spill related issues; • to outreach to other groups and further relationship building with involved groups; • to host a follow -up workshop; and • to produce a Toronto AOC spills Action Plan. HABITATS ACTION Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program/Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy - $35,000 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 TNHSS was released in the spring of 2004. Comments and feedback received from the consultation process will be incorporated as the draft is revised and finalized this year. Consultation with each municipality to refine target system mapping will be carried out; these consultations will also explore opportunities to integrate the TNHSS into the existing policies and planning frameworks of each municipality. In addition, further testing of the science -based Landscape Evaluation Model will be completed and a report based on the findings will be made available. Field inventories will be undertaken to support the TNHSS and inform watershed plans. The timing is opportune for the TNHSS to be considered by the municipalities as they are required to conform to the province's Greenbelt Plan, 2005, which could lead to increased support for incorporation of the strategy. 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 methodology's 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. 135 EDUCATION AND NGO /COMMUNITY ACTION Stewardship Projects - $75,000 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. In 2005, in consultation with stakeholders, an outreach and communication strategy will be developed to address the cultural practice of river offerings by various ethnic communities. Representatives of the program will attend and provide environmental education materials at several cultural celebration events. The development and securement of funding for the Environmental Ambassador program is a priority for this year; this program provides employment experiences for new Canadians in community environmental initiatives. Work to develop the Environmental Experience Program, which brings new Canadians to conservation areas throughout the Greater Toronto Area will be carried out. The Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program will also develop a demographic opportunities map as a corporate planning tool to ensure new Canadians are engaged in TRCA corporate implementation activities. Rural Clean Waters Program This program works with rural landowners to increase their awareness of why and how to undertake stewardship opportunities that will reduce nutrient, bacteria and sediment loadings from their property to the Great Lakes. Workshops and training opportunities will be offered regarding issues of source water protection, new farming technology and nutrient management legislation. Communication materials will also be developed and distributed. 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. Two new educational components in support of science and technology curriculum for grades 8 and 10 which focus on mercury and source water protection are being developed. Highland Creek Stewardship Program In 2005/06, the Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Program (HCESP) will continue to build capacity within this priority urban watershed in support of the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. 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. 136 Stewardship Forum Each year the Toronto RAP works with TRCA and the City of Toronto to host an annual Stewardship Forum. Topics for the forum change yearly with the main focus of the day being capacity building, training and networking opportunities for more than 100 environmental stewardship groups across the Toronto region. This year's Stewardship Forum titled "Our Great Lake" was held on March 5th, 2005 at the Harbourfront Centre. 175 people were in attendance and the key note address was given by the Commissioner of the Department of Environment for the City of Chicago, N.Marcia Jimenez. MONITORING AND RESEARCH Regional Monitoring Program - $50,000 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. The Toronto RAP Team has established environmental recovery targets. These targets provide a benchmark against which monitoring results can be compared. A review of these targets is necessary to evaluate their current relevancy in relation to improvements in the Area Of Concern and the state of the science. This review will be undertaken in 2005/06. Progress Report for 2002 -2007 - $15,000 As the five year Memorandum of Understanding between the TRCA, Environment Canada and Ministry of the Environment begins to wrap up, the TRCA, as lead implementation coordinator for the RAP is required to produce a progress report. This report will capture the work completed through the RAP program over the five year period. Urban Contaminant Fate and Effects: Toronto Catchment Study - $30,000 This study will provide data and evidence which will be used to construct an understanding of the sources, transport mechanisms, fate and effects of chemicals found in an urban environment. The chemicals of concern include nutrients, suspended solids, persistent organic pollutants and mercury. A major aim of this study is to initiate an integrated study of an urban catchment by looking at all environmental media including air, surface water soil, as well as ecosystem and human health. The study will involve monitoring two catchments; one as the urban catchment (Etobicoke Creek) and the other as the "control" (in the Town of Caledon). The report produced will provide a reference for the current state of the catchment area(s) as well as provide a preliminary understanding as to the impact of urban watersheds on the nearshore waters of the lake relative to other sources of contaminants (i.e. the atmosphere, sewage treatment plants). 137 SUSTAINABILITY Sustainable Communities - $10,000 In 2004 a new program was launched to create a framework of best practices aimed at benchmarking and raising the bar for what can be achieved in sustainable community planning and design. The framework will be grounded in actual applications in use by the various projects, and developed in consultation with corporate leaders from builders and developers along with their counterparts from municipal and regional governments. Structured interviews will be conducted with the leaders of sustainable community projects to better understand the state of current practices. The framework and results from these interviews will be used to establish a sustainable communities website as a knowledge base for defining and monitoring practices, progress and outcomes. 2006 will see the development of the website that will allow community leaders to see what initiatives are underway across the Toronto region, communicate with their counterparts and learn from best practices. This website will be a primary resource for municipalities and developers interested in sustainable community design and development. It will provide options, case studies and contacts to help provide additional ideas for projects already underway, and practical solutions around technologies and practices for those in the early stages of community planning. 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 Area of Concern 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 including recent support for the adoption of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. 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. Watershed strategy implementation will continue with specific attention in the Waterfront, the Etobicoke, Mimico, Humber and Don watersheds, on facilitating planning for implementation of projects that will contribute to the objectives of wet weather flow, and further planning efforts on the Highland Creek. 138 RAP Implementation Mechanism - $83,000 This allocated funding ensures the coordination of Toronto and Region RAP activities. It supports senior staff time, a RAP project manager and part-time administrative costs for the RAP MOU. This also includes support to RAP team meetings, communications and project work expenses, including budget details. In order to provide current information to the public about RAP issues, this funding also supports updates to the website which will be completed on an as needed basis throughout the year. Report prepared by: Kelly Montgomery , extension 5576 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: April 27, 2005 RES. #D50/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: COATSWORTH CUT MAINTENANCE DREDGING Implementation of maintenance dredging at Coatsworth Cut, in the City of Toronto. Frank Dale Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with maintenance dredging of Coatsworth Cut at Ashbridge's Bay, in the City of Toronto. CARRIED BACKGROUND Coatsworth Cut is located in a sediment deposition zone and due to the continual siltation and corresponding reduction in offshore capacity for accumulated sediments, on -going maintenance dredging is required on an annual basis to maintain a safe and navigable channel for use by the public, local boating clubs and to provide for emergency access, as required. Staff are continuing to investigate options for a long term solution to address this problem. Maintenance channel dredging was undertaken in 2004 with the removal of approximately 4,000 cubic metres (in -situ volume) of material. Material was disposed of off site at Tommy Thompson Park for use in habitat and site restoration projects. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff performed a sounding survey of Coatsworth Cut channel in May 2005. Based on this survey a total estimated volume of 4,500 cubic metres of deposition has occurred within the channel boundaries since completion of dredging operations in 2004. The total budget allocated for anticipated dredging requirements in 2005 is presently $115,000. Based on this amount staff recommend dredging of approximately 2100 cubic metres of material in Coatsworth Cut. Due to the total estimated quantity of dredging required, as indicated by the recent sounding data, staff will be investigating opportunities for additional funding to complete the balance of the dredging for 2005. 139 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding in the amount of $115,000 is available in the 2005 Toronto Waterfront Capital budget. Report prepared by: Mark Preston, 416- 392 -9722 For Information contact: Mark Preston, 416 - 392 -9722 Date: June 15, 2005 RES. #D51/05 - 2005 PEEL CHILDREN'S WATER FESTIVAL AT HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA To provide an overview of the 2005 Peel Children's Water Festival's educational activities, ecological restoration project and participation. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Chair send a letter to the Regional Municipality of Peel congratulating them on the success of the 2005 Peel Children's Water Festival. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) works with regional, municipal, conservation authority and other community partners in order to deliver educational and sustainable communities components to the children's water festivals within York, Durham and Peel regions. The Peel Children's Water Festival has been held at Heart Lake Conservation Area for the last four years. , The 2005 Peel Children's Water Festival (May 26 -June 1, 2005) Over 8,500 people (5,242 elementary students, 1,097 teachers and parent chaperones, 500 high school volunteers, and 2,000 community members) participated in the 2005 Peel Children' s Water Festival. Fifty -six activity centres, staffed by high school volunteers, partners, staff and volunteers delivered various water - related messages within a broad range of themes including source protection, conservation, habitat, local watersheds and features, natural and human heritage aspects. EcoFair (May 25, 2005) The 2005 festival season began with the EcoFair, an interactive and action - oriented conference of school groups sharing their experiences. EcoFair is one part of a larger TRCA / Region of Peel initiative that includes the Peel Water Story teacher's guide and curriculum. This year's EcoFair saw 15 groups attend and the pavilion with the individual school group displays remained open over the course of the water festival as a place where students and their teachers could gain inspiration, ideas and tools on how to implement environmental action projects in their schools and communities. 140 Community Day (Saturday, May 28, 2005) Community Day drew approximately 2,000 members of the general public. Community Day featured the following TRCA / Coalition activities: Trout Release, All's Well That Ends Well, Water Less or Waterless, It's Up To YOU - Water Conservation Gardening, and Heart Lake Master Plan. Greetings were brought by TRCA's Chief Administrative Officer. TRCA's Healthy Watersheds Circuit - Education and Action A collection of four systems -based activities (Butterflies, Birds and Biodiversity; Match the Track; Three Strikes You're Out; and, Just Passing Through) comprised the "TRCA Healthy Watersheds Circuit ". The activities are sensitive to curriculums, ages and audience. The meadow restoration project (Butterflies, Birds and Biodiversity) involved planting 3,000 wildflowers (15 species) and 500 shrubs with approximately 750 students per day in order to enhance biodiversity, the forest / wetland edge and habitat types within Heart Lake Conservation Area. The TRCA Healthy Watersheds Circuit is delivered at the York, Durham, and Peel Children's Water Festivals. Its activities are connected in theme, correlated to the Ontario curriculum, and were developed by the TRCA Education Section. The activities, and their educational messages, were delivered by volunteers trained through TRCA's Environmental Volunteer Network (environmental educators program) as well as high - school volunteers who were mentored by the educators. Kortright Centre - New Solar Activity and Resources The Kortright Centre for Conservation also contributed a new activity to the 2005 festival called Plug Into the Sun featuring solar energy devices. A large solar panel powered two festival tents. Perhaps the most popular new addition this year was the solar - powered bubble machine that connected energy, water and science issues. The Kortright Centre's involvement expanded the boundaries of the festival and it is anticipated that the centre's role will increase next year because of the positive feedback from region organizers and festival patrons alike. CONCLUSIONS The festival represented an opportunity to reach thousands of people on sustainable community and water issues. In addition, the festival accelerates ecological restoration projects within Heart Lake Conservation Area and provides a focus for environmental issues. Finally, the festival highlights the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition's objectives of protecting, restoring and celebrating Heart Lake Conservation Area - one of the largest, most significant greenspaces within the Region of Peel. FINANCIAL DETAILS Financial support for TRCA's development and delivery of educational and regeneration projects is provided to TRCA from the Peel capital budget (Sustainable Communities) with additional funding for the restoration project provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources CFWIP program. In -kind support is provided through the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, the Environmental Volunteer Network and the Heart Lake Master Plan Advisory Committee. Report prepared by: Paul Wilims, extension 5316 For Information contact: Renee Jarrett, extension 5315, Paul Wilims, extension 5316 Date: June 22, 2005 141 RES. #D52/05 - ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION Extension of Term of Appointment. Extension of term of appointment for Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition members. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the term of appointment for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition members be extended for one year to December 31, 2006. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority, at its meeting held on May 24, 2002, adopted the Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition wherein the duration of the term of office of the members is from 2002 to 2005. In order to be consistent with the terms of office for members of the other watershed groups such as the Don Watershed Regeneration Council and the Humber Watershed Alliance, as well as to coincide with the term of the municipal councils, a one year extension to the term is being recommended. Since the inception of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition in 2002, many projects have been initiated which will require additional time to complete. One of the major projects is the report card for the Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek watersheds which the current members would like to see through to its publication. In addition, some of the other committees are in the midst of their projects. The members of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition have expressed an interest in extending their term and at meeting #3/05, held on June 16, 2005, adopted the following resolution: THAT the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds request that The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority extend the term of the current members of the Coalition by one year to December 31, 2006. FINANCIAL DETAILS The TRCA Etobicoke and Mimico watershed management budget will fund the expenditures related to the one -year extension of the term of appointment. Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292 For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Date: June 22, 2005 142 RES. #D53/05 - INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION - THE INTERNATIONAL LAKE ONTARIO -ST. LAWRENCE RIVER STUDY To report on the International Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence River Study Board's Candidate Plans released for public comment in preparation for the board's report and recommendations to the International Joint Commission this fall. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY that the report on the Candidate Plans recently released for public and agency comment by the International Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence Study Board be received; THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) support the study board's vision "to contribute to economic, environmental and social sustainability of the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence System" and the integrated evaluation approach in developing the Candidate Plans for the six interests; THAT comments contained in this report on the Candidate Plans be forwarded to the International Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence Study Board for their consideration in preparing the recommendations to the International Joint Commission; AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario, the conservation authorities on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River and TRCA's waterfront municipalities be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #10/03, held on January 9, 2004, Resolution #A285/03 was approved as follows: THAT the continued participation of Larry Field, Waterfront Specialist, on the Public Interest Advisory Group (PIAG) for the remaining two years of the Study (2004, 2005) be approved; THAT TRCA staff report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board as the International Joint Commission's International Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study recommendations are released for public and agency comment; AND FURTHER THAT the Canadian Co- Director of the Study Board, be so advised. The Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence (LOSL) Study Board recently released three Candidate Plans for public and ,agency comment by August 5, 2005. The LOSL Study Board will be making its recommendations to the International Joint Commission (IJC) this fall. The board is guided by the following vision, goal and guidelines. The vision is "to contribute to economic, environmental and social sustainability of the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River System ". 143 The goal is "to identify flow regulation and criteria that best serve the range of affected interests, are widely accepted by all interests, and address climatic conditions in the basin ". The guidelines include: 1. Criteria and Regulation Plans will contribute to the ecological integrity of the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence River ecosystem. 2. Criteria and Regulation Plans will produce a net benefit to the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence River System and its user and will not result in disproportionate loss to any particular interest or geographical area. 3. Criteria and Regulation Plans will be able to respond to unusual or unexpected conditions affectip.9 the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence River System. 4,• = IVI'lti alternatives may be identified to limit damages when considered appropriate. 5. Regulation of the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence River System will be adaptable to the extent possible, to accommodate the potential for changes in water supply as a result of climate change and variability. 6. Decision - making and respect to the development of the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence River System Criteria and Plans will be transparent, involving and considering the full range of interests affected by any decisions with broad stakeholder and public input. The three Candidate Plans are the result of significant evaluation of the impacts of changing water levels on shoreline communities, domestic and industrial uses, commercial navigation, hydropower production, the environment as well as recreational boating and tourism. The study also took into account the forecasted effects of climate change and variability. The LOSL Study Board has incorporated the comments from the USA/Canadian public meetings received to date in the evaluation and plan formulation process. Various TRCA technical staff have had an opportunity to provide input on environmental indicators, Candidate Plan formulation and evaluation process. The current plan and Order of Approval used to regulate outflows from Lake Ontario through the St. Lawrence River is 1958D. However the IJC's Board of Control had to deviate from 1958D over fifty percent of the time. The actual operational procedures implemented over time are called 1958D with deviations (1958DD). All three Candidate Plans have been compared to how the system has been operated (1958DD). The three Candidate Plans include Plan A: Balanced Economic Plan; Plan B: Balanced Environmental Plan and Plan D: Blended Benefits Plan, which as evaluated can be summarized as follows. 144 Plan A: Balance Economic Plan Plan B: Balanced Environmental Plan Plan D: Blended Benefits Plan • Designed to maximize • Designed to simulate more • Designed for balanced overall economic benefits. natural conditions and performance, with overall • Provide some improvement provide overall economic economic benefits and for the environment benefits. minimizes losses. especially on Upper St. • Improves the environment • Little change from 1958D Lawrence River. on the lake and upper river. with deviations (1958DD) for • Has losses to shoreline • Has losses to shoreline the environment. interests on Lake Ontario interests with significant • No overall losses for and the river. flooding potential around shoreline interests, but • Provides recreational Montreal. some flooding potential. boating benefits. • Has losses to recreational • Provides recreational boating especially on the lake. boating benefits. Copies of the Candidate Plan colour handout will be available at the Watershed Management Advisory Board and Authority meetings. The detailed plan evaluation segments the system into three: Lake Ontario, Upper St. Lawrence River and Lower St. Lawrence River. Plan D has the best balanced performance consistent with the LOSL Study Board's vision, goal and guidelines. Plan B is designed to simulate more natural conditions which results in higher average lake levels for the fall, winter and spring periods. Incorporation of some of Plan B elements to simulate more natural conditions would provide additional environmental benefits to support TRCA's Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy and the Durham Coastal Wetland initiative. Additional environmental benefits could also trigger some gains in hydroelectric power. With planning policies, waterfront regulations and a shoreline management plan including some 35 years of shoreline protection, TRCA's Lake Ontario shoreline could accommodate slightly higher average water levels in the fall, winter and spring periods. Higher lake levels in the prime storm period results in more damage to some of the Other communities around the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River system. Climate variability may also result in more frequent events that cause additional damage to protected shorelines even within the current operational procedures (1958DD). However, any refinement to Plan D should ensure no overall potential or actual losses for shoreline interests in the system. This could be minimized through shoreline management planning including regulation as a proactive and preventative approach to augment any new plan. RATIONALE The LOSL Study Board vision, goal and guidelines for assessing and evaluating Candidate Plans for the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence System is supportive of TRCA's vision for The Living City, integrated shoreline management and aquatic /terrestrial habitat rehabilitation. The study board has also taken into account climate change and will be making recommendations for adaptive management. 145 The study board's approach in making recommendations to the IJC on changes to the Orders of Approval for outflows from Lake Ontario through the St. Lawrence is consistent with recent resolutions passed by the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiatives and Conservation Ontario's Healthy Great Lakes proposal. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The comments and recommendations in this report should be forwarded to the LOSL Study Board by August 5, 2005. The Candidate Plans handout and schedule of public meetings has been circulated through Conservation Ontario to the appropriate conservation authorities. Upon receipt of the study board's recommendations, the IJC have indicated that public hearings will probably be held prior to approval of any plan. Opportunities will then exist for Conservation Ontario and the appropriate conservation authorities to make formal and detailed submissions to the IJC. Report prepared by: Larry Field, extension 5243 For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243 Date: July 13, 2005 RES. #D54 /05 - Moved by: Seconded by: SPILLS WITHIN THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTION To update the board on the types of spills and their occurrence within the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's watersheds. Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on spills within Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) jurisdiction be received. AMENDMENT RES. #D55 /05 Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough THAT the following be inserted after the main motion: THAT staff be directed to work with the local and regional municipalities and the Province of Ontario to enhance the coordination in spills prevention and management; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on further recommendations to the Authority on actions that can be taken to reduce the impacts of all spills within TRCA's jurisdiction. 146 THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/05, held on June 24, 2005, Resolution #A136/05 was approved, as follows: THAT WHEREAS spills are a major issue impeding the water quality and aquatic habitat of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) watersheds and waterfront; WHEREAS the TRCA is committed to protecting ground and surface water from spills and illegal discharges of hazardous material; WHEREAS the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Toronto Area of Concern (AoC) highlights spills prevention and response as a priority action; WHEREAS spills are identified as a potential threat, and a strategy for addressing threats at the individual watershed level is recommended within the Interim Technical Workplan for Source Protection Planning within the CTC Region (CTC Region is comprised of the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, TRCA and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority); WHEREAS the TRCA, together with Toronto RAP, federal, provincial, regional, municipal, and non - governmental organizations, and watershed groups recently completed work on phase 1 of Toronto RAP and TRCA spills management initiative; WHEREAS Bill 133 would strengthen environmental legislation regarding spills; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to continue working with TRCA's partners to initiate work on phase 2 of TRCA's spills management initiative during 2005 -2006, including implementation of recommendations from September 2004 Spills Management Workshop Outcomes Report; THAT the Ministry of Environment (MOE), be thanked for their current support to Toronto RAP and TRCA's spill management initiative and encouraged to continue to work towards a comprehensive program to prevent and manage spills; THAT the City of Toronto, the regional municipalities of Peel ,York and Durham and Environment Canada be thanked for their participation and support throughout Phase 1 of the spills management initiative; AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario be so advised. At Water Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/05, held on June 10, 2005, staff were directed to provide a follow -up report on the nature of spills within TRCA's watersheds. 147 Spills Information Sources MOE Spills Action Centre: The most recent analysis of spills data in some municipalities within the Greater Toronto Area is provided by James Li of Ryerson University. Spills summary reports produced by James Li are based on spills data compiled from 1988 to 2000 from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's Spills Action Centre database. Summary reports are available for the City of Toronto, Town of Markham, Town of Richmond Hill and the City of Vaughan. Analysis of spills data for the regions of Peel and Durham have not yet been completed at this time. It is noted however that parts of Peel Region were studied through the Etobicoke Watershed Spills Report. Municipal Spills Data: The City of Toronto and regions of York, Peel and Durham also collect spills data through their Spills Action Centres related to the activities within their jurisdiction. At present, there is no coordinated spills data set for the TRCA jurisdiction. The Information provided in this report was compiled by TRCA staff in preparation for the TRCA /Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Spills Management initiative. A knowledge gap regarding geo -coded data (data recorded with geographical locations that could be used for mapping and spacial analysis purposes) was identified during the preparation of the Toronto & Region Spills Backgrounder and during the 2004 multi - stakeholder Spills Management Workshop. We anticipate that this knowledge gap will be addressed through TRCA's future work on the Spills Management Initiative which aims to develop a coordinated baseline, or "state of spills report," featuring a reporting protocol, database and mapping tool in partnership with the Ministry of Environment, Toronto RAP Team, Regional Spills Action Centres, lower tier municipalities, and non - governmental organizations. What follows is a very brief summary of watershed spills information based on the best available data and analysis at this time. Summary of Spills in the Greater Toronto Area The discussion below summarizes the type and frequency of spills reported to the Ministry of Environment Spills Reporting Centre from 1988 to 2000. These spills can be divided into three broad categories: 1. Spills to Water; 2. Spills to Land /Soil; and 3. Spills to Air From 1988 to 2000 there were a total of 4,626 oil and 2,310 chemical spills. This accounted for an estimated 830,600 litres of oil and 1,125,000 litres of other chemicals spilled into the natural environment within the Town of Richmond Hill, Town of Markham, City of Vaughan and the City of Toronto. This volume of spills represents the equivalent of approximately 15,000 bathtubs full of oil and 20,000 bathtubs full of chemicals, or a combined average of roughly 3,800 bathtubs per year. 148 The frequency and volume of spills to water, soil and air is provided in Table 1 below. There were 4,059 spills to the rivers and creeks resulting in water quality impacts.The average oil and chemical spill affecting water was approximately 336 and 710 litres respectively. The types of chemicals released into the water and soil were very diverse. Large chemical spills to water and soil included antifreeze, liquid ammonia, wastewater and oily water or waste oils. Water pollution (e.g., watercourses, surface and ground water) and soil contamination were the most frequent impacts of chemical spills. Volume of spills to the atmosphere from chemicals has been significant according to Lames Li studies. Over one billion litres of natural gas was spilled to the air in the City of Toronto and York Region between 1988 and 2000. Natural gas, refrigerants and CFC spills were particularly significant. Spills of other materials (i.e. sewage, sediments etc .), not included in the above discussion accounted for a very small percentage of all reported spilled material. Table 1: The Frequency and Volume of Oil and Chemical Spills 1988-2000) Type Town of Markham Town of Richmond Hill City of Vaughan City of Toronto Etobicoke watershed* Oil Spills Water Impact 195 110 319 1851 131 Soil Impact 53 59 98 1941 129 Total 248 169 417 3792 260 Chemical Spills Water Impact 51 33 129 1253 56 Soil and Air Impact (separate data for soil and air not available) 26 18 74 726 137 Total 77 51 203 1979 193 % geocoded - location recorded for mapping /spacial analysis purposes 41 % 38% 27% 52% n/a Average Annual Spill Volume 124 L 450 L 430 L 332 L n/a Note: The number of spills in each of the areas evaluated is roughly proportional to their size and population. * The Etobicoke watershed was the only watershed in the Toronto region analyzed for spills. The watershed includes parts of Toronto, Caledon, Brampton and Mississauga. 149 Spill Locations and Sources Tables 2 and 3 show the generic locations of oil and chemical spills in York Region and the City of Toronto. Roads were the most common location for oil spills, usually in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel. Many of these were associated with cars from which relatively small quantities of fuel were released. In York Region, hydro related facilities were a source of a significant proportion of total spills, whereas in Toronto, service stations and parking lots were the locations for approximately half of all oil spills. Chemical spill locations were not traced to a specific source, but rather to the general area where they were released or first observed. Releases to the air usually from fire or natural gas leaks is the most common source both in the City of Toronto and York Region. Discharges to storm sewers was also frequent. Table 2: Oil Spill Locations (% of total number of spills Location Town of Markham Town of Richmond Hill City of Vaughan City of Toronto Road 35% 43% 48% 33% Hydro related facility 31% 26% 21% 11% Service station 15% 19% 16% 25% Parking lots 10% 9% 10% 16% Storage depot 4% 3% 5% 15% Others 5% 0% 0% 0% Table 3: Chemical Spill Locations Location York Region (Markham, Richmond Hill & Vaughan) City of Toronto Atmosphere 20% 28% Parking 19% 20% Storm Sewer 15% 15% Ground 14% 11% Roads 11% 9% Water 8% 7% Assumed Parking 8% 6% Not Sure 3% 2% Sanitary 2% 2% 150 Common Causes of Spills Leaks from containers, tanks and fuel lines made up the greatest percentage of total spills in the City of Toronto, York Region and the Etobicoke Creek watershed. Thete include fuel tank spills from cars and trucks which occur relatively frequently. Pipeline Teaks, tank overflows and chemical discharges were also significant. In many cases, the cause of the spill was unknown. Human error and equipment failure are the two most common reasons given for spills. Spills by Sector From the previous analysis, the petroleum sector accounts for the largest spills by volume (including spills to air). The chemical, transportation, manufacturing and service sectors account for most of the remaining spills. Province -wide Spills Statistics Spills data is collected from incidents and classified as "spills" in the Ministry of the Environment's Integrated Divisional System (IDS) which is generally used by the Spills Action Centre to provide annual spills summaries. In any given year, the Spills Action Centre receives between 35,000 and 45,000 incident reports from the public and of these approximately 3,700 in 2003 and 3,900 in 2004 were classified by SAC as "spills." The last annual summary on spills published by the ministry was the Spills Action Centre Summary Report on 1995 Spills. The most recent report for the province, "Industrial Spills in Ontario, Ministry of the Environment May 5, 2005 ", was released as part of the recent consultation on Bill 133 - Environmental Enforcement Statute Law Amendment Act 2004. This report uses spills database information for the years 2003, 2004 and concentrates on Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) facilities. According to this report, Ontario saw an approximate 5% increase in the total number of spills reported to the Spills Action Centre between 2003 and 2004. Spills from industrial sources increased by almost 24% over the same period. Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 and Paul Wilims, extension 5316 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Date: June 22, 2005 SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES. #D56/05 - WETLAND HABITAT FUND Receipt of the staff report on the Wetland Habitat Fund projects and future opportunities. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the Wetland Habitat Fund be received. CARRIED 151 BACKGROUND Since 1997, the Wetland Habitat Fund (WHF), through a team of professional field representatives, has provided financial and technical assistance to landowners in planning and implementing habitat projects. This non - governmental program is led by Wildlife Habitat Canada, a non - profit conservation organization dedicated to habitat stewardship across Canada. It is a stewardship project of the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture of North America Waterfowl Management Plan, sponsored by Wildlife Habitat Canada, the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other partners. Some of the eligible WHF projects include establishing vegetated buffers around wetlands and waterways, enhancing natural corridors that link wetlands and woodlands, installing, monitoring and maintaining nesting structures, restricting livestock access to waterways and providing alternative watering systems. Applications for funding are reviewed 3 times per year and approved projects will receive 50 per cent of the project costs to a maximum of $5,000. In turn, landowners must obtain necessary approvals and sign a conservation agreement to ensure the upkeep of the project site for a period of 10 years. Successful applicants are also requested to participate in a voluntary annual wetland monitoring program. The intent of the WHF is in keeping with The Living City objectives for Healthy Rivers and Shorelines and Regional Biodiversity. In addition, the eligible projects and the subsidies provided to assist landowners with implementation, will help to achieve terrestrial natural heritage targets for increasing natural cover and directly compliment existing Private Land Stewardship initiatives such as the Rural Clean Water, Tree and Shrub and Habitat for Wildlife programs. In January 2005, Robert Messier, TRCA's local WHF field representative, was invited to make a presentation to Restoration Services and Stewardship staff regarding the program and explore opportunities to combine our collective interests and partner where possible on future projects. To date, the WHF has supported the Markham Fair Wetland Creation Project, in the Rouge watershed and has approved 3 applications for 2005, involving private landowners in the Oak Ridges Moraine, two which are adjacent to Provincially Significant Wetlands. This partnership complements TRCA's internal efforts to coordinate a portfolio of Private Land Stewardship Programs. Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery , extension 5638 For Information contact: Patricia Lowe , extension 5365 Date: June 10, 2005 RES. #D57/05 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES Minutes of Meeting #5/05, May 12, 2005. The Minutes of Meeting #5/05, held on May 12, 2005 are provided for information. 152 Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #5/05, held on May 12, 2005, 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: Amy Thurston , extension 5283 For Information contact: Amy Thurston , extension 5283 Date: June 22, 2005 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:03 a.m., on Friday, July 15, 2005. Nancy Stewart Chair /ks 153 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer erTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/05 September 23, 2005 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/05, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, September 23, 2005. The Chair Dave Ryan, called the meeting to order at 10:40 a.m. PRESENT Gay Cowbourne Member Frank Dale Member Pamela Gough Member David Gurin Member Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority Dave Ryan Chair Nancy Stewart Member Michael Thompson Member REGRETS Shelley Petrie RES. #D58/05 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Pamela Gough THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/05, held on July 15, 2005, be approved. PRESENTATIONS Member CARRIED (a) A presentation by Robert Messier, Regional Representative, Wetland Habitat Fund, in regards to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA's) partnership with the Wetland Habitat Fund. (b) A presentation by Don Haley, Water Management Technical Advisor, TRCA, in regards to item 7.1 - Preliminary Report on Storm and Flooding, August 19, 2005. 154 RES. #D59 /05 - PRESENTATIONS . Moved by: Dick O'Brien Seconded by: Michael Thompson THAT above -noted presentations (a) and (b) be heard and received. CARRIED SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D60 /05 - PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STORM AND FLOODING August 19, 2005. Documentation of storm and flood of August 19, 2005. Moved by: Dick O'Brien Seconded by: Michael Thompson THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue to work towards preparation of a final report documenting the storm and flooding impacts which occurred on August 19, 2005; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board upon completion. CARRIED BACKGROUND On August 19, 2005, a series of extremely severe thunderstorms moved through Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) watersheds resulting in significant rainfalls and flooding. TRCA staff continue to collect data related to the storm and subsequent flooding and are in the process of preparing a formal report which will document the event from a rainfall, flow and damages perspective. This report represents data collected to -date and is considered preliminary as more information from our field work and from other sources continues to be collected. As part of the Flood Forecasting and Warning system operated by TRCA, staff undertake what is called a Daily Planning Cycle, whereby staff review forecast weather, including precipitation forecasts and determine the flood potential. On Friday morning, August 19, 2005, two storm systems were forecast to affect our region. The first storm system which entered our region just after 7 a.m. did not pose any threat to flooding given the relatively small rainfall depths. Based on morning discussions with the Ontario Weather Office, the second storm system which was expected to enter our region around 3 p.m. had a much higher potential to produce severe weather. However, the Ontario Weather Office forecast of precipitation ranges did not suggest any significant threat to flooding at that time. Notwithstanding, TRCA staff issued a Flood Safety Bulletin at 10:30 a.m. which warned of generally higher flows and potentially unsafe conditions around rivers and streams. Staff continued to monitor the weather and contacted the Weather Office around mid -day for an update and again just after 2 p.m. as the weather radar had revealed major storm cells developing in Southwestern Ontario. The weather system was moving quickly in the 70 kilometres per hour (kph) range. Even though the storms were 155 showing on radar as intense, the Ontario Weather Office was forecasting only moderate rainfall totals in the range 20 -30 millimetres (mm) due to the speed at which the system would pass through our area. In light of the forecasted rainfall totals and severity of the approaching storms, TRCA staff issued a Flood Advisory at 3:15 p.m., which advised municipalities of the potential for higher rainfall amounts based upon the most recent weather forecasts. Staff continued to monitor the weather system as well as water levels at critical stream gauge locations within our jurisdiction in order assess watercourse response to the storm event. Based upon the rate of rise within the G. Ross Lord Reservoir as well as several of the smaller urban streams, the City of Toronto Transportation Services was contacted just after 4 p.m. to inform them that based on current flooding conditions, they should be prepared to close the Bayview Extension. At 7 p.m. the City of Toronto Transportation Services was contacted again and directed to close both the Don Valley Parkway and Bayview Extension. Immediately following this, a Flood Warning was prepared by TRCA staff and issued at 8:30 p.m. indicating that a number of our watercourses were currently experiencing flooding, including the lower Don River, and that other watercourses and low lying areas were expected to flood as a result of the significant rainfall amounts generated from the storm system. Staff continued to monitor the watersheds conditions and stayed in contact with both municipal staff and operational and emergency services throughout the night. Staff initiated dam operations at both the G. Ross Lord and Claireville reservoirs and continued operation throughout Friday night and well into Saturday afternoon in order to minimize flooding downstream on the Don and Humber rivers. As a consequence of the dam operations, there were no reports of residential structures being flooded from the rivers. By mid - morning on Saturday, August 20th, the urban rivers and streams had peaked and were no longer at flood levels. Flood levels in the larger river systems such as the Humber and Rouge rivers were also receding and did not pose any further flood threat. The Flood Warning was therefore canceled at 10 a.m. with dam operations continued for several additional days in order to lower reservoir depths to normal operating levels. Based upon post -event discussions with Weather Office officials to determine what changed in the weather systems to result in the very high rainfall amounts, it was determined that the storm system did not appreciably slow as it moved over our region. The overall rainfall intensities within the storms increased substantively, as the system entered our region. The highest quantities of rain were experienced through the central portions of TRCA's watersheds, generally in a band from Sheppard Avenue in the south to Highway 7 in the north (a colour map detailing rain quantity will be provided to members at the meeting). Many of the gauges in the central watershed recorded total rainfall depths in excess of 100 mm, with some unconfirmed amounts from rainfall observers in the Yonge and Steeles area well over 150 mm. 156 The second, more intense storm system passed through our area over the course of approximately two hours. Initial rainfall analysis completed by TRCA's consultant indicates that rainfall intensities over the course of this event exceeded current one in one hundred year design storm information at a number of gauge locations. The intense rainfalls resulted in flash floods along our urban watercourses, including Black Creek and the Highland Creek. Along the lower reaches of the Don River, flows exceeded those recorded in both September of 1986 and May of 2000, making this flood one of the highest recorded in TRCA's jurisdiction since Hurricane Hazel. Additional analysis is currently being undertaken to define the return periods of flows experienced along all our river systems. Documentation of the flooding event actually began during the event, with field investigations and photographs. Immediately following the event, TRCA staff met to discuss roles and responsibilities to coordinate the formal documentation activities. High water marks were identified and photographed, and are currently being surveyed to define geodetic elevations to assist in documenting flows and water levels along the impacted watercourses. Precipitation data from TRCA gauges were collected and data continues to be collected from outside sources. Photographs of the flooding have, and continue to be, collected and integrated into a database for future use. As part of the documentation process, information on flood damages is also being collected by all impacted agencies. A number of municipalities experienced erosion damage to park areas and transportation and sewer infrastructure at many locations adjacent to local watercourses. Each affected municipal department is currently categorizing and assessing damages. TRCA also experienced damage to several of its older concrete flood control channels as well as to several erosion control facilities. Development of damage estimates and capital works requirements to fix these sites is currently underway. Information regarding damages and actions required will form a component of the complete documentation of this event. TRCA staff will also be utilizing this information to re- assess the proposed 2006 capital budget submissions. In addition to the flooding along the Humber River, Don River and Highland Creek, a great deal of flooding not related to the river systems also occurred. Street flooding and basement flooding due to sewer back -up was experienced in many of the urban areas receiving the highest rainfall amounts. Initial insurance industry estimates of flooding related claims have been set at approximately $190 million dollars and the industry expects this to double over the next few months as more claims are made. In addition to the collection of data, TRCA staff teams were developed to assist municipalities with defining and processing the needs for emergency works. Discussions with other regulatory agencies to define a process which recognized the need for these works took place which allowed for emergency works to begin as soon as possible. The teams met with municipal officials at these sites and where the need for works met the criteria to minimize the threat to life, or immediate social need, works were authorized in the field. In addition to the activities identified above, a number-of additional TRCA actions are also on- going. The following list identifies the key activities; 157 • Staff have and continue to undertake a post event review to define systems, programs and activities which worked well and those that require a revised or new approach. • Staff have met with officials from Meteorological Services of Canada to gain access to data and initiate discussions on a joint formal review of the storm, to identify opportunities to learn from this storm and look to increasing capabilities to forecast these types of events in the future. • Staff have initiated contact with representatives from the insurance industry to discuss documentation, and define areas for future risk reduction opportunities. • TRCA had recently initiated studies on reviewing operational procedures at G. Ross Lord Dam and emergency procedures for both G. Ross Lord and Claireville dams for which the August 19th storm will be used as key input data to achieving the goals for these studies. • TRCA had also recently initiated a study to enhance our maintenance review and operations needs at all TRCA flood control structures. Information resulting from this flood will also be integrated into this study. • The province has been made aware of impacts to TRCA's erosion and flood control infrastructure both in terms of impacts to on -going maintenance projects and future funding needs. Key among the deliverables from the formal review and documentation of both the storm and the impacts from the flooding will be a description of lessons learned and a clear direction on changes both minor and major required to enhance TRCA's Flood Control Program. Report prepared by: Don Haley, extension 5226 For Information contact: Don Haley, extension 5226 Date: September 12, 2005 Attachments: 1 158 Attachment 1 1 ,, — —.) 74. 1-J, '1'6' • 4----1 ---{Tr ' Itill ---w- ; 2 . .. k--- _--i- _ ---,,.,-t N•,k• .,-6 -}-_-1-!1—- ‘._ '- - -1.----HIE - 1 t., „...1. if " --• - .....,, _...,..11,.. ,,,,,i,x, ..,....:7-.-.1-k '.1...„,‘,..e.4*-1f1-1-1 7 .---',, • :\$0\7,v1, '',, N/A i " ` , .7' _V :; - '''=" ; -1.-- r __I -, - ,, ,•-• i , _.„-- , s• : . ,-/e-, . ,‘„, -, •-•„ ,•,!,_ `fr --`•:1"C)1 - ve.,:,&,,l'Ia_11- *KIRI ,411 ,-2----'-" 4-,-/. CV 11,,, , •-r 1 ? ' -.4"-dg."'-'17 -I- , ii \ ,- , \--:-,-\ ' .1' s ....< •\"-•",' ' t ' -• • e•Ns',-/k1 •''' 1 ft. _...... -- ‘.. , ..,,,:, \ „,,,ec, •,... -,,„• \., .,, - -i------ .,,,k040it.1.1 , tit). '..tkordni ,,, Ilii .,,..-.. - -...-' -- • i-- 1 -' •-• cr- 4-- ifia - ,... \-"'• f_..".' ....:\;,• '...?.'-', ''.,..• 7:0. .:„.„--..;_‘;-_-,,,-.-,-riy,,,, ,,,,I.r,.3'ilais:,:,,,,,,...,?-...-.7:-- .- , ,.,,.., , i ----,- .,,, i r-., • — -- 1 ---ii -re. '•• ` " - . 1„ 1,3".4 "-) 1; • „?'•,.,--- ".4 -.., 1 tc:,..,,\,. .. .0_-?,, ,r_ii,.._ • ,•2.,-, . .„....., ,,t, 4 ,,,,____Jir_._ •,,r,,, • \ \ •.t„ .., :- .c„,...•..„1„....,,,....k.,„.....„41,, - co i f , .,_ 4,2,"1:;„ , , • ..• $.1;),-,,, - - 1 , it 1 I -..2,-- . AI e,.....„ ... -4,— , , \ 4.. . „... ,l'• ,-,. ' 4 -•••?-",„\e•?0• : ) ,- , -,-t• ,... ---1-cil..!_-__,•,-,--T - .,. \• 1 , ,.._,I).1--- -_,,Nig---- 1 i , ...,.,_,,,•_...._-ic 41,-N \ \ v, '+' ‘;,N-Tt-- Is- i 1 .7'•-= --1 `-'-- •---1- 1 ' 11 ,,-- t's1). ----.'A-7 7- rAtj il$ ;._0,_ 7-, , - - • 1 - • • . . . ., --,,4',Ne, ,,,.-'4,.,, --- , r-t" CL -"V •_. •-:' '' - "t‘-‘*•■ "\',-14-2_ .,-3 i ''',.,-1-.-"-ct s . 1" C:,•„.4..."2f.-4,2-i-j-- •. t,..:_ •1/41,=--,--1----- 1 --at -,,_ -, _:--\-- -c,„„t) 'jig. -.1i7,1 a. ' '" •% '--- 1 1 • -/)K-"NA/, .,,, ,,,, , ,A...,,441:h7 • *N-- - .. .1 J.,..t... '1, \ ' 1 -\t•-- --„ ,,.... \ v; • ,., \ ,,, . 'Ya. ' ' , z".' • % w,.,. ' ois 1116,1.-elf,40.1_,-( ,:,,ci t i t r ---, 1..... iii,"7 5 t .1 1,.. - _,,,' lik, -T, „ • _ .. !.-1-1 ' 1 . ' it lc _ii_ ‘-7,-- ' • -A. , , , , sr - Ay, . ------1-,.. t. ., ,,, .„, . ,,,,-,..,_,, ,, .k., ,ii. , , _ 4 , , ,,i.1.-g, --- , - , .„\ .0-, k z r•:.\,. \ `4X,)11'.' %. ' . , '. ' 1, 1., , " bit lob. • . 4N; . I i ,A4.N.41,11..--;°1144- ATiollre li l'i 1." '1,1J.-.- J', ',O. ',Ii..dc; litkir, 1.__ ) ,T , i lr ... '7". - . :1_ II ...-1, - .'•— --.111‘0014. t 6$ kW 1 I 7.: . 5_ S a. -I'S-- - --'-' - I, ,...,, ' . ■ ,r. - 1 i 1, ...at- . A j • 1 -....1 ...... ' \"" : •c \ i:,' N ,. ...\\ '‘.. ,......\.,' \ / : \ . ' , .t.,:zzi.,. . '..: .....vii:i., ' ..4 ,,:.--i 'cio.:. 1 _ _ ili, 7.1.,' ,,,,-.4 \ . 7.,....-z..1, p,„.11 1.; , ',111-4/1-6, jii.r.ir''.31, ;',..,.. , , 1, ..1.40.,11.. _...e•-..:e..• • - \.; -• oir," ''• '''' A, .... 'Y ''',1 %V- '`"ti., ."•/'7' ' 'c V.:1.S. .-,• .1. ■ ' . 311 1 _. ,.,,AL i , ,1,1 i, , . 44..,, . „ainiar,,,,sztil ,.,,_...‘t_ _ \ lip,,,4,,„vA:, ,,,,, - \,„...,,,,,.:::.,„,,,. 4 ' •• "--..,',, .• ' 1 '. ' i -i- N-,--Thia.4 -' ' 7r1, -44A, IX._ ...lt4p: - ay. IL ,' ---).• ), ' ,./ :4---- _ -4 , i 2..t._ 4_ , • ,..1.-. • _ -.1....„,,,„„..,..,,,,_ . . ik ........, ,.,„......... ,...), ..t. "0:41... -II', - • ',`"" \ - -A_ ,.„. • -.••• _. . • -- • A , - 7,wri • ...._ ,, ••, ff. . . , 1 .\\.<• Itkr, flit --4101411vx...±:",,r, -, <1/4.- '4,,,.. e.c."., \,), ".-- ,PN•c".ti '' s' -* ;•-"".-if " . "eigl ' ',..re,•40444-'--- . • ''• ..s•t --N, . '.. k 4411 -J,r• ' - ''" - i-Act4r*'-'--1 r . "' *-A-4A If l\- N 4' „,c, „ \., .'..,/..,,,,” .,4 .".:\ ,42 .:„)„.‘„:•,:,.,., 1.A- ,Z,, % „v,'''li.4 c , „{eA5.•1.I :.„— ..,. .,,.,: 1l- ,„-• , ,-.:....„.? 1 ., .- .3a_.”' ,,:, t3.i i ,) -- . , ,, „,1: i ."0{-.„.. .., . ...- .-„, onservation .4,3\ r or 7-hr Hying city .,. . 40‘. • : c . , , , --I 14,, , ,\,..; ;t: ; 4. ,,...--T i ,-,, 47,,,,, / Legend _ „.....,i , k • AE, ...::* ,,,, .. . = -, '' -orrilig-,,e . / it N. 114 ' ' ■ ' A.•• ittii4:■,;2_,v I+ "... \ V Ikti . ,i111Wr , , 0 (■•(..., • .,...■ / ' , • 5 Rs) n 2a IS; ',. ' ' 1 Rafi0a 441$ . „; • ./ / \'"Adik Phers .kugusi 13 233i tc,...113turn V-Jurre PRELIMINARY , Wallrsleis J.....1 Ely R -t D4.t. Aug )1 Ils;CS \Z / 0 2.C10,0X 8430 12 C0 \ /' Mill=iiiiME:=) meters 159 RES. #D61/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: GREAT LAKES CHARTER ANNEX 2001 Implementing Agreements (June 2005) on Water Taking and Diversions. To endorse Conservation Ontario Council's comments and recommendations (August 29, 2005) on the June 2005 drafts of the Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement and Great Lakes Water Resources Compact released for a 60 day public comment period ending August 29, 2005. Frank Dale Pamela Gough WHEREAS the revised draft Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement and Great Lakes Basin Water Resources Compact dated June 30, 2005 were released in a form suitable for the 60 day public comment period ending August 29, 2005 but without consensus among the two Great Lakes provinces and eight Great Lakes states; WHEREAS Conservation Ontario along with other partners /stakeholders (50) is participating on the "Great Lakes Charter Annex Advisory Panel" created by Ontario's Minister of Natural Resources since its inaugural meeting of December 15, 2004; AND WHEREAS Conservation Ontario through its 36 members, including Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), formulated their position and recommendations based on review by Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, Credit Valley Conservation, Sault Ste. Marie Conservation Authority, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority and TRCA; THEREFORE THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT TRCA endorse Conservation Ontario's position of "strongly supporting the Province of Ontario being a signatory to the Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement based on the June 30, 2005 draft being the minimal acceptable package" and other recommendations as adopted at their August 29, 2005 meeting; THAT TRCA support the position of being advised of the progress of the negotiations and circulation of the final form and wording of the agreement prior to signing by the two Great Lakes provinces and eight Great Lakes states; AND FURTHER THAT the Minister of Natural Resources, the Council of Great Lakes Governors, Environment Canada, the International Joint Commission and Conservation Ontario be so advised. CARRIED RATIONALE Compared to the agreements released in 2004, the revised Great Lakes Charter Annex Agreements provide strong new protections for the Great Lakes Basin waters. With the 60 day public comment period ending as of August 29, 2005, the two Great Lakes provinces and eight Great Lakes states will consider the comments received and strive to reach consensus on the final documents. If consensus is reached, the finalized agreements will be considered for possible signing later in 2005. The opportunity exists to accept the agreements as a building step towards the protection and enhancement of the Great Lakes waters and ecosystem. 160 BACKGROUND 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. 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 two Great Lakes provinces and eight Great Lakes states 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. At Authority Meeting #8/04, held on September 24, 2004, Resolution #A256/04 was approved as follows: 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; 161 THAT the TRCA support the integration of other Great Lakes initiatives (Le. LAMP's under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement) with this Agreement to support the restoration and protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem; 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; 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. Current Status In November 2004, the Ministry of Natural Resources announced that the province would not sign the current drafts of the Great Lakes Charter Annex Agreements unless changes to enhance the level of protection for the waters of the Great Lakes Basin were made. The Minister of Natural Resources formed a multi - stakeholder (50 representatives) "Great Lakes Charter Annex Advisory Panel" to aid in the negotiations of the Great Lakes Annex Agreement. TRCA represents Conservation Ontario on this panel. The revised draft Great Lakes Charter Annex Agreement and Compact were released in June 2005 for a 60 day public commenting period ending August 29, 2005. Eleven public meetings were also held across Ontario throughout July 2005. It is noted that the agreement and compact were in a form suitable for public consultation but without unanimous consensus of all Great Lakes parties. Compared to the agreements released in 2004, the revised Charter Annex agreements provide strong new protections for Great Lakes Basin waters. The panel was able to provide valuable suggestions to assist the Ontario negotiating team to achieve the enhanced drafts. The 2005 draft agreements: • ban diversions, with a few strictly regulated exceptions such as communities that straddle the Great Lakes Basin boundary and the boundaries between Great Lake watersheds; • strengthen water conservation; • establish a stronger new environmental standard for regulating water uses across all Great Lakes Basin states and provinces; • formally recognize the authority of the federal governments and the International Joint Commission under the Boundary Waters Treaty which remain unchanged; • provide a stronger voice for Ontario, its citizens and First Nations in the regional review of significant water use proposals by other jurisdictions; • are founded on the principles of ecosystem protection, a precautionary approach, recognition of cumulative impacts and climate change uncertainties; and • will build the information and science needed to support sound decision - making. (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2005) 162 After the 60 day public comment period ends, the two Great Lakes provinces and eight Great Lakes states will consider comments received and strive to reach consensus on the final documents. If consensus is reached, the finalized agreements will be considered for possible signing later in 2005. If signed, the agreements would provide a framework for each of the two Great Lakes provinces and eight Great Lakes states to pass laws that put in place the new protections for Great Lakes Basin waters. Portions of the agreements would be effective immediately; others would be phased in over one year, five years or ten years. The United States Congress will also have to endorse the compact among the eight Great Lakes states. Strengths of the June 30, 2005 Draft Agreements: 1. The last draft (July 2004) was basically a system to permit diversions, with exceptions. The 2005 draft is primarily a system to prohibit diversions, with limited exceptions. 2. The 2005 draft requires that, for the first time in many of the states, most water withdrawals within the basin be subject to a permit. The permit must be based on environmental protection, including that the water withdrawal cause no "significant adverse impact" to the environment, and the withdrawal include significant water conservation. 3. The 2005 draft Preamble and sections of both the compact and agreement reference the precautionary principle as significant guidance in decision - making. 4. The 2005 draft agreement explicitly recognizes "these waters (of the Great Lakes Basin) are interconnected and form a single hydrological system." As Lake Michigan is entirely within the United States, and its axis does not lie along the Canada -U.S border, some had argued it does not meet the definition of a boundary water, and that it might not be governed by the diversion provisions of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. This acknowledgement weakens that argument. 5. The 2005 draft has strong language, both in the Preamble and in Article 701, that the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty continues to apply and nothing in these agreements weaken its role. On the other hand, as noted below, the appellate procedures could erode the International Joint Commission. 6. The 2005 draft agreement includes surface and groundwater. Although groundwater is referenced in other agreements, such as the Great Lakes Charter, the approval of the current draft would create a more robust legal regime governing the withdrawals of water from aquifers. 7. The voting procedure under the 2005 draft compact, permits any diversion to a community outside the basin, but found in a straddling county, requires unanimity among the states. Any one governor can veto a diversion, consistent with the Water Resources Development Act in the USA. However, Canadian provinces have only a consultative role, through the regional review process under the agreement. 8. The 2005 draft includes recognition that the Great Lakes will be facing stresses from climate change and that these factors be taken into account consistent with the precautionary principle. For the first time, a Council of Great Lakes Governors document has recognized that fact. 9. The 2005 draft does not include the resource improvement standard, thus avoiding the potential for trade disputes under NAFTA, leading to water for sale. 10. The 2005 draft requires all jurisdictions to have water conservation plans in place. 11. The 2005 draft is not based on the principle from the 2004 draft that a user outside the basin has the same rights to water as a user in the basin or in straddling counties. 163 12. The 2005 draft removes what was electively an exemption in the 2004 draft for diversions smaller than 1 million gallons per day. Weaknesses of the June 30, 2005 Draft Agreements: 1. The water conservation plans do not have to come into effect until five years after the prohibitions on diversions and the standards are in full force. 2. There is no requirement for ecological restoration of hydrologic regimes damaged by consumptive, in -basin use of Great Lakes water. While ecological restoration is addressed under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, many environmental groups engaged in the annex debates that the new legal framework being developed through the compact and agreement must add funds and impetus to this priority. 3. It could violate the 2001 Canadian Amendments to the Boundary Waters Treaty Act, although this is a quite unlikely eventuality. 4. The system to allow exemptions to the prohibition on diversions will potentially allow a large population base outside the basin to have access to Great Lakes water. The concept of straddling communities, those with part of their border within the basin is further enlarged with straddling counties. This is a significant concern. On the other hand, others suggest that the realities of consolidated utilities across the basin divide, and the withdrawal of Great Lakes water by over - pumping groundwater just outside the basin divide make it advisable to bring both straddling and nearby communities into the management regime. Even if the system of permitting access, by unanimous agreement of all Great Lakes Governors for communities within straddling counties was not offensive in principle, there are serious problems with this proposed approach. There is a significant risk in stating the rationale for access to water on political, rather than ecological boundaries. 5. The Chicago Diversion, constructed in 1907, is outside of this agreement. Any potential increase in the removal of water from Lake Michigan through the Chicago Diversion is governed by a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, and stays there. (Note: this also means that none of the straddling communities, or communities within straddling counties in Illinois can apply for water taking permits.) 6. The public trust doctrine and common law standards that limit diversions and privatization of water for sale out of watersheds and the Great Lakes basin have been ignored. 7. Bottled or containerized water in containers less than 20 litres has been exempted not only from the definition of "diversion," but specifically made a "consumptive use ". This provision is controversial. Some believe it will accelerate the tapping of water systems for private use by water bottlers. 8. The amount of water that could be withdrawn under the various exceptions is not set to any particular time limit or volume cap. 9. The agreement and compact both contain dispute resolution procedures that could undermine the role of the International Joint Commission. From the viewpoint of Canadians, the vote at the International Joint Commission, with three members from each country, compared to procedures under the agreement with Canada's interests being in a minority position (8 -2), is a concern that survived the re- negotiation process to the current draft. For both nations, the parallel and disconnected functioning of appeal procedures within the new framework at the state and province level, could weaken the role of both federal governments and of the International Joint Commission. (Sierra Club of Canada, et al., 2005) 164 At its August 29, 2005 meeting, Conservation Ontario Council unanimously adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS Conservation Ontario approved comments and recommendation on August 16, 2004 related to the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR# PB041 E6018) for the drafts of the Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement and Great Lakes Basin Water Resources Compact; AND WHEREAS Conservation Ontario along with other partners/stakeholders (50) is participating on the "Great Lakes Charter Annex Advisory Panel" created by Ontario's Minister of Natural Resources since its inaugural meeting of December 15, 2004; AND WHEREAS Revised Draft Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement and Great Lakes Basin Water Resources Compact dated June 30, 2005 were released in a form suitable for the 60 -day public comment period ending August 29, 2005 but without consensus among the two (2) Provinces and eight (8) States; Therefore be it resolved that Conservation Ontario strongly support the Province of Ontario being a signatory to the Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement based on the June 30, 2005 draft being the minimal acceptable package and the Minister of Natural Resources ensure in the subsequent negotiations that: 1) there is no erosion to the principles and provisions of the draft document dated June 30, 2005, 2) that the people of Ontario continue to be advised of the progress of these negotiations and be provided with the final form and wording of the agreement prior to signature, 3) that provisions be included in the final document to enable enhancements through the implementation 4) that early work be commenced to address water conservation through out the basin, 5) that the Province of Ontario commit together with the Province of Quebec and the States (8) the necessary resources to give effect to this agreement and to develop the further scientific understanding of the hydrologic regime and Great Lakes ecosystem necessary to effectively administer this agreement; AND THAT the Minister of Natural Resources be commended for setting up the Great Lakes Charter Annex Advisory Panel to facilitate open dialogue and input from some 50 organizations/stakeholders; AND THAT Conservation Ontario's additional comments on the strengthened 2005 Draft Agreement and Compact 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; AND THAT Conservation Ontario indicate its commitment to continued participation on the Minister of Natural Resources Great Lakes Charter Annex Advisory Panel. Report prepared by: Larry Field, extension 5241. For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5241. Date: September 9, 2005 165 RES. #D62/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: TORONTO WATER 2005 MULTI -YEAR BUSINESS PLAN Importance of upstream source water protection for the City of Toronto's rivers, and early opportunities for watershed plan implementation. Frank Dale Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report to the City of Toronto Works Committee on Toronto Water 2005 Multi -Year Business Plan be received; THAT staff be directed to report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board on any action resulting from the report to Works Committee; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back formally to all regional and local municipalities following the completion of the integrated watershed management plans affecting their respective jurisdictions. CARRIED BACKGROUND City Council at its meeting of February 1, 2 and 3, 2005 in adopting Report 2, Clause 1 from Works Committee requested, in part, the following: the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to report to the Works Committee on a comprehensive multi -year business plan to protect the source of Toronto's river systems; At Authority Meeting #6/05, held July 22, 2005, staff were directed to report to the City of Toronto Works Committee. The report is outlined in Attachment 1 and was endorsed by the Work Committee at their meeting held on September 14, 2005 and recommended to City Council for consideration at their meeting to be held on September 28, 2005. Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: September 15, 2005 Attachments: 1 166 Attachment 1 August 29, 2005 To: Works Committee From: Brian Denney, Chief Administrative Officer, TRCA Subject: Toronto Water 2005 Multi -Year Business Plan report as requested in City Council recommendation adopted on February 1, 2 and 3, 2005. Purpose: To respond to the recommendation approved by Toronto City Council on February 1, 2, and 3, 2005 and adopted without amendment which resolved, in part, that TRCA report on a comprehensive multi -year business plan to protect the source of Toronto's river systems. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: There are no financial implications resulting from the receipt of this report. However, any actions that may be required as a result of this report will require appropriate allocations of funding. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the Policy and Finance Committee be forwarded the report submitted by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in response to the request by Works Committee regarding multi -year business plans; and (2) TRCA be requested to report on measures to protect the source of Toronto's river systems following the substantial completion of the integrated watershed management plans for the Rouge, Don and Humber rivers and the initial steps to develop the anticipated Credit Valley - Toronto and Region - Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CTC) Watershed Region Source Water Protection Plan as required and funded by the province; and (3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Background: City Council at its meeting of February 1, 2 and 3, 2005 in adopting Report 2, Clause 1 from Works Committee requested: the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to report to the Works Committee on a comprehensive multi -year business plan to protect the source of Toronto's river systems; 167 The request from the City of Toronto for a report on TRCA's comprehensive multi -year plan to protect the source of Toronto's river system is timely in Tight of a number of provincial policy initiatives, TRCA program initiatives, and the adoption and initial implementation of the city's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan (WWFMMP). TRCA is currently undertaking a number of key projects which will shortly lead to updates to TRCA's multi -year business plan. This work is part of the ongoing process of ensuring each of its watershed plans are kept current; that they reflect new information including recent groundwater and water budget projects; that they integrate undertakings by others e.g. WWFMMP, Oak Ridges Moraine Act, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Greenbelt Plan, Provincial Source Water Protection Planning, and that they build on ongoing monitoring activities by TRCA and others (Attachment 1). These watershed plans are built on nearly 50 years of watershed management experience and include a strong public consultation component in addition to ongoing involvement of the provincial ministries and municipal agencies. TRCA's integrated watershed management program is premised on actions which contribute to the protection of source water through protection of landforms and features, such as the Oak Ridges Moraine, through land securement (almost 40,000 acres are currently in TRCA ownership), planning advice to upstream municipalities, reforestation and habitat enhancement, rural land owner education and stewardship management programs, and has increasingly advocated for and required stormwater management programs that address both the quantity and quality of waters entering the City of Toronto. TRCA carries out research on new initiatives in source water protection ensuring that green roofs and similar activities are constructed in a manner to deliver cost effective solutions. The City of Toronto completed its Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan in 2002, a landmark document that sets out a comprehensive program to address the ongoing program requirement for public education, source controls, municipal operations, conveyance controls, shoreline management, stream restoration and end -of pipe facilities, as well as a program to address basement flooding within the City of Toronto. This program clearly recognizes that management of the city's water resources requires a watershed approach as stated in the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan Vision and Principles (July 2003): Vision: Wet weather flow will be managed on a watershed basis in a manner that recognizes rainwater as a potential resource to be utilized to improve the health of Toronto's watercourses and the near shore zones of Lake Ontario and enhance the natural environment of Toronto's watersheds. Principles: Rainwater is a resource. As a priority, rainwater (including snowmelt) should be managed where it falls on the lots and streets of our City, particularly before it enters a sewer. Wet weather flow will be managed on a watershed basis with a natural system approach being applied to stormwater management as a priority. A hierarchy of wet weather flow solutions will be implemented - starting with "at source ", then "conveyance ", and finally "end of pipe ". Toronto's communities need to be made aware of wet weather flow issues and involved in solutions. 168 The WWFMMP objectives for Water Quality, Water Quantity, Natural Areas and Wildlife, and Drainage Systems recognize the importance of meeting and exceeding water quality standards, elimination of toxic substances through pollution prevention, and preserving and re- establishing the natural hydrologic cycle by maximizing permeability and minimizing runoff at source. TRCA was pleased to participate in the development of the WWFMMP and strongly advocates for its implementation and for additional resources to be made available to the city from federal and provincial levels of government to expedite the major capital projects. The Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, in addition, will form a fundamental component of a comprehensive Source Watershed Protection Plan for the CTC Watershed Region, which is being led by the TRCA, on behalf of Ministry of Environment, in conjunction with the Credit Valley Conservation Authority and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. This plan will involve the City of Toronto and the regional municipalities of Halton, Peel, York, Durham, as well as the local municipalities and many other stakeholders. While many initiatives are currently underway to improve plans, there are immediate opportunities to protect source water through land securement, stewardship and management activities that have been identified and have proven of value to source water protection. While the WWFMMP combined with the city's contributions to the TRCA's annual program of watershed management address watershed priorities within the city boundary, the majority of the water in the city's creeks and rivers originate north and west of the City of Toronto's boundaries. The remainder of this report outlines the importance to the City of Toronto of upstream source water protection and suggests a program of investment that will provide measurable improvements that together with actions undertaken within the city will preserve and re- establish some of the natural hydrologic processes and improve the quality of surface waters. TRCA recognizes the timing of this report coincides with a city staff report on the initial assessment of damages resulting from the August 19, 2005 storm including information provided from TRCA staff on erosion issues. TRCA is also reporting jointly with Toronto Water to the Sept 14, 2005 Works Committee meeting on a funding from the Land Acquisition for Source Water Protection Reserve. Comments: The Importance of Managing Watersheds at Their Source In order to protect public safety, municipal infrastructure and Toronto region watersheds and waterfront, there is merit in the City of Toronto supporting conservation programs in the 905 regions. Funding projects outside of municipal boundaries (or, cost sharing projects across municipal boundaries) in order to gain benefits in terms of flooding and erosion protection, and water quality improvements has been the cornerstone of conservation efforts in southern Ontario. 169 Major storms can cause massive erosion washing out streets, culverts, bridges and exposing municipal infrastructure. Repairs can cost millions of dollars and take several months, adding to existing congested traffic woes. Public use infrastructure in the valleys such as bridges, trails, parks and sport facilities can be damaged and remain out of service for lengthy periods of time. When sewers are broken, raw sewage flows into the creeks creating immediate public health concerns. All of these outcomes resulted from the August 19th storm. The tons of sediment and debris eroded from the streams during major storms is deposited in lower gradient reaches and river mouths or discharged out into Lake Ontario. Plumes of sediment and contaminant laden water enter Lake Ontario, affecting aesthetics, beach quality, fish habitat and drinking water intakes. Headwater areas outside of the city boundaries are important to water management efforts. This recognition is one of the key reasons for widespread interest in protecting physiographic features like the Oak Ridges Moraine. Reforestation of headwater areas has been demonstrated to be an effective water quantity and quality management practice. Long standing practices of planting trees on marginal or pubic lands in the headwaters has been a foundation of TRCA's water management programs, since Hurricane Hazel. In the 2003 watershed plan for Duffins Creek, integrated modelling studies demonstrated that an increase in natural cover from 37 percent (existing) to 49 percent could reduce the flooding risk by as much as 25% in the Town of Ajax for the 100 year storm event and significantly improve water quality and aquatic habitats. Similar modelling is being undertaken in the integrated watershed management plans underway for the Rouge, Don and Humber rivers and will demonstrate the value of natural cover to water management efforts. Since the Walkerton Tragedy in 2000, attention has been paid to the protection of drinking water supplies in the province at their source. The City of Toronto shares concerns with other municipalities along the north shore of Lake Ontario about the quality of lake based water supplies. TRCA recently initiated a drinking water source protection study with funding provided by the Province of Ontario. This study is being undertaken on a watershed basis and will ultimately use a risk assessment approach to identify priority management actions. Review of source water protection plans from other jurisdictions, such as the City of New York, reveal that from a practical and economic perspective, the protection of source water supplies originating upstream of a municipality makes good business sense. Less sediments and nutrients entering the lake helps to improve drinking water plant treatment efficiencies and reduces the risk of contaminated municipal water and helps to instil public confidence in municipal supplies. Poor water quality (nutrients) and high Lake Ontario water temperatures were a factor earlier this summer in shortages of municipal water supplies in Durham Region, when algae growth within the drinking water plants forced the treatment system to be shut down in the midst of peak consumption demands. Frequently in late summer, diatom algal blooms in the lake can cause taste and odour problems for municipal supplies, resulting in the requirement for expensive carbon filtration technologies to mitigate. High turbidity in raw water supplies can interfere with treatment processes, which could potentially result in adverse drinking water quality. 170 Toronto region creeks and rivers have been extensively studied over the past 30 years. Through these studies we know that runoff carries high levels of phosphorous, suspended solids, nitrates and bacteria, in addition to metals and pesticides. Pollution levels following rain storms and snowmelt exceed dry weather conditions by an order of magnitude. A Lake Ontario pollution loading study undertaken by the Ministry of Environment in 1999 showed two of the most rural watersheds (Humber River and Rouge River) contributed the greatest concentrations of suspended solids while the most urban watersheds (Mimico Creek and Don River) contributed the least. The highly urbanized Highland Creek generated large phosphorus loads due to increased runoff volumes caused by the watershed's high imperviousness (Figure 1). Wet weather flow studies initiated by the city are designed to deal with urban sources of pollution. Key directions for reducing loads to Lake Ontario from the Etobicoke, Mimico, Humber, Don, Rouge and Highland rivers and creeks are outlined in the city's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. 100 120 80 O. 40 0 111111 1•9111••11 1■■■ ■.1 \�oGs 4q- 4� 04 Figure 1 Pollutant Loadings suspended solids and phosphorus by watershed A University of Guelph study of trends in nitrate and phosphorus levels in tributaries to Lake Ontario during the period 1964 -1994 (most recent provincial data) shows that overall levels of nitrates in surface waters has been rising with significant jumps in agricultural areas in the 1960's and 1970's and more recently in urban areas. Total phosphorus levels in tributary streams are declining over the 30 -year period due to phosphorus abatement legislation and the resulting pollution control efforts in rural areas (reduced soil erosion) and phosphorus abatement activities in urban areas (decommissioning of in -land sewage treatment plants, rainwater quality management ponds and source controls). Recent watershed report cards for Toronto region watersheds have identified that at best we are currently "holding our own" in terms of water quality trends in the more urbanized rivers. Iri light of the economic growth and population increase, this is good news and is a good indication that on -going abatement efforts by the various partners are working. 171 Agricultural non -point source water quality modelling studies by TRCA have shown that a majority of the sediments leaving rural portions of the watersheds can originate from a small percentage of the drainage area due to physiographic and land use factors. The majority of sediment transported in rural watersheds has been linked to agricultural areas. In comparison, relatively small amounts in rural areas come from bank erosion. Across the province, the agricultural industry has been making significant inroads in reducing rural pollution by adopting modern farming practices such as nutrient management, conservation tillage, grass swales and buffer strips. Knowledge of key pollution source areas helps TRCA staff to effectively target Rural Clean Water Programs. In urban areas, a combination of erosion and sediment control, stormwater retrofits and rainwater source controls have been identified as effective management actions to improve local and downstream water quality and quantity problems. The City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan has identified water quality and quantity control measures for creeks and rivers draining south of Steeles Avenue. Source Water Protection Program for Toronto Region Headwater Creeks and Rivers The City of Toronto Council has expressed interest in having source water protection activities happen outside its jurisdiction to compliment the directions already underway to implement the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. These activities should seek to reduce peak flows and manage water quality. A source water protection program (SWPP) for Toronto region creeks and rivers is outlined in Table 1. This SWPP is designed to reduce loadings of sediment, bacteria and nutrients to Lake Ontario resulting in improved water quality of watercourses as they enter the city. Multiple watershed -wide benefits are expected from the SWPP initiatives, including flood reductions, improved aquatic habitats, better water quality and streams aesthetics, biodiversity enhancements and safer drinking supplies. The SWPP was designed to target suspended solids, nutrients and bacteria which serve as "key indicator" parameters for assessing safe drinking water supplies and are useful surrogates for tracking other persistent pollutants. The outlined SWPP reflects current knowledge of the key pollution sources and effective management actions, identified through on -going watershed planning studies. The SWPP provides options for a "level of effort approach" detailing actions that can be accomplished on an annual basis for three alternative levels of funding support (e.g. $2, $5 and $10 million). Funding for the SWPP from local and regional municipalities would be used by the TRCA to lever new funding from our watersheds partners (province and federal governments, and others e.g. foundations). SWPP efforts are initially focused on the larger more rural watersheds. However at higher funding levels, it would be possible to extend efforts more broadly to ensure that activities are being undertaken in all city watercourses such as the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. By 2006, TRCA will be in a position to use our integrated watershed management studies that are being funded by the municipalities, to identify practical, short term and long term actions such as stormwater management enhancements, reforestation, stream bank riparian planting and rural land management activities. 172 Opportunities for implementing the proposed programs within the Toronto region watersheds will be developed in consultation with city staff, watershed task forces, Rouge Park Alliance and the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) steering committee. The province's source water protection legislation is expected to be unveiled later this year, at which time we will have a better understanding of funding priorities. Initiation of a municipally funded SWPP will be of assistance in securing drinking water source protection funding from the province. It is anticipated that the federal government will support watershed management efforts designed to protect Lake Ontario drinking water supplies in response to international water quality treaty obligations. Table 1 SWPP Levels of effort and priority actions on a watershed basis Funding Level Project Type 52,000,000lyr ouge River Stormwater Retrofit Reforestation Riparian/Wetland Plantings Rural Land Management Stream Channel Improvements Total $5,000,000 lyr Stormwater Retrofit $600,000 $.100,000te $100.000 .$50,000 5850,000 Higland Creek Don River 5300,000 Humber River Mimico Creek Etobicoke Creek $600,000 $100,000';, $100,000 $50,000 5850,000 't':"4,.;` $500,000 51,000,000 5500,000 5200,000 - $100,000 Reforestation Riparian/Wetland Plantings Rural Land Management Stream Channel Impro'.ements Total $10,000,000 /yr Stormwater Retrofit Reforestation Riparian/Welland Plantings Rural Land Management Stream Channel Improvements Total $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 5200,000 51,000,000 51,000,000 $200,000 $1,000,000 53,200,000 51,200,000 $1,000,000 $100,000 51,000,000 51,100,000 51,800,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $100,000 $200,000 $1,000,000 $2,300,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 5200,000 $1,000,000 51,000,000 $100,000 5100,000 51,000,000 $1,000,000 s1,100,000 $1,100,000 The multi -year program presented in Table 1 is broken down into program areas, and some of the proposed works to be conducted by TRCA under these program areas are as follows: Stormwater Retrofit: • Approximately 80 locations in upstream areas urbanized prior to 1990, have been identified as areas where water quantity facilities can be constructed or upgraded to provide water quality treatment (Attachment 2). • Based on a 10 year program at the 2 million dollar investment level /per annum with a 2:1 leverage factor (2006 costs), it is estimated that 50 stormwater management retrofits could be implemented. These estimates are based upon a capital cost of $500,000 per retrofit and an accompanying $100,000 urban best management source control program. 173 Reforestation: • TRCA has identified potential reforestation lands located on both public and private lands located outside the City of Toronto as illustrated on (Attachment 3). These lands include areas contained within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area and the Greenbelt Plan area. • Based on a 10 year program, at the 2 million dollar investment level /per annum (Table 1) and a conservative 2:1 leverage factor, it is estimated that 400 ha of land can be reforested in critical headwater areas for source water protection. Riparian /Wetland Plantings: • TRCA has identified critical areas for riparian plantings adjacent to agricultural areas, roadways and other lands where direct flow to streams carries excess levels of sediment and nutrients to watercourses. Riparian zones provide ephemeral wetland habitat, water storage during seasonal flooding and contribute woody material improving fish habitats. • Based on a 10 year program at the 2 million dollar investment level /per annum ,(Table 1) and a conservative 2:1 leverage factor, it is estimated that 80 ha of riparian forest lining stream banks. Rural Land Management: • Rural Clean Water Program works with rural landowners and other funding partners to improve rural water quality through technical, financial and educational services. • Based on a 10 year program at the 2 million dollar investment level /per annum (Table 1) and a conservative 1:1 leverage factor, it is estimated that 60 farm plans will be completed resulting in opportunities for reforestation, riparian plantings, fencing of animals from watercourses, and improved manure storage on small to medium sized farm operations not covered by the provincial Nutrient Management Act. Stream Channel Improvements: At the highest proposed funding level, program delivery could include works on stream erosion sites and other channel improvements on urbanized subwatersheds in the Humber, Don and Rouge Rivers and on the smaller more urbanized watersheds (Etobicoke, Mimico and Highland Creeks) • A monitoring program to inventory, monitor, assess and evaluate watercourse realignments designed based on 'natural' channel design principles. • Completion of field work and flood risk assessment as well as a preliminary cost - benefit analysis in order to prioritize land areas or structures within TRCA's jurisdiction requiring remedial flood protection works and /or acquisition in order to minimize the risk to public safety or damage to property from flooding. • Barrier mitigation projects. • Preparation of risk assessments and emergency planning studies for each large dam as recommended in the Dam Safety Assessment reports. Updating of equipment/technology, operating procedures and structural improvements. • Capital works on small dams and flood control facilities in order to maintain levels of public safety and risk to property damage, provided by existing flood protection works. • Waterfront and valley erosion control projects throughout TRCA's jurisdiction. 174 Conclusions: This report responds to a request for a multi -year plan from TRCA on the protection of the city's rivers and recommends that TRCA report on a regular basis to Works Committee. While the City of Toronto generously supports TRCA programs in partnership with upstream municipalities which directly deal with water management, this funding does not generally extend to programs including stormwater management facilities retrofit in areas urbanized prior to stormwater management requirements, reforestation, riparian plantings and rural land management. The increase of investment into these and related program offerings can be financially levered to provide a cost effective investment in source water protection. Upstream municipalities currently invest in these programs which provide downstream benefits to the City of Toronto. TRCA strives to match or better the financial investment for these programs through annual submissions to the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, federal EcoAction Community Funding Program, the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation and through the fundraising efforts of The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto. The TRCA objectives, programs and policies are consistent with the WWFMMP, the city's Strategic Plan and Environmental Plan, and provide the necessary ecosystem watershed approach working with and in upstream municipalities to undertake a comprehensive plan of integrated watershed planning and management. Contact: Brian Denney, Chief Administrative Officer, TRCA Tel: 416 - 667 -6290, Fax: 416- 667 -6270, Email: bdenney@trca.on.ca Kathy Stranks, Supervisor, Board Member Services, TRCA Tel: 416- 661 -6600 ext. 5264, Fax: 416 - 667 -6270, Email: kstranks@trca.on.ca Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer List of Attachments: Attachment 1 - TRCA Jurisdiction Attachment 2 - 905 Stormwater Management Retrofit Opportunities Attachment 3 - Reforestation Opportunities Attachment 4 - Reforestation Opportunities (Detailed Example) 175 Attachment 1 - TRCA Jurisdiction 176 Attachment 2 - 905 Stormwater Management Retrofit Opportunities 177 Attachment 3 - Reforestation Opportunities 178 st y . ...ill , r • ,, �14P/ F t; • ,%' i 11 • , r, i k' , r � f ) Via" l � Y • • i��'�'''` ?� t d ,, "d a 4 l• ■ 3 '" ,�'• ,fin...,. !1 1. �y,Z:'` q+ • 4 •, r jl ../ s _ .'•- / 10. . " ' I f ' `` .t Terrestrial Natural Heritage Target System TNH Map #3. . t:. i! r t.ti • i∎� 1' 1711 J �.i'�ii �y ' ' K _ z' ii'� A. . -. „v. or f � ?� \ 11Hi I Y- i 1. ° 1 o 1' jj i 3 Y •gg 1611 ro 1 IQ) tlC . a w 6. 178 Attachment 4 - Reforestation Opportunities (Detailed Example) 179 r;‘, • 'N. ‘ .‘ 9 • .... a', 4, •• • " .5.1'1 •• 4" ••••., 't ' ' : -.1 ..t••• 4, ' — 44 "..- .. ?4•„ . 4 ?..Z..... IP Pj74.4 ' • ` ' -, . ' f / '.4 -..t" - . ,, ,..., ' • '''411111" iit tialz. -. , . , \ • .!1..: • i ••••• 'I. • , :' / 7* • ., ..., '' "), • .., • , • .., d • , .,, V., .:rd ■,.....04., .' , ■ ' A ' T / . 1 \ ., ,. \,,„„-,;,...• ,...< - ,_ . :n i ..„ . : el" 'N,•,/ t _ ts ' -V ' Alk S• *. 4 r. ' ' l' IL. l'.? ' • ' ••,„ ,,,I., 1'1 .• ,d,' "."'S • - • • ''. ‘S. . .' ''-‘ - „s ' - • - • • ■;•.' s i ' •••••••? . . `....„..., , ' . ',,,, it 4N..., .,■'• --' ' r • " • _X ""TA '. ...t ,.. • V: s jii. I. ■ ... 6 :, ' • . . ' ••• Ssil. . 1 7' '• • f • ••'''''''S, ''' • • ,•••t tj ''''' ';',1 7.•"ia A it ..,.. .) i'' 41110+1,-•••• - , I • .. 1- --- ' . • ' - ‘1.,..-4 ‘,.. '‘ *' 4 W ' g ''' is ofg13 , <, ' f ---, ' c---^ , ,.{1 ..s. • -, ss • 3.,1...4.•••.•" .4' 1,y''t *1 4 .- * ' ' .1'.'h 4k,i, J -•,., , : ,/ ‘;$ 4 . .1- t 1t i ; . r 1^ : •el, " '‘ ; X ' ii■t' .' .. , • • •-•■ ' 1 d 'S ■ i . • ' l'S, ; ■ ' .\ • ", 1;1 '• - 1..• I •,‘, ••••-, ‘•- '' "•'' ;.•■• ■ . '''' % • . var ... ••■ •1 3. ,us• 114 .1? T l, L eI,o. __• ...... .,.1..,,k.. b=rIT2O1N11. .0a.. t.a.. •... .-,0. - ... . ...0,4•• 104.. . m*,.s...,.. .—, .a Terretrl• .,Nutu r41 H ti, eritug e I fq,e- Sy Am f -.,I,,Al.n,,,.4.■La co,,,7,,,, 179 RES. #D63/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: HIGHLAND CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM UPDATE Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Program update and implementation of the Highland Creek Community Stewardship Program. Frank Dale Pamela Gough THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue implementing the Highland Creek Community Stewardship Program (HCCSP) in collaboration with the City of Toronto, the Friends of Highland Creek, Centennial Community and Recreation Association and the Scarborough Arts Council, with support of the Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF). CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #9/04 , held on October 29, 2004, Resolution #A299/04 was approved as follows: THAT staff be directed to pursue funding sources to support the continuation of the Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Program in future years. In April of 2005, staff submitted the final report to the EcoACTION Community Fund, marking the completion of a 2 year $145,290 funded environmental stewardship program. The Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Program (HCESP) also received in kind contributions from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the City of Toronto and various community groups, businesses and schools totalling $152,000. The final report concluded that the HCESP had accomplished, and in some cases exceeded its deliverables. The following table provides a summary of the expected and actual project results: SUMMARY TABLE OF RESULTS 180 Expected Actual planting events 12 17 cleanup events 4 19 celebration events 2 2 seminars 2 2 trees and shrubs planted 3,000 3,788 litter and debris collected (kg) N/A 19,000 habitat structures created (bat, song bird and wood duck boxes) 45 67 interpretive signs installed 6 6 volunteers involved 520 1,667 180 The HCESP was initiated to build capacity within this urban watershed and engage a multicultural community in a variety of hands -on restoration activities. It supported a number of stakeholder interests including the City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, Canadian Rivers Day, the Great Canadian Shoreline Clean Up and regeneration efforts at Centennial College's Progress Campus. The program also provided outreach and education opportunities to local City of Toronto councillors and MPs to facilitate their special environmental activities and community consultations. Collectively, this work contributed to more than 4,600 volunteer hours - doubling the program's target commitment to the EcoACTION Community Fund. In addition to this accomplishment, the HCESP provided technical, promotional and event support to other community restoration and enhancement efforts in the watershed undertaken by the Friends of Highland Creek and Owens Corning. Taking advantage of new opportunities for collaboration in 2005, the HCESP co- hosted the Scarborough Arts Council's "Metamorphosis" art, music and theatre performance at the Heron Park Community Centre in January. In February, the HCESP co- hosted the installation of the Lake Ontario Water Project sculpture mosaic in collaboration with artist Pamela Schuller, the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and Centennial College. In summary, through program events, activities and a collaborative steering committee, the HCESP successfully engaged local residents and the diverse communities that make up the watershed, including over 20 schools and post secondary institutions; over 15 community associations, ratepayer groups and service organizations; over 10 businesses; a local church group and representatives and staff from all three levels of government. Although the EcoACTION funded phase of the HCESP was completed in February, 2005, staff continued to support ongoing community initiatives. In April, 2005 program staff assisted various community groups with their Earth Day clean ups and directly participated in the Centennial Community and Recreation Association's clean up event at Port Union. One spring planting event was hosted, in partnership with two local public schools, and staff provided support for the city's Trees Across Toronto initiative at Birkdale Ravine. In May, 2005 the program worked in collaboration with TRCA's Healthy Yards program to host a seminar to provide watershed residents with information on the tools and resources required to start a backyard naturalization project, including information on the use of rain barrels, outdoor water conservation and environment - friendly alternatives for lawn and garden maintenance. The program provided 23 residents with an introductory kit of native trees, shrubs and wildflowers to help initiate their property naturalization efforts. The City of Toronto's downspout disconnect/rain barrel program continues to be promoted at all HCESP community events. Rain barrels and outdoor and indoor water conservation kits donated by the City of Toronto were distributed to watershed residents as prizes during spring activities. Also in May, the program hosted an interpretive hike along the lower Highland Creek. In June, the HCESP hosted the annual Highland Creek Valley Bike Tour to celebrate Bike Week and subsequently held the third annual Highland Creek Community Celebration in honour of Canada Rivers Day. Program staff also attended local Councillors' Environment Days from May through July 2005. 181 Annual OTF deliverables over the next three years include: • 7 community events (conservation seminars, festivals and field trips); • 2,225 event attendees; • 39 presentations (workshops, presentations and steering committee meetings); • 255 workshop participants; • 6 clean up events; • 6 tree planting events; • 1 naturalization project. Annual outcomes include: • 728 volunteers contributing 1,735 volunteer hours; • 2,000 kilograms of garbage and debris collected; • 1,575 trees and shrubs and 1,045 wildflowers planted; • 17 wildlife boxes installed; • 30 rain barrels installed. The first initiative of the new HCCSP was launched in August of 2005 with the Monarch Project. This annual collaboration with the Scarborough Arts Council delivers an exciting youth education initiative linking the arts and environment. A 2 Y week outdoor workshop was held in Morningside Park and engaged 9 youth in developing their artistic skills while nurturing a strong connection to the natural environment. In mid - September the HCCSP participated in the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup, an annual national and international initiative which engages volunteers in removing garbage and debris from shoreline areas while documenting the amount and type of litter collected. HCCSP community partners and volunteers hosted 5 clean up events during this one week period. An English as a Second Language (ESL) working group has been established and currently meets on a monthly basis to direct community outreach to the watershed's large multicultural community. Working group members have successfully developed a water awareness survey for ESL teachers to introduce into their curriculum. FINANCIAL DETAILS To secure funding sources to support the HCESP beyond the EcoACTION Community Fund project, staff explored new community partnerships to prepare an application for funding to the Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF). The proposal outlined a new collaborative partnership consisting of TRCA, the City of Toronto, the Friends of Highland Creek, the Centennial Community and Recreation Association and the Scarborough Arts Council. In July 2005 the new "Highland Creek Community Stewards" collaborative partnership received word that it was approved for receiving $142,000 from OTF over three years. The collaborative has been working together to initiate the HCCSP components which include resident, school and business outreach programs and habitat restoration and enhancement activities. In cooperation with the Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program, the HCCSP's ESL outreach initiative and the Environmental Ambassador program will target the watershed's growing multicultural community and recent immigrants. 182 To assist in the delivery of the HCCSP, OTF funds support the hiring of a Stewardship Assistant, an Environmental Ambassador and a summer student each year. The Stewardship Assistant will be hired by the Scarborough Arts Council, and based in the Scarborough community at the council's Kingston Road offices. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue to work with the Highland Creek Community Stewards collaborative to implement OTF deliverables, present annual OTF reports and secure in kind and matching funds for the HCCSP. Members of the informal HCESP steering committee will also continue to be engaged in the delivery of the various program components outlined in the OTF program. In addition to working with these key stakeholders, the HCCSP will also support internal initiatives, including a community planting in the fall of 2005 as part of the Port Union habitat compensation deliverables. Report prepared by: Natalie Affolter, extension 5676 For Information contact: Natalie Affolter, extension 5676 Date: August 31, 2005 RES. #D64/05 - INTEGRATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION INTO MUNICIPAL POLICY AND PROGRAMS: A FOCUS ON WATER MANAGEMENT A workshop to share information and identify key areas of future research to assist with climate change adaptation and risk management related to water management. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Pamela Gough WHEREAS reducing the impacts and adaptation to global climate change within the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) watersheds is key to The Living City draft strategic plan; WHEREAS TRCA is committed to integrating climate change needs in all aspects of its operations; WHEREAS the recent storms which occurred in July and August 2005 have served as an indicator as to how severe weather can impact municipal infrastructure including parks, roads and water management and illustrated the need for integration of climate change issues in all aspects of municipal planning and operations; 183 AND WHEREAS TRCA has recently initiated, through our watershed planning work within the Rouge watershed, an assessment of anticipated hydrologic and meteorological changes related to climate change to assist with management options related to emergency preparedness, land use planning and infrastructure design at a local watershed scale; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the November 3, 2005 workshop on " Integration of Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation into Municipal Policy and Programs: A Focus on Water Management ", hosted by TRCA in partnership with Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaption Research Network (C- CIARN), be supported; THAT senior staff from the Works and Emergency Services and Planning Departments from the City of Toronto, regional municipalities of York, Peel and Durham and all local municipalities within TRCA's jurisdiction be invited to participate in the workshop; THAT TRCA be directed to invite other representatives, as appropriate, including staff from the ministries of Environment, Infrastructure and Renewal, Municipal Affairs & Housing and Environment Canada; THAT TRCA staff be directed to report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board on the outcomes and key actions resulting from the November 3, 2005 workshop; AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA is committed to integrating climate change needs in all aspects of operations through The Living City program and to serve as a resource for partner municipalities. TRCA work on climate change issues is currently focused in three areas: developing sound science, mitigating human impacts through various partnership initiatives and developing adaptation strategies. In November 1999, TRCA hosted the Climate Change and Watershed Management symposium in partnership with Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Environment. Some of the key recommendations from the symposium included: • an increased focus on the development of local climate change scenarios; • substantial changes to federal and provincial strategies and guidelines for groundwater, surface water, water conservation, land use planning, energy conservation and transportation to help society reduce emissions and adapt to the expected impacts of climate change; • improved communication and coordination within municipalities between those departments dealing with policy and planning issues and those dealing with water, stormwater, sewage, energy, transportation and the natural landscape; and • extensive social marketing for all levels of government as well as from all professional organizations, about the need for new expectations, changed behaviors and improved technologies for both mitigation and adaption strategies to deal with climate change. 184 Work on some of the above recommendations is currently underway with various partners and government agencies. Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network is one of our key partners in the area of climate change adaptation research. C -CIARN is a national network that facilitates the generation of new climate change knowledge by bringing researchers together with decision - makers from industry, government, and non - government organizations, promotes new research techniques and methodologies, disseminates information and provides a voice for an emerging impact and adaptation research community. In the area of water management, TRCA has recently initiated assessment and integration of anticipated hydrologic and meteorological changes at a watershed scale related to future climate scenarios through our work in the Rouge watershed. Development of an understanding of the impacts that climate change have on the hydrologic response on a watershed scale allows for the assessment of impacts to develop programs, policies and management options at a local level. Following the detailed watershed scale modeling, the trends that can be defined in watershed response will be assessed and management opportunities defined which can be integrated into the business of the local municipality, including both operational and land use planning. Typical areas where this assessment may drive change include emergency preparedness, land use planning and infrastructure design, as well as updates such as at bridges and culvert crossings. To share information and to further understanding of municipal needs and gaps related to climate change adaptation and risk management, TRCA, in collaboration with C- CIARN, is proposing to host a workshop entitled "Integration of Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation into Municipal Policy and Programs: A Focus on Water Management" on November 3, 2005 at Black Creek Pioneer Village. It is anticipated that a key deliverable from this workshop will be the identification of key areas of further research which will in turn inform the policies and programs of local municipal needs., The workshop sessions will be focused around discussion of regional risks and water management vulnerabilities including source protection, infrastructure management and financial implications. A facilitated session on Risk Management and Adaptation Strategies will be incorporated to: • identify adaptive capacity, incentives or barriers to integrating climate change issues; and • familiarize participants with a risk management approach to understanding and managing climate change related risks from a municipal institutional perspective. Senior staff and representatives of TRCA's local and regional municipalities representing works and emergency services and planning departments will be invited to attend. In addition, federal and provincial officials, conservation authority staff and representatives from organizations /academic institutions working in this field will also being invited to participate in the workshop on November 3, 2005. 185 FINANCIAL DETAILS Cost of the workshop will be shared jointly by TRCA and C- CIARN. Funding for this initiative has been secured through the Remedial Action Plan Memorandum of Understanding and is available in account 120 -90. Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma , extension 5237 For Information contact: Don Haley, extension 5226, Glenn MacMillan, extension 5212 Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Date: September 20, 2005 SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES. #D65/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: 2005/2006 CAPITAL PROGRAM FOR CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DAM REPAIRS AND STUDIES Staff has prepared information on 2005/2006 Capital Funding Program for Conservation Authority Dam Repairs and Studies and has provided a list of all projects submitted for funding under this program to date. Nancy Stewart Gay Cowbourne IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the program description and list of projects pertaining to the 2005/2006 Capital Funding Program for Conservation Authority Dam Repairs and Studies be received for information. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2001, a team made up of conservation authority (CA) and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) staff began compiling an inventory of CA Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) with the purpose of understanding funding requirements for maintenance activities and dam safety studies related to capital needs within CAs. Recognizing the need for assistance in the upkeep of a province -wide aging flood and erosion control infrastructure, MNR successfully secured $5 million under their 2003 capital budget for CAs to carry out WECI - related repairs and studies. This amount was to be matched by municipal contributions for a total one -year investment of $10 million. Eligibility for funding under this program was restricted to projects which met the following criteria: i) the structure was inventoried in the WECI database, ii) matching municipal funds could be confirmed, and iii) the work could be completed by the end of the fiscal year (March 31st). In the first year of the program, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) submitted 11 projects, receiving a 100% approval rate and more than $220,000 in funding. In addition to carrying out repairs at several dams and erosion control sites, this funding afforded TRCA the opportunity to complete comprehensive safety studies of four TRCA dams: Claireville, G. Ross Lord, Milne and Stouffville. 186 The announcement of an additional $5 million investment from the province for 2004/2005 allowed TRCA to continue improving its infrastructure by updating emergency plans and completing safety upgrades at the Claireville and G. Ross Lord Dams; and by replacing several aged and failing erosion control structures in watersheds across the Greater Toronto Area. Now in its third successful year, TRCA has completed 28 projects to date and anticipates carrying out 18 additional projects under the 2005/2006 program, investing over $1 million into its dams, flood control structures and erosion control sites. Although an announcement has yet to be made, TRCA is hopeful that the program will continue in 2006/2007 so that much needed repairs and studies can continue in the interest of protecting public safety. Attachment 1 lists all projects submitted under the CA Capital Funding Program for Conservation Authority Dam Repairs and Studies to date, their respective costs and the portion of MNR funding allocated to each. Report prepared by: Moranne Burnet, 416 - 392 -9690 For Information contact: Moranne Burnet, 416 - 392 -9690 Date: September 01, 2005 Attachments: 1 187 Attachment 1 Table 1 Funding Allocation by Program Year 2003/2004 TOTAL COST (100%) MNR (50%) STATUS Stouffville Dam Safety Study $40,000 $20,000 Complete G. Ross Lord Dam Safety Study $40,000 $20,000 Complete Claireville Dam Safety Study $40,000 $20,000 Complete Milne Dam Safety Study $40,000 $20,000 Complete Claireville Dam & G. Ross Lord Dam Sedimentation Studies $60,000 $30,000 Complete G. Ross Lord Dam Gate Control Structure Repairs $35,000 $17,500 Complete Claireville Dam Control Room Repairs $30,000 $15,000 Complete G. Ross Lord Dam Fuel Storage System Replacement $50,000 $25,000 Complete Reid Manor Park Bank Repairs $51,000 $25,500 Complete Van Dusen Bank Repairs $60,000 $30,000 Complete TOTAL 2004/2005 $446,000 $223,000 TOTAL COST (100%) MNR (50%) STATUS G Ross Lord Dam Risk Assessment & Emergency Plan Update $20,000 $10,000 Underway Small Dams and Flood Control Channels - Assessment of Major Maintenance $50,000 $25,000 Underway Claireville Dam Borehole Dnlhng and Piezometer Installation $50,000 $25,000 Complete Claireville Dam Risk Assessment & Emergency Plan Update $20,000 $10,000 Underway G. Ross Lord Dam Review of OMS Manual $20,000 $10,000 Underway York Mills Channel Maintenance $10,000 $5,000 Underway 51 Col Danforth Trail Gabion Basket Replacement $80,000 $40,000 Complete Bluffers Park - WHP 1 Headland Repair $25,000 $12,500 Complete Stouffville Dam Spillway Valve Maintenance $10,000 $5,000 Complete G. Ross Lord Dam Electncal Upgrades $50,000 $25,000 Underway Black Creek Flood Control Channel Repair $6,000 $3,000 Complete Don Mills & York Mills Channel Repair $150,000 $75,000 Underway Marie Curtis Park Gabion Basket Replacement $60,000 $30,000 Complete G. Ross Lord Dam Hazard Signage $5,000 $2,500 Underway G. Ross Lord Dam Safety Boom Installation $10,000 $5,000 Underway aairewlle Dam Hazard Signage $5,000 $2,500 Underway Claireville Dam Safety Boom Installation $10,000 $5,000 Underway TOTAL 2005/2006 $581,000 $290,500 TOTAL COST (100%) MNR f50%1 STATUS Portico Dnve Structural Assessment $5,000 $2,500 Underway Warden & St Clair Gabion Basket Replacement $85,000 $42,500 Underway Highland Creek Confluence Repair $25,000 $12,500 Underway 345 Beechgrove Gabion Basket Replacement* $400,000 $200,000 Proposed Yvonne Public School Retaining Wall Reinforcement* $20,000 $10,000 Proposed Westleigh Crescent Gabion Basket Replacement* $80,000 $40,000 Proposed Black Creek Channel Concrete Rehabilitation* $153,000 $76,500 Proposed Black Creek Channel (2) Concrete Rehabilitation* $68,500 $34,250 Proposed Claireville Dam Mechanical Repairs* $45,000 $22,500 Proposed aaireville Dam Systems Operations Repairs* $6,000 $3,000 Proposed Claireville Dam Safety Repairs* $2,000 $1,000 Proposed G Ross Lord Dam Mechanical Repairs* $26,000 $13,000 Proposed G. Ross Lord Dam Electncal Repairs* $18,000 $9,000 Proposed G. Ross Lord Dam Safety Repairs* $11,000 $5,500 Proposed G Ross Lord Dam Structural Repairs* $8,000 $4,000 Proposed Milne Dam Safety Repairs* $19,000 $9,500 Proposed Stouffville Dam Safety Repairs* $26,000 $13,000 Proposed Stouffville Dam Structural Repairs* $5,000 $2,500 Proposed TOTAL GRAND TOTAL * pending confirmation of approval $1,002,500 $2,029,500 $501,250 $1,014,750 188 RES. #D66/05 - THE CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT, 2002 - 2006 Staff has prepared a prioritized list of erosion sites potentially requiring remedial measures under the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project, 2002 - 2006. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne David Gurin IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the list of prioritized erosion monitoring sites under the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project, 2002 - 2006 be received for information. CARRIED BACKGROUND The goal of the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project is to minimize the hazards to life and property that results from erosion of riverbanks, valley walls and shoreline, while protecting and enhancing the natural attributes of the valleys and Lake Ontario waterfront. At present there are nineteen (19) sites on our waterfront and valley land erosion priority lists where staff recommended that remedial measures be considered by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), as shown in Tables 1 and 2. At risk at these sites are residential and commercial properties, as well as public infrastructure. In evaluating and assigning priorities for erosion control works, three major factors are considered: the potential effect to structures; valley wall conditions; and river /shoreline action. The potential effect on structures is deemed most important and accordingly is given more weight than the physical and geological conditions associated with the other two factors. Determining the potential effect on structures involves the number, size and types of structure(s) affected. Valley wall conditions considered include: the height; slope angle; vegetative cover; groundwater characteristics; and the soil type and composition. The river and lake action as a factor, considers the present shoreline position, as well as the potential future scouring action. 189 Table 1 Waterfront Erosion Sites in Order of Technical Priority PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED DETAILS PROBLEM STRUCTURES AT RISK SLOPE HEIGHT SLOPE LENGTH 1 Guildwood Parkway Lake Ontario Shoreline and bluff erosion Nine (9) houses 41 m 160 m 2 26 - 30 Livingston Road Lake Ontario Bluff erosion Townhouses, parking lot, pool 124 m 270 m 3 1 Midland Avenue Lake Ontario Shoreline and bluff erosion One (1) house 54 m 100 m 4 Meadowcliffe Drive Lake Ontario Shoreline and bluff erosion Twelve (12) houses 57 m 600 m 5 Rosetta McClain Gardens / Lakehurst Crescent Lake Ontario Bluff erosion Pathway, parkland formal gardens 56 m 140 m 6 Gibraltar Point - Toronto Islands Lake Ontario Shoreline erosion Washroom building, parkland, beaches 0.5 m 1.2 km 7 27 - 33 Crescentwood Road Lake Ontario Bluff erosion Three (3) houses 54 m 60 m 8 27 - 37 Springbank Avenue Lake Ontario Bluff erosion Five (5) houses 54 m 60 m 9 Greyabbey Trail Lake Ontario Bluff erosion Two (2) houses 30 m 30 m Table 2 Valley Erosion Sites in Order of Technical Priority PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED DETAILS PROBLEM STRUCTURES AT RISK SLOPE HEIGHT SLOPE LENGTH 1 121 -129 Col. Danforth Trail Highland Creek Slope failure, Riverbank erosion Four (4) houses 40 m 30 m 2 345 Beechgrove Drive Highland Creek Slope failure, Riverank erosion One (1) house 40 m 60 m 3 1220 Sheppard Avenue East East Don River Slope failure, Riverbank erosion Office building underground parking 17 m 50 m 4 Manitoba Street Mimico Creek Slope failure, Riverbank erosion Townhouse development 12 m 30 m 5 221 Martin Grove Road Mimico Creek Slope failure, Riverbank erosion One (1) house 12 m 40 m 6 4 - 8 Atwood Place Humber River Slope failure, Riverbank erosion Three (3) houses 4 m 40 m 7 24 Bennington Heights Don River Slope failure, Riverbank erosion One (1) house 30 m 30 m 8 30 - 48 Royal Rouge Trail Rouge River Valley wall failure Ten (10) houses 30 m 200 m 9 222 Blythwood Road Don River Slope failure, Riverbank erosion One (1) house 20 m 30 m 10 125 Pegasus Trail Highland Creek Slope failure, Riverbank erosion One (1) house 12 m 25 m 190 The technical priorities are reassessed during our annual exercise whereby all sites on our inventory list are visited and monitored. This review reflects the dynamics of the erosion processes and the addition of any new sites, ensuring the works we are proposing for a given year are technically addressing the most hazardous sites within our jurisdiction. These priority lists are used in the preparation of our capital budgets and are available to take advantage of other funding opportunities. The number of extremely hazardous sites has been significantly reduced over the years. This is due to the fact that TRCA has used a priority ranking system to address the severe sites first. The other key aspect to TRCA's success has been the preventative aspect of the program. Through TRCA's plan input and review process and working with our member municipalities, development adjacent to the waterfront and to the valley and stream corridors is reviewed to ensure development is not introduced into potentially hazardous areas. Valley and shoreline regeneration measures will be analyzed on the basis of financial, technical and environmental cost/benefits. Acquisition will be considered as a viable alternative to remedial works where the proposed works exceed the value of the benefiting property or are not in compliance with the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program and the Shoreline Management Program. Any proposed remedial works will be undertaken in accordance to the procedures outlined in the Conservation Ontario's Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (2002). Following the major flood event of August 19, 2005, several new erosion sites were brought to TRCA's attention. Staff are currently assessing the extent of damage sustained at both newly identified and existing erosion sites and will re- prioritize the list of sites to ensure that the most hazardous sites are addressed first. Report prepared by: Moranne Burnet, 416- 392 -9690 For Information contact: Moranne Burnet, 416- 392 -9690 Date: September 01, 2005 RES. #D67/05 - DUFFINS CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP Minutes of Meeting #3/05, June 22, 2005. The minutes of Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group meeting #3105, held on June 22, 2005, are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Stewart Gay Cowbourne IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group Meeting #1/05, held on January 19, 2005, be received. CARRIED 191 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: Joanna Parsons, extension 5575 For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385 Date: August 25, 2005 RES. #D68/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION Minutes of Meeting #3/05, June 16, 2005.. The minutes of Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting #3/05, held on June 16, 2005, are provided for information. Nancy Stewart Gay Cowbourne IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting #3/05, held on June 16, 2005, 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 subcommitee 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: Joanna Parsons, extension 5575 For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Date: August 25, 2005 192 RES. #D69/05 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Minutes of Meeting #3/05, July 19, 2005. The minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #3/05, held on July 19, 2005, are provided for information. Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Stewart Gay Cowbourne IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #3/05, held on July 19, 2005, 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: Lia Lappano, extension 5292 For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Date: August 11, 2005 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:42 a.m., on Friday, September 23, 2005. Dave Ryan Chair /ks 193 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer c. erTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/05 October 21, 2005 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #5/05, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, October 21, 2005. The Chair Nancy Stewart, called the meeting to order at 10:37 a.m. PRESENT Frank Dale Dick O'Brien Nancy Stewart Michael Thompson REGRETS Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough David Gurin Shelley Petrie Dave Ryan RES. #D70 /05 - Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES Frank Dale Dick O'Brien Member Chair, Authority Vice Chair Member Member Member Member Member Chair THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/05, held on September 23, 2005, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Mr. David Burnett, Senior Planner, Oak Ridges Moraine & Externally Led Policy Initiatives, TRCA, in regards to item 8.1 - Caring for Your Land - A Stewardship Handbook for Oak Ridges Moraine Landowners. RES. #D71 /05 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Dick O'Brien 194 THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be heard and received. CORRESPONDENCE (a) CARRIED A letter dated October 19, 2005 from Tracy Smith, District Manager, Aurora District, Ministry of Natural Resources, in regards to item 7.3 - Oak Ridges Moraine - Level Two Temperate Wetland Restoration Course for Conservation Priority Areas (CPA) 2 and 11. RES. #D72/05 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Seconded by: Dick O'Brien Michael Thompson THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received. CARRIED 195 CORRESPONDENCE (A) Ministry of MinistPre des Natural Resources Richesses naturelles 50 Bloomington Road West Aurora, ON L4G 3GB October 19, 2005 Dick O'Brien Chair Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive, Toronto, Ont. M3N 1 S4 Dear Mr. 'O'Brien: Ontario I am writing to you in support of the Level 2 Temperate Wetland Restoration Course which is in its beginning stages on the Oak Ridges Moraine in both Peel and Durham Regions. This initiative will guide staff of our agencies in implementing successful wetland restoration projects in the future. This "hands on" project will run from fall of 2005 to the end of 2007. Participants in the process have taken the Level 1 course that introduces them to concepts and principles of wetland restoration on a•vvate'ehi&t-basis. In this second level implementation course, participants will characterize potehtial wetland restoration sites within the study area, select the best sites, develop detailed designs and implement wetland restoration plans where feasible. Funding has been secured from Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation for the project. This provides an excellent opportunity to work with our partners in improving water benefits, enhancing source water protection measures and increasing biodiversity through putting key wetlands back on the landscape that have been lost or degraded. This project, with a planning and prioritization phase and an implementation phase. will build capacity within our respective staff to do this work cooperatively and successfully on their own in the future. 196 If you have questions on details of the project please contact Mark Heaton or Emma Followes of my office or Angus Norman of our Science and Information Section (519) 873 -4623. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY T.C. Smith District Manager Aurora District 197 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D73/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: SOURCE PROTECTION MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING FOR 2005 -2006 Approval to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with respect to the delivery of provincially funded partnership capacity building projects for the period August 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 with administrative and technical responsibilities pursuant to the previously approved Memorandum of Agreement with respect to Source Water Protection Program Administration signed amongst the CTC Watershed Region conservation authorities - Toronto and Region, Credit Valley and Central Lake Ontario. Michael Thompson Frank Dale THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with respect to coordination and administration of partnership capacity building projects, between the Crown in right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources, 2002796 Ontario Limited ( "Conservation Ontario "), Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) for the period August 1, 2005 until June 30, 2006; THAT staff be authorized and directed to take such action as may be necessary to implement the Memorandum of Agreement including the signing of documents; THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to execute all necessary documentation required; THAT staff of the 3 conservation authorities (CA) continue to seek additional funding from the province through Conservation Ontario to enable the CTC group to deliver the complete 2005 -2006 deliverables as set out by the province; AND FURTHER THAT copies of the staff report be provided to the CAO's of the City of Toronto and regions of Halton, Peel, York and Durham. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #3/04, held on March 26, 2004, Resolution #A67/04 was approved, in part, as follows: THAT the proposed source protection planning region involving the jurisdictions of Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) be endorsed; THAT TRCA act as the lead conservation authority for this source protection planning region; 198 THAT TRCA staff work with staff of CLOCA and CVC to develop a memorandum of agreement, for approval by each conservation authority board, setting out the terms of administration among the three conservation authorities in the planning region;.... Subsequent to the Authority direction, the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with respect to Source Protection Program Administration was developed and signed by the three CAs. At Authority Meeting #11/04, held on March 26, 2004, Resolution #A324/04 was approved, in part, as follows: THAT the TRCA enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with respect to coordination and administration of partnership capacity building projects, between the Crown in right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources, 2002796 Ontario Limited ( "Conservation Ontario"), TRCA, CVC and CLOCA for the period December 1, 2004 until July 31, 2005;... Subsequently, the CTC CAs successfully completed the technical and administrative work as specified by the 2004 -05 MOA at the required reporting intervals. On August 31, CTC delivered Interim Preliminary Watershed Characterization Reports along with all the required budget and status reporting information required by Conservation Ontario and the Province. Provincial Funding Agreement Conservation Ontario and the province, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources, have signed a Memorandum of Agreement setting out the terms and deliverables associated with the transfer of provincial source protection funding for the next funding period,11 months from August 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006. This MOA requires the three conservation authorities in the CTC Region, the province and Conservation Ontario again to sign a Project Agreement setting out the respective responsibilities contained in Schedule C to the Memorandum of Agreement between the province and Conservation Ontario (Attachment 1). The purpose of this staff report is to seek approval for TRCA's participation in this provincial funding agreement that represents the scope and work, administrative and financial terms. The objective of the provincial funding is to ensure conservation authorities have sufficient capacity to meet the aggressive goals and objectives of the anticipated Drinking Water Source Protection Act. In preparation for legislation, the CTC conservation authorities will undertake preliminary watershed characterization, complete conceptual water budgets and initiate water budget numerical modeling. This preliminary technical undertaking will provide the groundwork upon which the local source water protection plan can be built. The parties will collaborate on the development of planning, communications, mapping and other technical skills and capacities in the participating CAs, so that the conservation authorities can undertake the planning, research and analysis needed to implement the province's obligations under the proposed Drinking Water Source Protection Act. The funding is to be used by CAs to undertake the following activities, prior to the enactment of source water protection legislation and promulgation of associated regulations: 199 A: Water Budget: 1. Conceptual Understanding; 2. Phase 2: Level 1 Numerical Modelling (Watershed Scale); 3. Phase 3: Level 2 Numeric Modelling (Site Specific). B: Capacity Building: 1. Data Management /Acquisition; 2. Communications /Outreach; 3. Preliminary Watershed Characterization; 4. Threats Database /Issues Evaluation. Details of the project, including specific products, deliverables, activities, milestone dates and budgets, are set out in Schedule C to the MOA. Staff of TRCA, CVC and CLOCA are in the process of preparing workplans and budgets in support of this MOA. Additional meetings to seek input from municipal staff are planned in November, 2005. FINANCIAL DETAILS The CTC Region will receive $1,077,000 in 2005 -2006 as base funding under the provincial funding agreement. These funds will be shared among CVC, TRCA and CLOCA according to an agreed upon workplan and budget allocation. Based on the detailed planning and budget work undertaken by staff of the 3 CAs in September and October 2005 to meet the provincial Schedule of Deliverables (Attachment 1), the base funding is not adequate. The CTC CAs are negotiating with Conservation Ontario for additional funds to adequately fund the CTC work that the province expects to be completed in 2005 -2006. Upon completion of negotiations with Conservation Ontario, the Memorandum of Agreement will be signed setting out the work that the CTC conservation authorities will complete, with the detailed CTC workplan identifying any necessary amendments to the provincial Schedule of Deliverables. Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: October 11, 2005 Attachments: 1 200 Attachment 1 EXCERPT from SCHEDULE "C" to the Agreement dated the 1st day of August, 2005 between her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario and the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario known as "Conservation Ontario" Form of agreement between the Crown, Conservation Ontario and conservation authorities with respect to coordination and administration of capacity building projects 2. Summary Detail of Eligible Activity and Deliverables Reporting Schedule for Conservation Authorities • This table represents the general anticipated pace of work for the duration of the Agreement, and the milestones of progress. It is recognized that individual CA regions will provide detailed workplans (as per section 2.4 above) that may indicate some variation from this schedule. Detailed workplan guidelines will be developed and provided to CA regions. • Please note that specific activity and product deliverables may change pending the Drinking Water Source Protection Act expected to be introduced in fall 2005. 201 Quarterly Report 1 Aug 05 to 30 Sept 05 Quarterly Report 1 Oct 05 to 31 Dec 05 Quarterly Report 1 Jan 06 to 31 Mar 06 Quarterly Report 1 Apr 06 to 30 Jun 06 Classification of Eligible CA Activities Based on SWIG Guidance Aug 2005 -June 2006 Work Capacity ACTIVITY: ACTIVITY: ACTIVITY: ACTIVITY: Building - • Ongoing staffing, • Ongoing staffing, • Ongoing staffing, • Ongoing staffing, Administration project administration, skills project administration, skills training to build project administration, skills training to build project administration, skills training to build training to build permanent capacity at permanent capacity at permanent capacity at permanent capacity the CA level for the CA level for the CA level for at the CA level for on -going DWSP work on -going DWSP work on -going DWSP work • Develop 2006 -07 on -going DWSP work • Detailed workplan Work plan and Budget PRODUCT: development • Status /Update of "Staff • Develop a "Staff PRODUCT: Development Plan" Development Plan" • Status /Update of "Staff PRODUCT: detailing staff detailing on -going Development Plan" • Status /Update of " development staff development opportunities to be detailing staff development Staff Development Plan" detailing staff opportunities planned, attended, and needed. undertaken or needed (TBD) opportunities planned, attended, and needed • Interim report of development opportunities planned, attended, and • Final report of expenditures & work plan as per CO /MNR PRODUCT: expenditures & status needed. provided template • "Staff Development update on workplan as • Interim report of Plan" detailing staff per CO /MNR provided expenditures & status development opportunities planned, attended, and needed • Interm report of expenditures & detailed work plan as per CO /MNR provided template template update workplan as per CO /MNR provided template • 2006 -07 Work plan and Budget Proposal 201 202 Quarterly Report 1 Aug 05 to 30 Sept 05 Quarterly Report 1 Oct 05 to 31 Dec 05 Quarterly Report 1 Jan 06 to 31 Mar 06 Quarterly Report 1 Apr 06 to 30 Jun 06 Capacity ACTIVITY: ACTIVITY: ACTIVITY ACTIVITY: Building - • Consultation with • Consultation with • Develop and deliver • On -going delivery of Outreach relevant targeted relevant targeted local communications communications plan Strategy/ stakeholders (e g CA stakeholders (e.g CA plan (TBD) (Post Legislation, TBD) Communications Boards, Municipalities) related Boards, Municipalities) related to technical • Begin broad public consultation with all • Broad public consultation with all (please note: to technical background /data stakeholder group stakeholder groups Communications background /data collection based on consultation based on consultation activities /Product collection • General guidance provided by guidance provided by s are TBD contingent on the on -going • General communications, educational in nature communications, educational in nature promoting, key MOE (TBD) • Support SWPPC and working groups MOE (Post Legislation, TBD) • Support SWPPC and direction and promoting, key concepts such as (TBD) working groups. clarification concepts such as watersheds, CA role in • Work with MOE to • Work with MOE to provided by MOE watersheds, CA role watershed management organize and facilitate organize and facilitate pending Drinking in watershed and basic information training sessions training sessions Water Source management and about water quality around the legislation around the legislation Protection basic information protection and regulations and regulations based Legislation) about water quality • Develop and share based on MOE on MOE training protection. good communication training package for package for SPPB and • Develop and share good communication practices, tools, products and CAs and other targeted stakeholders SPPC members in watershed practices, tools, products and experiences including " success stories," "tales in watershed region (TBD) • Develop and share good communication experiences including "success stories," " of caution" and myths arising through • Where appropriate incorporate practices, tools, products and tales of caution" and consultations distribution of experiences including myths arising through • Create local communications "success stories," " consultations • .Develop preliminary communications plan, aligned with MOE /CO products provided by MOE and /or CO into tales of caution" and myths arising through (pre - legislation) products and guidance. communication consultations consultation plan rollout • Complete PRODUCT: • Undertake development of PRODUCT: • Draft phased • development of 2006 -07 • Consultation plan for Communication/ 2006 -07 Communications Plan interim period Consultation plan with Communications Plan (pre - legislation) to focused stakeholder • Develop and share become part of a consultations good communication PRODUCT: phased communication /consu pre - legislation • Summary report of practices, tools, products and • Summary report of stakeholders consulted Itation plan stakeholders consulted experiences including and outcomes • Summary report of and outcomes "success stories," " • Communications stakeholders • Pending introduction of tales of caution" and Products (News consulted and outcomes legislation, prepare local communications myths arising through consultations Releases, Backgrounders, etc) • Draft analysis of most products based on aligned with MOE /CO effective MOE /CO materials PRODUCT: products and communications (backgrounders, Qs & • Summary report of guidance. approaches with As, press releases, key stakeholders • 2006 -07 watershed stakeholders to inform preparation of communications plan messages) consulted and outcomes • Complete phased Communication /Cons ultation Plan Communications Plan • Produce and distribute local communications products (News Releases, Backgrounders, etc) aligned with MOE /CO products and guidance. 202 Water Budgets Phase 1: Conceptual Understanding Phase 1: Conceptual Understanding Phase 1: Conceptual Understanding (Expected Complete March 2006) Phase 2: Level 1 Numerical Model(s) ACTIVITY: ACTIVITY: ACTIVITY. ACTIVITY: • Determine Objectives • Derive Data Derivatives •Develop Conceptual • Determine Objectives for for Conceptual Water Understanding Numerical Model Budget Development PRODUCT: •Peer Review Development • Review Existing •Map Booklet including •Prepare Conceptual • Fill Information Gaps Available Data (minimum). Report • Derive Data Inputs • Identify Information •Climate •Recommend and Select • Develop Model(s) Gaps •Geological / Numeric Models • Surface Water Quantity Physiographical • Ground Water Quality PRODUCT: •Ground & Surface Water PRODUCT: • Verify & Calibrate • Data report identifying Characterization •Conceptual Water Numerical Model objectives, data review •Water Use Budget Report • Peer Review and information gaps (refer to Draft Interim •Peer Review Report for • Report Preparation Technical Directions Conceptual Water Watershed Budget PRODUCT: Characterization" June 23, 2005 (for further detail on accepted map products) •Report on selected numeric model • Interim status report on Phase 2 Level 1 Numerical Model • Summary Report on Numeric Modelling work -to -date Watershed ACTIVITY: ACTIVITY. ACTIVITY: ACTIVITY: Characterization • Compilation, review and • Compilation, review and • Compilation, review and • Preparation of "final" assessment of existing assessment of existing assessment of existing watershed data and information for data and information data and information characterization report • Source water regarding: regarding: protection region • Sources of Water • vulnerable areas PRODUCT: • Physical description Quality Information • potential and • "Final" watershed • Hydrology • Water Quality identified threats to characterization report • Naturally vegetated Guidelines surface and including all component areas groundwater quality parts. • Aquatic ecology • Selection of appropriate • identified issues and • Watershed • Human water quality parameters potential issues description characterization and data analysis • Preparation of interim • Water quality • Water uses and values techniques report • Water budget conceptual • Water quality • Characterization of raw PRODUCT: understanding (general overview water for drinking water • Interim report on • Description of only) sources existing data re: vulnerable areas, threats vulnerable areas • Status of threats • Identification of data • Identification of data and and issues including. inventory/assessment and knowledge gaps for the watershed knowledge gaps for surface and groundwater • products e g. maps, written descriptions, etc. • Identified issues and potential issues description component quality • identification of data and • Peer Review Report on watershed PRODUCT: PRODUCT: knowledge gaps for: characterization • Interim report for • Interim report for existing • vulnerable areas • Identification of data and watershed description water quality conditions • potential and knowledge gaps for including products e.g. maps, written descriptions, etc. and trends including: • products e g. maps, written descriptions, etc. identified threats - ongoing DWSP activities • identification of data and knowledge gaps • identification of data and knowledge gaps for: • surface water quality • ground water quality 203 Water Budgets Phase 1: Conceptual Understanding Phase 1: Conceptual Understanding Phase 1: Conceptual Understanding (Expected Complete March 2006) Phase 2: Level 1 Numerical Model(s) Threats Database/ ACTIVITY None (TBD) ACTIVITY. None (TBD) ACTIVITY None (TBD) ACTIVITY: Issues Evaluation (Please note: Threats Database/ issues evaluation activities /Products are TBD contingent on the on -going direction and clarification provided by MOE pending Drinking Water Source • Preliminary scoping of threat inventories using available well head protection area delineation • Conversion /transfer of existing threat data to threat inventory standard format for scoped areas • Initiate collection of new data within well head protection areas Protection Legislation) PRODUCT: • Status of threats inventory/assessment (from Watershed Characterization) • Plan for threat inventory collection • Preliminary threat inventory from existing data 204 RES. #D74/05 - ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE Extension of Term of Appointment. Status update of Rouge watershed planning study and extension of term of appointment for Rouge Watershed Task Force members. Moved by: Seconded by: Michael Thompson Frank Dale THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to support the Rouge Watershed Task Force in their development of a first full draft watershed plan by December 2005; THAT the term of appointment for the Rouge Watershed Task Force members be extended by six months to June 30, 2006; AND FURTHER THAT the Rouge Park Alliance be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND As directed by the Authority and the Rouge Park Alliance, a Rouge Watershed Task Force was formed in April 2004, according to a membership and mandate outlined in a Terms of Reference. As per the Terms of Reference, the mandate of the task force is to develop a watershed management plan and ensure the interests of all watershed stakeholders are considered. Members of the task force were appointed by the Authority for a term ending December 30, 2005. The original task force workplan set out to prepare a watershed plan by June, 2005. While a considerable number of initiatives are underway on all aspects of this project, there have been delays in defining the future land use and management assumptions and in setting up the primary hydrology model to the technical team's satisfaction. Staff and task force member time has also been spent on unplanned, but important, activities such as review of the important provincial Greenbelt Plan and Places to Grow initiatives and their implications for the watershed plan. Consequently, the task force has revised its original workplan with a new goal of producing a draft plan by December 2005 and a final plan by June 2006. The period between January to June 2006 would provide the opportunity for thorough consultation, peer review and refinement of the final watershed plan. The members of the Rouge Watershed Task Force have expressed an interest in extending their term and at Meeting #5/05, held on September 15, 2005, adopted the following resolution: THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force request that The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority extend the term of the current members of the Task Force by six months to June 30, 2006. 205 The attached status report (Attachment 1), was tabled at Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 held on September 15, 2005. The report highlights the main accomplishments to date and notes ongoing work and next steps in italics. The following important management issues are being discussed and recommendations arising from these discussions will form a central part of the watershed plan: • water balance management, including stormwater management, needed to manage instream erosion and other hydrological imbalances and water quality concerns; • lack of natural cover, particularly in the headwater areas; • extent and form of urban growth and its potential impacts on the watershed: the potential for implementing more sustainable community designs and promoting more sustainable practices; • the role of rural /agricultural lands in watershed health; • climate change; and • the watershed context for Rouge Park. Drinking water source protection is also an important management consideration in this watershed. Staff are monitoring the provincial source water protection initiatives and are preparing for the integration of source water protection plans with the ongoing watershed planning process. The Rouge Watershed Task Force feels that the Rouge watershed is at a threshold, and this plan will be instrumental in influencing management decisions that will significantly affect the long term health of this watershed. Special effort is being made to ensure that the final watershed planning products provide specific implementation direction in a most accessible way for practitioners. Consideration is also being given to incorporating the recommendations within existing management and planning frameworks to the extent possible, to streamline implementation. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the Rouge watershed planning study is provided by the Region of York and City of Toronto capital budgets. The additional funding requirements associated with the task force extension can be accommodated within the planned 2006 budget. Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Date: October 3, 2005 Attachments: 1 206 Attachment 1 ROUGE WATERSHED PLANNING STUDY STATUS REPORT as of September 7, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Rouge watershed planning process consists of three phases with predominant periods of activity noted in brackets: Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: Scoping and Characterization (March 2003 - May 2004) Analysis and Evaluation (March 2004 - November 2005) Watershed Plan development (April 2005 - June 2006) This Status Report highlights the main accomplishments to date, according to each phase of work. Ongoing work and next steps are noted in italics. This report gives study partners an update on the overall project and will provide a context for work to take place over the fall. Comments, questions, and suggestions on any aspect of the work are welcome. PHASE 1- SCOPING AND CHARACTERIZATION State of the Watershed Report The Scoping and Characterization Phase resulted in the preparation of a draft State of the Watershed report, in which current watershed conditions were characterized according to a set of watershed goals, objectives, indicators and working targets defined by the Task Force. Current and future management issues were identified for further analysis during Phase 2. Key management issues include: extent and form of urban growth and its potential impacts on the watershed; stormwater management (especially retrofits) needed to manage instream erosion and other hydrological imbalances and water quality concerns; lack of natural cover, particularly in headwater areas; the role of rural /agricultural lands in watershed health and the need for strategies to facilitate a viable agricultural economy that will sustain those lands; and climate change. A working summary of key messages and key issues was prepared by the implementation committee and discussed with the Task Force at its March 10 and April 21, 2005 meetings. The draft State of the Watershed report was broadly circulated for comment to local stakeholders and external peer reviewers. The Task Force carefully reviewed the proposed targets during a series of "target workshops" held at Task Force meetings between October, 2004 and April 2005. Several notable revisions are being made to the draft State of the Watershed Report as a result of these reviews: 207 Public Use Chapter - Revisions to the goal, objectives, indicators and targets were discussed at a meeting with Task Force and municipal parks staff representatives in August, 2005. The resulting changes broaden the scope of this area of interest beyond strictly "trails" and "publicly owned lands". Definitions of terms such as "greenspace" and "natural areas" are being clarified and, where possible, standardized definitions are being adopted. The chapter is being rewritten accordingly and will be circulated to the Task Force for review. The meeting also served to identify management issues associated with Public Use, including the need for guidelines to assist in the determination of "acceptable" uses in given locations. • Natural Heritage Chapters - Revisions are being made to address amphibians and other species and their role in the natural heritage system. Land and Resource Use Chapter - Revisions to the goal, objectives, indicators and targets were discussed with the Task Force at their June 2, 2005 meeting. The chapter is being rewritten to address the broader scope of subject matter encompassed in this framework, and in particular to address sustainability concepts. Part 2 - Current Management Framework - The draft SOW Report contained a very incomplete review of existing management programs in the Rouge watershed. A revised inventory and assessment of the strengths, weaknesses and gaps in current programs is being prepared in the context of the watershed goals /objectives and management issues that arose from the current conditions report findings. The critique of programs undertaken as part of the management summits is being recorded in this revised Part 2 work. Other Editorial Changes - Staff have revised other chapters of the report based on any comments received to date. The report will continue to remain draft until any further findings from the studies can be included and all watershed planning documents finalized together to ensure consistency. Only chapters undergoing substantive revisions will be re- circulated to the Task Force over the fall. Closer to the end of the process, a fully revised report will be circulated for comment. Task Force Princip /es Peter White led the Task Force in developing a set of guiding Principles, which it submitted to the Chair of the Greenbelt Task Force for consideration in its work. These principles have been revisited from time to time to ensure the watershed planning work is in keeping with them. • Triple Bottom Line - Task Force representatives (Peter White, Bryan Buttigieg TBC), TRCA and York Region planning staff will be meeting with a Senior Planner from the City of Hamilton to learn from their experience at implementing the Triple Bottom Line as part of their Vision 2020 plan. Net Gain - Results from a TRCA- Pollution Probe workshop focusing on the Duffins Creek Watershed's application of "net gain" is being reviewed as a guide in applying this principle in the Rouge watershed. 208 • Precautionary Principle and Adaptive Management - have been suggested as additional principles to add to the Task Force's list. Local Knowledge Compilation of Historical Photos and Archival information - A group of Task Force members including Paul Harpley, Lionel Purcell, Murray Johnston, and Lorne Smith, has met several times to coordinate this compilation and develop strategies for long term storage and public access. PHASE 2: A NA L YS /S AND EVA L UA T /ON The Analysis and Evaluation Phase serves an important role in that it provides the foundation and the scientific basis upon which the preferred management strategy is selected and the implementation recommendations are determined. This phase involves the identification, analysis, and evaluation of various management options designed to address the above -noted current and future management issues. One component of this work involves prediction of the watershed's response to eight future land use and management scenarios using a linked set of modelling tools. Results will be evaluated according to their effectiveness at meeting the Task Force's watershed objectives and associated targets and other "integration" considerations, including multiple benefits, spatial extent of the watershed benefitted, public acceptability, etc. Def/ned Scenarios The watershed's response will be modelled for eight future land use and management scenarios, described in Table 1. TABLE 1: Rouge River Watershed Scenarios # Name General Description Rationale 1 2002 Conditions Existing conditions as of 2002 Provides a baseline for comparison 2 Official Plan (OP) Build -out OP build -out with current management practices and implementation of Rouge Park on the Ontario Realty Corp. lands transferred to TRCA for Rouge Park purposes Will show effect of build -out already approved or adopted using current, state -of- the -art practices (eg. stormwater management) 3 OP Build -out and Stormwater Retrofit Scenario 2 + Implementation Toronto's 25 yr Wet Weather Flow Master Plan (WWFMP) and "905" municipalities' stormwater retrofit plans Will show benefits of stormwater retrofit implementation in moderating effects of existing and future urban growth 4 OP Build -out and Enhanced Natural Cover Scenario 2 + enhanced natural cover as per TRCA's targeted Terrestrial Natural Heritage System (TNHS) and draft ecological corridor of Little Rouge Corridor Management Plan (in prep) Will show benefits of enhanced natural cover in moderating effects of existing and future urban growth 209 # Name General Description Rationale 5 OP Build -out Stormwater Retrofit and Natural Cover Scenarios 2 + 3 + 4 Will show benefits of stormwater retrofit implementation and enhanced natural cover in moderating effects of existing and future urban growth 6 Full Build -out Scenario 2 + Full build -out to boundary of Oak Ridges Moraine and Greenbelt Protection area with current management practices (e.g., SWM valley corridor protection) Will show impact of full build -out with existing management practices 7 Full Build -out With All Opportunities Scenario 5 + sustainable community design and implementation of Rouge Park North in the full build out area delineated in scenario 6 City of Toronto' s WWFMMP 100 yr Storm Water Retrofit plan and comparable retrofit assumptions in existing "905" urban areas. Agricultural BMPs. Will show whether improvements from all opportunities are adequate to mitigate full build -out. 8 a) Climate Change 2050 with Full Build -out Scenario 6 + climate change 2050 Will show effects of climate change on full build -out in 2050 b) Climate Change 2080 with Full Build -out Scenario 6 + climate change 2080 Will show effects of climate change on full build -out in 2080 c) Climate Change 2050 and Full Build -out with all Opportunities Scenario 7 + climate change 2050 Will show whether improvements to full build -out are adequate to mitigate effects of climate change in 2050 d) Climate Change 2080 and Full Build -out with all Opportunities Scenario 7 + climate change 2080 Will show whether improvements to full build -out are adequate to mitigate effects of climate change in 2080 Scenario Definitions and Assumptions Report - TRCA staff have prepared a draft report and set of maps illustrating the scenarios. These are undergoing final review with study partners. Delays in completing certain scenario mapping layers (e.g. refinement of the TRCA's Revised Regional Terrestrial Natural Heritage System for the Rouge watershed, determining methods for approximating the locations of Markham Small Streams and Rouge Park North corridors, and the Sustainable community scenario) have delayed the completion of the scenarios. All scenarios are now complete with the exception of the Sustainable Community Scenario ( #7). Given the delays in model availability (see below), this hasn't been as significant a problem. 210 Sustainable Community Design Scenario Report - Delivery of this draft consultant report was late. It is estimated that the completion of this work, including consultation with relevant study partners will take until the end of September. All other scenarios are being modelled in the interim, and therefore It is hoped that this final scenario will be available once the modeller is finished with the others. Mode /ling Tools The Watershed Response Model (Figure 2) is being used by TRCA to analyse the watershed's response to the future scenarios. The Model illustrates the pathways and order in which changes in individual watershed systems occur in response to changes in land cover, climate or management practices. Predictive modelling tools have been identified to evaluate each individual watershed system. Through coordination among technical team members, we have identified common indicators for evaluating interdependencies and have ensured that the output data requirements of one model meet the input requirements of the next model in sequence (i.e. units, time scale, etc.) and /or that appropriate translations can occur. TRCA adapted the watershed response model from an initial model developed by Snodgrass et al. (1996), which focused on impacts on aquatic ecosystems, and on a later adaptation of that work by Credit Valley Conservation (CVC, 2001). In 1996, Snodgrass noted "...the field is at least half a decade away from being able to quantify the "stress- response" relationships as a predictive tool for impact assessment, and the immediate future will depend upon relationships and synthesis of models and experience. TRCA first used the model in its Duffins Watershed Planning Study and intends to build upon that work in the Rouge study by improving the sophistication of the aquatic and terrestrial predictive tools over previous efforts. HSP -F - In August, 2005, the set up and calibration of the primary hydrology model, HSP -F, was completed. This step took longer than expected, however now that it is running, it is expected that the majority of scenario runs can be modelled by the end of September, 2005. • MODFLOW (Groundwater model) - The York - Peel - Durham - Toronto groundwater modelling team, Earthfx, will be modelling the groundwater system's response to the future scenarios, based on output from the HSP -F model and other scenario data. Although that team is under high demand by a number of Regions and Conservation Authorities on the Oak Ridges Moraine, they have been made aware of our modelling needs and timeframe and our project is on their master list of priorities. • Aquatic predictive tool - The Ministry of Natural Resources has developed an automated programming tool to evaluate the aquatic system's response to hydrological changes that arise from the future scenarios. This work is based on Les Stanfield's studies that correlate aquatic system health with watershed characteristics, including percent impervious and other hydrological indicators This program is ready for use, once the hydrologically modelling results are available. 211 Figure 2 - Watershed Response Model and Predictive Tools Used in the Rouge Watershed Planning Study Rouge Watershed Response Model and Predictive Tools Climate Geology Changes in Land Cover Changes in Watershed Hydrology — WaterBu get Model (HSPF) Changes in Air Quality — Emp)ncal Relahorrs4rps Changes in Stream Hydrology — Hydrology Model (Usual orrkirmo) Changes in Groundwater Quality and quantity — 3D GNWrrdwaterMode (Wentog) .Changes in Stream Morphology — Prokssavrat JudgemerrbHS°F Changes in Surface Water quality — HSPF Changes in Aquatic Systems - Empirraa e'atrorrs rps - Prokssrorral .krdgement t • Changes in Cultural Heritage — Fbtevha' Arohaeo.bgrcal Sites Mode' — Pro•ssorral .RIdgemerrt Changes in Terrestrial System — Landscape Arratysrs 7bol Recreation Quality of Life Management Summits Human Health Agriculture and Food Water Supply Tourism and Economics Energy Task Force members and key stakeholders and experts are being engaged in "management summit" discussions on key issues. The purpose of these discussions has been to further define the issues, implementation barriers and to determine potential solutions that should be recommended in the final watershed plan. Recommendations arising from these discussions tend to focus on implementation (i.e. "how" and to some extent "what ") and will complement the management strategy directions arising from the scenario modelling work, which will point to what actions are most effective, how much, where and why should they be undertaken. 212 The key issue topics identified to date include: • instream erosion, water balance, stormwater management, and water quality - This " water balance" summit is in the process of being scheduled for late September. During the background research for this issue, staff identified the need for a water balance policy. An outline for a draft policy and guideline paper will be table for discussion at the meeting. TRCA staff have also joined a discussion group, involving water balance practitioners in BC and Alberta and facilitated through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to share information and experiences from those jurisdictions. Lack of natural cover - a management summit was held on Sept. 8, 2005 to explore mechanisms for enhancing natural cover and dealing with encroachment and exotic species. • Temporary impacts of construction practices - a management summit has yet to be scheduled and is awaiting the assembly of additional background. Barriers to the implementation of sustainability practices - a management summit was held on Sept. 9, 2005. A proposed social marketing study was also discussed. This study will engage private homeowners and businesses, representative of the cultural and demographic characteristics of the Rouge, to determine effective marketing strategies for Rouge objectives and ways to overcome barriers to the implementation of innovative practices. • Barriers to the protection of agricultural lands - a management summit is in the process of being scheduled for late September. Other management topics - aggregate pit rehabilitation and continuation of initial discussions on public use guidelines and cultural heritage issues will also be the subject of upcoming meetings. Evaluation Criteria and Approach A preferred management strategy will be determined by reviewing how different areas within the watershed respond to future scenarios of stress and management options, as demonstrated through the modelling studies. Results of "management summit" discussions will also contribute to the team's understanding of the relative acceptability of different management and implementation approaches. A proposed two stage process for evaluating the modelling and management summit results was discussed with the Task Force at the June 2, 2005 meeting: 213 Stage 1 - Primary Evaluation Criterion ability to meet selected Rouge objectives and targets It is proposed that a subset of the targets be used in the initial evaluation process, as certain indicators /targets are more quantitative in nature (i.e. modellable) and are likely to give a good indication of the overall effectiveness of each scenario as they represent integral system functions (i.e. key issues). Stage 2 - Additional Evaluation Criteria - considerations for effectiveness, efficiency and equity consistency with task force principles, as in initial Task Force Greenbelt letter • multiple benefits and integration considerations • long term sustainability (maximum environmental gain, minimum cost, maximum social acceptability) • public acceptance The Task Force, assisted by the technical team and key stakeholders, will apply and reference these evaluation criteria during a series of meetings and facilitated workshops, designed to develop a preferred management strategy. ** *See facilitator under Phase 3. PHASE 3 - WATERSHED PLAN DEVELOPMENT The final phase involves preparation of the watershed plan and implementation plan. Watershed Planning Document Outlines Based on stakeholder input to date, the watershed plan itself is envisioned to be a concise document geared to a broad audience and focussing primarily on "what's new and different" from what we are currently doing. There may be a detailed "implementation reference guide" that accompanies the plan, where all technical details, maps, criteria, model policies, etc. are presented. There will also be a full set of other background documents, ensuring the transparency and defensibility of the planning process. The Task Force will discuss a proposed outline for all final Rouge watershed planning documents at their September 15, 2005 meeting. Facilitator and Writer Arrangements are in the works to contract a facilitator and writer, well known and respected by the Task Force, to help the Task Force in its discussions and development of a draft management strategy and implementation plan. This person would also assist the Task Force in collating its ideas into a concise draft plan suitable for a broad audience. 214 Partner Involvement, Consultation and Peer Review The main mechanisms for partner involvement during the development of the draft watershed plan include: Task Force meetings, scheduled September 15, October (date TBC), November (date TBC) and December 15, 2005; and Focus group meetings - the topic focused management summits are serving as focus group meetings around key issues. Broad -based consultation, through community open houses, stakeholder focus group meetings, and a peer review workshop, was originally planned to occur in early fall 2005. These meetings were intended to discuss the modelling results and potential management approaches. However, due to delays in the availability of modelling results and the very tight timeframe to accommodate even the Task Force's deliberations in the fall, it is expected that the year -end product will be less complete than originally thought and therefore the consultation schedule should be revised accordingly. It is recommended that the broad -based consultation be post -poned to January- February, 2006. The Task Force's engagement of key partners during the fall 2005 management summits is expected to be a meaningful and effective way of seeking input and so will replace many aspects of the consultation in the developmental stages of the plan. Input from the broader community and expert peer reviewers in January- February will be the most efficient time to engage those groups, and ensure their input is incorporated as the Task Force continues to refine its work by June 2006. Watershed News letter The Implementation Committee recommended the need for a communication piece that would assist in raising public awareness about the management issues in the Rouge watershed and encouraging participation in the planning process. A draft newsletter has been prepared for Task Force discussion at its Sept. 15, 2005 meeting. 215 RES. #D75/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: OAK RIDGES MORAINE - LEVEL TWO TEMPERATE WETLAND RESTORATION COURSE FOR CONSERVATION PRIORITY AREAS (CPA) 2 AND 11 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) participation in a Level Two Temperate Wetland Restoration Course for Conservation Priority Areas 2 and 11- Oak Ridges Moraine. Michael Thompson Frank Dale THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff participate in the Level Two Temperate Wetland Restoration Course for Conservation Priority Areas (CPA) 2 and 11 on the Oak Ridges Moraine; AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the Watershed Management Advisory Board on the deliverables, priorities and outcome of this training course. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Ministry of Natural Resources has conducted a Temperate Wetland Restoration Training Program for the past ten years in southern Ontario. The course is a collaborative effort, developed by staff from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Environment Canada, Trent University and Ducks Unlimited. The course is administered through the Watershed Science Centre at Trent University. To date over 200 resource management professionals have taken this course. The TRCA has been one of the strongest supporters of this program and over 13 staff have attended the Level One Training Course. This investment in training has provided an important foundation for the development and delivery of many programs including TRCA's watershed Habitat Improvement Plans and has also developed a high degree of staff capacity in the field of wetland restoration. Based on the success of this program, MNR has secured funding from the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation to develop and deliver a Level Two Temperate Wetland Course. This course has been developed by Mr. Angus Norman, a Wetlands Specialist in MNR's Southern Science and Information Section; Mr. Kevin Erwin, an internationally renowned wetland ecologist from Fort Myers, Florida; and Mr. Dan Mansell a landscape ecologist from Peterborough, Ontario with over 30 years of senior management experience within MNR; and Gord MacPherson, TRCA, Restoration Services. Although defined as a course, this program is really a planning /mentoring process between multiple agencies that will direct implementation activities over the next few years on the Oak Ridges Moraine. This course will provide a systematic landscape review of the Oak Ridges Moraine in two areas centred around the Albion and Glen Major Forest Tracts. These areas have been identified as Conservation Priority Areas (CPA) through a scientific evaluation of the Oak Ridges Moraine by MNR. This course will be a valuable tool to identify and prioritize wetland restoration in the CPA's and is in support of the wetland component of the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation funding for TRCA projects within these two CPAs. This program will provide the following deliverables: 216 • list of potential wetland restoration sites within the two CPA's and adjacent areas of the Oak Ridges Moraine; • prioritize the wetland sites based on water management /landscape ecology criteria; • integrate watershed planning and natural heritage planning with wetland restoration opportunities on the Oak Ridges Moraine; • develop conceptual wetland restoration plans for each identified wetland; • foster teamwork and consensus, and promote liaison between Oak Ridges Moraine agencies. This initiative will also train participants to restore wetlands successfully on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Two teams of 7 to 10 participants will be formed; one team for each area. Participants for this initiative will be chosen mainly from graduates of Level 1 Introductory Wetland Restoration Courses. RATIONALE Staff are actively developing habitat restoration plans for many areas within TRCAs jurisdiction. Recently, staff secured funding from the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation to develop and implement restoration plans for the two identified CPAs. The ability to work with other agencies under the mentorship of Mr. Mansell, Mr. Erwin and Mr. Norman presents a unique opportunity for staff. Staff are convinced that this program will not only identify wetland restoration sites within the Oak Ridges Moraine, it will also assist the long term and future wetland implementation on this significant landscape. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding to operate and administer this program has been provided by the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation. Each participating agency is providing the in -kind support of technical staff time. In total, 8 TRCA staff will be involved and include technical staff from Restoration Services, Ecology and Watershed Management. This program will require one formal day per month for eight months and an additional day has been allocated (if required) for preparatory work. The program will commence in November 2005 and finish in June 2006. Financial details are outlined below: AGENCY FUNDING DETAIL Oak Ridges Moraine $68,000 Base Funding for course Ministry of Natural Resources $65,000 In -kind staff support Wildlife Habitat Fund $5,000 In -kind staff support Ontario Streams $5,000 In -kind staff support TRCA $40,000 In -kind staff support Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation funding will support costs associated with the program including consultants, materials, travel and expenses. TRCA funding is available for staff time in the Humber Habitat Improvement Plans, Duffins Natural Heritage Implementation and Oak Ridges Moraine support for CPA 2 and 11 budgets. Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 Date: October 12, 2005 217 SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES. #D76/05 - CARING FOR YOUR LAND A Stewardship Handbook for Oak Ridges Moraine Landowners. Launch of a new stewardship guidebook for rural non -farm private landowners- on the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM). Moved by: Frank Dale Seconded by: Thompson IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report titled CARING FOR YOR LAND - A Stewardship Handbook for Oak Ridges Moraine Landowners, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND A comprehensive new stewardship handbook for rural non -farm private landowners has been published by the Centre for Land and Water Stewardship at the University of Guelph. The handbook was commissioned as a collaborative effort of several conservation organizations to use in their stewardship programs on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Partners included Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), through the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC), Ontario Stewardship Councils and the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust. The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, Conservation Ontario and TD Friends of the Environment were some of the additional funding partners. Staff from several conservation authorities, including TRCA, had direct input to the writing and review of the handbook. Plans are currently being developed for an official launch of the handbook this fall. SUMMARY AND USE OF CARING FOR YOUR LAND The handbook is an informative, easy- reading document that provides advice for landowners on the Oak Ridges Moraine who wish to protect, enhance and manage the environmental features on their land. "Action Tips" and advice are included for: • naturalization and wildlife habitat; • streambank and kettle lake shoreline restoration; • woodland trails and plantation management; • developing a personal stewardship plan; and • caring for private well and septic systems. Additional sections in the handbook provide information to describe: • the important water resource functions of the Oak Ridges Moraine; • special places on the moraine, including several TRCA conservation areas; • being good neighbours with the surrounding agricultural community; • the importance and benefits of good land stewardship; and • a listing of stewardship service organizations, including conservation authorities. 218 There are a number of opportunities to use the handbook in TRCA program areas. The handbook is ideal for use in existing stewardship outreach programs, workshops and landowner contact programs. Use of the handbook can also be promoted at watershed advisory committee meetings and at public open houses for the (sub) watershed studies currently under way for Oak Ridges Moraine watersheds. The handbook was originally developed as a tool for a proposed ORM -wide landowner contact program. TRCA is now a partner in a recently approved proposal submitted to the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation for a pilot project to initiate a collaborative landowner contact program on the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Caring for Your Land handbook promotes a positive relationship between rural non -farm landowners and the agricultural community. The handbook emphasizes the care and restoration of natural systems using native species. In that regard it supports the approach and implementation of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy and also The Living City objectives for Healthy Rivers and Shorelines and Regional Biodiversity. The handbook supports the goal of the CAMC to build partnerships to ensure effective stewardship services on the ORM. The handbook will serve as an important tool in the stewardship work of TRCA and CAMC member staff and other partners on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Copies of the handbook are available to Authority members upon request. Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361 For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361; Patricia Lowe, extension 5365 Date: August 24, 2005 RES. #D77/05 - 2005 MULTICULTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM Update. An update regarding the Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program. Moved by: Frank Dale Seconded by: Thompson IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the 2005 Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program update be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is the most ethnically diverse region in Ontario with immigrant communities making up more than 50% of the population. To build a greater awareness of local environmental issues amongst new Canadians and to engage them in community environmental stewardship projects, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) developed the Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program (MESP) in 1997. 219 As a lead agency involved in community outreach and stewardship we have developed a variety of strategies to engage a diverse audience including: • translating conservation fact sheets and posters into the most common languages other than English spoken in the GTA; • research and compilation of demographics information for internal and external clients; • building a database of active community organizations; • disseminating environmental information at community festivals and events; • identifying new community action project sites and programs in large immigrant settlement areas; and • working with a variety of municipal and community stakeholders to develop and enhance community capacity in diverse neighbourhoods throughout the TRCA's jurisdiction. In 2005, TRCA implemented a number of programs to reach the target audience. These include the following: Highland Creek English as a Second Language (ESL) Outreach Initiative In January, a committee of ESL practitioners and students from the Scarborough community formed to develop a toolkit containing hands -on environmental stewardship activities for ESL students. This initiative is coordinated through the Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Program. TRCA's Citizenship Ceremonies TRCA, in partnership with the Etobicoke Citizenship and Immigration Centre, hosted a citizenship ceremony in March during the Enbridge Sugarbush Maple Syrup Festival at the Kortright Centre for Conservation. Following the ceremony, 32 new Canadians from 13 different countries and their families enjoyed a pancake reception and tour of the sugarbush. Environmental Experience Subsidy Program This new program subsidizes the cost for new Canadians, disadvantaged youth and other community groups facing social and economic barriers to experience TRCA's conservation areas and to familiarize themselves with TRCA's watersheds. In March, TRCA engaged 200 ESL students and their families with a one -hour guided sugarbush tour and associated activities offered at the Bruce's Mill Enbridge Sugarbush Maple Syrup Festival. In June, 35 youth in Peel Region from the Malton Environmental Stewardship Youth Corp and the Toronto Chinese Community Services Association were given the opportunity to tour the fish hatchery and fish at the Glen Haffy Conservation Area. Wincott Wetland Community Action Site In June, TRCA and the City of Toronto hosted the 2nd annual community environmental celebration at Wincott Park North in Etobicoke with over 300 residents in attendance. This festival continues to support our partnership with this diverse community of new Canadians and link residents to actions as part of the City of Toronto's Water Pollution Solution plan to address impacts from stormwater. Additional stewardship activities included the distribution of water efficiency kits to local homeowners in July and a clean -up with local Grade 3 students in October during National Waste Reduction Week. 220 Invasive Species Outreach Strategy Invasive species continue to pose a significant threat to the integrity of Lake Ontario ecosystems and the fisheries they support. This project will help to reduce the risk of new introductions of invasive species to the Lake Ontario watershed, slow this spread to inland waters, and improve awareness about this issue within Toronto's diverse community. In partnership with the Ministry of Natural Resources, staff are researching cultural and /or religious practices of releasing live fish in Lake Ontario ecosystems. In September, contact with key members of the Toronto's Buddhist community was established to further our understanding of their cultural and /or religious live fish release practices. This project will also support target 2a, A Self Sustaining Fishery in the Toronto Area of Concern (AOC). Specifically, increasing the proportion of native species towards 100% of the total fish community as set out by the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) team. It will support the bi- national fisheries management objectives for Lake Ontario that have been set by the Lake Ontario Committee (under the Great Lakes Fishery Commission), as well as the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP). River Offerings Monitoring Program Over the past year, TRCA and Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) have formed a partnership to address concerns about religious offerings being placed beside or directly in local watercourses by the Hindu community living in Peel Region. The offerings observed to date are both organic and inorganic in nature, and include: flowers and leaves; coconuts, lemons and other fruits; jewelry or coins; clothing; and ashes. While these offerings are not the largest source of water pollution, they do have the potential to place additional stress on our river systems and introduce invasive species. The strategy to date has been to work closely with religious leaders in the Hindu community to gain a better understanding of this religious practice and to develop and pilot an outreach education and stewardship program to promote alternatives to placing items in the river. Through the support of the Brampton Area Community Foundation, TRCA and CVC, in cooperation with several Hindu priests, are developing a publication for distribution to members of the community providing information on these alternatives. Translation TD- Friends of the Environment Foundation is supporting the Chinese translation and printing costs of the educational Fish Poster and Healthy Yards Naturescaping Fact Sheet. These items will be disseminated at community festivals and events in Fall 2005. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will continue to implement the programs listed above in the Fall of 2005. The majority of the programs are 2005 pilots and TRCA will continue to seek funding and expand program deliverables in 2006 through building partnerships with multicultural groups, identifying and eliminating barriers that limit their participation and transferring skills that allow groups and individuals to contribute in the long -term to environmental restoration and to secure meaningful employment. These goals are in keeping with the sustainable communities component of The Living City vision. 221 FINANCIAL DETAILS In 2005, financial support for the MESP program was provided by the City of Toronto, Region of Peel, York Region and the Environment Canada - Ontario Ministry of the Environment Remedial Action Plan program. Additional funding to support individual program costs has - been secured from TD Friends of the Environment Foundation, Brampton Area Community Foundation (BACF) and the Canada - Ontario Agreement (COA). TRCA also continues to receive in -kind support from a variety of partnerships established with religious and cultural organizations, English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, immigrant settlement agencies and other community groups. Through this generous support, the 2005 operating budget for the Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program is approximately $80,000. Report prepared by: Larissa Mohan, extension 5394 For Information contact: Larissa Mohan, extension 5394 Date: October 12, 2005 RES. #D78/05 - ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES Minutes of Meeting #3105, held on April 21, 2005 and Minutes of Meeting #4/05, held on June 2, 2005.. The Minutes of Meeting #3/05, held on April 21, 2005 and Minutes of Meeting #4/05, held on June 2, 2005 are provided for information. Moved by: Frank Dale Seconded by: Thompson IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05, held on April 21, 2005 and Meeting #4/05, held on June 2, 2005, 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: October 3, 2005 222 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:55 a.m., on Friday, October 21, 2005. Nancy Stewart Vice Chair /ks 223 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/05 February 10, 2006 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #6/05, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, February 10, 2006. The Chair Dave Ryan , called the meeting to order at 10:37 a.m.. PRESENT Gay Cowbourne Member Frank Dale Member David Gurin Member Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority Dave Ryan Chair Nancy Stewart Vice Chair ABSENT Pamela Gough Member Shelley Petrie Member Michael Thompson Member RES. #D79 /05 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Gay Cowbourne THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/05, held on October 21, 2005, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Chandra Sharma, Specialist, Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds in regards to item 7.1 - Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA). RES. #D80 /05 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Nancy Stewart 224 THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received. CARRIED SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D81/05 - GREATER TORONTO AIRPORT AUTHORITY (GTAA) Living City Project - Etobicoke Creek Watershed. Final report on the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) Living City Project - Etobicoke Creek Watershed. Moved by: Seconded by: Frank Dale Nancy Stewart THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) Living City Project - Etobicoke Creek Watershed final report and all associated studies be presented to the GTAA; THAT the GTAA be thanked for their continued commitment and support to improving the health of Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek watersheds; THAT staff continue to assist the GTAA with their future work on green buildings and environmental restoration on the Lester B. Pearson International Airport (LBPIA) property; AND FURTHER THAT staff undertake such actions to develop new partnerships and funding to implement priority recommendations. CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto Lester B. Pearson International Airport (LBPIA) is the largest single land use within the Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek watersheds, and comprises approximately six percent and seven percent of the watersheds respectively. The GTAA and TRCA share mutual interest in Etobicoke Creek and have a good working relationship regarding its protection and enhancement. GTAA staff have contributed to the Etobicoke - Mimico Task Force and the development of the Greening Our Watersheds strategy document, and currently sit on the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition. At Authority Meeting #2/02, held on February 8, 2002, Resolution #A30/02 was approved as follows: THAT the staff report on the funding received by the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto's Living City Campaign, from the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, for projects on the Etobicoke Creek watershed be received; THAT the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, and in particular Randy McGill, Manager of the Environment, be thanked for their support of the Living City Campaign and for their support in improving the health of the Etobicoke Creek watershed; 225 THAT staff maintain their relationship with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority for work on the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds, and extend this relationship to the Duffins Creek watershed; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Board regarding completion status of the projects that have been agreed to as part of the funding negotiation. The GTAA Living City Project is a major undertaking involving four main components: Terrestrial Natural Heritage • The Terrestrial System inventory and modelling for the study area was based on TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage Systems Strategy (TNHSS) methodology. The study includes management recommendations identification of potential /targetted cover and priority restoration and enhancement sites to meet TRCA's local, as well as watershed, targets for the terrestrial system. Aquatic Ecosystems • Etobicoke Creek Watershed Fisheries Management Plan (FMP). The plan presents management recommendations for target species at a subwatershed scale (Lower Etobicoke Creek, Little Etobicoke Creek, Upper Etobicoke Creek and Spring Creek). Restoration opportunities for priority aquatic habitat improvement in close proximity to the GTAA lands have been identified. Stormwater Management • A Modelling Assessment of Runoff Water Quality Management in Etobicoke Creek for Catchment 219. (A representative catchment upstream of the GTAA property). • The Etobicoke Creek Watershed Spills Mapping Study. • Fluvial Geomorphology and Erosion Assessment of Etobicoke Creek. • Off -Site and On -Site Stormwater Management Opportunities. • TRCA Hydrology update Integration & Priority Implementation Recommendations • Key recommendations from the above studies are spatially and conceptually integrated to ensure land uses, water quality, fisheries, terrestrial and community values are prioritized within the study area. Priority concepts have been developed using TRCA's Habitat Implementation Plan (HIP) methodology. The report also includes mapping of key businesses and outreach opportunities. In addition, during the course of the project, the studies informed various ongoing and concurrent processes including the Region of Peel Sanitary Sewer Environmental Assessment, City of Mississauga Etobicoke Creek Trail planning, GTAA Habitat Restoration planning and in- stream work, and the RAP Spills initiative. Status reporting and consultations on products and emerging issues with Randy McGill, Manager - Environment at GTAA have been ongoing throughout the duration of the project. 226 KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Aquatic Ecosystems A Fisheries Management Plan was developed for Etobicoke Creek that includes management objectives, target species, and various implementation strategies to improve the ecological integrity of the aquatic ecosystem at a subwatershed scale. For each of the four major subwatersheds (Lower Etobicoke Creek, Little Etobicoke Creek, Upper Etobicoke Creek, and Spring Creek), the habitat categories, management strategies, and target species are identified. The Etobicoke creek has a total drainage area of 211 km2 and 16.5 %, or approximately 45 km of the watercourse has woody riparian vegetation. Etobicoke Creek Watershed Fifty -two fish species have historically been found in Etobicoke Creek, nine of which are introduced. Of the species historically found, 28 were captured in 2001, and only 20 in 2004. The 2004 survey also identified 3 species not previously documented in the watershed. Aquatic habitats in the Upper Etobicoke and Spring Creek are in relatively good condition while the more urbanized Lower and Little Etobicoke Creek subwatersheds are more degraded. Only two small reaches provide coldwater habitat with drainage areas Tess than 10 km2. Of note is the historical presence of mottled sculpin and redside dace as these are a sensitive species - neither mottled sculpin nor redside dace were present in recent surveys completed in 2000 and 2001. All of the other species found are tolerant species indicative of degraded conditions. The combination of considerable flows and reduced invertebrate diversity and density are likely contributors to the substantial decline in diversity and aquatic community. Poor riparian cover and the presence of in- stream barriers also negatively affect the quality of the habitat, and the potential for access by both fish and invertebrate species. Key findings include the discovery of coldwater habitats in the headwaters of Etobicoke Creek. GTAA Study Area (GTAA study area for this project includes LBPIA property and surrounding wildlife management and control area) Aquatic Species: The GTAA lands straddle three of the four Etobicoke Creek subwatersheds, (all except Little Etobicoke Creek subwatershed), with the downstream confluences of the Upper Etobicoke and Spring Creek subwatersheds, as well as the upstream origin of the Lower Etobicoke Creek subwatershed, all located upon the GTAA property. The airport's unique position as the nexus of the three major subwatersheds means that the key recommendations have special significance to the airport lands, and conversely, as do the airport's operations upon the subwatersheds both upstream and downstream. The FMP's recommendations regarding Habitat Categories and Target Species Management Zones for this area involve: • Protection and management of small riverine coldwater habitat just upstream of the airport for the target species of sculpin; • Protection and enhancement of Etobicoke Creek habitat (upstream and downstream of GTAA) for darters and smallmouth bass in the small and intermediate riverine warmwater management zones. 227 Wetlands and Riparian Habitat: Analyses of historic data indicate that over 7.4% of the watershed was once wetland. Presently, only two wetland complexes have been evaluated and they, combined with all other identified wetlands, comprise only 0.8% of the watershed. Historically, the airport lands contained a large area of wetland. Restoration of wetlands in this area is difficult to rationalize given the dangers that wetland birds pose to airport operations and vice versa. Key recommendations for the subwatersheds focused upon a number of issues, but perhaps the most relevant to the GTAA include: • Riparian vegetation (dense woody vegetation to be established 30 metres on each bank); • Natural channel design during alterations (the GTAA has already employed natural channel design during the Spring Creek realignment and it is anticipated that it will continue with future projects): • The protection of baseflow through limiting or mitigating imperviousness in this area. In order to begin to address the key areas of interest noted above, aquatic concept sites have been integrated at a subwatershed scale with the terrestrial component restoration sites using TRCA's Habitat Implementation Plan (HIP) methodology. Terrestrial Natural Heritage - The Terrestrial System Report, Biological Inventory and Site Assessment Report The Terrestrial Natural Heritage (TNH) study employed TRCA's TNH methodology and modelling at a more local scale. Recommendations for protecting and restoring the target natural system within the study area, and the larger watershed as a whole have been provided. A set of twenty four priority candidate sites have been recommended for enhancement and restoration within this area. The state of the terrestrial system within the GTAA study area was evaluated as 'poor' to 'very poor' during the landscape analysis, and is not surprising given the matrix influence (surrounding land use) of airport operations and major transportation corridors in the area. The study area incorporates several distinct terrestrial sites that have been severely fragmented by the clearing of land, initially for agriculture and more recently for urban development. Although these remnant natural areas lack connectivity, they are a part of the same landscape, functioning as a system, and thus are subject to cumulative impacts from the surrounding land uses. The impacts of proposed development on the GTAA lands are expected to affect terrestrial habitat and species both on and off the GTAA property. Therefore, the scope of the inventories and proposed restoration work extend beyond the GTAA property to surrounding areas of the Etobicoke Creek corridor. This is consistent with contemporary ecosystem management and landscape context approaches for the conservation and restoration of biodiversity. Natural Cover: Natural cover is sparse and poorly distributed across the landscape. Using more recent aerial photography obtained from the GTAA and information collected via field surveys, it was determined that since 1999, a handful of natural sites have been removed and replaced by development (e.g., airport landing strips, industrial development). Due to the poor distribution of high - quality terrestrial natural cover, the abundance and distribution of species and communities of conservation concern is also poor. 228 Habitat Quality and Quantity: Within TRCA's jurisdiction, preliminary published research has shown that the size of a habitat patch is the most important indicator for the presence and absence of avian species of conservation concern. In the GTAA study area there is just one patch of forest that contains an area of forest interior beyond 100 metres from the forest patch edge. Located south of Highway 401, this forest patch supports the highest diversity of flora and fauna species of conservation concern and is the least disturbed within the entire study area. This demonstrates that even within a highly urbanized area, a patch that is large enough, and which has a favourable (compact) shape, will continue to support sensitive species and shelter them from the negative effects of the urban matrix. The majority of the L1 to L3 (a ranking system of TRCA landscape analysis modeling tool where L1 is the highest functioning forest patch and L5 is the poorest or lowest- functioning) ranking flora and fauna species within the GTAA study area are found outside of the Lester B. Pearson International Airport lands, south of Highway 401, within the larger forest patches. However, it should be noted that within an urban area L4 species are also considered sensitive and of concern. Most of the remnant habitat patches in the area are too small, or have a very linear shape. In such a highly urbanized watershed, forest patches need to be more robust to carry out proper ecological functions such as the provision of habitat, and air and water purification. The biological field inventories conducted by TRCA staff in 2001 and 2003 revealed that a total of 85 different vegetation communities, 181 flora species and 46 fauna species are present within the GTAA study area. Of these, 13 vegetation communities, 27 flora species and 18 fauna species are considered to be of conservation concern (L1 to L3) within TRCA's jurisdiction. It is important to note that 19% of the vegetation communities, 23% of the flora species and 5% of the fauna species are non - native to the jurisdiction (exotic, L +). This number will likely increase if actions are not taken to improve the terrestrial system's resiliency by increasing the amount of native vegetation through ecological restoration, and by controlling the spread of invasive species in infested areas, such as along trails. In terms of riparian communities of note, the reed canary grass open beach and the several willow shrub beaches on -site are ranked L2 for their regional rarity and specific geophysical requirements. Wetland communities of concern include two broad - leaved cattail mineral shallow marshes of a significant size located in the Wildwood Park area of the study area (located in Mimico Creek watershed). There is also one notable organic cattail surrounding a duckweed -mixed shallow aquatic marsh (L3) located just south of Highway #401 and east of Dixie Road. This community is the only native community occurring on organic soil in the GTAA study area, and is made even more significant for its association with another rare feature in the area —an open aquatic vegetation (pond) community. Field studies for this work resulted in 're- discovering' the Twinleaf within its namesake Environmentally Sensitive Area (TRCA ESA #2) almost twenty years since its initial discovery and designation. One can expect that the sensitive species that are still present in the study area today will also disappear unless action is taken to implement the target Natural Heritage system. 229 Connectivity: Aside from riparian linkages, connectivity between other natural patches in the study area is insufficient for the maintenance of terrestrial species and ecological services. In addition to providing for the movement and dispersal of flora and fauna species within the study area, continuity of terrestrial habitat is particularly important when considering the opportunities for re- colonization of the study area. For instance, species in high - quality source habitats in the upper reaches of the Etobicoke watershed and in the Humber watershed can potentially disperse and recolonize newly- restored and regenerating habitats in the GTAA study area if appropriate conditions exist. Because a suitable degree of connectivity between natural systems occurs rarely within TRCA's jurisdiction, it is strongly recommended: • that the natural corridors linking the existing patches in the GTAA study area be maintained and enhanced wherever possible; • linkages need to be restored between the GTAA terrestrial system and natural areas surrounding the study area as suggested in TRCA's regional target system; • special attention should be given to creating and enhancing connections between forest and wetland habitats so that species such as amphibians, which require both wetland and forest to complete their life cycles, can safely travel from one habitat to another and persist in the watershed; and • East -west connections on suitable tableland should be a priority for restoration action. Restoration Constraints: TRCA recognizes that the GTAA has an Airport Wildlife Management Control program in place, and that any future habitat restoration work should be consistent with its objectives. Fortunately, implementing the TNH approach will be consistent with, and complimentary to, the airport's wildlife control objectives and will, in several areas, reduce the number of problem bird species associated with open field and agricultural habitats. Safety concerns arising from the use of natural cover by large numbers of birds in the vicinity of airports, creating potential collision risks, should be carefully considered in any land management decision. A report on the design of bird hazard zoning criteria produced specifically for the Pickering airport site lists and ranks the various bird species that should be considered in airport design. Almost all of the species that pose a safety risk in the operation of an airport, i.e., species such as geese, gulls, and small flocking species (starlings), are associated with open habitat - areas that are used by such species for roosting, staging (during migration), and foraging. Bird species associated with forest habitat fall largely in the report's Level 6, "very small, solitary bird(s) ", including warblers, vireos and sparrows, and are of the lowest concern for airport operations. This extensive list places natural habitats in the No Risk Land -uses category, where natural habitat includes forests, woodlots, hedgerows and riparian habitats, and maintains that such habitat is only of concern for airport operations if located close to airport runways. This being the case, it seems judicious to recommend: • that within the landscape surrounding any airport, restoration of natural forested cover should take preference over manicured, open habitat and agricultural crops such as soybean and corn. It is well understood that the latter land -use types create a considerable hazard in attracting medium to large flocking species (e.g., Canada geese, ring - billed gulls) into the vicinity of an airport. In light of this management consideration, the many soybean fields and open meadows located in the western vicinity of the airport around the airstrips represent a continuing hazard to aircraft and would be better managed as forest and woodland habitat. 230 The GTAA study area includes almost 40% percent of the Potential Natural Cover identified within the TNHSS for the Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek watersheds. Restoration, enhancement and securement of terrestrial system in this area is key to meeting the minimum overall targets at least ( Minimum 12% Etobicoke Creek and 8% Mimico Creeks) for a healthy Terrestrial Natural Heritage system in the Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek watersheds. Following actions are recommended: • Restoration activities should be undertaken to increase the size, improve the shape of existing habitat patches and promote forest interior conditions to support sensitive species and important ecological processes. Several opportunities exist to restore lands within the GTAA -owned lands including the agricultural fields. • land securement, where possible in order to meet system targets; • expansion of the target natural heritage system;and • mitigation of the negative effects of the matrix (surrounding land use) by ensuring that new development and expansion take into consideration the location of sensitive species and communities to mitigate all potential threats. TRCA staff worked closely with GTAA wildlife management and environment staff in order to develop a set of recommendations and restoration priorities based on the site inventory and modelling. Restoration priorities, if implemented, will contribute towards the targeted natural heritage system for Etobicoke Creek. Several of these concept sites upstream of the GTAA property have been combined with aquatic restoration sites for short-term, large -scale implementation. The priority candidate sites have been ranked from high to low, based on ecological gains to the terrestrial system and immediacy for action. However, all areas identified in the Target System represent excellent opportunities for restoration work if opportunities arise (a list of these sites is available in the GTAA Etobicoke Creek Terrestrial Systems Report 2005). Stormwater Management TRCA Hydrology Update: The current Etobicoke Creek hydrology model has been updated to an event -based simulation model. The model identifies the existing flow rates and volumes of runoff from the watershed, along with future condition rates and volumes based on projected development scenarios. Spills Mapping Study: A spills study for the Etobicoke Creek watershed has been completed that included a spatial interpretation of the Ministry of Environment's spills database as well as a statistical analysis of the nature and quality of spills. The primary purpose of the study was to map spill "hot spots" on a watershed basis for the first time. This historical information, coupled with the results of the separate stormwater retrofit studies undertaken by the Cities of . Brampton and Mississauga, and TRCA sewershed mapping, is being used to identify retrofit opportunities to both improve stormwater quality and manage potential spills. A complete list of the documented spills (including type, size and location) can be found in the report. The study recommended that spills be documented on an on -going basis in a spatial database so that spill prone sewersheds can be identified, mitigated, and that restoration projects and monitoring of water quality parameters such as benthic invertebrates could be more informed and better planned to account for spills. Recommendations also included that spill control plans should be developed and implemented through stormwater management pond retrofits and installation of oil and grit separators etc. Some of the study recommendations have been integrated with the of -site stormwater review carried out though this project. 231 Fluvial Geomorphology Study and Erosion Assessment: A fluvial geomorphology study and erosion assessment of Etobicoke Creek has been carried out. Data from 18 detailed study sites was organized and analyzed to develop erosion threshold discharges through the Etobicoke Creek watershed. The threshold discharges reflect the minimum flows necessary to initiate sediment entrainment and transport. The study found that in the upper part of the watershed, the critical discharge values represented flow conditions well above bankfull conditions, while the lower reaches of the watershed experience erosive flow conditions much more frequently. The results of the fluvial geomorphology study and erosion assessment will be used for a number of different purposes including siting of valleyland restoration projects, assessing erosion prone areas for remediation works, and in the short term, this information can be used to prioritize stormwater management retrofit opportunities to maximize erosion control benefits. Reaches in the vicinity of the LBPIA have seen substantial alterations (relocation and hardening) resulting in reduced channel length and an increase in gradient and stream energy. These reaches were classified as sensitive or. unstable. Stormwater Management in the Watershed - On -Site and Off -site Opportunities: Discussions with GTAA staff have revealed that there are very limited additional stormwater retrofit opportunities on GTAA lands. As a result, the study of on -site retrofit projects was not advanced. Approximately $150 million has already been invested over the last several years on numerous water quality enhancement projects, including state -of- the -art underground treatment tanks, a two- celled treatment wetland and many other associated structures. TRCA's work has shown green roofs to be effective in managing stormwater and opportunities for this technology should be evaluated. Within the Etobicoke Creek watershed there are approximately 30 stormwater management ponds (not including ponds on the GTAA lands) as summarized below: • 8 quantity control ponds (6 in Brampton and 2 in Caledon) • 9 quality control ponds (2 in Mississauga and 7 in Brampton) • 13 quantity and quality control ponds (7 in Mississauga and 6 in Brampton) Upstream of the LBPIA lands, one pond was identified as suitable for retrofit within the City of Mississauga and 3 ponds were identified within the City of Brampton. In addition, 15 outfalls have been identified for retrofit within the City of Brampton. The Cities of Brampton and Mississauga have both undertaken retrofit studies that identify existing stormwater management ponds and uncontrolled storm sewer outfalls where it is feasible to implement works to enhance quality and quantity. The list of feasible retrofit projects are prioritized based on a number of environmental, social and economic criteria. For the current study, the feasible retrofit project sites have been cross - referenced with the results of the spills study, fluvial geomorphology study and the fisheries management plan to identify priority retrofit projects and constraints to habitat implementation plans. 232 Catchment 219 Stormwater Management Modelling, Assessment, and Characterization Study: A catchment study, focussing on a 'characteristic' sewershed within the study area, was completed in order to develop recommendations for the other upstream sewersheds in an economical and efficient manner. The specific recommendations stem from a modelling exercise that determines the relative utility and environmental impact /gain of implementing various stormwater management scenarios, technologies and strategies. This modelling tool was first developed for the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Master Plan and was refined and tailored to the more local subwatershed catchment. Catchment 219 was 'characteristic' in that it includes various elements from a variety of similar industrial catchments, and therefore the results (and scenarios) could be implemented in other areas of the watershed. The study produced 9 scenarios of increasing stormwater quality and quantity management and its impacts on water quality and quantity and offered feasibility estimates for each scenario. Specific program and capital recommendations with estimated costs for each of the 9 scenarios was produced and their respective impacts upon water quality and quantity parameters modelled. Specific recommendations were then developed regarding the residential and industrial areas, conveyance, end -of -pipe, and source controls, as well as spills control and monitoring. Integration & Implementation The Integration and Implementation Report was added to the original Terms of Reference in order to bring all of the separate studies together, to offer a more powerful analysis, to develop strategies for implementation that combine terrestrial, aquatic, stormwater and stewardship concepts and move beyond the science to the planning and implementation stages. The integration report assists the TRCA, GTAA, municipalities, and other landowners in identifying priority retrofit, habitat and outreach investment sites. The report includes strategies for engaging the industrial and commercial business community and several examples of ongoing projects and future plans. Several ongoing business outreach projects, such as the Pratt & Whitney valleyland restoration /wetland creation, are supported and enhanced through the GTAA project. Prospective businesses, strategically located near major restoration project sites were mapped. Businesses are potential community development partners and valued long -term stewards with a mutual interest in environmental protection around the business facility for improved profile, employee morale, and community outreach and service. The GTAA Living City project, with its emphasis on science and monitoring will provide the needed 'business case' and follow -up evaluation model to attract business leaders and their staff to contribute to environmental restoration in Etobicoke Creek watershed. Habitat Concepts: Finally, a Habitat Implementation Plan (HIP) was completed for several large -scale sites within the area around the airport in order to offer immediate, high impact, aquatic /terrestrial restoration sites for implementation. The HIP prioritizes these sites, offers vegetation communities, estimated costs and a restoration concept. The HIP, candidate terrestrial restoration sites, target species management zones and stormwater summary report key findings were combined to offer an interdisciplinary assessment and implementation plan. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT Several benefits of the partnership between the GTAA and TRCA beyond the original terms of reference and project deliverables include: 233 • ongoing consultation on the GTAA's new fire training facility LEED building design and green roof given the TRCA's ongoing projects and expertise with sustainable building design and stormwater management. • review and detailed comments on the GTAA Etobicoke Creek and Spring Creek Rehabilitation Plan prepared by Dillon Consulting • development of the Catchment #219 study, a sewershed characterization study based on the City of Toronto wet weather flow modelling methodology, with specific recommendations that can be applied to other industrial catchments within the area • Integration report and mapping of priority recommendations resulting from various studies. • Business eco -park concept and an integrated restoration project on the west branch of Etobicoke Creek with the City of Mississauga, City of Brampton, local businesses and the Region of Peel. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Present final studies and report to the GTAA. • Develop partnerships and raise funds to initiate priority implementation recommendations. • Work with municipal and other partners to address the multi- faceted stormwater, terrestrial, and aquatic habitat issues identified through this project. • Continue to work with GTAA and provide technical support for their future green building and environmental restoration work on LBPA property. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds for the development of the GTAA Living City project - Etobicoke Creek Watershed has been provided through a $270,000 grant from the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. Matching funding (in -kind and cash) was provided by the TRCA. Total value of this project (including In -Kind and cash is approximately $ 500,000. Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Date: January 20, 2005 RES. #D82/05 - KLEINBURG NEW FOREST PROJECT Highway #27 and Islington Avenue, Kleinburg, Ontario. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority proposes to strategically place approximately 350,000 cubic metres of clean surplus soil on TRCA -owned tablelands located on the east side of Highway #27 and Islington Avenue in the Community of Kleinburg and the City of Vaughan. Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Stewart Dick O'Brien 234 THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) request formal proposals from contractors to supply and place clean surplus soil on TRCA -owned lands as a means to enhance wetland interpretive habitat features and create sound and visual attenuation barriers, subject to regional and municipal approvals; THAT the funds received as compensation for receiving the surplus soil be set aside exclusively to offset project costs, for future restoration and habitat enhancements within the property, long term management of the property and general TRCA purposes; AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to execute all the necessary documentation required. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Kleinburg Area Ratepayers Association (KARA) requested that TRCA and the City of Vaughan explore opportunities to enhance the natural habitat potential of a vacant portion of tablelands in the community of Kleinburg. The 14 hectare property located on the east side of Highway #27 and Islington Avenue in the community of Kleinburg consists of grass covered vacant tablelands with areas of recent fill deposition. The 14 hectare property has recently been conveyed to TRCA from the City of Vaughan. TRCA staff in conjunction with KARA and the City of Vaughan have completed detailed design drawings showing how the existing tablelands will be enhanced significantly by importing and strategically placing clean surplus soil. It is the opinion of staff that this is an opportunity to create wetland and interpretive opportunities while creating the foundation for diverse habitat and public features. The soil placement will also provide the desired sound and visual attenuation structures for the neighboring residential community. Upon completion of the fill placement and grading phase of the project and subject to available revenues, TRCA staff will complete all site trails, plantings and associated landscaping as shown on the attached layout plan. A stewardship agreement between TRCA, KARA and the City of Vaughan has been completed in which TRCA will assume the long term management responsibilities associated with the 14 hectare property. The agreement is similar to the stewardship agreement implemented in 1992 between TRCA and the City of Vaughan for the Foster Woods property in Kleinburg. An archaeological assessment of the property was completed on behalf of the City of Vaughan in 1987 by Mayer, Pihl, Poulton and Associates Inc. and no sites of significance were found. TRCA staff has reviewed the assessment and concurs that the site is considered cleared from an archaeological perspective. It is the opinion of staff that multiple sources of clean surplus soil will be available to complete the regeneration objectives and generate the necessary revenue to offset project costs and future costs associated with the management of the property. TRCA will implement a soils quality control program to•ensure and confirm that all soils placed on TRCA -owned property meet Ministry of Environment Residential Parkland criteria. 235 RATIONALE TRCA staff has completed similar projects in other areas with considerable success. Examples of these successful projects include: the recently completed berm on Kortright Centre for Conservation table lands off Pine Valley Drive; Boyd North Pit rehabilitation off Rutherford Road; berming along Intermodal Drive and Highway 407 within Claireville Conservation Area; the berming along the new Markham By -Pass east of Ninth Line; and, berming and wetland complex development at Boyd North (along Islington Avenue north of Rutherford Road). Staff see this regeneration work as a benefit to all involved as the surplus soil along with the financial compensation will allow for the creation of habitat opportunities and public features on the property. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Subject to project approval, TRCA staff will begin the process of requesting proposals from qualified contractors to supply and place the required soil. TRCA staff also need to obtain various municipal and regional approvals. FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA staff anticipate that fill revenue from this project will offset direct project operating and restoration costs. Report prepared by: David Hatton, 416- 392 -9725 For Information contact: David Hatton, 416- 392 -9725, or Nick Saccone, extension 5301 Date: November 18, 2005 Attachments: 1 236 Attachment 1 Itt _._..1M0 _I. _... ;fro [C 610 I!!! 136 in VII oil CIA 11 <► xf lz o •I 237 RES. #D83/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: GREAT LAKES CHARTER ANNEX 2001 Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement. Status report on the recent actions of the Province of Ontario and the partners (Province of Quebec and eight Great Lakes states) with regards to the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement under the Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001. Nancy Stewart Gay Cowbourne WHEREAS Conservation Ontario, along with other partners /stakeholders (50) is participating on the "Great Lakes Charter Annex Advisory Panel" created by Ontario's Minister of Natural Resources; WHEREAS Conservation Ontario, by its letter of November 25, 2005 to Kevin Wilson, Assistant Deputy Minister indicating support for the Province of Ontario being a signatory to the "Agreement" as negotiated as part of the 30 day jurisdictional review ending December 8, 2005; AND WHEREAS the Minister of Natural Resources advised that the Province of Ontario along with the Province of Quebec and the eight Great Lakes states signed on December 13, 2005 the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) endorse Conservation Ontario's support of the Province of Ontario being a signatory to the final " Agreement "; AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Great Lakes Charter was signed on December 13, 2005 improving the Great Lakes Basin (Attachment 1). 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; 238 • 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. At Authority Meeting #7/05, held on September 30, 2005, the Resolution #A295/05 was approved as follows: WHEREAS the revised draft Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement and Great Lakes Basin Water Resources Compact dated June 30, 2005 were released in a form suitable for the 60 day public comment period ending August 29, 2005 but without consensus among the two Great Lakes provinces and eight Great Lakes states; WHEREAS Conservation Ontario along with other partners/stakeholders (50) is participating on the "Great Lakes Charter Annex Advisory Panel" created by Ontario's Minister of Natural Resources since its inaugural meeting of December 15, 2004; AND WHEREAS Conservation Ontario through its 36 members, including Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), formulated their position and recommendations based on review by Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, Credit Valley Conservation, Sault Ste. Marie Conservation Authority, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority and TRCA; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA endorse Conservation Ontario's position of "strongly supporting the Province of Ontario being a signatory to the Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement based on the June 30, 2005 draft being the minimal acceptable package" and other recommendations as adopted at their August 29, 2005 meeting; THAT TRCA support the position of being advised of the progress of the negotiations and circulation of the final form and wording of the agreement prior to signing by the two Great Lakes provinces and eight Great Lakes states; AND FURTHER THAT the Minister of Natural Resources, the Council of Great Lakes Governors, Environment Canada, the International Joint Commission and Conservation Ontario be so advised. On November 23, 2005, the Minister of Natural Resources announced that Ontario was releasing the draft (November 2005) Great Lakes Annex Agreement and Compact which were under a 30 day jurisdictional review ending on December 8, 2005. 239 Conservation Ontario's letter of November 25, 2005 to Kevin Wilson, Assistant Deputy Minister outlined the key provisions of the "Agreement" that were maintained or strengthened, including changes needed to secure consensus. Changes and enhancements to the U.S. Compact are also summarized including key elements from the "Agreement" to the "Compact ". This information was provided to the Great Lakes Charter Annex Advisory Panel, of which Conservation Ontario is a member. Maintained provisions: • ban on diversions with limited, strictly regulated exceptions to address specific challenges to communities straddling or near the Basin boundary; • bulk water transfers considered a diversion; • new environmental standard for water use regulation; • overarching principles for ecosystem protection, cumulative impact assessment, need for caution in the face on uncertainties such climate change; • authority of federal government, International Joint Commission under Boundary Waters Treaty reaffirmed; • regional oversight and collaboration; • cumulative impact assessment; • enforcement and judicial review; and • input of public, First Nations on Great Lakes basin diversion proposals. Strengthened provisions: • straddling community and straddling county exceptions to the prohibition of diversions strengthened further including: • new "substantive consideration" of whether community is using groundwater interconnected to Great Lakes Basin water; • restriction of water use to within community; • new overarching ecosystem integrity principle for regional review of exceptions in context of uncertainties; and, • modified "straddling community" definition further restricts potential growth (i.e. water use cannot extend beyond the county boundary, even if a straddling community grows beyond the divide). • even stronger commitment to water conservation, including setting of regional goals and objectives, as the basis for state /provincial programs; • new requirements for regional review of water management, conservation programs every five years to ensure accountability; • stronger commitment to science, including regional science strategy; • new commitment enabling dialogue, input of First Nations, Tribes to Regional Body; and, • earlier implementation of key agreement provisions (i.e. conservation, water use regulation). Changes needed to secure consensus: • increased state /provincial flexibility in how states, provinces will manage and regulate consumptive uses within the basin, based on the environmental standard: • thresholds for regulation replaced with environmental criteria; • regional review for large consumptive uses (19+ million litres per day) replaced with prior notice and comment by 10 jurisdictions; 240 • modified environmental standard (more restrictive standard maintained for diversions) introducing a "reasonable use" concept that balances environmental, social and economic factors. Among the factors to be considered is the restoration of hydrological conditions and functions (modified from earlier "resource improvement" concept and not applied to diversions to address public concern); and • effect of changes minimized through stronger accountability provisions (i.e. regional review of programs, authority of "Regional Body" to recommend program changes). • modified return flow provisions to address public water supply or wastewater systems that " co- mingle" basin and non -basin water only on condition that discharges are treated to prevent invasive species, meet water quality standards and that basin water portion.of return flow is maximized; • elimination of the terminology "precautionary approaches ", while retaining descriptive language that gave the term meaning. Descriptive language maintained or added to the purposes of agreements, cumulative impacts assessment, straddling counties exception, new overarching ecosystem integrity principle; • climate change terminology modified in some places, retained in others; and, • new definitions to clarify terminology, i.e. diversion, conservation measures, product, public water supply (effect neutralized through Ontario amendments). U.S. Compact • important elements of "Agreement" migrated to "Compact " - e.g. regional review, science, bulk transfers, Lakes Michigan -Huron one hydrologic unit; • voting - veto maintained (i.e. any proposed straddling county proposal, intra -basin transfer proposals 5+ mgd); • public trust returned to purposes section; and, • enforcement- rights of aggrieved persons to hearing, judicial review; Party /Council may take action to compel compliance; aggrieved person, Party or Council may commence civil action. RATIONALE Conservation Ontario, though its letter of November 25, 2005 to Kevin Wilson supported the Province of Ontario being a signatory to the Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement as being consistent with Conservation Ontario Council's recommendations of August 29, 2005. With the changes negotiated above, Conservation Ontario was satisfied that "there is no erosion to the principles and provisions of the draft document dated June 30, 2005 ". On December 13, 2005 the Minister of Natural Resources announced that the Province of Ontario signed along with the Province of Quebec and eight Great Lakes states the "Great Lakes - St Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement ". At the same time, the eight Great Lakes states signed the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact with similar provisions. The "Agreement" will compliment other initiatives of the province such as source water protection. The agreements can be viewed on -line at following web address: www.mnr.gov.on.ca /mnr /water /greatlakes . 241 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE It is our understanding that the Ministry of Natural Resources is proceeding to detail the " Agreement" implementation activities and the role of the Great Lakes Charter Annex Advisory Panel. The "Agreement" also calls for the establishment of a "Regional Body" whose roles and responsibilities are currently under discussion. Conservation authorities provide an opportunity to assist the province, in support of the "Regional Body ", in such areas as the collection of baseline information and monitoring. The assistance of conservation authorities will be further discussed as Ontario articulates its implementation strategy in the coming months. Report prepared by: Larry Field, extension 5241 For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5241 Date: January 25, 2006 Attachments: 1 242 Attachment 1 w Ci 243 A RES. #D84/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: TOWN OF AJAX FIVE YEAR RESTORATION /NATURALIZATION PLAN 2006 -2010 To endorse the Town of Ajax Five Year Restoration /Naturalization Plan covering the years 2006 to 2010. David Gurin Gay Cowbourne THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), in principle, endorse the "Town of Ajax Five Year Restoration /Naturalization Plan" and the commitment to naturalize public lands in the Town of Ajax; THAT TRCA staff be directed to work with the Town of Ajax to develop the plan more fully and begin implementing on- the - ground projects; THAT staff report back to the Authority on progress on implementation; THAT, based on the success of plan implementation, TRCA encourage similar arrangements with other watershed municipalities; AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Ajax be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2004, a recommendation was made to Town of Ajax Council directing Operations and Environmental Services to work with TRCA to develop a five year restoration plan for properties in the Town of Ajax. The Town of Ajax Five Year Restoration /Naturalization Plan is a result of that partnership. Both the Town of Ajax and TRCA have several guiding documents that recommend naturalization and restoration efforts on public lands. Until the development of the restoration /naturalization plan, the Town of Ajax and TRCA carried out their restoration and naturalization work in a fragmented manner. Through the proposed plan, the Town of Ajax and TRCA will restore and naturalize public lands in the Town of Ajax in a coordinated manner by sharing resources and expertise. Several other plans and strategies that seek to naturalize lands owned by TRCA and the Town of Ajax formed the basis for the restoration /naturalization plan. Those strategies and plans are as follows: • A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek; • Fisheries Management Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek; • Ajax Waterfront Management Plan; • Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watersheds Habitat Implementation Plan (HIP); • Ajax Integrated Ecological Study; • Ajax Recreation, Parks and Open Space Master Plan; and, • Greenwood Conservation Area Management Plan. 244 Once adopted, the Town of Ajax Five Year Restoration /Naturalization Plan will help the town and TRCA focus collective energies on specific projects and deliver restoration services in an effective manner. Identification of action sites and work at these locations will provide a tangible benefit for the natural systems in the Town of Ajax and the citizens who enjoy them. Work is planned at the following two locations in 2006: • Millers Creek Corridor; and, • west side of Ajax Water Plant. Areas for further naturalization will be jointly identified by TRCA and Town of Ajax staff through consideration of the strategies and plans listed above. A management agreement is currently in place whereby the Town of Ajax manages portions of TRCA -owned property for use as recreational areas. Locations covered by the management agreement include Rotary Park, Greenwood Conservation Area and Paulynn Park. TRCA and the Town of Ajax currently partner on many restoration initiatives such as plantings during Environmental Affairs Week, and naturalization work in other areas of the watershed and waterfront. TRCA also partners with the Ajax Environmental Advisory Committee for community planting events. There has been very positive public support to date for these initiatives. With the restoration /naturalization plan in place, further opportunities for public and non - governmental groups to participate in events is envisioned. It is also hoped that the work on these publicly -owned sites will provide incentive for private landowners to consider naturalization efforts on their own properties. Through cooperation with the Town of Ajax, TRCA will have the ability to leverage resources for plan implementation. This joint effort will facilitate restoration and naturalization activities by building on the mutually beneficial relationship that has already been established. This plan will also foster our ability to partner with other organizations, through in -kind and /or financial contributions, thereby further increasing our ability to naturalize public lands in the Town of Ajax. RATIONALE In an attempt to coordinate restoration and naturalization efforts on lands owned by the Town of Ajax and TRCA in the Town of Ajax, the town and TRCA have developed a restoration /naturalization plan that will direct activities over the next five years (2006 to 2010). TRCA staff are seeking endorsement from the Authority and the Town of Ajax staff are seeking Council approval of the plan. TRCA endorsement of the plan will help ensure that the plan is approved by Town of Ajax Council and that implementation will happen in partnership. Once endorsement and approval are given, TRCA and the town can begin implementing the plan and seeking opportunities for further partnerships and funding arrangements. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for work has been identified in the preliminary 2006 Durham capital budget. Report prepared by: Brent Bullough, extension 5392 For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385 Date: January 12, 2006 245 RES. #D85/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: YORK - PEEL - DURHAM - TORONTO GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY Completion of Modelling Report and Proposed Peer Review. Completion of the Earthfx Report: "Groundwater Modelling of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area ". Nancy Stewart Frank Dale THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to forward to the Ministry of the Environment the report "Groundwater Modeling of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area" in fulfillment of the municipal Groundwater Studies agreement; THAT staff be directed to proceed with a peer review of the Oak Ridges Moraine area groundwater report and model; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to make the groundwater management study website available to the public and notify partner agencies as to the site's activation. CARRIED BACKGROUND The York -Peel- Durham - Toronto Groundwater Management 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 Region, 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), is also directing groundwater work across the entire Oak Ridges Moraine. The Province of Ontario recognized the value of this effort and through the ministries of Northern Development and Mines and the Environment contributed significant grants to the project. The Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) and the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) have also provided technical input into this project. A key product of this work has been the development of a regional groundwater model by Earthfx Inc. that has led to a broad understanding of the subsurface geological and hydrogeological conditions across the moraine area. The goal now is to now have the model used by the various partner agencies in every-day decision making. Towards this goal, the model and associated data have already been used for a variety of groundwater related projects, including the Rouge Watershed Plan and the York Durham Sanitary Sewer System infrastructure installation project. The model has recently been expanded to cover all of Peel Region and the Credit River watershed. A website has been created for the YPDT /CAMC partnership, but access is currently restricted to the study partners. Given the breadth of the overall groundwater project and the number of requests for information about the various initiatives from the on -going study, it is important that the website be made available to the public. Further details on each of these aspects are provided below. 246 Groundwater Model Earthfx has prepared a report that summarizes the key features of the modeling initiative. The modeling effort is unique in that it to ok a regional area and for the purposes of modeling, divided it into uniform 100 m sized cells. This level of detail provides a framework that allows for local scale data to be incorporated into the model as well as for local scale groundwater issues to be investigated using the "regional- scale" model. The report confirms the significance of the Oak Ridges Moraine in terms of its function as a recharge area. The model has also shown that about 90% of the water that recharges to the groundwater system discharges into the stream network that drains the moraine. Very little groundwater discharges directly to either Lake Ontario in the south or to Lake Simcoe in the north. Steady state modeling runs with pumping from all of the large groundwater takers (municipal, golf, aggregate, etc.), shows that the current pumping rates are sustainable, that is, in the long run, the wells will not go dry and the aquifers are not being "mined" or dewatered. Water levels will recover to original levels if pumping were to stop. The abundance of groundwater found along the Yonge Street Corridor was found to be a combination of three features, a topographic depression, a tunnel channel and a bedrock valley that all serve to enhance the likelihood of groundwater being plentiful in the area. The report has been subject to extensive technical reviews by staff at all of the partnered agencies and has been accepted by the YPDT Technical Steering Committee for submission to the Ministry of the Environment. In addition to the report, staff will also be forwarding to the Ministry all of the digital files that are to accompany the report as per the original agreement. The report produced by Earthfx represents a comprehensive body of work that has had input from a variety of sources including partner agency staff as well as other consultants. For this reason, the report is being released under the banner of the York -Peel- Durham - Toronto Groundwater Management Study. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE In 2005, staff from the partner agencies developed a website (www.ypdt - camc.com) aimed at introducing the project and the results of various project initiatives to the public. The site is also designed with a password protected section where partner agency staff can gain access to numerous project files. The website has not been made available to the public since the overall modeling report and the associated images were not yet finalized. With the finalization of the modeling report, the web site will be made accessible to the public as of March 1, 2006. Given the extensive geographical coverage of the regional groundwater model and the reliance on the model by 13 partner agencies, the YPDT Technical Steering Committee has agreed that there is a need for the groundwater model to be peer reviewed prior to its further development and use. This will elevate the status of the model, allowing the partner agencies to utilize the model with confidence. Improvements to the model may also result from the peer review process. The YPDT study team have developed Terms of Reference for the peer review process, and need to select a peer review consultant to complete the work. It is anticipated that this peer review work will be undertaken during the summer of 2006. 247 Summary The York Peel Durham Toronto Groundwater Management Study continues to provide an example of a successful partnership initiative between the federal government, the province, municipalities and conservation authorities. The Oak Ridges Moraine provides a common physiographic link to all of the partner agencies. The modeling report brought before the board represents the largest groundwater modeling initiative in Ontario to date and sets a benchmark for others to target. The model is expected to be used for a variety of day -to -day initiatives by the various partner agencies, including source protection (i.e., water budget preparation and wellhead protection area delineation), watershed and subwatershed planning (i.e., future scenario modeling) and municipal infrastructure installation (i.e., dewatering rates and radii of influence). FINANCIAL DETAILS There are no further costs for sending the final report to the Ministry of the Environment or for making the study website available for the public. The peer review described above can be implemented within the current 2006 preliminary budget for the YPDT study (TRCA account 115 -90, with funding to be confirmed by the regional municipalities of York, Peel and Durham and the City of Toronto). Report prepared by: Steve Holysh and Don Ford, extension 5369 For Information contact: Don Ford, extension 5369 or Steve Holysh 905 - 847 -7430, extension 246 Date: January 31, 2006 RES. #D86/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: DON WATERSHED REGENERATION PLAN - WORKPLAN UPDATE Revised workplan and status report for the Don Watershed Regeneration Plan. Nancy Stewart Gay Cowbourne THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to develop the updated Don Watershed Regeneration Plan according to the revised workplan and report back in fall 2006 on key findings of the current conditions assessment and regeneration priority setting approach; AND FURTHER THAT staff convene a community forum in March 2006 to begin the process of re- engaging the Don watershed community in the planning study. CARRIED 248 BACKGROUND The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), in partnership with the multi - stakeholder Don Watershed Regeneration Council and watershed municipalities, is developing a watershed plan for the Don River. This planning process has been initiated in response to a number of recent policy and planning developments, including the need to fulfill York Region's watershed planning requirements under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and to update the original management strategy outlined in Forty Steps to a New Don (1994). Recognizing the significant watershed planning work that has already been completed, and given that there are limited undeveloped lands remaining on the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) within the watershed boundary, this study will focus mainly on filling information gaps, guiding land use planning and approval decisions, and providing direction to advance implementation of regeneration priorities. A draft workplan for the watershed plan was reported to the Authority in October 2004. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on study status and proposed revisions to the workplan, in response to scheduling changes in the study during 2005, a Great Lakes Sustainability Fund grant approval, and project budget deferrals from 2006 to 2007. Planning Process and Deliverables The watershed planning process follows the generic planning process developed by TRCA, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) and the Regional Municipality of York, and is based on similar approaches used by other conservation authorities in Ontario. However, it has been tailored to the critical needs of the urbanized Don watershed and has avoided duplication by drawing on direction being provided from studies in neighbouring watersheds. The planning process has been divided into three main phases over three and a half years: scoping and characterization, analysis and evaluation of options, and developing the watershed plan. The protracted schedule reflects workload issues and changes in project deliverables and scheduling. The revised workplan proposes extension of delivery of the full Don watershed plan to 2007. However, a brief report will be prepared for May 2006 that will meet York Region's ORMCP watershed planning requirements. This tailored report will summarize current conditions and water systems for German Mills Creek and upper East Don River subwatersheds, in the context of the overall Don River watershed; the current status of development with respect to the ORMCP; and, recommended management strategies and targets, including opportunities to influence remaining development decisions and identification of preliminary regeneration and retrofit strategies. The revised workplan schedule and deliverables for the Don Watershed Regeneration Plan are as follows: 249 Phase 1 - Scoping and characterization (July 2004 - February 2006) • Brief written summary of current watershed conditions and issues (February 2006). • Individual technical reports presenting current watershed conditions and management implications. This technical work will include components not undertaken as part of the original Forty Steps to a New Don, including groundwater modeling, a water budget, water use assessment and integration of these with updated terrestrial natural heritage information (February 2006). Phase 2 - Analysis and evaluation of options (September 2005 - June 2007) • Preliminary methodology for identification of regeneration priorities (targeted for March 2006). The Great Lakes Sustainability Fund is contributing $30,000 to support the development of this methodology. • HSP -F modeling and evaluation of the effects of stormwater retrofit strategies in the 905 portion of the watershed on the overall watershed, to complement the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan (December 2006). Work on this element will proceed once the City of Vaughan has completed its stormwater retrofit study, so its results can be entered into the watershed model. • Subwatershed scale maps identifying regeneration priorities and regeneration plans for up to 2 concept sites (June 2007). • Updated land and water use strategies, and preliminary management recommendations (April 2006 - June 2007). Phase 3 - Developing the watershed plan (April 2006 - December 2007) • A tailored report to address ORMCP requirements in York Region (May 2006). • Pollution Probe report, Picking up the Pace to Restoration - A Retrospective and Prospective Look at the Don River, reviewing the history of restoration of the Don River, and re- energizing a shared vision through development of a restoration "roadmap" (December 2006). • Report card for the Don River watershed (2006). • Updated watershed plan and implementation plan for the Don River watershed. Public and Partner Involvement Strategy Public and partner involvement is an integral part of each phase of the planning process. Engagement fosters a two -way flow of information and ideas, serving both to inform watershed stakeholders and also the watershed planning process. Consultation with watershed stakeholders will be sought both at key points of engagement as well as on an ongoing basis, using a variety of forums and approaches. To date, the Don Watershed Regeneration Council has provided input to study direction, the workplan, and the public and partner involvement strategy. The Council will play a key role in development of, and participation in, engagement activities. Key mechanisms for additional involvement include management summits on key topics, broad community engagement events and the TRCA website. Broad -based public consultation will be launched in the spring of 2006 via a community forum in March, to re- engage the Don watershed community through review of current watershed conditions and confirmation of the vision and goals; and local consultation events for input to the tailored report addressing York Region's ORM watershed planning requirements. 250 Pollution Probe's Don Retrospective /Prospective Report Pollution Probe, in partnership with TRCA, is contributing to Phase 2 of the watershed planning process by producing a report, entitled Picking up the Pace to Restoration - A Retrospective and Prospective Look at the Don River. The report will review the history of the Don; highlight past achievements and disappointments; identify current barriers (both infrastructural and institutional) to further restoration; and, act as a call to action for developing a re- energized, shared vision for restoring the watershed. The project was described in more detail in a report to the July 15, 2005 meeting of the Watershed Management Advisory Board. A revised delivery plan was developed for the project in December 2005. Pollution Probe is currently soliciting additional funding for the project. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Upcoming milestones for the Don Watershed Regeneration Plan include: • completion of current conditions reports by mid - February; • a proposed community forum in March to re- engage the Don watershed community; • development of a methodology for identifying regeneration priorities (March 2006); and • preparation of a tailored report to address ORMCP requirements in York Region, covering the upper East Don River and German Mills Creek subwatersheds, for consultation with the community in the late spring. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the Don Watershed Regeneration Plan has been provided by the Region of York and City of Toronto capital budget in 2005 and the 2006 preliminary capital budget. The complete watershed plan deliverable will be extended to 2007, in response to deferral of $75,000 from the City of Toronto's capital budget from 2006 to 2007. As noted in this report, a Great Lakes Sustainability Fund grant of $30,000 has been approved in support of the Don Watershed Regeneration Priorities component of the project. Report prepared by: Janet Ivey, extension 5729 For Information contact: Janet Ivey, extension 5729; Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Date: January 24, 2006 RES. #D87/05 - OAK RIDGES MORAINE WATERSHED PLANNING STUDIES Update on 2005 accomplishments and next steps of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority watershed planning studies for fulfilment of municipal Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan requirements. Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Stewart Frank Dale 251 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; THAT staff review the draft watershed plans in the context of source water protection prior to the plans' completion, and to the extent possible make recommendations for the future integration of the source water protection planning component; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back during 2006 at key stages of each plan and again in one year on status and overall 2006 accomplishments of the 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 (ORM) by April 23, 2007, and recommendations incorporated into municipal official plans before any major development can be approved. While the Province of Ontario has not yet provided the anticipated technical guidelines in final form, the ORMCP sets out a list of minimum requirements for the completion of watershed plans: • a water budget and conservation plan; • land and water use and management strategies; • a framework for implementation; • an environmental monitoring plan; • provisions requiring the use of environmental practices and programs; and • criteria for evaluating the protection of water quality and quantity, hydrological features and hydrological functions. 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. This generic outline was supported by TRCA's other watershed municipal partners, including Peel Region, Durham Region and the City of Toronto. Detailed work plans have subsequently been developed for the individual watershed planning studies at the onset of each study process. These workplan schedules have taken into account the time needed for municipalities to incorporate the watershed plan recommendations into their municipal planning documents. 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. A watershed plan for Duffins Creek watershed was completed in 2003 and is deemed to fulfill the ORMCP requirements. Watershed planning studies have been completed to various degrees in all of the other watersheds, and therefore the approach to fulfilling the ORMCP requirements has been tailored to fill information gaps and address the needs of each watershed community. New thrusts of these watershed plans include: 252 • integrating new information on groundwater systems, water budgets and terrestrial natural heritage with existing knowledge of the watersheds; • modelling and evaluation of future land use and management scenarios, in an attempt to provide improved direction on effective management approaches; • definition of a sustainable community scenario for the watershed, and evaluating the cumulative effects of sustainability practices at the watershed scale; • development of more specific implementation recommendations, including model policies to guide municipal staff in the incorporation of watershed planning recommendations into municipal policy and regeneration priorities; ' • advances in integration techniques, including improved predictive models, visual tools and evaluation methods, which will contribute to improved science and effective management recommendations. 2005 Progress on Watershed Plans Rouge River Watershed • Modelling and analysis of eight future land use and management scenarios has been delayed to January 2006 due to complications in calibrating and linking surface and ground water models. Scenarios address various urban growth forms, stormwater retrofits, enhanced natural cover and climate change. • Terrestrial natural heritage and aquatic systems modelling and analysis is well underway. • Convened multi - stakeholder workshops to discuss management directions for key issues, including: natural cover management and enhancement, agricultural vitality, rehabilitation of aggregate operations and the implementation of lot level sustainability practices. A " water budget/water issues" workshop is planned, pending the availability of modelling results. • Prepared draft watershed plan outline, including a set of management strategies and implementation actions addressing all watershed objectives. Results of the modelling studies will be used to prioritize management directions and the necessary criteria for implementation. • Began applying the generic model policy, prepared by the York -Peel- Durham - Toronto (YPDT) /Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC) initiative earlier in 2005, to produce recommended Rouge watershed policies for consultation with key partners. • Convened six task force meetings and a one day workshop to guide the study. Humber River Watershed • Ten of eleven current conditions reports are complete (surface water quality, surface water quantity, air quality, aquatic system, terrestrial system, cultural heritage, public use, land and resource use, policy framework, and fluvial geomorphology), with the remaining groundwater report underway. • Surface and ground water modelling has been delayed for the same calibration issues as the Rouge study, with results expected by April 2006. • Began joint stakeholder Humber -Rouge workshops on key management issues. • Completed second consultation with municipal partners on scenario assumptions. Don River Watershed • Workplan was finalized focusing on filling data gaps and setting regeneration priorities. 253 • Wet weather water quality monitoring and supplemental temperature, fish and benthos monitoring is complete; fisheries data, riparian and barrier assessments are complete. • Current conditions reports for low flow, water use and aquatic systems are complete. • Further analysis for limited scenario modelling and the development and application of an approach for identifying integrated regeneration priorities, deferred to 2006 -2007. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE During 2006, work will focus on: Rouge Watershed Plan • Complete modelling and analysis of future land use and management scenarios and develop preferred management strategies and draft plan by March 2006. • Conduct consultation, formal peer review and ongoing plan refinement during April -May 2006. • Finalize watershed plan by end of June 2006. Humber Watershed Plan • Complete scenario modelling by April 2006 and development of preferred management strategy and draft plan by September 2006; • Conduct consultation and formal peer review in October - November, although attempts will be made to coordinate analysis to the extent possible during joint meetings with the Rouge watershed study; • Final plan by December 2006. Don Watershed Plan • Completion of the full watershed regeneration plan update is being delayed to 2007, to allow focus on ORMCP issues in this and neighbouring watersheds. • A preliminary plan for the two subwatersheds draining the ORM portion of the Don watershed will be completed by June 2006, thus fulfilling York Region's requirements under the ORMCP and taking advantage of any opportunity that may remain to guide ongoing land use planning decisions which in that area are well advanced in the planning process. • A regeneration priority setting methodology will be developed and analysis initiated. The resulting recommendations will identify key actions towards achieving watershed regeneration. Anticipated Source Protection Planning Requirements In December 2005, the draft Clean Water Act, 2005 was introduced into the Ontario Legislature. The proposed Clean Water Act, 2005 is designed to protect existing and future sources of drinking water through the local identification and assessment of drinking water threats and the development of a source protection plan that addresses these threats. The Act will require that source protection plans be prepared on a watershed basis and that a multi - stakeholder committee be established for overseeing plans in each source protection planning region. 254 It is unlikely that the source protection legislation and regulations will have been passed and relevant committees established in adequate time to complete source protection plans concurrently with the Oak Ridges Moraine watershed plans. However, it will be important to ensure compatibility between the management strategies of the two plans and establish seamless, efficient implementation plans. Staff will therefore monitor the emerging source protection planning guidance and ensure that every opportunity is taken to facilitate the future compatibility of the two documents to the extent possible. As the source water protection program unfolds, TRCA staff has proposed that the CTC Region use the Rouge Watershed Plan as an ongoing case study for the integration of source protection and watershed planning. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds for the Oak Ridges Moraine watershed planning work completed in 2005 and the work to be done in 2006 have been provided in the capital budgets approved by the Region of York, Region of Peel and City of Toronto. Source protection planning work is currently being funded by the provincial government. Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 or Dean Young, extension 5662 Date: January 20, 2006 RES. #D88/05 - IMPLEMENTATION OF A WATERSHED PLAN FOR DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS CREEK Progress Report. Update on progress made with respect to implementing "A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek" Moved by: Seconded by: Dick O'Brien David Gurin WHEREAS the Terms of Reference for the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group (DCWRG), Section 3.5 states "A DCWRG representative will report, at least on a semi - annual basis, on projects and progress to the Watershed Management Advisory Board of TRCA"; THEREFORE THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the progress report on the Implementation of A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek be received; THAT a copy of the report be circulated to Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watershed municipalities; 255 THAT the watershed municipalities be thanked for their continued support for the implementation of the watershed plan; AND FURTHER THAT the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group be thanked for their contributions overseeing and coordinating the implementation of the watershed plan. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/03, held on June 27, 2003, Resolution #A126/03 was approved, in part, as follows: ....THAT the Authority adopt "A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek" as part of its plan input and review process; THAT staff report back to the Authority regarding the steps required to implement this "Plan" into Authority practices and policy... In 2003, the watershed plan for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds was completed and subsequently endorsed by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the five local and two regional municipalities with jurisdiction in the watersheds. The following year, the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group (DCWRG) was formed to oversee implementation of this plan. This committee is comprised of representatives from the provincial and federal governments, local and regional municipal governments, citizens and various NGOs in the watersheds. The DCWRG is a steering committee that meets three or four times a year and was established to oversee and coordinate local delivery of the watershed plan. Following the DCWRG directions, TRCA staff work directly with local and regional municipalities and watershed NGOs to implement the watershed plan on a subwatershed basis. Recognizing that the watershed ecosystem is a complex network of interrelated features and functions, the watershed plan reduced the watershed ecosystems to a set of simpler component systems. Studies were undertaken within the following technical areas: • groundwater quantity and quality; • surface water quantity; • surface water quality; • aquatic habitat and species; • terrestrial habitat and species; • human heritage; • public use - outdoor recreation; and, • sustainable communities. 256 The watershed plan is a blueprint for action and includes a brief summary of current watershed conditions. It identifies the issues to be addressed and the opportunities that exist. It sets out a vision for the future, a management philosophy and a framework of management strategies, including watershed management goals, objectives and the required actions. The plan outlines effective implementation mechanisms, and provides guidance for implementation priorities at a subwatershed scale and areas within the watershed where initial implementation activities should focus. To coordinate on -going implementation of the watershed plan, TRCA staff arranged a series of meetings with the watershed municipalities to assess the current status and their priorities for implementation as outlined below. This exercise was strategic in nature and was intended to identify areas for improvement and to gauge the success of collective efforts. Consultation with Municipal Staff Municipality Meeting Date City of Pickering September 13, 2004 Town of Ajax - Planning Staff February 9, 2005 Town of Ajax - Parks Staff May 26, 2005 Regional Municipality of Durham June 9, 2005 Regional Municipality of York June 13, 2005 Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville June 29, 2005 Township of Uxbridge October 7, 2005 At these consultation meetings, progress on the management actions was reviewed and a status of "No Action ", "Proposed ", "Underway" or "Complete" was assigned. If a management action was determined to be "Underway" or "Complete" it was assigned a value of one. A report grade was then assigned to each goal based on the number of management actions identified as being "Underway" or "Complete" ( "Proposed" actions did not receive a score). A summary of implementation progress is attached ( Attachment 1). Detailed tables documenting implementation progress within the watersheds are available and have been provided to watershed municipalities. Overall, 180 of the 202 recommended management actions listed in the watershed plan are either "Underway" or "Complete ". A shortcoming with respect to the Human Heritage components of the watershed plan was identified in the initial municipal meetings. Following suggestions from municipal and TRCA staff, a workshop was organized to discuss implementation of the management actions with a broader range of stakeholders involved in human heritage activities in the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds. This workshop was held on September 14, 2005, at the Glen Major Fishing Club in Uxbridge. Discussions at the workshop revealed that the previous score did not fully capture the extent of human heritage activity in the two watersheds. As an outcome of the workshop, the score for the Human Heritage component of the watershed plan was revised to reflect the progress being made. TRCA staff have made presentations on the status of watershed plan implementation to municipal councils in the two watersheds as outlined below. For the Town of Markham, which has only a small portion of the Duffins Creek Watershed within its boundary, a staff report was provided on the overall progress. 257 Presentations to Municipal Councils Municipality Presentation Date City of Pickering June 20, 2005 Town of Ajax June 27, 2005 Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville July 12, 2005 Township of Uxbridge November 21, 2005 Regional Municipality of York November 30, 2005 Regional Municipality of Durham _ December 6, 2005 TRCA staff met with the Durham Chapter of the Urban Development Institute on October 25, 2005 regarding the outcome of our implementation assessment. Given the development industry's role in the two watersheds, continued consultation with UDI on implementation approaches will be beneficial to all parties. Many of the activities have contributed to fulfilling the goals and objectives of the watershed plan. The full implementation report documents progress on all of these activities. Examples of some of the activities that are currently underway in the two watersheds include: • private land stewardship (with funding from the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation); • TRCA Regional Watershed Monitoring Program; • York -Peel- Durham - Toronto Groundwater Management Study; • implementation of the Fisheries Management Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek; • restoration efforts at Duffins Creek Marsh ; • public use trail planning; • Seaton lands planning; • consultation with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority regarding studies for the proposed Pickering Airport; • development of generic watershed policies for municipalities on the Oak Ridges Moraine by the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition; • Stouffville Greenway Project; and, • establishment of the Uxbridge Township Watershed Advisory Committee. There have been a number of provincial and federal initiatives that have recently come into place that help support many elements of the watershed plan, including: • Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan; • Greenbelt Protection Act and Greenbelt Plan; • Places to Grow Act and the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan; • Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation funding for Glen Major; • updated Provincial Policy Statement; • Drinking Water Source Protection Act; and, • Transport Canada Greenspace Draft Master Plan. 258 The documented success in the implementation of the Duffins and Carruthers watershed plan is a reflection of the commitment of the various partners to the watershed plan. Through continued efforts, it is envisioned that the Carruthers Creek watershed health will improve, and the Duffins Creek watershed will maintain its status as one of the healthiest in TRCA's jurisdiction. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for implementation of the watershed plan has been provided through municipal capital budgets. Provisions to continue this work have been made in TRCA preliminary budgets and work plans for 2006. TRCA staff will continue to pursue funds from other external sources and explore opportunities to build on existing partnerships. Report prepared by: Brent Bullough, extension 5392 For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385 Date: January 12, 2006 Attachments: 1 259 A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Progress on Implementation GOAL SCORE* GRADE 1 To Maintain the Existing Hydrological Function of the Watershed 28/34 8 2 To Protect Groundwater Quality and Quantity 22/22 A 3 To Protect and Improve Surface Water Quality 30/34 8 4 To Protect Aquatic Habitats and Species 14/17 8 5 To Protect and Enhance Terrestrial Habitat and Species 25/25 /I 6 To Provide Appropriate Sustainable Public Use that Promotes Environmental Awareness and Enhancement 31/33 A 7 To Preserve and Interpret Our Evolving Human Heritage Resources 15/20 LI 8 To Achieve a Behavioural Shift in Lifestyles, Community Design, and Resource Use in Keeping with the Environmental Objectives for the Watersheds 15/17 8 TOTAL SCORE 180/202 OVERALL GRADE B *The score Is calculated based on the number of management actions underway for each goal. 1. luewyoe11d RES. #D89/05 - URBAN FORESTRY UPDATE Status report on current pests that threaten southern Ontario forest resources. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Frank Dale THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to 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 appropriate strategies and methodologies directed at the control and eradication of these pests; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back annually on any significant changes in the status of forest pests in Ontario. CARRIED BACKGROUND Staff had previously reported on the status of urban forest pests to Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #7/04, held on December 10, 2004. This report is provided as an update on the status of forest pests and their impacts for the 2005 period. The Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) maintain a program for the monitoring and reporting of these infestations in Ontario's forests. Together, these agencies monitor for some 30 to 40 invasive forest pests that have been catalogued within the Great Lakes Basin. The possible impacts of these pests include the Toss of native species, a decline in biodiversity, the loss of culturally important species, financial impacts to the timber industry all the way down to individual property owners when dealing with the costs associated with dead and dying trees. At the 29th Annual Forest Health Review, held on October 27, 2005, CFS /OMNR staff presented an overview of the current threats in Ontario and status reports on trends, infestations and ongoing research. Of particular note were: • Asian Long- horned Beetle (ALHB) • Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) • Hickory Bark Beetle (HBB) • Sirex Wood Wasp (SWW) • Gypsy Moth (GM) • Butternut Canker Asian Long- horned Beetle The ALHB was discovered on September 4, 2003 in an industrial area straddling the border of the City of Toronto and the City of Vaughan. Subsequent surveys in 2003 and 2004 mapped the spread of the ALHB into other localized areas of Toronto and Vaughan. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) -led multi- agency team has implemented the control and eradication plan on an ongoing basis, resulting in the removal of some 15,000 host trees by the end of 2004. 261 Since the December 10, 2004, staff report, the ALHB has been found in ever decreasing numbers in areas within close proximity to previous finds. The CFIA, with input from the ALHB Science Subcommittee, with representation from the CFS, OMNR and other partner agencies, has revised the ALHB eradication protocol such that any host species tree within 400 metres of a tree exhibiting any lifestage of the ALHB (includes adult exit hole, larvae and egg stages) will be removed. This change is reflective of the possibility that the ALHB is exhibiting both one and two -year lifecycles in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) region and is intended to capture the latter group which may not be outwardly evident during survey. The 2005 finds resulted in a further 10,000 trees being removed, bringing the removal total to approximately 25,000 host trees since the program started in 2003. The latest round of infested tree removal was conducted in the fall period, ending in mid - December 2005. All 2005 finds were within the ALHB Regulated Area, a quarantine zone comprising approximately 125 km2 . CFIA continues to lead intensive ground and aerial surveys with the support of partner agencies (Toronto, Vaughan, OMNR, York Region, TRCA, CFS, etc.) in an effort to eradicate the ALHB from the GTA region. Emerald Ash Borer The Emerald Ash Borer is another invasive exotic pest that has had devastating impacts on the forests of southwestern Ontario. It was first discovered in Michigan in 2002 and has quickly ravaged ash trees throughout Windsor and Essex county. The epicenter of infestation and greatest impact continues to be in Michigan. The infestation in Ontario is believed to be about two years behind the Michigan experience. The EAB feed exclusively on ash trees. They attack all ash trees reguardless of age, size, health or vigor, and kill all of the trees they attack by repeated attacks from successive generations of EAB. Mortality is 100 %. Estimates put the ash component of southwestern Ontario forests between 25% and 50 %. The effects of the loss of all these trees will be enormous. It is also feared that these sudden openings in our forest stands caused by the dead trees, will create an ideal opportunity for invasive plants to become established creating further problems for the remaining forests. The "Fire Break" or ash free zone implemented in 2003 has not been as effective as hoped, with outbreaks reported 10 km past the eastern edge of the zone. The outbreaks appear to follow traffic corridors, with the movement of wood being the most likely cause. Recent outbreaks include Lambton, Chatham -Kent and Elgin counties. New quarantine areas are being implemented for these infestations. The goal of the CFIA with respect to EAB, is to control the spread of the pest, until more effective countermeasures can be found. 262 Hickory Bark Beetle The Hickory Bark Beetle is a native pest that continues to be enjoying a resurgence in southwestern Ontario. The reasons are twofold. HBB is a secondary pest, meaning that it attacks already weakened trees, or trees under stress. The past several years have been very dry and this seems to increase the risk of an attack. There is often nearly 100% mortality in host trees. Many of the infected stands have large components of ash which is further contributing to the demise of these forests. It also appears that the poor management practice of "high grading" - cutting the best and leaving the rest - of the stands in the past has removed almost entirely the maple component from these forests. This leaves an abnormally high percentage of hickory in these stands, thus increasing the potential for a devastating attack by just one species of forest pest. Butternut Canker In July 2005, Butternut was added to the official list of endangered species. Currently we do not know where the Butternut Canker comes from, but it has probably been in Ontario since the 1980's. This disease affects trees of all ages and sizes. It appears that vigorous trees on good sites with good growing conditions are more resistant to the canker. It will be important to manage our forests to the benefit of Butternut wherever possible, and to continue to educate private landowners of this threat. Sirex Wood Wasp This wasp was first detected in New York state in 2005 near the Port of Oswego. It is being monitored closely in the Fulton County region of New York by the USDA Forest Service and by CFS /MNR along the Canadian side of Lake Ontario to see if it has spread into Canada. The wasp is believed to move about 30 to 35 kilometers per year by natural spread (ie. flight) and typically has one generation per year, although a two -year lifecycle may also exist in our colder climate. The wasp primarily infects 2 and 3 needled pines - including Scot's, Jack, Austrian and Pitch pines. It isn't yet known if it can live in other pines, including the 5 needled White Pine. It is a fungus that is introduced by the wasp that eventually kills the tree. There may be native predators for this wasp, but due to the very new status of this threat, many questions have yet to be answered. It appears that it was introduced from Eurasia, possibly in wood from shipping crates, and the possibility that it could enter Canada this way is also a concern. Gypsy Moth Gypsy Moth was first introduced to North America accidently by a resident of Medford, Massachusetts, looking to breed a silk moth that could survive our cold climate. Several moths escaped and thrived due to the complete lack of natural predators. Most hardwood trees can survive one or two defoliations by the moth, however, oak and most susceptible conifers (ie. White Pine) can be killed by a single attack depending on severity. The pest is often spread by vehicles, firewood, boats or any other item that the moths can lay their eggs on. There are several biological control methods available and we continue to monitor for outbreaks. At present there are six infestation areas of concern in the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVCA) jurisdiction of the City of Mississauga with the potential for more next year. There are no known infestations in close proximity to TRCA -owned lands. 263 At its meeting of January 18, 2006, the City of Mississauga considered its options regarding the GM outbreak. Four options were put forward as follows: 1. implement an integrated pest control program excluding biological and /or chemical spraying (ie. use of sticky traps, tree bands, etc.) to slow the spread; 2. ground based application of biological and /or chemical controls for street and park trees, where access permits; 3. aerial treatment by helicopter including street trees, wooded parklands and residential hot spots using biological (Bti) control; and, 4. do nothing. Staff will have the outcome of this discussion available at the time of the Watershed Management Advisory Board meeting. Regardless of the final Council decision, the City of Mississauga is continuing to monitor the situation closely. Implications The implications of these forest pests have not changed substantially from the position stated in the previous WMAB #7/04 report dated Decemebr 10, 2004. As a result, the discussion is reprinted below for reference: "In response to the ALHB infestation, the TRCA has participated in all aspects of the eradication program led by the 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 proposals 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 neighborhoods. 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 diversity and the represented species mix. The problems associated with EAB are not as clear cut. Ash is a fairly large component of both the planted and natural forests within the TRCA jurisdiction. It is a species suited to many varied site conditions, and is well suited to growing in open conditions, while being stronger and longer lived than many alternatives. It is a valuable nurse crop for other species which would become part of a climax forest ecosystem. The TRCA supports the City of Toronto's directive to eliminate ash species from all restoration plans within the city. TRCA staff continue to approve ash use as part of a diverse and sustainable urban forest in all other areas. The composition of each new planting is such that Ash are limited to a smaller proportion than may have been the case before the introduction of EAB. Discussions with other government and industry professionals supports the continued use of ash as part of a biologically diverse and balanced ecosystem. There has been no indication by the OMNR or Conservation Ontario to limit or discourage the planting of ash species. 264 Staff at the 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 tree species planted on a particular site. In reforestation plantings, ash will comprise less than two percent of the total planting effort of the TRCA." Additionally, while the GM population in Mississauga is being closely watched, it is believed that the population may collapse on itself as a result of the cyclical nature of outbreaks in conjunction with the dry conditions experienced during the 2005 growing season. We are continuing to monitor the presence and potential threats posed by the remainder of forest pests. Report prepared by: Dave Rogalsky, extension 5378 For Information contact: Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379 Date: January 19, 2006 RES. #D90/05 - 2005 RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM Update. An update regarding the Rural Clean Water Program. Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Stewart David Gurin THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 2005 Rural Clean Water Program update be received; THAT staff be directed to continue discussions to advance the Rural Clean Water Program in Durham Region; AND FURTHER THAT the Rural Clean Water Program be reviewed in terms of opportunities to deliver a portion of the Source Water Protection plan implementation following the legislation. CARRIED 265 BACKGROUND Since 2000, the goal of the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) has been to reduce the bacteria, nutrient and phosphorous loadings to water courses and ultimately Lake Ontario. The program strives to achieve this goal by recognizing the proactive efforts taken by private rural landowners and providing technical and financial assistance to landowners within the Toronto Area of Concern (AOC). Livestock access restriction from watercourses, milkhouse washwater disposal, manure management, field and stream bank erosion control, well protection and septic system repairs are examples of activities that qualify for financial and technical assistance under the RCWP. Increasing public awareness of rural pollution sources and environmentally sound land management practices to protect surface and subsurface water are also key parts of the program. These activities are in keeping with the sustainable communities component of the Living City vision. RCWP achievements in the TRCA jurisdiction since 2000 include: • Participation at over 125 agricultural group meetings, events, tours, workshops and fairs • Creation of a new display and presentation for the RCWP • Creation of the Peel Rural Water Quality Program and related literature • Presentations on the Rural Clean Water Program, stewardship and Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) to various audiences • Contact with over 12,000 rural landowners about the RCWP in the TRCA jurisdiction through flyers and direct contact. In 2005, direct contact was made with 250 landowners, with another 956 people reached through flyers. • Implementation of: • 17 septic system replacements and /or repairs • 10 manure management projects • 16 livestock access restriction projects • 8 field and bank erosion control projects • 4 milkhouse washwater disposal projects • 20 rural backyard stewardship projects • 2 nutrient management plan projects • The above projects have led to: • Protection of over 9 hectares of woodlot • Protection of 7.0 kilometres of streams • Creation of 4.4 kilometres of windbreaks • Planting of 1720 trees and 2030 shrubs in either riparian zones or as windbreaks 266 2005 Deliverables It has been 5 years since the tragedy in Walkerton. Over these 5 years, the RCWP continued to deliver technical and financial assistance to help rural landowners reach the recommendations and directions set out in Justice O'Connor's report on the Walkerton Inquiry. The 2005 year has focused on strategic development of the RCWP to ensure that the delivery of the program continues to meet the needs of the rural landowners and to address rural non -point pollution sources on their properties. The RCWP has also focused on ensuring that the program meets and supports provincial and federal regulations, such as the Nutrient Management Act, as well as new directions with Source Water Protection and the 3rd edition of the Canada - Ontario Environmental Farm Plan. RCWP participated in workshops, meetings and conferences in order for the program to prepare for and be at the forefront of upcoming initiatives such as near urban agriculture, the GTA Agricultural Action Plan and the upcoming release of Agriculture & Agri -Food Canada's Agriculture Policy Framework II. The 2005 program deliverables included the following: Peel Rural Water Quality Program In 2004/05, the Peel Rural Water Quality Program (PRWQP) was created in a partnership with Toronto & Region Conservation (TRCA), Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), Peel Federation of Agriculture, Peel Soil & Crop Improvement Association, Peel Stewardship Council and the Region of Peel. Prior to this collaboration, a significant portion of Peel Region outside of the TRCA jurisdiction, was without a rural water quality program, creating inconsistencies in water quality preservation efforts. To formalize the program delivery, a Memorandum of Understanding was prepared between the TRCA and the CVC, creating a partnership to enable the delivery of a seamless rural water quality program throughout the Region of Peel in its entirety. Projects eligible for funding by the Peel Rural Water Quality Program include existing Rural Clean Water Program projects, nutrient management planning, well protection, and provides a link to the Region of Peel's well decommissioning program. A brochure outlining the PRWQP, eligible projects and project grant funding rates has been distributed to Peel residents through the Peel Federation of Agriculture, Peel Soil & Crop Improvement Association as well as Conservation and Region of Peel staff. A display promoting the program has been developed for reaching the farming community at fairs, workshops and agriculture meetings. In 2005, the Peel Rural Water Quality Approvals Sub - Committee was established. This Committee is comprised of representatives from agricultural and rural based groups and citizens from the Region of Peel. The purpose of the Committee is to peer review all Water Quality Improvement Plan applications made to the PRWQP and recommend approval or denial of applications to the Peel Agricultural Advisory Working Group. The TRCA and CVC provide assistance to landowners, bring forth applications and provide technical support to the Committee. To date, eight applications to the PRWQP were received by the Committee in the TRCA's jurisdiction. 267 Durham Rural Clean Water Program The Durham Region Agricultural Advisory Working Group has expressed interest in developing and implementing a seamless Rural Clean Water Program between Conservation Authorities in Durham Region, similar to the model developed in Peel Region. TRCA staff have been meeting with representatives from Durham Region, Durham Stewardship Council and the four partnering Conservation Authorities, exploring the development and funding sources for this program. Currently, the TRCA only provides technical assistance to rural private landowners in Durham Region. Rouge River Stewardship In 2004, landowner contact was conducted in the Rouge River watershed to inform residents of TRCA's private land stewardship programs. Staff were able to make contact with over eighty landowners through on -site visits and /or follow -up information packages. This method of landowner contact led to eleven Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) and riparian enhancement projects identified for implementation in this watershed in 2005/06. In addition, a private land stewardship brochure and information package was created and utilized as a resource to inform the public on programs and funding available in the Rouge River watershed. The Rouge Park Alliance continued to support the resources required to work in this watershed in 2005 by providing funding to the RCWP through the Rouge Park Natural and Cultural Heritage Program. Landowner contact continued in 2005 with over 30 landowners contacted and an interactive workshop hosted at Bruce's Mill on November 19th. A rural homeowner resource kit was developed for distribution to 75 landowners in the Rouge watershed. Communication & Public Awareness The RCWP has developed effective partnerships with similar community groups, organizations and not - for - profits within the jurisdiction to promote public awareness of the program and acknowledge good stewardship practices. Keeping an open dialogue with these groups and providing opportunities for partnerships and collaboration for events, projects, communications and information sharing has assisted in enhancing the transfer of technology and information on beneficial management practices (BMPs) that have been the goal and objectives of the RCWP since 2000. Communication & public awareness has been and will continue to be achieved in 2006 through: • Presentations on the Rural Clean Water Program, stewardship and BMPs to various audiences and attendance at agricultural group meetings, youth organizations, workshops and fairs • Contact made with private rural landowners about RCWP programs in the TRCA jurisdiction through flyers and direct landowner contact • Mailbox and on -site project signage program • Partnership with the Ontario Soil & Crop Improvement Association and local Environmental Farm Plan representatives for the delivery of the federal cost -share programs, i.e., Greencover Canada, Canada - Ontario Water Supply Expansion Program and the Canada - Ontario Farm Stewardship Program • Update web page for the Rural Clean Water Program on the TRCA Web Site promoting current RCWP practices and highlights of the program from 2000 to 2005 268 • Collaboration with Conservation Ontario's Watershed Stewardship Working Group to develop the seamless.delivery of rural clean water programming throughout all Conservation Authorities. • Partnership with the Region of Peel Ontario 4 -H program and the Centreville Creek Environmental Stewardship Program to deliver the 'Peel Pikes 4 -H Fishing Club' and the Explore Peel 4 -H Club'. Project Profiling For every Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) submitted to the Rural Clean Water Program, a project profile sheet is completed. This sheet highlights the WQIP, measures that need to be taken to meet the goals of the WQIP and how the RCWP could enhance the plan by providing the financial and technical support required to implement the recommendations. Building on the concept of the WQIPs, the RCWP is in the process of developing a series of landowner profile fact sheets that, with the landowners permission, showcases outstanding private land stewardship projects completed through the RCWP. This series of fact sheets exemplifies how the landowner has been able to accomplish the goals set out in their WQIP. The development of these landowner profile fact sheets will continue to be undertaken in 2006 for other projects completed throughout the program as part of a greater landowner recognition program. RCWP Strategic Development A survey is being developed for past participants of the RCWP, to examine the delivery of the current program and look at adapting the program to continue to meet the needs of landowners in the Toronto and Region AOC. This survey asks participants to provide information on their experience with the program delivery, to evaluate their project, the current technical and financial assistance available through the RCWP and to indicate any new technical and financial areas they see as beneficial to a rural landowner. This survey will help provide strategic direction to the RCWP and highlight new financial and technical areas of assistance for rural landowners. To thank participants for their contribution to the survey, participants will receive a CD produced by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) which contains all Beneficial Management Practices fact sheets produced by OMAFRA. Nutrient Management Act The RCWP continues to support the Nutrient Management Act (NMA) through the implementation of BMPs to support nutrient management planning for proper nutrient management practices on agricultural land. The NMA was passed in 2002 and has set standards for lands producing or receiving organic or synthetic nutrients to protect the environment. In November 2005, there were amendments made to the NMA regulations to increase the number of farms practicing nutrient management in the province. 269 Canada - Ontario Environmental Farm Plan On April 16, 2005, the third edition of the Canada - Ontario Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) was released. This voluntary program continues to be administered by the Ontario Soil & Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) to support farmers in taking action to reduce the risk to the environment from agricultural operations. This program will provide up to $30,000 in cost -share programs to implement beneficial management practices through the Canada - Ontario Farm Stewardship Program and Greencover Canada. As well, a further $15,000 is available through the Canada - Ontario Water Supply Expansion Program. In combination with the EFP, the Nutrient Management Financial Assistance Program (NMFAP) provides large farm operations with up to $90,000 of potential grant funds. On September 21, 2005, Conservation Ontario and OSCIA entered into a partnership enabling Conservation Authorities to deliver all on -farm technical assistance of the Greencover Canada program. This partnership enables Conservation Authorities to receive $500 in compensation from OSCIA for each completed project, to help cover the cost of the Conservation Authorities technical services. There is a total of $1 million available for Conservation Authorities, covering 2000 Greencover Canada projects. In addition to this Greencover Canada partnership, TRCA staff continues to provide technical and financial assistance through the RCWP to compliment and partner with EFP projects, without financial compensation from OSCIA. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The RCWP, through its education, outreach and financial assistance programming, will continue to advocate and implement projects that assist rural landowners in protecting water quality. Landowner contact as well as financial and technical delivery of the RCWP, will continue to be a primary focus. On -going partnership with the Ontario Soil & Crop Improvement Association for the delivery of the third edition of the Canada - Ontario Environmental Farm Plan also remains at the forefront of the RCWP. The EFP provides numerous financial opportunities to the agricultural community, and the RCWP is reviewing the cost -share integration options with committee reviewers and the Conservation Ontario Watershed Stewardship Working Group. The RCWP will also continue to explore, develop and implement pilot projects such as a well water testing program, a landowner recognition program and sponsorship of continued learning programs for farmers. FINANCIAL DETAILS In 2005, $123,000, of financial support was received for the RCWP program fromYork Region Natural Heritage, Peel Region Sustainable Communities, Rouge Park Natural & Cultural Heritage, City of Toronto RAP, RAP MOU, Credit Valley Conservation and Great Lakes Sustainability Fund. 270 We also continue to receive in -kind support from partnerships established with the York and Peel Stewardship Council's, King Township, Town of Caledon, Town of Richmond Hill, Town of Vaughan, Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville, Town of Markham, OMAFRA, the Ontario Soil & Crop Improvement Association, the Peel Rural Water Quality Program Approvals Sub - Committee and landowners. Report prepared by: Melanie Williams, extension 5349 For Information contact: Melanie Williams , extension 5349 Date: January 20, 2006 RES. #D91/05 - UPDATE ON WEST NILE VIRUS SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMME FOR 2004 -2005 Participation in the West Nile Virus advisory committee and larval mosquito monitoring in Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned wetlands. Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Stewart Gay Cowbourne THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue to participate in the West Nile Virus advisory committees for the regions of Peel, Durham, York and the City of Toronto; AND FURTHER THAT the summary report on West Nile Virus in Natural Wetlands and Storm Water Management Ponds in 2004 -2005 be circulated to the regions of Peel, Durham, York and the City of Toronto public health units, and the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. CARRIED BACKGROUND West Nile Virus (WNV) is a flavivirus transmitted by adult mosquitoes that feed on infected birds. Humans can become accidentally infected with WNV through the bite of an infected mosquito however the chance of becoming infected is relatively low. For those who do become infected, the majority will show no symptoms or only mild flu like symptoms. Severe cases of WNV are rarer but can be fatal when they do occur. Since the virus was first discovered in North America in New York in 1999, it has since spread rapidly throughout the United States and Canada. In Ontario, the virus was first detected in birds in 2001 and in the following year human cases were being reported, including the death of 14 people. 271 RATIONALE To minimize the risk of WNV infection in humans, public health units of Ontario have set out to identify and eliminate preferred breeding sites of the two key enzootic vectors. In February 2003, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) was asked by the regional health departments of Peel, Durham, York and Toronto to assist in the monitoring of larval mosquito populations in natural areas. At Authority Meeting #3/03, held on April 25, 2003, Resolution #A64/03 was approved as follows: THAT staff develop and implement a larval mosquito monitoring program across the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) jurisdiction; THAT staff be directed to participate in the City of Toronto West Nile Virus Advisory committee; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to request funding assistance from the TRCA's Municipal partners and health departments. That summer TRCA conducted a TRCA -wide monitoring program to characterize the mosquito species of marshes, ponds and woodland pools and to identify breeding sites for the two key WNV vectors (Culex pipiens and Culex restuans). The results from this study showed that healthy, functioning wetlands pose little risk to the public in terms of breeding high densities of WNV vectors. On a few occasions, WNV vectors could be found in exceedingly high numbers in isolated pockets of stagnant water. By sampling mosquito larvae in 2004 and 2005 staff have continued with our investigation on the level of risk that wetlands and, more recently, stormwater management ponds (SWMP) pose to the public in terms of providing breeding habitat for WNV vectors.The results from both years indicate that SWMP and natural wetlands do not typically support the breeding of a high number of WNV vector mosquitoes. In both years of our study, about 10% of SWMP had WNV vector larvae in numbers that would warrant control measures. This finding was typical of other SWMP studies conducted by other participating agencies including the Ministry of Transportation, and the public health units of Peel, York and Toronto. In natural wetlands vector larvae were found in high numbers at only two sites in 2004 and three in 2005. The detection of high numbers in a few of these sites highlights the importance of regular monitoring. When identified, WNV vector breeding sites can be managed in part through wetland restoration projects that aim at grading small depressions, thinning dense stands of emergent vegetation and removing garbage. Where wetland restoration is not possible, the application of Bti will be warranted. The TRCA is committed to identifying these high risk sites on our property and managing them appropriately. The results of the 2004 and 2005 WNV sampling season are summarized in a technical report. Copies of this report will be available at Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #6/05, to be held on February 10, 2006. 272 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue to liaise with regional health units and participate in upcoming WNV advisory committees. Staff will continue to respond to public inquiries on WNV and to reports of standing water on TRCA property in addition to providing information for both the public and TRCA staff. Staff will continue to identify sites of concern for WNV on TRCA property in the upcoming 2006 field season through larval monitoring and by performing housekeeping duties to reduce the number of potential breeding sites for the major WNV vectors. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for TRCA's 2005 WNV surveillance program was made available from TRCA's municipal funding partners as part of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program. This funding, in the amount of $50,000 was sufficient to support the 2005 surveillance field work and staff support to liaise with the regional health units and to respond to complaints. The funding does not cover costs associated with any control measures if deemed necessary. Staff are continuing to discuss funding options with the regional and provincial health departments in the event that control measures are required. For 2006, funding in the same amount has been sought in order to continue TRCA's monitoring and surveillance work. Report prepared by: Nicole Lauro, extension 5665 For Information contact: Nicole Lauro , extension 5665 Date: December 9, 2005 RES. #D92/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: CHANGES TO MEMBERSHIP Don Watershed Regeneration Council. Changes to the membership of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. Nancy Stewart Gay Cowbourne THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the resignation of Deborah Martin - Downs, resident of the Town of Markham, be received; THAT the resignation of Cassandra Bach, resident of the City of Toronto, be received; THAT the resignation of Nancy Penny, resident of the City of Toronto, be received; THAT the resignation of Mel Plewes, resident of the City of Toronto, be received; THAT Martin German, representing Friends of the Don East, be appointed to replace Andrew McCammon; AND FURTHER THAT the retiring members be thanked for their work on the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. CARRIED 273 RATIONALE On an annual basis, the membership of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, in accordance with the Terms of Reference - Section 3.0, is reviewed by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff to ensure it is up -to -date. The Don Watershed Regeneration Council currently consists of 45 members and alternates, including residents, interest groups, business associations, academic institutions and elected representatives. Council members and their alternates are appointed for a three -year term. Over this period, some members find they are unable to continue with their commitment and hence, need to resign. In the case of both Deborah Martin -Downs and Cassandra Bach, each accepted a position at the TRCA as Director, Ecology and Administrative Clerk, respectively, and consequently resigned their positions as members of the Don Council. To ensure the vitality of the council, members may be added as necessary at a later date. The above recommendations reflect the current status of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council membership. Report prepared by: Amy Thurston, extension 5283 For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Date: November 17, 2005 RES. #D93/05 - GENERIC REGULATION: "Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses" Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Conformity Exercise as Required Under the Conservation Authorities Act. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is required to update it current Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation, Ontario Regulation 158, to conform to the provincially approved Generic Regulation under the Conservation Authorities Act by May 1, 2006. Moved by: Seconded by: Dick O'Brien Nancy Stewart WHEREAS a local regulation to manage development, interference with wetlands and alterations to shorelines and watercourses has been prepared in conformity with the provisions outlined in Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) adopt the Generic Regulation: "Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses"; 274 THAT the said regulation and related documentation be submitted to the Conservation Ontario Peer Review Committee and subsequently to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) for approval by the Minister; THAT staff continue to work cooperatively with all TRCA's municipal partners and stakeholders regarding the transition and implementation of the Generic Regulation to ensure that resources are managed in a sustainable way to protect public health and safety; TRCA continue to consult with concerned landowners in the Region of Peel to review the application of the Generic Regulation criteria in the current mapping, identify any possible inaccuracies and discuss site specific implications of the Generic Regulation mapping for those properties identified by concerned landowners; AND FURTHER THAT this report be considered at Authority Meeting #2/06, scheduled to be held on March 24, 2006, rather than at Annual Authority Meeting #1/06. AMENDMENT RES. #D94/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Dick O'Brien Nancy Stewart THAT the following be inserted before the main motion: WHEREAS each of Ontario's 36 conservation authorities is required to bring their individual "Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation" into conformity with Ontario Regulation 97/04, referred to as the Generic Regulation by May 1, 2006; WHEREAS the Conservation Ontario Peer Review Committee has been established to ensure consistency across the province; THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/05, held on June 24, 2005, Resolution #A138/05 was approved as follows: THAT staff proceed with the Generic Regulation conformity exercise in consultation with member municipalities and the public as per the Comprehensive Generic Regulation Work Plan; AND FURTHER THAT following the municipal and public consultation process, staff report back to the Authority for final endorsement of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Generic Regulation. 275 On May 1, 2004, the province approved Ontario Regulation 97/04 entitled "The Content of Conservation Authority Regulations under Subsection 28(1) of the Act: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses ", which is referred to as the "Generic Regulation ". Each of Ontario's 36 conservation authorities (CA) is required to bring their existing individual "Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation" into conformity with the Generic Regulation by May 1, 2006. The development of the Generic Regulation and the development of local regulations to implement the Generic Regulation are direct requirements of the amendments to Section 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act in 1997. The purpose of the Generic Regulation is to provide consistency in key terminology and policy intent between the Provincial Policy Statement governing natural hazards, development and site alteration under the Planning Act and Section 28 (1) of the CA Act; it ensures consistency between policy direction and legislative implementation tools. The Generic Regulation is consistent with the policy direction of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement to manage resources in a sustainable way and protect public health and safety. This is an update to the conservation authority Regulation that has been in effect for more than 40 years. Further to the previous staff report and presentation to the Water Management Advisory Board on June 10, 2005, the following is an update on the mapping exercise and a summary of the municipal and public consultation process associated with TRCA's conformity exercise. Mapping Exercise A Terms of Reference was prepared and reviewed by the MNR /Conservation Ontario Technical Committee to ensure that the methodology used by TRCA to map and delineate the various Generic Regulation criteria was in conformity with standards established in the "Guidelines for Developing Schedules of Regulated Areas ". The map limit of the following criteria was generated in -house by TRCA staff and technical resources: meander belt, riverine erosion hazards, wetlands and associated area of interference and Lake Ontario shoreline flooding and erosion hazards. A key change in the Generic Regulation was the inclusion of wetlands as regulated areas. Within the TRCA jurisdiction, wetlands with an area of 0.5 ha or greater are included as part of the regulation mapping. Ministry of Natural Resources wetland mapping and TRCA's Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Vegetation Type mapping were used as information sources for mapping this criteria. Although not specifically referenced in the Generic Regulation, Section 28 (5(e)) of the CA Act allows the Minister to permit the regulation of 'other areas'. The 'other areas' criteria has been applied as an allowance to the land adjacent to wetlands where development may have a hydrological impact on the function of the wetland. This allowance is known as an 'area of interference'. The TRCA is proposing to use a 120 metre allowance around all Provincially Significant Wetlands and all wetlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine to delineate the regulated area. This approach is consistent with current planning legislation and the direction provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Conservation Ontario. A 30 metre allowance is being applied to all other wetlands. 276 TRCA initiated a jurisdiction -wide flood plain mapping update program in 2000 and this new information has been used for the engineered flood hazard limit. This program included an update to the base topographic mapping, the hydrologic models used to predict the 100 year return period and Hurricane Hazel flow rates, the hydraulic models used to convert the flow rates to flood levels and the plotting of the resulting updated flood levels. This updated mapping covers the majority of the larger watercourses within TRCA's jurisdiction. For those currently unmapped headwater valley and stream corridors, TRCA retained Dillon Consulting Limited to provide Digital Flood Plain Estimation Mapping. The mapping was applied to significant watercourses up to a minimum drainage area of 50 ha which resulted in approximately 1,000 km of stream length being mapped. The updated engineered and estimated flood plain mapping represents a significant volume of technical data that will assist member municipalities and TRCA staff in evaluating development applications. As a result of the mapping exercise, TRCA's existing registered fill and flood plain schedules on the major valley systems and the unregistered fill line extension mapping in the 905 headwater areas will be replaced. The new mapping for the Generic Regulation will be displayed on 2002 ortho photo base mapping and will be available in digital format for use both internally and externally. It is important to note that regulation mapping can be updated to reflect current technical information and data, on an ongoing basis. Regulation Limit The delineation of the `Regulation Limit', (area of interest), involved the compilation of a variety of technical data sources. The mapping represents a screening tool that guides TRCA staff, landowners and municipal staff on areas of interest where permit approval may be required. The Regulation Limit does not represent a development limit or a land use restriction. Through the review of site specific development applications, the delineation of the requisite hazard (e.g. flood plain, erosion hazard, etc.) is evaluated and if necessary, refined by additional technical assessment. It is a permissive limit, unlike a municipal zoning schedule that restricts land use, in that regulated activities (construction, site alteration, etc.) can proceed provided the control of flooding, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land is not affected by development. Text Regulation and Mapping As part of the conformity exercise, a Text Regulation has been prepared describing the regulated areas and activities, the permit approval process and it refers to the mapping. It is important to note that the text prevails in the case of a conflict between the regulated area described in the Text Regulation and the mapping. For example, if a conservation authority has not physically mapped the feature or the mapping is wrong, the text prevails and the mapping can be changed. This is a significant change from the current Regulation where the fill line schedules are registered together with the Text Regulation and any changes to the mapping would require an amendment to the Regulation. Staff see this as a positive change in that it allows the mapping to be updated with current technical standards and information, which is a reflection of the dynamic nature of the natural hazards that are being regulated. A copy of the Draft TRCA Generic Regulation is attached to this report and will be subject to review by the Peer Review Committee, prior to advancing to the Minister of Natural Resources. The format and content of the Text Regulation has been established by the MNR to ensure consistency across the province. 277 Municipal and Public Consultation Consultation with our municipal partners and the public is, and will continue to be, an integral part of the conformity exercise and ultimately the implementation of TRCA's Generic Regulation. The minimum standards for consultation were established by MNR and Conservation Ontario and outlined in The Approval Process Document. Municipal Consultation A letter was sent out to all member municipalities in August 2005, noting Authority Resolution #A138/05 regarding TRCA's conformity exercise together with an information brochure about the Generic Regulation. The municipalities were also advised of a pending workshop to be ' held in October. On October 6th and 7th, 2005, TRCA held Municipal Information Sessions, (half day workshops), at Black Creek Pioneer Village. The sessions consisted of presentations by TRCA staff about the history, content and approval process of the Generic Regulation and TRCA's associated conformity exercise. TRCA engineering staff provided a detailed overview of the jurisdiction -wide engineered flood plain mapping update program as well as the digital flood plain estimation study undertaken for the 905 headwater area. The TRCA's solicitor gave a presentation about the legal implications of implementing TRCA's current Regulation and the Generic Regulation, as well as an update on the 2005 changes to the Building Code Act. Over 90 staff from planning, building, engineering, by -law, public works departments of our member regional and local municipalities attended these information sessions. As a follow -up to the Municipal Information Sessions, TRCA staff conducted further individual meetings with the majority of our regional and local municipal staff to have a more detailed discussion about the draft mapping and the implementation of the Generic Regulation. It is recognized that there will ongoing dialogue with our municipal partners and staff will continue to meet with municipal staff to assist with the transition and implementation of the Generic Regulation. The draft mapping, including the digital layers of the Regulation Limit and all the layers of the various criteria, has been provided to TRCA's municipal partners for their review and comment. Staff are in the process of receiving comments on the draft mapping and meeting with municipal staff in this regard. As a result, minor modifications and adjustments to the mapping are anticipated to reflect where possible current site conditions, particularly in our urbanizing 905 area where development has occurred since the 2002 base aerial photography. TRCA staff have also made presentations to Councils and will continue to do so upon request from our municipal partners. Municipal staff has, or will be preparing reports to inform their Councils about the Generic Regulation. In general, TRCA staff has received positive feedback from municipal staff about the Generic Regulation and they are anxious to use the updated technical data. 278 Public Consultation As part of preparing the local regulation, authorities were required to conduct a "public information program" to advice its constituency that local regulations are being updated as a result of the legislated amendments approved by the provincial government. The public consultation process generally followed the format of the Planning Act consultation requirements. Seven public information sessions were held throughout our jurisdiction. Notices about the information sessions were mailed to a variety of stakeholders including: the development community, Urban Development Institute, consultants, solicitors, agricultural groups, landowner groups, environmental associations, hydro and gas utilities, members of federal and provincial parliament and federal and provincial ministries. The information sessions were advertised in local newspapers and noted on the TRCA's website. Our website has been continually updated throughout the entire conformity exercise as another means to inform the public. The public information sessions were structured as a public open house /drop -in format. There were display panels and a PowerPoint presentation available to outline all the aspects of the Generic Regulation update and approval process. For each municipality, the TRCA displayed a map illustrating the existing Fill Regulated and Fill Extension areas compared to the proposed regulated areas for the Generic Regulation. Draft 'Regulation Limit' mapping at a 1:10,000 scale plotted on 2002 aerial photo base was available for the public to review. If a landowner wanted a more detailed review of the mapping and an understanding of the criteria that generated the Regulation Limit, staff were able to use a laptop at the public meeting to digitally display this information. Approximately 250 people attended the public information sessions, with a good representation from the all the various stakeholders. As part of the consultation process, members of public were encouraged to submit comment cards if they had any additional questions, wanted a copy of the draft mapping or wanted further discussions or a site meeting to review the mapping as it relates to their property. The comments received and the responses provided by TRCA staff are being documented. We also continue to receive and respond to telephone inquiries and walk -in inquiries at the office. The majority of the comments received to date have been requests for copies of the draft mapping. General Municipal and Public Response: Based upon the consultation noted above, the response received from municipal staff was generally positive. There was an acknowledgement of technical efforts of TRCA to provide up -to -date information which forms the basic elements of natural hazards planning. This information provides a valuable resource management tool to assist municipal planning, building and engineering staff in evaluating development applications. Through the public information process, staff generally received similar feedback from the consulting and development industry in terms of having more up -to -date mapping and information. The input received from most members of the public resulted in requests for copies of the draft mapping and some requests for site visits to-review and discuss the implications of the mapping on their property. However, there was one area of TRCA's jurisdiction where specific concerns were raised, which the following summarizes. 279 Town of Caledon - Region of Peel The municipal and public consultation in the Town of Caledon followed the process outlined above and was coordinated together with Credit Valley Conservation (CVC). In addition, TRCA and CVC staff introduced the Generic Regulation to Caledon Council with a presentation at a council workshop in October 2004. CVC and TRCA met with Caledon staff in a special meeting in November 2005 to discuss the details of the Generic Regulation conformity exercise, prior to the Public Information Session in December. Following the pubic meeting in December, landowners in the Town of Caledon expressed their concerns to Caledon Council that there has been insufficient opportunity to review the mapping associated with CVC and TRCA's Generic Regulations to ensure the accuracy of the Regulation Limit as it relates to their properties. To support the concerned landowners, Town of Caledon Council passed a resolution on January 24, 2006 requesting the Minister of Natural Resources to extend the deadline for CVC and TRCA to submit their Generic Regulations in order that concerns expressed in the town staff report could be addressed and that the CAs be requested to hold a public meeting to allow public to review the mapping of their individual properties. In addition, Regional Council received a Notice of Motion on January 26, 2006 requesting that the Minister of Natural Resources extend the deadline for CVC and TRCA to submit the mapping associated with their generic regulations in order to provide further opportunity for public review of the mapping and that the Ministry provide appropriate financial support to carry out the necessary mapping exercise. This Notice of Motion will be considered by Regional Council at their meeting on February 16, 2006. TRCA and CVC staff met with approximately 100 rural landowners at a Peel Federation of Agriculture meeting on February 1, 2006 to explain the history and requirements of the Generic Regulation, the methodology used for creating their mapping associated with their regulations, answered the questions of concerned landowners and met one -on -one with individual landowners to review the draft mapping. TRCA and CVC also held a supplementary Public Information Session on February 7, 2006 for the Town of Caledon, which was well attended with approximately 60 residents being within the TRCA watershed. TRCA staff respect the concerns that have been expressed by the residents of Caledon and are committed to working with the residents and town staff to address these concerns. Town of Caledon's member on the Authority has participated in all of the municipal and public meetings related to this exercise and has assisted staff in facilitating and communicating the intent, purpose and importance of this update to our Regulation. TRCA and CVC have, and will continue to, meet with town staff and provide residents with the opportunity to review the associated Generic Regulation mapping. It is important to emphasize that in the case of a conflict between the mapping and the written description of the regulated areas in the Text of the Regulation, it is the Text that prevails. The opportunity to review and update the regulation mapping can continue after the Text Regulation is approved by the Minister of Natural Resources. 280 Based upon discussions between staff of the Region of Peel, CVC, TRCA and Town of Caledon, regional planning staff have prepared a report for consideration by Regional Council on February 16, 2006 in response to the Notice of Motion introduced on January 26, 2006. As an extension to the May 1, 2006 deadline would require an amendment to the Conservation Authorities Act and the mapping can be refined after the Text Regulation is approved, regional staff are not supporting the motion to request the Minister to extend the deadline for TRCA and CVC. Regional staff are recommending the motion be amended such that the Region of Peel Council request CVC and TRCA to continue to consult with concerned landowners to allow time to review the accuracy of the current mapping associated with the Generic Regulation of the CAs for those properties identified by concerned landowners. CVC and TRCA staff will be in attendance as a delegation at the February 16, 2006 Regional Council meeting to respond to the Notice of Motion. Next Steps As outlined in the June 10, 2005 report and presentation, following the municipal and public consultation process, the next step in this exercise is to seek approval from the Authority in order to submit the Regulation to the Conservation Ontario Peer Review Committee for review and approval. The role of the Peer Review Committee is to confirm that the updated TRCA Regulation is consistent with the Generic Regulation and that the approval process has been followed prior to advancing to the Minister of Natural Resources for approval. TRCA is scheduled to appear before the final Peer Review Committee meeting on February 28, 2006. This report is brought forward for consideration by the Water Management Advisory Board and will proceed to the Authority for endorsement at their meeting on to be held on March 24, 2006 as the next meeting of the Authority is to be held on February 24, 2006 which is the annual meeting. In recognition of meeting schedules and timelines, the Peer Review Committee has made provisions for authorities to proceed to the Peer Review Committee and their review and approval would be subject to endorsement by resolution of the Authority. Given this schedule, TRCA would be submitting our Regulation to the Minister following the March 24, 2006 Authority meeting. This timeline will allow us to continue to receive comments of the regulation mapping and make any necessary modifications such that the mapping referred to in the Text Regulation is as up -to -date as possible. If there are any significant concerns resulting from this process or the Peer Review process, staff will provide an update at the March Authority meeting. TRCA staff will notify each member municipality and provide public notification in area newspapers of the effective date and implementation of the updated Regulation. TRCA - will continue to work closely with our municipal partners regarding the transition and implementation of the updated Regulation. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE In general, we do not anticipate significant changes to our current review process. However, we will be undertaking a review of our existing TRCA policy framework and conducting an update to address any deficiencies with respect to the areas and activities subject to the Generic Regulation. We will also be developing implementation policies to deal with the transition from our current Regulation to the Generic Regulation. The legislation offers opportunities to exempt certain activities, (e.g. minor works) from the Regulation through our implementation policies. TRCA will explore these opportunities with our member municipalities through future discussions. Any policy revisions will be brought forward to the Authority for consideration and endorsement. 281 Summary Staff advise that a local regulation to manage development, interference with wetlands, alterations to shorelines and watercourses has been prepared in conformity with the provisions , outlined in Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act and that the provincial standards for mapping and public consultation. Staff recommend that the Authority adopt the subject regulation and the regulation and related documentation be submitted to the Conservation Ontario Peer Review Committee and subsequently to MNR for approval by the Minister. Furthermore, staff will continue to work with all member municipalities and all stakeholders regarding the transition and implementation of the Generic Regulation to ensure that resources are managed in a sustainable way to protect public health and safety. Report prepared by: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281 For Information contact: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281 Date: February 8, 2006 Attachments: 1 282 Attachment 1 CONFIDENTIAL Until filed with the Registrar of Regulations ONTARIO REGULATION made under the Last Revised: Feb /06 aNI▪ NIN▪ N CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACS TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: REMILATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATEI©URSES WyWy WY. ANNYNNW Way. /OfiNeftRRNW WNYWY Definition 1. In this Regulation, NYNIONNW RENYINNNY NNOWNIWN NWNWIWNPR YONONMIN WNWRINNY "Authority" means the Toronto and Regia�S":C- onservation Authnt. WY /WY NNYWWWW• Development prohibited 2. (1) Subject to section 3no person MaliFirndertake development, or permit another person to undertal =c opment irSiTr on the areas within the jurisdiction of the Authority that Nib NYNNYNN REF (a) adjacent ore to Lt shoreline of title Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River System or to MT aaay_be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic- beachescluding the area from the furthest offshore extent of the .�ierZffl%rit7' 'MTAundarhe furthest landward extent of the aggregate of the following distces: NNINONWINN WINNIINNL (i) the 100 Mar flood level, plus an allowance for wave uprush and other water reidted hazards; YIRRNNINN NOINNINWY the..dicted long term stable slope projected from the existing `jtji Ie toe of the slope or from the predicted location of the toe of the slope as that location may have shifted as a result of shoreline erosion over a 100 -year period; (iii) where a dynamic beach is associated with the waterfront lands, a 30 metre allowance inland to accommodate dynamic beach movement; and (iv) an allowance of 15 metres inland. 283 (b) river or stream valleys that have depressional features associated with a river or stream, whether or not they contain a watercourse, the limits of which are determined in accordance with the following rules: (i) where the river or stream valley is apparent and has stable slopes, the valley extends from the stable top of bank, plus 15 metres, to a similar point on the opposite side, (ii) where the river or stream valley is apparent and has unstable slopes, the valley extends from the predicted long term stable slope projected from the existing stable slope or, if the toe of the slope is unstable, from the predicted location of the toe of the slope as a result of stream erosion over a projected 100 -year period, plus 15 metres, to a similar point on the opposite side, (iii) where the river or stream valley is not apparent, the valley extends the greater of, (A.) the distance from a point outside the edge of the maximum extent of the engineered flood plain under the applicable flood event standard, plus 15 metres, to a similar point on the opposite side, and (B.) the distance from a point outside the edge of the maximum extent of the estimated flood plain under the applicable flood event standard, plus 15 metres, to a similar point on the opposite side, and (C.) the distance from the predicted meander belt of a watercourse, expanded as required to convey the flood flows under the applicable flood event standard, plus 15 metres, to a similar point on the opposite side; (c) hazardous lands; (d) wetlands; or (e) other areas where development could interfere with the hydrologic function of a wetland, including areas within 120 metres of all provincially significant wetlands and wetlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine greater than 0.5 hectares, and within 30 metres of all other wetlands greater than 0.5 hectares in size, but not including those areas where development has been approved pursuant to an application made under the Planning Act or other public planning or regulatory process. 284 (2) The areas described in subsection (1) are the areas referred to in section 12 except that, in case of a conflict, the description of the areas provided in subsection (1) prevails over the descriptions referred to in that section. Permission to develop 3. (1) The Authority may grant permission for development in or on the areas described in subsection 2 (1) if, in its opinion, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land will not be affected by the development. (2) The permission of the Authority shall be given in writing, with or without conditions. Application for permission 4. A signed application for permission to undertake development shall be filed with the Authority and shall contain the following information: 1. Four copies of a plan of the area showing the type and location of the development. 2. The proposed use of the buildings and structures following completion of the development. 3. The start and completion dates of the development. 4. The elevations of existing buildings, if any, and grades and the proposed elevations of buildings and grades after development. 5. Drainage details before and after development. 6. A complete description of the type of fill proposed to be placed or dumped. Alterations prohibited 5. Subject to section 6, no person shall straighten, change, divert or interfere in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse or change or interfere in any way with a wetland. Permission to alter 6. (1) The Authority may grant a person permission to straighten, change, divert or interfere with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse or to change or interfere with a wetland. (2) The permission of the Authority shall be given in writing, with or without conditions. 285 Application for permission 7. A signed application for permission to straighten, change, divert or interfere with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse or change or interfere with a wetland shall be filed with the Authority and shall contain the following information: 1. Four copies of a plan of the area showing plan view and cross - section details of the proposed alteration. 2. A description of the methods to be used in carrying out the alteration. 3. The start and completion dates of the alteration. 4. A statement of the purpose of the alteration. Cancellation of permission 8. (1) The Authority may cancel a permission if it is of the opinion that the conditions of the permission have not been met. (2) Before cancelling a permission, the Authority shall give a notice of intent to cancel to the holder of the permission indicating that the permission will be cancelled unless the holder shows cause at a hearing why the permission should not be cancelled. (3) Following the giving of the notice, the Authority shall give the holder at least five days notice of the date of the hearing. Validity of permissions and extensions 9. (1) A permission of the Authority is valid for a maximum period of 24 months after it is issued, unless it is specified to expire at an earlier date. (2) A permission shall not be extended. Appointment of officers 10. The Authority may appoint officers to enforce this Regulation. Flood event standards 11. (1) The applicable flood event standards used to determine the maximum susceptibility to flooding of lands or areas within the watersheds in the area of jurisdiction of the Authority are the Hurricane Hazel Flood Event Standard, the 100 Year Flood Event Standard and the Lake Ontario 100 Year flood level plus wave uprush, described in the Schedule. 286 Areas included in the Regulation Limit 12. Hazardous lands, wetlands, shorelines and areas susceptible to flooding, and associated allowances, within the watersheds in the area of jurisdiction of the Authority are delineated by the Regulation Limit shown on maps 1 to 132 dated )00000( 2006 and filed at the head office of the Authority at 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario under the map title "Ontario Regulation 97/04: Regulation for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses ". SCHEDULE 1. The Hurricane Hazel Flood Event Standard means a storm that produces over a 48 -hour period, (a) in a drainage area of 25 square kilometres or less, rainfall that has the distribution set out in Table 1; or (b) in a drainage area of more than 25 square kilometres, rainfall such that the number of millimetres of rain referred to in each case in Table 1 shall be modified by the percentage amount shown in Column 2 of Table 2 opposite the size of the drainage area set out opposite thereto in Column 1 of Table 2. TABLE 1 73 millimetres of rain in the first 36 hours 6 millimetres of rain in the 37th hour 4 millimetres of rain in the 38th hour 6 millimetres of rain in the 39th hour 13 millimetres of rain in the 40th hour 17 millimetres of rain in the 41st hour 13 millimetres of rain in the 42nd hour 23 millimetres of rain in the 43rd hour 13 millimetres of ram in the 44th hour 13 millimetres of rain in the 45th hour 53 millimetres of rain in the 46th hour 38 millimetres of rain in the 47th hour 13 millimetres of rain in the 48th hour TABLE 2 Column 1 Column 2 Drainage Area (square kilometres) Percentage 26 to 45 both inclusive 99.2 46 to 65 both inclusive 98.2 66 to 90 both inclusive 97.1 91 to 115 both inclusive 96.3 116 to 140 both inclusive 95.4 141 to 165 both inclusive 94.8 166 to 195 both inclusive 94.2 287 196 to 220 both inclusive 93.5 221 to 245 both inclusive 92.7 246 to 270 both inclusive 92.0 271 to 450 both inclusive 89.4 451 to 575 both inclusive 86.7 576 to 700 both inclusive 84.0 701 to 850 both inclusive 82.4 851 to 1000 both inclusive 80.8 1001 to 1200 both inclusive 79.3 1201 to 1500 both inclusive 76.6 1501 to 1700 both inclusive 74.4 1701 to 2000 both inclusive 73.3 2001 to 2200 both inclusive 71.7 2201 to 2500 both inclusive 70.2 2501 to 2700 both inclusive - 69.0 2701 to 4500 both inclusive 64.4 4501 to 6000 both inclusive 61.4 6001 to 7000 both inclusive 58.9 7001 to 8000 both inclusive 57.4 2. The 100 Year Flood Event Standard means rainfall or snowmelt, or a combination of rainfall and snowmelt, producing at any location in a river, creek, stream or watercourse, a peak flow that has a probability of occurrence of one per cent during any given year. 3. The Lake Ontario 100 Year flood level means the peak instantaneous still water level plus an allowance for wave uprush and other water - related hazards that has a probability of occurrence of one per cent during any given year. Made by: 288 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: Signature Please Print Name and Title Signature Please Print Name and Title Date made: I certify that I have approved this Regulation. Minister of Natural Resources Date approved: 289 SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES. #D95 /05 - Moved by: Seconded by: DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meetings #6/05, #7/05 and #8/05. The minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council meetings #6/05, #7/05 and #8/05, held on June 16, 2005, July 21, 2005, and September 29, 2005 respectively are provided for information. Nancy Stewart Gay Cowbourne IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council meetings #6105, #7/05 and #8/05, held on June 16, 2005, July 21, 2005, and September 29, 2005 respectively, 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: Michelle Vanderwel, extension 5280 For Information contact: Michelle Vanderwel, extension 5280 Date: November 8, 2005 RES. #D96 /05 - ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION Minutes of Meeting #4105, September 8, 2005. The minutes of Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition Meeting #4/05, held on September 8, 2005, are provided for your information. Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Stewart Gay Cowbourne IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting #4/05, held on September 8, 2005, 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: 290 Section 3.5 - Reporting Relationship The Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coaltion 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: Joanna Parsons, extension 5575 For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Date: January 24, 2006 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:28 a.m., on Friday, February 10, 2005. Dave Ryan Chair /ks 291 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer