The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWatershed Management Advisory Board Appendices 2005THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #1/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #3/05 APRIL 29, 2005 CTORONTO AND REGION Y onservation for The Living City theDoit MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/05 January 20, 2005 Page F01 . The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #1/05, was held in Committee Room #1 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday January 20, 2005. Chair Deborah Martin -Downs called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT Deborah Martin -Downs Chair Don Cross Vice Chair Cassandra Bach Member Margaret Buchinger Member Carmela Canzonieri Member Eli Garrett Member Phil Goodwin Member Moyra Haney Member Peter Heinz Member Brenda Lucas Member Roslyn Moore Member Carolyn O'Neill Member Doug Obright Member Janice Palmer Member Nancy Penny Member Mel Plewes Member Ron Shimizu Member Beverley Thorpe Member GUESTS Kevin Mercer Riversides STAFF Alex Blasko Don Watershed Technical Clerk Adele Freeman Director, Watershed Management Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner Sameer Dhalla Water Management Coordinator F2 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/05 January 20, 2005 PRESENTATIONS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE DON WATERSHED Sameer Dhalla provided an overview of stormwater management issues in the Don watershed. Stormwater management relates to those functions associated with planning, designing, constructing, maintaining, financing and regulating the facilities (both natural and constructed) that collect, store control and /or convey stormwater. Stormwater management becomes increasingly important as urbanization affects flow patterns over the land. The major issues relating to stormwater in an urban environment include: Poor water quality from non -point source pollutants; Increased frequent flows and streambank erosion; Increased peak flows and flood flows; and Reduced infiltration. Stormwater Management Practices New developments within the Don watershed are required to provide a strategy to mimic pre - development conditions in order to mitigate stormwater impacts through the implementation of Stormwater Management Practices, which include the following criteria: Water Quality - enhanced level of treatment required to remove 80% of Total Suspended Solids. Flood Flow - must maintain post - development peak flows to pre - development levels for the 2 to 100 -year storm events. Erosion Control - must retain frequent flows on -site and release over a 24 to 48 -hours period to reduce erosion. Water Balance - must ensure that the existing volume of annual, seasonal or monthly infiltration is maintained under post - development conditions. These stormwater criteria are achieved through the implementation of Stormwater Management Practices which consist of: Lot level or source measures; • Storage controls (rooftop storage, parking lot storage, rear yard storage) and pre- treatment controls (sand filters, vegetated filter strips, oil /grit separators). Conveyance measures; . • Infiltration trenches, pervious pipe systems, etc. End -of -pipe facilities; and • Wet /dry ponds, wetlands, filters, etc. Enhanced measures and new technologies. • Porous pavement, greenroofs, bioretention facilities, clean water collector infiltration systems. JANUARY 20, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/05 F3 Enhanced Measures and New Technologies A number of enhanced measures and new technologies are under development to manage stormwater in an urban setting. TRCA is currently collecting data on a porous pavement demonstration project at Seneca College's King Campus. Greenroofs, such as TRCA's pilot project at York University serve to significantly reduce peak flows into streams while increasing evapotranspiration. This technology could be applied to any number of existing buildings (retrofit projects would have to comply with load requirements under the building code), and could be incorporated into the design of future developments. In Chicago, greenroofs or other green initiatives are now a requirement for new developments in the city core. Other possibilities include bioretention facilities that can be incorporated into parking lots to drain stormwater to a central vegetative strip to allow for infiltration, and clean water collector infiltration systems, which collects runoff-from roofs and directs it into a separate pervious pipe for infiltration. In most cases a treatment train approach is ideal to mitigate the adverse impacts of stormwater. A combination of source (e.g. porous pavement), conveyance (e.g. clean water collector) and end -of -pipe controls (e.g. wet pond) will provide the greatest benefits to an area. Current Status of Stormwater Management Currently there are 140 stormwater management ponds built or proposed in the TRCA region - most of which are located north of Steeles. For older areas within the Don watershed that do not currently have stormwater treatment, retrofit projects are required. Retrofit studies for the Don that have or will be completed include: • Forty Steps to a New Don; • Town of Markham Retrofit Study; • Town of Richmond Hill Retrofit Study; • City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan; • City of Vaughan Retrofit Study (soon to be initiated); and - • Don Integrated Watershed Management Plan (initiated). Some key projects currently underway include the Pomona Mills Creek in Markham, Pioneer Park in Richmond Hill, and Earl Bales Park in Toronto. The Town of Markham has initiated a study for Pomona Mills Creek in order to identify, prioritize and implement specific regeneration projects for the area. Key goals include water quality /quantity improvement, streambank erosion reduction, fish habitat improvements (through barrier removal) and the creation of recreational trail linkages. A retrofit study has been initiated by the Town of Richmond Hill for the stormwater management pond in Pioneer Park - an online pond that has not been functioning efficiently in its current state. The preliminary design and environmental assessment are nearing completion for the retrofit, which will include flood, water quality and erosion control F4 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1105 January 20, 2005 improvements, natural habitat enhancements, improved recreation and education opportunities, and reduced maintenance requirements. One of the largest projects in Toronto is the Earl Bales Park Area Stormwater Management Plan. The goal of this plan is to improve water quality in the Don by treating storm runoff from storm sewer discharges in the park - an area of 550 hectares. The environmental assessment and preliminary design are in the final stage of completion, with plans for a third public meeting to identify the preferred solution to be held shortly. The Goal of Stormwater Management Stormwater management provides a wide range of benefits. The overall goal of stormwater management is to protect surface waters through the implementation of Stormwater Management Practices with consideration for: . Aquatic and terrestrial life; Ecological functions; Recreational opportunities; Flood risk; Drinking water sources; Sustainable water supply needs; and Public education. MINUTES RES. #F01/05- MINUTES TO MEETING #7104 Moved by: Seconded by: Don Cross Moyra Haney THAT the minutes of meeting #7/04, held on December 16, 2004 be approved CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF There were no pecuniary interests disclosed. JANUARY 20, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/05 F5 CORRESPONDENCE OUTGOING 4.1 Review of the Draft Proposed Greenbelt Plan by the Don Watershed Regeneration Council Letter to Victor Doyle, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing from Deborah Martin Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - December 17, 2004 4.2 Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Governance Letter to Prime Minister Paul Martin, Premier Dalton McGuinty and Mayor David Miller from Mel Plewes, Chair of the Policy and Advocacy Team - January 17, 2005 RES. #F02/05- CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Margaret Buchinger Peter Heinz THAT correspondence items 4.1 and 4.2 be received CARRIED INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 Listening to Toronto Submission to the Joint Meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee and the Budget Advisory Committee - December 6, 2004 5.2 York Region's 2nd Stakeholders Pollution Prevention (P2) Workshop - February 11, 2004 Meeting Notification 5.3 Source Protection Memoranda of Agreement for Program Administration and Funding Authority Meeting #11/04 - January 7, 2005 5.4 Greenbelt Draft Plan - Addendum to Detailed Comments Reports Authority Meeting #11/04 - January 7, 2004 5.5 Environmental Volunteer Network - 2 Year Program Summary Report Business Excellence Advisory Board #7/04 - January 14, 2005 5.6 2005 Conservation Seminars Schedule of dates and registration information F6 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/05 January 20, 2005 5.7 Notice of Filing Document for Review Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project Class Environmental Assessment 5.8 Green Toronto Awards Poster ti RES. #F03/05- INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Mel Plewes Beverley Thorpe THAT information items 5.1 to 5.8 be received CARRIED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION TERRAVIEW - WILLOWFIELD PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Terraview- Willowfield plans on continuing with their regeneration plans for the school based on the requirements outlined in the Toronto District School Board's School Ground Greening Guide. The guide sets out very strict guidelines for plantings on school grounds, including a minimum caliper of 70mm and a branch height of 2m for any trees. Tress of this size may require additional funding and machinery to plant, and will restrict any naturalization plans for the school grounds. Terraview - Willowfield is seeking groups to participate in the planting and any potential funding partners. It is their goal to plant 10 -15 large trees on the grounds to provide shade and offer outdoor education opportunities. The Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Fund has been identified as a possible funding source, but it is thought that additional funds may be required over anything received from them. It is suggested by the Council that Evergreen and the McCutcheon Foundation may be willing to fund a proposal of this nature. Deborah Martin -Downs will provide contact information for the McCutcheon Foundation to Nancy Penny. JANUARY 20, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/05 F7 COMMITTEE REPORTS OUTREACH TEAM Deborah Martin -Downs has been in contact with Kirsten McCutcheon of the McCutcheon Foundation in regards to potential projects in the Burke Brook area. Kirsten McCutchen has expressed an interest in funding a project to deal with trail management, exotic species or public use issues in the area, and is looking to the Council for aid in developing a proposal. It is noted that the McCutcheon Foundation may take proposals for projects in other areas of the Don, and members are encouraged to follow up if they have an eligible project. POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM Comments on the Town of Markham Small Streams Study are due on February 9, 2005. The study provides a classification system and management strategy for small streams based on their form and function. Margaret Buchinger has provided draft comments for review. A public meeting will be held on January 26, 2005, and comments will be finalized after this. WATERSHED PLAN TEAM The first meeting of the Watershed Plan Team will take place on January 27, 2005 at 6:00 in North York Civic Centre Committee Room #4. If members are interested in participating and have not been circulated on emails regarding the meeting, they are directed to speak with Amy Thurston to confirm their participation. RES. #F04/05- COMMITTEE REPORTS Moved by: Seconded by: Don Cross Margaret Buchinger THAT committee reports from Outreach Team Meeting #1/05 and Policy and Advocacy Team Meeting #1/05 be received CARRIED F8 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/05 January 20, 2005 ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES MEETING DATES RES. #F05/05- CHANGES TO OUTREACH TEAM SCHEDULE Moved by: Seconded by: Peter Heinz Stephen Cockle THAT the following changes to the meeting schedule for the Outreach Team be approved: Meeting #6/05 (Thursday June 2, 2005) rescheduled to Tuesday June 7, 2005. Meeting #8/05 (Thursday September 1, 2005) rescheduled to Tuesday September 13, 2005 CARRIED DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Meeting # Date Location # 2/05 Thursday February 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 3/05 Thursday March 17; 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 4/05 Thursday April 14, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/05 Thursday May 12, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Thursday June 16, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Thursday July 21, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday September 15, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Thursday October 20, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 JANUARY 20, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/05 F9 POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 2/05 Thursday February 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 3/05 Thursday March 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 4/05 Thursday April 21, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/05 Tuesday May 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Thursday June 9, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Thursday July 14, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday September 8, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Tuesday October 11, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 OUTREACH TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 2/05 Thursday February 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 3/05 Thursday March 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 4/05 Thursday April 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/05 Thursday May 5, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Tuesday June 7, 2005 NYCC TBD # 7/05 Thursday July 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Tuesday September 13, 2005 NYCC TBD # 9/05 Thursday October 6, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 3, 2005 - NYCC Committee Room 1 F10 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #1/05 January 20, 2005 NEW BUSINESS VAUGHAN FUNDING FOR THE BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY Adele Freeman, Deborah Martin -Downs and Stephen Cockle met with Councillor Peter Meffe to discuss funding issues regarding the City of Vaughan, including the Bartley Smith Greenway (BSG). Although there are no funds allocated for the BSG in Vaughan's 2005 budget, it is hoped that $50,000 from Vaughan will be made available as seed funding to keep the project moving next year. A meeting has been scheduled for January 24, 2005 by the City of Vaughan to discuss next year's budget. Gary Wilkins, Humber Watershed Specialist will attend on behalf of TRCA. Stephen Cockle has volunteered to attend as a representative of the Don Council. ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:00 pm. Deborah Martin -Downs Brian Denney Chair Chief Administrative Officer /ab THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #2/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #3/05 APRIL 29, 2005 TORONTO AND REGION Y- onserva tion for The Living City theDoir MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/05 February 17, 2005 Page F11 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #2/05, was held in Committee Room #1 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday February 17, 2005. Chair Deborah Martin -Downs called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT Deborah Martin -Downs Chair Don Cross Vice Chair Barb Anderson Member Margaret Buchinger Member Carmela Canzonieri Member Stephen Cockle Member Jane Darragh Member Eli Garrett Member Moyra Haney Member Peter Heinz Member Brenda Lucas Member Doug Obright Member Janice Palmer Member Jane Pitfield Member Mel Plewes Member Beverley Thorpe Member GUESTS Emily McNamee Watershed Resident STAFF Alex Blasko Don Watershed Technical Clerk Adele Freeman Director, Watershed Management Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner F12 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/05 February 17, 2005 MINUTES AMENDMENTS TO MINUTES #1/05 The following amendments were made to the minutes for meeting #1/05: Page F01 Page F09 - Page F10 - Stephen Cockle added to list of attendees. Outreach Team #9/05 meeting date "Tuesday October 6, 2005' changed to read 'Thursday October 6, 2005 '. Under New Business - Vaughan Funding for the Bartley Smith Greenway line 1, 'Peter Heinz' changed to 'Stephen Cockle'. RES. #F06/05- MINUTES TO MEETING #1/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Don Cross Moyra Haney THAT the minutes of meeting #1/05, held on January 20, 2005 be approved as amended CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF There were no pecuniary interests disclosed. CORRESPONDENCE INCOMING 4.1 Thank You from Frank Klees Letter to Mel Plewes, Chair of the Policy and Advocacy Team from Frank Klees, MPP - January 24, 2005 4.2 Richmond Hill Pesticide -Use Policy Letter to Mayor William Bell, Town of Richmond Hill from Lois Griffin, Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance - January 31, 2005 4.3 Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Governance Letter to Mel Plewes, Chair of the Policy and Advocacy Team from Premier Dalton McGuinty - February 2, 2005 February 17, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/05 F13 OUTGOING 4.4 Thank You to Southbrook Winery Letter to Bill Redelmeier, Southbrook Winery from Stephen Cockle, Don Watershed Regeneration Council - February 5, 2005 4.5 NTGC - Congratulations on Your First Ten Years Letter to Cheryl Shour, North Toronto Green Community from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - February 9, 2005 4.6 Town of Markham Small Streams Study - Don Watershed Regeneration Council Comments Letter to LiIli Duoba, Manager of Environmental Planning, Town of Markham from Don Cross, Vice Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - February 9, 2005 4.7 Watershed Based Source Protection: Implementation Committee Report to the Minister of the Environment, November 2004 Letter to Dawn Landry, Policy Advisor, Ministry of the Environment from Donald Cross, Vice Chair, of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - February 14, 2005 4.8 Lower Don River West remedial Flood Protection Project, Class Environmental Assessment Letter to Ken Dion, Project Manager, TRCA from Don Cross, Vice Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - February 17, 2005 RES. #F07/05- CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Mel Plewes Janice Palmer THAT correspondence items 4.1 to 4.8 be received CARRIED INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 Ontario EcoSchools Program Progress Report Sustainable Communities Board #7104 - February 4, 2005 5.2 Town of Markham's Environmental Initiatives Sustainable Communities Board #7/04 - February 4, 2005 F14 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/05 February 17, 2005 5.3 Hydrogeological Consultant Services for Source Protection Planning Executive Committee #13/04 - February 4, 2005 5.4 Oak Ridges Moraine Watershed Planning Studies Watershed Management Advisory Board #8104 - February 11, 2005 5.5 York Region Forest Conservation By -Law Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/04 - February 11, 2005 5.6 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Flood Forecasting and Warning Program Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/04 - February 11, 2005 5.7 Earl Bales Stormwater Management Plan Minutes to public meeting - November 30, 2004 5.8 Port Lands Community Advisory Committee Meeting #1 Memorandum from Don Cross, Vice Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council ITEM 5.2 - TOWN OF MARKHAM'S ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES It is suggested that the Don Council develop a project in the Town of Markham to celebrate their many environmental initiatives. The Council could draw on the funds allocated by the Town of Markham to plan an event like the Richmond Hill Mill Pond Splash to foster awareness and support for Markham's progressive approach to the environment. Peter Heinz will take this issue to the Outreach Team for further discussion. ITEM 5.4 - OAK RIDGES MORAINE WATERSHED PLANNING STUDIES It is noted that the work plan for the Don Watershed Plan was not prepared 'in consultation' with the Don Council in 2004 as reported. The Council was made aware of the plan in 2004, however consultation did not begin until 2005. Amy Thurston will bring this clarification to the attention of TRCA staff involved in the plan for future reference. ITEM 5.5 - YORK REGION FOREST CONSERVATION BY -LAW A concern was raised regarding the proposed Special Permits (2A and 2B) under the Forest Conservation By -law to allow for the clear cutting of forested areas, primarily for agricultural applications. It is unclear why such exceptions would be necessary under the by -law. Margaret Buchinger will follow up with Ian Buchanan at the Region of York regarding this issue. February 17, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/05 F15 RES. #F08/05- INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Peter Heinz Beverley Thorpe THAT information items 5.1 to 5.8 be received CARRIED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION MARKHAM FUNDING It is suggested that a portion of the funds allocated to the Don Council by the Town of Markham be used as seed money to expedite the watershed signage initiative. If the cost of creating and installing the watershed signs is covered in Markham to begin this process, the installation of signage could then flow smoothly to the surrounding municipalities. There is a total estimated cost of — $6,000 for the stamping and installation of the signs in Markham. A portion of the $75,000 currently held by the Town for use by the Don Council could be apportioned to cover this. Peter Heinz will report back to council when the figures are confirmed. RES. #F09/05- FUNDING FOR WATERSHED SIGNS IN THE TOWN OF MARKHAM Moved by: Seconded by: Peter Heinz Mel Plewes THAT the Don Watershed Regeneration Council support in principle, pending a detailed cost breakdown, the allocation of a portion of the funds from the Town of Markham to cover the production and installation costs of watershed signs within the Town to support the regional watershed signage initiative CARRIED EARL BALES PARK AREA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN One of the proposed options for the Earl Bales Park Area Stormwater Management Plan involves a potential secondary pond located in an area that has previously benefitted from community reforestation efforts. This option has become a contentious issue with some local community members who were involved in the initial plantings. They are concerned that their rehabilitation work may be eradicated by disruptive construction activities and the installation of a stormwater management pond in the area. F16 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/05 February 17, 2005 Letters have been received by the City of Toronto from Paula Davies and Stephen Smith regarding this issue, and the City has acknowledged that some concerns exist regarding the destruction of this reforested area. This controversy raises a larger issue regarding whether or not community plantings on a site justify the preclusion of that area for stormwater management works. Earl Bales Parks provides the largest single site potential for stormwater management in the Don watershed, and in order to provide the greatest benefit, unfortunately some sacrifices may have to be made. The City of "Toronto has planned a site walk, scheduled for the afternoon of Friday March 11, 2005 to review the potential options. All those who have submitted comments on the plan will be invited to attend the meeting, and it is suggested that interested members of the Council attend as well. Amy Thurston will contact City of Toronto staff and forward details on the site meeting to council members. Interested members include: Margaret Buchinger Carmel Canzonieri Moyra Haney Peter Heinz Janice Palmer Mel Plewes Bev Thorpe It has been noted that it would be beneficial for community groups to receive information on potential stormwater management sites in order to avoid these areas when coordinating future planting events. Janice Palmer has volunteered to provide a list of the top 25 sites targeted by the Task Force to Bring Back the Don for rehabilitation to Sameer Dhalla at TRCA. This list will be compared with potential stormwater management sites to avoid conflicts such as Earl Bales Park in the future. COMMITTEE REPORTS OUTREACH TEAM Mill Pond Splash The date for this year's Richmond Hill Mill Pond Splash has been confirmed for Sunday, May 29, 2005. The event will take place from 12 noon to 4 pm at Mill Pond Park. This year, the Town of Richmond Hill has taken an active interest in the planning of the event, and will have a standing representative on the planning committee. The event will be a good forum for the Town to promote their Walk on the Wild Side program as well as other environmental initiatives. February 17, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/05 , F17 Members who are interested in being involved in the planning of the event are directed to contact Alex Blasko. Paddle the Don Paddle the Don has been confirmed for Sunday May 1, 2005. A new highlight for this year's event will be an option to `Walk the Don' along with the 'Paddle'. Details are still to be determined regarding the logistics of this. Brent Bullough will coordinate the planning of this event for TRCA. RES. #F10/05- RICHMOND HILL FIELD NATURALISTS 50'" ANNIVERSARY Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Palmer Moyra Haney WHEREAS the Don Watershed Regeneration Council recognizes the on -going good work of the Richmond Hill Field Naturalists to stimulate public interest in natural history and to encourage the preservation of natural areas in Richmond Hill; THAT the Don Watershed Regeneration Council take this opportunity, on the occasion of the celebration of their 50th Anniversary, to congratulate the Richmond Hill Field Naturalists on their work over the past fifty years, and to wish them every success in their on -going efforts to preserve the Oak Ridges Moraine and other natural areas throughout Richmond Hill; AND THAT a letter of congratulations be sent to the Richmond Hill Field Naturalists signed by the Chair of the Don Council CARRIED WATERSHED PLAN TEAM In an attempt to avoid booking a fourth Thursday every month for meetings, the Watershed Plan Team will piggyback their meetings onto the end of other team meetings. The Watershed Plan Team will meet jointly with the Policy and Advocacy Team on March 10, 2005, and with the Outreach Team on April 7, 2005. RES. #F11/05- Moved by: Seconded by: COMMITTEE REPORTS Janice Palmer Don Cross THAT committee reports from Outreach Team Meeting #2105, Policy and Advocacy Team Meeting #2105 and Watershed Plan Team #1/05 be received CARRIED F18 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/05 February 17, 2005 ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES MEETING DATES DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Meeting # Date Location # 3/05 Thursday March 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 4/05 Thursday April 14, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/05 Thursday May 12, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Thursday June 16, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Thursday July 21, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday September 15, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Thursday October 20, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 3/05 Thursday March 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 4/05 Thursday April 21, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/05 Tuesday May 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Thursday June 9, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Thursday July 14, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday September 8, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Tuesday October 11, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 February 17, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/05 F19 OUTREACH TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 3/05 Thursday March 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 4/05 Thursday April 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/05 Thursday May 5, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Tuesday June 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Thursday July 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Tuesday September 13, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 4 # 9/05 Tuesday October 6, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 NEW BUSINESS DON VALLEY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Jane Pitfield reports that the City of Toronto has just released the Transportation Master Plan Summary Report, detailing the measures needed to increase person- carrying capacity in the Don Valley Corridor. The report includes details on the study process, public consultation, alternatives considered, and next steps. The report is now available, and can be downloaded from the City of Toronto web site at http: / /www.toronto.ca /planning /dvp.htm. Project staff are preparing a staff report that will go to a special Joint Meeting of Planning and Transportation Committee and Workt Committee on April 7, 2005. Jane Pitfield suggests that key stakeholder groups should meet with City of Toronto staff•to discuss their concerns regarding the transportation study, specifically in regards to the plans for a bus rapid transit system along Don Mills. It is suggested that the Don Council meet with the Task Force to Bring Back the Don on March 1, 2005 at 5pm in City Hall to discuss their concerns with City staff. Amy Thurston will follow up with the City and the Task Force in regards to further details for the meeting. F20 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/05 February 17, 2005 CITY OF TORONTO SNOW REMOVAL Jane Pitfield reports that in the fall of 2004, City of Toronto staff attended a site meeting at the snow dump site by the Beechwood Wetlands. This site has been identified as the first to be closed as the City looks into alternatives to help reduce the amount of snow that is picked up. Jane Pitfield has expressed an interest in having the Don Council involved in exploring options for the treatment of snow as this process moves forward. CITY OF TORONTO AMENDED PESTICIDES BY -LAW Jane Pitfield reports that Toronto City Council moved the recommendation in regards to the amended pesticides by -law for the City of Toronto. It is hoped that this amendment will get the message out that the City is monitoring pesticide use. CITY OF TORONTO ORGANICS PROGRAM Jane Pitfield reports that the City of Toronto is currently in the process of implementing a 'green bin' organics recycling program. The program will be implemented in North York in October 2005, and the rest of the city will follow after this time. Additionally, the City will focus on implementing an organics program in high rise buildings in an effort to make this convenient and accessible to all residents. CITY OF TORONTO WATER RATES Jane Pitfield seeks support from the Don Council to advocate for higher water rate increases. It is her opinion that increased rates are needed to address the slow rate of infrastructure replacement in the City. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION TO TORONTO CITY COUNCIL Jane Pitfield suggests that members of the Don Council make a presentation to Toronto City Council with a simple, clear message about the implications of stormwater management and Wet Weather Flow. She is concerned that the connection is not being made between stormwater management and benefits to infrastructure, water quality and aquatic health. February 17, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #2/05 F21 ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:00 pm. Deborah Martin -Downs Brian Denney Chair Chief Administrative Officer /ab THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #3/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #3/05 APRIL 29, 2005 1F-41 TORONTO for The Living City theDon MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3105 March 17, 2005 _ Page F22 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #3/05, was held in Committee Room #1 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday March 17, 2005. Chair Deborah Martin -Downs called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT Deborah Martin -Downs Chair Don Cross Vice Chair Cassandra Bach Member Margaret Buchinger Member Stephen Cockle Member Jane Darragh Member Eli Garrett Member Martin German Member Phil Goodwin Member Moyra Haney Member Peter Heinz Member Roslyn Moore Member Carolyn O'Neill Member Janice Palmer Member Nancy Penny Member Mel Plewes Member Beverley Thorpe Member John Wilson Member Miao Zhou Member STAFF Alex Blasko Planning Technician, Environmental Assessments - York Region Ken Dion Senior Watershed Resources Planner Adele Freeman Director, Watershed Management Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner F23 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/05 March 17, 2005 PRESENTATIONS EAST DON BARRIER MITIGATION UPDATE Ken Dion provided an update on the East Don Barrier Mitigation Project. TRCA has identified in- stream barriers as one of the key limitations to the health of the aquatic community within the region's watersheds. Mill dams and weirs considerably reduce the ability of many fish species to move freely within each watershed and to access spawning areas. One such site is a barrier within the East Don River located near Donalda Golf Course at York Mills Road and Don Mills Road. The current drop structure in place at this location is a wide concrete weir with shallow water levels during baseflow conditions. This wide, shallow segment of the river is a detriment to fish habitat. The proposed design for this area is typical of other mitigation projects throughout the TRCA. It will include an altered weir with a stilling basin 10 -12m downstream, composed of clean aggregate material. Larger boulders will be used to protect against the impacts of flash floods, and to provide eddies as part of the enhanced fish habitat. A new concern from Transport Canada which will be incorporated into the design is the need for improved navigability through the weir. Originally proposed by Transport Canada was a permanent portage around the barrier to allow for canoe and kayak access down the river. Such a feature would not conform with TRCA policy, as it would exacerbate erosion and lead to impacts to bank conditions and riparian vegetation. As an alternative to this, a notch will be created down the centre of the weir and the rocky ramp to concentrate flow during baseflow conditions. This notch will provide added depth along a narrow channel to allow small water craft to navigate down the weir without the need for a portage. With the mitigation of East Don Barrier, a number of key steps from Forty Steps to a New Don will be met, including creating improvements for public access and aquatic habitat within the Don. Once the design is completed for this project, implementation is expected to take approximately three weeks for construction and site work. DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT Deborah Martin -Downs provided an overview of the status of the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection (DMNP) Project and received comments from the Don Watershed Regeneration Council as part of the preliminary public consultation process. Project Objectives The two key objectives of the DMNP Project are the naturalization of the lower Don River and the flood protection of the Port Lands area. The Environmental Assessment will take into account a number of operational issues (including water levels, debris and sediment management, and ice jams) and will consider the existing and proposed infrastructure in the area. March 17, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/05 F24 There are two study areas defined for this project: 1. The Naturalization Study Area to define the boundary for the development of naturalization alternatives; and 2. The Project Floodplain, which defines the extent of area affected by the Regulatory Flood (defined as Spill Zones 1 and 2). Study Area for the ;Don Mouth Naturalization and Pon Lands ,wfl• j'• • action Protect (i?MNP} )A.Jy a,, 5 �,li • Fjot, Moui"a, zuaiura�o zc•;c 2 Pori Lams Fiaod Pate (•' Flaoilr.'JFa'n:.: Design Alternatives Some preliminary design concepts for the DMNP Project, developed by Gartner Lee Limited as part of their proposal include: Lower Don Off -line Wetland; - Maintain the Don River's current channel, and create an off-line wetland to the north. New Don River with Keating Channel Wetland; - Redirect the Don River southwest above the Keating Channel, and create an off -line wetland where the Keating Channel currently exists. Don River Valley Extension; - Extend the Don River southwards through the proposed Don Greenway to connect with the ship channel. Lower Don Wetland Complex. - Create an on -line wetland through the Keating Channel to promote more active flows through the area. Project Schedule Gartner Lee Limited is currently in the process of developing the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the DMNP Project. It is anticipated that the ToR will be approved within the first quarter of 2006. Baseline conditions investigations and fieldwork are already underway. F25 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/05 March 17, 2005 Key Steps The key steps in the Environmental Assessment process are as follows: • Develop the Terms of Reference; - Includes work plan, budget, identification of information gaps, baseline studies, preliminary consultation and project initiation. • Develop the Individual Environmental Assessment; - Includes development and incorporation of technical studies, public and stakeholder consultation, and the development and evaluation of alternatives. • Prepare the Canadian Environmental Assessment,Act (CEAA) Documentation. - Includes project description, scope of assessment and assessment of environmental effects. Terms of Reference The Terms of Reference is the first step in the two -step Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) process. The ToR sets out the proponent's work plan for addressing the preparation and review of the EA, and it provides a framework that the Ministry of Environment will use to evaluate the EA. In general, the ToR will: • Identify the purpose of the proposed undertaking; • Provide a general description of the proposed undertaking; • Provide a general description of the environment that may be affected in the EA; • Outline the alternatives that will be considered in the EA; • Identify how the alternatives will be evaluated, and how the preferred alternative will be chosen; and • Describe the consultation that will take place during the preparation of the EA. Consultation Plan Consultation opportunities will be provided through the following forums and media: • Technical Advisory Committee; • Community Liaison Committee (under discussion); • Online document sharing (for the TAC and CLC); • Public Information Centres; • Project newsletters, flyers and web site updates; • Newspaper advertisements and articles; and • Technical design workshop (as required). Don Watershed Regeneration Council Comments Comment (P. Goodwin) To what storm level will this study plan for regarding flood protection components? Response The study will take into account the 500 year storm event (approximately five times the volume of the 100 year storm event) March 17, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/05 F26 Comment Response Comment Response Comment Response ,Comment Response Comment Comment Response (P. Goodwin) Why is the western side of the lower Don River not part of the Spill Zones for this project? Flooding on the western side of the lower Don River (Spill Zone 3) is being addressed through the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project Class Environmental Assessment. This Class EA is undergoing final review, and will be making the transition to the implementation stage shortly. As a component of the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Individual Environmental Assessment, flooding on the east side of the lower Don River (Spill Zones 1 and 2) will be addressed. (M. Buchinger) Will the naturalization area to be investigated through this study cover the historical marsh? The original marsh would have connected with Toronto Island - an area of approximately 550 ha. Considering modern conditions and the constraints arising from current uses, it would not be feasible to renaturalize an area of this size. (P. Goodwin) What contamination issues are there to address at the 480 Lakeshore Boulevard site? The contamination issues at this site relate mostly to hydrocarbons. (R. Moore) Are there any thoughts as to what type of habitat will be created /needed in this area? Is there the potential to find some middle ground between a forest and a wetland (a swamp, perhaps)? Data regarding terrestrial and aquatic conditions has been collected and summarized for this area, to be released at a later date as part of the baseline conditions report. This data will be evaluated to determine the ideal habitat conditions for this area. The design parameters will be determined at a later date, however one key component of this study will be to increase the ecological function of this area. (R. Moore) The study should consider the ecosystem values regarding linkages to the Leslie Street Spit. (R. Moore) What will be the role of public consultation /Community Liaison Committee for this study? We will be interested in taking the pulse of local interest groups as this study moves forward. Through the public consultation process, we will ensure that the vision of the community comes forward. Although the Individual EA process does not require a Community Liaison Committee (CLC), a Terms of Reference will be carried forward. The specific role of the CLC has not been determined for this study, however the general role of the committee will be to facilitate communication with the public through such venues as the Public Information Centres. F27 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/05 March 17, 2005 Comment (J. Wilson) The Task Force to Bring Back the Don has a distribution list of approximately 4,000 Don watershed residents. This may be a good avenue for the distribution of newsletters and consultation material. (John Wilson to look into privacy issues-and logistics). Response All newsletters can also be circulated through the TWRC distribution list and the On the Don mailing list. Additionally, all public consultation material will be made available on the web. Comment (B. Thorpe) There is a need to examine sediment transport issues. If the mouth of the Don changes, deposition patterns will be altered as well. The impacts of sedimentation on a wetland, and the impacts of dredging and maintenance in such an area will need to be examined. Response The issues of sediment transport and debris management have already been flagged as key concerns. Baird Associates is part of the study team, and they will be running sediment transport models to optimize design options. Comment (M. Plewes) River access should be taken into account at the mouth of the Don (i.e. a take -out location for canoes for Paddle the Don). Comment (C. O'Neill) It has been noted in a report by Rein Jaagumagi that sediment behaviour near the Toronto Islands is affected by the Don River. Finer particles from the Don River tend to attract contaminants, and it is these particles that travel beyond the confines of the Keating Channel. The study area may need to be extended to include the Inner Harbour to take this into account. Comment (M. Plewes) There are sewer discharges near the Parliament Street Slip that need to be taken into account when assessing quality and quantity impacts. Comment (P. Goodwin) What constraints will arise from the Don Narrows (e.g. flow velocity) when considering the design of the wetland? Response The Don Narrows may provide an opportunity to narrow the river and allow it to meander through this section, or to change the gradient to alter flows. Constraints may exists regarding a potential increase to flooding along the Don Valley Parkway, however. MINUTES RES. #F12/05- MINUTES TO MEETING #2/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Don Cross Moyra Haney March 17, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3105 F28 THAT the minutes of Meeting #2/05, held on February 17 ;2005 be approved .... CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF There were no pecuniary interests disclosed. CORRESPONDENCE INCOMING 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement Letter to Chair, Don Watershed Regeneration Council from John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing - February 21, 2005 4.2 Participation at the Town of Richmond Hill Pesticide Open House Letter from Lynton Friedberg, Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Culture, Town of Richmond Hill - February 22, 2005 4.3 Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Governance Letter to Mel Plewes, Chair of the Policy and Advocacy Team from David Caplan, Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal 4.4 Don Valley Corridor Transportation Master Plan Letter from Joanna Musters, Project Manager, City of Toronto - March 1, 2005 4.5 Implementation Committee Report for Watershed -based Source Protection Letter to Donald Cross, Vice Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council from Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of the Environment - March 3, 2005 4.9 Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Governance Letter to Mel Plewes, Chair of the Policy and Advocacy Team from P. Monteith, Executive Correspondence Officer, Office of the Prime Minister - March 9, 2005 OUTGOING 4.6 Implementation of a Pesticide Control Strategy in the Town of Richmond Hill Letter to Tracey Steele, Natural Heritage Specialist, Town of Richmond Hill from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - February 18, 2005 F29 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/05 March 17, 2005 4.7 Hydro Right of Way Natural Regeneration Letter to Ken Nagy, District Services Specialist, Hydro One from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - March 7, 2005 4.8 Canada - United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Letter to Al Jamal, Interagency Program Coordinator, Environment Canada and Mark Elster, Senior Program Analyst, United States Environmental Protection Agency from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - March 7, 2005 RES. #F13/05- CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Mel Plewes Peter Heinz THAT correspondence items 4.1 to 4.9 be received CARRIED INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 Stream Flow Monitoring Within the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Regional Monitoring Network Program Executive Committee #1/05 - March 4, 2005 5.2 Community Transformation Partnership, 2005 Business Plan Business Excellence Advisory Board #1/05 - March 4, 2005 5.3 Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Delivery Agreements Business Excellence Advisory Board #1/05 - March 4, 2005 5.4 EVN's New Environmental Volunteer Job Board Memorandum from Chris Benjamin, Volunteerism and Diversity Coordinator, TRCA RES. #F14/05- INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Penny Beverley Thorpe THAT information items 5.1 to 5.4 be received CARRIED March 17, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/05 F30 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION EARL BALES PARK AREA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The site walk regarding the Earl Bales Park Area Stormwater Management Plan took place on March 11, 2005. Attendees included Peter Heinz from the Don Council, Bryan Bertie from the Task Force to Bring Back the Don, Stephen Smith from Urban Forest Associates, and a number of City of Toronto staff. Concerns were raised by other members of the Council in regards fo a lack of communication regarding the coordination of the event. Although Peter Heinz attended as a representative of the Council, a number of other members did not receive confirmation of the date, nor any information regarding the rescheduled time for the walk. Peter reports that City staff were receptive to the issues raised by the attendees regarding the potential location of the secondary pond in sensitive renaturalized areas. City staff and the project consultants believe that they will probably be able to address these issues and develop a design that will satisfy all parties. It is suggested by members of the Council that a second site walk be proposed to include those people who were unable to attend the initial visit. This second walk could be scheduled at a later date to give the consultants time to address the issues that have been raised and to investigate other design options. The walk should give the attendees a chance to visualize the preferred alternative within the context of the site, and should be held prior to the public meeting. Members who have expressed an interest in attending a second site walk include: Martin German Beverley Thorpe Mel Plewes Moyra Haney Cassandra Bach RES. #F15/05- EARL BALES PARK SITE WALK Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Palmer Don Cross THAT City of Toronto staff be requested to coordinate a second site walk of the Earl Bales Park Area Stormwater Management Plan site prior to the public meeting to present and discuss the preferred alternative for the project, pending revisions to the design based on community concerns regarding the renaturalized area CARRIED F31 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/05 March 17, 2005 DON VALLEY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN John Wilson has completed draft comments regarding the Don Valley Corridor Transportation Master Plan. The draft comments will be revised based on Council review, and Amy Thurston will finalize and send the document to the Planning and Transportation Committee and the Works committee on March 21, 2005. Mel Plewes and Miao Zhou have volunteered to make themselves available to depute this issue on April 7, 2005 at the City of Toronto joint Planning and Transportation Committee and Works Committee meeting. Mel will be available in the morning, however if a deputation cannot be scheduled at this time, Miao will be available to depute in the afternoon. Additionally, in her absence Jane Pitfield has noted via email that she will be happy to answer any questions regarding this issue that Council members may have upon her return. COMMITTEE REPORTS MILL POND SPLASH The Town of Richmond Hill will be playing a more active role in the planning fo this year's Mill Pond Splash, scheduled for Sunday, May 29, 2005. New this year will be nature walks based on the Town's Walks on the Wild Side program. Council members interested in volunteering for this event are asked to sign up with Alex Blasko. PADDLE THE DON Paddle the Don will take place on Sunday, May 1, 2005. A new piece this year will be an option for participants to 'Hike the Don' along the river on guided walks. Banrock Station Winery has been confirmed as The new sponsor for the Corporate Canoe Challenge. Council members interested in volunteering for this event are asked to contact Brent Bullough for details. RES. #F16/05- COMMITTEE REPORTS Moved by: Seconded by:. Roslyn Moore Mel Plewes THAT committee reports from Policy and Advocacy Team Meeting #/05 and Watershed Plan Team Meeting #2/05 be received CARRIED March 17, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/05 F32 UPDATES FROM OTHER DON WATERSHED GROUPS TORONTO BAY INITIATIVE The TBI boat tour will be taking place on Saturday June 18, 2005 at 9:45am, on board the Oriole with Toronto historian Mike Filey. The tour will depart at the foot of York Street, south of the Queen's Quay Terminal. Council members are welcome to attend, and will receive the special TBI member's fee of $15 per person. For more information, members are directed to visit www.torontobay.net. FRIENDS OF THE DON EAST FODE has recently received an influx of funding, and will be looking to undertake a new major restoration project in the East Don area. Martin German will be taking proposals from interested parties, and Council members are encouraged to contact him at eco @fode.ca to discuss potential projects. Additionally, FODE will be starting on their strategic work plan for the next four years. Martin German, as the new representative of Friends fo the Don East will provide more updates as they become available. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES CALENDAR OF EVENTS Date / Location Event Description Saturday April 2, 2005 9:30 am - 1:00 pm (welcome and sign -in at 9:00 am) Angus Glen Community Centre (3990 Major Mackenzie Dr. E., Markham) Volunteer Management Workshop for Greening Groups Offered by Evergreen, sponsored by the Town of Markham, supported by the Ontario Trillium Foundation. Please register by March 18, 2005 - cost of $10 (includes Evergreen resources and a light lunch). Contact Lois Lindsay at 416- 596 -1495, ext. 226, lois @evergreen.ca. F33 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/05 March 17, 2005 Date / Location Event Description Sunday April 17, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon Chester Subway Station (Bloor- Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 Follow the path that rain takes through Toronto's urban neighbourhoods as it winds its way into the lower Don River Learn about Riverdale's urban history, lost streams, storm sewer infrastructure, and its impact on the Don River. The walk covers occasionally difficult /wet terrain — wear suitable footwear. Call RiverSides at 416 - 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. Saturday April 23, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon East Don Parkland Tree Planting To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416 - 221 -3954, pcgoodwin @sympatico.ca. Saturday April 30, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon Earl Bales Park (Sheppard at Bathurst) Trees Across Toronto Planting Event For more information visit www.toronto.city on.ca. Sunday May 1, 2005 9:00 am - 12 noon E.T. Seaton Park (Leslie St. and Eglinton Avenue, Toronto) • Paddle the Don Paddle the length of the Don River from E.T. Seton Park down to the Keating Channel. New this year, Hike the Don! Guided walks will be offered for those who want to enjoy the trails of the Don. Participants call 416 - 661 -6600, ext. 5397 to register their canoes or to register for the walk. For all other inquiries, email paddlethedon @trca.on.ca or leave a message on the registration line. Saturday May 7, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon East Don Parkland Wildflower Walk To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416- 221 -3954, pcgoodwin @sympatico.ca. Sunday May 29, 2005 12 noon - 4:00 pm Mill Pond Park (Mill St. and Trench St., Richmond Hill) Richmond Hill Mill Pond Splash This is a free family focused event to celebrate the headwaters of the Don River. Activities will include native wildlife demonstrations, environmental exhibits, children's activities, music, entertainment and refreshments. For more information or to volunteer for the event please contact Alex Blasko at 416 - 661 -6600 ext. 5280, or by email at ablasko @trca.on.ca. March 17, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/05 F34 Date / Location Event Description Saturday June 4, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon East Don Parkland Wildflower Planting To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416 - 221 -3954, pcgoodwin @sympatico ca. Thursday April 14, 2005 Sunday June 12, 2005 - 10:00 am - 12 noon Chester Subway Station (Bloor- Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 Call RiverSides at 416 - 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. Sunday June 26, 2005 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Chester Subway Station (Bloor- Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 (in conjunction with Heritage Toronto Call RiverSides at 416 - 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. Sunday July 17, 2005 2:00 pm - 9:00 pm Rodney's Oyster House Ontario Oyster Festival In support of the Canadian Environmental Alliance. For more information visit www.rodneysoysterhouse.com. Sunday September 18, 2005 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm East Don Parkland Fall Wildflower Walk To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416 - 221 -3954, pcgoodwin @sympatico.ca. Sunday September 25, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon Chester Subway Station (Bloor- Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 Call RiverSides at 416 - 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. Saturday October 1, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon East Don Parkland Tree Planting To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416 - 221 -3954, pcgoodwin @sympatico.ca. MEETING DATES DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Meeting # . Date Location # 4/05 Thursday April 14, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 F35 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/05 March 17, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Meeting # Date Location - # 5/05 Thursday May 12, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Thursday June 16, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Thursday July 21, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday September 15, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Thursday October 20, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 4/05 Thursday April 21, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/05 Tuesday May 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Thursday June 9, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Thursday July 14, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday September 8, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Tuesday October 11, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 OUTREACH TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 3/05 Thursday April 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 4/05 Thursday May 5, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/05 Tuesday June 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Thursday July 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Tuesday September 13, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 4 March 17, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #3/05 F36 OUTREACH TEAM , Meeting # Date .. a Location # 8/05 Tuesday October 6, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Thursday November 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 WATERSHED PLAN TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 3/05 Thursday April 7, 2005 (with Outreach) NYCC Committee Room 1 . CHAIR'S TELECONFERENCE ' . , Meeting ,q16 , Date.. Time # 4/05 Wednesday April 6, 2005 9:00 am # 5/05 Wednesday May 4, 2005 9:00 am # 6/05 Wednesday June 8, 2005 9:00 am # 7/05 Wednesday July 13, 2005 9:00 am # 8/05 Wednesday September 7, 2005 9:00 am # 9/05 Wednesday October 12, 2005 9:00 am # 10/05 Wednesday November 9, 2005 9:00 am ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:00 pm. Deborah Martin -Downs Chair /ab Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #4/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #5/05 JUNE 24, 2005 TORONTO AND REGION Y, onservation for The Living City theDoir MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/05 April 14, 2005 Page F37 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #4/05, was held in Committee Room #1 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday April 14, 2005. Chair Deborah Martin -Downs called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT Deborah Martin -Downs Chair Don Cross Vice Chair Cassandra Bach Member Margaret Buchinger Member Carmela Canzonieri Member Jane Darragh Member Eli Garrett Member Martin German Member Phil Goodwin Member Moyra Haney Member Peter Heinz Member Carolyn O'Neill Member Nancy Penny Member Mel Plewes Member Beverley Thorpe Member STAFF Alex Blasko Planning Technician, Environmental Assessments - York Region James Fieldhouse Don Watershed Technical Clerk Adele Freeman Director, Watershed Management Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner F38 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/05 April 14, 2005 PRESENTATIONS BILL 133 - ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT AND THE ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES ACT CONCERNING SPILLS Paul Willms provided background and an update on Bill 133. Summary of Bill 133 The proposed legislation would amend the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). The proposed amendments would introduce administrative penalties. The amendments would strengthen sentencing provisions and also allow municipalities and the Province to issue an order to recover the costs and expenses they incur in responding to spills. The new provisions list the types of contraventions for which penalties may be imposed and describe the types of persons on whom they may be imposed. 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. A requirement that a person pay a penalty applies even if the person took all reasonable steps to prevent the contravention and even if, at the time of the contravention, the person had an honest and reasonable belief in a mistaken set of facts that, if true, would have rendered the contravention innocent. The imposition of a penalty on a person does not prevent the person from being prosecuted for an offence in respect to the same contravention. The provisions also allow persons to enter into settlement agreements that may lead to a reduction or a cancellation of the penalty. 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. Status of Bill 133 The legislation was to apply to everyone in Ontario, but through lobbying by some groups, including the Coalition for a Green Environment, of which Warren Kinsella is the spokesman, the legislation may now only apply to MESA. Bill 133 has been referred to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly as of April 5, 2005 and is awaiting discussion and a decision on whether or not public hearings and deputations will be held. In addition, the referral allows for substantive amendments to be introduced. If Bill 133 had passed Second Reading, amendments that changed the general intent of the policy would have been more difficult to table. April 14, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/05 F39 RES. #F17/05- LETTER OF SUPPORT REGARDING BILL 133 Moved by: Seconded by: Beverley Thorpe Mel Plewes THAT the Policy and Advocacy Team prepare a letter in favour of the introduction of Bill 133 to support the reduction of spills. AND FURTHER THAT the letter encourage the Ministry of the Environment to take action to address spills to municipal sewers, as these are currently not covered under Bill 133 CARRIED MINUTES RES. #F18/05- FORMAL AMENDMENT TO MINUTES FROM MEETING #3105 Moved by: Seconded by: Martin German Moyra Haney THAT the minutes to Meeting #3/05 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council be amended as follows: Updates from Other Groups section be revised from: To: "FODE has recently received an influx of funding, and will be looking to undertake a new major restoration project in the East Don area." "FODE has recently hired a new Executive Director, and will be looking to undertake a new major restoration project within the Don watershed. The new Executive Director will be granting considerable resources towards planning and fund - raising for this initiative." AND FURTHER THAT the minutes to Meeting #3/05 be approved as amended ... CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF Deborah Martin -Downs expressed a pecuniary interest regarding the Provincial Growth Plan F40 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/05 April 14, 2005 due to her position with Gartner Lee Limited. CORRESPONDENCE INCOMING No items OUTGOING 4.1 Don Valley Corridor Transportation Master Plan Letter to Chair & Committee Members, Planning & Transportation/Works Committee from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - March 21, 2005 4.2 Earl Bales Park Area Stormwater Management Plan Letter to Liora Zion Burton, Public Consultation Coordinator, City of Toronto, from Don Cross, Vice - chair, Don Watershed Regeneration Council - March 29, 2005 4.3 Comments on the Ontario Biodiversity Strategy Letter to Jim MacLean, Project Manager, Ontario Biodiversity Strategy, Ministry of Natural Resources, from Mel Plewes, Chair, Policy and Advocacy Team, Don Watershed Regeneration Council- April 6, 2005 4.4 Draft Recovery Strategy for Redside Dace in Ontario Letter to Mr. Alan Dextrose, Senior Species at Risk Biologist, Ontario Parks, Species at Risk Section, Ministry of Natural Resources- April 11, 2005 RES. #F19/05- CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Penny Martin German THAT correspondence items 4.1 to 4.4 be received CARRIED INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 Development of a New Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to Expand the Green Building Partnership April 14, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/05 F41 Sustainable Communities Board #1/05 - April 8, 2005 5.2 Natural Heritage Lands Protection and Acquisition Project, 2001 -2005 Executive Committee #2/05 - April 8, 2005 5.3 Bill 136 - Places to Grow Act and the "Places to Grow" Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Executive Committee #2/05 - April 8, 2005 5.4 Source Protection Planning Executive Committee #2/05 - April 8, 2005 5.5 Pomona Mills Park Community Clean Up Event Invitation 5.6 Improving Environmental Assessment in Ontario: A Framework for Reform Report Prepared by the Minister's Environmental Assessment Advisor Panel - Executive Group 5.7 Dufferin Street Class Environmental Assessment Letter to Adele Freeman, TRCA, from Barry Sherwood, Project Manager, York Region, March 16, 2005 5.8 TWRC and City of Toronto Port Lands Community Advisory Committee Meeting, March 31, 2005 Memorandum from Don Cross 5.9 York Stewardship Rangers Application Form Received by E -mail from Brian Peterkin, Stewardship Coordinator, York Environmental Stewardship, C/O Ministry of Natural Resources RES. #F20/05- INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Beverly Thorpe Eli Garrett THAT information items 5.1 to 5.9 be received CARRIED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION DRAFT GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE F42 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4105 April 14, 2005 The Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe will serve to protect locally significant natural systems by setting aside locally and Provincially significant natural system areas. It is noted that the target areas for the Growth Plan fail to adequately protect natural features within the Don watershed. Four of the twenty -three areas identified for intensified development in the Draft Growth Plan are in the Don watershed. It should be emphasized that all green spaces in highly urbanized areas are important. Margaret Buchinger has prepared a draft submission regarding the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Council members are encouraged to review the document and provide any comments to Margaret by April 18, 2005. The submission deadline for the Growth Plan is April 19, 2005. RES. #F21/05- COMMENT SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE Moved by: Seconded by: Beverly Thorpe Eli Garrett THAT the Don Council approve in principle, with additions, a letter and comments on the Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe CARRIED COMMITTEE REPORTS PADDLE THE DON Paddle the Don will take place on Sunday, May 1, 2005. Friends of the Don East will coordinate the `Hike the Don' portion of the event. Space are still available for the hike, and Council members are requested to promote this event. The Corporate Canoe Challenge still has room for more participants. Council members are encouraged to enlist their companies and colleagues and any other companies that may be interested. Additionally, Don Council members that can volunteer Paddle the Don are encouraged to do so. WATERSHED PLAN TEAM The Watershed Plan Team met on April 6, 2005 to discuss the draft work plan. Council members are requested to review the draft plan and submit comments to Beverley Thorpe by May 5, 2005.. April 14, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/05 F43 RES. #F24/05- COMMITTEE REPORTS Moved by: Seconded by: Mel Plewes Don Cross THAT the draft minutes from Outreach Team Meeting #3105 and Watershed Plan Team #3/05 be received CARRIED UPDATES FROM OTHER DON WATERSHED GROUPS EAST DON PARKLAND PARTNERS Tree planting to take place April 21 -23, 10 am - 12 pm each day at German Mills Park. Meet on Cummer Ave. Bridge between Bayview Ave. and Leslie St. Council members are directed to the Events Calendar included in the agenda package for more information. TERRAVIEW - WILLOWFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL Nancy Penny announced Terraview - Willowfield Public School is having a cleanup day of Terraview Park on April 22, 9 am - 2 pm. Three hundred kids in kindergarten to grade eight will take part. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES CALENDAR OF EVENTS F44 DON WATE=RSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/05 April 14, 2005 Date / Location Event Description Sunday April 17, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon Chester Subway Station (B /oor- Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 Follow the path that rain takes through Toronto's urban neighbourhoods as it winds its way into the lower Don River. Learn about Riverdale's urban history, lost streams, storm sewer infrastructure, and its impact on the Don River. The walk covers occasionally difficult/wet terrain — wear suitable footwear. Call RiverSides at 416 -868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. Saturday April 23, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon East Don Parkland Tree Planting To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416- 221 -3954, pcgoodwinPsvmpatico.ca. Saturday April 30, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon Earl Bales Park (Sheppard at Bathurst) Trees Across Toronto Planting Event For more information visit www.toronto.city.on.ca. Sunday May 1, 2005 9:00 am - 12 noon E.T. Seaton Park (Leslie St. and Eglinton Avenue, Toronto) Paddle the Don Paddle the length of the Don River from E.T. Seton Park down to the Keating Channel. New this year, Hike the Don! Guided walks will be offered for those who want to enjoy the trails of the Don. Participants call 416- 661 -6600, ext. 5397 to register their canoes or to register for the walk. For all other inquiries, email paddlethedon @trca.on.ca or leave a message on the registration line. Saturday May 7, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon East Don Parkland Wildflower Walk To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416 - 221 -3954, pcgoodwinPsvmpatico.ca. Sunday May 29, 2005 12 noon - 4:00 pm Mill Pond Park (Mill St. and Trench St., Richmond Hill) Richmond Hill Mill Pond Splash This is a free family focused event to celebrate the headwaters of the Don River. Activities will include native wildlife demonstrations, environmental exhibits, children's activities, music, entertainment and refreshments. For more information or to volunteer for the event please contact Alex Blasko at 416- 661 -6600 ext. 5280, or by email at ablaskoPtrca.on.ca. April 14, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/05 F45 Date / Location Event Description Saturday June 4, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon East Don Parkland Wildflower Planting To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416 -221 -3954, pcgoodwinPsvmpatico.ca. Sunday June 12, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon Chester Subway Station (Bloor Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 Call RiverSides at 416- 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. Sunday June 26, 2005 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Chester Subway Station (Bloor- Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 (in conjunction with Heritage Toronto Call RiverSides at 416- 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. Sunday July 17, 2005 2:00 pm - 9:00 pm Rodney's Oyster House Ontario Ouster Festival In support of the Canadian Environmental Alliance. For more information visit www.rodnevsoysterhouse.com. Sunday September 18, 2005 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm East Don Parkland Fall Wildflower Walk To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416 - 221 -3954, pcgoodwinPsvmpatico.ca. Sunday September 25, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon Chester Subway Station (Bloor- Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 CaII RiverSides at 416 - 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. Saturday October 1, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon East Don Parkland Tree Planting To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416- 221 -3954, pcgoodwinPsvmpatico.ca. MEETING DATES DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Meeting # Date 'Location # 5/05 Thursday May 12, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 F46 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/05 April 14, 2005 # 6/05 Thursday June 16, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Thursday July 21, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday September 15, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Thursday October 20, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 4/05 Thursday April 21, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/05 Tuesday May 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Thursday June 9, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Thursday July 14, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday September 8, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Tuesday October 11, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 OUTREACH TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 4/05 Thursday May 5, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/05 Tuesday June 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Thursday July 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Tuesday September 13, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 4 # 8/05 Thursday October 6, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Thursday November 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 WATERSHED PLAN TEAM April 14, 2005 Meeting # DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/05 F47 Date Location CHAIR'S TELECONFERENCE Meeting # Date Time # 4/05 Wednesday April 6, 2005 9:00 am # 5/05 Wednesday May 4, 2005 9:00 am # 6/05 Wednesday June 8, 2005 9:00 am # 7/05 Wednesday July 13, 2005 9:00 am # 8/05 Wednesday September 7, 2005 9:00 am # 9/05 - Wednesday October 12, 2005 9:00 am # 10/05 Wednesday November 9, 2005 9:00 am NEW BUSINESS DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION COMMUNITY LIAISON COMMITTEE DON COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TRCA is currently developing a Public Consultation Plan for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project. An integral part of this consultation process will be the development of a Community Liaison Committee (CLC). Once the Terms of Reference has been approved for the CLC, community and stakeholder groups (including the Don Watershed Regeneration Council) will be invited to appoint a member to the committee. The initial meeting of the CLC has been scheduled for May 19t, 2005. It is suggested that the Council appoint one representative to attend meetings regularly, and an alternate to attend when necessary. Both representatives should attend the first meeting. Members interested in volunteering on the CLC include: Member: Don Cross Alternate: Carmela Canzonieri RES. #F22/05- Don Council Members Appointments to Community Liaison Committee Moved by: Beverly Thorpe F48 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #4/05 April 14, 2005 Seconded by: Eli Garrett THAT Don Cross and Carmela Canzonieri be appointed as DWRC member and alternate member on the Don Mouth Naturalization and Flood Protection Community Liaison Committee CARRIED ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:00 pm. Deborah Martin -Downs Brian Denney Chair Chief Administrative Officer Ijf THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #5/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #6/05 JULY 22, 2005 IDRONTO AND REGION onserva Lion for The Living City theDoit MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/05 May 12, 2005 Page F49 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #5/05, was held in Committee Room #1 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday May 12, 2005. Chair Deborah Martin -Downs called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT Deborah Martin -Downs Chair Don Cross Vice Chair Cassandra Bach Member Margaret Buchinger Member Jane Darragh Member Phil Goodwin Member Moyra Haney Member Peter Heinz Member Carolyn O'Neill Member Doug O'Brien Member Mel Plewes Member Roz Moore Member Carolyn O'Neill Member Ron Shimizu Member Miao Zhou Member STAFF James Fieldhouse Don Watershed Technical Clerk Adele Freeman Director, Watershed Management Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner Renee Jarrett Manager, Conservation Education F50 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/05 May 12, 2005 PRESENTATIONS ECO SCHOOLS Renee Jarrett, Manager, Conservation Education, TRCA provided a Power Point presentation regarding the Eco Schools. For more information, members are directed to visit the Ontario EcoSchool website: http: / /www.yorku.ca /fes /envedu /ecoschools.asp TASK FORCE TO BRING BACK THE DON John Wilson, Chair of the Task Force to Bring Back the Don, gave a presentation to the Don Council. The presentation outlined the history of the Task Force, the Terms of Reference /Structure, and the Task Force's priorities. John noted that the Task Force's main concerns are issues that occur within the City of Toronto boundaries. The City of Toronto provides the Task Force in -kind contributions (staff), and most of the Task Force's funding comes from corporate and foundation sponsorships. John explained that the Task Force is in the process of improving their fund - raising capacity. A suggestion was made to update the Don Watershed Map identifying all the groups currently working on Don issues and to approximate the boundaries of their interest. Don Cross suggested that Mel Plewes make a similar presentation about the Don Watershed Regeneration Council to the Task Force to Bring Back the Don. Adele Freeman suggested that members of the Task Force be invited to the Don Council BBQ on July 21, 2005. The Task Force to Bring Back the Don Website is: http: / /www.city.toronto.on.ca /don/ MINUTES RES. #F24/05- MINUTES TO MEETING #4/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Mel Plewes Moyra Haney THAT the minutes to Meeting #4/05 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council be approved CARRIED May 12, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/05 F51 DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no pecuniary interests disclosed. CORRESPONDENCE INCOMING 4.1 Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Letter and comments to Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition, and Don Watershed Regeneration Council. Letter and comments from Lois Griffith, Chair, Humber Watershed Alliance - April 18, 2005 OUTGOING 4.2 Places to Grow: Better Choices. Brighter Future. Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Letter and comments to: Hannah Evans, Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Smart Growth Secretariat; Ms. Tonia Grannum, Clerk, Standing Committee on General Government; and Joe Pantalone, Toronto City Councillor and Chair, Roundtable on the Environment. Letter and comments from Don Cross, Vice - Chair, Don Watershed Regeneration Council, April 18, 2005 RES. #F25/05- CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Carolyn O'Neill Don Cross THAT correspondence items 4.1 and 4.2 be received CARRIED INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 TWRC West Don Lands Stakeholders Meeting, May 2, 2005 Memorandum from Don Cross 5.2 Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Coalition Minutes from Policy and Advocacy Team meeting #1/05 5.3 Lake Ontario Resources Improvement Opportunity Assessment Executive Committee Meeting #3105 F52 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/05 May 12, 2005 5.4 2005 Contracts for York -Peel- Durham - Toronto Groundwater Management Study Executive Committee Meeting #3105 5.5 Federal Fisheries Act Executive Committee Meeting #3105 5.6 2005 Tommy Thomson Park Interim Management Program Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/05 5.7 Waterfront Regeneration Trust Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/05 5.8 Asian Longhorned Beetle Regulated Area Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/05 5.9 Greenbelt Plan, 2005 Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/05 5.10 Provincial Policy Statement Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/05 5.11 Environmental Assessment for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Flood Protection Project Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1105 5.12 Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan Business Excellence Advisory Board Meeting #2105 5.13 E -mail Submission to International Joint Commission Integrating Public Participation in Watershed Planning ITEM 5.11 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT The first Community Liaison Committee meeting for the Don Mouth Naturalization Project is scheduled to be held on May 19, 2005 in room 314 of Metro Hall. In addition, the public consultation plan including site walks and workshops for the Terms of Reference phase will be provided at the June 23, 2005 workshop, to be held at Metro Hall. May 12, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/05 F53 RES. #F26/05- INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Mel Plewes Cassandra Bach THAT information items 5.1 to 5.13 be received CARRIED COMMITTEE REPORTS PADDLE THE DON 143 canoes were launched, which is about 40 Tess then years past, although the event was fully booked. Approximately $18,000 raised to help support regeneration projects in the Don watershed. A written post mortem will be done by Brent Bullough. Members are encouraged to provide their feedback on the event to Brent Bullough or Amy Thurston. MILL POND SPLASH Volunteers are still needed for this year's Mill Pond Splash. If you are interested in helping out, please contact Alex Blasko. Michael White reports that the TD Friends of the Environment Foundation will provide $2,000 in funding for the event. RES. #F27/05- COMMITTEE REPORTS Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Shimizu Margaret Buchinger THAT the committee report from Policy and Advocacy Team Meeting #4/05 be received CARRIED TORONTO AND AREA REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN TRCA have hired a new RAP coordinator, Kelly Montgomery. She will begin closer to the end of May. She has most recently worked at the offices of the International Joint Commission in Windsor. F54 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/05 May 12, 2005 UPDATES FROM OTHER DON WATERSHED GROUPS EAST DON PARKLAND PARTNERS The EDPP recently held a wildflower planting event as well as a wildflower walk. Phil Goodwin reports that he recently saw some suckers and maybe a trout in German Mills Creek. TORONTO BAY INITIATIVE TBI is one of three nominees in community projects for Green Toronto awards. TBI has a new Executive Director who will begin during June. Bay boat to sail June 18, DWRC members pay a reduced admission rate of $15. Moyra Haney has requested that the upcoming Wakestock event to be held at the Toronto Islands be added to the next agenda of the Policy and Advocacy Team meeting for discussion. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES CHAIR OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Deborah Martin -Downs has stepped down as Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council due to her new responsibilities as Director of Ecology at the TRCA. Deborah was one of the first members of the Don Watershed Task Force and has been a contributing member of the Don Council since its inception. Since June 2004, she has fulfilled the role of Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. We congratulate Deb for her many accomplishments as a member of the Don Council and wish her the best of luck in her new position at the TRCA. Don Cross, current Vice -Chair will become the Acting Chair of the Council until such a time as a formal Chair is elected. CALENDAR OF EVENTS Date / Location Event Description Saturday May 14, 2005 10:00 am - 12:00 noon Tree Planting Event at Park Vista Drive FODE will be planting trees and shrubs. Shovels and gloves will be provided. Meet at the end of Park Vista Drive which is just north of Taylor Massey Creek, west off of Dawes Road. May 12, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/05 F55 Tuesday May 24, 2005 FODE, Time and place TBA Pesticides, You, and Your Natural Garden Come out and learn about the issues surrounding home pesticide use and how to care for your green spaces without them! With Resources provided by Greenest City and the City of Toronto, this workshop will teach you what you need to know about the city's new pesticide by -law and how to achieve and maintain healthy and vibrant lawns, gardens and trees the natural way. Saturday May 28 and Sunday May 29, 2005 10:00 am - 4:00 pm Doors Open at the Brick Works As part of the Doors Open Toronto program, Evergreen will be hosting an event to highlight the Brick Works' natural and cultural heritage and to describe Evergreen's plans to adapt and reuse the site's buildings. FODE will be on hand throughout the event to lead tours of the natural areas of the site and to discuss the ecological significance of and work being undertaken in these and nearby lands throughout the watershed. Sunday May 29, 2005 12 noon - 4:00 pm Mill Pond Park (Mill St. and Trench St., Richmond Hill) Richmond Hill Mill Pond Splash This is a free family focused event to celebrate the headwaters of the Don River. Activities will include native wildlife demonstrations, environmental exhibits, children's activities, music, entertainment and refreshments. For more information or to volunteer for the event please contact Alex Blasko at 416 - 661 -6600 ext. 5280, or by email at ablasko @trca.on.ca. Saturday June 4, 2005 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (373 Cedarvale Ave, East of Woodbine Avenue) Councillor Davis' City Environment Day At the Stan Wadlow Park Clubhouse. FODE will have a table display setup. Sunday June 5, 2005 10:30 am - 1:OOpm Biking through Taylor Massey Park Join FODE in this official Bike Week event to learn more about Taylor Massey Creek with a leisurely bike ride through the park. Begin with a presentation on the green of the ecological significance of the Creek and efforts being undertaken to conserve and restore this portion of the Don watershed. Then follow FODE guides on an interpretive bike tour of Taylor Massey Park, with stops at the most ecologically significant areas along the way. F56 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/05 May 12, 2005 Sunday June 12, 2005 10:00 am - 1:00 pm (Meet at the valley access point by the boulder at the foot of Beechwood Dr.) Bike the Lower Don Join FODE in this official Bike Week event for an interpretive tour of the Lower Don River. Beginning by the Crothers'- Beechwood wetlands and Woodlands, we will follow the course of the river as it makes its way into Lake Ontario. Along the way we will stop at various restoration and stewardship sites to learn more about this intriguing waterway and some of the efforts being undertaken to restore it to some of its former glory. Sunday June 12, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon Chester Subway Station ( Bloor- Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 CaII RiverSides at 416 - 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. Saturday, June 18, 2005 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm Heritage Toronto Brick Works Tour An industrial site since the latter part of the 1800s, the Brick Works is now being transformed into a valley wilderness park. Hear how this site has influenced the history of the area from pre - colonial days to the present. Leader: Tom Brown. The Brick Works is located on the west side of the Bayview extension south of Pottery Road. The walk starts and ends near the entrance to the front parking lot. Sunday June 26, 2005 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Chester Subway Station (Bloor - Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 (in conjunction with Heritage Toronto Call RiverSides at 416 - 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. Sunday September 25, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon Chester Subway Station (Bloor- Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 Call RiverSides at 416 - 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. May 12, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5/05 F57 MEETING DATES DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Meeting # Date Location # 6/05 Thursday June 16, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Thursday July 21, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday September 15, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Thursday October 20, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 5/05 Tuesday May 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Thursday June 9, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Thursday July 14, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday September 8, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Tuesday October 11, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 OUTREACH TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 5/05 Thursday July 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Tuesday September 13, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 4 # 7/05 Thursday October 6, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday November 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 F58 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #5105 May 12, 2005 CHAIR'S TELECONFERENCE Meeting # Date Time # 5/05 Wednesday May 4, 2005 9:00 am # 6/05 Wednesday June 8, 2005 9:00 am # 7/05 Wednesday July 13, 2005 9:00 am # 8/05 Wednesday September 7, 2005 9:00 am # 9/05 Wednesday October 12, 2005 9:00 am # 10/05 Wednesday November 9, 2005 9:00 am ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:00 pm. Deborah Martin -Downs Chair Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #6/05 CTORONTO AND REGION Mr-, onservation for The Living City theDoiI MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/05 June 16, 2005 Page F59 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #6/05, was held in Committee Room #1 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday June 16, 2005. Interim Chair Don Cross called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT Don Cross Interim Chair Cassandra Bach Member Margaret Buchinger Member Stephen Cockle Member Martin German Member Helen Mills Member Carolyn O'Neill Member Janice Palmer Member Nancy Penny Member Mel Plewes Member Ron Shimizu Member Beverley Thorpe Member Tom Waechter Member STAFF Alex Blasko Adele Freeman Aish Ramakrishnan Amy Thurston Planning Technician, Environmental Assessments - York Region Director, Watershed Management Administrative Assistant Don Watershed Resources Planner F60 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/05 June 16, 2005 MINUTES RES. #F28/05- MINUTES TO MEETING #5/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Shimizu Margaret Buchinger THAT the minutes to Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #5/05 be amended as .follows: Resolution #F26/05 was moved by Mel Plewes and seconded by Cassandra Bach. Resolution #F27/05 was moved by Ron Shimizu and seconded by Margaret Buchinger. AND FURTHER THAT the minutes be approved as amended CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS There were no pecuniary interests disclosed. CORRESPONDENCE INCOMING 4.1 Comments in Support of Bill 133 - Environmental Enforcement Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004 Letter to Bob Delaney, Chair of the Standing Committee, Legislative Assembly of Ontario from Lois Griffin, Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance - May 16, 2005 4.2 Comments in Support of Bill 133 - Environmental Enforcement Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004 Letter to Bob Delaney, Chair of the Standing Committee, Legislative Assembly of Ontario from Suzanne Barrett, Co -Chair of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition - May 10, 2005 June 16, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/05 F61 OUTGOING 4.3 Bill 133 - Environmental Enforcement Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004 Letter and comments to Douglas Arnott, Senior Committee Clerk- Committees Branch from Deborah Martin - Downs, Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - May 9, 2005 4.4 Observations on Public Participation in Watershed Planning Prepared by M. E. Plewes, Chair of the Policy and Advocacy Team RES. #F29/05- CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Mel Plewes Beverley Thorpe THAT correspondence items 4.1 to 4.4 be received CARRIED INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project - Component 1, Totten Sims Hubicki Authority Meeting #4/05 5.2 Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project - Component 1, Hydro One Authority Meeting #4/05 5.3 Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project - Component 1, CNR and GO Transit Authority Meeting #4/05 5.4 Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan Authority Meeting #4/05 5.5 Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation Authority Meeting #4/05 5.6 Resurfacing on Don Valley Parkway City of Toronto Planning Division 5.7 Evergreen Commons at the Brick Works Community Feedback Forum, June 21, 2005 F62 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/05 June 16, 2005 5.8 Earl Bales Park Area Stormwater Management Plan & Class Environmental Assessment Open House No.3, June 7, 2005 5.9 Don Valley Corridor Transportation Master Plan Planning and Transportation Committee and Works Committee Report 1, Clause 1 a 5.10 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 Memorandum from Chair to Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/05, June 10, 2005 5.11 Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation at the West Don Stakeholder Meeting, June 14, 2005 Memorandum from Don Cross, Vice - Chair, to members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #6/05, June 16, 2005 RES. #F30/05- INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Nancy Penny Tom Waechter THAT information items 5.1 to 5.11 be received CARRIED COMMITTEE REPORTS MILL POND SPLASH The 7th annual Mill Pond Splash took place on Sunday May 29, 2005 at Mill Pond Park in Richmond Hill. Those council members who attended the event are asked to direct any comments on this year's event, or suggestions for next year to Alex Blasko. A full report on the event can be found on page 131 of the agenda package. Local Richmond Hill Councillor Lynn Foster has expressed an interest in helping to publicize the event next year and to help engage local residents. Stephen Cockle will schedule a meeting for March 2006 to develop a preliminary plan with the planning team and Ms. Foster. June 16, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/05 F63 POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM The Policy and Advocacy Team will continue to pursue the review of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, with the intent of submitting additional comments. Key issues from the Team's first submission that were not addressed include the need for a watershed focus, and the importance of addressing cumulative effects. Any council members interested in providing comments are directed to speak with Beverley Thorpe. RES. #31/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT AMENDMENTS Mel Plewes Janice Palmer THAT the Council approve in principle the re- submission of comments by the Policy and Advocacy Team regarding amendments to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, following Executive approval CARRIED WATERSHED PLAN TEAM The Watershed Plan Team will review the vision statement from Forty Steps to a New Don, and will identify key principles from which to develop a new integrated vision for the watershed plan. It is suggested that an independent writer be hired to write the statement, and that this individual be included in the initial discussions to gain perspective on the Council's intentions. A key objective during the development of the watershed plan will be to engage the broader watershed community and to ensure that the local political representatives are involved. The team will meet to discuss initial thoughts on the consultation strategy, and to clarify the role of TRCA, the Council, and other stakeholders in the development process. TORONTO AND AREA REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN The Toronto RAP is one of the funding partners for the new Toronto Tributaries Study. This study will be implemented to explore the effects of urban centres as point source contaminants for surrounding areas. Funding has been committed for the first year of study, which will use Centreville Creek as a control to analyze the behaviour of key contaminants in the air, water and soil. Carolyn O'Neill will forward a list of questions to be investigated through this study to the, Policy and Advocacy team for their input before commencement. F64 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/05 June 16, 2005 Council members are directed to view the Toronto and Area Remedial Action Plan web site at www.torontorap.ca. UPDATES FROM OTHER WATERSHED GROUPS FRIENDS OF THE DON EAST FODE will be moving forward with a volunteerism initiative to develop a web -based reference centre for environmental groups in the Don. The web area will provide groups with a resource and information sharing tool to help connect with each other and the community. It is suggested that Martin German contact Chris Benjamin at TRCA to coordinate this with other similar initiatives. LOST RIVERS September 2005 marks the 10th anniversary of Lost Rivers. In celebration of this, a number of events have been scheduled: On September 18, 2005 a walk along the top portion of Mud Creek will take place. The walk will follow the Wilson Heights storm trunk sewer to Earl Bales Park, where the group will stop to discuss the proposed stormwater management options for the area. The group will then head to Champlain Place to highlight the butterfly garden, community garden and creek cleanup. On September 25, 2005, the walk will continue south of Highway 401 to the Don Valley Brick Works. On October 2, 2005 Lost Rivers will partner with the Toronto Open Space Committee for another event. NORTH TORONTO GREEN COMMUNITY NTGC will be celebrating their 10th anniversary at Eglinton Park on Saturday June 18, 2005 from 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm. The festivities will include entertainment and refreshments, and all are welcome to attend. NTGC received funding from the City of Toronto through the Community Program for Stormwater Management to expand the Green Garden Visits to include an introduction to stormwater management technologies. The goal is to build on a basic community understanding of the stormwater management problem by highlighting management technologies that can be implemented on private properties. The program is set to be rolled out shortly in the Hogs Hollow area. June 16, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/05 F65 TASK FORCE TO BRING BACK THE DON The Task Force received funding from the City of Toronto through the Community Program for Stormwater Management, which will be used to explore opportunities for public workshops on stormwater management. The plans are currently in the early stages of development, and will focus on home management possibilities. TERRAVIEW - WILLOWFIELD Councillors Norm Kelly and Mike Thompson attended a walk from Highway 401 down to Warden Woods to discuss the state of the creek. It was recognized that there is a need for water flow in the creek, which could be facilitated by opening up the channel under the 401 (which is currently diverted into the sewer system). The walk was successful, and served to generate interest in promoting community awareness and exploring options for reviving the creek. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES CALENDAR OF EVENTS Date / Location Event Description Saturday, June 18, 2005 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm Heritage Toronto Brick Works Tour An industrial site since the latter part of the 1800s, the Brick Works is now being transformed into a valley wilderness park. Hear how this site has influenced the history of the area from pre - colonial days to the present. Leader: Tom Brown. The Brick Works is located on the west side of the Bayview ektension south of Pottery Road. The walk starts and ends near the entrance to the front parking lot. Sunday June 26, 2005 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Chester Subway Station (Bloor- Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 (in conjunction with Heritage Toronto Call RiverSides at 416 - 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. Sunday September 25, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon Chester Subway Station (Bloor- Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 Call RiverSides at 416 - 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. F66 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/05 June 16, 2005 MEETING DATES DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL. Meeting # Date Location # 7/05 Thursday July 21, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday September 15, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Thursday October 20, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 6/05 Thursday July 14, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/05 Thursday September 8, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Tuesday October 11, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Thursday November 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 OUTREACH TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 5/05 Thursday July 7, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/05 Tuesday September 13, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 4 # 7/05 Thursday October 6, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday November 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 June 16, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6/05 F67 CHAIR'S TELECONFERENCE Meeting # Date Time # 7/05 Wednesday July 13, 2005 9:00 am # 8/05 Wednesday September 7, 2005 9:00 am # 9/05 Wednesday October 12, 2005 9:00 am # 10/05 Wednesday November 9, 2005 9:00 am NEW BUSINESS SOUTHBROOK WINE AND FOOD FESTIVAL Southbrook Winery will be holding their annual Wine and Food festival, and may once again offer the Don Council an opportunity to sell tickets for the event. In past years, a portion of the money for each ticket sold by the Council has been donated back for restoration work in the Don. Stephen Cockle will approach Southbrook to discuss this opportunity. It is noted that with Banrock Station Winery coming on board as a key sponsor for Paddle the Don, there may be a conflict with this event. Stephen Cockle will meet with Peter Heinz, Adele Freeman and Nick Foglia to discuss this issue. A report will be brought back to the Council in July. TRCA STAFF TIME It is noted that with the implementation of the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project and the initiation of the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project, Don Watershed Team staff time will be over - allocated for the next few months. Amy Thurston will turn much of her time to these projects to aid Ken Dion, and will consequently be available in only a limited capacity to coordinate the Don Council. It is hoped that new staff will be hired by the fall, however until that time, the Council and sub - committees are asked to conduct as much business as possible electronically in lieu of meetings. Amy Thurston will focus approximately 1 day a week to maintain the function of other Don watershed initiatives. F68 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #6105 June 16, 2005 ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:00 pm. Don Cross Interim Chair /ab Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #7/05 C`e TORONTO AND REGION Y `• onserva tion for The Living City theDoi MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/05 July 21, 2005 Page F69 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #7/05, was held at Adele Freeman's House (129 Hanna Road) on Thursday July 21, 2005. Interim Chair Don Cross called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. PRESENT Don Cross Acting Chair Cassandra Bach Member Stephen Cockle Member Eli Garrett Member Martin German Member Moyra Haney Member Peter Heinz Member Brenda Lucas Member Helen Mills Member James-McArthur Member Carolyn O'Neill Member Douglas Obright Member Janice Palmer Member Nancy Penny Member Mel Plewes Member Ron Shimizu - Member Tom Waechter Member John Wilson Member STAFF Adele Freeman Director, Watershed Management Division Ken Dion Senior Project Manager Deborah Martin -Downs Director, Ecology Division Aish Ramakrishnan Administrative Assistant Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner F70 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/05 July 21, 2005 PRESENTATIONS UPDATE ON EARL BALES PARK AREA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - FROM A DON COUNCIL PERSPECTIVE Peter Heinz, Chair of the Outreach Team provided a brief update on the Plan. Peter reports that a second site walk and open house was held on June 7`h at Earl Bales Park. Margaret Buchinger, Helen Mills, Amy Thurston as well as Peter attended. It appears that the City and consultants have met most of the requests and concerns voiced from previous public consultation sessions and have come up with an acceptable proposal. Part of the Don Valley Golf Course would be reconfigured to allow 5 hectare of ponds. The golf course will also draw from the pond to irrigate portions of the course. Peter congratulated the Council for their involvement in this project and for working with the City and other stakeholder groups to help come up with a solution that everyone could agree on. He pointed out that the opinions and comments provided by the Don Council carries weight in the community and with government agencies and therefore we should continue to be involved in such projects. Members agree that a letter of support should be written by the Council to the Commissioner once the pond design is complete and the Council is satisfied with the final product. MINUTES RES. #F32/05- MINUTES TO MEETING #6/05 AMENDMENT TO MEETING MINUTES The following amendments were made to the minutes for meeting #6/05: Page F65 - Under Updates from Other Watershed Groups Task Force to Bring Back the Don be amended with the following : A meeting of all the groups who received funding from the City of Toronto through the Community Program for Stormwater Management as well as committee members will be convened by the TRCA to assist with information sharing between groups. Toronto Bay Initiative be added with the following: TBI requests a link from the Don web page on the TRCA web site to the TBI web site to assist in publicizing their calendar of events. July 21, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/05 F71 Moved by: Seconded by: Martin German Cassandra Bach THAT the minutes be approved as amended CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS There were no pecuniary interests disclosed. CORRESPONDENCE INCOMING 4.1 Ministry of Environment's Permit to Take Water Letter and comments to Laurel Broten, Minister of the Environment from Lois Griffith, Chair, Humber Watershed Alliance - July 13, 2005 OUTGOING 4.2 Review of Improvements to Ontario's Environmental Assessment Process Letter and comments to Blair Rohaly, Strategic Policy Branch from Mel Plewes, Chair of the Policy and Advocacy Team, Don Watershed Regeneration Council - July 4, 2005. RES. #F33/05- CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS- Moved by: Moyra Haney Seconded by: Janice Palmer THAT correspondence items 4.1 and 4.2 be received CARRIED INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 Evergreen Commons at the Brick Works Schedule of Public Tours F72 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/05 July 21, 2005 5.2 Evergreen Commons Environmental Community Feedback Forum, June 21, 2005 Memorandum from Don Cross, Acting- Chair, Don Watershed Regeneration Council, to Members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council #7/05, July 21, 2005 5.3 Port Lands Community Advisory Committee Meeting Memorandum from Don Cross, Acting- Chair, Don Watershed Regeneration Council, to Members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council #7/05, July 21, 2005 5.4 Community Fisheries and Wildlife Involvement Program Project Approvals for 2005 Letter to Brian Denney, Chief Administrative Officer, Toronto and Region Conservation - June 22, 2005 5.5 Picking Up The Pace to Restoration - A Retrospective and Prospective Look At The Don River A funding request by Pollution Probe Memorandum from Adele Freeman, Director, Watershed Management, to Chair and Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/05, July 15, 2005 5.6 Revision of the West Nile Virus Standing Water Complaints for TRCA Memorandum from Deborah Martin- Downs, Director, Ecology, to Chair and Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/05, July 15, 2005 5.7 Toronto and Remedial Action Plan (RAP) 2005/2006 Work Plan Memorandum from Adele Freeman, Director, Watershed Management, to Chair and Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/05, July 15, 2005 5.8 Wetland Habitat Fund Memorandum from Adele Freeman, Director, Watershed Management, to Chair and Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/05, July 15, 2005 5.9 Spills Within the Toronto and Region Conservation Jurisdiction Memorandum from Adele Freeman, Director, Watershed Management, to Chair and Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/05, July 15, 2005 5.10 City of Toronto Naturalization Workshops ADDED INFORMATION ITEM East Don Barrier Mitigation Update Ken Dion informed the Council that approval for the mitigation of the instream barrier located near Donalda Golf Course at York Mills Road and Don Mills Road has been received from Transport Canada. Construction /modification of this barrier to allow for fish passage will begin in August and should take approximately three weeks to complete. It was suggested that the Council provide a letter of thanks to Transport Canada and specifically to the staff member who assisted in obtaining the approvals for this work. y July 21, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/05 F73 RES. #F34/05- INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Carolyn O'Neill Peter Heinz THAT information items 5.1 to 5.10 plus the added item be received CARRIED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION UPDATE ON DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL SPONSORSHIP CONFLICTS A potential conflict between key sponsors Banrock Station Winery and Southbrook Winery was identified at the previous Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting. In order to address the situation before it became problematic, a meeting was set up between Adele Freeman, Nick Foglia, Stephen Cockle, and Phil Goodwin to discuss the issue. As a result of their 10th anniversary celebrations, the Southbrook Wine and Food Festival is not being conducted this year. As such, there is no longer conflict present. Members agreed that the openness with which the situation was handled was appropriate and the same should be done for future situations. Members also agreed that if issues are handled in this manner, there is really only a conflict if one of the parties has a concern (for instance an overlapping project), at which time the situation can be dealt with in an acceptable manner. COMMITTEE REPORTS POLICY & ADVOCACY TEAM Comments on the draft Agreements to implement the Great Lakes Charter Annex are due on August 29, 2005. Ron Shimizu attended the Public Information Meeting held in Toronto on July 14th. The Policy and Advocacy Team will be working together to finalize and submit comments on behalf of the Don Council to the MNR by the August deadline. TORONTO AND AREA REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN It is reported that heightened advocacy may be required to ensure that funding and resources in support of the RAP are continued. It is suggested that the Don Council might want to assist by doing some advocacy in support of the RAP. The RAP Team will put together a F74 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/05 July 21, 2005 communication strategy which will include a possible role for the Don Council. This strategy should be finalized by the end of the summer and will be presented to the Council. UPDATES FROM OTHER DON WATERSHED GROUPS TORONTO BAY INITIATIVE Bill McMartin has been announced as the new Executive Director of TBI. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES UPCOMING MEETING DATES . DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Meeting # Date Location # 8/05 Thursday September 15, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Thursday October 20, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 . POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM • Meeting # Date Location # 7/05 Thursday September 8, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Tuesday October 11, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/05 Thursday November 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 July 21, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/05 F75 OUTREACH TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 6/05 Tuesday September 13, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 4 # 7/05 Thursday October 6, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday November 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 CHAIR'S TELECONFERENCE . Meeting # Date Time # 8/05 Wednesday September 7, 2005 9:00 am # 9/05 Wednesday October 12, 2005 9:00 am # 10/05 Wednesday November 9, 2005 9:00 am CALENDAR OF EVENTS Date / Location Event Description Monday, July 25, 2005 6:30 pm - 9:00 pm Toronto Fire Academy, Auditorium (895 Eastern Ave.) Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Public Working Session #1 This working session will be conducted to provide the public with the opportunity to identify any other issues or studies that should be addressed as part of the EA. For more information contact Aish Ramakrishnan at 416- 661 -6600 extn. 5280, aramakrishnan @trca.on.ca Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:30 pm Meet at parkette at the NW corner of Don Roadway and Villiers St. Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Site Walk A site walk designed to help visualize the challenges and opportunities associated with this project. For more information contact Aish Ramakrishnan at 416 - 661 -6600 ext. 5280, aramakrishnan @trca.on.ca F76 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/05 July 21, 2005 Date / Location Event Description Tuesday, August 23, 2005 6:30 pm - 9:00 pm Ralph Thornton Centre, 2nd Floor (765 Queen St. E.) Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Public Working Session #2 This working session will be held to provide the public with the opportunity to suggest additional alternatives to be considered as part of the EA. For more information contact Aish Ramakrishnan at 416- 661 -6600 ext. 5280, aramakrishnan @trca on.ca Wednesday, September 7th, 2005 6:30 pm - 9:00 pm Ralph Thornton Centre, 2nd Floor (765 Queen St. E.) Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Public Working Session #3 This working session will be held to provide the public with the opportunity to suggest how the alternatives will be evaluated and to suggest how the public should be consulted during the EA. For more information contact Aish Ramakrishnan at 416- 661 -6600 ext. 5280, aramakrishnan @trca.on.ca Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm East Don Parkland Fall Wildflower Walk To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416 - 221 -3954, pcgoodwin @sympatico.ca. Sunday, September 25, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon Chester Subway Station (Bloor- Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 Call RiverSides at 416 - 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. Saturday, October 1, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon East Don Parkland Tree Planting To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416 - 221 -3954, pcgoodwin @sympatico.ca. Tuesday, October 25, 2005 6:00 pm - 9 pm Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Public Forum #2 The purpose of the 2nd Public Forum is to present the results from the working session meetings to the public and to present the EA ToR to the public. For more information contact Aish Ramakrishnan at 416- 661 -6600 ext. 5280, aramakrishnan @trca.on.ca July 21, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/05 F77 NEW BUSINESS SATILLITE IMAGERY Members are encouraged to visit www.earth.google.com This is a new interactive website where you can view satellite imagery of anywhere in the world, including the Don River. A Pentium 4 computer or equivalent is required in order to run the program. THE WATER STRATEGY EXPERT PANELS REPORT The Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal is expected to release the Water Strategy Expert Panels Report entitled Watertight: The Case for Change in Ontario's Water and Waste Water Sector tomorrow, July 22 "d. The report is expected to make recommendations on how to ensure that water rates are affordable, that water systems are financially sustainable and that needed investments in water and wastewater systems can be made. This item has been referred to the Policy and Advocacy Team to determine if the Don Council should provide comment. DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT (DMNP) UPCOMING EVENTS TRCA will be holding two public consultation events in support of the DMNP EA. Don Council members are encouraged to attend the events below. It is noted that details of all DMNP public consultation events are posted on the TRCA website. Public Working Session #1 This event will be held on July 25th at the Toronto Fire Academy, 895 Eastern Ave. At 6:30 pm. The purpose of this working session is to provide the public with the opportunity to identify any other issues or studies that should be addressed as part of the EA. Site Walk of the Mouth of the Don This site walk will be held on July 26th and will begin at 6:30 pm at the parkette at the corner of Don Roadway and Villiers Street (170 Villiers Street). Participants will visit eight information stations to learn about the existing conditions and various challenges associated with implementing this project. Topics which will be presented include: Fish and Aquatic Habitat, Flora and Fauna, Flood Protection, Recreation, Soil Remediation, Infrastructure, Commissioners Park and River Management Issues. PRESENTATION TO DEBORAH MARTIN -DOWNS On behalf of the Don Council, Don Cross presented former Council Chair Deborah Martin - Downs with a small gift in appreciation of her past work as the Chair of the Council. F78 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #7/05 July 21, 2005 ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 7:45 pm. Don Cross Acting Chair /ar Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #8/05 TORONTO AND REGION 'v onserva tion for The Living City theDon" September 29, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #8/05 F79 MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #8/05 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #8/05 was held in Committee Room #1 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday September 29, 2005. Interim Chair Don Cross called the meeting to order at 6.30 p.m. PRESENT Don Cross Acting Chair Margaret Buchinger Member Stephen Cockle Member Tanya Dubar Attending on behalf of Member (Sandra Yeung Racco) Martin German Member Moyra Haney Member Peter Heinz Member Roslyn Moore Member Carolyn O'Neill Member Douglas Obright Member Janice Palmer Member Mel Plewes Member Ron Shimizu Member Beverley Thorpe Member Tom Waechter Member GUESTS Andrew McCammon Taylor Massey Project Nicole Worsley Environmental Studies, York University STAFF Alex Blasko Planning Technician, Environmental Assessments - York Region Sameer Dhalla Water Management Coordinator Adele Freeman Director, Watershed Management Division Michelle Herzog Administrative Assistant Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner September 29, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #8/05 PRESENTATIONS STORM AND FLOOD EVENT OF AUGUST 19, 2005 IN THE DON WATERSHED Sameer Dhalla, Water Management Coordinator for TRCA, provided a presentation on the storm and flood event of August 19, 2005. F80 This storm is believed to have been a greater than 100 -year event. Sameer summarized the actions taken by TRCA during this flooding event (as per TRCA policy), including issuing a Flood Safety Bulletin (potential flooding), issuing a Flood Advisory (flooding expected), issuing a Flood Warning (extensive flooding occurring) and cancelling the Flood Warning the following morning when it was clear that no further flooding would occur. Photos of various areas in the GTA that experienced flooding and flood damage were shown, with a concentration on areas within the Don and Highland Creek watersheds. Don Watershed Regeneration Council Comments Comment (M. Buchinger) What is TRCA's liability for slope collapse, and are you shoring up areas at risk? Response (A. Freeman) Our funding comes from the municipalities. We have an erosion control program; however, Peel, York, and Durham regions do not provide funds for erosion control within their jurisdictions. The City of Toronto has realized the need for this program and has provided funding for it. We,identified many of the sites that did experience flooding to the City on previous occasions. The City has very recently hired consultants to address the geomorphology issues in Highland Creek. The TRCA has a good program, but it is dependent on funding. (S. Dhalla) We have done hydrology modeling in this area and there are plans to share the results with the City. Comment (B. Thorpe) Are you able to tease out from these models information on storm management systems upstream, td help in setting priorities for types of stormwater management? Response (S. Dhalla) Some suggestions were included on flood control measures. The focus has been on water quality; water quantity is a difficult matter. There is little room available to hold massive amounts of water. Minor storm sewers in Toronto had been built for 2 -year events. In newer suburbs, they are now built to 5 -year event standards. The newest developments may be built to 10 -year event levels, but above this quantity of water, flooding occurs. Climate change is also a factor. Every year we see fewer flood events but they are greater in intensity. Comment (T. Dubar) Councillor Racco wishes to express concern regarding flooding in the City of Vaughan. There is a lack of maintenance on TRCA -owned land here. The damage that occurred may have been due to this. Where shall we September 29, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #8/05 F81 direct calls from Vaughan residents regarding this? Response (D. Cross) The question should be directed to TRCA staff directly. This Council meets to discuss issues affecting the Don watershed, and TRCA staff participate. (S. Dhalla) The TRCA has met with Vaughan; some discussion has occurred on this. (A Freeman) We cannot address this issue without knowledge of the property address. Some land in the region owned by TRCA is under management agreement with the City of Vaughan for maintenance issues. Sameer agreed to speak with Tanya Dubar later on this issue. Comment (A. McCammon) Is the TRCA looking at storm pattern changes from pond sediments? Response (S. Dhalla) Increased flows won't affect sediments; sediment generally accumulates during smaller events. High intensity events tend to carry sediments away. Sediment build -up requires that ponds be cleaned out approximately every 10 - 20 years. Many ponds were built about 10 - 20 years ago and now require this maintenance. Comment (S. Cockle) The storm damage to the concrete occurred within a channelized section of the Don. Is this evidence that we should naturalize within this area? Response (S. Dhalla)The concrete in this area was in place in order to increase water conveyance. If you increase vegetation in the area, you decrease flow which could lead to increased flooding unless there is sufficient land area available to contain the water. A "semi- engineered" approach may be possible. (A. Freeman) The site in the photo referred to here is located right under Don Mills Road at York Mills. The road abutments there may continue to require "hard engineering" to protect them. Adele stated that the damage from this storm event in the Toronto area is currently estimated at $400 million. Most of this damage was from sewer backups. It was also noted that there were no serious injuries or loss of life as a result of the storm. Comment (M. Plewes) Is there anything that the Don Council can do during flooding to help document the event? Response (A. Freeman) Yes, take photos. Be sure to provide a reference for water height. Any photos may be sent to Amy with location, time, and as much information as possible. It was noted that members taking photos need to consider their safety first, and should not enter areas while flood waters continue to rise; or areas which are unstable or hazardous. September 29, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #8/05 F82 UPDATES ON LOWER DON RIVER WEST REMEDIAL FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT AND DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT Adele Freeman provided an update on the Lower Don EAs. The Ministry of Environment had very recently sent word to the TRCA that the Class EA for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project was approved. Activity will begin in the area in November 2005. Design teams are in place. We have held a number of public meetings on the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Individual EA. The next Public Forum meeting is schedule for Monday November 7, at Metro Hall, 55 John Street, Toronto, Rooms 308/309. The Open House will begin at 6:30 pm, and the meeting at 7:00 pm. We are reflecting on what we've learned against the constraints we need to deal with. A draft Terms of Reference will be available for review in December 2005. Ron Shimizu asked whether the effects of the recent flood event would have been impacted had the Don mouth already been naturalized. Adele responded that there was no flooding of the lower Don south of Queen Street. The flood protection is being developed for storms of greater intensity than experienced on Aug. 19, 2005. MINUTES RES. #F35/05- MINUTES TO MEETING #7/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Moyra Haney Peter Heinz THAT the minutes of meeting #7/05, held on July 21, 2005 be approved, upon minor revisions by Adele Freeman CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS There were no pecuniary interests disclosed. CORRESPONDENCE OUTGOING September 29, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #8/05 F83 4.1 Great Lakes Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement - Comments by the Don Watershed Regeneration Council Letter to Paula Thompson, Senior Policy Advisor, MNR from Peter Heinz, Chair of the Outreach Team, Don Watershed Regeneration Council - August 29, 2005. Note that due to fire alarms at the North York Civic Centre at 7:53 pm, Committee Room #1 was evacuated. All Council members, guests, and TRCA staff reconvened in the Food Court at the City Centre at 8:00 pm. RES. #F36/05- CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Bev Thorpe Mel Plewes THAT correspondence items 4.1 be received CARRIED INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 Great Lakes Annex Agreement Report to Conservation Ontario Council - Committee of the Whole from Larry Field, TRCA and Nicole Carter, Conservation Ontario - August 12, 2005 5.2 Protecting Our Great Lakes Basin Waters Presentation to the Conservation Ontario Board of Directors - August 29, 2005 5.3 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Community Working Session # 2 - August 23, 2005 Memorandum from Margaret Buchinger 5.4 EcoAction Application Reminder Submission deadline - October 1, 2005 5.5 Town of Markham Small Streams Study Public update 5.6 West Don Lands Stakeholder Meeting - August 9, 2005 Memorandum from Mel Plewes, Chair of the Policy and Advocacy Team 5.7 Update - Bus Rapid Transit: Downsview Station to York University Memorandum from Steve Heuchert, TRCA 5.8 Preliminary Report on Storm and Flooding, August 19, 2005 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/05, held on September 23, 2005 September 29, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #8/05 F84 5.9 Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements (June 2005) on Water Taking and Diversions Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/05, held on September 23, 2005 5.10 Toronto Water 2005 Multi -year Business Plan Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/05, held on September 23, 2005 5.11 West Don Lands Implementation Update - Public Meeting, September 21, 2005 Memorandum from Don Cross, Vice - Chair, to Members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #8105, September 29, 2005 5.12 Waterside Marsh Master Plan Public Open House Notice of Public Open House, November 15, 2005 5.13 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Review Public Meetings Notice from the International Joint Commission of Upcoming Public Consultation Meetings 5.14 Todmorden Mills Community Workshop Notice from the City of Toronto of Upcoming Community Workshop - November 1, 2005 It was noted that Item 5.12 contained an incorrect date (corrected above), and that a corrected version of the flyer would be forwarded to members. RES. #F36/05- INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Mel Piewes Moyra Haney THAT information items 5.1 to 5.14 be received, subject to the changes to item 5.12 noted above CARRIED COMMITTEE REPORTS POLICY & ADVOCACY TEAM Mel Piewes reported that the Policy and Advocacy Team worked over the summer on several issues: Watertight (the report of the Water Strategy Expert Panel) , DogPatch, and Wakestock. A response to the MPIR regarding Watertight is being prepared for review by the team. Adele confirmed that the DogPatch fence has come down and the off -leash area is being redesigned. No action was recommended after a review of the Wakestock festival. Don Cross indicated that he would attend any upcoming meetings regarding the East Bay Front Precinct Plan. Other interested members are encouraged to attend. September 29, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #8/05 F85 UPDATES FROM OTHER DON WATERSHED GROUPS TAYLOR MASSEY PROJECT Andrew McCammon reported on the first full year of operations of the Taylor Massey Project. FRIENDS OF THE DON EAST Martin German provided copies of the FODE newsletter, and will provide an update at the next Don Council meeting on a volunteer system initiative for which FODE recently received funding. TASK FORCE TO BRING BACK THE DON Janice Palmer announced TFBBD's upcoming event on Oct. 1, the first of four workshops (with three to come in the spring).This hands -on workshop will educate participants about lot -level stormwater management . A planting event at the Todmorden Wildflower preserve will also accompany the workshop. In addition, Janice Palmer requested contact information for other groups that received City of Toronto funding for Community Stormwater Management initiatives. Amy Thurston agreed to follow up on this issue after the meeting. TORONTO BAY INITIATIVE Moyra Haney announced the TBI's Oct. 1 bike tour of Toronto Islands. NORTH TORONTO GREEN COMMUNITY Margaret Buchinger announced the upcoming NTGC meeting with City officials on stormwater management for the Film Centre Project and the suggestion that a current University of Guelph study on the subject will be of interest. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES UPCOMING MEETING DATES DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Meeting # Date Location # 9/05 Thursday October 20, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/05 Thursday November 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 September 29, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #8/05 F86 POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 7/05 Tuesday October 11, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/05 Thursday November 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 OUTREACH TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 4/05 Thursday October 6, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/05 Thursday November 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 CHAIR'S TELECONFERENCE Meeting # Date Time # 9/05 Wednesday October 12, 2005 9:00 am # 10/05 Wednesday November 9, 2005 9:00 am September 29, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #8/05 CALENDAR OF EVENTS F87 Date / Location Event Description Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm East Don Parkland Fall Wildflower Walk To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416 -221- 3954, pcgoodwin @sympatico.ca. Sunday, September 25, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon Chester Subway Station (Bloor- Danforth line) Water in the City Walk 2005 Call RiverSides at 416 - 868 -1983 to register. Special group walks by appointment. Saturday, October 1, 2005 10:00 am - 12 noon East Don Parkland Tree Planting To organize a planting event with your office or friends, or for more information on an event, contact Phil Goodwin at 416 -221- 3954, pcgoodwin @sympatico.ca. Monday, November 7, 2005 6:030 pm - 9:30 pm Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Public Forum #2 The purpose of the 2 "d Public Forum is to present the results from the working session meetings to the public and to present the EA ToR to the public. For more information contact Michelle Herzog at 416- 661 -6600 ext. 5280, mherzog @trca.on.ca NEW BUSINESS CHARLES SAURIOL DINNER The 12th Annual Charles Sauriol Environmental Dinner is being held at the Pearson Convention Centre on Thursday October 27th. Ralph Nader is this year's keynote speaker. September 29, 2005 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #8/05 F88 If you are planning to attend, please contact Waneeta Robertson (416- 661 -6600 ext.5276) at the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto as soon as possible to purchase a tickets. Ticket price is $150. ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 8:15 pm. Don Cross Acting Chair /mv Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #9/05 C ovnsera on for The Living City theDon MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #9/05 October 20, 2005 Page F89 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #9/05 was held in Committee Room #1 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday October 20, 2005. Interim Chair Don Cross called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. PRESENT Don Cross Acting Chair Stephen Cockle Member Jane Darragh Member Martin German Member Carolyn O'Neill Member Douglas Obright Member Janice Palmer Member Mel Plewes Member Ron Shimizu Member GUESTS Rod Anderton Toronto Water, Environmental Monitoring and Protection Andrew McCammon Taylor Massey Project Nicole Worsley Environmental Studies, York University STAFF Adele Freeman Kelly Montgomery Amy Thurston Michelle Vanderwel (nee Herzog) Director, Watershed Management Division Remedial Action Plan Project Manager Don Watershed Resources Planner Don Watershed Technical Clerk October 20, 2005 PRESENTATION Page F90 Introduction to Environmental Monitoring & Protection and Update on Outfall Monitoring Program as it Relates to Taylor- Massey Creek Rod Anderton, Acting By -law Enforcement Supervisor, Environmental Monitoring and Protection, Toronto Water provided a presentation on the work that his group is doing to address the current water pollution problem in Taylor- Massey Creek. He also provided some background on the responsibilities of his department, the City of Toronto's pollution prevention program and the updates to the sewer -use bylaw. The primary duties of the Environmental Monitoring and Protection department at Toronto Water are to monitor industrial discharges, inspect industrial sites, and respond to reports of spills. Rod provided some background information on bacterial count standards (counts of 100 E co /i per 100 ml sample result in beach closures in the City of Toronto). Rod also detailed the range of possible and actual fines for companies found guilty of causing a spill. The presentation then focussed on the outfall program currently being conducted on Taylor - Massey Creek. The location of all outfalls into Taylor- Massey Creek and their sources are being mapped. During the summer, students were able to survey the locations of all outfalls up to approximately Pharmacy Avenue, where the creek begins to turn northward. City staff are now sampling outfalls discharging flow during dry weather. Outfalls with bacterial counts up to 3,000 times the levels at which beach closures occur have been noted. However, these outfalls generally had very low flows during the measurement period, such that the effect of any one outfall on Taylor- Massey Creek may be small. It is the combined effect of all discharging outfalls that is a concern. City staff are hoping to implement similar initiatives to other watersheds on a priority basis. Don Watershed Regeneration Council Comments Comment (K. Montgomery) Does closing a beach for one day require that it be closed for the next day? Response Not necessarily. Although the average closure period is two days, the length of time depends on the beach conditions. Comment (D. Cross) What are the typical fines for spills? Response Typically, $5,000 to $10,000 per offense. The largest fine to date was $24,000 for a company with two previous offenses and the measured level of copper in the spill being 3000 times the limit allowed. Comment (J. Palmer) What happens in the case of the spill originating from a contractor working at a private residence? Response The contractor would be responsible; however, the homeowner could also be held liable. Witnesses to the event who are willing to testify in court are October 20, 2005 Page F91 required before fines could be levied. Comment (S. Cockle) Do you find that violations are typically due to ignorance or are willful? Response There are no records kept on this, but we find that ignorance is rare in industry. People often believe that catch basins flow to treatment plants. Most catch basins do not flow to treatment plants in Toronto and none do in rural areas. Under the sewer -use bylaw, currently if a homeowner is found to be washing their car with soap that drains to the catch basin, we can issue a warning. However, we will be beginning an awareness program soon that will involve ticketing, with fines of up to $250 after a first warning. Comment (J. Palmer) When you use the dye test (placing dye in private toilets to find illegal hook -ups to the storm sewer system), are homeowners obligated to allow you access for this? Response No, homeowners are not. We can obtain a warrant; however, there are usually other places testing can occur. We are entitled to enter industrial sites without permission. Comment (S. Cockle) Were there many outfalls not in your records that tested at very high contamination levels? Response There were some. One should have been in the database but may have been misnamed. Updating the database and standardizing names will allow us to know the precise location of concern and will speed up response to reports of spills. Comment (M. Plewes) There are a large number of sewersheds requiring monitoring; how do you set priorities? Response Taylor- Massey was the first to be surveyed as a result of a red dye found to be discharged into the creek from a storm sewer in April 2005. There is a process in place to start prioritizing other areas. We estimate that there are 2,800 outfalls in Toronto and have set a goal for sampling and surveying all of them within five years. Comment O. Shimizu) Would coliform be a key driver for surveys? Response E. co//has an impact of its own, as well as being an indicator of other problems. Some strains of the bacteria can survive for weeks or months, resurfacing at beaches, for instance. We test for E. co/ibecause the test method is quick and it indicates a problem with the sewer. Comment (M. Plewes) Do you test for pharmaceuticals? Response No, we are more concerned with addressing the source of contamination as opposed to the types of contaminants. Comment (D. Cross) The Don Council is concerned with water quality in the Don October 20, 2005 Page F92 watershed; to what extent would it be helpful for us to support your efforts? Would letter- writing be helpful? Response More enforcement officers would mean that we could do more. Our budget has already been approved but additional funds may be available. Support is always helpful. Comment (A. Freeman) Could you clarify what went through Toronto Council? Is it to finish Taylor- Massey by next year? Response Council asked for a plan to finish Taylor- Massey by June 2006. Also, a plan for remediation is to be ready for end -2006. Complete sampling and surveys of the City outfalls are to be completed with 5 years. Comment (A. Freeman) Will funds for this plan divert funding from other projects? Response Toronto Water is funded through homeowners' water bills. These bills will need to be increased, as additional funds are required for supply and treatment of drinking water. Our department is but one aspect of that. Comment (A. Freeman) Are costs for remediation tracked on a sewer -by -sewer basis? Response I cannot answer that, since our department is not responsible for remediation. We do track the time that we spend on a given incident in this manner. Comment (M. Plewes) Is it possible for a citizen to easily access information and maps of sewersheds? Also, what are the Tong -range plans for monitoring? In Chicago, the City can contact individual homeowners to tell them to hold off on water use during storm events- do you see this as the future for Toronto? Response Toronto Water can accommodate public requests to receive such documents, and do a search for them. We work during dry weather but there is a wet weather section to our department. Through the WWF initiative, Toronto is trying to intercept combined overflows. An example is the tanks that intercept overflow and allow solids to settle out and be routed to Ashbridges Bay, with the remaining water treated (by UV) before release to the lake. WWF staff are aware of programs being used in Chicago. Don Cross thanked Rod Anderton for his presentation and suggested that a letter of support be sent by the DWRC and that the Policy and Advocacy Team be responsible for drafting this letter. THAT Rod Anderton be thanked for his presentation CARRIED MINUTES RES. #F38/05- MINUTES TO MEETING #8/05 October 20, 2005 Page F93 Moved by: Seconded by Martin German Janice Palmer THAT the minutes of meeting #8/05, held on September 29, 2005 be approved CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS There were no pecuniary interests disclosed. CORRESPONDENCE INCOMING 4.1 Warden Corridor Land Use Planning Study Submission by the Taylor Massey Project to City of Toronto Planning and Transportation Committee, October 4, 2005 Andrew McCammon, Taylor Massey Project, provided an update on this correspondence item. The City of Toronto's Planning and Transportation Committee received the presentation warmly and directed the issue for action to the Director of Parks and Recreation. OUTGOING No items RES. # F39/05- Moved by: Seconded by: CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Janice Palmer Jane Darragh THAT correspondence item 4.1 be received CARRIED INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 Report on Progress and Findings from the Storm Outfall Monitoring Program in Taylor - Massey Creek October 20, 2005 Page F94 Toronto Staff Report to Toronto Works Committee from General Manager Toronto Water - September 21, 2005 5.2 Spadina Subway Extension Stakeholder Agency Consultation TTC Report- October 6, 2005 5.3 Integration of Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation into Municipal Policy and Programs Memorandum from Brian Denney, CAO Toronto and Region Conservation, to Chair and Members of the Watershed Advisory Board Meeting #4/05, September 23, 2005 5.4 York - Durham Sanitary Sewer Projects Memorandum from Carolyn Woodland, Director, Planning and Development, Toronto and Region Conservation, to Chair and Members of the Sustainable Communities Board Meeting #4/05, October 14, 2005 5.5 News Release and Consultation Guide, Toronto World Expo Bid Public meetings, October 14, 17, and 20, 2005 5.6 Public Open House for Evergreen Commons Public notice, November 29 and December 1, 2005 5.7 Public Forum #2, Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Protection Project Public notice, November 7, 2005 5.8 Bullfrog Power Green Electricity Contract Memorandum from James Dillane, Director, Finance and Business Services, Toronto and Region Conservation, to Chair and Members of the Business Excellence Advisory Board Meeting #4/05, September 23, 2005 ITEM 5.2 - SPADINA SUBWAY EXTENSION STAKEHOLDER AGENCY CONSULTATION It was noted that in members' agenda packages, only the public newsletter was available. Hard copies of the full report (in colour) were available to the Don Council members at this meeting. ITEM 5.4 - YORK - DURHAM SANITARY SEWER PROJECTS Janice Palmer asked whether the Don Council had sent a letter on the sanitary sewer project. Carolyn O'Neill and Amy Thurston confirmed that no letter had been sent. Janice Palmer will email a letter from John Wilson and the TFBBD on this issue to Mel Plewes so that the Policy and Advocacy Team can discuss at their next meeting whether the DWRC should provide comment on this project. RES. # F40/05- INFORMATION ITEMS October 20, 2005 Page F95 Moved by: Seconded by Douglas Obright Jane Darragh THAT information items 5.1 to 5.8 be received CARRIED Editor's Note: The date of the Public Forum for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project (Item 5.7) has been rescheduled. The meeting will now take place Tuesday January 10, 2006 at 6:30 pm with an Open House at 6:00 pm. The location remains the same. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION PROPOSED TOUR OF THE SOUTH END OF THE DON WATERSHED Amy stated that a long- standing Action Item of the Council was a tour of points of interest in the south end of the Don watershed. This was discussed at the last Outreach Team Meeting. It was agreed that before organizing such an event, the Council should be canvassed to determine their interest and availability. This event could also be an exercise for building interest in the Council and soliciting potential members for the next term beginning in 2007. A date of Saturday November 26, 2005 (in the morning) was proposed. Canvassing the members that were currently present (nine), five stated that they would be willing and able to attend that day. An email will be sent by Amy to all members to determine whether they are able to attend the event. Janice Palmer stated that the TFBBD had held a similar tour. She cautioned that a big time commitment was needed, as their tour required four hours. Travel time between sites must be taken into account. It would be helpful to include both sites that represent success of rehabilitation efforts and problem sites. Don suggested that members bring guests who may be interested in serving on the Don Council during the next term. Adele suggested that at least ten people should be committed to attend before planning will move forward on this. COMMITTEE REPORTS POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM Amy Thurston reported on the Policy and Advocacy Team's last meeting. The team discussed whether the Don Council should be involved with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. It was suggested that the DWRC request participation in the Special Issues Working Group and suggest that one of the issues they address is local watershed management. Ron Shimizu is drafting a response for review an finalization by the Policy and Advocacy Team and submission to the IJC by the Nov. 30`" deadline. October 20, 2005 Page F96 The team also discussed the WaterTight Report, and are preparing a response to the MPIR on this report. OUTREACH TEAM Janice Palmer reported on the Outreach Team's last meeting. Attention was brought to item 7.0 in the minutes of the Outreach Team meeting (page 69 in the agenda package). The Dog Patch fence had not been removed as reported at the last Don Council meeting. Rather, it had been padlocked. Someone then cut the lock off. The City plans to chain the fence closed and will continue to work to resolve this issue. TORONTO AND AREA REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN GENERAL UPDATE Kelly Montgomery, TRCA, reported on recent activities on the RAP. A mailout was sent to all elected officials with an update on the RAP. There is also a new RAP website at: httq: / /www.torontorap.ca Older documents and new initiatives will be posted here. The RAP team is also corresponding with scientists who monitor and collect data in this area, and will be compiling the results of these surveys into a report. In two weeks, the RAP team is meeting with the MNR, MOE, and Environment Canada to discuss future funding. UPDATES FROM OTHER DON WATERSHED GROUPS TASK FORCE TO BRING BACK THE DON Janice Palmer reported that the presentation to be given by Rod Anderton, City of Toronto, to the Don Council this evening was given to TFBBD the previous evening, and that the Task Force found it to be quite informative. Also, one more planting is planned for this season, at the Don Valley Brick Works on Saturday Oct 22, 2005 at 10:00 am. TAYLOR MASSEY PROJECT Andrew McCammon gave an update on TMP's activities. The event held the previous week by TMP allowed them to surpass the 1,000 participants (overall) mark. October 20, 2005 Page F97 ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES CALENDAR OF EVENTS Date / Location Event Description Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:00 pm . Charles Sauriol Environmental Dinner Pearson Convention Centre, 2638 Steeles Ave. East, Brampton. This annual event celebrates the great conservationist and visionary Charles Sauriol, C.M. Tickets: $150, Waneeta at (416) 661 -6600, ext. 5276, or e-mail info @charlessauriol.ca. Tuesday, November 1, 2005 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Todmorden Mils Community Consultation Workshop 67 Pottery Road, Toronto RSVP: (416) 396 -2819, or e-mail todmorden@toronto.ca Monday, November 7, 2005 6:30 pm - 9:30 pm (Please note that this meeting has been rescheduled for Tuesday January 10, 2006) Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Public Forum #2 Metro Hall, 55 John Street, Rooms 308/309, Toronto. Results from the first public forum and three community working sessions held throughout the summer of 2005 will be presented. The public will be given the opportunity to discuss and provide feedback regarding the content of the previous public consultation meetings in the draft EA ToR. For more information contact Michelle Herzog Vanderwel at 416- 661 -6600 ext. 5280, mvanderwel @trca.on.ca October 20, 2005 Page F98 Date / Location Event Description Wednesday, November 9, 2005 International Joint Commission Canada and 7:00 pm the U.S.- Great Lakes Water Quality NYCC Committee Room 1 Agreement Public meeting Toronto City Hall, 100 Queen Street West, City Council Chambers, Toronto Tuesday, November 15, 2005 Bartley Smith Greenway Public Open House 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Council Chambers, Vaughan Civic Centre, 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive, Vaughan. For more information contact 416- 661 -6600 ext. 5668. UPCOMING MEETING DATES DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Meeting # Date Location # 10/05 Thursday November 17, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 8/05 Thursday November 10, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 OUTREACH TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 5/05 Thursday November 3, 2005 NYCC Committee Room 1 October 20, 2005 Page F99 CHAIR'S TELECONFERENCE Meeting # Date Time # 10/05 Wednesday November 9, 2005 9:00 am NEW BUSINESS Adele noted that a new coordinator had been hired to work on the integrated Don Watershed Plan. ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 8:35 pm. Don Cross Acting Chair /mv Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING #10/05 CTORONTO AND REGION "\r, onser for The Living City the�oir MEETING OF THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #10/05 November 17, 2005 Page F100 The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #10/05 was held in Committee Room #1 at the North York Civic Centre, on Thursday November 17, 2005. Interim Chair Don Cross called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. PRESENT Don Cross Acting Chair Margaret Buchinger Member Carmela Canzonieri Member Stephen Cockle Member Jane Darragh Member Martin German Member Peter Heinz Member Douglas Obright Member Janice Palmer Member Mel Plewes Member Ron Shimizu Member Beverley Thorpe Member Tom Waechter Member GUESTS Sue Ann Laking Guest Steven Peck Green Roofs for Healthy Cities Roger Powley Toronto Field Naturalists Nicole Worsley Environmental Studies, York University STAFF Adele Freeman Director, Watershed Management Division Janet Ivey Don Watershed Planning Project Manager Gavin Miller Field Biologist, Resource Science Amy Thurston Don Watershed Resources Planner Michelle Vanderwel (nee Herzog) Don Watershed Technical Clerk November 17, 2005 PRESENTATION Green Roof Infrastructure and the Potential Role of the Conservation Authority Page F101 Steven Peck, President of Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, provided a presentation on green roofs. He focused on the history and the costs and benefits of green roofs, and detailed local and international examples. Green Roofs for Healthy Cities is a not - for - profit organization started in 1999 in Toronto by Mr. Peck. There are presently 1400 individual members and 35 corporate members. The organization surveys the industry, runs an accreditation program across North America, publishes a technical journal and runs an annual conference. The next conference will be May 11 - 12, 2006 in Boston, MA. If properly functioning, green roofs should provide a net benefit compared to a standard roof. Green buildings generate clean energy, manage and clean water, conserve resources, restore biodiversity and provide healthy indoor and outdoor environments. Green roofs contribute to each of these objectives. In Germany, 20% of all flat roofs are green roofs. Most of the technology, therefore, originated in that region Benefits of these roofs on private homes include noise reduction, energy cost savings and roof longevity; however, the initial costs are usually higher to install a green roof versus a standard roof. The resistance to the idea of a green roof has been shown to decrease if the roof is accessible or may be viewed from neighbouring sites. Green roofs can reduce the urban heat island, resulting in fewer smog days and lower air pollution. This results in a healthier environment (reduction in asthma) and reduced energy consumption (air conditioning). Green roofs also contribute to storm water management. Both quantity and quality of runoff are positively affected. Runoff is reduced, as green roofs retain typically 50% of normal runoff. Also, the runoff that does occur has been filtered by the green roof, improving the quality of water in the runoff. Green roofs can be designed to meet many different objectives. Pollutant removal, habitat for threatened biodiversity, recreation space and even areas to grow food may all be created. The new industry can create new employment opportunities. Space that, on many buildings, was wasted now becomes usable. In Toronto, 22% of the area is roofscape. The main barrier to implementation is the initial cost. The benefits realized after installation and for many years over the life of the green roof need to be quantified and taken into consideration when designing new buildings. Education of building and property owners is necessary. Mr. Peck requested that the Don Council consider making a deputation in support of green roof implementation to the Roundtable on the Environment special meeting on Green Roofs Policy on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 at Toronto City Hall. November 17, 2005 Page F102 Don Watershed Regeneration Council Comments Comment Response Comment Response (T. Waechter) Do you have figures on the first costs for green roofs? The first costs average $8 per square foot, but intensive greening (e.g. trees and shrubs) would be more. (T. Waechter) What about retrofits? These costs are generally higher than for a new building. A Ryerson study determined that 8% of existing roofs could be made green without any structural change. Comment (S. Cockle) With population growth expected in Toronto, will the expected concurrent increase in building height be an issue for green roof technology? Response Generally, slope is the main limitation. There are buildings with green roofs with as much as a 40 degree slope. New building should not otherwise present limitations; they would be built to accommodate the roof. Height is not an issue, other than for certain birds that you may wish to visit the roof. The building, roof and vegetation need to be designed for wind. Existing buildings may have structural limitations that may not allow for a green roof without considerable renovation. Comment Response (M. Buchinger) What incentives are offered in Germany for green roofs? Any new building in Germany, Switzerland or Australia is required to replace the green space occupied by the structure. There are 70 different jurisdictions in Germany with different regulations regarding retrofit green roofs. Some cities offer grants, some offer a reduction in fees levied on stormwater runoff. Discussion on TRCA progress on green buildings Adele Freeman noted that the TRCA has been monitoring the green roof concept and Toronto region examples for two to three years. Gavin Miller has been working with the City of Toronto on monitoring of the green roof at York University. Brian Denney has been working with developers to try to change building standards to a greener vision. Progress has also been made in the private sector. Tridel has been looking at working to provide incentives for new homeowners to purchase energy saving appliances The Integrated Watershed Management Plan currently being developed could include some green roof initiatives. PRESENTATION York University Green Roof Update Gavin Miller, Field Biologist at the TRCA, gave an update on the monitoring of biodiversity at York University's green roof. The TRCA began monitoring of the green roof on York University's Computer Science building November 17, 2005 Page F103 three years ago. The green roof was installed in 2000. Seedings included one with mainly horticultural flowers and a second with mainly grasses. In the 2004 surveys, the total roof area was 1/8 hectare. 91 species of plants were found, with 29 being native to the southern Ontario area. The original seedings contained non - native mixes. In an average Toronto ravine, approximately 300 species are found, with an average of 50% of these being exotic. The substrate used on the York roof was volcanic- derived, and therefore fairly alkaline. This area does not represent an average old - field, which is fairly high in nutrients but disturbed. Thus, secondary succession occurs in such areas. Green roofs primarily represent primary succession. Gravel pits offer a good analogy. The vegetation is sparse in such an area but has greater biodiversity than areas with high fertility, which usually contain just a few species that outcompete others that may reach the area but do not take hold. Native species sky blue aster and tickle grass were identified at the site, although the two species were not included in the original seed mix This study is believed to represent the first biodiversity study of a green roof in Canada. In Europe, green roofs exist that have been in place for up to 90 years. Such roofs tend to provide habitat for a large number of invertebrates. In a study of one roof, 13 species of beetles and 7 spider species identified were endangered. Over 100 endangered flora species were found, including 9 orchid species. At the York University green roof, one orchid species was identified. Although not considered endangered, this orchid has been identified as a regional species of concern. Green roofs may provide refuge for early successional species. Several different habitat -types may establish, such as fen, prairie, meadow -marsh and thicket. Don Watershed Regeneration Council Comments Comment (R. Powley) How did the orchid disperse to this location? Response (Gavin Miiller) Orchids have very small seeds, which are wind - dispersed. Lady slipper, for instance, has established on the Leslie Street Spit in this manner. (Steven Peck) Species at risk can be further protected on a green roof since cats and dogs are excluded from the site. Access by people can also be limited, if this is desired. Comment (S. Cockle) Can colonization by rare plants be encouraged, for instance by using a range of substrates? Response (Gavin Miiller) We need more studies to determine this. For instance, if we did no seeding and allowed natural colonization, we would have a better idea of the potential for native plant colonization. While in Europe local soils with their included soil banks have been used for green roofs, I would caution against using that approach here. The potential for invasive species being included in the seed bank is high. (Steven Peck)There are 12 types of aggregate used in green roofs but little is known about the effects of the aggregate type used, especially in North November 17, 2005 Page F104 America. Development of design standards is needed. Comment (A. Thurston) Would heaving from freezing rain have effects on the green roof? Would maintenance costs be high due to heaving? Response (Steven Peck) There is no such thing as a maintenance -free roof, standard or green. It should be designed to be self- sustaining, so that it is built, and drains are checked regularly, but fertilizer should not be required. A roof garden, however, may require fertilizer. If the roof drains properly, heaving effects should not be seen. This is somewhat dependent on the amount of growing medium used. Less medium results in lower plant survival. Steven recommended a minimum of 4" of medium. Gavin pointed out that the'York roof has 6" of medium. Deputation to City of Toronto Roundtable on the Environment Special Meeting on Green Roofs Carmela Canzonieri volunteered to make the deputation on behalf of the Don Council. It was agreed that Carmela would send a draft of the deputation to a review committee over the weekend for comment and review. The review team will consist of Bev Thorpe, Mel Plewes, Martin German, Margaret Buchinger, Nicole Worsley and Don Cross. It was noted that only 5 minutes would be given to each presenter, so the main point would be to show the DWRC's support of the green roof concept. This initiative fits in well with the TRCA's Living City concept. It was pointed out that there is a webpage on green roofs available on the City's site. Martin suggested that if the DWRC focuses on biodiversity, FODE's presentation at the meeting could then focus on the stormwater management aspect. The City should be encouraged to equip its own buildings with green roofs. There should be incentives provided for new development in Toronto to include green roofs. Large commercial buildings, parking lots, and redevelopment were mentioned as potential foci for the City. RES. #F41/05- DWRC SUPPORT OF GREEN ROOFS AT CITY OF TORONTO ROUNDTABLE ON THE ENVIRONMENT Moved by: Seconded by: Jane Darragh Margaret Buchinger THAT subject to review and approval by two members of the DWRC executive, the DWRC authorizes Carmela Canzonieri to make a deputation on its behalf to the City of Toronto Roundtable on the Environment to be held Wednesday November 23, 2005 at Toronto City Hall CARRIED November 17, 2005 PRESENTATION Volunteer Linkages, Collaboration and Resource Sharing System Page F105 Martin German, FODE, gave a presentation on this new initiative being led by FODE. This project involves an online community with two target audiences - volunteers and environmental groups that can benefit from volunteer involvement. This initiative is being led by FODE but it is a collaborative project by several Don watershed - based ENGOs. Volunteers and groups need to know what each group does and where there is overlap or between groups, this can be minimized. It should also help to minimize competition between groups. Gaps can also be identified for groups looking for new projects. The site will allow comparison of groups in a fair manner, independent of their own budgets or their presentation on their own website. One format will be used to enter information from all groups. The first preview release of the site will be in January 2006 to limited groups, with a wider release planned in February. Comments and suggestions will be taken into account and a revised version of the site will be released to the general public in March 2006. Feedback will still be gathered after this release, with the site updated in response. Don Watershed Regeneration Council Comments Comment (J. Palmer) Can groups post directly to the site? Will there be any vetting? Response There will be a system for groups to enter their data directly, or FODE can post it for them if they are not comfortable with the process. Entry will be simple. There will be a set framework (e.g. a maximum word count) so that each entry will look the same. Vetting may be done in terms of length. Comment (J. Palmer) If the system is too structured, some of the questions may not apply to each group. Response We will have events listed separately from volunteer opportunities. We are hoping to make this as even as possible, and will be gathering feedback to improve the site as we go. Comment (J. Palmer) Will there be a method to determine how many volunteers were recruited through the site? Response We will track usage of the site, the number of volunteers registered and the amount of information shared. Comment (J. Palmer) I suggest that it may be advantageous for groups to ask volunteers whether they came to an event through their viewing this site. Comment (M. Plewes) The presentation at the IJC showed that many groups were involved with the Don, but that we need more involvement with different communities and interests. We need more active outreach with these groups. November 17, 2005 Page F106 Comment (D. Cross) Please send comments on this project to Martin at eco @fode.ca. Please copy Amy and Michelle on these comments. Comment (P. Heinz) As Chair of the Outreach Team, I feel that this project is of interest and can be valuable for the Don . PRESENTATION Mel Plewes, Resignation from the Don Watershed Regeneration Council and as Chair of the Policy and Advocacy Team Mel Plewes was presented with a framed picture from the summer's Don Council BBQ. His longtime participation and involvement with the Don Council and his role as Chair of the Policy and Advocacy Team was appreciated and Mel was thanked for this work. THAT Mel Plewes be thanked and his work for the Don Council be recognized CARRIED MINUTES RES. #F42105- MINUTES TO MEETING #9/05 Moved by: Mel Plewes Seconded by: Janice Palmer THAT the minutes of meeting #9/05, held on October 20, 2005 be approved CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS There were no pecuniary interests disclosed. CORRESPONDENCE INCOMING 4.1 Resignation letter from Nancy Penny Letter to Don Cross, Acting Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council from Nancy Penny - October 24, 2005 November 17, 2005 OUTGOING No items RES. # F43/05- Moved by: Seconded by: Page F107 CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Bev Thorpe Ron Shimizu THAT correspondence item 4.1 be received CARRIED INFORMATION -ITEMS 5.1 Green Roofs and Biodiversity Update Gavin Miller, Biologist, Toronto and Region Conservation RES. # F44/05- INFORMATION ITEMS Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Palmer Bev Thorpe THAT information item 5.1 be received CARRIED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION TOUR OF THE SOUTH END OF THE DON WATERSHED A sign -up sheet was made available at the meeting for Council members and guests that wished to attend the tour. A large schoolbus has been rented and there are still quite a few spaces available. Amy and Michelle will let Council members and guests know the details regarding sites to be visited and the pick -up location once these details are finalized. RESPONSE LETTER, WATERTIGHT REPORT Mel Plewes led the discussion of the 9 -page draft letter from the DWRC to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal on the Watertight Report. This letter appeared in members' agenda packages. The Policy and Advocacy Team reviewed the professional panel's report over the summer and made seven recommendations: 1. A watershed approach is recommended for delivery of water and wastewater services:- November 17, 2005 Page F108 2. Stormwater drainage should be included in the mandate of the new corporations to ensure that they are dealing with the full range of water quality and quantity servicing issues within the watershed. 3. The Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal should consult broadly on any proposed implementation actions prior to proceeding with full implementation. These consultations should address funding mechanisms and ability to pay, among other issues highlighted here. 4. Establish water authorities by watersheds with attention to existing water service areas and sewerage service areas. 5. Stormwater systems should be included under the wastewater sector referred to in the report, since wastewater normally includes both sewage and storm drainage. 6. It is critical that the general public and ENGO stakeholders, who have been excluded to date, participate in the discussions on infrastructure and governance and institutional arrangements in an active and meaningful way. 7. The Don Watershed Regeneration Council would be pleased to participate in and contribute to any future working groups that you may establish to assist in the implementation of the many sound ideas contained in this report. The Policy and Advocacy Team reviewed and revised this letter last Thursday. Mel thanked the team for their work on this review. The Policy and Advocacy Team recommended that the document be approved for release. RES. # F45/05- RESPONSE LETTER, WATERTIGHT REPORT Moved by: Seconded by: Mel Plewes Ron Shimizu THAT the draft response letter on the Watertight report be approved for release CARRIED RESPONSE LETTER, GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS Ron Shimizu detailed the background on this letter. Two weeks prior to tonight's meeting, the International Joint Commission held a meeting in Toronto on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Policy and Advocacy Team reviewed the agreement and produced the response letter included in members' addendum to the agenda. Margaret Buchinger pointed out that the "six billion dollars" on page 2 should be changed to "one billion dollars ". Subject to this edit, the letter is approved by the Policy and Advocacy Team and recommended for release. November 17, 2005 Page F109 RES. # F46/05- RESPONSE LETTER, GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Shimizu Mel Plewes THAT the draft response letter on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement including the noted edit be approved for release CARRIED COMMITTEE REPORTS OUTREACH TEAM Peter Heinz reported on the Outreach Team's last meeting. The team has prepared a draft letter to the Town of Markham regarding the Don Watershed grant received. This letter has been approved by Don Cross and Peter Heinz and must still be reviewed by Adele Freeman. RES. # F47/05- LETTER, DON WATERSHED GRANT FROM THE TOWN OF MARKHAM Moved by: Seconded by: Martin German Jane Darragh THAT the letter on the Town of Markham grant be approved for release upon final review and approval . CARRIED The Outreach Team also discussed storm photo documentation policies. Ron Shimizu pointed out that Environment Canada also needs photographic documentation of storms, especially of tornadoes. Amy has circulated the suggested guidelines to other TRCA Watershed Management staff. POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM Mel Plewes reported on the Policy and Advocacy Team's last meeting. The York - Durham system is paralleling pipe originally put in place in 1976. Part of this project is in the Don watershed, so the Policy and Advocacy Team recommends that York Region be invited to address the full Don Council on this issue. Mel then thanked the Council, the Policy and Advocacy Team and the TRCA staff past and present that he has worked with over the years. He stated how much he had enjoyed working on the Don Council and recommended talking to others in the groups and neighbourhoods with which members are involved to recruit new Council members. November 17, 2005 Page F110 WATERSHED PLANNING TEAM Bev Thorpe reported on the team's recent activities. Although quiet over the summer, the team is expecting to begin working on watershed planning soon, with the recent hiring by the TRCA of the Don Watershed Planning Project Manager, Janet Ivey. Janet will be working closely with the Watershed Planning Team on the Integrated Watershed Management Plan. TORONTO AND AREA REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN GENERAL UPDATE Adele Freeman gave an update on recent RAP team activities. Members of the RAP team met last week with Environment Canada and Ministry of the Environment representatives. They are working on a 5 year update. UPDATES FROM OTHER DON WATERSHED GROUPS Stephen Cockle reported on the Bartley Smith Greenway Open House held on November 15, 2005. Approximately two dozen local residents attended this meeting. People were pleased about the opportunities that this project offered for public involvement at the site. Stephen submitted a report on the meeting to the Don Council FODE will be hosting its last of 15 events held in the fall of 2005 with its Annual General Meeting on November 27, 2005. The Richmond Hill Naturalists have now finished their work on the York - Durham sewer system expansion. They are also participating in the Oak Ridges Park Trail meetings. On December 17, 2005, they will be holding their annual Christmas Bird Count, in which 10,000 people participate. On November 18, 2005, they will be hosting a meeting jointly with the Humber Naturalists at which Professor Doug Larson (University of Guelph) will be speaking on urban cliff dwellers. A meeting was also held November 16, 2005 on renaturalizing Lake Wilcox and its shore area. November 17, 2005 Page F111 ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES CALENDAR OF EVENTS Date / Location Event Description Tuesday, November 29 and Thursday December 1, 2005 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm (both days) Public Open Houses for Evergreen Commons at the Brick Works Find out how you can help create a new community centre. To RSVP or for more information on an event, contact Lynsey Kissane at 416 -596- 1495 ext. 263 Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:00 pm - 9 pm (Open House at 6.00 pm, Meeting at 6:30 pm) Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Public Forum #2 The purpose of the 2nd Public Forum is to present the results from the working session meetings and to present the EA Terms of Reference to the public. For more information contact Michelle Vanderwel at 416- 661 -6600 ext. 5280, or by email: mvanderwel @trca.on.ca UPCOMING MEETING DATES DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Meeting # Date Location # 1/06 Thursday January 19, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 2/06 Thursday February 16, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 3/06 Thursday March 16, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 4/06 Thursday April 20, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 November 17, 2005 Page F112 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Meeting # Date Location # 5/06 Thursday May 18, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/06 Thursday June 15, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/06 Thursday July 20, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/06 Thursday September 21, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/06 Thursday October 19, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/06 Thursday November 16, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 Editor's Note: Meeting #9/06 has been moved to NYCC Committee Room 2. POLICY AND ADVOCACY TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 1/06 Thursday January 12, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 2/06 Thursday February 9, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 3/06 Thursday March 9, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 4/06 Thursday April 6, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/06 Tuesday May 11, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/06 Thursday June 8, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/06 Thursday July 13, 2006 'NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/06 Thursday September 14, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/06 Tuesday October 12, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/06 Thursday November 30, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 November 17, 2005 Page F113 OUTREACH TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 1/06 Thursday January 5, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 2/06 Thursday February 2, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 3/06 Thursday March 2, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 4/06 Thursday March 30, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/06 Tuesday May 4, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/06 Thursday June 1, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/06 Thursday July 6, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/06 Thursday September 7, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 9/06 Tuesday October 5, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/06 Thursday November 2, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 WATERSHED PLANNING TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 1/06 Thursday January 26, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 2/06 Thursday February 23, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 3/06 Thursday March 23, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 4/06 Thursday April 27, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 5/06 Tuesday May 25, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 6/06 Thursday June 22, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 7/06 Thursday July 27, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 8/06 Thursday September 28, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 November 17, 2005 Page F114 WATERSHED PLANNING TEAM Meeting # Date Location # 9/06 Thursday October 26, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 # 10/06 Thursday November 23, 2006 NYCC Committee Room 1 CHAIRS TELECONFERENCE Meeting # Date Time # 1/06 Wednesday January 11, 2006 9:00 am # 2/06 Wednesday February 8, 2006 9:00 am # 3/06 Wednesday March 8, 2006 9:00 am # 4/06 Wednesday April 12, 2006 9:00 am # 5/06 Wednesday May 10, 2006 9:00 am # 6/06 Wednesday June 7, 2006 9:00 am # 7/06 Wednesday July 12, 2006 9:00 am # 8/06 Wednesday September 13, 2006 9:00 am # 9/06 Wednesday October 11, 2006 9:00 am # 10/06 Wednesday November 8, 2006 9:00 am NEW BUSINESS DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT Adele attended the Task Force to Bring Back the Don meeting of November 16, 2005 with Deb Martin -Downs and presented on the Don Mouth Naturalization and Flood Protection Project. Adele reminded Don Council members of the public meeting to be held January 10, 2006 to present the key elements of the draft Terms of Reference and encouraged them to attend it. November 17, 2005 Page F115 LOWER DON RIVER WEST REMEDIAL FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT Adele updated Council members on the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project. The TRCA will be issuing tenders for the bridge work shortly. This work will require closing the bike trail south of Queen Street for approximately a year and a half. Adele requested that Council inform their membership about the temporary trail closing, and the positive aspects of the project. ENVIRONMENT COMMISSIONER'S MEETING Margaret Buchinger mentioned that the Environment Commissioner's office held a meeting last Monday, but that it was for invited groups only. She would like to know whether they are releasing a summary of this meeting. Michelle will follow this up with the EC office or with Ros Moore. DON COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION It was noted that the Policy and Advocacy Team will need a new Chair due to Mel's move out of the Toronto area. Also, while Don Cross is willing to continue as Acting Chair of the full Council until a new Chair is found, he is not interested in holding the position and suggests that Don Council members who may wish to be Chair contact Adele to express their interest. ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:20 pm. Don Cross Acting Chair /mv Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP MINUTES OF MEETING #1/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #5/05 JUNE 24, 2005 TORONTO AND REGION - onservation for The Living City MEETING OF THE DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #1/05 January 19, 2005 Duffins and Carruthers i1 1 a.t.e.rsheds Page JK1 The Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group Meeting #1105 was held in the Pickering Recreation Complex, Rooms 1 and 2, on Wednesday January 19, 2005. Acting Chair Doug Dodge called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. PRESENT Doug Dodge Acting Chair Neil Acton Member Neil Burnett Member Scott Crawford Member Chris Darling Member Joe Dickson Member Colleen Jordan Member Kevin Laidley Member David Pickles Member David Ryan Member Susan Self Member Peter Waring Member John Webster Member Alan Wells Member Peter White Member Stephen Woolfenden Member STAFF Alex Blasko Don Watershed Technical Clerk Gary Bowen Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Specialist Brent Bullough Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Planner Don Ford Senior Hydrogeologist Adele Freeman Director, Watershed Management Division JK2 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #1/05 Jan. 19/05 MINUTES RES. #JK1 /05- MINUTES TO MEETING #1/04 Moved by: Seconded by: Susan Self Neil Burnett THAT the minutes to meeting #1/04 of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group, held on September 15, 2004, be approved CARRIED BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES It was initially suggested that the DCWRG would take time at meeting #1/05 to identify specific activities to be initiated before March 2005 that would be key to the implementation of the Watershed Plan. Due to workload and timing constraints, TRCA staff have not yet been able to meet with all municipalities to identify parallel programs, and consequently it is suggested that TRCA prepare a progress report prior to meeting #2105 (March 23, 2005) regarding this issue. Once the report has been reviewed, the Group will confirm priorities at meeting #2105. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST No pecuniary interests were disclosed. PRESENTATIONS UPDATE ON THE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN The Fisheries Management Plan, an important part of the Integrated Watershed Management Plan, was posted on the EBR Registry. The review period ended with no comments received. Key steps to move forward with the implementation of the plan include: • Sediment and erosion control in construction - need to brainstorm ways to bring this forward and present it to the public and industry to get them on board. • Barrier mitigations on small dams - structural stability, risk of sediment release, and fish barriers are pressing issues. Gary Bowen will provide copies of the plan for the Group to review now that the EBR review is complete. Jan. 19/05 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP JK3 A SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN FOR DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS CREEK Extensive data has been collected on the Duffins and Carruthers creeks that will aid in the development of a Source Protection Plan, including: • Groundwater flow data; • Water budget and water balance information; • Contaminant pathways; • Stream flow and base flow data; • Water taking information; • Agricultural effects /lake loadings; and • Water quality information. Setting the Stage Events leading to the Drinking Water Source Protection Act began with the Walkerton Tragedy in July of 2000. In response to the 7 deaths and 2,300 residents who fell ill, the Government of Ontario launched a public inquiry led by the Honourable Dennis O'Connor. Justice O'Connor's findings were released in two volumes, including a report on the events and causes of the Tragedy, and a strategy for ensuring safe drinking water. Following the publication of these papers, an Advisory Committee on Watershed -based Source Protection Planning was struck in April 2003, which subsequently produced the White Paper on Watershed -based Source Protection Planning in February 2004. On June 23, 2004, the Government of Ontario posted draft Drinking Water Source Protection legislation on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry for public comment. This draft legislation drew on the comments received on the White Paper, including the following key components: • The establishment of watershed boundaries for the purpose of developing source protection plans; • The delineation of source protection boards and source protection committee to undertake the planning exercise; • Requirements related to the development of the terms of reference, assessment report and source protection plans; and • An approvals and appeals process. Source Protection Planning Governance The Source Protection Plan will be developed under the direction of the Source Protection Committee and Conservation Authority Staff, with technical support and advice from working groups and issue - specific sub - committees. The Source Protection Plan is presented to the Source Protection Board for review and recommendation to the Ministry of Environment, who in turn reviews and recommends to the Minister for final approval. Threats to Drinking Water Quality The following are examples of potential threats to drinking water quality that will undergo evaluation within the Duffins and Carruthers watersheds: Brock West landfill site; Sewage treatment plant in Stouffville; Construction Material Recycling site on Brock Road; JK4 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #1/05 Jan. 19/05 • Agricultural areas; Golf Courses; and Automotive wrecking yards. Please note that simply because these land uses are being evaluated does not mean that they are necessarily threats. Process The key next step for the DCWRG will be to review the draft Terms of Reference for the plan. The Terms of Reference will outline high level goals and objectives, and will provide a work plan for the Assessment Report. The study team will be led through TRCA with Don Ford acting as Project Manager. Dr. Rick Gerber of Gerber Geosciences will provide technical advise throughout the study. Dillon Consulting Limited has been retained to provide consulting support. Implementation A number of tools will be available to aid in the implementation of the Source Protection Plan, from formal tools such as legislation and regulations to voluntary mechanisms like Best Management Practices. The goal will be to facilitate and oversee the implementation process by tracking status, assessing effectiveness, and making adjustments to respond to new information and changing conditions. It will be necessary to notify the public of Source Protection requirements and to ensure the status of Source Protection Plans in relation to other decisions and legislation as the process moves forward. It is the goal of TRCA to integrate watershed Source Protection Plans into a broader watershed management strategies. The work conducted in the Duffins and Carruthers watersheds over the past decade has provided a strong scientific base for managing drinking water supplies. REPORTS ITEM 7.1 - A SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN FOR DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHEDS RES. #JK3 /05- A SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN FOR DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHEDS Moved by: Seconded by: Alan Wells Colleen Jordan THAT this report be received; THAT a member of the DCWRG be appointed to participate in the development of the Jan. 19/05 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP JK5 Source Protection Plan; THAT members of the DCWRG assist TRCA staff in developing the public /stakeholder consultation process; THAT members of the DCWRG review the Draft Terms of Reference for the plan and provide comments to TRCA by Friday, February 4, 2005; THAT TRCA staff attend future meetings to provide details to the DCWRG on the status of the Source Protection Plan; AND FURTHER THAT the DCWRG provide comments on the Duffins Carruthers Source Protection Plan as it is being developed CARRIED RES. #JK2 /05- RECEPTION OF REPORTS Moved by: Seconded by: Joe Dickson Colleen Jordan THAT Reports 7.2 to 7.5 be received CARRIED ITEM 7.6 - PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS It has been noted that the scheduled meeting date of June 15, 2005 falls in the middle of the Town of Ajax's 50'h Anniversary celebrations. Due to this conflict, the meeting will be rescheduled to June 22, 2005. The revised meeting schedule is as follows: DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP Meeting # Date Location # 2/05 March 23, 2005 TBD # 3/05 June 22, 2005 TBD # 4/05 September 14, 2005 TBD # 5/05 November 23, 2005 TBD JK6 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #1/05 Jan. 19/05 ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 8:20 pm. Doug Dodge Acting Chair /ab Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP MINUTES OF MEETING #2/05 TORONTO AND REGION Y onservation for The Living City MEETING OF THE DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #2/05 March 23, 2005 Duffins and Carruthers Watersheds Page JK7 The Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group Meeting #2105 was held in the Goodwood Community Centre on Wednesday March 23, 2005. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm. PRESENT Doug Dodge Member Neil Acton Member Neil Burnett Member Chris Darling Member Cam McCauley Member George Rocoski Member Susan Self Member John Webster Member Alan Wells Member STAFF Gary Bowen Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Specialist Brent Bullough Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Planner GUEST Tom Fowle Uxbridge Watersheds Advisory Committee RES. #JK4 /05 - MINUTES OF MEETING #1/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Doug Dodge John Webster THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/05, held on January 19, 2005, be approved .. CARRIED JK8 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #2/05 Mar. 23/05 PRESENTATION Duffins and Carruthers Source Protection Planning - Work Plan and Activities Undertaken Gary Bowen gave a presentation outlining activities that have taken place regarding the Source Protection Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek, and informed the committee of the next steps in the process. A Draft Terms of Reference for the work was completed in March 2005. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is being established and a member of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group will be sought to sit on the TAC (see RES. #JK7 /05 below). REPORTS RES. #JK5 /05 - ELECTION OF CHAIR Moved by: Seconded by: Doug Dodge Neil Burnett THAT Regional Councillor Susan Self be elected Chair for the 2005 -2006 term of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group CARRIED RES. #JK6 /05 - ELECTION OF VICE -CHAIR Moved by: Seconded by: Alan Wells Neil Acton THAT Doctor Doug Dodge be elected Vice -Chair for the 2005 -2006 term of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group CARRIED RES. #JK7 /05 - Moved by: Seconded by: DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN TERMS OF REFERENCE Development of the Terms of Reference for the Duffins and Carruthers Source Protection Plan and the appointment of a member of the DCWRG to the Technical Advisory Committee. Alan Wells Doug Dodge THAT the Draft Terms of Reference, dated March 2005, for the Duffins and Carruthers Source Protection Plan be reviewed by the DCWRG; Mar. 23/05 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #2/05 JK9 THAT the DCWRG provide comments on the March 2005 Draft Terms of Reference to Gary Bowen by April 6, 2005; AND FURTHER THAT Neil Burnett be appointed to the Technical Advisory Committee of the Duffins and Carruthers Source Protection Plan CARRIED BACKGROUND Meeting #1105 of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group, held on January 19, 2005, the recommendation to review the Draft Terms of Reference for the Duffins and Carruthers Source Protection Plan and provide comment by February 4, 2005 was listed under the report "A Source Protection Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watersheds ". For various reasons, this draft Terms of Reference was not completed until recently. The draft Terms of Reference is now complete and comments from the DCWRG are being requested by April 6, 2005. Comments provided by the DCWRG will be circulated to members of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Duffins and Carruthers Source Protection Plan. Once the draft Terms of Reference are revised, it will be made available to watershed stakeholders for their consideration. In order to keep the process moving forward, work not expected to be impacted by further comments will be initiated during the final review. A more detailed work plan is being developed in consultation with Dillon Consulting Limited and the TAC. A member of the DCWRG is being sought as an appointee to the TAC. This member will have a key role in advising study partners in development of the work plan. Once the work plan and Terms of Reference are finalized, members of the public and any other interested parties will have access to these documents at local libraries, municipal offices, and on various web sites. Given the delays to date, final deliverables are expected in early fall of 2005. Updates will be provided to municipal councils at this time. RES. #JK8 /05 - Moved by: Seconded by: HABITAT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE FOR DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS Update on 2004 activities. Alan Wells John Webster THAT this report be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT staff from the Environmental Services Section be invited to present the findings of the Phase 1 report once complete CARRIED JK10 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #2/05 Mar. 23/05 BACKGROUND The Habitat Implementation Plan (HIP) is a targeted implementation strategy, rooted in watershed -wide habitat concepts, and prioritized according to site level criteria. In other words, the HIP acts as a mechanism by which the concepts of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program, Fisheries Management Plan, and Watershed Management Strategy can be implemented. Generated from field assessments, the HIP contains a catalogue /database of potential restoration sites which are linked to GIS information layers. The information stored within the database includes general site descriptions, existing habitat components, potential habitat opportunities identified, and an implementation priority score. The HIP database of projects functions through a dynamic process based on querying data to determine the highest priority site for restoration. The current HIP findings and recommendations can be used for the following: . Implementing high priority habitat projects; Guiding other restoration projects as they arise; Guiding stewardship initiatives that involve in- ground work; Working with the municipalities on implementation projects; Determining compensation sites for development projects; and Quantifying opportunities and deliverables. Duffins- Carruthers Creek HIP Budget 2004 2004 $ Deliverables Allocated $50,000 HIP assessments on marginal areas within TRCA property, City of Ajax property and City of Pickering property; Data Entry and GIS; Initiate Private Land HIP in Duffins- Carruthers Creek Spent $40,000 HIP assessments on marginal areas within TRCA property, City of Ajax property and City of Pickering property; data entry and GIS Left $10,000 Private land HIP in Duffins- Carruthers Creek (2005) HIP Phase 1 Findings Summary As part of the Phase 1 work completed for the Duffins- Carruthers HIP, marginal areas within the following properties have been assessed: Property Approx. Size (Ha) TRCA 1800 Ajax 132 Pickering 71 Private Land 50 Within these areas the following opportunities have been identified: Mar. 23/05 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #2/05 JK11 Habitat Cover Opportunity Approx. Size (Ha) Forest 443 Meadow/Tree and Shrub Nodes 129 Riparian 51 Wetland 64 All opportunities have been mapped as polygons in ArcView and the data collected for each assessed site has been entered into Access. Within the database, every aspect of the data (from comment fields and check boxes to scoring) can be queried. A final report is currently being drafted which will outline the HIP methodology and assessment results. Individual project backgrounders will be completed for each high priority site. The backgrounders will identify general site conditions, natural heritage features and species of concern present, fish management zones, approvals required, habitat implementation concepts, species targets, potential for community involvement, as well as other opportunities and constraints. They are not meant as final projects details. Once drafted, the HIP document will be submitted for peer review. The preceding was an update and summary of the work completed in 2004 regarding the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watersheds Habitat Implementation Plan. The assessments have been completed and the results have been entered into the database and GIS. The Phase 1 report is currently being drafted. Once the report has been drafted, Environmental Services Section staff would like to present the Duffins- Carruthers HIP to the Watershed Resource Group. Please take these findings as preliminary only, leaving them subject to possible changes after internal review. RES. #JK9 /05 - Moved by: Seconded by: A9 AREA OF AJAX AND THE WATERSHED PLAN Planning for the A9 Area of Ajax and how the Watershed Plan has been adhered to in the process. Gary Bowen Neil Burnett THAT this report be received by the committee for information; FURTHER THAT the committee receive a more comprehensive report once the proposed plan is finalized CARRIED BACKGROUND Please note that while it is not the mandate of the DCWRG to get directly involved in local land use planning initiatives, the TRCA, municipal staff, or both will keep the committee informed on how the watershed plan is being supported through local land use planning. Further to this, at a Town of Ajax council meeting in 2003, Mayor Parish requested that municipal staff and TRCA incorporate the watershed plan's recommendations in the planning for A9. Further updates on JK12 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #2/05 Mar. 23/05 this planning initiative will be given to the DCWRG at significant stages of the project or at the request of the committee. The Town of Ajax has been developing a plan for the A9 area, now known as the Future Urban Development Area. TRCA has been involved in reviewing reports for A9 planning with one of the goals of ensuring that the objectives of the Watershed Plan are met. Earlier reports prepared in support of planning have been commented on by TRCA. The long- standing respectful relationship between the Town of Ajax and TRCA has been maintained throughout the planning process. TRCA's views have been incorporated into proposals and the current plan is supportive of the Watershed Plan in general and appears to support the target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System. TRCA has yet to fully endorse the plan however, given that some issues surrounding water budget and water quantity must still be addressed. A response from The Planning Partnership is forthcoming regarding TRCA's remaining concerns. Once these issues are addressed the TRCA will provide its endorsement of the plan. It should be stressed that the TRCA supports the plan in principle, citing that appropriate areas of valley and table lands are protected in the proposed plan. RES. #JK10/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: WATERSHED PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION Meetings with municipal staff to assess progress on implementation of the Watershed Plan. Neil Burnett John Webster THAT this report be received by the committee for information; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff prepare an implementation plan based on the findings of the municipal consultation CARRIED AMENDMENT RES. #JK11 /05 Move by: Seconded by: Neil Burnett John Webster AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff prepare an implementation plan based on the findings of the municipal consultation and look at mechanisms to coordinate local implementation THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED Mar. 23/05 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #2105 JK13 BACKGROUND A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek was completed in 2003. As part of the ongoing effort to monitor the successful implementation of the Watershed Plan, updates on activities supporting the Plan from watershed municipalities will be needed. TRCA has met with the Town of Ajax and the City of Pickering. These meetings were very productive. It has been determined that 80 percent of the recommendations listed in the Watershed Plan are being addressed. Each of the 203 recommendations were discussed and were either classified under "No Action ", "Underway ", "Proposed ", or "Complete ". A recommendation was considered to be addressed if any of the latter three classifications applied. It is understood that while this method can determine whether action has been taken, it does not consider the quality of that action. In other words, it does not tell us if a recommendation is being partially (and what part) or fully addressed. The level of analysis was beyond the scope of this assessment but should be the goal of a more detailed progress report. Discussions to date reveal that the municipalities have embraced the Watershed Plan and consider its recommendations if many of its activities. Meetings are being arranged with the Towns of Markham and Whitchurch - Stouffville, the Township of Uxbridge, and the Regional Municipalities of Durham and York to track implementation progress across the watersheds. Based on the historic and continued close working relationship with these municipalities, it is expected that equally successful implementation progress will be identified in these jurisdictions. The outcome of these discussions will lead to identification of areas that need to be addressed and the creation of a list of priorities as part of an implementation plan. RES. #JK12/05 - NET GAIN WORKSHOP Net Gain workshop to be held on April 12, 2005. Moved by: Seconded by: Neil Burnett Neil Acton THAT this report be received by the committee for information; AND FURTHER THAT two members of the DCWRG attend the workshop CARRIED BACKGROUND Applying the Net Gain Principle will result in achieving a net environmental benefit. For example, when applying the principle a decision maker would assess a land -use change that is proposed in a watershed and recognize that this change should only occur if it results in an improvement in the ecological assets of the affected area. The net gain principle is a step forward from that of no- net -loss, which is the standard commonly employed with questionable success. For various reasons, the "no- net -loss" approach has generally resulted in a net -loss. It is for this reason that A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek identified the net gain principle as important to the JK14 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #2/05 Mar. 23/05 successful implementation of the Watershed Plan. As such, net gain is one of five key elements of the Watershed Plan's management philosophy. As stated in the Watershed Plan, net gain requires that future decisions and actions improve upon existing features and functions throughout the watersheds. The plan goes on to say that this goal may be more attained more fully in the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds given the unique opportunities provided by extensive public land holdings in the watersheds. TRCA has partnered with Pollution Probe to explore ways of incorporating the net gain principle into watershed plan implementation. A Pollution Probe report on net gain, Exploring Applications of the Net Gain Principle, was presented in the DCWRG meeting package for meeting #1/04. This report has served as the launching point of a process to identify opportunities to make net gain a meaningful part of watershed plan implementation. In order to move forward on this initiative, TRCA and Pollution Probe will hold a one -day workshop on net gain on April 12, 2005. The goal of the workshop is to introduce net gain to watershed stakeholders and to find practical ways to advance the Net Gain Principle in local watershed -based management and growth management planning initiatives. This will be the first of two workshops designed to engage key stakeholders in the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds to discuss the Net Gain Principle and how it can be applied effectively and equitably in the implementation of A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. Invitations are being extended to the following sectors: • Municipal Planners • Planning Consultants • Development Industry • Golf Course Industry • Greater Toronto Airports Authority Transport Canada Consulting Engineers • Private Sector Ecologists • Lake -wide Management Plan Rep. Agricultural Community ENGOs Environmental Advisory Committees Academia Findings from this workshop and the second one which is expected to be held in June 2005 will be used to produce a report that will serve to inform current and future watershed planning initiatives. Sue Cumming of Cumming and Company has been retained to facilitate the workshop. Ms. Cumming's consulting work with the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Task Forces when developing the Watershed Plan positions her as an excellent facilitator for this event. As well, Ann Joyner of Dillon Consulting, and Anthony Usher have been hired to help prepare for and provide input during the workshop. Mar. 23/05 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #2/05 JK15 RES. #JK13/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: GREENLANDS LEGISLATION AND WATERSHED PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Recent Greenlands Legislation and how it relates to the Watershed Plan. Gary Bowen Alan Wells THAT this report be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT a staff member from TRCA's Development Services Section make a presentation to this committee at the June 22nd meeting CARRIED BACKGROUND In early 2005, the Government of Ontario released the Greenbelt Plan. Included in this plan is the identification of Natural Heritage system. After review by TRCA staff it has been determined that the proposed Greenbelt Natural Heritage System helps achieve the targeted Terrestrial Natural Heritage System of 49% natural cover in Duffins Creek watershed and 30% in the Carruthers Creek watershed as identified by the TRCA. As well, it is understood that opportunities to add to the natural heritage system identified by the Province will continue. the Natural Heritage System as identified by the Province in the Greenbelt Plan shows where gains have been made in protecting the Targeted Terrestrial Natural Heritage System as identified in A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. The Province's proposal coupled with Federal Governments Greenspace Master Plan for the Pickering lands go a long way in helping us to realize the TRCA's Targeted System. TRCA staff and partners will continue to monitor the progress of this planning process. Future updates will be brought forward to the DCWRG. 8.0 NEW BUSINESS TOURISM BROCHURE Doug Dodge has been appointed to a committee to develop a tourism brochure for the Regional Municipality of Durham. There has been a lack of information on fishing opportunities in previous brochures and Dr. Dodge hopes to correct this oversight in the new brochure. Dr. Dodge will keep the committee apprised of progress on the brochure. JK16 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #2/05 Mar. 23/05 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:49 pm. Susan Self Chair /bb Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP MINUTES OF MEETING #3/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #7/05 SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 c. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP #3/05 June 22, 2005 Page JK17 The Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group Meeting #3105 was held at the Rotary Park Pavilion on Wednesday, June 22, 2005. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 pm. PRESENT Neil Acton Member Neil Burnett Member Scott Crawford Member Joe Dickson Member Doug Dodge Member Colleen Jordan Member Cam McCauley Member Susan Self Member Alan Wells Member Steve Woolfenden Member STAFF Gary Bowen Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Specialist Karen McDonald Environmental Technical Assistant Danny Moro Aquatic Plants Coordinator Joanna Parsons Administrative Assistant Tim Rance Aquatic Management Supervisor GUEST Kathi Oke Transport Canada Mat Zehra Town of Ajax, Environmental Advisory Committee JK18 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP June 22, 2005 RES. #JK14/05 - MINUTES OF MEETING #3/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Neil Acton Alan Wells THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/05, held on Wednesday, June 22, 2005, be approved with the following amendment to Item 8.0 under New Business: Doug Dodge has not been appointed to a committee to develop a tourism brochure for angling in the Regional Municipality of Durham. He has offered his assistance to the committee CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF Alan Wells declared a conflict of interest in item 7.8 concerning the Seaton Lands Planning and Watershed Plan. PRESENTATIONS (A) Corner Marsh Rehabilitation Tour Danny Moro, TRCA's Aquatic Plants Supervisor led a tour of the Corner Marsh Rehabilitation site before the meeting. (B) Habitat Implementation Plan Karen McDonald, TRCA's Environmental Technical Assistant gave a presentation on the Habitat Implementation Plan which is an implementation strategy, that explains what needs to be done, at a specific site in the watershed taking into consideration soil condition, topography and restoration objectives RES. #JK15/05 - . CULTURAL HERITAGE UPDATE Moved by: Seconded by: Doug Dodge Neil Burnett THAT the staff report on the Human Heritage Progress Report be received for information; THAT TRCA staff meet with watershed municipalities, First Nations committee members, local residents and heritage organizations to address the short fall in implementation of Human Heritage management and implementation; June 22, 2005 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP JK19 AND FURTHER THAT a report be prepared and presented at a future meeting of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group CARRIED BACKGROUND Recognizing that past peoples interacted with and affected the natural environment, three human heritage - related objectives were identified during the watershed strategy development that will assist with the identification, preservation and appreciation of archaeological and built heritage resources, and provide the historical context and foundation to enable the watershed communities to better plan their growth and local character. Section 6.11 in A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek (pages 151 -155) outlines the issues, definitions, goal and details of the three human heritage objectives for these watersheds. Much of the work required to protect and appreciate the human heritage resources of these watersheds will be most effectively conducted with partnerships between the local heritage volunteer groups, the local and regional municipalities, the Ontario Ministry of Culture and the TRCA. On April 28, 2005, the Ontario government passed Bill 60, the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, which strengthens municipal and provincial powers to identify and protect heritage sites and districts, as well as marine and land -based archaeological sites. The website for the Ontario Ministry of Culture provides details regarding the Ontario Heritage Act, as well as heritage planning, historical buildings and sites, archaeology in Ontario, community museums and heritage organizations, municipal heritage committees, and heritage workshops at http: / /www. culture. gov. on. ca /english /culdiv /heritage /index.html. The specific regulations that will guide the enforcement of the Act are currently being developed. The Ministry has been working diligently with the municipalities, archaeologists and other partners to establish clear guidelines for heritage protection. RES. #JK16/05 - COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP UPDATE Moved by: Seconded by: Alan Wells Joe Dickson THAT the Duffins and Carruthers Community Stewardship Update report be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND The Stewardship and Outreach Education staff and their community stewardship programs, operates within the Education, Stewardship and Outreach section in the Watershed Management Division at TRCA. Twelve full time staff are directly responsible for various stewardship programs and projects and actively engage a number of other staff, agencies and community partners in the planning and implementation of their work. JK20 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP June 22, 2005 The intent of the community stewardship programs is to provide TRCA watershed stakeholders with the knowledge and tools required to support our watershed strategies. 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. Through the following community stewardship programs, we engage youth, schools, businesses, community groups and government partners in a variety of hands -on restoration, habitat creation, maintenance and volunteer monitoring programs. Our 2005 Community Stewardship programs include: • The Bartley Smith Greenway Business and Community Outreach Initiative • The Centreville Creek Community Outreach and Environmental Stewardship Program • The Claireville Community Stewardship • Conservation Seminars • The Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project • Healthy Yards Program • The Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Program • The Malton Environmental Stewardship Program • The Markham Backyards Naturalization Program • The Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program • Pickering Healthy Communities • Preston Lake Management Plan • The Stewardship Resource Centre • The West Shore Habitat Initiative - Frenchman's Bay Each community stewardship program or project has a different funding formula. On average, the annual cost to cover staff costs and materials to deliver our "community specific" stewardship program model is approximately $80,000 plus in -kind support. For the most part, core funding has been provided through multi -year grants received from agencies such as EcoAction Community Fund and the Ontario Trillium Foundation. To complement this core funding, additional annual financial support is requested from our regional municipalities and through the preparation of funding proposals to corporate and private foundations. Significant in -kind contributions are sought from businesses, private landowners, municipalities, institutions, community organizations and youth groups with a vested interest in environmental stewardship across our jurisdiction. One of the challenges in applying the traditional community stewardship model in the Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds is that these watersheds are located outside of the Remedial Action Plan Area of Concern. Another challenge is maintaining a quality stewardship program covering five local municipalities. In 2004, the Duffins and Carruthers stewardship program was initiated by dedicating a stewardship staff person to research and review existing programs and projects and to identify opportunities in the watersheds where components of our community stewardship model could be implemented with limited resources. June 22, 2005 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP JK21 This research resulted in a 2005 work plan that included community plantings, conservation seminars, clean up events, school group activities and presentations regarding Healthy Yards program to new homeowners, Environmental Advisory Committees and assisting municipal /local partners in implementing their projects. Confirmed revenues to support our 2005 Duffins and Carruthers Stewardship Program total $61,000 with the majority of support received through the TRCA request to Durham Region for watershed planning and implementation . Additional funding applications to support material costs for program implementation have been submitted and are awaiting approval. RES. #JK17/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLANNING UPDATE An update on progress of the Duffins and Carruthers Source Protection Plan. Alan Wells Doug Dodge THAT the staff report on Source Water Protection Planning be received for information. AND FURTHER THAT a more detailed report on Source Water Protection Planning be provided on this issue at a future Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group meeting CARRIED BACKGROUND The Draft Terms of Reference for Source Water Protection planning has been reviewed by municipal partners. This draft will be used as a template for the soon to be established Source Protection Committee. Dillon Consulting has provided draft documentation for preliminary watershed characterization and this document is currently undergoing internal review at the TRCA. Clarifica Inc. has submitted a WABAS (Water Budget Analysis System) surface water budget for existing conditions in the Duffins Creek watershed. Transport Canada and the Ontario Realty Corporation have agreed to share data. Other agreements with these to agencies are under development. As well, a windshield survey of potential land use issues has been completed for both watersheds. This survey will assist in identification of potential threats to drinking water. The next steps in the process involve a complete internal review of preliminary watershed characterization report and data gathering from the Ontario Realty Corporation, Transport Canada, and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Progress on this source protection plan is being delayed purposely in order to ensure that the Duffins and Carruthers plan is coordinated with emerging provincial directives and funding. A JK22 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP June 22, 2005 more detailed briefing will be provided at a future meeting of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group. RES. #JK18/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: TRANS CANADA TRAIL - OPENING OF DURHAM SECTION Opening of a section of the Trans - Canada Trail at Walker Woods and Glen Major Forest on June 11, 2005. Alan Wells Scott Crawford THAT the staff report on the Trans Canada Trail - Opening of Durham Section be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA along with its community partners opened the 14 kilometre Trans Canada Trail at Walker Woods and Glen Major Forest on June 11, 2005. The opening celebrated over two years of work to plan and develop public use facilities on the TRCA properties that included: • parking facilities • trail heads; • boardwalks; • trail post markers; and • trail guides. The trail project was made possible by a number of essential community and municipal partnerships that were established approximately three years ago. The partners included: • Uxbridge Conservation Association; • Durham Conservation Association; • Uxbridge Naturally; • Oak Ridges Trail Association; • Town of Uxbridge; • City of Pickering; • Town of Ajax; • Trillium Foundation; and • Trans Canada Trail Foundation. All the partners were committed to establishing a Trans Canada Trail link from the community of Uxbridge through the City of Pickering to the Town of Ajax waterfront. Once at the Lake Ontario waterfront, the trail continues west into the City of Toronto. At the Walker Woods and Glen Major Forest property, which totals 1,548 hectares in size, there are approximately 90 kilometres of trails that link directly to the Trans Canada Trail. In addition, the Oak Ridges Moraine Trail intersects with the Trans Canada Trail at the north end of the TRCA property, providing valuable east- west connections along the moraine. June 22, 2005 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP JK23 This trail project has definitely improved the valuable greenspace connections throughout the Duffins Creek Watershed. In addition, this trail work establishes a foundation for an integrated regional trail system that supports TRCA's Living City concept. RES. #JK19/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRCA'S TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM STRATEGY An update on progress of the TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy in the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds. Colleen Jordan Neil Burnett THAT the staff report on Progress on Implementation of the TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy be received; AND FURTHER THAT the TRCA, watershed municipalities and stakeholders be encouraged to continue to develop the natural heritage system CARRIED BACKGROUND In the past, the primary consideration of conservation in the Toronto region has been protecting existing habitats or restoring habitats, where possible. Much of the land base that was not existing natural cover but would have been available for restoration was often considered "surplus" land and expendable; and this diminutive approach resulted in a cumulative loss of conservation opportunities in a rapidly urbanizing region. To redress this, TRCA's current approach now gives its primary emphasis on the protection of a well- defined land base that would support overall social, ecosystem and watershed functions in the TRCA region. By illustrating a targeted natural system based on a needed quantity, quality and distribution of natural cover, the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS) sets the stage for protection through policy, stewardship and securement first, and restoration second. The following is a list of how the TRCA's THNSS was used to promote a complement of protection of its land base and its restoration in 2004 and 2005, with relevance to the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watersheds. Protection Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Plans The Watershed Plans continue to provide a vehicle for multiple stakeholder support for the TNHSS target natural system "line" on the ground. Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2005 The TNHSS was provided to the Province in their review of the Provincial Policy Statement. The objectives, principles and application of the TNHSS were presented to the Ministry of JK24 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP June 22, 2005 Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) staff and may have assisted in the Province's redefinition of a natural heritage system to include "areas with the potential to be restored" (Province of Ontario 2005). Provincial Greenbelt The TNHSS was provided to the Province for their planning for the Greenbelt legislation. This new legislation supports the TNHSS within the Duffins and Carruthers Watersheds by encompassing the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) portion of the Duffins Watershed, the western portion of the Federal Airport lands off of the ORM, most of the target system in the East Duffins subwatershed, and the Iroquois Shoreline through some of the Duffins and all of the Carruthers Watersheds. Transport Canada In March 2002 Transport Canada announced that a portion of the federal lands expropriated in the 1970's for an airport would be protected as green space. In total the Federal Green Space lands encompass some 3,052 ha. (2,251 ha on the ORM and another 800 ha on the western boundary of the federal land holdings). Seaton Lands The Provincial Seaton Lands initiative ensures the protection of a greater land base of natural cover within the Seaton Lands than the TRCA THNSS had targeted for the area. The reason is that a system expansion could not be projected by TRCA beyond the existing land use planning policies. The Seaton Lands initiative was the Province's project. More precisely, the TRCA target system for the area measures 1,132 hectares (813 ha existing fores, 40 ha existing wetland, and 279 ha potential forest or wetland). The Province's plan for the area protects a 1,688 hectare natural land base. Durham Official Plan Review TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage and GIS staff have worked with Conservation Authorities that share Durham Regional Municipality to ensure seamless vegetation community data layers across Durham Region. The common layer used was the Province's Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Community Series level of detail. TRCA GIS staff also trained Durham GIS staff in the use of landscape analysis and raster system design models to assist them in defining natural heritage system for their Official Plan review. The outcome has yet to be finalized but their initial discussion paper was progressive, promoting a systems approach. TNHSS Consultation The intent of the TNHSS is to provide a coordinated approach to providing recommendations for policies, stewardship and land securement. In 2004, TRCA instructed staff to conduct a broad consultation process for the Draft THNSS to involve partners and TNHSS stakeholder groups. The process involved the review and comments through both workshops and subsequent correspondence. Beyond the meetings with Durham Region mentioned above, individual meetings with Pickering and Ajax were conducted to refine the land cover mapping within their municipalities and address some of the their localized comments. June 22, 2005 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP JK25 Restoration Habitat Implementation Plans (HIP) TRCA staff has worked at defining the interface between the TNHSS and Habitat Implementation Plans (HIP), the latter being the implementation arm of the restoration facet of the TNHSS. TRCA staff has also conducted biological inventories in the areas prioritized in the HIP fo the Duffins Watershed. Multiple Benefits Natural cover is often considered a topic related to terrestrial biodiversity but that view limits the potential for conservation. Beyond the positive effects on species and vegetation communities, protecting and restoring a land base for natural cover provides benefits in the form of climate regulation, natural aesthetics, recreation opportunities, air quality and water management. Natural cover not only provides positive ecosystem services and social benefits and is not a source of air, noise, water and soil contamination and pollution. Source protection, through natural cover, takes on both facets of conservation including land base protection and restoration. The infiltration opportunity is determined by the protection of the land base but the capacity of water management is determined by the type of restoration that occurs on that land base, be it forest or wetland. Although the Oak Ridges Moraine is a well -known recharge area, the remainder of the Duffins and the entire Carruthers Watersheds, by their surface area, provide a substantial potential for recharge and discharge; therefore, the implementation of the THNSS below the ORM is noteworthy. A Source Protection study is underway in the Duffins and Carruthers Watersheds to look at the relationships between land and water. Already the link is becoming obvious between the Halton Till plain and the recharge in the lower reaches (for example, the Whitevale Corridor of the West Duffins). The affect of implementing the TNHSS on and off of the ORM also apply to the multiple benefits listed above. RES. #JK20/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM, GREENLANDS STRATEGY, SEATON, OAK RIDGES MORAINE, AND TRANSPORT CANADA GREENSPACE LANDS INTEGRATED MAP New map showing targeted TNHS, Seaton greenspace, Federal greenspace, ORM, Greenspace protection areas. Also available will be percent cover targets and expected cover given proposed protection. Neil Burnett Scott Crawford THAT the staff report on Terrestrial Natural Heritage System, Greenlands Strategy, Seaton, Oak Ridges Moraine, and Transport Canada Greenspace Lands Integrated Map be received for information CARRIED JK26 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP June 22, 2005 BACKGROUND A map was presented at the meeting showing the potential natural heritage system in the Duffins and Carruthers watersheds. The map is a composite of various initiatives and plans to protect and enhance the natural heritage system in the watersheds. Several initiatives are contributing to the system: • Transport Canada Greenspace Lands • Planning for Seaton • Provincial Oak Ridges Moraine and Greenbelt legislation • TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy The map illustrates that much of the targeted natural heritage system as outlines in A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek is achievable through proposed planning and legislation. RES. #JK21/05 - FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED Moved by: Seconded by: Neil Burnett Neil Acton THAT the staff report on Fish Management Plan for the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed be received by the committee for information CARRIED BACKGROUND Final edits to The Duffins and Carruthers Fisheries Management Plan (FMP), dated June 2004, are nearly complete. No significant changes were necessary. Once the edits are complete, the final version will be printed and posted on the TRCA web site. The FMP was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry for the month of September, 2004. No comments were received. Tracy Smith, the MNR's Aurora District Manager approved the FMP and signed the Decision Notice prepared by Tim Rance in February. The Decision Notice was sent to the MNR EBR Coordinator and it will be posted in the very near future. In February, an approval letter was prepared and sent to TRCA and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), which will trigger a letter from DFO. The next step is to prepare a brief Implementation Plan based on the recommendations in the FMP. This plan will provide some general guidance for a watershed implementation strategy (for example, large scale tree planting to achieve significant moderation of stream flows) and will include more specific details about in- the - ground projects and a priority list for sites to be treated. Also, various groups that might carry out the actual implementation projects in specific areas of the watershed, as well as possible funding sources should be identified. Although there will not be time to get many implementation projects up and running this summer, we expect to have several projects undertaken in the summer of 2006. June 22, 2005 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP JK27 RES. #JK22/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: SEATON LANDS PLANNING AND THE WATERSHED PLAN Status of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff involvement in the ongoing preparation of the local regional and provincial development for the Seaton Community in the City of Pickering. Colleen Jordan Alan Wells THAT the status report on the Seaton Community Development Plan be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group be advised at a later date on the status of the Development Program for the Seaton Lands. BACKGROUND The Seaton Lands are generally bounded by Brock Road to the east, Highway 7 and the Green River Community to the north, the West Duffins Creek to the west, and the CP Rail Corridor to the south. The lands are currently within the City of Pickering's Urban Expansion Boundary as identified in the current local and regional Official Plans. The lands are owned by the Province of Ontario and are the subject of an Environmental Assessment process which, if approved, will allow for the transfer of developable areas within Seaton in exchange for lands with Richmond Hill. For the past several months, TRCA staff have attended field visits and meetings to assist in the Provincial and City of Pickering initiatives to develop a Structural Plan /Growth Management Plan for the Seaton Lands. TRCA staff were initially involved in two separate processes -one initiated through the Pickering Growth Management Study, and the second through the Provincial Ontario Planning and Development Act Process. Both processes, with some overlap, aimed to identify and secure a natural heritage system for Seaton. TRCA staff have been instrumental in the preparation at a staff level, of a common natural heritage system for the Seaton lands. We are also involved in the creation of environmental policies which would be incorporated in local and regional Official Plan Amendments and, in the Provincial Plan. TRCA staff were also involved in weekly meetings to finalize the process and sequence by which the various technical requirements would unfold through the planning and approval process. The natural heritage system proposed is significant. The system encompasses approximately two thirds of the lands within Seaton, and incorporates all meaningful features including watercourses, wetlands, forest blocks and hedgerows. The system also incorporates buffers from the protected features and tableland corridors which would link key natural heritage features. The minimum buffer from all defined features would be 30 metres. The natural heritage system lands will remain in public ownership and uses will be restricted to those which are related to passive recreation, cultural heritage and occasionally servicing (i.e., road crossings and stormwater management facilities). Where services are required, criteria is being developed to ensure that impacts to the system, including fragmentation, are minimized. Given the size of the community and natural heritage system, road crossings will occur. JK28 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP June 22, 2005 However, in order to reduce ecological impacts through future design stages, we have incorporated design criteria and recommended policy inclusions such as span bridges and tunneling for servicing where feasible. We are also establishing the engineering criteria to ensure that the water management objectives are maintained through the development process, as this is critical to the continued health of the Duffins watershed. TRCA staff are also promoting the inclusion of sustainable development technologies in the design of the community. The Province is committed to this innovation while the City of Pickering has committed to a sustainable development forum to set the specific requirements which could be incorporated in the community design. Finally, staff are promoting the development of an Environmental Management Plan for the protected natural heritage system. This plan will identify the mechanisms by which the natural heritage system will be protected and enhanced as Seaton develops. Among other issues, the plan should outline an ecological enhancement strategy, the pedestrian access system, any safety and security requirements, and set out a monitoring program to ensure that the features and their function continue to flourish. The approved Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Plan, along with the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, have been key resources in guiding the various policy recommendations which TRCA staff have been promoting for incorporation into the various planning documents. TRCA are also requiring that future reports, including the Master Environmental Servicing Plan and Neighbourhood Plans consider the Duffins Creek Watershed Management Actions, wherever applicable. Further, the measures and targets for the Duffins Watershed should guide the future technical work and subsequent monitoring should reflect the desired targets established in the Watershed Plan. It is expected that the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham and the Province will finalize policy documents (Pickering and Durham Official Plan Amendments and a Provincial Plan) in the coming months which will set the stage for future development and will outline the natural heritage system as a schedule. These documents will also outline the land uses which will occur on areas beyond the natural heritage system and give a general indication of the road pattern for the developing community. Finally, the documents will define the requirements for the protection of the defined natural heritage system through the community design and the criteria for the content of additional technical reports (i.e., Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) and Functional Studies (FSS)) to support future development. Staff will continue to work with the Province, the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering to finalize the development plan for Seaton. We will provide an update as the provincial and municipal initiatives for the development of Seaton are furthered. June 22, 2005 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP JK29 RES. #JK23/05 - TOWN OF AJAX WATERFRONT MANAGEMENT PLAN -2005 Update on the Waterfront Management Plan for the Town of Ajax Moved by: Seconded by: Doug Dodge Alan Wells THAT the status report on the Town of Ajax Waterfront Management Plan - 2005 be received for information 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 outlines in "Regeneration" by the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. 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 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. 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 Region of Durham to acquire shoreline properties in the Pickering Beach area. JK30 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP June 22, 2005 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 1994. 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 the 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. 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 presentation 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 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, 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. June 22, 2005 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP JK31 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: Phase 1 - Short Term Projects (1 -4 years); Phase 2 - Medium Term Projects (5 -7 years); Phase 3 - Long Term Projects (8 -10 years). 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 outlines 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. TRCA staff 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 restorations, the plan will recognize the benefits of healthy coastal estuary wetlands to the waterfront and Duffins and Carruthers watersheds. RES. #JK24/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: WATERSHED PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS REPORT Results of consultation with local and regional municipal staff regarding efforts to implement the recommendations in A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. Steve Woolfenden Alan Wells THAT the progress report on Watershed Plan Implementation be received for information CARRIED JK32 DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP June 22, 2005 BACKGROUND A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek was completed in 2003. As part of the ongoing effort to monitor the successful implementation of the Watershed Plan, updates on activities supporting the Plan from watershed municipalities will be needed. TRCA has met with the Town of Ajax, City of Pickering, the Regional Municipality of Durham, and the Regional Municipality of York. Meetings have been scheduled with the Township of Uxbridge and the Township of Whitchurch - Stouffville, but these meetings have not yet taken place and, therefore, results are not included in the progress report. Meetings to date have revealed great success in implementation of the Watershed Plan at the local and regional planning and operations levels. To date, 171 of 202 management actions listed in the Watershed Plan have seen some progress in implementation. Seven of the eight goals listed in the plan have scored an "A" or a "B ". The only failing grade is for goal 7, the human heritage component of the plan. While the grade is low, this should not be seen as a failure given the high standard that has been set for this goal. The results of this municipal consultation exercise will be presented to the Councils of the City of Pickering, City of Markham, Town of Ajax, Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville, and the Township of Uxbridge and to the Planning Committees of the Regional Municipality of York and the Region Municipality of Durham. A presentation will also be made to these committees if requested. 8.0 NEW BUSINESS Corner Marsh Rehabilitation Site C. Jordan reported that she has received numerous phone calls from concerned residents regarding the large number of fish that are unable to reach wetland. Ms. Jordan suggested that a sign be erected that could educate the public on the project and it many benefits. A second opportunity exists for communication with the public on the Town of Ajax website. G. Bowen indicated that once the project had begun it was discovered that the Corner Marsh rehabilitation project was a much bigger job than had been anticipated and that in hindsight the signage on site could have been better. TRCA had planned on erecting information signs when the project was completed. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 8:30 p.m., June 22, 2005. Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer • THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ETOBICOKE MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION MINUTES OF MEETING #1/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #3/05 APRIL 29, 2005 c. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 January 27, 2005 Page H1 The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition met at the Greater Toronto Airports Authority , on January 27, 2005. Suzanne Barrett, called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. PRESENT Suzanne Barrett Co -Chair Marjut Dunker Member Janice Etter Member Bette -Ann Goldstein Member Pamela Gough Member Marilyn Hagerman Member David Lyons Member Randy McGill Member Chris McGlynn Member Doug McRonney Member Glenn Miller Member Bob Noble Member Rick Reitmeier Alternate Steve Rutherford Member Sean Stuart Member Boris Swedak Member Tanya Trivedi Member GUESTS Syeda Banuri City of Brampton Holly Britton Marshall Macklin Monaghan Neil Hutchinson Gartner Lee Ltd. Deborah Sinclair Gartner Lee Ltd. STAFF Don Ford Senior Hydrogeologist Katrina Guy Assistant Heritage Coordinator Chandra Sharma Specialist, Etobicoke - Mimico Gary Wilkins Specialist, Humber Paul Wilims Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Resource Planner H2 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 January 27, 2005 INTRODUCTIONS The Co -Chair introduced the guests in attendance at the meeting and thanked Randy McGill for hosting the meeting at the GTAA Offices. It was agreed that at future meetings, a round- table set up should be considered rather than separate tables. RES. #H1/05 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Pamela Gough Bette -Ann Goldstein THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/04, held on October 28, 2004, be received CARRIED BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES C. Sharma reported on the Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001 staff report which was considered at the October 28th, 2004 Coalition meeting. L. Field, TRCA's Waterfront Specialist and Government Liaison, was asked to speak to the issue at this meeting but was out of town and unavailable. He will be requested to update the Coalition at its April 28111, 2005 meeting. C. Sharma further reported that the Ministry of Natural Resources has struck an advisory panel to allow all parties the opportunity to share information and work collaboratively toward a solution that meets the collective interests of all stakeholders. Through a public announcement made on November 15, 2004, the Minister has committed to continue seeking input from stakeholders and First Nations before ratifying any agreement. The federal government has also struck an advisory panel with the intent to reach a conclusion by July, 2005 after a 60 -day consultation period. CORRESPONDENCE (a) Letter to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, dated January 5, 2005, re: Proposed Greenbelt Plan RES. #H2/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Etter Bob Noble THAT the Town of Caledon, and Caledon Countryside Alliance's submissions on the draft Greenbelt Plan be circulated to the Policy and Advocacy Team for their information; January 27, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 H3 THAT the Coalition's Policy and Advocacy Team circulate drafts of its position and all future correspondence related to policy matters to the full Coalition for review and comment prior to submission; AND FURTHER THAT a deadline for comments be provided to members and for all time - sensitive correspondence, the Co- Chairs of the Coalition be given the authority to approve correspondence CARRIED (b) Email from the Toronto Environmental Alliance re: Toronto's budget process RES. #H3/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Etter Chris McGlynn WHEREAS the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition supports the proposal pf the Toronto Environmental Alliance to not cut the tree maintenance funding from the City of Toronto budget; BE IT RESOLVED THAT Janice Etter and Chris McGlynn, on behalf of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition, draft a position of support by February 4, 2005 and depute at the February 7, 2005 meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee CARRIED (c) Press Release from Queen's Park re: Ontario's New Water Taking and Transfer Regulation RES. #H4/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: Boris Swedak Chris McGlynn THAT the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition send a letter to the Ministry of Environment expressing support for TRCA comments CARRIED (b) Letter to Minister of Environment from the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition, dated October 28, 2004, re: Improvements to Ontario's Environmental Assessment Process (c) Letter to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, dated January 10, 2005, re: Bill 133 H4 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 January 27, 2005 (d) Letter from Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition to Malton Stewardship Executive Committee, dated November 15, 2004, re: City of Mississauga Salt Management Plan (e) Letter from Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition to Rockwood Assoc., dated November 15, 2004, re: City of Mississauga Salt Management Plan (f) Email from Rockwood Homeowners Association to Councillor Maja Prentice, dated November 16, 2004, re: City of Mississauga Salt Management Plan (g) Notice of Open ,House for Community Program for Stormwater Management (CPSWM) on February 1, 2005 RES. #H5/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Boris Swedak Doug McRonney THAT the above -noted correspondence be received CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) Brampton Lake Assessment Study Deborah Sinclair and Neil Hutchinson of Gartner Lee Ltd., made a presentation highlighting the following: • study maps • terrestrial vegetation waterfowl populations water quality parameters surface, groundwater and wetland aspects (b) York - Durham -Peel Groundwater Study TRCA's Don Ford made a presentation on the modelling work currently underway across a large region which includes the TRCA jurisdiction as well as the Credit Valley Conservation Authority's jurisdiction. The data collected will be used in preparation for the 2007 Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Plan. January 27, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1105 H5 MOTION - ELECTION OF VICE -CHAIR Election of a Vice -Chair for the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition by the members of the Coalition. THAT a Vice -Chair be appointed to the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition for the remainder of the term of this Coalition. THE MOTION WAS NOT CARRIED AMENDMENT RES. #H6/05 - WHEREAS the term of this Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition will end In October, 2005; AND WHEREAS the Coalition currently has two Co- Chairs who alternate chairing the Coalition meetings; BE IT RESOLVED THAT the position of Vice -Chair of the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition not be filled for the remainder of this Coalition's term THE AMENDMENT WAS 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 3.4 Selection of Chair and Vice -Chair of the Watersheds Coalition The Chair and Vice -Chair will be elected by the Watersheds Coalition from amongst its members. The Authority may appoint an interim Chair until such time that an election can take p /ace. The Chair and Vice -Chair will be ex- officio members of all working committees." At meeting #4/04, October 28, 2004, the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition approved Resolution #H42/04 which states, in part: AND FURTHER THAT the Coalition elect a Vice -Chair at their next meeting on Thursday, January 27, 2005" Election Process Nominations for Chair and Vice -Chair will be accepted followed by a show of hands. A formal election by ballot for Chair and Vice -Chair of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition will be held only if necessary. H6 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 January 27, 2005 RES. #H7/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: MALTON COMMUNITY ACTION AREA IMPLEMENTATION To provide a progress report on the Malton Environmental Stewardship Project Steve Rutherford Doug McRonney THAT the report on the Malton Environmental Stewardship Project update be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT members of the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition participate in the Earth Week, Malton Environment Festival activities on Saturday, April 23, 2005, at Wildwood Park CARRIED BACKGROUND The Malton area of Mississauga is one of three communities targeted for action by the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watershed Task Force report, Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. Malton faces considerable challenges to habitat enhancement owing to its highly urbanized landscape. The Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition endorsed a plan to address the opportunities within the Malton Community Action Area ( #1/04; January 22, 2004, Resolution #H6/04): THAT the Implementation p /an for the Malton Community Action Area be endorsed; THAT a Malton Community Action Area Stewardship Group be established to assist with the implementation of the Malton Community Action Area Plan; THAT members of the Coalition who reside in, or are interested in, the Malton Community Action Area participate in the stewardship group and assist with outreach, regeneration, and community development activities; In May 2004, The Malton Environmental Stewardship Project (a partnership between the Malton Residents Association, the Mississauga - Airport Rotary Club, the City of Mississauga and the TRCA), was awarded an Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF) grant in the amount of $253,700; one of the largest sums awarded by the OTF to projects in the Golden Horseshoe Area. UPDATE A public stewardship group, the Malton Environmental Stewardship Group, has been formed to help implement and promote this project in the Malton community. On January 25th, the first meeting of the Malton Environmental Stewardship Group was held at the Malton Community Centre. Organizations from the Malton area came to find out what roles they can play in this group and to help develop strategies for implementing the project's objectives. The Project Ecologist, Marnie Branfireun, was hired in July and provided with project office space at the newly renovated Malton Community Centre (MCC) in September. Project activities were kicked off in October with a clean -up event in Elm Creek Park with the St. Mark's January 27, 2005 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 H7 Presbyterian Church Youth Group and the contribution of environmental education activities to the Malton Community Festival. October 13t marked the official project launch with a planting event along the Derry Greenway with children from Ridgewood Primary School. Ridgewood Principal Aki Odamura and environment club leader, teacher Angela Caldwell, were on hand with 30 enthusiastic grade four and five Environment Club students to plant 50 native trees and shrubs. A great time was had by all on this sunny, successful day! FUTURE ACTIVITIES Future activities will engage the public in getting to know the wonderful green spaces of Malton as we enhance wildlife habitat and provide educational experiences to the community. Nature hikes, gardening and energy efficiency information for homeowners, best practices seminars for local businesses and programs for youth are all part of the plan to unite people and nature. Saturday April 23'", Wildwood Park Annual Malton Environmental Festival • with habitat enhancement and environmental education activities in conjunction with Earth Week • Clean -up, planting, educational activities, displays, music and food will all form part of this festival in celebration of Earth Week in Malton. Saturday September 17th, Malton Community Centre Malton Community Festival, • with TRCA Conservation Seminars and MESP environmental education activities • Fundraising will be an ongoing part of this work, and additional project components may be added as the Malton Environmental Stewardship Group develops over the next four years. MOTION - PESTICIDE REFORM Pesticide Free Ontario is seeking a ban on lawn pesticide sales and is asking for endorsement from the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition. THAT this staff report on the pesticide reform.ca website and its platform supporting a provincial ban on retail pesticide products, among other limitations, be received; THAT given the Etobicoke and Mimico Watershed Coalition's history of endorsing pesticide restrictions, a letter of support be sent to Pesticide Free Ontario; AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition continue to monitor and support pesticide reduction campaigns as outlined in Greening Our Watersheds. THE MOTION WAS NOT CARRIED H8 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1105 January 27, 2005 AMENDMENT RES. #H8/05 Moved by: Doug McRonney Seconded by: David Lyons THAT the matter of Pesticide Reform be referred to the Policy and Advocacy Team of the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition for further discussion and report back with recommendations to the April 28, 2005 meeting of the Coalition; AND FURTHER THAT a representative from Pesticide Free Ontario and a representative of the landscape industry be invited to speak to this issue at the next Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting; THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND In July 2001, the Etobicoke - Mimico Task Force encouraged municipalities to pass restrictive pesticide by -laws after the Supreme Court of Canada decision (114957 Canada Ltee v. Hudson (Town). Greening Our Watersheds (May 2002) later enshrined the Task Force's concerns regarding pesticides and suggested reductions, municipal prohibition by -laws, and alternative maintenance practices for improved water quality and health (GOW, May 2002: 151 -154, "Heavy Metals and Organic Contamination;" and, "Stewardship Management Strategy, Backyard Practices, "259 -270). The Town of Caledon and City of Toronto have both passed restrictive pesticide by -laws since the Hudson decision, while Brampton and Mississauga councils have not (Town of Caledon by -law 2003 -81; City of Toronto by -law 456- 2003). The Coalition supported the Toronto and Caledon by -laws through letters. The Coalition also supported (letter dated January 7, 2003) a Private Members Bill, Bill 208, that would clearly enable subsequent municipal by -laws prohibiting cosmetic application of pesticides. Finally, the Coalition has supported and developed campaigns on alternatives to pesticides and resource - intensive landscaping through the Healthy Yards and Waterless, or Waterless - It's Up to You programs. Pesticide Free Ontario has developed a new website and position on prohibiting the sale of pesticides, and is asking for individual and group support (www.pesticidereform.ca). The Coalition is being asked to lend support to the website's platform. RATIONALE Pesticide Free Ontario currently has twenty -seven supporting organizations. They argue that municipal pesticide by -laws are a good first step at protecting the well -being of residents and the environment, but that complementary action is needed by the Province to prohibit the retail sale of pesticides in order to make a difference. The sale of pesticides is regulated by the Province. January 27, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 H9 Specifically, Pesticide Free Ontario argues that: • The cosmetic use of pesticides in Ontario is a public health issue; • pesticide poisoning incidents reported by Poison Control Centres support the need for prohibiting residential use; • the Province of Quebec enacted restrictive legislation on the retail sales and use of landscape pesticides in 2003 so a precedent exists; • there are effective alternatives to lawn and garden pesticides; and, • there exists a lack of Provincial standardization for landscaping services. Pesticide Reform Ontario recommends the following changes to the PesticidesActto protect the health of Ontario residents and to protect the environment. • Restrict the use of lawn and garden pesticides on all properties owned by the Province of Ontario and on all properties in which Provincial offices, agencies, boards and commissions are located; • immediately collect all data related to the sale and use of pesticides on lawns and gardens in Ontario; • in consultation with those with recognized expertise in organic products and services, - develop and implement definitions of `organic ", "natural ", "environmentally considerate ", etc.; and, • by 2007, restrict all non - essential use of pesticides in the Province of Ontario. None of these changes to Provincial legislation (to the Pesticides Act) will limit the power of municipalities to enact pesticide by -laws to protect the health safety and well -being of residents in a municipality pursuant to section 130 of the Municipal Act, 2001. WORK TO BE DONE • Coalition members visit the pesticidereform.ca website • A letter of support signed by the Coalition co- chairs be sent to pesticidereform.ca RES. #H9/05 - 2004 COALITION ACCOMPLISHMENTS A summary of 2004 accomplishments based on outreach events Moved by: Seconded by: Pamela Gough Bette -Ann Goldstein THAT the staff report on 2004 accomplishments of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, be received; AND FURTHER THAT members of the Coalition be congratulated for establishing new partnerships, participation in restoration projects, and on 2004 accomplishments . CARRIED H10 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 January 27, 2005 BACKGROUND The following report summarizes the actions, events, and partnerships that were established in the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks in 2004. The summary was derived from the list of events held throughout the year with a particular focus on partners, the number of participants, and the measurable result of the activity (that apply to report card indicators). This summary format follows the 2003 Accomplishments report to the Coalition (January 22, 2004). The 2003 -2004 accomplishments are presented below for comparison purposes. In summary, 2004 saw a similar level of outreach effort with approximately 1,250 more participants at events, thousands more trees planted, and a similar number of partners involved. The Coalition engaged in several different initiatives Public events were held throughout the year, from March 28, 2004 to October 28, 2004, and were sponsored / organized by a variety of partners and community organizations. The following list summarizes and quantifies 2003 / 2004 efforts through outreach activities within the watersheds: Indicator / Activity 2003 2004 Total events in the watersheds 36 32 Total partners 38 30 Total participants at events 10,755 12,056 Clean -ups Over 100 bags removed from valleylands Over 2 tonnes of garbage collected Riparian zone planted (linear metres X 15 m) 271 linear metres Over 300 linear metres Trees and shrubs, aquatic and herbaceous plants established 5,797 8,342 Number of species planted Over 50 Over 40 Habitat patches planted (area) Over 1 hectare 5000 sq. metres Public fish release 500 500 "Water less or Waterless -it's up to you" water conservation gardening campaign - plants distributed ( "The Front Lawn Challenge" =2003) 300 500 Other Accomplishments 2003 1 2004 January 27, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 H11 Indicator / Activity 2003 1 2004 • archeological site discovered and registered • Coalition display at 8 events • original song about environmental issues composEde 65 bird boxes built and performed by a watershed school • wetland meadow created in Mimico • nationally rare wildflower re- discovered not far Creek watershed from its original 20 -year old Environmentally • many new inaugural events and Significant Area designation partnerships this year including Bat • 4 Community Action Areas and associated Night, Walk For the Art of It, Brampton Stewardship Groups officially launched with Communities in Blooms, and new annual several CAAs developing based on local interest events and clean -ups (e.g. Tom Riley Park and participation (Heart Lake, South Mimico, Earth Week event) Malton, Snelgrove, Central Mississauga, Renforth • Spills Management Workshop Creek) • Malton Environmental Stewardship Project launched with $253,700 funding from the Ontario Trillium Foundation • • Planning processes initiated / continued included the Heart Lake Master Plan, Integrated Watersheds Trails Plan, South Mimico Barrier Mitigation, E/M land use study, Watershed Report Card • Golf Course outreach and stewardship seminar held • Business outreach partnership with OCETA developed • Healthy Yards program launched (www.trca.on.ca /yards) A detailed chart of the events, partners, and participation is available for further analysis or future planning purposes if required by the Coalition and /or Committees. RES. #H10 /05 - Moved by: Seconded by: COALITION SUBCOMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS Review of Coalition membership and mandate regarding its subcommittees, working groups, Community Action Area Stewardship Groups and project- specific committees. Janice Etter Marilyn Hagerman THAT the Coalition Subcommittees and Working Groups chart be received for information; THAT a detailed list of past accomplishments, current projects and future goals for each working group and subcommittee be developed by each group at their upcoming meeting; H12 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 January 27, 2005 THAT members participate in a facilitated workshop to be held at Coalition meeting #3/05, on Thursday July 28, 2005 to review the Coalition's work during the first term; AND FURTHER THAT the workshop outcomes provide an assessment of the Coalition's work for the 2005 Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Report Card and direct the structure, mandate, and roles of the next Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition CARRIED BACKGROUND At Meeting #4/04 of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition, it was recommended that Coalition subcommittee and working group membership and roles be reviewed in order to enhance the effectiveness of the Coalition's work. At meeting #1/02 of the Watersheds Coalition, four interim watershed teams were established. The interim watershed teams met in October, November and December, 2002 to prepare their detailed work plans. These work plans were presented to the Coalition at Meeting #1103. During 2003 and 2004, the subcommittees and working groups undertook various projects to accomplish their work plan objectives. Throughout this period, members closely reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of their work. As a result, in 2004 the existing four teams were amalgamated into two working groups: Nature and Water Working Group and Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group. Subsequently, two new groups- the Report Card Working Group and Policy and Advocacy Review Teamwere also established during 2004. In accordance with the Coalition mandate, members also participate in Community Action Area Stewardship Groups and project- specific advisory committees. RATIONALE The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition is mandated to achieve the 2025 vision of healthier and more sustainable watersheds established by the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force. Increasing the capacity and diversity of membership has been identified as a key issue in achieving this vision. The proposed review is intended to provide an assessment of Coalition actions and work plan as required by the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Report Card. This exercise will greatly assist in providing strategic direction for the next Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition. WORK TO BE DONE • Working Groups and Sub - Committees prepare or update their list of accomplishments, current projects and proposed priorities. • A facilitated workshop be held at Coalition meeting #3/05 on Thursday, July 28, 2005. January 27, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 H13 RES. #H11/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: SOURCE PROTECTION MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND FUNDING Approval to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with respect to Source Protection Program Administration; and, a Memorandum of Agreement with respect to the delivery of provincially funded partnership capacity building ( "start-up ") projects Janice Etter Marilyn Hagerman THAT the report regarding source protection memoranda of agreement for program administration and funding be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority, at its meeting #11/04, held on January 7, 2005 adopted the following resolution: - THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with respect to Source Protection Program Administration between the TRCA, Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC) and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) for the period January 1, 2005 until December 31, 2007; THAT the TRCA enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with respect to coordination and administration of partnership capacity bui /ding 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; 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 officia /s be authorized and directed to execute all necessary documentation required; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the Final Report of the Technical Experts Committee on Science based decision making for protecting Ontario's drinking water resources, the Final Report of the Implementation Committee on Source Water Protection and on the Amendments to the Water Taking and Transfer Regulation, as necessary. 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; H14 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 January 27, 2005 THAT TRCA act as the lead conservation authority for this source protection planning region; 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, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with respect to Source Protection Program Administration, as outlined in Attachment 1, has been developed by staff of the TRCA, CVC and CLOCA. The MOA sets out the terms of administration of the source protection program with the CVC - TRCA -CLOCA ( "CTC ") Region, the roles and responsibilities of the Parties, and means by which the Parties can fulfill the requirements of the Drinking Water Source Protection Act, which is anticipated to be passed early in 2005. The CLOCA board has approved the Memorandum of Agreement. A report to the CVC board is pending. The purpose of this staff report is to seek approval of TRCA's participation in the MOA. Finalization of a signed MOA among the three conservation authorities is expected to be a requirement of the legislation and the provision of provincial funding. Provincial Funding Agreement A MOA between the province (Crown in right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources), Conservation Ontario (2002796 Ontario Limited) and the three conservation authorities in the CTC Region will be necessary to set out the terms and deliverables associated with the transfer of provincial source protection "start-up" funding, as described in a staff report to TRCA's Executive Committee, at their meeting held on December 3, 2004. A draft generic MOA has been circulated to all source protection regions in Ontario for review and comment. A revised MOA is expected shortly. The purpose of this staff report is to seek approval for TRCA's participation in this provincial funding agreement, pending the completion of a final agreement that represents the scope and work, administrative and financial terms agreeable to the parties. The objective of the provincial "start-up" funding is to ensure conservation authorities have sufficient capacity to meet the aggressive goals and objectives of the anticipated source protection planning legislation as well as to ensure the active transfer and development of water balance /water budget methodology on a watershed basis to all conservation authorities in Ontario in order to support local decision making regarding source protection. The funding is to be used by conservation authorities to undertake the following activities, prior to the enactment of source water protection legislation and promulgation of associated regulations: A: Water Budget B: Capacity Building - Capacity Building and Communications - Preliminary Watershed Characterization - Workplan Development Details of the project, including specific products, deliverables, activities, milestone dates and budgets, will be set out in an Appendix to the MOA. Staff of TRCA, CVC and CLOCA are in the January 27, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 H15 process of preparing workplans and budgets in support of this MOA. Meetings to seek input from municipal staff are scheduled in January, 2005. Provincial Committee Reports and Water Taking Regulation On December 14, 2004, the province posted two reports on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry for information: 1) Final Report of the Technical Experts Committee on Science based decision making for protecting Ontario's drinking water resources: a threats assessment framework; and 2) Final Report Of the Implementation Committee on Source Water Protection. These reports can be found at www.ene.gov.on.ca /envision /techdocs /4935e.pdf and www.ene.gov.on.ca /envision /techdocs /4938e.pdf, respectively. Staff is reviewing these reports and will forward comments to the province via Conservation Ontario and incorporate guidelines into workplans being prepared for the CTC Region. Also on December 14, 2004, the province posted Amendments to the Water Taking and Transfer Regulation on the EBR Registry for a 60 -day comment period. Staff will report back to the Authority and Conservation Ontario with comments on this posting. 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 Cred /t 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; 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, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with respect to Source Protection Program Administration, as outlined in Attachment 1, has been developed by staff of the TRCA, CVC and CLOCA. The MOA sets out the terms of administration of the source protection program with the CVC - TRCA -CLOCA ( "CTC ") Region, the roles and responsibilities of the Parties, and means by which the Parties can fulfill the requirements of the Drinking Water Source Protection Act, which is anticipated to be passed early in 2005. The CLOCA board has approved the Memorandum of Agreement. A report to the CVC board is pending. The purpose of this staff report is to seek approval of TRCA's participation in the MOA. Finalization of a signed MOA among the three conservation authorities is expected to be a requirement of the legislation and the provision of provincial funding. Provincial Funding Agreement A MOA between the province (Crown in right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources), Conservation Ontario (2002796 Ontario Limited) and the three conservation authorities in the CTC Region will be necessary to set out the terms and deliverables associated H16 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 January 27, 2005 with the transfer of provincial source protection "start-up" funding, as described in a staff report to TRCA's Executive Committee, at their meeting held on December 3, 2004. A draft generic MOA has been circulated to all source protection regions in Ontario for review and comment. A revised MOA is expected shortly. The purpose of this staff report is to seek approval for TRCA's participation in this provincial funding agreement, pending the completion of a final agreement that represents the scope and work, administrative and financial terms agreeable to the parties. The objective of the provincial "start-up" funding is to ensure conservation authorities have sufficient capacity to meet the aggressive goals and objectives of the anticipated source protection planning legislation as well as to ensure the active transfer and development of water balance /water budget methodology on a watershed basis to all conservation authorities in Ontario in order to support local decision making regarding source protection. The funding is to be used by conservation authorities to undertake the following activities, prior to the enactment of source water protection legislation and promulgation of associated regulations: A: Water Budget B: Capacity Building - Capacity Building and Communications - Preliminary Watershed Characterization - Workplan Development Details of the project, including specific products, deliverables, activities, milestone dates and budgets, will be set out in an Appendix to the MOA. Staff of TRCA, CVC and CLOCA are in the process of preparing workplans and budgets in support of this MOA. Meetings to seek input from municipal staff are scheduled in January, 2005. Provincial Committee Reports and Water Taking Regulation On December 14, 2004, the province posted two reports on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry for information: 1) Final Report of the Technical Experts Committee on Science based decision making for protecting Ontario's drinking water resources: a threats assessment framework; and 2) Final Report of the Implementation Committee on Source Water Protection. These reports can be found at www.ene.gov.on .ca/envision /techdocs /4935e.pdf and www. ene. gov. on. ca /envision/techdocs /4938e.pdf, respectively. Staff are reviewing these reports and will forward comments to the province via Conservation Ontario and incorporate guidelines into workplans being prepared for the CTC Region. Also on December 14, 2004, the province posted Amendments to the Water Taking and Transfer Regulation on the EBR Registry for a 60 -day comment period. Staff will report back to the Authority and Conservation Ontario with comments on this posting. FINANCIAL DETAILS The CTC Region is expected to receive approximately $682,000 in 2004 -2005, under the provincial funding agreement. These funds will be shared among CVC, TRCA and CLOCA according to an agreed upon workplan and budget allocation. January 27, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 H17 Part of the work associated with these "start-up" activities will involve the preparation of a longer term workplan and budget that will provide the basis for a more detailed provincial funding request and allocation for future fiscal years. RES. #H12/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: GREENBELT DRAFT PLAN The addendum report is to provide consolidated recommendations with clarification and revisions to the report presented to the Executive Committee on December 3, 2004. Janice Etter Marilyn Hagerman THAT the report on the Greenbelt Draft Plan be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND The TRCA Authority at its meeting #11/04, held on January 7, 2005, adopted the following report and recommendation: WHEREAS the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) previously expressed strong support for the general directions of the Greenbelt Draft Plan in Resolution #A306/04, approved at Authority Meeting #10/04, held on November 26, 2004 and directed staff to prepare additional detailed comments and provide them to the Executive Committee; WHEREAS members of the Executive Committee at Meeting #11/04 held on December 3, 2004 did not have sufficient advance time to review the detailed staff comments on the Greenbelt Draft Plan; WHEREAS staff have had further opportunities to meet with Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing staff and municipal staff; WHEREAS this addendum report to the December 3, 2004 report to the Executive Committee seeks to provide a consolidated report with additional clarification and revisions to several of the recommendations contained in the December 3rd report; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the December 3, 2004 report outlined in Attachment 1 be received for information purposes only; THAT the TRCA support the addition to the Greenbelt Draft Plan lands of the Boyd Complex south of Rutherford Road, based on its environmental, recreational, cultural heritage and public ownership attributes; H18 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 January 27, 2005 THAT the TRCA strongly supports the regional -scale corridors identified in the Greenbelt Draft Plan which comprise those portions of the major river valleys connecting Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine and Niagara Escarpment and that are outside the existing approved urban boundaries; THAT for defining the limits of the Greenbelt in section 5.4.1 for both ill- defined and well - defined valleys, it is ensured that scientifically defensible criteria are applied in a layered approach which encompasses the greater of the limits of floodplains, natural hazards, natural heritage features from the Provincial Policy Statement and TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System, and which provides the foundation for defining what additional buffers may be required to provide a safety margin to mitigate the potential impacts of development, climate change and other ecological stressors; THAT through the Generic Regulation process, TRCA pursue with other conservation authorities the use of common definitions to ensure technical clarity and consistency across the province; THAT the Greenbelt Draft Plan be revised in consideration of the Rouge Park North Management Plan, as previously endorsed by the TRCA, to: specifically identify a 600m corridor along the Little Rouge Creek; include wording to recognize that the tributaries of the Rouge River shall be subject to the ecological criteria -based boundary delineation process established through the Rouge Park North Management Plan guidelines; and require that Markham Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 116 comply with the Greenbelt Plan with respect to that boundary delineation process; THAT the following lands be reviewed by the province as minor refinements for possible inclusion within the Greenbelt Plan area due to their environmental significance, identification as part of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System, proximity to other Greenbelt lands and /or to enhance the natural systems approach taken in establishing the Greenbelt Plan: Altona Forest south of the agricultural preserve lands in the City of Pickering and linking along the hydro corridor to the West Duffins Creek; Upland Sandpiper ESA (candidate environmentally significant area) and adjacent tributaries of the Humber River in the northwest of the City of Vaughan; and additional areas of high groundwater recharge in the vicinity of the Lake Iroquois shoreline, based on the recharge data from the York /Peel /Durham/Toronto (YPDT) Groundwater study; January 27, 2005 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 H19 THAT the language of sections 4.1.1, 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 be made consistent with section 1.2 - Environmental Protection, such that essential infrastructure in the Greenbelt be required to achieve a net environmental gain and other permitted land uses be required to "protect, maintain and enhance where possible" as the minimum standard; THAT support be expressed for section 3.1.4 - Rural Area Policies, which would prohibit new multiple units or Tots for permanent residential dwellings in the Protected Countryside; THAT section 3.2.2 - Natural Heritage System Policies, be amended to: clearly define and limit the kinds of development that could be permitted in the Natural Heritage System to only those rural uses currently permitted in official plans that are consistent with the intent of the Greenbelt Plan; strengthen the test for development in the Natural Heritage System from "no negative impacts" to "protect, maintain and enhance "; specifically require a Natural Heritage Evaluation to demonstrate meeting the test; clearly specify a mechanism to trigger a Natural Heritage Evaluation for site alteration or for development that does not require Planning Act approvals; and strengthen the protection for natural features not identified as key natural heritage /hydrologic features by providing direction and criteria to determine their functional relationship to the Water Resources System as well as their ecological value; THAT policy 3.2.3 - Water Resource System Policies, be amended to: require a water balance assessment and /or hydrologic evaluation for major development within Protected Countryside to ensure the protection of the broader ecological functions of the Water Resources System; and harmonize new terminology in the Greenbelt Draft Plan such as "inherently susceptible aquifer systems" with existing terminology used in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan; THAT policy 3.2.4 - Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features Policies, be amended to: achieve consistency in policy application for Key Natural Heritage Features throughout the entire Protected Countryside area such that features outside of the Natural Heritage System have the same protection as features within the system; specifically state that a Natural Heritage or Hydrologic Evaluation is required for development within 120m of features in order to ensure their protection and define an appropriate vegetation protection zone; and that the environmental protection policies currently proposed for the Protected Countryside, which appear to comprise elements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), be simplified and harmonized at the level of the ORMCP in order to reduce confusion, provide certainty and reduce costs to all parties that would be associated with an adversarial approach to Greenbelt Plan interpretation and implementation; H2O ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 January 27, 2005 THAT support be expressed for the Settlement Area policies of the Greenbelt Draft Plan as currently written, believing they strike the appropriate balance of limiting urban sprawl and maintaining the rural character of the Protected Countryside while providing necessary services and functions to support a viable and thriving rural and agricultural economy; THAT section 4.3.2 - Non - Renewable Resource Policies, be clarified with respect to the terminology used and strengthened to prohibit extraction from within all Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features within the Natural Heritage System (NHS) of the Greenbelt Draft Plan; THAT where an existing building, structure or accessory use is proposed to expand into a Key Natural Heritage Feature (KNHF) or Key Hydrologic Feature (KHF), that an environmental report be required to be submitted that demonstrates that no alternatives are available, that the impacts will be minimized and that includes a compensatory restoration plan; THAT prescribed policies be developed for transitional applications and that consultation with stakeholders occur before prescribed policies are finalized; THAT the municipal conformity exercise and associated deadlines for official plan amendments should also be required for amendments to zoning by -laws; THAT the province be requested to invite Conservation Ontario representatives to sit on any future potential Greenbelt Advisory Council; THAT all definitions in the Greenbelt Plan be spelled out in full and not reference a separate document, including that: the definition of "significant" allow for the identification of KNHF and KHF through watershed studies and site - specific field studies; and the term "key natural feature" be clarified to mean both Key Natural Heritage Feature and Key Hydrologic Feature, as it appears in the definitions of "Total Developable Area" and "Vegetation Protection Zone "; THAT Schedule 4 - Natural Heritage System, be amended to show the Natural Heritage System within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), south of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM), to reinforce the necessary strong direction to municipalities regarding the importance of protecting local natural heritage systems in order to support and maintain the ecological integrity of the provincial -scale natural heritage system protected through the Greenbelt Draft Plan; THAT the province be requested to establish a Greenbelt Trust Fund and endow the fund with a significant funding contribution from the province in order to undertake public education, stewardship and environmental farm programs and deliver financial incentives to landowners who contribute to the protection and enhancement of the Greenbelt through the programs offered; January 27, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 H21 AND FURTHER THAT the recommendations and accompanying background material be sent to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing requesting that the Minister direct ministry staff to incorporate these recommendations into the public record and give them due consideration given the time constraints. Resolution #A306/04, as approved at Authority Meeting #10/04 on November 26, 2004, strongly supported the general directions of the Greenbelt Draft Plan, as well as provided a number of detailed comments on the draft Greenbelt Act. Staff was directed to prepare additional detailed comments on the Greenbelt Draft Plan for the Executive Committee meeting of December 3, 2004, based on continuing meetings with staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) for clarification of Greenbelt Draft Plan details. Due to the short time frame for preparing these comments after the MMAH meetings, the report to the Executive Committee was "walked on" the day of the meeting, resulting in committee members not being able to read the report in advance of the meeting. Thus, Resolution #B256/04 was approved as follows: THAT item #8.12 - Greenbelt Draft Plan - Detailed Comments, be deferred to Authority Meeting #11/04, scheduled to be he /d on January 7, 2005, as the Executive Committee did not have adequate time to review the staff report given the tight time constraints p /aced on the reviewper/od; AND FURTHER THAT the Chair send a letter to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to indicate support for an extension of the review period. Following the December 3, 2004, Executive Committee meeting, staff continued consultations with municipal staff in joint meetings with MMAH staff and have received comments from a number of stakeholders requesting clarification. As a result, the addendum report has been prepared to ensure that TRCA's comments are as comprehensive as possible. The following staff recommendations from the December 3, 2004, report are superceded with recommendations above, as explained below in the section outlining TRCA Staff Addendum Comments on the Greenbelt Draft Plan. THAT section 5.4.1 be amended to clarify that the Greenbe /t P /an boundary: for i/l- defined valleys should be a minimum of 60m from the 'Woodline for well- defined valleys should be a minimum 60m from the "stable top of bank; and in both instances the boundary limit shou /d be the greater of either those criteria or any associated contiguous KNHF or KHF at the 60m limit with an additional 30m buffer around the feature; THAT the following areas be detailed on a map and provided to the province for refinement of boundaries or inclusion in the Greenbe /t Plan Area: the headwater areas including the Purpleville Creek in the Humber and the Map /e Uplands Area of Natural and Scientific interest (ANSI) in the West Don; Boyd Conservation Area, providing a future connection to municipal sewer and water services can be accommodated; areas immediately south of the agricultural preserve in the City of Pickering, south of the railway tracks including Townline swamp, Altona H22 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 January 27, 2005 Forest and the hydro corridor; Upland Sandpiper Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) in the Nashville Road /Regional Road 50 area and nearby tributaries of the Humber River; Duffins valley corridor down to Lake Ontario, /inking with Bayly Wetland Complex; and the extent of the Lake Iroquois shore line, based on recharge data from the York /Peel /Durham/Toronto (YPDT) groundwater study; THAT the Greenbelt P /an mapping be revised to include all corridors associated with the Rouge Park North Management P /an, including an accurate delineation of the Little Rouge Creek, and that the Greenbelt Plan policies recognize and support the boundary delineation process of the Rouge plan for all tributaries within the Rouge Park; TRCA STAFF ADDENDUM COMMENTS ON THE GREENBELT DRAFT PLAN \ Staff recommend that the portion of the Boyd Complex south of Rutherford Road be added to the lands contained within the Greenbelt Plan area. This recommendation has been amended from the December 3rd report to provide the following detailed rationale as to why this portion of the Boyd Complex (herein "Boyd ") should be added to the Greenbelt. Boyd is immediately adjacent to the southern portion of lands included in the Greenbelt Plan area. Boyd is designated as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) by the Province of Ontario and as an ESA by the TRCA for its high quality pine forest habitat and as a wetland and recharge source for the East Humber River. Boyd is the southerly part of a series of ESAs and ANSIs along the East Humber River, forming an important part of the East Humber natural heritage system. TRCA's research indicates that the Pine Valley forest area is one of the most important southerly tracts of habitat within the TRCA jurisdiction, and specifically within the Humber River watershed and natural heritage system. This significant wildlife movement corridor connects the natural areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) and Niagara Escarpment to the Lake Ontario shoreline. This terrestrial habitat block is significant during bird migration as well, in that it is the first high quality habitat node north of Lake Ontario. Boyd is also an important regional -scale recreational destination for hiking, picnicking, fishing and nature appreciation. With the population of the GTA projected to increase by 3 million people over the next 30 - years, Boyd will play an increasingly important role in serving the recreational needs of GTA residents. Additionally, Boyd has significant cultural heritage attributes as part of the Carrying Place Trail and containing the remnants of an Iroquois Indian Village that dates back to the early 1500's. Lastly, Boyd is already in public ownership and represents an important component of the East Humber Valley Complex, the bulk of which is already included within the Greenbelt. Clearly, this portion of the Boyd Complex meets many of the criteria for inclusion within the Greenbelt and should be added in. Staff recommend that section 5.4.1 of the Greenbelt Draft Plan be amended for technical clarity and consistency with existing accepted terminology and implementation standards. This section deals with defining the Greenbelt Plan boundary for those portions of the major river valleys (as identified on Schedules 1 and 4) connecting Lake Ontario to the ORM and Niagara Escarpment that are beyond existing approved urban boundaries. TRCA staff strongly support the identification and protection of these major valley corridors as it is, in several areas, very reflective of and helps to implement TRCA's draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. This recommendation has been clarified and amended from the December 3rd report to note January 27, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1105 H23 that the criteria and wording used by the province to define the Greenbelt boundary may, in some instances, not adequately protect development from natural hazards such as flooding, erosion and unstable slopes. The delineation of the boundaries of these major valley corridors, and indeed all valley systems whether inside or outside the Greenbelt, must be determined based on a scientifically defensible approach that layers natural hazard, ecological, land form and source protection criteria and which uses the greatest boundary of all layered criteria for the establishing limits of development. Site specific studies must also determine what additional buffers may be required to provide a safety margin to mitigate the potential impacts of development, climate change and other ecological stressors including, for example, disease or invasive species. Staff wish to strengthen and provide specificity to our previous comments with respect to the Rouge Park North Management Plan, to be consistent with similar comments approved by the Town of Markham in their Greenbelt Plan comments. The Rouge North Management Plan has been previously endorsed by TRCA, especially as it relates to the boundary delineation process that is managed on an "ecological criteria" basis as opposed to a "buffer" basis. Staff therefore recommend that the Greenbelt Plan: - specifically identify a 600m corridor along the Little Rouge Creek; - include wording to recognize that the tributaries of the Rouge River shall be subject to the ecological criteria -based boundary delineation process established through the Rouge Park North Management Plan guidelines; and - require that Markham OPA 116 comply with the Greenbelt Plan with respect to that boundary delineation process. Staff recommend that the following lands (maps to be provided to the ministry) be reviewed by the province as minor refinements for possible inclusion within the Greenbelt Plan area due to their environmental significance, identification as part of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System, proximity to other Greenbelt lands and /or to enhance the systems approach to establishing the Greenbelt Plan. Additional rationale is provided within this report for four of the areas (Boyd, Altona Forest, Sandpiper (candidate) ESA and Iroquois Shoreline) proposed for inclusion while two areas (Bayly Wetland and Purpleville Creek) originally proposed for inclusion have been deleted based on additional detailed analysis: - Altona Forest south of the agricultural preserve lands in the City of Pickering and linking along the hydro corridor to the West Duffins Creek - these lands are contiguous to the proposed Greenbelt boundary and would extend it southwards to include the hydro corridor lands, which contain several rare species of flora. The lands contain existing natural cover and link to stream corridors within the existing urban boundary. - Upland Sandpiper ESA (candidate environmentally significant area) and adjacent tributaries of the Humber River in northwest Vaughan - inclusion of these lands would extend the Greenbelt southwards to Nashville Road and encompass significant rare bird habitat and additional tributaries of the main Humber River. H24 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 January 27, 2005 - additional areas of high groundwater recharge in the vicinity of the Lake Iroquois shoreline based on the recharge data from the York /Peel /Durham/Toronto (YPDT) Groundwater study. In the December 3rd report to the Executive Committee, staff recommended that the Duffins valley corridor down to Lake Ontario and linking with the Bayly wetland complex should be added to the Greenbelt. Based on further detailed analysis staff no longer support this addition to the Greenbelt as the wetland complex is not contiguous with any other Greenbelt lands and is somewhat distant from the Duffins valley corridor. However, staff continue to support the protection and enhancement of this wetland through municipal official plans and its eventual linkage to the West Duffins Creek as identified in the Target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System. Similarly, in the December 3rd report, staff recommended that the Humber River headwaters in the Purpleville Creek area linking to the Maple Uplands Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) within the west Don River headwaters be included within the Greenbelt. Based on further detailed analysis staff no longer support this addition to the Greenbelt as there are intervening designated urban lands between these two areas which makes a linked regional -scale corridor connection not feasible. However, staff continue to support the protection and enhancement of these areas individually through the local planning process as locally important features and corridors. RES. #H13/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the meetings for the following working groups are provided for information. Steve Rutherford Sean Stuart THAT the following minutes be received: • Meeting #4/04 of the Human Heritage Working Group; • Meeting #4/04 of the Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group; • Meeting #4/04 of the Report Card Working Group CARRIED January 27, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #1/05 H25 NEW BUSINESS PESTICIDES BY -LAW, CITY OF TORONTO J. Etter advised that the City of Toronto will be reviewing its pesticides by -law on February 1, 2005 and looking at cemeteries, hydro corridors among other issues. Given the time constraints, it was suggested that the Policy and Advocacy Team follow up and provide an information item update. RES. #H14/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Etter Marilyn Hagerman THAT the Policy and Advocacy Team follow up and provide an update, as an information item, at the April 28th, 2005 meeting of the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting CARRIED DOOR PRIZE As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition, a door prize will be given out at the end of each Coalition meeting. One door prize was awarded at this meeting - a canoe paddle with the Etobicoke- Mimico Creek Coalition logo. The winning ticket belonged to Steve Rutherford. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:15 p.m., January 27, 2005. Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer /L. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ETOBICOKE MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION MINUTES OF MEETING #2/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #5/05 JUNE 24, 2005 t.. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 April 28, 2005 Page H26 The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition met at the Region of Peel Offices on April 28, 2005. Irene Jones called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. PRESENT Suzanne Barrett Co -Chair Cleve Battick Member Gerry Gorman Member Pamela Gough Member Irene Jones Co -Chair Mark Head Alternate Chris McGlynn Member Glenn Miller Member Bob Noble Member Dick O'Brien Chair, TRCA Mathew Rossi Member Sean Stuart Member Boris Swedak Member Robert Volpe Member GUESTS Damian MacSeain Education Specialist, Region of Peel STAFF Kristin Geater Watersheds Project Manager, Etobicoke - Mimico Katrina Guy Assistant Heritage Coordinator, Etobicoke - Mimico Lia Lappano Administrative Assistant, Etobicoke - Mimico Chandra Sharma Specialist, Etobicoke - Mimico Paul Willms Resource Planner, Etobicoke - Mimico H27 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COAUTION #2/05 April 28, 2005 RES. #H15/05 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Suzanne Barrett Pamela Gough THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/05, held on January 27, 2005, be received CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF Irene Jones declared a conflict of interest in item 7.5, Bill 133 concerning spills, as she is indirectly working for a client who has an interest in Bill 133. CORRESPONDENCE (a) Letter from the Coalition to the Ministry of Environment, dated January 31, 2005, re: Water Taking and Transfer (b) Letter from the Coalition to Premier McGuinty dated March 21, 2005, re: Ontario Heritage Act (c) Letter from the Coalition to Smart Growth Secretariat, dated April 18, 2005, re: Draft Growth Plan RES. #H16/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Chris McGlynn Boris Swedak THAT the above correspondence be received CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) Peel Water Story Damian MacSeain, Education Specialist, at the Region of Peel gave a brief presentation on the Peel Water Story. Mr. MacSeain advised that Peel has partnered with TRCA and the school boards to develop a document titled, "The Peel Water Story", which is currently being field tested and will be released later this year. April 28, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 H28 (b) Arsenal Lands K. Geater, TRCA, gave a brief update on the status of the Arsenal Lands. The presentation focused on site history, remediation, changes in the planning process, next steps. (c) Etobicoke - Mimico Projects Update C. Sharma, TRCA, updated the members on the status of Etobicoke - Mimico projects: The Chair thanked all of the presenters for their informative presentations. SECTION I REPORTS - ACTION ITEMS RES. #H17/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION INITIATIVES To update the Coalition on two new environmental education programs which have been launched within the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds: The Peel Water Story Project and the Ontario EcoSchools program. Sean Stuart Pamela Gough THAT the report regarding environmental education initiatives be received for information; THAT information on school involvement in environmental education initiatives within the Etobicoke and Mimico watersheds be collected through these programs for the Etobicoke- Mimico Report Card; AND FURTHER THAT members of the Coalition help to promote the Peel Water Story Project to watershed schools within the Region of Peel, and the Ontario EcoSchools program to watershed schools within the Toronto District School Board AMENDMENT Sean Stuart RES. #H18/05 Pamela Gough THAT the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition, in partnership with Peel Region, provide a watershed focused, in- service teacher's workshop for Peel Region teachers in the Fall of 2005. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED H29 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 April 28, 2005 BACKGROUND The Outreach and Education Working Group of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition identified the development and promotion of environmental education programs as a priority action. Two newly developed programs, the Peel Water Story Project and Ontario EcoSchools, have been chosen by the working group to promote to schools across the watersheds and track the involvement of watersheds' schools over time for the Etobicoke- Mimico Report Card. Peel Water Story Project In 2002, the Region of Peel Public Works Department expressed the desire to have educational resources available to teachers in Peel Region that provided a local, relevant context to water concerns and issues in the region. The objectives established for this project were to develop an education resource that: - demonstrates an innovative design encouraging exploration of the local watershed across all subjects and /or learning strategies (i.e., arts, science, social science, drama, music, etc.); - allows for flexible application to all levels, kindergarten to grade 12; - provides relevant, local information about water use in Peel Region, past and present; - provides sufficient resource information and support to enable teachers and students to become the experts on water in their local community; - supports and inspires the education community to initiate action projects that improve the health of local watersheds; and - provides a forum for teachers and students to share project ideas and successes. The development process over the last two years has resulted in the completion of the Peel Water Story Project, an education resource that promotes local, watershed based learning about water and the environment. There are three key deliverables of the Peel Water Story Project: 1) The Peel Water Story book and accompanying CD ROM - To assist educators in learning about water systems and water issues in an integrated and locally - relevant fashion, especially as they relate to the sustainability of water resources in Peel Region. 2) Community Action Projects - Educators involved in the delivery of the Peel Water Story curriculum resource are provided with guides and resources to mentor action projects that contribute to the sustainability of the local watershed. 3) Peel EcoFair - Action projects that demonstrate a benefit to Peel Region's watersheds are eligible to participate at the annual Peel EcoFair, held during the Peel Children's Water Festival at the TRCA Heart Lake Conservation Area. In January 2005, Peel Water Story Project was launched for five months of field testing by a focus group of Peel Region teachers. Once completed, teacher feedback will be incorporated into the finished Peel Water Story Project resource kit, which is scheduled to be distributed to all Peel Region schools in October 2005. To date, 7 schools in the Etobicoke (6) and Mimico (1) Creek Watersheds are participating in field testing of the Peel Water Story Project: Heart Lake Secondary School, Hilldale Public School, North Peel Secondary School, St. Vincent de April 28, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 H30 Paul Elementary School, Tomken Road Middle School, Sir Winston Churchill Public School and St. Anne School. Ontario EcoSchools Ontario EcoSchools is a provincial education curriculum program addressing climate change, launched in 2004. Built on previous greening programs, Ontario EcoSchools is distinguished by a dual focus on school operations and curriculum (energy conservation, waste reduction and climate change). The program was guided and developed by a steering committee made up of representatives from York University, four school boards, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Learning for a Sustainable Future under the initiative of Environment Canada. The Ontario EcoSchools resources include seventeen resource guides (three operations guides, eleven curriculum guides, both elementary and secondary, and four community action guides); and three climate change multimedia presentations (available with the resource guides on compact disc (CD)). All guides are available on the Ontario EcoSchools website: www.yorku.ca/fes/envedu/ecoshools.asp. Program implementation is being guided by the Ontario EcoSchools Implementation Committee. It is anticipated that the adoption of the Ontario EcoSchools program within boards of education across the province will occur over a two to five -year time frame. The implementation of the program is being led by staff from the York University, Faculty of Environmental Studies. The implementation committee with representatives from the implementing school boards, York University and TRCA is responsible for ongoing leadership of the program. A full -time program coordinator has been hired to assist in the day -to -day running of the program (supported by federal and provincial funding). To date the program has been introduced to 17 school boards across the province. Seven of these school boards have started board -wide implementation of the program. Three of these boards are in the TRCA jurisdiction (Toronto District School Board, York Region District School Board and the Durham District School Board). The Toronto District School Board has adopted EcoSchools as one of its key facilities and operations guidelines. Adoption of the program by these seventeen school boards will engage more than 55 percent of the students in the province. The EcoSchools Implementation Committee is currently working to register schools for participation in the EcoSchools program this fall. Currently, the Ministry of Education is focused on numeracy and literacy and has taken no formal action to integrate the Ontario EcoSchools program into the Ontario Curriculum. The implementation committee continues to seek endorsement of the program by the Ministry of Education. TRCA staff has been introducing the Ontario EcoSchools program to conservation authorities to assist them with education initiatives with their boards of education. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Peel Water Story and the Ontario EcoSchools Program supports many initiatives of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition and the TRCA, and by promoting these programs to watershed schools we move forward with implementing Greening Our Watersheds. H31 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 April 28, 2005 The following key actions and initiatives will be undertaken by the Coalition in 2005: • Promote and market these two programs to schools in the Etobicoke - Mimico watersheds; • Explore new partnerships to support the implementation of Ontario EcoSchools; Provide learning resources to watershed groups by establishing a link between the TRCA education website and Peel Water Story and Ontario EcoSchools resources available on -line. • Track data on school participation and record progress for future Watershed Report Cards. RES. #H19/05 - ARSENAL LANDS PARK DEVELOPMENT To provide an update on the Arsenal Lands Park Development. Moved by: Seconded by: Cleve Battick Mathew Rossi THAT the staff report on the Arsenal Lands Park Development be received; AND FURTHER THAT the members of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition assist with the detailed design process and project implementation which will realize improvements to Etobicoke Creek and the surrounding waterfront community CARRIED BACKGROUND The Arsenal Lands is a 16 ha site located in Mississauga, at the western border of Toronto. This land was originally developed by the Department of National Defense as a small arms and munitions manufacturing facility during the Second World War. Post -war years included a variety of manufacturing uses. Following an environmental audit of the site, Toronto and Region Conservation purchased the property in October of 1992. This purchase was made possible through a joint collaboration involving the City of Toronto, the Regional Municipality of Peel, the City of Mississauga, and the Province of Ontario. This acquisition was performed for the purpose of parks and open space as the site presented the opportunity to expand upon Marie Curtis Park to form a 41 ha waterfront park with regional appeal. Shortly after the property was purchased, Toronto and Region Conservation retained a consulting consortium (consisting of Hough Woodland Naylor Dance Leinster, Duke Engineering Services Inc, Angus Environmental Ltd, Michael Michalski Associates, and DS Lea Associates) to undertake a park planning and site remediation study. The purpose of this study was to determine the nature and extent of contaminants on site, identify methods.of April 28, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 H32 rehabilitating the lands to permit public uses, and develop innovative ideas for the incorporation of the site as a major regional attraction on the Lake Ontario waterfront. A technical steering committee was formed by the partnership of participating agencies to oversee the study and ensure that all public interests were addressed in the development of a park and site remediation master plan. The consulting consortium produced a series of 3 newsletters which were distributed to over 1,000 community stakeholders, including over 100 interest groups. Between 1995 and 1996, two public open houses were also held to discuss the development of the master plan and receive public input. The completed master plan outlined a strategy for site remediation, as well as a park concept which supported primarily passive park use. The goals outlined in the master plan were to: • Create a healthy, safe park environment; • Establish a unique park identity; • Restore natural systems; • Enhance existing recreational activities; and • Improve access and urban frontage of the site. The master plan outlined two different approaches to future park development. Both of these concepts were identified as being developed on a foundation of landscape restoration, whereby the site would be rehabilitated to support a diverse system of connected and healthy habitats, including wetlands, forest and meadows. The plan also outlined the need to integrate the Arsenal Lands with Marie Curtis Park. Future management options for the Arsenal Lands were presented in Meeting Place and Forest Meeting Place park concepts. The Meeting Place concept placed emphasis on the site's cultural history through a landscaping plan, reminiscent of the site's former industrial and farm use. This plan supported more intensive park use with large maintained open spaces throughout the centre of the site for picnics. The plan relocated park access to the foot of Dixie Road and included a service road through the centre of the Arsenal Lands, parallel to Lakeshore and joining with the existing roadway on the west side of Marie Curtis Park. The existing parking Tots on the banks of Etobicoke Creek were relocated outside of the floodplain. At the centre of the site, surrounding the water tower, a plaza with seating and interpretive signage or art was incorporated. An event area referred to as the Parade Ground was located adjacent to the woodlot. A trail was also shown to connect the Arsenal Lands with the existing Waterfront Trail. The Forest Meeting Place concept promoted a passive nature oriented park and was seen as a longer -term management strategy for the site that would be dependant upon the development of mature forest habitat. This concept built on the Meeting Place Concepts but depicted more of a balance between natural habitat and programmed open space such as picnic venues. At Authority Meeting #3/98, held on September 18, 1998, Resolution #D31/98 was adopted: THAT staff be directed to imp /ement the site remediation p /an in accordance with the work program outlined in this report; H33 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 April 28, 2005 THAT the Park Master P /an be received and circulated to the partners for comment and approval; Site Remediation Following completion of the Master Plan, INTERA (formerly Duke) was retained to detail the remediation plan for the site and to oversee the site remediation activities in cooperation with TRCA staff. During site remediation over 72,000 tonnes of material were removed from the site and an on -site containment facility was constructed for the safe storage of low -level radioactive soil that resulted from the site cleanup. The site remediation process was completed in 2001 at which time the Record of Site Condition was prepared and submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The Record of Site Condition was subsequently acknowledged by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) on November 5, 2002. Long term monitoring of the site will be performed on an ongoing basis until 2010 to ensure that soil and water quality meets the parkland guidelines as established by MOE. As stated in this original master plan, some of the excavation required during the remediation process facilitated the creation of a wetland feature, enhancement of the existing woodland pond and the creation of a few of the structural habitat features proposed for the site, including , two snake hibernaculums. TRCA also completed a few strategic plantings where slope stability was jeopardized during the process of remediation. Park Master P /an Following the site remediation process in 2002 TRCA reconvened meetings with our municipal and regional partners to ensure that we were well positioned to take the existing master plan to their respective council's for approval and to develop a park operation and maintenance agreement. After thorough discussion and review of the master plan the group determined that since a considerable amount of time had lapsed since the plan was originally developed an update in the form of an addendum to the original master plan was necessary to ensure that the community and municipal interests were met. In preparing the addendum to the master plan the concept plan for the Arsenal Lands was updated. TRCA and our partners used the original goals and objectives of the master plan process to guide the development of the new park concept. Current site information including the results of a terrestrial natural heritage survey which was completed in 2003 was also utilized and led to changes to the original park concept. The site inventory identified numerous species of concern, significant habitats and areas for potential habitat restoration. This information was used to site proposed park amenities and further enhance the proposed habitat creation. TRCA and our partners also worked to provide a greater range of park activities to ensure that the park would create a safe environment and serve the needs of the community. As per the original Master Plan, the revised park concept offers passive recreation opportunities for regional park users from Toronto, Mississauga and the Region of Peel. Park infrastructure outlined in the revised park concept includes parking Tots, an access road, April 28, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 H34 cycling path, walking trails, interpretive signs and designated picnic areas with shelters and tables which is consistent with the original concept. The new concept also builds on the original habitat restoration and creation detailed in the Master Plan, however incorporating new information that resulted in creating a larger buffer around the sensitive wetland habitats. Enhancements to the plan included a leash -free dog walking area and family oriented features such as a playground and splash pad with associated washroom /changeroom facility and storage building, beach volleyball courts, and potentially space for a community allotment garden. A copy of the revised park concept as of December 2004 is attached. On January 18, 2005, TRCA hosted a public meeting to ensure that the park concept meets the current needs of the community and to ensure that we have public support to proceed. TRCA is currently in the process of completing the Addendum to the Master Plan and developing an operation and maintenance agreement with the City of Toronto and the City of Mississauga. TRCA hopes to obtain our partners' approval and proceed with detailed designs for the new park in 2005. Further public consultation will take place during the detailed design and implementation phases. Implementation of the detailed designs will take place over a period of four years, with the bulk of the work being undertaken in 2007. RES. #H20/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: ETOBICOKE - MIMICO/WATERFRONT PROJECTS UPDATE To update the Coalition on existing and future Etobicoke - Mimico/ Waterfront projects. Suzanne Barrett Gerry Gorman THAT the report on the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds /Waterfront projects be received; THAT project partners, including member municipalities, be thanked for their support and participation in projects that were completed in 2004; AND FURTHER THAT members of the Coalition continue to participate in existing projects and assist staff in identifying, planning and implementing new projects CARRIED BACKGROUND Greening our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks including the first Report Card provides overall direction and establishes goals for the revitalization of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. Regeneration work in the watershed is also guided by the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) targets, and objectives of TRCA's Living City Program- Healthy Rivers and Shorelines, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Com munities. In addition to the above, the following studies/ plans currently provide guidance in determining priorities for watershed regeneration projects: H35 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 April 28, 2005 • Habitat Implementation Plan for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks • TRCA Terrestrial Natural Habitat Systems Strategy • Draft Fisheries Management Plan for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks • City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan • City of Mississauga and Brampton Stormwater Retrofit Studies • Regional Watershed Monitoring Program • Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy Future regeneration work will focus on the outcomes of some of the strategic planning studies currently underway: • Heart Lake Management Master Plan • Etobicoke Headwaters Subwatershed Study • Brampton Lake Assessment Study • 2005 Report Card on the Health of Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks • Outcomes of the RAP Spills Workshop • Etobicoke and Mimico Altered Creeks Study • GTAA Etobicoke Creek Project - Priorities for Habitat Restoration Trail plans and pathway priorities of partner municipalities Other significant initiatives led by the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition include the following: • RAP Wide - Spills Management Initiative • Healthy Yards Website and Program Launch (www.trca.on.ca /yards) • Etobicoke - Mimico Communication Material (in progress) • Trails Master Plan (in partnership with the City of Mississauga) • Creek Signs Initiative • 2005 Watershed Report Card • Golf Course Stewardship Workshop • Business Outreach partnership with OCETA Members of the Coalition also assist/participate in other annual events led by other groups and municipalities such as: • Peel Heritage Walk - "Walk for the Art of it" • City of Brampton - "Communities in Bloom" • CCFEW Bird Walk • Business Environment Days - Daimler Chrysler , Pratt and Whitney, General Mills, Norte' Progress on the above projects is reported through "Creek Time ", the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds newsletter. Funding support for regeneration and water management projects is provided through TRCA, the Region Peel, and the City of Toronto. Additional funds are raised by Coalition and staff through agencies such as the Ontario Trillium Foundation, Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, Trout Unlimited, TD Friends of the Environment, Evergreen Foundation Environment Canada, • Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ministry of the Environment. Community groups and volunteers have contributed significant in -kind resources and time to many of the above -noted projects. April 28, 2005 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 1136 MIMICO CREEK WATERSHED/ WATERFRONT Project Project Description and Deliverables Municipality/ Partners Status Humber Bay Park Butterfly Habitat Approx 20 ha of Waterfront Park located along the west part of the Lake Ontario waterfront Self- sustaining community of native vegetation to attract a variety of native species of butterflies Interpretative signage for public education and engagement about urban wildlife habitat City of Toronto/TRCA Great Lakes Sustainability Fund and TD Friends of the Environment. Completed Mimico Waterfront Unear Park Wetland rehabilitation, aquatic and terrestrial restoration, public recreation and education features Stewardship opportunities through community action Estimated cost of this project is $6.5 million and is funded by the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation TRCA /City of Toronto /Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Planning completed Construction begins in 2005 Bonar Creek Stormwater Pond and Parkland Approx 4.9 hectares along Etobicoke Creek, north of Lakeshore Blvd. Stormwater pond, wet meadow habitat enhancements, riparian plantings, parkland development City of Toronto Wet weather Flow Management Master Plan priority project City of Toronto/TRCA Partners /South Mimico Stewardship Group E A to be Initiated in 2005 Implementati on 2006 South Mimico Fish Barrier Mitigation Modification to first two barriers on the Mimico Creek under QEW to facilitate upstream fish movement TRCA/ MNR/City of Toronto /South Mimlco Environmental Stewardship Group Design Completed Construction - 2006 Mimlco Estate - Hydro Habitat Creation Flood plain of Mimico Creek Located within hydro lands north of QEW Wet meadow habitat 0.5 ha. riparian restoration 250 m, 7 habitat structures Water quality improvements by reduction of surface water run- off to the creek Hydro One/TRCA City of Toronto /Friends of Miimico Creek /South Mimico Environmental Stewardship Group Phase l& 2 completed Phase 3 ongoing Tom Riley Park Master Plan Review Review and planning of recreation components, park facilities, naturalization, interpretive signs, entrance way designs, storm water controls City of Toronto/TRCA New Reid Manor Park Erosion control work, Riparian buffer plantings -100 m Community Clean -up Friends of Mimico Creek City of Toronto/TRCA/Sout h Mimico Environmental Stewardship Group Completed New work to be initiated in 2005 South Mimico Discovery Walk A self guided walk with human and natural heritage Interpretation TRCA/City of Toronto Montogomery's Inn/Heritage Committee/ South Mimico Stewardship Group New South Mimico Trail Construction Concept development underway Pedestrian and bicycle bridge to be constructed by the City in 2005 City/TRCA Ongoing H37 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 April 28, 2005 South Mimico Green Neighborhoods Community Action Area - Dundas Street to Lake Ontario Community Stewardship for backyard naturalization and parkland restoration Project designed to meet the objectives of GOW,City of Toronto WWFMMP and Coalition's Healthy Yards Project 300 m riparian, 850 trees and shrubs, 600 aquatic species Approx 100 homeowners to be targeted Friends of Mimico Creek /South Mimico Stewardship Group/ TRCA/ City , Etobicoke Horticulture Society, IGwanis Club New Royal York Riparian Restoration Approx 700 sq m riparian buffer enhancement along Mimico Creek south of Bloor Street TRCA Completed Mallon Stewardship Project Malton Comunity Action Area - seven restoration projects and community/business outreach and education initiatives Approx 2.0 ha forest, meadow and wetland habitat restoration 100 m riparian restoration Habitat structures, viewing platform and interpretive signs Funding from Ontario Trillium Foundation: $ 253,700.00 City of Mississauga/ Peel Region/ Malton Residents Association/ Mississaugua- Airport Rotary Club/TRCA Approx.100 community organizations participating Ongoing Upper Mimico Channel Naturalization and Aquatic Habitat Restoration Reach between Steeles Ave. West and Queen Street. Approx 2 km- headwater industrial areas of Mimico Creek Natural stream channel design In- stream fish barrier mitigation Creation of wet meadow nodes TRCA/ City of Brampton Peel Region New ETOBICOKE CREEK/WATERFRONT Arsenal Lands Park Development 16 ha site located in Mississauga at the western border of Toronto Master Plan updates in process Restoration of Natural System Improved access and recreational activities TRCA/Region of Peel, City of Toronto ,City of MIsslssauga/TRCA Ongoing Toronto Golf Club Fish Barrier Mitigation Removal of first barrier and on -line pond on the Etobicoke Creek Toronto Golf Club/TRCA /City of Toronto /MNR New Markland Woods Golf Club Master Plan (restoration) Implementation in progress Channel naturalization work completed for a section of Etobicoke Creek Habitat structures Installed Audubon certification in progress Barrier mitigation work on Renforth Creek to be initiated Markland Woods TRCA /MNR Ongoing Rockwood Community Action Area Community Tree planting and Ravine Cleanup Approx 200 trees and shrubs planted so far Rockwood Homeowners Association /City of Mississauga /TRCA Ongoing Pratt and Whitney Wetlands Wetland /wet meadow construction in a flood plain along Etobicoke Creek, north of Courtney Park Drive Planted 6,545 trees, shrubs and herbaclous species to date Naturalized 3 ha of valley lands TRCA /Pratt and Whitney City of Mississauga Ongoing April 28, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 H38 West Etobicoke Creek Regeneration West Etobicoke Creek between Britannia Road and Hwy 407 (land use primarily Industrial) Channel naturalization, riparian corridor enhancement, upland and meadow restoration Creation of a wetland complex within Edward Scarlet Greenbelt Pathway and trail construction Business outreach and stewardship through interpretation and education Creation of a Business Eco -park TRCA /Region of Peel/ City of Mississauga City of Brampton New GTAA Etobicoke Creek Project Completion of four studies through funding support from GTAA Terrestrial Natural Heritage Systems study and analysis for the study area Stormwater management- off-site. A modeling study of runoff water quality management in Etobicoke Creek catchment 219 (about 884 hectares) -SWM measures including source controls that can be Implemented at the lot level, conveyance controls utilizing the roadways for stormwater Infiltration and end-of -pipe (EOP) facilities. Etoblcoke Creek Spills Study Etobicoke Creek Fisheries Management Plan Business outreach and In- the - ground restoration projects Final Integration Report to Include prescriptions /concepts for upstream habitat implementation projects integrating terrestrial, aquatic, and stormwater priorities GTAA /TRCA , Complete d Final report In progress Etoblcoke Creek and Maitland Park Restoration Project North Park Drive to south of Williams Parkway Rehabilitation of portions of the East Branch of the Etobicoke Creek between North Park Drive, to south of Williams Parkway City of Brampton /TRCA New Peel Village Golf Club (Audubon Certified Golf Course) Terrestrial and riparian restoration Wildlife habitat enhancement Peel Village Golf Club/ City of Brampton/ TRCA Ongoing Snelgrove Restoration Project Restoration of Snelgrove Reach between Bovaird Drive and Hwy. 410 1 ha forest; 4 ha floodplain songbird habitat; 1400 m riparian corridor; 19 ha wetlands; 20 habitat structures including two snake hibernaculum TRCA /City of Brampton/ Brampton Scouts /Brampton Community Foundation (proposed) Ongoing Heart Lake Conservation Area Shoreline restoration, wetland restoration, butterfly meadow habitat creation Peel Children's Water Festival attended by approx 10,000 people every year Development of management plan in progress TRCA/Region of Peel City of Brampton /MNR Friends of Heart Lake /BECAP Other Community Heart Lake Advisory Committee ongoing Valleywood Trail Development Extension of Etobicoke Creek Trail - north of Mayfield Road to Hurontario St., along Etobicoke Creek Town of Caledon Valleywood Residents Association TRCA Proposed H39 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 April 28, 2005 RES. #H21/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: PESTICIDE FREE ONTARIO INITIATIVE Pesticide Free Ontario is seeking a ban on lawn pesticide sales and is asking for endorsement from the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition. Chris McGlynn Sean Stuart THAT the letter of support to Healthy Lawns, Healthy People, dated April 29, 2005, be approved CARRIED BACKGROUND The Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition, at its meeting held on January 27, 2005, had before it the issue of pesticide use. As a result, resolution #H8/05, was adopted in part, as follows: "THAT the matter of Pesticide Reform be referred to the Policy and Advocacy Team of the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition for further discussion and report back with recommendations to the April 28, 2005 meeting of the Coalition" The Policy and Advocacy Team subsequently met to discuss this matter on March 29, 2005 and the recommendations from that meeting are outlined in the letter (as appended) which has been drafted to Ms. Paddy Running- Horan, Executive Director of Healthy Lawns, Healthy People. RES. #H22/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: BILL 133 - ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT AND THE ONTERIO WATER RESOURCES ACT CONCERNING SPILLS A bill strengthening spills legislation has been referred to the Provincial Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly. Pamela Gough Boris Swedak WHEREAS spills are a major issue impeding the water quality of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds; WHEREAS the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition is committed to protecting ground and surface water from spills and illegal discharges of hazardous material; WHEREAS the Remedial Action Plan for the Toronto Area of Concern highlights spills prevention and response as a priority action; April 28, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2105 H40 WHEREAS the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition, together with TRCA, RAP, federal, provincial, regional, municipal, and non - government organizations, is currently engaged in a spills management initiative; WHEREAS the prevention of spills is instrumental in meeting the objectives of Ontario's source protection plan; WHEREAS the Province's Bill 133 would strengthen environmental legislation regarding spills; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition approve the draft letter to the Minister of Environment, dated April 29, 2005, to continue to advocate for a comprehensive program to prevent and manage spills CARRIED BACKGROUND Addressing spills management issues has been pursued in response to concerns raised by the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Task Force regarding foreign substances entering and potentially impacting water quality and aquatic species. Other TRCA watershed groups have identified spills issues as a priority in their strategies and watershed plans. TRCA "s Support and Recommendations for Bill 133 The TRCA sent a letter of general support for Bill 133, under the signature of the Watershed Management Director on January 10, 2005 and received by the Coalition at its January 27, 2005 meeting (resolution #H5/05). The letter supported, in principle, the aims of the proposed legislation and discussed concerns and recommendations regarding municipal responsibilities, administrative penalties, the special purpose account, settlements and supplemental environmental projects in lieu of fines, burden of proof and the reverse onus provision, fresh water ecosystem impacts of spills and adverse effects, and a requirement for spill contingency /prevention plans. The letter followed consultations by the MOE NGO's in late December 2004, and also highlighted the RAP Spills Workshop and associated recommendations flowing from the spills management initiative. CURRENT STATUS OF BILL 133 Bill 133 has been referred to the Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly as of April 5, 2005 and is awaiting discussion and a decision on whether or not public hearings and deputations will be held. In addition, the referral allows for substantive amendments to be introduced. FURTHER INFORMATION • Industrial Pollution Action Team (IPAT) discussion document prepared for Hon. Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of the Environment - www.ene.gov.on.ca /techdocs /4771 e.pdg • Bill 133 - An Act to Amend the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act in respect of Enforcement and Other Matters - www. ontla.on.ca/ documents /Bills /38- parliament/sessionl /b133.pdf • Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (short description and purpose of the legislation) www.ene.gov.on.ca /envregistry/024040ea.htm • H41 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 April 28, 2005 • Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly (Committee membership, mailing and contact information, business before the Committee, and Notice of upcoming hearings www.ontla.on.ca /committees /leg- assembfy.htm CONTACT INFORMATION Chris Bahaviolos, Senior Policy Analyst, Land Use Policy Branch 135 St. Clair Ave. West, 6"' Floor, Toronto, ON M4V 1 P5 Ph: (416)314 -1702 Fax: (416)326 -0461 Douglas Arnott, Clerk, Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly Deborah Adair, Assistant Clerk, Phone: (416)325 -3506 Room 1405, Whitney Block, Queen's Park, Toronto ON M7A 1A2 Email: douglas -arnott@ontla.ola.org RES. #H23/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: ORAL HISTORY PROJECT To provide an update to the Coalition on the Oral History Project of the Human Heritage Working Group. Sean Stuart Cleve Battick THAT the staff report on the Oral History Project be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT members of the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition participate in the collection and dissemination of oral histories of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds CARRIED BACKGROUND In "Greening Our Watersheds ", it is recognized that the collection of oral histories is a significant tool to promote a greater interest among residents about the natural and cultural heritage of Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. Because of this, it is included as one of the measures of the Sense of Identity indicator. Although there are a few collections of oral histories which have been gathered and stored with various organizations, there has not been a coordinated effort that focussed on the role of the watersheds. The Human Heritage Working Group intends to collect these stories and has begun some of the preliminary preparations for this project. In December 2004, the Human Heritage Working Group visited the Oral History Museum, operated by the Multicultural History Society of Ontario in downtown Toronto, to learn more about planning an oral history project, ie., what equipment is needed, how this project can be applied to the work of various groups within the watershed, and how to search for potential interview subjects. April 28, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 H42 This initial investigation was followed, in February 2005, by a training workshop at Montgomery's Inn. Ten people attended and received initial training. Participants ranged from members of the Coalition, the Community Preservation Panel, the Peel Aboriginal Network and staff members of the TRCA. Jennifer Bonnell from the Oral History Museum led the workshop with Mike Lipowski, Curator of Montgomery's Inn. BENEFITS Encourages members of the community to share their experiences and creates an ongoing interest in the project and, by extension, an interest in other activities in the watersheds. Creates an ongoing resource of local history for study, exhibits and activities. Provides more opportunities for partnerships with other organizations within the watershed. FUTURE ACTIVITIES The initial training will be followed by a second workshop in May that will focus on interview techniques and the use of recording equipment. Other workshops will follow to build upon successes, analyse any challenges, and eventually train others to continue the project. The Human Heritage Working Group believes that this project can be implemented in many ways and be beneficial to the watershed community. At watershed events (Peel Water Festival, Community Clean Ups, etc.) have a recording booth available for use by the public and attended by a trained volunteer. • Integrate stories into interpretive activities - walks, exhibits etc. • Create an archive of local history for future historians and members of the Coalition. WORK TO BE DONE • Coalition members to identify potential interview subjects for the Human Heritage Working Group to approach • Coalition members to participate in the interviews as a subject • Coalition members to identifying potential volunteers (or participating themselves) for future training opportunities. H43 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2105 April 28, 2005 RES. #H24/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: WATERSHED EVENTS, 2005 2005 watershed events within the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds hosted by TRCA, community groups, local Community Action stewardship groups, and municipal partners. Suzanne Barrett Pamela Gough THAT the staff report on 2005 watershed events in the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds be received; AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition members participate in events and /or represent the Coalition, where appropriate CARRIED BACKGROUND The following represents a listing of watershed spring events to date. Some events, such as the Peel Children's Water Festival Community Day (May 28th), are widely promoted through a variety of means while other events, such as the Mimico Estate wet meadow planting event (May 18th), are organized with a specific group and not publicly promoted. Some events are related to the mandate of the Coalition, such as the Caledon Dandelion Festival or the CCFEW bird walks, and represent community partners' initiatives. The list below also includes proclaimed dates, and the Coalition committees may wish to plan events which coincide with these celebrations. A chronological listing of events and special dates follows: EcoBuzz 2005. February 24, 2005. 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. Organized by the Peel Environmental Network, EcoBuzz is a full day conference open to all high school students in Peel Region. Designed to raise awareness of environmental groups and activities in Peel, the goal of EcoBuzz is to encourage community involvement and inspire students to initiate environmental projects of their own. David Switzer and Paul Willms set up a display for TRCA / Coalition and distributed strategies, CreekTime sign -ups, and networked with other community organizations and school representatives. The Malton Environmental Stewardship Project (Marnie Branfireun) also set up a booth and attended the conference. Etobicoke - Mimico Human Heritage! Oral History Workshop. February 26, 2005. The first Oral History Workshop (Introductory) was held at Montgomery's Inn on Saturday, February 26th. Jennifer Bonne!! (Multicultural History Society of Ontario) and Mike Lipowski (Montgomery's Inn) were the workshop leaders, and the participants included members and staff from the Human Heritage Working Group, a Coalition member, a representative from the Etobicoke Preservation Panel, a Mimico resident and two members of the Peel Aboriginal Network. Heart Lake Secondary School Earth Day Celebration. Tuesday, April 19, 2005. The Heart Lake SS Environment Club has developed an Environmental Action Plan and has invited community groups, including the TRCA, to participate in its Earth Day celebrations. The Environment Club will also be planting trees and shrubs and discussing their plans to undertake Audubon International certification and environmental planning for the Etobicoke Creek that flows past their school. For more information, contact Paul Willms at (416) 661 -6600, extension 5316. April 28, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 H44 DaimlerChrysler Earth Day Celebration. Wednesday, April 20, 2005. 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. As part of the Brampton Assembly Plant's commitment to the environment through its ISO 14000 designation, it has hosted an information booth session with community groups and business suppliers, as well as planted native plants with employees. The Environment Team at DC BAP won an international award in 2003 for its Earth Day activities. For more information, contact Paul Willms at (416) 661 -6600, extension 5316. Malton Stewardship Day 2005 at Wildwood Park, Malton. Saturday, April 23, 2005. Activities include: creek and park clean -up and naturalization, nature hikes, youth nature workshops, water quality monitoring, community displays, food fair, entertainment, community health area, and REALLY TERRIFIC PRIZE draw for participants. Contact Marnie Branfireun, MESP Project Coordinator, at (905) 615 -4640, extension 2513 or at marnie.branfireun @mississauga.ca to find out more! Bird Walks! CCFEW (Citizens Concerned about the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront) is continuing its series of monthly bird walks. The next walk is on Sunday, April 24, 2005, 9 -11 a.m., Colonel Samuel Smith Park - meet in south parking lot. The bird walks are sponsored by TD Friends of the Environment Foundation, are free to the public, and take place regardless of the weather. For more information, and upcoming bird walks, please e-mail ccfew @sympatico.ca Mississauga Garden Council presents: April 26, 2005. Marion Jarvie - Colour in the Garden all Year with Dramatic Architectural Plants. May 31, 2005. Jim Anderson - David Austin Roses: Alluring and Enduring June 28, 2005. Dr. Gail Krantzberg - Our Water Our Gardens Our Life. To register, or for more information visit www .mississaugagardencouncil.orq South Mimico Stewardship Group Woodford Park Event. Woodford Park, Etobicoke (near Queensway and Park Lawn Rd.). Saturday, May 7, 2005. 10 a.m. - 1 p.m.. Councillor Peter Milczyn and the South Mimico Stewardship Group invite you to celebrate spring, talk about future environmental projects in the area, and help clean up Mimico Creek. Free give -aways and prizes! For more information, contact Paul Willms at (416) 661 -6600, extension 5316. Etobicoke - Mimico Human Heritage! Oral History Workshop. Saturday, May 7, 2005. The second Oral History Workshop (intermediate) will be held at Montgomery's Inn with similar participants from the introductory session (see February 26, 2005 workshop description). This workshop will prepare the group for using the recording equipment, developing the interview questions, and practicing the interview style. 3rd Annual Caledon Dandelion Festival. Saturday, May 14, 2005. 3rd Annual Caledon Dandelion Festival. Saturday, May 14, 2005. Enjoy a day filled with delicious dandelion snacks and ice cream, dandelion wine and beer tasting, contests and prizes, local organizations, craftspeople, lawn and garden suppliers, music, and kids activities. For more information on how to volunteer, participate, or to set up a booth, contact the Caledon Countryside Alliance at (905)584 -6221. H45 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 April 28, 2005 Audubon International Birdwatching Open. Saturday, May 14, 2005. Peel Village Golf Course in Brampton is seeking volunteers to inventory birds on the property for its report to Audubon International. Contact Frank Merran, Manager of Operations, at (905)874 -2995 if you are interested in participating and working with PVGC. South Mimico Stewardship Group Mimico Estate Planting. Wednesday, May 18, 2005. Come out and establish emergent aquatic plants along Mimico Creek immediately south of The Queensway in Etobicoke. Please dress appropriately for planting in and around water. For more information, contact Paul Willms at (416) 661 -6600, extension 5316. Applewood Heights Secondary School Pond / Wetland Construction. Wednesday, May 18, 2005. 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Environment Club students will construct a pond on school grounds and plant with native aquatic emergents and shrubs. The students will also begin a monitoring program of Little Etobicoke Creek. Peel EcoFair. Wednesday, May 25, 2005. 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Heart Lake Conservation Area. Grades four to university students involved with environmental projects within their schools will present, network, and plant aquatic plants along the shoreline during the EcoFair. Contact Damian McSeain, Region of Peel Education Coordinator at (905) 791 -7800, extension 4598 for more information. Peel Children's Water Festival. Heart Lake Conservation Area, Brampton. May 26- June 1, 2005. For grades two to five students from schools in Caledon, Brampton, and Mississauga. For class registration, sponsorship, volunteering, or other information contact Sangeetah Pabla, Festival Coordinator at (905) 791 -7800, extension 4548. Peel Children's Water Festival Community Day. Heart Lake Conservation Area, Brampton. May 28, 2005, 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. Come see what the kids have been talking about! Free admission, entertainment, wildflower planting, Rainbow Trout release, over 60 activities, give- aways. For more information contact Paul Willms (416) 661 -6600, extension 5316. Heart Lake Conservation Area ENVIRO- Picnic. An end -of- school -year celebration, with a focus on the environment for grades one to four, Thursday, June 9, 2005. For more information, or to register your school, call 416 -667 -6295 or visit www.trcaparks.ca Peel Heritage Complex. Walk for the Art of It. Saturday, June 18, 2005. A number of walking tours from 10 a.m. - 2 p.m. exploring the architecture, nature, cemeteries and trails of Brampton - take one or take all of the walking tours. Free, fun family walks, no registration required! Volunteer opportunities! Visit www.oeelheritagecomplex.orq or contact Maureen Couse at (905) 791 -4055 for more information. Butterflies and their Gardens. Saturday June 25, 2005, 1 - 3 p.m. Humber Bay Butterfly Habitat in Humber Bay Park East, south of Lakeshore Blvd., at the foot of Parkland Rd., Etobicoke. Learn how to identify butterflies and attract them to your own garden while touring this unique park with naturalists. Children will enjoy crafts and activities. Call the hotline at (416) 661 -6600, extension 5660 to register. April 28, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 H46 Creating Beautiful Lawns and Gardens the Natural Way! Saturday September 17, 2005, 10:30 a.m. and noon. Malton Community Centre. This annual festival runs from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Adults and children will enjoy free food, entertainment, and activities. Enter a draw for a chance to win gardening books and native wildflowers to plant at home. Call the hotline at (416) 661 -6600, extension 5660 to register. 3'd Annual Heart Lake Dragon Boat Race — Come and Wake the Dragon! Heart Lake Conservation Area, Brampton. September 24, 2005. This is no sedate country picnic - it's a loud, boisterous celebration! Teams of 22 people working in synchronization, paddling toward a common goal - the ultimate team - building experience! For only $34 per team member, you can compete in this exciting event and raise funds to support the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Canada. Registration forms and information, including how to organize a team, can be found on the TRCA website: www.trca.on.ca/parks_ and_ attractions /activities /dragon_boat/ Woodford Park Clean -up and Riparian Planting. Autumn 2005. Date to be determined. The Friends of Mimico Creek and South Mimico Community Action Area Stewardship Group are in the process of planning a series of events and projects for 2005/2006 at three City parks at a hydro corridor, as well as for private property owners in the area. Snelgrove 3rd Annual Planting Event. Autumn 2005. Date to be determined. Help us plant native trees and shrubs in Etobicoke Creek Valley (north Brampton) to provide food and shelter for songbirds and other wildlife. For more information, or to register a group, contact Kristin Geater, at the Toronto Conservation Authority, at (416) 661 -6600, extension 5667. Etobicoke- Mimico Human Heritage! Oral History Workshop. Autumn 2005. Dates to be determined. A third Workshop (advanced), and then a second round of workshops available to partners who could not attend the first round. RES. #H25/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: RESCHEDULING OF COALITION MEETINGS, 2005 Rescheduling of Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition meetings in 2005. Chris McGlynn Robert Volpe THAT the rescheduled Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition meetings in 2005 be approved as follows: June 16, 2005, September 8, 2005, and November 24, 2005; AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watershed Coalition meetings originally scheduled for July 28, 2005 and October 27, 2005 be cancelled in Tight of the rescheduled dates CARRIED BACKGROUND The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition, at its meeting held on October 28, 2004, approved the schedule of Coalition meetings for 2005. However, it is necessary at this time to revise the schedule to accommodate for an additional meeting. H47 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 April 28, 2005 This additional Coalition meeting is mainly required to facilitate in the development and approval of the Etobicoke- Mimico Report Card which is expected to be published later this year. SECTION II REPORTS - INFORMATION ITEMS RES. #H26/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) TO EXPAND THE GREEN BUILDING PARTNERSHIP Expand the membership of the Green Buildings Partnership to include Sustainable Buildings Canada and the Canadian Urban Institute. Suzanne Barrett Glenn Miller THAT the staff report on the development of a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to expand the Green Building Partnership, be received for information. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Sustainable Communities Board, at its meeting held on April 8, 2005, adopted the following resolution: THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to begin collaborative efforts with Sustainable Buildings Canada (SBC) and the Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) in an effort to expand the membership of the Green Building Partnership (GBP). On June 25, 2004 a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was established between the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Toronto Chapter of the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC). The MOU was the beginning of collaborative efforts (titled the Green Building Partnership) to advocate for green building design in the Toronto region and engage municipalities and building developers in the adoption of green technologies and practices. On January 26, 2005 a formal invitation was given to TRCA by the Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) and Sustainable Buildings Canada (SBC) to support Canada's bid to have Toronto host the 2008 Global Conference on Sustainable Building and Construction. The winning bid will be announced at the 2005 Global Conference in Tokyo. A proposal plan to deliver a green buildings conference in the fall of 2005 was presented to SBC, CaGBC National Office and the CaGBC Toronto Chapter. TRCA is participating in this proposal and will work to ensure the success of the conference . April 28, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2105 H48 RATIONALE The actions and initiatives that are being conducted by a variety of organizations in support of green buildings is increasing in profile and in complexity. TRCA is uniquely placed through collaborative partnerships and working relationships with these organizations to take on the leadership role of bringing all parties together under a common goal. Each organization identified has unique strengths and expertise that, through joint efforts, would greatly enhance the promotion of green building design within our communities. Each organization would continue with their current mandates and day to day activities but come together under the Green Building Partnership to achieve initiatives that are large in scale or broad in scope to affect market transformation beyond the individual organizations capabilities and resources. As new members, SBC and CUI will work with TRCA and CaGBC - Toronto Chapter to develop a strategy that will increase the adoption of green building development across the Greater Golden Horseshoe. RES. #H27/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: NATURAL HERITAGE LANDS PROTECTION AND ACQUISITION PROJECT Purchase of property located at the east end of Dalesford Road (east of Grand Avenue and north of the QEW), City of Toronto, under the Natural Heritage Lands Protection and Acquisition Project 2001 -2005, Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Mimico Creek. Suzanne Barrett Glenn Miller THAT the staff report on the purchase of property located at the east end of Dalesford Road in the City of Toronto, be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND The Executive Committee of the TRCA, at its meeting held on January 14, 2005, approved the following resolution: THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT 0.13 hectares (0.32 acres), more or less, of vacant land be purchased from Queenscorp (Dalesford) Inc., designated as Parts 3, 5, 7, 13, 14 and 15 on Plan 66R- 19524, City of Toronto, located at the east end of Dalesford Road (east of Grand Avenue and north of the Queen Elizabeth Way); THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; H49 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2105 April 28, 2005 THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to execute all necessary documentation required. Resolution #A231/00 at Authority Meeting #9/00, held on October 27, 2000, approved the Natural Heritage Lands Protection and Acquisition Project, 2001 -2005. Negotiations have been conducted with Mr. David Spencer of Baker Schneider Ruggiero LLP, Barristers and Solicitors, the owner's agent. The Director of Watershed Management has reviewed the proposal and is in concurrence with the purchase of this property. RATIONALE The subject property falls within the TRCA's approved master plan for acquisition for the Mimico Creek watershed as outlined in the approved Natural Heritage Lands Protection and Acquisition Project, 2001 -2005. Through the review of Site Plan Control and Condominium applications to allow for row -house residential development, TRCA staff established the limits of the open space lands (Le. Parts 3, 5, 7, 13, 14 and 15) which are comprised of a portion of the valley wall and Regional Storm Flood Plain along the Mimico Creek valley corridor at this location. TAXES AND MAINTENANCE It is proposed that the lands be turned over to the City of Toronto for management. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds for the costs related to this purchase are available in the TRCA land acquisition capital account. RES. #H28/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the meetings for the following working groups are provided for information. Pamela Gough Suzanne Barrett THAT the following minutes be received: April 28, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 H50 Meeting #1/05, #2/05 and #3/05 of the Report Card Working Group; Meeting #1/05 of the South Mimico Stewardship Group; Meeting #1/05 of the Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group; • Meeting #1/05, #2/05 and #3/05 of the Human Heritage Working Group; • Meeting #1/05 of the Policy and Advocacy Team; • Meeting held on April 12, 2005 of the Malton Environmental Stewardship Project CARRIED NEW BUSINESS Children's Water Festival at Heart Lake Members were encouraged to volunteer with activities planned for the day. Volunteers would be engaged in a number of activities for morning /afternoon shifts (9:30 am -12:30 pm or 12 noon to 3 pm). Lunch will be provided. The date of the event is Saturday, May 28, 2005. Web Page for the Coalition M. Rossi was thanked for his work in developing an interactive web page for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition. Report Card Workshop Members were asked to mark Saturday, November 5th , 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., in their calendars for a Report Card Workshop to be held at Black Creek Pioneer Village. The purpose of the workshop will be to provide the members with an opportunity to review and provide input on the draft Report Card. DOOR PRIZES As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition, door prizes will be given out at the end of each Coalition meeting. Two door prizes were awarded at this meeting - a gift certificate to Lee Valley Tools and a gift certificate to the TRCA Nursery. The winning tickets belonged to Chris McGlynn and Sean Stuart, respectively. H51 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #2/05 April 28, 2005 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 8:55 p.m., on April 28, 2005. Adele Freeman Brian Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer /L. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ETOBICOKE MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION MINUTES OF MEETING #3/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #7/05 SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 t‘. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE ETOBICOKE - MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 June 16, 2005 H52 The Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition met at the Mimico Cruising Club on June 16, 2005. Irene Jones called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. PRESENT Suzanne Barrett Co -Chair Robert Cooke Member Marjut Dunker Member Bette -Ann Goldstein Member Gerry Gorman Member Pamela Gough Member Marilyn Hagerman Member Mark Head Member Irene Jones Co -Chair Randy McGiII Member Chris McGlynn Member Glenn Miller Member Chris Nelson Member Bob Noble Member Mathew Rossi Member Sean Stuart Member Boris Swedak Member David Switzer Member Debbie Wagdin Member GUESTS Nancy Johnston South Mimico Stewardship Group Stephen Roberts Malton Environmental Stewardship Project STAFF Deanna Cheriton Conservation Land Planner Kristin Geater Watersheds Project Manager, Etobicoke - Mimico Katrina Guy Assistant Heritage Coordinator, Etobicoke - Mimico Lia Lappano Administrative Assistant, Etobicoke - Mimico Joanna Parsons Administrative Assistant, Etobicoke - Mimico Rick Portiss Coordinator, Environmental Monitoring Chandra Sharma Specialist, Etobicoke - Mimico Paul Willms Resource Planner, Etobicoke - Mimico H53 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 June 16, 2005 RES. #H29/05- MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Sean Stuart Mathew Rossi THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/05, held on April 28, 2005, be received CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF Irene Jones declared a conflict of interest in item 5.3, Bill 133 concerning spills, as the company she is employed at has had some involvement in the legislation. CORRESPONDENCE (a) Letter to Janice Etter from Premier McGuinty, dated April 28, 2005, re: Bill 60, the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, 2004. (b) Letter to Paddy Running- Horan, Executive Director, Healthy Lawns, Healthy People from Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition, dated May 4, 2005, re: New Pesticide Free Ontario Initiative. (c) Letter to Bob Delaney, Chair, Standing Committee, from the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition dated May 10, 2005, re: Comments in support of Bill 133. RES. #H30/05- Moved by: Seconded by: Debbie Wagdin Marilyn Hagerman THAT the above correspondence be received CARRIED June 16, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 H54 SECTION I REPORTS - ACTION ITEMS RES. #H31/05- Moved by: Seconded by: ETOBICOKE - MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALTION TERM OF OFFICE Extension of the term of office for the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition members. Suzanne Barrett Boris Swedak THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition 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 CARRIED BACKGROUND According to the approved Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition, dated May, 2002, the term of office of the members is 2002 to 2005. In order to be consistent with the terms of office for members of the other watershed groups, such as the Don Regeneration Council and the Humber Watershed Alliance, as well as to coincide with the term of the municipal councils, we believe a one year extension to the term would be reasonable. Also, in reviewing the workplan of the Coalition and its various subcommittees and working groups, there are many projects in progress. One of the major projects is the Report Card for the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek watersheds. We believe that it would be in the best interest of the Coalition if the current members could see the report card process through to is publication. In addition, some of the other committees are in the midst of their projects. Therefore, after consulting with the Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Specialist, we are recommending that we request the TRCA to extend the term of the current members for one additional year. The Coalition members have been working well together and the last two and a half years have gone quickly, This, of course, assumes that members are prepared to continue for one more year. H55 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 June 16, 2005 RES. #H32/05- TORONTO CATCHMENT PILOT STUDY Partnership project to initiate an integrated study of an urban catchment (Mimico Creek watershed) in the Toronto region. Moved: Chris Nelson Seconded: Pamela Gough THAT the staff report on the Toronto Catchment Pilot Study be received for information; THAT this project be referred to the Report Card Working Group of the Coalition for their input and inclusion in the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Report Card; THAT the study results be presented to the Coalition after completion of the study; AND FURTHER THAT the South Mimico Stewardship Group be so advised ... 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: • • 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 "? 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? 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? Has the decentralized management of stormwater been successful? Given past trends, how sustainable are these practices? (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. 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? 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 Zink the physical urban environment with public health concerns. Thus, a critical aspect of the study designs is its integrated nature. The integration is with respect to: June 16, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 H56 • 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; • 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 the 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: What are the sources, fate and effects of contaminant emissions in urban areas? What are the contaminant constituents of stormwater and where do they come from? Do our current lists of 'priority' contaminants reflect our best knowledge of contaminant sources, fate and effects in urban areas? 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? What are the implications of the fate and effects of contaminants for fish and wildlife (food chains)? What are the implications of projected business as usual growth and development in our catchment with respect to contaminants? What are the impacts of the Toronto City Region airsheds and watersheds on the Lake Ontario ecosystem? How can we best build and /or retrofit our "communities" to reduce the negative effects of contaminants on our ecosystems? H57 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 June 16, 2005 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. The study will also address 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- Mimico Creeks. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA 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). Present a final report to the Watershed Management Advisory Board, Etobicoke- Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition and South Mimico Stewardship Group on the study results. RES. #H33/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: 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 the Coalition's water conservation gardening campaign. Bob Noble Pamela Gough THAT the staff report on the 2005 Peel Children's Water Festival be received; June 16, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 H58 THAT Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition members Gerry Gorman, Chris McGlynn, Bette -Ann Goldstein, Bob Noble, Marilyn Hagerman, Sean Stuart and other community volunteers be thanked for their management of the planting event, Coalition Native Plants campaign, Heart Lake Master Plan display, Trout Release and other Festival activities. AMENDMENT Bob Noble RES. #H34/05 Pamela Gough THAT a letter of congratulation be sent to the Regional Municipality of Peel on the success of the 2005 Peel Children's Water Festival; AND FURTHER THAT a special note of thanks be extended to Paul Willms for his efforts in coordinating the 2005 Peel Children's Water Festival at the Heart Lake Conservation Area. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND The Peel Children's Water Festival has been held at Heart Lake Conservation Area for the last four years, and will return next year during the last week of May. The 2005 Festival season began with the EcoFair on Wednesday May 25th, the regular school student festival starting Thursday May 26th - June 1st, and Community Day on Saturday, May 28, 2005. The Festival hosted well over 5,000 grades two -five students from Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon, 1,000 adult teachers / chaperones and 500 high school volunteers as well as approximately 200 students, their teachers and community groups for the EcoFair. Community Day drew approximately 2,000 members of the general public (about half of the 2004 attendance due to the threat of rain). Almost 10,000 people in total passed through Heart Lake Conservation Area in the six days of the Festival. The students participated in over 60 water - related interactive and educational activities, including many developed and / or coordinated by the TRCA and the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition. Community Day was well- attended by municipal politicians, staff, and families. The meadow restoration project involved planting 3,000 wildflowers (15 species), and 500 shrubs, in order to enhance biodiversity, the forest / wetland edge, and habitat types within Heart Lake Conservation Area. The six -day Festival represents an opportunity to reach almost 10,000 people on water issues. In addition, the Festival accelerates ecological restoration projects within Heart Lake Conservation Area and provides a focus for environmental issues. Finally, the Festival highlights the Coalition's objectives of protecting, restoring, and celebrating the Living City Region, Heart Lake Conservation Area - one of the largest, most significant greenspaces within the Region, and Etobicoke Creek. The TRCA and Coalition's contributions to the 2005 Festival included "Healthy Watershed Circuit" and the "systems" messages. Students not only learned through an integrated set of H59 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 June 16, 2005 activities, but directly contributed to water quality, biodiversity, and habitat improvement over the course of the week by building something permanent - a meadow ecosystem. OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES Healthy Watersheds Circuit The Healthy Watersheds Circuit involves five integrated activities: • Match the Track • Just Passing Through • Three Strikes You're Out • Butterflies, Birds and Biodiversity The activities are connected in theme, correlated to the Ontario curriculum, and were developed by the TRCA Education Department. The activities, and their educational messages, were delivered by volunteers trained through TRCA's Environmental Volunteer Network program. Match the Track Match the Track has students investigate the connections between terrestrial and aquatic habitats by studying animal tracks. The animals are found in riparian areas. Human influences, threats, biodiversity issues and the animals themselves are explored. Just Passing Through Just Passing Through has students investigate how vegetation affects the movement of water over land surfaces. Specifically, the students mimic a river flowing downstream and the impacts that vegetation, rocks, sediment, erosion, and other issues have upon a watercourse. Three Strikes You're Out Three Strikes You're Out uses an interactive baseball simulation game where students - investigate the life cycle of amphibians and the limiting factors imposed on them as they proceed from egg, to tadpole, to emergent subadult, to adult phases. Students learned about habitat loss and pollution, as well as frog calls and monitoring water and the environment. Butterflies, Birds & Biodiversity Students have restored the Heart Lake shoreline, established a sand dune ecosystem, and completed the horseshoe wetland project by planting over 4,000 emergent aquatic plants, 600 sand dune species, and 2,500 trees and shrubs over the last two years of the Festival. The Butterflies, Birds, and Biodiversity project involves the upland restoration of a sloped area by planting thousands of native wildflowers and grasses, native shrubs, and large caliper trees each year. In addition, brush piles and kestrel box habitat features will be installed. The habitat will provide food sources for migratory and resident birds, raptors, and small mammals. The project will increase the biodiversity of Heart Lake Conservation Area and will be completely implemented by children. June 16, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 H60 COMMUNITY DAY ACTIVITIES Community Day featured the following TRCA / Coalition activities: Trout Release, All's Well That Ends Well, Water Conservation Gardening, and Heart Lake Master Plan. Trout Release During the Trout Release the public saw the "trout truck ", heard about fisheries management in Heart Lake, and received a trout to release. The Ministry of Natural Resources added value to this year's Trout Release by having staff, a display, and free fishing - related handouts available. All's Well That Ends Well All's Well that Ends Well gave the public a chance to "pump up" at Heart Lake's groundwater well to learn about the hydrologic cycle of the region and how Toronto Region Conservation monitors the health of our groundwater resources as part of the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network. Water Conservation Gardening - Etobicoke- Mimico Creek Coalition The Coalition once again gave away native plants in an attempt to encourage more sustainable practices on private property. The Coalition attempted to draw attention to the fact that 50 -60% of summer water use goes to lawn and garden and water shortages and lawn watering bans have become commonplace in suburban communities - their motto was "Water Less or Waterless, it's up to YOU!" The group collected $129.23 through a "suggested donation" box. The Coalition also encouraged people to subscribe to CreekTime, to visit the Healthy Yards website, and to promote a variety of TRCA and Coalition programs. The campaign meets TRCA corporate objectives and the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Coalition's strategy document objectives for "education for sustainable living," "water conservation ", and "sustainable practices ". Heart Lake Master Plan TRCA staff and Advisory Committee members were on hand with displays to talk to people about the Conservation Area, its future, and the current management planning process. Solar Resources The Kortright Centre for Conservation also contributed a new activity "Plug Into the Sun" featuring solar cars, solar (cookie) cookers, and other solar energy devices. A large trailer with solar panels powered two Festival tents and it is anticipated that the Festival will someday be completely off-grid and powered through solar energy alone. Perhaps the most popular new addition to the Festival this year was the solar - powered bubble machine that connected energy, water, and science issues - not to mention fun issues as well. H61 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 June 16, 2005 RES. #H35/05 - TEA POT LAKE Collaborative Research with Carleton University, Ottawa. Moved by: Seconded by: Pamela Gough David Switzer THAT the staff report on Teapot Lake in the Heart Lake Conservation Area be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND At Executive Committee Meeting #3105 held on May 6, 2005, the following resolution was adopted. WHEREAS the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is developing a master plan for the Heart Lake Conservation Area, which includes Teapot Lake, a provincially rare and ecologically sensitive meromictic lake; WHEREAS the City of Brampton is undertaking a Lake Assessment Study to assist with the development of lake management plans for lakes within the City of Brampton; WHEREAS TRCA is assisting the City of Brampton in their lake study, including any sampling of Teapot Lake; WHEREAS Teapot Lake is considered to be representative of kettle lakes in general, that are believed to be key groundwater recharge features in our jurisdiction; WHEREAS the sediments in Teapot Lake are believed to retain evidence of climatic variations and ecological adaptations over the past 12,000 years; AND WHEREAS Carleton University is currently engaged in research of kettle lakes on the Oak Ridges Moraine in conjunction with the Queen's University of Belfast, Ireland; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into a collaborative research project with Carleton University in which TRCA's contribution is not to exceed $25,000. AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed and authorized to take such action as is necessary to implement the project including signing of documents. RATIONALE As part of the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Foundation for Canadian Studies in the United Kingdom (UK) funded research projects wherein coinvestigators Dr. H.M. Roe (Queen's University, Belfast) and Dr. Tim Patterson (Carleton University, Ottawa), are assessing the impact of land use change in the environmentally sensitive Oak Ridges Moraine north of the City of Toronto using diatom and arcellacean training sets that will also be directly applicable June 16, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 H62 to this project. Cores collected from the lakes will be examined at a high resolution for their diatom content to assess continental paleoclimatic conditions. There are very few meromictic lakes in Eastern Canada. These include Crawford Lake and Teapot Lake in southern Ontario and Pink Lake, in Gatineau Park, western Quebec. Other meromictic lakes in eastern Ontario include Mackay Lake, Ottawa; Greenleaf Lake, Algonquin Park; and Little Round Lake near Kingston. A multi - disciplinary approach (including stable isotopes and palynology) to the analysis of sediments in Crawford Lake in southern Ontario has permitted researchers to derive high resolution data on Holocene climate change and settlement patterns in that area. Analysis of sediments in the other lakes has been of a lower resolution nature, insufficient to recognize climate cycles and more than generalized climatic trends. However, there has been no time series analysis carried out in any of the lakes. Earth's climate is highly variable, and this natural variability must be understood if reliable predictions of future climate states are to be made. To determine whether 20th century warming is unusual, it is essential to place it within the context of longer -term patterns of climate variability. Due to the paucity of instrumental climate records prior to the late 19th century, estimates of climate variability during past centuries must rely upon 'proxy' indicators. These comprise indirect natural or human archives that record past climate change, but must be calibrated against instrumental data for a,meaningful climate interpretation. Geological and historical records from lake sediments in eastern Canada provide clear evidence that regional climate has oscillated on a range of time scales during the Holocene warm interval (last 10,000 years). The climate of eastern Canada is influenced by the jet stream, several continental and marine air masses, and the El Nino /La Nina phenomenon, which are interdependent and have sub - decadal cycles. Superimposed upon these are Tess well understood, longer -scale events, operating on a global scale. The interactions of these climate- forcing phenomena determine whether there will be prolonged summer heat waves resulting in droughts, periods of extended heavy rains resulting in flooding, or long winter cold spells. The purpose of this research is to identify past changes in atmospheric conditions and the timing of these changes, through the latter part of the Holocene (ca. last 5,000 years), from the sedimentary records of lakes in eastern Canada. This information is required by policy makers attempting to recognize and provide adaptation strategies to any natural and anthropogenic climate changes affecting the most densely populated region of Canada. The study will focus on Teapot Lake within the Heart Lake Conservation Area in the City of Brampton. This lake is exceptional in that it contains a continuous, high resolution record of climate change spanning the last 12,000 years. This lake is termed ` meromictic,' and unusual in that the bottom waters are devoid of life, rarely, if ever, receiving oxygen. Critically, as there are no bottom dwelling organisms to disturb the sediment, bottom sediments are laid down which are comprised primarily of (i) plankton raining down from the oxygenated surface waters during the summer months and (ii) mineral material derived from erosion, following heavy rains or during spring melt. High resolution analysis of these undisturbed sediments can be used to obtain important information on magnitude, frequency and trends in climate change and land use change H63 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 June 16, 2005 through the analysis of (i) temperature sensitive microfossil assemblages, (ii) stable isotopes, (iii) mineral composition; (iv) grain size and other attributes. In this project, Teapot Lake will be sampled at very high resolution using new methodologies not previously available, to identify and correlate long and short term climate patterns and cycles, impossible to resolve with the short, circa 100 -year instrument record. In addition, the results of this research will similarly permit recognition of the impact of historic and prehistoric land use changes in the area on the limnology of the lake and an assessment of the geologic setting of this important water body. The Carleton University research team has been in the forefront in paleolimnological and paleoceanograpahic research and several have worked on a soon to be completed Canadian Foundation For Climate and Atmospheric Sciences grant that emphasized climate change recorded in annually deposited laminated sediments in British Columbia marine fjords. We have the necessary infrastructure support, research equipment, expertise and experience to carry out the objectives of the project without purchase of significant additional equipment. Available facilities and instrumentation include (i) boats and coring rafts; (ii) Livingstone and freeze corers; (iii) subbottom seismic profilers; (iv) sample storage facilities; (v) mass spectrometer; (v) x -ray diffraction instrumentation; (vi) grain size analyzers; (vii) paleomagnetic and magnetic susceptibility equipment and (viii) full facilities for micropaleontological analysis. Carleton University will provide three graduate students to complete the field and laboratory work, as well as the required laboratory analyses. The products from this phase of the work will include a report documenting the degree of flora and fauna preservation in the sediment and an assessment of the geologic conditions (sediment thickness, grain size and determination of the existence of micro -varves for estimating chronology). The outputs from this work program will be used to assess: • the value of this lake in terms of preservation of historical climate data; • adaptation of the local ecosystem to climate changes over the past 12,000 years; • the role of this type of feature in the groundwater flow system; and • future management /protection of this provincially rare and ecologically sensitive meromictic lake. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds are available in the 2005 budget for the Etobicoke - Mimico watershed, account code 120 -23. June 16, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 H64 RES. #H36/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the meetings for the following working groups are provided for information. Debbie Wagdin Bette -Ann Goldstein THAT the following minutes be received: • Meeting #4/05, and #5105 of the Report Card Working Group; • Meeting #2/05 of the South Mimico Stewardship Group; Meeting #2105 of the Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group; Meeting #4105 of the Human Heritage Working Group CARRIED NEW BUSINESS Community Stormwater Management Project S. Barrett advised that the South Mimico Stewardship Group, together with Friends of Mimico Creek, have received $21,000 in funding from the City of Toronto's Community Stormwater Management Project for community initiatives to implement the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. A special thanks was extended to everyone who worked on this proposal. Lakeside Community Wet Weather Flow The Coalition was advised that an artist was employed to engage the community to create art about how they would like the beaches to look. An art show is being held July 6 -24, 2005 to exhibit the results of the work that was done. DOOR PRIZES As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition, door prizes are given out at the end of each Coalition meeting. Two door prizes were awarded at this meeting - a gift certificate to Lee Valley Tools and a gift certificate to the Bass Pro store. The winning tickets belonged to Debbie Wagdin and Suzanne Barrett, respectively. H65 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #3/05 June 16, 2005 WORKSHOP ON COALITION ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND FUTURE PRIORITIES Facilitated by Sue Cumming Report on workshop to be provided at a later date. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m., on June 16, 2005. Adele Freeman Brian Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer /)p THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION MINUTES OF MEETING #4/05 THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE ETOBICOKE - MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 September 8, 2005 H66 The Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition met at the Markland Wood Country Club on September 8, 2005. Irene Jones co -chair of the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition, called the meeting to order at 6:40 pm. PRESENT Suzanne Barrett Co -Chair Cleve Battick Member Robert Cooke Member Marjut Dunker Member Janice Etter Member Bette -Ann Goldstein Member Pamela Gough Member Marilyn Hagerman Member Mark Head Member Irene Jones Co -Chair Alina Korniluk Member Randy McGill Member Chris McGlynn Member Doug McRonney Member Glenn Miller Member Chris Nelson Member Bob Noble Member Mathew Rossi ) Member Sean Stuart Member Boris Swedak Member Tanya Trivedi Member Robert Volpe Member Debbie Wagdin Member GUESTS Derek Gray Greater Toronto Airports Authority Dan Kientz Markland Wood Country Club Beth Noble University of Toronto John Parish Parish Geomorphic H67 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 September 8, 2005 STAFF Marnie Branfireun Malton Environmental Stewardship Project Laurian Farrell Watershed Management Coordinator Etobicoke - Mimico Adele Freeman Director, Watershed Management Kristin Geater Watersheds Project Manager, Etobicoke - Mimico Joanna Parsons Administrative Assistant, Etobicoke - Mimico Chandra Sharma Specialist, Etobicoke - Mimico Paul Willms Resource Planner, Etobicoke - Mimico RES. #H37/05- MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Boris Swedak Mathew Rossi THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/05, held on June 16, 2005, be received CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) Letter to Chandra Sharma from J. Greg Ashbee, dated June 9, 2005, re: Notice of Study Commencement Georgetown Corridor (North) Rail Expansion Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design. (b) Letter to Eastern Power Limited from Beth Williston, Watershed Planning and Policy Specialist, dated August 26, 2005, re: Greenfield South Power Project. RES. #H38/05- Moved by: Seconded by: Pamela Gough Doug McRonney THAT the above correspondence be received CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) 2005 Peel Children's Water Festival Certificate of Appreciation Adele Freeman, Director of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Watershed Management Division presented a certificate of appreciation to recognize Coalition members who assisted at the Festival. September 8, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 H68 (b) Pearson International Airport - Air France Incident, Etobicoke Creek Randy McGill and Derek Gray updated the Coalition members on the Air France incident that took place on August 2, 2005. The presentation centred around the success of the rescue of more than 300 passengers as well as the impacts on the Etobicoke Creek. Derek Gray briefly discussed the projects which the GTAA have recently undertaken. (c) West Etobicoke Creek Regeneration Study John Parish made a presentation on the West Etobicoke Creek Regeneration Study which provided a brief history of the area and an overview of the different phases involved in the study. Mr. Parish also provided a detailed outline of opportunities that exist for improving the area. Coalition members were encouraged to provide suggestions and forward any questions or comments to K. Geater for consideration. (d) Update on the August 19, 2005 Storm and Flooding Event John Parish gave a presentation on the recent storm and flooding event, including: the storm path, the amount of precipitation that was received as well as the damage that was sustained throughout the City of Toronto. (e) Malton Stewardship Project Update Marnie Branfireun of the Malton Environmental Stewardship Project gave a presentation on the highlights of the first year successes of the project. (f) City of Mississauga Healthy City Initiative, Mimico Watershed Beth Noble of the University of Toronto made a presentation on the Healthy City Initiative being undertaken over a two year time frame in the City of Mississauga. RES. #H39/05- Moved by: Seconded by; Doug McRonney Sean Stuart THAT Ms. Noble be thanked for her presentation; AND FURTHER THAT Ms. Noble be invited to attend a future Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition meeting to present the outcome of the City of Mississauga Healty City Initiative project CARRIED H69 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 September 8, 2005 SECTION I REPORTS - ACTION ITEMS RES. #H40/05- BRAMPTON OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW Environment and Open Space Discussion Paper Moved by: Seconded by: Janice Etter Cleve Battick THAT the draft Coalition comments on the City of Brampton Environment and Open Space Discussion Paper, dated August 2005, be approved and forwarded to the City of Brampton; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of the final comments be provided to the Heart Lake Advisory Committee for their Information CARRIED BACKGROUND The Brampton Official Plan Review, Environment and Open Space Discussion Paper was circulated to Irene Jones, Co -Chair of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition on May 30, 2005. The Discussion Paper presents the results and recommendations of the Environment and Open Space policy and mapping review. The review concluded that the fundamental ecosystem planning approach outlined in Brampton's Official Plan is still sound because it is based on best management practices and is still followed by many municipalities. Some modifications to the policies and mapping were identified, to reflect the increased emphasis being placed on environmental and open space issues in the City of Brampton. RES. #H41/05- GREAT LAKES CHARTER ANNEX Conservation Ontario Comments Moved: Seconded: Debbie Wagdin Bette -Ann Goldstein THAT the Conservation Ontario comments dated August 29, 2005 with respect to the Great Lakes Charter Annex report be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition send a letter to the Minister of Natural Resources endorsing the comments of Conservation Ontario CARRIED BACKGROUND At the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting #4/04, held on Thursday, October 28, 2004, information regarding the Great Lakes Charter Annex was brought forward to the members. The report from Conservation Ontario was received with the request that further September 8, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 H70 information be brought back to the Coalition in order to discuss the members concerns regarding water diversions, legal implications, climate change and other potential impacts. At the following Coalition meeting held on January 27, 2005, staff reported on the Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001 report considered at the previous meeting. It was also reported that the Ministry of Natural Resources had struck an advisory panel to allow all parties the opportunity to share information and work together toward meeting the interests of all stakeholders. The Minister also committed to continue getting input from stakeholders and First Nations before an agreement was ratified. RES. #H42/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION MOVING FORWARD ON FUTURE COALITIONS STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES Workshop Report Suzanne Barrett Chris McGlynn THAT the workshop report titled "Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition Moving Forward on Future Coalition Structure and Priorities ", prepared by Sue Cumming of Cumming + Company, be received; THAT the short term priorities and next steps identified in the report be confirmed and achieved over the next 12 months; THAT an orientation package for new and existing Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds , Coalition members be developed; THAT the existing process to recruit new participation in the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition be reviewed and updated as necessary; THAT a working group be established to report back to the Coalition on governance issues; THAT opportunities for a web -based discussion board be explored; THAT the Report Card Workshop scheduled for Saturday, November 5, 2005 should review information on indicators and key actions for future priorities; AND FURTHER THAT the Coalition work plan be finalized in January 2006 based on Coalition priorities and resources. H71 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 September 8, 2005 AMENDMENT Suzanne Barrett RES. #43/05 - Chris McGlynn THAT the workshop report titled "Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition Moving Forward on Future Coalition Structure and Priorities ", prepared by Sue Cumming of Cumming + Company, be received and members asked to provide comments; THAT the short term priorities and next steps identified in the report be confirmed and achieved over the next 12 months; THAT an orientation package for new and existing Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition members be developed; THAT the existing process to recruit new participation in the Etobicoke - Mimlco Watersheds Coalition be reviewed and updated as necessary; THAT a working group be established to report back to the Coalition on subcommittee structure and meeting format issues; THAT opportunities for a web -based discussion board be explored; THAT the Report Card Workshop scheduled for Saturday, November 5, 2005 should review information on indicators and key actions for future priorities; AND FURTHER THAT the Coalition work plan be finalized in January 2006 based on Coalition priorities and resources. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND At the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting #1/05 held on January 27, 2005, the following recommendations were approved: RES. #H10/05- THAT the Coalition Subcommittees and Working Groups chart be received for information; THAT a detailed list of past accomplishments current projects and future goals for each working group and subcommittee be developed by each group at their upcoming meeting; THAT members participate in a facilitated workshop to be held a Coalition meeting #3/05, on June 16, 2005 to review the Coalition's work during the first term; September 8, 2005 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 H72 AND FURTHER THAT the workshop outcomes provide an assessment of the Coalition's work for the 2005 Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Report Card and direct the structure, mandate, and roles of the next Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition CARRIED At the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition meeting #3/05, held on June 16, 2005, a facilitated workshop was presented by Sue Cumming of Cumming + Company. The workshop was designed to discuss the achievements made by the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, as well to address the areas where greater effectiveness could be achieved as well as to discuss required skills and resources. RES. #H44/05 - GREENFIELD SOUTH POWER PROJECT Category B Environmental Assessment for Electricity Projects Moved by: Seconded by: Suzanne Barrett Chris McGlynn WHEREAS it is the understanding of the Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) that in order to meet the Ontario government's target of 5 percent renewable energy by 2007, the Ministry of Energy launched four requests for proposals (RFPs) for a total of 1,500 MW of new renewable energy supply and 2,500 MW for new clean generation and demand -side projects; WHEREAS THE "2,500 MW RFP" for new clean generation and demand -side projects represents one -third of the Ontario government's commitment to replace coal -fired generation with cleaner sources of energy or demand -side measures; WHEREAS the six winning projects of the "2,500 MW RFP" include a cogeneration project, a demand response project and four new combined -cycle natural gas -fired generating plants; AND WHEREAS TRCA has received a Category B - Environmental Assessment Act Application for one of the new combined -cycle natural gas -fired generating plants which lq to be located within the Etoblcoke Creek watershed, immediately adjacent to the Etoblcoke Creek Valley, upstream of the Silverthorn Environmentally Significant Area, and containing a significant amount of vegetation; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the proponent be advised that the Authority supports the Intent of this project as part of the Ontario government's plan to phase -out the coal -fired electricity generation In Ontario, as it supports the TRCA draft corporate strategic plan, which focuses on improving air quality and reducing the impacts of global climate change in the TRCA watersheds; H73 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 September 8, 2005 THAT the proponent be advised that the Authority has concerns with respect this particular site in terms of its environmental significance in relation to provisions in the Provincial Planning Policy Statement (2005), the TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (1994), TRCA's Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke - Mimico Creeks (2002) and the draft TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (2004); THAT the Authority advises that the outcome of the environmental assessment (EA) process, including the application of criteria and establishment of an appropriate building envelope, shall take precedent with respect to the development of this particular project; THAT TRCA staff be directed to work with the proponent to establish a satisfactory environmental impact study which will: (a) allow for a suitable building envelope to be established such that the natural heritage of the site is protected, (b) provide for a net environmental gain, either on -site or in close proximity to the project area, and (c) provide for site servicing which will not adversely impact the valley corridor or TRCA property; THAT TRCA staff be directed to report back to the Authority regarding the recommendations of the environmental impact study and conformance with the TRCA's conditions of approval; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to use provisions within the Environmental Assessment Act to ensure that the above conditions for this environmental assessment application are achieved; AND FURTHER THAT the proponent, the Ministries of Environment and Energy, the City of Mississauga, the Credit Valley Conservation Authority and the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition be so advised CARRIED BACKGROUND Relevant background information on this project includes information regarding Ontario's electricity supply plan; information regarding the project specific Category B Environmental Assessment for the South Greenfield Power Project; and, information regarding past Planning Act approvals on this site. To date, staff has not received an environmental impact study in relation to the environmental assessment application, but due to the significance of the project is bringing the concept proposal to the attention of the Authority to seek direction in responding to the anticipated report. Ontario's Electricity Supply Plan The Ontario government has a target of achieving 5 percent renewable energy by 2007. As the agency responsible for the functioning of Ontario's electricity system, the Ministry of Energy September 8, 2005 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4105 H74 has developed a plan to meet this target. To achieve the plan, the Ministry has launched four requests for proposals (RFP) for new energy supply sources. These are detailed below: 2004 The Ministry of Energy issued the "Renewables I RFP" for 300 MW of new renewable energy supply; The Ministry of Energy issued the "2,500 MW RFP" for new clean generation and demand - side projects. 2005 The Ministry of Energy issued the "Renewables II RFP" for 1,000 MW of new renewable energy supply from generation facilities; The Ministry of Energy launched its intent to issued an RFP for the "Renewables III" project, for 200 MW of new renewable energy supply from generation facilities under 20 MW. Category B Environmental Assessment for the South Greenfield Power Project The Ministry of the Environment's (MOE) "2,500 MW RFP" for new clean generation and demand -side projects represents one -third of the Ontario government's commitment to replace coal -fired generation with cleaner sources of energy or demand -side measures. Six winning projects have been chosen, including a cogeneration project, a demand response project, and four new combined -cycle natural gas -fired generating plants. Of these facilities, two new facilities are planned in TRCA's jurisdiction, both in the City of Mississauga. The third project planned in Mississauga is in Credit Valley Conservation's jurisdiction. The Greenfield South Power Project being proposed by Eastern Power Limited, will use a natural gas - fueled turbine to generate electricity. The Greater Toronto Airports Authority project will involve the construction of a cogeneration facility, which will use natural gas to generate electricity and then convert the waste heat into power to be used in airport operations. At this time, an approval for the Greenfield South Power Project is required under the Environmental Assessment Act. In accordance with requirements stipulated in the Ministry of the Environment's Guide to Environmental Assessment Act Requirements for Electricity Projects (2001), the proponent is required to follow the Class EA process for Category B projects. These projects are classified as those having "environmental impacts which can be mitigated ". There are minimum requirements for public and agency notification. The site is predetermined, as is the type of fuel to be used for electrical generation. For Category B projects, the proponent is required to complete and file an environmental screening report and a Notice of Completion with the Ministry of the Environment. The report is then subject to a 30 -day public review process before being finalized. Within that 30 -day period, agencies and individuals can make a request to the Minister of the Environment for a Part II Order. Past Planning Act Approvals on this Site The current zoning on the subject property is a manufacturing designation (M -1 special section) which the City of Mississauga has interpreted as allowing for the proposed project. H75 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 September 8, 2005 Through the rezoning process, TRCA technical staff identified TRCA interests in this application, which included engineering (geotechnical) and ecological (protection of vegetation and forest edge management) related concerns. Upon review of the submitted materials addressing our concerns referred to above, staff concluded that the TRCA would be in a position to endorse the rezoning application subject to "All lands below the greater of either the top of bank or long term stable slope, including an additional 10 metre buffer, be placed under an appropriate zoning category which will protect the valley corridor and restrict the construction of buildings and associated structures in this area (i.e. greenbelt or open space). The TRCA would prefer public dedication of these lands as a means of additional long term protection." In addition, the TRCA identified the need for an edge management plan which should encourage a 'no net loss' of vegetation adjacent to the valley corridor through a comprehensive revegetation plan including a 3:1 planting replacement plan. Further to this, the subject rezoning application was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) based on issues (outdoor storage requirements) unrelated to the TRCA's interests. In this regard, the current zoning designation was approved by the OMB (decision dated April 20, 2004) with a 'holding provision' to ensure sufficient delivery of servicing, development agreements and the dedication of lands determined to be within the valley corridor. Any proposed project is also subject to site plan approval upon the release of the holding provision on the rezoning application. Current Status of Environmental Assessment Act Review EA staff received the "Notice of Commencement and Environmental Screening and Environmental Review" on June 13th. The Notice included an invitation to attend a public open house on June 16th. Staff did not attend the meeting, but have responded to the Notice of Commencement with respect to our concerns about this site. On June 29th, TRCA staff received notice that a draft Environmental Impact Study would be sent to us by July 15th, and that TRCA comments will be requested within two weeks, after which the final report will be issued. Current Status of Planning Act Review TRCA staff has recently received a concept development plan illustrating the proposed works to construct the power generation plant. TRCA staff has provided brief preliminary comments to the City of Mississauga and the applicant outlining our continued interest in preserving the valley corridor (including dedication), requirements for an edge management plan (including renaturalization /enhancement plantings) and site servicing. In this regard, TRCA staff is not yet in a position to endorse the release of the holding provision on the current zoning designation (M -1 special section); however, we expect that receipt of a formal site plan application is imminent. Applicable Strategies. Policies and Legislation TRCA staff has reviewed the strategies, policies and legislation that would apply to the Environmental Assessment Act application for this project and conclude the following: 1. The project must comply with the new Provincial Policy Statement which states: September 8, 2005 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 H76 A. Section 1.8.1 - Planning authorities shall support energy efficiency and improved air quality through land use and development patterns which (e) promote design and orientation which maximize the use of alternative or renewable energy, such as solar and wind energy, and the mitigating effects of vegetation. While this project is part of a larger provincial plan which includes renewable energy supply, the proponent should be encouraged to work with the City of Mississauga to tie into the surrounding industrial community and investigate opportunities for conversion into a cogeneration facility in the future. As well, site design should be such that the mitigative effects of the vegetation are maximized. B. Section 2 - Natural Heritage - Section 2.1.1 Natural features and areas shall be protected in the long -term; Section 2.1.2 - The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area , and the long -term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or where possible, improves, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and area, surface water features and groundwater features; Section 2.1.4 - Development and site alteration shall in significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield (in this regard, "significant" is defined as an area which is ecologically important ... due to its location in the relevant planning area "; and Section 2.1.6 - Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas ... unless the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. This project could require the removal of vegetation immediately adjacent to the Etobicoke Creek Valley and immediately upstream of the Silverthorn ESA. Subject to review of the site and an environmental impact study, TRCA staff cannot confirm if the vegetation within the project limits is significant. 2. The project must comply with the Section 4.3 (17) TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program which states Services shall ensure the ecological integrity of the valley and stream corridor is maintained. Servicing connections for water supply and discharge, and stormwater management have not yet been submitted to staff and will need to be reviewed by staff to ensure all servicing minimizes or eliminates impacts to the valley slope, the vegetation, the watercourse, and TRCA land. 3. This project should comply with the TRCA draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS); which has policies specifically addressing infrastructure development through the EA process and states, in part, that through a natural heritage study, it must be shown that the impacts on the system are minimized and that in the southern portions of the watershed, the majority of all existing natural cover should be protected. Where it is determined that cover can be removed, compensation must be provided. Further, the TNHSS recognizes that there is currently not enough habitat remaining within our jurisdiction and that there continues to be a Toss of species of • concern from continued habitat Toss and the negative impacts from urban development. Specific to the urbanized portion of the Etobicoke Creek watershed, the vast majority of • 1 H77 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 September 8, 2005 the remaining habitat is restricted to the Etobicoke Creek Valley. The TNHSS recognizes this, protects the remaining habitat and builds upon the natural system. The majority of the proposed potential natural cover is located adjacent to the valley to supplement the habitat that is currently available. As such, it is very important to protect remaining habitats within the southern portions of the watersheds, and expanding the system to the extent feasible. 4. In principle, this project supports the TRCA draft strategic directions which are aimed at improving air quality and reducing the impacts of global climate change in the TRCA watersheds. While this project proposes to use a non - renewable fossil fuel to generate electricity, it will provide substantial relief to the local and regional airsheds within the TRCA's jurisdiction, as the coal - fueled plant will be replaced in a more timely- manner than if the project was to require solely renewable sources, and it is staffs understanding that there could be further opportunities to convert the facility into a cogeneration facility or to add technologies to further reduce emissions. 5. The project is supported by Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke - Mimico Creeks, which acknowledges that urban environments require infrastructure and advocates for energy and water conservation measures through eco- efficiency plans. Next Steps 1. Staff to review and comment on the draft environmental impact study with respect to TRCA's concerns; and 2. Staff to review the final environmental impact study and consult with the Chair of the Authority on how to proceed with the appropriate course of action depending on the results of this review. RES. #H45/05 - ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION Extension of Term of Appointment Moved by: Seconded by: Pamela Gough Doug McRonney THAT Resolution #A177/05 adopted at meeting #6/05 of the Authority, held on July 22, 2005, pertaining to the extension of term of appointment for the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition, be received for information. AMENDMENT Pamela Gough RES. #H46/05 - . Doug McRonney September 8, 2005 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 H78 THAT the existing process to recruit new participation in the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition be reviewed and updated as necessary. THE AMENDMENT WAS' - CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority, at its meeting held on July 22, 2005, adopted the following resolution with regard to the extension of the term of appointment for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition: THAT the term of appointment for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition members be extended for one year to December 31, 2006. 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 - 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 - Mimico watershed management budget will fund the expenditures related to the one -year extension of the appointment. H79 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 September 8, 2005 RES. #H47/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the meetings for the following working groups are provided for information. Debbie Wagdin Bette -Ann Goldstein THAT the following minutes be received: • Report Card Working Group #6/05 (June 28, 2005) CARRIED NEW BUSINESS A.D. Latornell Conference The Coalition members were invited to participate in the A.D. Latornell Conference sponsored by Conservation Ontario, held in Alliston from November 16 -18th, 2005. At the workshop held during the June 16th Coalition meeting, members expressed a desire to become more educated and informed in order to help fulfill the mandate of the Coalition. Heart Lake D'ragon Boat Festival The members of the Coalition were invited to participate in the Heart Lake Dragon Boat Festival to be held on June 24, 2005 at the Heart Lake Conservation Area. Flyers were made available to all members at the meeting. The 12th Annual Charles Sauriol Environmental Dinner Invitations to the l 2'h Annual Charles Sauriol Environmental Dinner to be held on October 27, 2005 were distributed to the Coalition members. The Guest speaker will be Ralph Nader. Tom Riley and Snelgrove Events K. Geater informed the Coalition members about the upcoming Tom Riley Event, to be held on October 22, 2005 and the Snelgrove Event to be held on October 29, 2005. K. Geater advised that volunteers for assisting with these two events were being sought. September 8, 2005 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #4/05 H80 Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Agriculture Action Plan J. Etter advised the members about the launch of the Greater Toronto Area Agriculture Action Plan as it relates to the work of the Coalition because it monitors the loss of agricultural land in the watershed. DOOR PRIZES As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition, door prizes are given out at the end of each Coalition meeting. Two door prizes were awarded at this meeting - a gift basket of organic food and a gift basket of environmentally friendly cleaners. The winning tickets belonged to Irene Jones and Janice Etter, respectively. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m., on September 8, 2005. Adele Freeman Brian Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer fjp THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION MINUTES OF MEETING #5/05 t‘. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE ETOBICOKE - MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 November 24, 2005 The Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition met at the Etobicoke Civic Centre on November 24, 2005. Irene Jones called the meeting to order at 6:32 pm. H81 PRESENT Suzanne Barrett Co -Chair Robert Cooke Member Janice Etter Member Michael Gusche Member Marilyn Hagerman Member Mark Head Member Irene Jones Co -Chair Randy McGill Member Chris McGlynn Member Dick O'Brien Member Steve Rutherford Member GUESTS Borys Wrzesnewskyj Member of Parliament, Etobicoke Centre STAFF Colleen Cirillo Community Steardship Technician Kristin Geater Watersheds Project Manager, Etobicoke - Mimico Joanna Parsons Administrative Assistant, Etobicoke - Mimico Chandra Sharma Specialist, Etobicoke - Mimico Paul Wilims Resource Planner, Etobicoke - Mimico Dean Young Subwatershed Planning Coordinator RES. #H48/05- Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES Suzanne Barrett Marilyn Hagerman THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/05, held on September 8, 2005 be received .. CARRIED H82 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 November 24, 2005 CORRESPONDENCE (a) Memorandum to Interested Stakeholders from Laurel Broten, Minister of the Environment, dated, September 30, 2005, re: Environmental Enforcement Statute Law Amendment Act (Bill 133). (b) Letter to Tara Buonpensiero from Suzanne Barrett and Irene Jones, Co- Chairs of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, dated October 3, 2005, re: Brampton Official Plan Review Environment and Open Space Discussion Paper (May, 2005). RES. #H49/05- Moved by: Seconded by: Steve Rutherford Tanya Trivedi THAT the above correspondence be received CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) Etobicoke Headwaters Subwatershed Plan Dean Young, TRCA's Subwatershed Plan Coordinator, presented the Etobicoke Headwaters Subwatershed Study. D. Young provided the status of the study as well as some of the key findings thus far. D. Young also presented draft recommendations and the next steps for the study. RES. #H50/05- Moved by: Seconded by: ETOBICOKE CREEK HEADWATERS SUBWATERSHED PLAN Update on progress of the Etobicoke Creek Headwaters Subwatershed Plan process, overview of key findings and initial recommendations. Janice Etter Chris McGlynn THAT the subwatershed characterization report, Etobicoke Creek Headwaters Subwatershed Synthesis Report, Draft November 2005, summarizing findings from the first phase of the subwatershed planning study be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT the Policy and Advocacy Subcommittee of the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition review the draft report and provide TRCA staff with comments CARRIED November 24, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 H83 AMENDMENT RES. #H51/05- Moved: Janice Etter Seconded: Chris McGlynn THAT the subwatershed characterization report, Etobicoke Creek Headwaters Subwatershed Synthesis Report, Draft November 2005, summarizing findings from the first phase of the subwatershed planning study be received for information; THAT the Policy and Advocacy Subcommittee of the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition review the draft report and provide TRCA staff with comments; THAT a letter be sent to the Town of Caledon requesting that the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition be included on their mailing list to receive information about new developments regarding the Etobicoke Headwaters Subwatershed Plan; AND FURTHER THAT Dean Young, TRCA Subwatershed Planning Coordinator, be invited back to a future Coalition meeting to provide an update on the Etobicoke Headwaters Subwatershed Plan. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND In June 2003, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, in partnership with the Region of Peel, City of Brampton, Town of Caledon, and the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition initiated a subwatershed planning study for the Etobicoke Creek Headwaters. The subwatershed planning study was initiated to provide information on the current condition and state of health of the subwatershed system, evaluate the response of the system to anticipated changes to land and resource use, and to identify the management actions needed for watershed protection and enhancement. One of the main triggers for initiating the subwatershed study was to provide up -to -date environmental information and management recommendations to help inform the Town of Caledon Mayfield West Community Plan process. The findings and recommendations from the subwatershed planning study will form the basis of an integrated subwatershed management plan that will provide guidance to regional and local municipalities with regard to planning future urban growth and implementing their existing environmental policies. The plan will also help advance on -going efforts to achieve the objectives of the watershed revitalization strategy, Greening Our Watersheds. The watershed revitalization strategy establishes the overall guiding principles, vision and working framework of objectives on which the Etobicoke Creek Headwaters Subwatershed Plan will be based. The subwatershed plan will build upon this framework by providing additional detail regarding targets for future conditions, and recommendations for policies, programs and actions necessary to achieve the objectives of the revitalization strategy within the subwatershed. H84 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 November 24, 2005 At the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Coalition meeting #5/03, held October 23, 2003, a presentation on the subwatershed planning study was made by TRCA staff and the draft study workplan was provided for information. At the meeting the following resolution was adopted(RES. #H41/03): THAT the staff report be received for information; THAT Irene Jones be appointed as the Interim Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition representative to participate in the Steering Committee; AND FURTHER THAT the phase 1 subwatershed characterization report be brought back to the Coalition for endorsement. Since the October 23, 2003 meeting, a Steering Committee was formed to oversee the study and to provide a forum for municipal staff, agency representatives and Coalition members to review draft documents and provide input to management plan recommendations. The study workplan was reviewed and endorsed by the Steering Committee, and a public meeting was held to introduce the study to the local community and stakeholders. During September 2004, a Request For Proposals was issued for a consulting contract to assist TRCA staff with preparing a subwatershed characterization report summarizing the findings from the first phase of the study. CH2M Hill Canada Ltd. was retained as the preferred consulting team and work began on the contract in December 2004. TRCA staff, with the assistance of CH2M Hill Canada Ltd., have completed a first draft of the subwatershed characterization report, Etobicoke Creek Headwaters Subwatershed Synthesis Report. The report summarizes, integrates and documents the findings from the first phase of the subwatershed planning study. Part I of the report provides background information on the purpose of the study and steps being followed. Part II of the report describes current conditions in the subwatershed according to the main components of the subwatershed system. Part III of the report describes the draft subwatershed plan framework of management objectives, indicators and targets for healthy subwatershed conditions. It identifies initial recommendations for management actions necessary to protect and enhance watershed health, recommendations regarding further study needs, and outlines the proposed next steps to be taken in the subwatershed planning study. Some key findings and draft recommendations from the first phase of the subwatershed study include the following: Baseflow measurements suggest that several reaches within the subwatershed receive inputs from groundwater discharge. The Oak Ridges aquifer (or equivalent deposits) is believed to outcrop along the main channel of Etobicoke Creek south of Mayfield Road. Groundwater discharge occurring along the reaches south of Mayfield Road represents a major contribution to baseflow in the subwatershed (50% of the total stream flow leaving the subwatershed during dry weather) and the rest of the watershed (24% of the total stream flow at the mouth of the Etobicoke during dry weather). Therefore, identifying lands that significantly contribute recharge to the Oak Ridges aquifer, and November 24, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 H85 maintaining their infiltration capacity is vitally important to protecting and enhancing the health of Etobicoke Creek; • Planning and design of new urban settlements should be based on low impact development principles that minimize changes to the existing water balance. Innovative urban designs that minimize impervious surfaces, protect the form and function of significant small drainage features, incorporate stormwater controls that promote infiltration of clean run -off, utilize green roof technologies, and harvest and re -use rainwater should be considered as part of an overall stormwater management strategy; • Despite the fragmented state of habitat patches, numerous flora and fauna species of regional concern have been observed in this subwatershed; • The fish community within the subwatershed includes many species which are sensitive to increased stream flow velocity and turbidity. Many of them are habitat specialists and are wetland and headwater species that prefer cool water habitats. The aquatic communities found in this subwatershed are relatively healthy when compared with the remainder of the Etobicoke Creek watershed; • The majority of opportunities that remain to restore natural land cover in this watershed are in the rural headwaters area. Planning and design of new urban settlements in this subwatershed should protect the land base needed to both protect existing natural habitats, and to regenerate or improve their function; • Potential wetland restoration sites have been identified in this subwatershed including sites in the Mayfield West Community Development Plan study area; • Planning and design of the open space system within new urban settlements should take into consideration that lands within the subwatershed have been targeted for securement and restoration of natural land cover (the TRCA target terrestrial natural heritage system). Lands in the target terrestrial natural heritage system should be considered by the Town of Caledon for designation as Environmental Policy Areas and development should be directed to lands outside the target terrestrial natural heritage system to the greatest extent possible. Where this is not possible, a net -gain principle should be adhered to that recognizes the need to improve on existing conditions, and that any losses of existing or targeted natural cover should be compensated elsewhere; Tableland woodlots located in the headwaters of the Spring Creek tributary are not currently designated as Environmental Policy Areas by the Town of Caledon Official Plan. These features should be retained in the landscape and the land base needed to restore them as a new core forest area should be secured through the urban planning process. The Town of Caledon should review their Environmental Policy Areas mapping and designations to ensure that their policies are sufficient to both protect the existing significant natural heritage features in this area, and provide the land base needed to improve the quality of habitat they are capable of supporting; Planning and design of new urban settlements should require that buildings meet some level of green building standards; The scope of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds revitalization strategy, Greening Our Watersheds, should be expanded to include objectives and targets regarding management of the groundwater system. H86 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 November 24, 2005 RES. #H52/05- Moved: Seconded: HEALTHY YARDS PROGRAM Healthy Yards initiative update and implementation recommendations for the watersheds. Marilyn Hagerman Suzanne Barrett THAT the staff report and presentation on the Healthy Yards Program be received; THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition continue to support the ongoing Healthy Yards Program in the South Mimico Community Action Area; THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition work with established environmental NGO's and community groups, such as the Rockwood Homeowners Association and Malton Stewardship Group, to design and implement a Healthy Yards Program in partnership with the City of Mississauga; THAT the Coalition's Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group continue to promote the Healthy Yards Program at the Peel Children's Water Festival; THAT the Healthy Yards Program be promoted to the City of Brampton's Community In Blooms Committee; AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition members practice healthy yard activities on their own properties CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2002, the Etobicoke - Mimico Task Force identified private property owners as key partners in revitalizing the creeks. Greening Our Watersheds (Backyard Practices, May 2002: 259 -270) outlined the development of a Healthy Yards Program, and proposed that it would fulfill the objective of changing backyard practices within residential, school, and workplace properties. In 2003, TRCA staff initiated the Healthy Yards Program in partnership with the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition. Research and meetings identified partners, gaps in products and services, and it also identified approximately 30 programs /organizations already involved in aspects of private property stewardship. PROGRESS TO DATE In March 2004, a workshop was organized for groups working on healthy yards issues in the Greater Toronto Area. The workshop identified issues of common interest, scarce funding resources, cross - promotional opportunities, and partnership possibilities; however, the Healthy Yards Alliance Network has not formally met since this initial meeting. November 24, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 H87 On April 22, 2004, the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition adopted resolution #H19/04 as follows: THAT the staff report on the Healthy Yards Program be received; THAT the Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group work with staff to achieve 2004 project deliverables; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the progress of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Coalition's Healthy Yards Program. The Healthy Yards Program has grown since 2004 due to increasing public interest and municipal partnerships. HEALTHY YARDS PROGRAM TODAY In 2005, guest speakers gave workshops on subjects ranging from native plants to organic lawn care. TRCA stewardship staff has worked with the staff of the Markham, Scarborough, and Richmond Hill Healthy Yards initiatives and recently assisted the South Mimico Stewardship Group initiate their November 5, 2005 workshop. The table below summarizes key features of several ongoing Healthy Yards Programs in the GTA: Program Key Partners Funding Deliverables Lessons Learned South Mimico Healthy Yards (and Healthy Parks) Project South Mimico Stewardship Group, Friends of Mimico Creek, City of Toronto, TRCA, CCFEW City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow Implementation Fund, TRCA distribute 20 Healthy Yards kits (this may be increased in 2006), hold 2 workshops on native plant gardening and organic lawn care - too early, but anecdotal evidence suggests best to separate workshop and plant distribution - property owners in older areas request more choice, not as many trees, and shade tolerant shrubs /wildflowers Markham Green Neighbourhoods Town of Markham, TRCA EcoAction $15000 (2003), Markham $7000 (2004), Rouge Park $9000 (2005), 1D $4800 187 families planted 144 trees, 340 shrubs + 4,650 wildflowers/ grasses in their yards, 1400 info kits + 31 organic lawn care kits distributed; over 500 people attended 7 events - first healthy yards program - separate workshop from plant distribution OR do workshop with sale from nurseries OLC event and kits can go together - many people recently moved to new subdivisions Richmond Hilt Town of Richmond Hill, TRCA Green Streets (Tree Canada fund for municipalities) $17000, TD $2600 - 250 info kits distributed - one day event with mulch and compost giveaways, native plant kit distribution, displays, etc. - chaotic to do everything in one event - need a number of staff people from a few different town departments Scarborough City of Toronto, TRCA, Rouge Park, 1D FEF TD $2500 one workshop, 21 native plant kits and 100 info kits - ravine property owners very interested H88 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 November 24, 2005 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Coalition members will continue to work with Etobicoke - Mimico staff and TRCA stewardship staff to explore opportunities to engage Etobicoke - Mimico residents in the Healthy Yards Program in 2006. Some of the programs under consideration include the following: • Further development of the Healthy Yards Program for the Peel Children's Water Festival; • Working with local and regional municipalities and community groups to provide support to programs such as Communities in Bloom; • Working with established environmental NGOs in the community such as EcoSource; • Developing additional outreach materials; and, • Assisting Coalition members with healthy yards activities for their own properties. RES. #H53/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA MASTER PLAN Update on the development of the Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan. Janice Etter Randy McGiII THAT the staff report on the progress of the Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan be received; AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition members review and provide comments on the Draft Management Zones, alternative public use and trail plans concepts for the Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan. AMENDMENT RES. #H54/05- THAT the staff report on the progress of the Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan be received; THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition review and provide comments on the attached Draft Management Zones, alternative public use and trail plans concepts for the Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan. AND FURTHER THAT any additional comments on the Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan be submitted to Deanna Cheriton, TRCA's Conservation Land Planner. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED November 24, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 H89 BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #8/03, held on October 31, 2003, the initiation of a master plan for the Heart Lake Conservation Area (HLCA) was approved. Resolution #A229/03, as follows, was adopted: THAT staff be authorized to develop a Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan; THAT an Advisory Committee be established, which would include members of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Coalition, interested community groups, business representatives, community residents, agency staff, municipal staff and area councillors to assist with the development of the Master Plan and to facilitate the opportunity for public input; AND FURTHER THAT the final Master Plan be brought to the Authority for approval." Asa part of the process for developing the Heart Lake Conservation Area (HLCA) Master Plan, the HLCA Master Plan Advisory Committee and Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) staff have worked together to produce a vision, management zones and management principles for HLCA. The final draft vision for the HLCA is: "The Heart Lake Conservation Area (HLCA) is regarded as a significant conservation park that forms a key environmental, cultural and social component of an established urban community in The Living City. The park, which will be used for nature -based recreation and as a living classroom, will be managed with a stewardship approach that allows natural communities to prosper." TRCA and the HLCA Master Plan Advisory Committee have also been working with ENVision — The Hough Group to complete another important step in park planning. Two public use and trail concept plans were developed based upon the information in the HLCA Master Plan Background Report, the vision for the HLCA and the management zones for the HLCA. The concepts were presented to the community and the opportunity for public input was provided. Park Management Issues Approximately 70 percent of the HLCA is an environmentally sensitive area. While it is important to protect this natural area, there are many unique public use and recreation features to enjoy at HLCA. At the same time, existing park facilities need updating and uncontrolled trail use threatens environmentally significant areas within the park. Furthermore, there is a need to address rapidly expanding residential growth in the vicinity of the park. Recreation Needs and Opportunities Our studies indicate that the demand for recreation opportunities will exceed supply in the coming years. The demand for swimming, aquatic facilities and fishing will continue to be strong as well as an increasing demand for a well- connected hiking and biking trail system. In order to support this demand, a number of the outdoor recreation facilities must be realigned and updated. H90 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 November 24, 2005 Conceptual Alternatives HLCA will focus on passive recreation activities that support the core function of the site as a Conservation Park, and that are sustainable from an ecological and economic perspective. The concept plans outlined have built on the natural strengths of HLCA and reflect the range of recreation opportunities in a Conservation Park. The TRCA and the Advisory Committee wish to accommodate existing uses while expanding the quality of the experience with new facilities. Heart Lake and the aquatic activities will become a focal point of the park. Below is a summary of the two concept plans presented by TRCA and ENVision - The Hough Group at the public meeting held in October 2005. The concepts considered the HLCA Master Plan Background Report, the TRCA Natural Heritage Strategy, The Living City Strategy and Greening Our Watersheds. Technical studies, including recreation needs and opportunities and site assessments, were conducted. Basic Elements of the Alternatives The two alternatives include some common elements. These include the following: Natural Heritage • Restoration of Heart Lake and its shoreline to a more natural state creating a self - sustaining warm water fishery • Increase of forest cover and important habitat for wildlife through the consolidation of public use areas • Naturalization and restoration of retired public use areas Cultural Heritage • Protection and conservation of all archaeological sites • Interpretation of cultural heritage for public education Park Entrance • Redesign of entrance to accommodate a gatehouse further in from the road and to alleviate traffic problems • Establishment of pedestrian entrance points into the park • Change in gate policy to charge a parking fee Trails . Establishment of a granular multi -use north -south trail linking HLCA from Mayfield Road to Sandalwood Parkway Accommodation of cycling on the park road system Closure of all incompatible trail routes Establishment of a hiking trail completely around Heart Lake, using floating boardwalks where necessary Public Use • Focus on and enhancement of picnicking, fishing and nature -based activities as the core activities • Limited opening in the winter season to support Ogada's activities and 'walk -in' public use November 24, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 H91 • Reduction in the size of parking areas to provide increased space for the intensification of public use Amenities • Removal of the current beach centre and replacement with an open -air picnic shelter • Addition of a water -play facility to replace lake swimming • Addition of a ropes course with a skills development area Elements Unique to the Alternative Concepts for Public Use and Trails at HLCA HLCA Public Use and Trail Plan Alternative Concepts Concept y Concept 2 • Relocation of Ogada outdoor summer • Relocation of the Ogada Wilderness camp to the north parking / picnic area Centre to the west side of the lake • Create an 'Outdoor Centre' on the east • Central 'Park Lodge' for: the Peel Water side of the park for: Ogada outdoor Festival administration / storage, event education activities, the Peel Water Festival spaces, washrooms / change rooms and administration /storage, flexible community an adjacent picnic area meeting space • Open -air pavilion and beach volleyball • Water play / splash pad and possible court to support a beach picnic area outdoor swimming pool and washrooms / • Controlled access permanent ropes change rooms course on the west side of the lake • Ropes course / skills course area occupied • Relocation of the boathouse / rentals to the by Operations beach area with the addition of a staging • Relocation of the boathouse and rentals to area for Dragon Boat events the beach area with the addition of an • Incorporation of a community developed open -air picnic pavilion Aboriginal Medicine Wheel Garden • Incorporation of a community developed Aboriginal Medicine Wheel Garden • Maintenance of the leased property on the west side of the lake DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • TRCA staff to continue to work with the HLCA Master Plan Advisory Committee in developing recommendations to be included in the master plan. • Staff to bring the Final Draft of the HLCA Master Plan to the Coalition for their endorsement. • It is anticipated that the Master Plan will be completed in the winter of 2006. H92 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 November 24, 2005 RES. #H55/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: FALL 2005 WATERSHED EVENTS UPDATE 2005 watershed events within the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds hosted by TRCA and partner stewardship groups. Irene Jones Dick O'Brien THAT the staff report on the Fall 2005 watershed events in the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds be received CARRIED BACKGROUND The following is a list of Fall 2005 watershed events that have been hosted by the TRCA and partner stewardship groups. Although the number of events that were hosted this Fall were few, they were very successful with regard to the number of people participating and the deliverables achieved. Saturday October 22, 2005 - Tom Riley Park Environmental Event Over 50 enthusiastic people attended the 2nd annual Tom Riley Park Environmental Event in the pouring rain. The event featured activities such as tree planting, garbage clean -up and bird box building; and many environmental displays. New this year was the participation of the Etobicoke Lawn Bowling Club who hosted a BBQ; CCFEW which promoted bird habitat and bird walks; Seeds of Diversity who were promoting heritage seeds; Brentwood Library who sent a librarian to read nature stories to children; the City of Toronto with a display about the Downspout Disconnection Program; and the City of Toronto Water Truck. Students from local high schools such as Etobicoke Collegiate Institute helped to plant 300 native trees and shrubs along Mimico Creek. Jean Augustine, MP- Etobicoke Lakeshore, joined us and planted with the students in the rain. Thanks to all the Coalition volunteers who helped to make this event a success: Suzanne Barrett, Marjut Dunker, Marilyn Hagerman, Irene Jones and Debbie Wagdin. Saturday October 29, 2005 - Snelgrove 3`d Annual Planting Event Each year, the Snelgrove event keeps growing! We had 200 Scouts, Guides and members of the public out to the 3'd Annual Snelgrove Planting Event, along Etobicoke Creek in Brampton. 700 trees and shrubs were planted in 1.5 hours, and there was an opportunity to see the new Snelgrove wetland created by TRCA staff. Two red -tail hawks were circling the planting site, and a mature whitetail buck with antlers wandered through the site. Thanks to Bob Noble and Chris McGlynn for helping to control the crowds! Saturday November 5, 2005 - South Mimico Healthy Yards Workshop: Gardening with Native Plants. Etobicoke Civic Centre. The South Mimico Environmental Stewardship Group hosted their first Healthy Yards Healthy Parks Workshop on Gardening with Native Plants for 40 local residents. The workshop featured a great presentation by Paul Heydon from Grow Wild! Native Plant Nursery, which focused on how to add native plants to your garden to create stunning landscapes and viable wildlife habitat while also saving water . A component of this event was the distribution of 18 Native Plant Kits. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, MP Etobicoke Centre, joined us for the event and outlined the November 24, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 H93 environmental initiatives that he is undertaking. Thanks to Suzanne Barrett, Janice Etter and Marilyn Hagerman for helping to coordinate this very successful event. RES. #H56/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: 2006 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO CAPITAL PROJECTS To receive the 2006 list of Capital projects within the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds. Irene Jones Dick O'Brien THAT the information on 2006 Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds capital projects be received for information; THAT the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition members seek out new partnerships and funding opportunities and assist with the implementation of these projects; AND FURTHER THAT update reports on individual projects be made to the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition, as appropriate CARRIED BACKGROUND Preparation of the 2006 Etobicoke - Mimico budget process began in August, 2005. In preparing the budget, staff reviewed commitments to on -going and new projects within the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds. Funding has been requested from both the Region of Peel and the City of Toronto. Funding has also been made available through the Toronto Remedial Action Plan for RAP Area -wide projects such as spills. Other potential funding partners may include the federal Sustainability Fund, the Ontario Trillium Foundation, Friends of the Environment, corporate donations and community in -kind support. Matching funds and in -kind contributions are also approved and /or anticipated from City of Mississauga, City of Brampton and Town of Caledon. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Continue to develop individual projects, designs, partnerships, and funding for each project. Report back to the Coalition on the status of individual projects throughout 2006. H94 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 November 24, 2005 RES. #H57/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: 2006 ETOBICOKE- MIMICO COALITION MEETING SCHEDULE A schedule of meeting dates is proposed for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition Suzanne Barrett Steve Rutherford THAT the meeting dates for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on the following dates be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the members of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition be encouraged to host meetings in various locations throughout the watershed. DATES #1/06 Thursday, January 12, 2006 #2/06 Thursday, April 20, 2006 #3/06 Thursday, July 6, 2006 #4/06 Thursday, October 26, 2006 AMENDMENT RES. #H58/05- Moved by: Seconded by: Suzanne Barrett Steve Rutherford THAT the date for Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition Meeting #3/06 be changed to Thursday, June 22, 2006. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND A schedule of meetings is prepared to assist the Coalition. A random sample of municipalities were contacted to avoid choosing meeting dates that may conflict with municipal council meetings. Coalition subcomittees will develop their own respective meeting schedules during the months in which the Coalition does not meet with the exception of August, unless required by the Coalition or team work plan. November 24, 2005 ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION #5/05 H95 Coalition members are encouraged to host meetings at various locations throughout the watershed. RES. #H59/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the meetings for the following working groups are provided for information. Marilyn Hagerman Tanya Trivedi THAT the following minutes be received: Report Card Working Group #7/05 (September 13 ); Sustainable Communities and Outreach Working Group #3105 (November 7 ); Human Heritage Working Group #5/05 (September 21 ); South Mimico Stewardship Group #4/05 (November 15) CARRIED DOOR PRIZES As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition, door prizes are given out at the end of each Coalition meeting. Two door prizes were awarded at this meeting - an Environment Canada weather calendar /Hurricane Hazel DVD and an Ontario Naturalized Garden book. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:15 p.m., on November 24, 2005. Adele Freeman Brian Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer hp THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MINUTES OF MEETING #1/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #3/05 APRIL 29, 2005 c. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 Page G1 January 18, 2005 The Humber Watershed Alliance met at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Tuesday, January 18, 2005. Lois Griffin, Chair of the Humber Alliance, called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT Sandy Agnew Member Bill Boston Member Jim Bradley Member Sharon Bradley Member lain Craig Member Yvette Fournier Member Brenda Fowler Member Aaron Fox Member Royce Fu Member Bob Giza Member Ian Gray Member Lois Griffin Chair Alyson Hazlett Member Elaine Heaton Member Ron Hingston Member David Hutcheon Member George lvanoff Member Kathrine Mabley Member Luciano Martin Member Joan Miles Alternate Joanne Nonnekes Member Brendan O'Hara Member Carol Ray Member Lynda Rogers Member Deb Schulte Member Lynn Short Member Vito Spatafora Member Anyika Tafari Member Peter Telford Member John Willetts Member Bill Wilson Member G2 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 GUESTS Gerry Foley Seneca College Rolande Smith La Societe d'Histoire de Toronto Paul D' Aoust Regroupement franco - ontarien de developpement economique et d'employabilite (RDEE) Laila Daumants Citizen Mark Nash Peregrine Falcon Foundation STAFF Karen Sun Humber Watershed Resources Planner Lisa Turnbull Humber Watershed Project Manager Gary Wilkins Humber Watershed Specialist RES. #G1 /05 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Luciano Martin George Ivanoff THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/04, held on October 19, 2004, be approved .... CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) Letter to the Minister of Natural Resources from the Humber Alliance, dated November 9, 2004, re: Aquatic Invasive Species: Rusty Crayfish (b) Letter to the TRCA from the Minister of Natural Resources, dated December 2, 2004, re: Aquatic Invasive Species: Rusty Crayfish (c) Letter to the Minister of the Environment from the Humber Alliance, dated December 10, 2004, re: Pine Valley Drive Link (d) Letter from the Minister of the Environment to Lois Griffin, dated December 22, 2004, re: Pine Valley Drive Link (e) Letter to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing from the Humber Alliance, dated December 16, 2004, re: Draft Greenbelt Plan January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G3 RES. #G2/05 Moved by: Seconded by: David Hutcheon Jim Bradley THAT the above correspondence be received CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) Peregrine Falcon Foundation: A Species of Concern Recovery Plan Mark Nash of the Peregrine Falcon Foundation gave a brief history of the peregrine falcon and the formation of the Peregrine Foundation in 1997. The peregrine falcon is said to be the first and only species that has been saved by humans from extinction. The main focus of the Peregrine Foundation is outreach and education, based around the receipt of live birds to assist with this. Since 1997, the Foundation has made over 5,000 school visits. Other projects include: falcon migration tracking, the raptors centre at the Kortright Centre and the production of resource guides in English and French. There are currently four pairs of peregrine falcons established in Toronto and region. (b) Toronto Historical Park Rolande Smith presented information about the Societe d'Histoire de Toronto and the feasibility /implementation study they are initiating for the creation of a "Toronto Historical Park ". The main focus of the Societe d'Histoire de Toronto, a volunteer run organization established in 1984, is the promotion of the French history of Toronto and relaying this history in the French language. They have received $25,000 from the Trillium Foundation and $10,000 each from the Ministry of Tourism and Heritage Canada, totalling $45,000 to conduct the feasability /implementation study for the Toronto Historical Park project. The Toronto Historical Park is proposed to be developed in the Lower Humber (south of St. Clair Ave). The park may include plaques, self - guided tour brochures, costumed interpreters, and a building /kiosk to house information and displays. Ms. Smith asked the Humber Watershed Alliance members for their support of the Toronto Historical Park along with requesting ideas and contributions to this project. G4 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 (c) Brisbane Australia River Festival Peter Telford reported to the Humber Watershed Alliance on the Brisbane, Australia River Festival. The festival first took place seven years ago and was originally developed to be a one- time event. Because of the overwhelming success the first event had, it has become an annual occurrence. The festival employs one manager and one assistant full -time along with a great deal of volunteer support from the public and university communities. Approximately $3 -4 million is spent on the festival component of the event and $1 million on the symposium per year. TRCA has expressed an interest in having a similar event in Toronto to celebrate our rivers. Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority have also been in contact with River Festival organizers to discuss details of their event. It was suggested that an event of this sort would be most appropriately coordinated around Rivers Day. The Chair thanked the presenters for their very informative presentations. SECTION I REPORTS - ACTION ITEMS RES. #G3/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: HUMBER WATERSHED PLAN- PHASE 2: FUTURE SCENARIOS DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS AND SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARIES Future land use scenarios to be analyzed during Phase 2 of the Humber Watershed Plan Development. David Hutcheon Vito Spatafora THAT the future land use scenarios, as described in the Phase 2 - Analysis and Evaluation Discussion Paper, dated January 10, 2005, be endorsed; THAT the outcomes of the Phase 2 - Analysis and evaluation of the future land use scenarios be brought back to the Humber Watershed Alliance, when available; AND FURTHER THAT the five major subwatershed boundaries that were used in Legacy :A Strategy for a Hea /thy Humber, 1999 be utilized for reporting the results of the new technical information and its analysis and evaluation for the updated Humber Watershed Management Plan. CARRIED January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G5 BACKGROUND As set out in the Humber Watershed Planning Study Workplan, dated June 28th 2004, the watershed planning process consists of three main phases: Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: (A) Scoping and (B) Characterization (February 2004 - December 2004) Analysis and Evaluation (October 2004 - October 2005) Plan Development (June 2005 - December 2005). Phase 1 provides an understanding of issues and opportunities associated with the current conditions and future changes anticipated in the watershed. This information will be compiled into a set of Technical Background Reports and summarized as a chapter in the final watershed plan document. During Phase 2, the issues and opportunities identified in Phase 1 are formulated into a set of defined scenarios of future land use, resource use, and various management strategies. These scenarios are analyzed using predictive models and other tools to evaluate the watershed's response (i.e., where positive or negative impacts will occur). Acknowledging that due to resource and time constraints an infinite number of scenarios cannot be modeled, a carefully selected set of scenarios will be examined to provide insight on how the watershed functions, where greater or lesser areas of sensitivity lie, and which management strategies may be more effective than others in various portions of the watershed. Based on the results of the Phase 2 analysis, the Project Team will be able to formulate watershed management recommendations that draw upon elements from one or more scenarios. The resulting watershed plan will address future issues facing the watershed and will provide sound, defensible direction for the effective management of these issues. Proposed Scenarios Figure 1 illustrates a conceptual framework for defining future scenarios. The first column identifies several main elements that may be common to all scenarios. From these elements, it is possible to identify future stresses anticipated in the Humber River Watershed (i.e., urban growth, increased water supply needs, climate change) and potential management opportunities (i.e., enhanced natural land cover, implementation of stormwater retrofit plans, etc.). The second column illustrates a gradation in the level of effort, time to implement, etc. that may distinguish one scenario from another. Needless to say there are numerous combinations of these variables that could be formulated into an endless list of scenarios. The challenge is to establish a "reasonable" number of distinct scenarios that will provide a good understanding of how the watershed will respond to a range of anticipated changes or stress levels and a range of management actions or enhancements. Some considerations in this task include: • • Staff expect that the current budget would support about 5 -6 main scenarios with perhaps 2 -3 additional, minor variations; The primary model (HSP -F) will require about 5 -6 months to run scenarios; Scenarios should be discrete enough, such that the primary factors causing change can be distinguished from one another; Current modeling capabilities must be considered; and Data must be available to define the scenario in terms that can be modeled. G6 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 Figure 1 - Conceptual Framework for Definin4 Future Scenarios January 18, 2005 Key Issue /Opportunity Increasing Time Scale or Level of Intensity - -- - --- > Land Use /Land Cover Change Current Approved OP Build -out Greenbelt Plan Water Use Current Future ? Climate Change Current 2050 2080 Stormwater Retrofits Current 25 yr. Stormwater Retrofit 100 yr. Stormwater Retrofit Urban Design Current Low Impact/Sustainable Design Based on these considerations, a set of eight scenarios have been proposed by staff for discussion purposes and are briefly described below. PROPOSED SCENARIOS TO BE EXAMINED IN THE HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED PLANNING STUDY 1. Existing conditions as defined by 2002 land use and land cover information. 2. Approved Municipal Official Plan build -out. 3. Approved Municipal Official Plan build -out with implementation of 25 year stormwater retrofit opportunities. 4. Approved Municipal Official Plan build -out with enhanced natural land cover 5. 2 +3 +4 6. Full build -out to Greenbelt Plan Area boundary 7. Full build -out to Greenbelt Plan Area boundary with implementation of sustainable community designs in new urban areas, 100 year stormwater retrofit opportunities and enhanced natural land cover 8. A) 5 + 2050 climate change B) 5 + 2080 climate change C) 7 + 2050 climate change D) 7 + 2080 climate change The results of the land use and resource use analysis and evaluation will be reported using the five major sub - watershed boundaries identified in Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber, 1999.This includes the Upper Main Branch, Lower Main Branch, East Humber, West Humber and Black Creek. Depending on the nature of the subject matter, smaller catchments will be identified to more clearly identify and describe locations that have particular importance or need special attention. Mode ling, Analysis, and Evaluation Methods A "Watershed Response Model" shown in Figure 2 illustrates the sequential order in which changes occur in the watershed, in response to changes in land cover, climate, or management practices (i.e., from top of diagram to the bottom). A predictive model or tool is being identified for each study component, and the results from one will be used as input to the next model, thus fostering an integrated study approach. January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G7 A set of watershed management goals, objectives, and associated indicators, measures and targets are used as one set of evaluation criteria to assess the acceptability of each scenario. The Humber Watershed Alliance will assist in developing a full set of evaluation criteria, which may also address other considerations of public /political acceptability, cost, time to implement, etc. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Climate Geology • Natural Land Cover Changes in Watershed Hydrology Changes in Air Quality Changes in Cultural Heritage 4 Changes in Stream Hydrology 4, Changes in Stream Morphology Changes in Groundwater Quality and Quantity Changes in Surface Water Quality Changes in Aquatic Systems Recreation Quality of Life • • • Changes in Terrestrial System ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY Human \ Health Agriculture and Food Water Supply Tourism and Economics Energy Assemble data and maps necessary to define scenarios and document assumptions in adequate detail for technical analysis. Proceed with modelling. Report outcome. Host community information sessions to communicate the results of the Phase 2 Analysis and Evaluation. G8 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 RES. #G4/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: TORONTO HISTORIC PARK - SOUTH OF ST. CLAIR AVE. To add La Societe d'Histoire de Toronto (LSHT) as a member organization to the Humber Watershed Alliance. Madeleine McDowell Luciano Martin WHEREAS the Humber was designated a Canadian Heritage River in 1999 based on its outstanding culture and heritage values; WHEREAS the Humber Watershed Alliance has a mandate to identify, document, protect and celebrate the diverse culture and heritage resources of the Humber watershed; WHEREAS La Societe d'Histoire de Toronto (LSHT) has received funding to develop a feasibility study and implementation plan for the historical interpretation of the Lower Humber River; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance recommend to TRCA that Rolande Smith of La Societe d'Histoire de Toronto be added to the Alliance as a member organization, to help coordinate efforts related to heritage projects in the Lower Humber, particularly the historical interpretation of the Lower Humber south of St. Clair Avenue. CARRIED BACKGROUND La Societe d'Histoire de Toronto is a volunteer run organization, created in 1984, dedicated to the study and further knowledge of the history of Ontario and the Toronto area, in particular the history of French - speaking communities. Since their establishment, they have been working towards the goal of developing the Lower Humber (south of St. Clair Ave) as a Historical Park. The benefits of this project include: public education of Toronto's rich origins and history; cultural and heritage awareness; tourism revenue & job creation; educational uses; recreational and leisure uses; ecological programs; events site(s); and much more. This Historical Park may include plaques, self - guided tour brochures, costumed interpreters on event days, and a building or kiosk to house information and displays. Interpretation would be in three languages: English, French and a First Nations language which will be determined by First Nations partners. The history of Toronto is relevant for Torontonians to understand where they came from and for new immigrants to Toronto to understand where they have arrived. They are currently developing a terms of reference to recruit staff to do the following: Review all relevant background material, including Aboriginal, French and English historical significance to Toronto, Ontario and Canada, planning, recreational, environmental and other government surveys /studies /bylaws pertaining to the Humber River from Lake Ontario to St. Clair Avenue. Prepare an analysis and recommendations on the sites that can be developed for historical, cultural, educational tourism and other related purposes in the short term and identify those that will necessitate further feasibility studies. January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G9 • • • Look into the feasibility of a permanent public information structure that would serve as an educational and interactive meeting venue for events for residents and visitors and enhance the Aboriginal, French and English heritage of the site. Research similar sites within North America. Identify the best site(s) based on the results of the research, the consultations and the decisions of the Toronto Historical Park Project. Prepare a five year strategic plan to carry out the Toronto Historical Park based on findings regarding cultural tourism, educational tourism, recreational opportunities and community benefits (socio- economics) that enhance the historical significance of this area. Indicate implementation timelines with proposed costs. FINANCIAL DETAILS LSHT has received $25,000 from the Ontario Trillium Foundation and $10,000 each from the Ministry of Tourism and Heritage Canada for a total of $45,000 to conduct a feasibility study and implementation plan for this project. They are proposing this project in partnership with the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation, Society of Heritage Associates and Projet Rousseau Project, with support from the Toronto Field Naturalists and RDEE Ontario. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Add Rolande Smith, LSHT, to the HWA membership • Convene a meeting with potential partners to discuss the project. RES. #G5/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: UPDATE ON THE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP Update on the planning for a workshop on Community Involvement in Stormwater Management. Sandy Agnew Luciano Martin THAT the staff report on the Community Involvement in Stormwater Management Workshop be received; AND FURTHER THAT interested Humber Alliance Members and TRCA staff, in liaison with the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan Team, continue to work to further refine the details of a workshop to explore community involvement in stormwater management. CARRIED G10 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 BACKGROUND At Humber Alliance meeting #3/04, held on October 19, 2004, an update on the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (Toronto RAP) was presented. At that time, members expressed an interest in seeing the Toronto RAP conduct a workshop on community involvement in stormwater management. S. Agnew, L. Martin, S. Bradley and J. Willetts were interested in assisting with further developing a proposal for funding this initiative to the Toronto RAP Team. On November 19th, S. Agnew, L. Martin, B. Buchan, G. Wilkins and L. Turnbull met to discuss the draft agenda for the workshop. Input was provided via e-mail by S. Bradley. Subsequently, S. Agnew, L. Martin and L. Turnbull met on December 8th to further refine planning details. It was concluded that the next step in preparation for the workshop would be convening a number of sessions with key agency personnel to tackle the following issues and questions: • Where are the current gaps in stormwater management? This would require looking at what is currently being undertaken and then identifying where additional attention is needed. • What roles can Not for Profit Organizations (NGOs) play in the implementation of stormwater management initiatives? • What funds are available to NGOs to undertake this implementation? These sessions would be used as a platform to extend the invitation to agency staff to attend and /or present at a larger scale workshop to be held at the end of May, 2005. Agencies identified for these preliminary sessions include: the City of Toronto (individuals specifically involved in the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan), select "905" municipal staff, Federal funding programs including Great Lakes Sustainability and EcoAction, and Provincial staff from the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources. The following is a draft agenda for the larger scale May, 2005 workshop. It is expected that the above proposed sessions may influence the content of this agenda along with further consultation with other community groups. DRAFT AGENDA COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Organizing Partners: - Humber Watershed Alliance -Black Creek Project - Action to Restore a Clean Humber (ARCH) - Toronto and Region Conservation Sponsors: Toronto RAP January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G11 Purpose: To explore current stormwater management issues, focusing on community involvement and community delivery of priority actions in order to work towards clean waters. Presentations: 1. City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan (WWFMMP): update on current status of implementation and potential for community involvement in implementation. 2. 905 Wet Weather Flow Issues: Representative(s) from select 905 municipalities to discuss issues facing them and status of stormwater management planning, projects and potential community involvement. 3. NGO's: Approximately two NGO's to present an overview of current or proposed projects which address stormwater management issues demonstrating how they can contribute to working towards priority actions. 4. Lake Ontario Waterkeepers: Discussion on effectively engaging community members and roles the community can have in water management issues. 5. Break out sessions: - Monitoring: MOE, TRCA, Citizen's Environmental Watch - Possible Topics: protocols, Regional Watershed Monitoring and Report Service -New Technologies: Greenroof Consortium, consultants - Possible Topics: greenroofs, permeable pavement, 3`d pipe technology - Outreach/ Stewardship: NGO's like TEA, Riversides, City of Toronto WWFMMP Communications - Possible Topics: Messaging, effectively reaching the general public, tools for NGOs 6. Funding Mechanisms for NGOs to Implement Stormwater Management Action: Short presentations from Federal (GLSF, EcoAction), Provincial (Great Lakes Renewal Foundation and Ministry of Natural Resources), Municipal (Community Program for Stormwater Management) and others (TD Friends of the Environment etc.) on criteria and examples of the type of projects they are interested in funding. This workshop will complement a future technology transfer workshop on Stormwater Monitoring and Maintenance which will be sponsored by the Toronto RAP and organized by the TRCA. FINANCIAL DETAILS At this time, funding support for the Community Involvement in Stormwater Management Workshop is not confirmed with the Toronto RAP although they have expressed an interest in supporting this initiative. Final budget allocations will be announced by the Toronto RAP Team in March, 2005. G12 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 Planning: In -kind support from TRCA and volunteer NGO's Workshop: $3,000: Room rental, supplies, food and refreshments SECTION II REPORTS RES. #G6/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: - INFORMATION ITEMS SOURCE PROTECTION MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND FUNDING Approval to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with respect to Source Protection Program Administration; and, a Memorandum of Agreement with respect to the delivery of provincially funded partnership capacity building ( "start-up ") projects. Madeleine McDowell Vito Spatafora THAT the report on the Source Protection Memoranda of Agreement for Program Administration and Funding be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND The TRCA Authority at its meeting #11/04, held on January 7, 2005, adopted the following report and recommendation: THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with respect to Source Protection Program Administration between the TRCA, Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC) and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) for the period January 1, 2005 until December 31, 2007; 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; 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; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the Final Report of the Technical Experts Committee on Science based decision making for protecting Ontario's drinking water resources, the Final Report of the Implementation Committee on Source Water Protection and on the Amendments to the Water Taking and Transfer Regulation, as necessary. January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G13 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; 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, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with respect to Source Protection Program Administration has been developed by staff of the TRCA, CVC and CLOCA. The MOA sets out the terms of administration of the source protection program with the CVC - TRCA -CLOCA ( "CTC ") Region, the roles and responsibilities of the Parties, and means by which the Parties can fulfill the requirements of the Drinking Water Source Protection Act, which is anticipated to be passed early in 2005. The CLOCA board has approved the Memorandum of Agreement. A report to the CVC board is pending. The purpose of this staff report is to seek approval of TRCA's participation in the MOA. Finalization of a signed MOA among the three conservation authorities is expected to be a requirement of the legislation and the provision of provincial funding. Provincial Funding Agreement A MOA between the province (Crown in right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources), Conservation Ontario (2002796 Ontario Limited) and the three conservation authorities in the CTC Region will be necessary to set out the terms and deliverables associated with the transfer of provincial source protection "start-up" funding, as described in a staff report to TRCA's Executive Committee, at their meeting held on December 3, 2004. A draft generic MOA has been circulated to all source protection regions in Ontario for review and comment. A revised MOA is expected shortly. The purpose of this staff report is to seek approval for TRCA's participation in this provincial funding agreement, pending the completion of a final agreement that represents the scope and work, administrative and financial terms agreeable to the parties. The objective of the provincial "start-up" funding is to ensure conservation authorities have sufficient capacity to meet the aggressive goals and objectives of the anticipated source protection planning legislation as well as to ensure the active transfer and development of water balance /water budget methodology on a watershed basis to all conservation authorities in Ontario in order to support local decision making regarding source protection. The funding is to be used by conservation authorities to undertake the following activities, prior to the enactment of source water protection legislation and promulgation of associated regulations: G14 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 A: Water Budget B: Capacity Building 1. Capacity Building and Communications 2. Preliminary Watershed Characterization 3. Workplan Development Details of the project, including specific products, deliverables, activities, milestone dates and budgets, will be set out in an Appendix to the MOA. Staff of TRCA, CVC and CLOCA are in the process of preparing workplans and budgets in support of this MOA. Meetings to seek input from municipal staff are scheduled in January, 2005. Provincial Committee Reports and Water Taking Regulation On December 14, 2004, the province posted two reports on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry for information: 1) Final Report of the Technical Experts Committee on Science based decision making for protecting Ontario's drinking water resources: a threats assessment framework; and 2) Final Report of the Implementation Committee on Source Water Protection. These reports can be found at www.ene.gov.on .ca/envision /techdocs /4935e.pdf and www.ene.gov.on. ca/envision /techdocs /4938e.pdf, respectively. Staff are reviewing these reports and will forward comments to the province via Conservation Ontario and incorporate guidelines into workplans being prepared for the CTC Region. Also on December 14, 2004, the province posted Amendments to the Water Taking and Transfer Regulation on the EBR Registry for a 60 -day comment period. Staff will report back to the Authority and Conservation Ontario with comments on this posting. FINANCIAL DETAILS The CTC Region is expected to receive approximately $682,000 in 2004 -2005, under the provincial funding agreement. These funds will be shared among CVC, TRCA and CLOCA according to an agreed upon workplan and budget allocation. Part of the work associated with these "start-up" activities will involve the preparation of a longer term workplan and budget that will provide the basis for a more detailed provincial funding request and allocation for future fiscal years. RES. #G7/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: GREENBELT DRAFT PLAN The addendum report is to provide consolidated recommendations with clarification and revisions to the report presented to the Executive Committee on December 3, 2004. Deb Schulte David Hutcheon THAT the report on the Greenbelt Draft Plan be received for information. CARRIED January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G15 BACKGROUND The TRCA Authority at its meeting #11/04, held on January 7, 2005, adopted the following report and recommendation: WHEREAS the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) previously expressed strong support for the general directions of the Greenbelt Draft Plan in Resolution #A306/04, approved at Authority Meeting #10/04, held on November 26, 2004 and directed staff to prepare additional detailed comments and provide them to the Executive Committee; WHEREAS members of the Executive Committee at Meeting #11/04 held on December 3, 2004 did not have sufficient advance time to review the detailed staff comments on the Greenbelt Draft Plan; WHEREAS staff have had further opportunities to meet with Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing staff and municipal staff; WHEREAS this addendum report to the December 3, 2004 report to the Executive Committee seeks to provide a consolidated report with additional clarification and revisions to several of the recommendations contained in the December 3rd report; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the December 3, 2004 report outlined in Attachment 1 be received for information purposes only; THAT the TRCA support the addition to the Greenbelt Draft Plan lands of the Boyd Complex south of Rutherford Road, based on its environmental, recreational, cultural heritage and public ownership attributes; THAT the TRCA strongly supports the regional -scale corridors identified in the Greenbelt Draft Plan which comprise those portions of the major river valleys connecting Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine and Niagara Escarpment and that are outside the existing approved urban boundaries; THAT for defining the limits of the Greenbelt in section 5.4.1 for both ill- defined and well - defined valleys, it is ensured that scientifically defensible criteria are applied in a layered approach which encompasses the greater of the limits of floodplains, natural hazards, natural heritage features from the Provincial Policy Statement and TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System, and which provides the foundation for defining what additional buffers may be required to provide a safety margin to mitigate the potential impacts of development, climate change and other ecological stressors; THAT through the Generic Regulation process, TRCA pursue with other conservation authorities the use of common definitions to ensure technical clarity and consistency across the province; G16 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 THAT the Greenbelt Draft Plan be revised in consideration of the Rouge Park North Management Plan, as previously endorsed by the TRCA, to: specifically identify a 600m corridor along the Little Rouge Creek; include wording to recognize that the tributaries of the Rouge River shall be subject to the ecological criteria -based boundary delineation process established through the Rouge Park North Management Plan guidelines; and require that Markham Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 116 comply with the Greenbelt Plan with respect to that boundary delineation process; THAT the following lands be reviewed by the province as minor refinements for possible inclusion within the Greenbelt Plan area due to their environmental significance, identification as part of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System, proximity to other Greenbelt lands and /or to enhance the natural systems approach taken in establishing the Greenbelt Plan: - Altona Forest south of the agricultural preserve lands in the City of Pickering and linking along the hydro corridor to the West Duffins Creek; - Upland Sandpiper ESA (candidate environmentally significant area) and adjacent tributaries of the Humber River in the northwest of the City of Vaughan; -and additional areas of high groundwater recharge in the vicinity bf the Lake Iroquois shoreline, based on the recharge data from the York /Peel /Durham/Toronto (YPDT) Groundwater study; THAT the language of sections 4.1.1, 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 be made consistent with section 1.2 - Environmental Protection, such that essential infrastructure in the Greenbelt be required to achieve a net environmental gain and other permitted land uses be required to "protect, maintain and enhance where possible" as the minimum standard; THAT support be expressed for section 3.1.4 - Rural Area Policies, which would prohibit new multiple units or lots for permanent residential dwellings in the Protected Countryside; THAT section 3.2.2 - Natural Heritage System Policies, be amended to: clearly define and limit the kinds of development that could be permitted in the Natural Heritage System to only those rural uses currently permitted in official plans that are consistent with the intent of the Greenbelt Plan; strengthen the test for development in the Natural Heritage System from "no negative impacts" to "protect, maintain and enhance "; specifically require a Natural Heritage Evaluation to demonstrate meeting the test; clearly specify a mechanism to trigger a Natural Heritage Evaluation for site alteration or for development that does not require Planning Act approvals; and strengthen the protection for natural features not identified as key natural heritage /hydrologic features by providing direction and criteria to determine their functional relationship to the Water Resources System as well as their ecological value; January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G17 THAT policy 3.2.3 - Water Resource System Policies, be amended to: require a water balance assessment and /or hydrologic evaluation for major development within Protected Countryside to ensure the protection of the broader ecological functions of the Water Resources System; and harmonize new terminology in the Greenbelt Draft Plan such as "inherently susceptible aquifer systems" with existing terminology used in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan; THAT policy 3.2.4 - Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features Policies, be amended to: achieve consistency in policy application for Key Natural Heritage Features throughout the entire Protected Countryside area such that features outside of the Natural Heritage System have the same protection as features within the system; specifically state that a Natural Heritage or Hydrologic Evaluation is required for development within 120m of features in order to ensure their protection and define an appropriate vegetation protection zone; and that the environmental protection policies currently proposed for the Protected Countryside, which appear to comprise elements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), be simplified and harmonized at the level of the ORMCP in order to reduce confusion, provide certainty and reduce costs to all parties that would be associated with an adversarial approach to Greenbelt Plan interpretation and implementation; THAT support be expressed for the Settlement Area policies of the Greenbelt Draft Plan as currently written, believing they strike the appropriate balance of limiting urban sprawl and maintaining the rural character of the Protected Countryside while providing necessary services and functions to support a viable and thriving rural and agricultural economy; THAT section 4.3.2 - Non - Renewable Resource Policies, be clarified with respect to the terminology used and strengthened to prohibit extraction from within all Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features within the Natural Heritage System (NHS) of the Greenbelt Draft Plan; THAT where an existing building, structure or accessory use is proposed to expand into a Key Natural Heritage Feature (KNHF) or Key Hydrologic Feature (KHF), that an environmental report be required to be submitted that demonstrates that no alternatives are available, that the impacts will be minimized and that includes a compensatory restoration plan; THAT prescribed policies be developed for transitional applications and that consultation with stakeholders occur before prescribed policies are finalized; THAT the municipal conformity exercise and associated deadlines for official plan amendments should also be required for amendments to zoning by -laws; THAT the province be requested to invite Conservation Ontario representatives to sit on any future potential Greenbelt Advisory Council; G18 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1105 January 18, 2005 THAT all definitions in the Greenbelt Plan be spelled out in full and not reference a separate document, including that: the definition of "significant" allow for the identification of KNHF and KHF through watershed studies and site - specific field studies; and the term "key natural feature" be clarified to mean both Key Natural Heritage Feature and Key Hydrologic Feature, as it appears in the definitions of "Total Developable Area" and "Vegetation Protection Zone "; THAT Schedule 4 - Natural Heritage System, be amended to show the Natural Heritage System within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), south of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM), to reinforce the necessary strong direction to municipalities regarding the importance of protecting local natural heritage systems in order to support and maintain the ecological integrity of the provincial -scale natural heritage system protected through the Greenbelt Draft Plan; THAT the province be requested to establish a Greenbelt Trust Fund and endow the fund with a significant funding contribution from the province in order to undertake public education, stewardship and environmental farm programs and deliver financial incentives to landowners who contribute to the protection and enhancement of the Greenbelt through the programs offered; AND FURTHER THAT the recommendations and accompanying background material be sent to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing requesting that the Minister directministry staff to incorporate these recommendations into the public record and give them due consideration given the time constraints. Resolution #A306/04, as approved at Authority Meeting #10/04 on November 26, 2004, strongly supported the general directions of the Greenbelt Draft Plan, as well as provided a number of detailed comments on the draft Greenbelt Act. Staff was directed to prepare additional detailed comments on the Greenbelt Draft Plan for the Executive Committee meeting of December 3, 2004, based on continuing meetings with staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) for clarification of Greenbelt Draft Plan details. Due to the short time frame for preparing these comments after the MMAH meetings, the report to the Executive Committee was "walked on" the day of the meeting, resulting in committee members not being able to read the report in advance of the meeting. Thus, Resolution #B256/04 was approved as follows: THAT item #8.12 - Greenbe /t Draft Plan - Detailed Comments, be deferred to Authority Meeting # 1 1/04, scheduled to be held on January 7, 2005, as the Executive Committee did not have adequate time to review the staff report given the tight time constraints p /aced on the review period,- AND FURTHER THAT the Chair send a letter to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to indicate support for an extension of the review period. January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G19 Following the December 3, 2004, Executive Committee meeting, staff continued consultations with municipal staff in joint meetings with MMAH staff and have received comments from a number of stakeholders requesting clarification. As a result, the addendum report has been prepared to ensure that TRCA's comments are as comprehensive as possible. The following staff recommendations from the December 3, 2004, report are superceded with recommendations above, as explained below in the section outlining TRCA Staff Addendum Comments on the Greenbelt Draft Plan. THAT section 5.4.1 be amended to clarify that the Greenbelt Plan boundary.. for ill- defined valleys should be a minimum of 60m from the 'floodline'; for well-defined valleys should be a minimum 60m from the 'stable top of bank and in both instances the boundary limit should be the greater of either those criteria or any associated contiguous KNHF or KHF at the 60m limit with an additional 30m buffer around the feature; THAT the following areas be detailed on a map and provided to the province for refinement of boundaries or inclusion in the Greenbelt Plan Area: the headwater areas including the Purpleville Creek in the Humber and the Maple Uplands Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) in the West Don; Boyd Conservation Area, providing a future connection to municipal sewer and water services can be accommodated; areas immediately south of the agricultural preserve in the City of Pickering, south of the railway tracks including Townline swamp, A/tona Forest and the hydro corridor; Up /and Sandpiper Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) in the Nashville Road /Regional Road 50 area and nearby tributaries of the Humber River; Duffins valley corridor down to Lake Ontario, linking with Bayly Wet /and Complex; and the extent of the Lake Iroquois shoreline, based on recharge data from the York/Peel /Durham/Toronto (YPD77 groundwater study; THAT the Greenbelt Plan mapping be revised to include all corridors associated with the Rouge Park North Management Plan, including an accurate delineation of the Little Rouge Creek, and that the Greenbelt Plan policies recognize and support the boundary delineation process of the Rouge plan for all tributaries within the Rouge Park; TRCA STAFF ADDENDUM COMMENTS ON THE GREENBELT DRAFT PLAN Staff recommend that the portion of the Boyd Complex south of Rutherford Road be added to the lands contained within the Greenbelt Plan area. This recommendation has been amended from the December 3rd report to provide the following detailed rationale as to why this portion of the Boyd Complex (herein "Boyd ") should be added to the Greenbelt. Boyd is immediately adjacent to the southern portion of lands included in the Greenbelt Plan area. Boyd is designated as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) by the Province of Ontario and as an ESA by the TRCA for its high quality pine forest habitat and as a wetland and recharge source for the East Humber River. Boyd is the southerly part of a series of ESAs and ANSIs along the East Humber River, forming an important part of the East Humber natural heritage system. TRCA's research indicates that the Pine Valley forest area is one of the most important southerly tracts of habitat within the TRCA jurisdiction, and specifically within the Humber River watershed and natural heritage system. This significant wildlife movement corridor connects G20 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 the natural areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) and Niagara Escarpment to the Lake Ontario shoreline. This terrestrial habitat block is significant during bird migration as well, in that it is the first high quality habitat node north of Lake Ontario. Boyd is also an important regional -scale recreational destination for hiking, picnicking, fishing and nature appreciation. With the population of the GTA projected to increase by 3 million people over the next 30 years, Boyd will play an increasingly important role in serving the recreational needs of GTA residents. Additionally, Boyd has significant cultural heritage attributes as part of the Carrying Place Trail and containing the remnants of an Iroquois Indian Village that dates back to the early 1500's. Lastly, Boyd is already in public ownership and represents an important component of the East Humber Valley Complex, the bulk of which is already included within the Greenbelt. Clearly, this portion of the Boyd Complex meets many of the criteria for inclusion within the Greenbelt and should be added in. Staff recommend that section 5.4.1 of the Greenbelt Draft Plan be amended for technical clarity and consistency with existing accepted terminology and implementation standards. This section deals with defining the Greenbelt Plan boundary for those portions of the major river valleys (as identified on Schedules 1 and 4) connecting Lake Ontario to the ORM and Niagara Escarpment that are beyond existing approved urban boundaries. TRCA staff strongly support the identification and protection of these major valley corridors as it is, in several areas, very reflective of and helps to implement TRCA's draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. This recommendation has been clarified and amended from the December 3rd report to note that the criteria and wording used by the province to define the Greenbelt boundary may, in some instances, not adequately protect development from natural hazards such as flooding, erosion and unstable slopes. The delineation of the boundaries of these major valley corridors, and indeed all valley systems whether inside or outside the Greenbelt, must be determined based on a scientifically defensible approach that layers natural hazard, ecological, land form and source protection criteria and which uses the greatest boundary of all layered criteria for the establishing limits of development. Site specific studies must also determine what additional buffers may be required to provide a safety margin to mitigate the potential impacts of development, climate change and other ecological stressors including, for example, disease or invasive species. Staff wish to strengthen and provide specificity to our previous comments with respect to the Rouge Park North Management Plan, to be consistent with similar comments approved by the Town of Markham in their Greenbelt Plan comments. The Rouge North Management Plan has been previously endorsed by TRCA, especially as it relates to the boundary delineation process that is managed on an "ecological criteria" basis as opposed to a "buffer" basis. Staff therefore recommend that the Greenbelt Plan: - specifically identify a 600m corridor along the Little Rouge Creek; - include wording to recognize that the tributaries of the Rouge River shall be subject to the ecological criteria -based boundary delineation process established through the Rouge Park North Management Plan guidelines; and - require that Markham OPA 116 comply with the Greenbelt Plan with respect to that boundary delineation process. January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G21 Staff recommend that the following lands (maps to be provided to the ministry) be reviewed by the province as minor refinements for possible inclusion within the Greenbelt Plan area due to their environmental significance, identification as part of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System, proximity to other Greenbelt lands and /or to enhance the systems approach to establishing the Greenbelt Plan. Additional rationale is provided within this report for four of the areas (Boyd, Altona Forest, Sandpiper (candidate) ESA and Iroquois Shoreline) proposed for inclusion while two areas (Bayly Wetland and Purpleville Creek) originally proposed for inclusion have been deleted based on additional detailed analysis: - Altona Forest south of the agricultural preserve lands in the City of Pickering and linking along the hydro corridor to the West Duffins Creek - these lands are contiguous to the proposed Greenbelt boundary and would extend it southwards to include the hydro corridor lands, which contain several rare species of flora. The lands contain existing natural cover and link to stream corridors within the existing urban boundary. - Upland Sandpiper ESA (candidate environmentally significant area) and adjacent tributaries of the Humber River in northwest Vaughan - inclusion of these lands would extend the Greenbelt southwards to Nashville Road and encompass significant rare bird habitat and additional tributaries of the main Humber River. - additional areas of high groundwater recharge in the vicinity of the Lake Iroquois shoreline based on the recharge data from the York /Peel /Durham/Toronto (YPDT) Groundwater study. In the December 3rd report to the Executive Committee, staff recommended that the Duffins valley corridor down to Lake Ontario and linking with the Bayly wetland complex should be added to the Greenbelt. Based on further detailed analysis staff no longer support this addition to the Greenbelt as the wetland complex is not contiguous with any other Greenbelt lands and is somewhat distant from the Duffins valley corridor. However, staff continue to support the protection and enhancement of this wetland through municipal official plans and its eventual linkage to the West Duffins Creek as identified in the Target Terrestrial Natural Heritage System. Similarly, in the December 3rd report, staff recommended that the Humber River headwaters in the Purpleville Creek area linking to the Maple Uplands Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) within the west Don River headwaters be included within the Greenbelt. Based on further detailed analysis staff no longer support this addition to the Greenbelt as there are intervening designated urban lands between these two areas which makes a linked regional -scale corridor connection not feasible. However, staff continue to support the protection and enhancement of these areas individually through the local planning process as locally important features and corridors. G22 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 RES. #G8/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: SALT MANAGEMENT PLANS IN THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY'S JURISDICTION Status of municipal and road authority salt management plans in Torontoand Region Conservation Authority's jurisdiction. Madeleine McDowell Luciano Martin THAT the report on Salt Management Plans in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Jurisdiction be received for information. AMENDMENT RES. #G9/05 Moved by: Seconded by: David Hutcheon Madeleine McDowell THAT The Humber Watershed Alliance ask its watershed municipalities to invest resources to educate the public on ways of reducing and /or eliminating their personal salt use, stressing the fact that road salt is considered a toxic substance under the Canadian Environment Protection Act; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report back to the Humber Watershed Alliance with further information on the use of sidewalk salt by municipalities. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND The Watershed Management Advisory Board at its meeting #7/04, held on December 10, 2004, adopted the following report and recommendation: THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the municipal /road authority's undertaking a salt management plan in Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA's) jurisdiction be congratulated for their efforts in controlling the use of road salt. Approximately 130,000 to 150,000 tonnes of road salts are applied in the City of Toronto every year. Road salts have been shown over years of use to reduce accidents, injury and mortality associated with icy and snowy conditions. Unfortunately, the salts also infiltrate into the soil, spray onto nearby vegetation or are transported through runoff into streams and lakes where they pose a risk to aquatic ecosystems. Concerns about these impacts and other abiotic effects of road salts (e.g. lake mixing dynamics) prompted the federal government to conduct a five year scientific risk assessment of road salts beginning in 1995. This assessment concluded that road salts are entering the environment in quantities that have, or may have, adverse effects on freshwater ecosystems, soil, vegetation and wildlife. Accordingly, in 2001, the Government of Canada included road salts on the second Priority Substance List (PSL2) under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G23 Classification of road salts as toxic under CEPA committed the federal government to develop management measures to reduce the impacts of road salts on the environment, while maintaining roadway safety. This requirement led to the Environment Canada publication in April 2004 of a Code of Practice for the environmental management of road salts. The Code of Practice was developed in consultation with a multi - stakeholder working group for road salts, and has received support from provincial and local governments that own and operate public highways. The code recommends that road authorities and municipalities using more than 500 tonnes of road salt annually (based on a 5 year average) prepare salt management plans (SMP) identifying actions they will take to improve their practices in salt storage, general use on roads and snow disposal. Agencies using fewer than 500 tonnes of road salt per year are not required to prepare SMPs but are encouraged to follow best practices in the management of road salts. Although salt management planning remains a non - regulatory requirement, Environment Canada strongly urged that road authorities and municipalities submit a letter of intent by October 3, 2004 expressing the municipality's intention to develop a SMP. The deadline for completion of SMPs is April 3, 2005, one year after publication of the Code of Practice, and the road authorities /municipalities are to submit their first road salt annual report to Environment Canada by June 30, 2005. The following table indicates the status of SMPs for regional and local municipalities and road authorities operating within TRCA's jurisdiction: SUMMARY OF SALT MANAGEMENT PLANS MUNICIPALITY /ROAD AUTHORITY STATUS OF SMP City of Toronto - Complete Region of Peel - Complete Region of York - Draft Plan Complete Region of Durham - Draft Plan Complete City of Brampton - Underway City of Mississauga - Complete City of Pickering - Underway Town of Ajax - Underway City of Vaughan - Underway Town of Mono - Letter of intent not yet sent Town of Caledon - Underway Town of Markham - Underway Town of Richmond Hill - Underway Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville - Underway Township of Adjala - Tosorontio - Underway Township of King - Underway Township of Uxbridge - Underway 407 ETR - Draft plan complete Ministry of Transportation - Underway The City of Toronto has undertaken a comprehensive approach to managing road salt use that includes reducing salt use at storage depots, evaluating mitigation measures at snow disposal sites, moving towards use of alternative road salt application practices and initiating a salt management training program for staff. Early results indicate that the SMP and staff training G24 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 has reduced mean salt use by close to 37,000 tonnes over two winter periods, which is roughly equivalent to a decrease in salt use of 13% per year. Other regional and local municipalities have also shown leadership in salt management but in most cases the benefits of improved practices have not been comprehensively evaluated. Practices that have been investigated or are currently being adopted as part of municipal SMPs include: • optimizing equipment through the use of improved spreader controls on vehicles, infrared thermometers and pre- wetting to avoid loss from bouncing, blowing and sliding of salt; • employing advanced road weather information systems to provide precise information on temperature, pavement conditions, the presence and concentration of salt on the road, and precipitation prior to spreading; • using alternatives to rock salt, including salt brine and implementing anti -icing programs to assist melting and resist the formation of a bond between ice and the pavement surface; and • improving storage and handling practices. All of these practices help to ensure that road salt is applied at the right time, in the right place and in the right quantities to minimize impacts to the environment, while ensuring road safety. The TRCA uses approximately 140 tonnes of road salt per year on its properties, and therefore is not required to prepare a SMP. To assess current practices, conservation area (CA) and dam staff were surveyed. Initial survey results indicated that several CAs either do not use salt (Heart Lake, Indian Line, Tommy Thompson Park and Petticoat), use pickled sand (Boyd, Glen Haffy, Lake St. George, Albion Hills and Eastville) or use a salt sand mix (Black Creek Pioneer Village and Bruce's Mill). Claremont applies road salt to only 1 of 3 km of roadway when the snow plow is unable to penetrate through the ice to the pavement. Pure road salt was also applied at Claireville and G. Lord Ross Dams - approximately 3 tonnes per year each. These results suggest that while opportunities may exist to improve salt management on TRCA properties, current practices at most conservation areas already minimize the use of road salts. Chloride concentrations in the watersheds are monitored as part of TRCA's Regional Watershed Monitoring Network. These data are useful in identifying potential problem areas and evaluating trends in road salt use over time. Staff have provided chloride data to municipalities developing SMPs and are currently exploring municipal interest in a partnership pilot study that evaluates the relative merit of commonly employed salt application best management practices. The study would help to develop and refine a set of standard salt application practices that could be applied by partner municipalities across the TRCA jurisdiction, thereby reducing the need for each municipality to conduct its own separate monitoring program. January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G25 RES. #G10/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: URBAN FORESTRY UPDATE Status report on recent outbreaks and infestations of the Asian Longhorned Beetle (ALHB), Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) and other current forestry pests that threaten Ontario forest resources. Vito Spatafora George Ivanoff THAT the report on the Urban Forestry Update be received for information CARRIED AMENDMENT RES. #G11/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Joan Miles Kathrine Mabley THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance ask Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) to pursue the issue of better inspection by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and report back to the Humber Watershed Alliance with an update on this issue when appropriate. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND The Watershed Management Advisory Board at its meeting #7/04, held on December 10, 2004, adopted the following report and recommendation: THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to support and work cooperatively with all levels of government to monitor trends and conditions of current forest insect and invasive pest populations and to formulate and implement strategies and methodologies directed at the control and eradication of these pests; THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Nursery continue to propagate and supply ash tree species as a minor component of a diverse and sustainab /e ecosystem through its Indigenous Plant Propagation program and ongoing environmental regeneration efforts; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on any changes in the status of forest pests in Ontario. G26 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 The forest resources of Ontario are under constant attack and threat of infestation from a wide variety of insects and diseases. This is not a new situation, however, we are fortunate that the very resources that are affected by these pests are extremely resilient and adapative in dealing with the threats. So too are the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), who cooperate to maintain a program of monitoring and reporting on insect and disease infestations in Ontario's forests. There are 30 to 40 invasive forest pests that have been catalogued within the Great Lakes Basin. The impact of these pests include the loss of native species, decline in biodiversity, the loss of culturally important species, financial impacts to the timber industry and impacts on municipal (urban) forest resources and budgets to address loss and control programs. The increase in the number of exotic pests in the past half century is alarming. With the advent of world trade practices and the ever increasing suite of trading partners, it is not surprising that these pests have arrived here. Container traffic is known to be the primary vector for arrival in North America, and 70% of all container traffic in Canada comes to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Current estimates of Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) inspections of shipping containers is set at approximately 2 %. Coupled with these realities, southern Ontarions are both fortunate and at the same time unfortunate to have the diversity of forest types we do. This diversity appeals to and supports our imported invasive pests with an ideal mix of climate and vegetation species. At the 28th Annual Forest Health Review, held October 28, 2004, CFS /OMNR staff presented an overview of the current threats in Ontario including: - Emerald Ash Borer; -Asian Longhorned Beetle; -Beech Bark Disease; - Hickory Bark Beetle; and -other major forest disturbances (forest tent caterpillar, jack pine budworm, pine false webworm, drought, gypsy moth, aspen mortality, etc.). The following is a brief synopsis of current infestation and expected trends for the major pests noted: Asian Longhorned Beetle On September 4, 2003 an insect was found in the Steeles and Weston Road area which was subsequently confirmed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to be an Asian Longhorned Beetle. Immediate delimitation surveys were launched and three separate population centres were located in the north Toronto and Woodbridge vicinities. Scientific investigation and subsequent operational plans went into force in an effort to eradicate the ALHB from this region. The CFIA is continuing to implement an aggressive campaign to control and eradicate this unwanted pest with the full cooperation of its partners - CFS, City's of Toronto and Vaughan, Region of York, TRCA, OMNR and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Winter 2003/2004 host species tree removal resulted in some 15,000 trees being removed and destroyed in accordance with the eradication protocol. A quarantine zone encompassing some 125 km2 is in place with federal regulation governing the movement of all host species (wood in all forms - nursery stock, brush, firewood) into, through and out of the zone. January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G27 On November 6, 2004, the CFIA -led partnership announced a new finding of three exit -holes in the Weston Road /Highway No. 7 (northeast quadrant) area. Removal of host trees within a 400 metre radius of the new finds, in accordance with the eradication protocol, has been completed. Field surveys are ongoing to monitor for any potential new finds within the quarantine area. CFIA officials have stated that in order to declare this ALHB outbreak eradicated, they must have two full years of intensive survey with no finds. Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) The Emerald Ash Borer is another invasive exotic pest that has had devastating impacts on the forest resources of southwestern Ontario (City of Windsor and Essex County) and the State of Michigan (City of Detroit and vicinity). This pest feeds exclusively on ash tree species, resulting in mortality of the host. Given that ash species comprise between 25% and 50% of southwestern Ontario's forest resources, the implication is enormous. By the end of 2004, it is estimated there will be 12 million dead or dying ash trees in the United States and Canada as a result of EAB. Estimates of ash tree resources in Ontario are set at 1 billion trees. CFIA is leading the fight in an effort to contain the EAB within the current area of infestation, however, the "firebreak" - an ash -free zone implemented in 2003 resulting in the destruction of 100,778 ash trees - has not proved to be as successful a barrier as envisioned in slowing or halting the spread. New finds of EAB in the Chatham area mean that the EAB has been found some 10 km east of the "firebreak ". Province -wide surveys have not revealed the EAB in other . areas of Ontario, but it is known to exist in Ohio, Indiana and northern Michigan. The CFIA's goal with respect to EAB, as reported in the press, is to control the spread of the pest until effective countermeasures can be found. Countermeasures may include the use of insecticides in addition to cutting and destruction of infected wood /trees, until such time as ecological adaptation can express itself in terms of a resistant genotype. Beech Bark Disease (BBD) First introduced to North America in 1890, BBD has now spread widely in the GTA. BBD is a combination of a scale insect and a fungal infection that work together to kill beech trees. The disease is non - selective in that it can affect both healthy and stressed trees. Even after 100 years, there is no known method to combat BBD. BBD opens up hosts to secondary infections which in time will kill the trees. There are approximately 70 known species of fungus that attack beech trees. Hickory Bark Beetle (HBB) The HBB is a native forest pest, related to the elm bark beetle, that follows forest disturbances such as drought. HBB attacks hickory species, but also has been known to infect pecan and butternut species. The HBB selects stressed trees to attack, starting in the crown of the tree and feeding on leaf petiole. Entry and exit holes are definitive signs of infestation and when found on the lower bole indicate several years of infection. Trees die after a few years of attack. G28 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 The HBB was first identified in 1912 and found in New York State in the 1940's. First detected in Ontario (Middlesex county) in 2001, the 2004 population has been found in 250 woodlots covering some 2,133 hectares. Mortality is measured at 70% in host species within affected woodlots. Other Introduced Exotic Pests Sudden Oak Death (SOD) - known to cause mortality in species of red /black oak group that are native to California as well as rhododendron species. It is currently not known whether, or how, SOD will affect our native red and black oaks. Oak Wilt (OW) is now found in the central United States, moving slowly in both a northerly and southerly direction. OW kills oak species. Spread is known through the natural phenomenon of root grafting and distribution by sap beetles. Control methods include eliminating pruning of oaks between April and July, controlling the movement of firewood, and when pruning, using a wound dressing. ADAPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS In response to the ALHB infestation, the TRCA has participated in all aspects of the eradication program led by CFIA. Staff are cognizant of the ALHB regulated area and have implemented the applicable protocols to comply with the federal regulation in all aspects of the TRCA's business, including commenting on plans and proposal and issuance of permits with conditions in respect of landscaping, forest management and environmental regeneration activities. TRCA does not plant ALHB host species within the core areas of infestation, however, it may continue to plant these species (ie. maple, willow, poplar, etc.) within the regulated area in an effort to maintain diversity within the urban forest canopy of these neighbourhoods. This practice is in keeping with the directions of our municipal partners. It is anticipated that upon achieving eradication of the ALHB, the core area would be re- populated with host species to enhance the canopy and diversify the represented species mix. The case for EAB is less clear cut. Ash species are a component of the natural forests and planted ecosystems in the GTA. Ash is an important and adaptable species for site reclamation and as such plays a valuable part in planting site amelioration as a primary regenerator species acting as a nurse crop for other species. Poplar and elm species are employed in a similar manner, despite problems associated with them. Elimination of the propagation and planting of ash species will do nothing to prevent the spread of EAB. While TRCA has supported the City of Toronto's directive to eliminate ash species from all restoration plans within the City of Toronto, TRCA staff continue to approve ash use as part of a diverse and sustainable urban forest in all other areas of TRCA's jurisdiction, where and when appropriate to the needs of the ecosystem. Discussions with other government and industry professionals supports the continued use of ash as part of a biodiverse and balanced ecosystem. There has been no move by the OMNR or Conservation Ontario to limit or discourage the planting of ash species. January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G29 In response to this reasoning, staff propose that TRCA's Nursery continue to propagate ash seedlings in an effort to maintain the maximum diversity of species available in TRCA's attempts to enhance and improve terrestrial natural heritage and biodiversity values and opportunities across our watersheds. In order to ensure a balanced approach, TRCA staff will regulate ash species use to not more than ten percent of hardwood trees species planted for a particular site. In reforestation plantings, ash will comprise less than two percent of the total planting effort of the TRCA. RES. #G12/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the following working group are provided for information. John Willetts Alyson Hazlett THAT the following minutes be received with the following amendments to Meeting #2/04 of the Lower Humber Working Group: Oakdale Golf Course The issues around water taking at the Oakdale Golf Course discussed at the Lower Humber Subcommittee need to come back to the next Humber Watershed Alliance meeting for further discussion. RES. #G13/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Sandy Agnew Luciano Martin THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance (HWA) write to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority requesting that no decision be made on the Oakdale Golf Course until the issue is brought back to the Humber Watershed Alliance for discussion CARRIED Park Maintenance The Lower Humber Subcommittee presented the following recommendation to the Humber Watershed Alliance regarding park maintenance: WHEREAS Toronto parks along the Humber River are used on a year round basis by dog walkers, hikers, cyclists, children, etc.; G30 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 WHEREAS these parks are currently not maintained in the winter by the City of Toronto; WHEREAS winter park users litter in the park because garbage receptac /es are not maintained; WHEREAS pet feces and other garbage /eft by winter park users negatively impact the water quality and wildlife habitat of the Humber River; THEREFORE the Lower Humber Subcommittee recommends that the TRCA, as landowners, and City of Toronto, as managers, conduct ongoing winter maintenance of Toronto Parks along the Humber River, in particular the maintenance ofgarbage receptac /es and the regular collection ofgarbage. RES. #G14/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Madeleine McDowell David Hutcheon THAT the recommendation of the Lower Humber Subcommittee be accepted and that the Humber Watershed Alliance send a letter to Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) outlining the details of this recommendation CARRIED • Meeting #02/04 of the Community Outreach Working Group; • Meeting #02/04 of the East Humber Working Group; • Meeting #02/04 of the West Humber Working Group CARRIED NEW BUSINESS Richmond Hill Pesticide Reduction S. Bradley reported that Richmond Hill has undertaken five public consultation meetings around pesticide reduction in the town. RES. #G15/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Sharon Bradley Kathrine Mabley WHEREAS the use of pesticides is harmful to: - the natural environment and the avian and animal populations; - the ground water and surface water of the Humber River and its headwaters; and - human health; January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G31 BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance urge Richmond Hill Council to develop an aggressive pesticide -use reduction policy that will lead to the ban of the use of such chemicals in the Town of Richmond Hill in the very near future CARRIED Bathurst Glenn Golf Course V. Spatafora outlined the public concerns and future land use alternatives of the Bathurst Glenn Golf Course in relation to a possible acquisition of the land by TRCA. RES. #G16/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Vito Spatafora Sharon Bradley. THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance ask TRCA staff to report back on the potential acquisition and future land use of the Bathurst Glenn Golf Course CARRIED Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement P. Telford informed Humber Watershed Alliance members that there is currently a call out for public comment on the renewal of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). RES. #G17/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Luciano Martin Madeleine McDowell THAT Peter Telford provide comments on the renewal of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) on behalf of the Humber Watershed Alliance CARRIED Cruickshank Park E. Heaton outlined a potential pilot project for Cruickshank Park which would initiate an animal waste recycling program. RES. #G18/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Elaine Heaton Madeleine McDowell THAT TRCA staff facilitate a meeting between the City of Toronto and interest groups to discuss a potential pilot program at Cruickshank Park to recycle animal waste CARRIED G32 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 January 18, 2005 Bolton Community Action Site RES. #G19/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Bill Wilson David Hutcheon THAT the minutes of the Bolton Community Action Site be added as part of the Subcommittee Reports in the Humber Watershed Alliance Agenda CARRIED Invasive Species RES. #G20/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Madeleine McDowell Luciano Martin THAT the Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance write a second letter to the Ministry of Natural Resources reiterating the Alliance's position regarding the ban of the rusty crayfish for sale or use as bait and requesting a response to the first letter sent regarding this issue (dated November 9, 2004) CARRIED Tennis Canada MOTION Moved by: Seconded by: Sandy Agnew Luciano Martin THAT the next meeting of the Humber Watershed Alliance not be held at Tennis Canada and that an alternative meeting location be found. THE MOTION WAS NOT CARRIED January 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #1/05 G33 Greenbelt Draft Plan D. Schulte informed Humber Watershed Alliance members that the Friends of Boyd Park will be applying for delegation on the government Standing Committee on the Greenbelt Bill 135. DOOR PRIZE As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Humber Alliance, G. Wilkins advised that a door prize will be drawn at the end of each Alliance meeting. The door prize available at this meeting was a $50 gift certificate to TRCA's Nursery. The winning ticket belonged to Peter Telford. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m., January 18, 2005. Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer /L. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MINUTES OF MEETING #2/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #5/05 JUNE 24, 2005 c. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #2/05 Page G34 April 19, 2005 The Humber Watershed Alliance met at Tennis Canada on Tuesday, April 19, 2005. Lois Griffin, Chair of the Humber Alliance, called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT Sandy Agnew Member Mary Louise Ashbourne Member Jim Bradley Member Sharon Bradley Member Bill Buchan Associate Member lain Craig Member Brenda Fowler Member Royce Fu Member Krisann Graf Member Lois Griffin Chair Suzan Hall Member Elaine Heaton Member Ron Hingston Member David Hutcheon Member Steve Joudrey Member Kathrine Mabley Member Luciano Martin Member Madeleine McDowell Member Joan Miles Alternate Hugh Mitchell Member Arthur Mittermaier Member Miriam Mittermaier Member Joanne Nonnekes Member Brendan O'Hara Member Carol Ray Member Randall Reid Member Deb Schulte Member Lynn Short Member Nancy Stewart Member Anyika Tafari Member Peter Telford Member John Willetts Member Bill Wilson Member G35 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 April 19, 2005 GUESTS Anne S. Phillips Friends of Claireville T.J. Rule Burnside & Assoc. STAFF Vince D'Elia Project Ecologist Don Ford Senior Hydrogeologist Lia Lappano Administrative Assistant Karen Sun Humber Watershed Resources Planner Lisa Turnbull Humber Watershed Project Manager Gary Wilkins Humber Watershed Specialist RES. #G21/05 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Madeleine McDowell Randall Reid THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/05, held on January 18, 2005, be approved CARRIED BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES TRCA staff has provided contact information at the City of Toronto to E. Heaton to discuss a potential pilot program at Cruickshank Park to recycle animal waste, and as per resolution #G18/05. The Community Involvement in Stormwater Management Workshop, originally scheduled for May 2005, has been postponed due to the current staff reorganization at the City of Toronto and the establishment of a new Environment Canada Great Lakes Program at the federal level. Since both of these agencies are key participants in workshop discussions, the new date targeted for the workshop will be September /October 2005. It is anticipated that at this time staffing and programming will be in place for the City and Environment Canada. The Technology Transfer Workshop has also been postponed to the Fall of 2005 pending the completion of data from the municipality. April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2105 G36 CORRESPONDENCE (a) Letter to Lois Griffin from the City of Toronto, dated March 1, 2005, re: Winter Park Maintenance RES. #G22/05 Moved by: Seconded by: David Hutcheon Luciano Martin THAT the letter to Lois Griffin from the City of Toronto, dated March 1, 2005 and the matter of winter park maintenance be received and referred to the Lower Humber Subwatershed Committee CARRIED (b) Letter from the Humber Watershed Alliance to the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, re: Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe RES. #G23/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Joan Miles Luciano Martin THAT the letter from the Humber Alliance to the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal be received and that thanks be extended to all Alliance members and TRCA staff who provided input to the Draft Growth Plan CARRIED (c) Letter from Lois Griffin to the City of Toronto, dated January 18, 2005, re: Winter Park Maintenance (d) Letter to Lois Griffin from the Miniser of Natural Resources, dated January 26, 2005, re: Non - Native Rusty Crayfish in the Humber (e) Letter from Brian Denney, CAO of TRCA to Lois Griffin, dated February 9, 2005, re: Oakdale Golf Course /Downsview Dells Park (f) (g) Letter to Municipal Clerks in the Humber watershed from Lois Griffin, dated February 9, 2005, re: Salt Management - Personal Use Letter from Councillor Hall to Toronto Works Committee, dated March 22, 2005 re: Greenbin Pilot Project in City Parks (h) Letter from the City of Toronto to Lois Griffin, dated March 14, 2005, re: Salt Management - Personal Use G37 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 April 19, 2005 RES. #G24/05 Moved by: Seconded by: David Hutcheon Luciano Martin THAT the above correspondence (c) to (h) be received CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) Oakdale Golf and Country Club Water Taking D. Ford, TRCA's Senior Hydogeologist, gave a presentation on the Oakdale Golf and Country Club request to take ground water from Downsview Dells Park for irrigation purposes. Mr. Ford indicated that a permit to take water has been submitted by the Oakdale Golf and Country Club to the Ministry of Environment. It is expected that it will take between one to two years to obtain a permit to take water. TRCA permitted the installation of a well on TRCA property for investigative purposes. The consultant's report confirmed suitable water quantities for irrigating the golf course, and groundwater withdrawal had no impact on water levels or discharge in Black Creek. Staff will be seeking direction from the Authority to pursue discussions with Oakdale. Environmental benefits, revenue, permits and other lease arrangements need to be investigated. RES. #G25/05 Moved by: Seconded by: David Hutcheon Deb Schulte 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: April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G38 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 CARRIED SECTION I REPORTS - ACTION ITEMS RES. #G26/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: OAK RIDGES CORRIDOR PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN Provincial request to have the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) undertake a management plan for the Oak Ridges Corridor Park within the Town of Richmond Hill. Luciano Martin Joanne Nonnekes THAT the staff report on the Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan be received; AND FURTHER THAT Royce Fu be appointed to the Oak Ridges Corridor Park Steering Committee on behalf of the Humber Watershed Alliance CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority, at its meeting #1/05, held on February 25, 2005, adopted the following resolution: THAT staff be directed to finalize a management agreement with the Province of Ontario and to facilitate the implementation of an environmental management plan for the Oak Ridges Moraine Corridor within the Town of Richmond Hill; THAT the management plan be developed in consultation with all stakeholders including the Town of Richmond Hill, Region of York, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, interested landowners and various public interest groups; G39 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 April 19, 2005 THAT staff be directed to seek avenues for funding assistance to implement the completion and recommendations of the management plan, including making application to the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the status of the development of the management plan and its implementation. The Province of Ontario has requested that the TRCA act as their agent in the development of a management plan for the Oak Ridges Moraine Corridor Park within the Town of Richmond Hill. The lands are located generally between Bathurst Street and Bayview Avenue, north of Jefferson Sideroad. The lands to be covered by the management plan are those lands within the Town of Richmond Hill which would come into public ownership in exchange for publically- owned land in Seaton. The management plan must also consider the context of these lands to adjacent publicly owned lands between Leslie Street and Bathurst Street. The area to be covered by the management plan is in excess of 1,000 acres and comprises mainly agricultural lands, and includes an existing golf course, wetland features, hedgerows and woodlands. These lands were the subject of a planning process which involved a lengthy Ontario Municipal Board Hearing and the eventual agreement by developers and the province to identify these lands as an important east west ecological link across the moraine. These lands are essential for ecological preservation and restoration as they represent the narrowest open space area on the east west corridor of the Oak Ridges Moraine. TRCA staff was instrumental in advocating the protection of this corridor and of their transfer to public ownership throughout the planning process. The request of the province to have TRCA act as their agent is a recognition of TRCA's role in advocating the protection of these lands and TRCA's ability to work with partners, both public and private, to achieve ecological restoration objectives within its area of jurisdiction and across the Oak Ridges Moraine. TRCA staff is supportive of the development of a management plan and see this request by the province as an opportunity to initiate the regeneration process in the short term. The management plan must be consistent with the Oak Ridges Conservation Plan which recognizes these lands as Natural Core and Natural Linkage, must consider the town's Open Space System and TRCA's draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. Therefore, the land use must change from mainly agricultural to natural cover. The management plan must also address the relationship with the surrounding land uses which include residential development and other environmentally sensitive features and ensure a sustainable balance between the corridor and adjacent uses. It is for that reason that the management plan must not only consider ecological restoration but passive recreational /nature interpretation use expectations by the adjacent community. The agreement requires the Richmond Hill landowners to provide funds for restoration and trail construction within the Oak Ridges Corridor Park. The province has requested that the TRCA accept the funding from the Richmond Hill Landowners to undertake the environmental management plan, including the trail and initial restoration. It is recognized that these funds represent a significant investment but are a small amount of the total investment required to April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G40 actively restore the lands. The TRCA and the province recognize that other sources of funds will be required in the longer term to implement the management plan. These funds could also be used to leverage additional funds from interested stakeholders who share the vision of an improved ecological link across the moraine. One initiative which could assist in realizing the vision for an improved publicly owned ecological link across the moraine is the continued utilization of the existing Bathurst Glen Golf Course which is located within the corridor. Recently there has been strong promotion to have the golf course remain in operation. The environmental management plan process will consider this option to have the golf course remain open. A request for proposals has been sent to pre - qualified consulting companies for the preparation of the management plan. Proposals are due on April 22, 2005 and the contract will be awarded on April 29, 2005. A Steering Committee, consisting of representatives from TRCA, Province of Ontario, York Region, Richmond Hill, STORM, Oak Ridges Trail Association and the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation will be formed to guide the preparation of the management plan. The targeted completion date is December, 2005. RES. #G27/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: ONTARIO ECOSCHOOLS The Ontario EcoSchools program, which was launched in February, 2004 as a provincial curriculum addressing climate change, is making continued progress within the education community across the province, transforming approaches to operations and learning. Madeleine McDowell Sharon Bradley THAT the report regarding the Ontario EcoSchools be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT the following Humber Watershed Alliance members be appointed to lend their expertise and participate in the creation of a manual on school yard enhancements /naturalizations: Steve Joudrey Kathrine Mabley Randall Reid Deb Schulte Anyika Tafari CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2002, Environment Canada (Climate Change Action Fund) released a request for proposals to develop curriculum resources for climate change education in the Province of Ontario. A successful proposal was submitted by a partnership of education groups which included the G41 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 April 19, 2005 York (University) Environmental Education Consortium and other associations and agencies including the TRCA. Funding was approved in October 2002. The Climate Change Action Fund (CCAF) contributed the maximum funding limit of $160,000. However, the combined project funding with partner contributions and in -kind support, exceeded $250,000. On February 26, 2004, the Climate Change Project was launched. Senior curriculum and facilities representatives from 21 school boards, staff from 9 conservation authorities, 10 government ministries and 10 non - governments organizations attended the program launch. The program was very well received. Ms. Donna Cansfield, MPP, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Energy, attended the launch and expressed her support by committing to introduce the program to both the Minister of Energy and the Premier of Ontario. Ontario EcoSchools is a provincial education curriculum program addressing climate change. Built on previous greening programs, Ontario EcoSchools is distinguished by a dual focus on school operations and curriculum (energy conservation, waste reduction and climate change). The program was guided and developed by a steering committee made up of representatives from York University, four school boards, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Learning for a Sustainable Future under the initiative of Environment Canada. The Ontario EcoSchools resources include: • Seventeen resource guides (three operations guides, eleven curriculum guides, both elementary and secondary, and four community action guides). Key guides have been translated into French. • Three climate change multimedia presentations (available with the resource guides on compact disc (CD). • All guides are available on the Ontario EcoSchools website: www. yorku .ca /fes /envedu /ecoshools.asp With completion of the resources, the program implementation is being guided by the Ontario EcoSchools Implementation Committee. It is anticipates that the adoption of the Ontario EcoSchools program within boards of education across the province will occur over a two to five -year time frame. The implementation of the program is being led by staff from the York University, Faculty of Environmental Studies. The implementation committee with representatives from the implementing school boards, York University and TRCA is responsible for ongoing leadership of the program. A full -time program coordinator has been hired to assist in the day -to -day running of the program (supported by federal and provincial funding). To date the program has been introduced to 17 school boards across the province. Seven of these school boards have started board wide implementation of the program. Three of these boards are in the TRCA jurisdiction (Toronto District School Board, York Region District School Board and the Durham District School Board). The Toronto District School Board has adopted EcoSchools as one of its key facilities and operations guidelines. Adoption of the program by these seventeen school boards will engage more than 55 percent of the students in the province. April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G42 Ontario EcoSchools exceeded all expectations set out by the Federal funding partners. The program received two additional grants from Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada: first, to assist with translation of the documents into French; and second to support intensive teacher in- service training with 600 teachers in September 2004. Federal ministries and agencies are interested in supporting the implementation of the program. Funds from Natural Resources Canada have been combined with provincial funding to support program implementation in 2005. The Ontario Ministry of Energy supports the Ontario EcoSchools program as a key resource for energy education in the province. The ministry has provided funding to support the implementation of the program in 2005. The implementation committee has engaged the Ministry of Education staff in dialogue about program. Currently, the Ministry of Education is focused on numeracy and literacy and has taken no formal action to integrate the Ontario EcoSchools program into the Ontario Curriculum. The implementation committee continues to seek endorsement of the program by the Ministry of Education. TRCA staff has been introducing the Ontario EcoSchools program to conservation authorities to assist them with education initiatives with their boards of education. Most recently, staff presented the program at the Latornell Conference and have since received requests for further support. Staff will be travelling to London in the near future to present the program to a meeting coordinated by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority to staff from six southwestern Ontario conservation authorities. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA The Ontario EcoSchools program provides the framework for many new initiatives and partnerships in education in 2005. The following are key actions and initiatives for the TRCA in the next year: • • • Work within the TRCA to apply the operational and program guidelines of the Ontario EcoSchools program to our education facilities and programs with the goal of having our education sites becoming certified as Ontario EcoSchools facilities. The Ontario EcoSchools' waste, energy and naturalization guidelines provide simple, youth friendly actions that complement the TRCA Sustainability Management System. As a member of the Ontario EcoSchools Implementation Committee, support the board -wide implementation within the seventeen schools boards that have been introduced to the program. As a member of the Ontario EcoSchools Implementation Committee, promote and market the program to other school boards, conservation authorities and federal, provincial and municipal agencies. G43 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 April 19, 2005 • Work with Ontario EcoSchools Implementation Committee to expand the program to address water conservation. TRCA, school board and Region of Peel staff recently completed the development of the Peel Water Story education resource. Both TRCA and Peel staff feel these resources complement the Ontario EcoSchools resources and further links between the two resources should be explored. Explore new partnerships with public utilities and agencies to support Ontario EcoSchools implementation. In 2005, PowerStream, the electricity supplier for Vaughan, Markham and Richmond Hill, is implementing its Electricity Conservation and Demand Management Plan. The energy programs at the Kortright Centre for Conservation and the Ontario EcoSchools program complement the management plan. Partnership initiatives with TRCA, school boards and PowerStream will facilitate the acceleration of the Ontario EcoSchools program in York Region. The Toronto District School Board and Toronto Hydro have formed a similar partnership to have feedback metering piloted at 31 schools enabling the board to track the effectiveness of the EcoSchools' energy conservation guidelines. • Provide learning resources to TRCA clients by establishing a link between the TRCA education and Ontario EcoSchools websites. Humber Watershed Alliance - Schoolyard Enhancements /Naturalizations Programs like Ecoschools have helped to put the natural environment back on the agenda of our schools. It has become apparent that there is a growing and significant interest in the area of school yard enhancements /natualizations. The School Boards are encouraging it; the York District School Board has partnered with Earth Rangers for funding and has recognized previous activities with school awards. Vaughan's Communities in Bloom program even has a special committee to encourage schools to participate and enter the competition. To successfully design, fundraise, get the best deal on material and coordinate the event requires a great deal of effort and information. Many organizations are available to help; for example, Evergreen, Earth Rangers, Canada Trust, TRCA and many more. However, groups who want to get involved don't know where to start and what's involved. There is a wealth of knowledge within the Humber Alliance which could be harnessed into the creation of a manual for those embarking on a school year enhancement/natualization. A few years ago, a guide was created by L. Rogers which was very valuable. L. Rogers also made herself available to review plans and make very helpful suggestions. Many projects were successful due to her involvement. As many things have changed throughout the past years, the information provided in this manual needs to be updated and expanded. There is also need for an updated manual to identify representatives that would be interested in supporting these efforts. The support could be sharing information and experiences over the phone, e-mail or at meetings with Councils, and to review the plans and the site to make suggestions and discuss suitable material choices. The manual would need to be revised regularly as funding opportunities change and new information becomes available. April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G44 Humber Watershed Alliance members interested in contributing their expertise and knowledge to the creation of this manual and /or future support of schoolyard projects should contact Lisa Turnbull. This project is being spearheaded by the East Humber Subcommittee under the leadership of Deb Schulte. MOTION - Moved by: Seconded by: PROTOCOL FOR LETTERS WRITTEN ON BEHALF OF THE ALLIANCE To establish a protocol for letters written on behalf of the Humber Watershed Alliance David Hutcheon Elaine Heaton THAT any letter written on behalf of the Humber Watershed Alliance be done so in accordance with a resolution by the Humber Watershed Alliance and vetted through the full Alliance or one of its subcommittees prior to transmission; AND FURTHER THAT in the event of a time - sensitive issue, at least two of: the Chair of the Alliance; the Vice -Chair of the Alliance; or the Chair of any of its subcommittees be empowered to approve letters on behalf of the Humber Watershed Alliance. AMENDMENT RES. #G28/05 Moved by: Seconded by: David Hutcheon Elaine Heaton THAT any letter written on behalf of the Humber Watershed Alliance be done so in accordance with a resolution by the Humber Watershed Alliance and /or in accordance with recorded positions and policies previously adopted by the Humber Watershed Alliance; and be approved by the Chair or his /her designate. AND FURTHER THAT in the event of a time - sensitive issue, where it is not possible to have a resolution of the Humber Watershed Alliance, and where there is no stated previous position on the issue, at least two of: the Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance, the Vice -Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance, or the Chair of one of its subcommittees, be required to approve letters sent on behalf of the Humber Watershed Alliance. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED G45 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2105 April 19, 2005 BACKGROUND The Humber Watershed Alliance and its subcommittees, at its meetings, often adopts resolutions which require correspondence to be prepared and sent out on its behalf. This includes not only correspondence to external individuals or agencies but to other TRCA Task Forces as well. In order to achieve consistency with regard to the process for outgoing correspondence, a protocol is required. RES. #G29/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: WORKPLANS FOR THE LOWER HUMBER AND EAST HUMBER SUBCOMMITTEES Development of a work plan for the Humber Watershed Alliance. Madeleine McDowell Deb Schulte THAT the workplans for the East and Lower Humber Subcommittees 2005 -2006 be endorsed; AND FURTHER THAT the workplans for the West Humber Subcommittee and the Report Card Working Group be brought to the next Humber Watershed Alliance for approval CARRIED BACKGROUND The Humber Watershed Alliance Terms of Reference requires that the Alliance prepare annual work plans and that these work plans be approved by the Authority. The indicators considered of highest priority for the Humber Report Card Working Group have been used as a framework for the action in the workplans. These action categories include: • Advocacy; • Data Collection (monitoring); • Stewardship (habitat improvement, planting); • Fundraising; • Outreach Education (awareness), • Business Outreach; • Events; • Promotion (displays, flyers);and • Trails • Heritage The Humber Watershed Alliance has three subwatershed committees, and one working group. Each of the subwatershed committees and the working group have developed a list of priority actions for their term. In designing the priority list of actions, each subcommittee's goal is to undertake actions that will help achieve the objectives of Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber. April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G46 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The West Humber Subcommittee and the Report Card Working Group workplans will be brought to the next Humber Watershed Alliance meeting scheduled for July 19, 2005. RES. #G30/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: ASIAN LONG - HORNED BEETLE REVEGETATION PLAN Revegetation plan for the Asian Long- Horned Beetle regulated area. Madeleine McDowell Suzan Hall THAT the staff report on the Asian Long- Horned Beetle revegetation plan be received; AND FURTHER THAT the TRCA project described in the proposal be referred to the East Humber Subwatershed Committee for any follow up needed to assist with the work CARRIED BACKGROUND In September, 2003, trees infested by the Asian Long- Horned Beetle (ALHB) (Anop /ophora glabr/penn /s), 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 (7-RCA) 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. G47 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 April 19, 2005 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. 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. 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 April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G48 public land to reduce the net Toss 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 Toss 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. 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/eng l ish /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; G49 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 April 19, 2005 9) h) 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; 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 large caliper trees including oak, $15,000 north to Woodbridge Ave. basswood, ash and sumac streambank planting using large caliper trees to frame triangular patches of smaller trees and shrubs b) Marco Park - Rutherford Road and Pine Valley Drive c) Weston Downs Stormwater Pond - north of Langstaff Road between Weston Road and Pine Valley Drive d) Boulevard Corridors to enhance linkage between forests 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 40 to 250 cm bareroot and potted stock $31,000 including oak, walnut, butternut, hickory, alder, tamarack, spruce, dogwood and nannyberry naturalize the pond to enhance linkages to adjacent forest cover build treed connections through urban $60,000 areas TOTAL TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED IN VAUGHAN TOTAL COST ESTIMATE TOTAL REQUESTED FUNDS 5,995 $138,000 $120,000 April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G50 Description Sites Details Cost Estimate City of Toronto a) Emery Works Yard - north of enhances linkage between the Emery $22,500 Finch Avenue and west of Works Yard and the Humber riparian Weston Road zone 15 caliper trees and large evergreens 200 bare root deciduous 20 bare root evergreens 100 shrubs b) Lindylou Park - south of Finch Avenue and west of Weston Road enhances linkage between Emery Works $37,500 Yard and the Humber riparian zone 20 caliper trees and large evergreens 440 bare root deciduous 40 bare root evergreens 200 bare root shrubs c) Major roadways in the enhances forest cover along roads to link $40,000 Steeles Avenue and Weston existing forests and the riparian zone of Road area the Humber River 165 caliper trees TOTAL TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED IN TORONTO 1,200 Plant Material Quantity Caliper Trees and Large 200 Evergreens Deciduous Trees - Bare Root 640 Stock Evergreens - Bare Root Stock 60 Shrubs - Bare Root Stock 300 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $100,000 Sites Description Details 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) Cost Estimate $230,000 G51 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 15,300 coniferous 3 + 0 seedings (machine planted) 1,257 deciduous 2 + -0 seedlings 1,172 coniferous FC /B &B 60 -100 cm April 19, 2005 TOTAL TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED ON TRCA PROPERTY TOTAL COST ESTIMATE 30,662 $468,000 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. RES. #G31/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: BILL 133: SPILLS A bill strengthening spills legislation has been referred to the Provincial Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly David Hutcheon Sharon Bradley WHEREAS spills are a major issue impeding the water quality of the Humber River and its tributaries such as Black and Emery Creeks; WHEREAS the Humber Watershed Alliance is committed to protecting ground and surface water from spills and illegal discharges of hazardous material as stated in Legacy: A Strategy for a Hea /thy Humber; April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G52 WHEREAS the Remedial Action Plan for the Toronto Area of Concern highlights spills prevention and response as a priority action; WHEREAS the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, together with federal, provincial, regional, municipal, and non - government organizations, is currently engaged in a spills management initiative; WHEREAS the prevention of spills is instrumental in meeting the objectives of Ontario's source protection plan; WHEREAS the Province's Bill 133 would strengthen environmental legislation regarding spills; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance send a letter to the Minister of Environment to continue to advocate for a comprehensive program to prevent and manage spills CARRIED BACKGROUND The Remedial Action Plan and Spills The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) works with municipal partners, agency and community -based watershed groups to ensure healthy rivers and shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity, and sustainable communities as a foundation for i mplementing The Living City vision. The TRCA is responsible for planning and delivering programs to meet the objectives of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP)in order to delist the Toronto Area of Concern (Toronto AOC) through an agreement with the Ministry of Environment and Environment Canada (RAP Team). The RAP includes tasks such as raising municipal and public awareness of the priority actions, facilitating exchange of information, coordinating implementation plans, reporting on progress through regional and watershed report cards, and implementing projects in order to reduce the impairment of beneficial uses. Clean Waters, Clear Choices, the Stage 2 report for the Toronto and Region RAP, identifies the "improvement of spills response and prevention" as a priority action under the stormwater criterion. Community -Based Watershed Groups and Spills - The Humber Watershed Alliance Community -based watershed groups (such as the Etobicoke - Mimico Coalition, Humber Alliance, Black Creek Project, Don Council, Highland Creek Stewardship Project, Rouge Park Alliance, and Duffins & Carruthers Creek Watersheds Working Group) are important advocates of healthy river systems. Addressing spills management issues has been pursued in response to concerns raised by watershed groups regarding foreign substances entering watercourses and potentially impacting water quality and aquatic species. Watershed groups have identified spills issues as a priority in their strategies and watershed plans. The Humber Alliance summarized its interest in spills management through Environmental objective 10 (Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber, The Report of the Humber Watershed Task Force) which emphasizes that we must "protect ground and surface water from spills and illegal discharges of hazardous material ". The Humber River and its tributaries such as Black and Emery Creeks, regularly experience spills that degrade water quality, impact fish and benthic communities and some persist in the sediments or are transported to Lake Ontario. G53 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 April 19, 2005 TRCA "s Support and Recommendations for Bill 133 The TRCA sent a letter of general support for Bill 133, under the signature of the Watershed Management Director on January 10, 2005. The letter supported, in principle, the aims of the proposed legislation and discussed concerns and recommendations regarding municipal responsibilities, administrative penalties, the special purpose account, settlements and supplemental environmental projects in lieu of fines, burden of proof and the reverse onus provision, fresh water ecosystem impacts of spills and adverse effects, and a requirement for spill contingency /prevention plans. The letter followed consultations by the MOE NGO's in late December 2004, and also highlighted the RAP Spills Workshop and associated recommendations flowing from the spills management initiative. CURRENT STATUS OF BILL 133 Bill 133 has been referred to the Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly as of April 5, 2005 and is awaiting discussion and a decision on whether or not public hearings and deputations will be held. FURTHER INFORMATION • Industrial Pollution Action Team (IPAT) discussion document prepared for Hon. Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of the Environment - www.ene.gov.on.ca/techdocs/4771e.pdg • Bill 133 - An Act to Amend the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act in respect of Enforcement and Other Matters - www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38-parliament/session 1 /b133.pdf • Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (short description and purpose of the legislation) www.ene.gov.on.ca/envregistry/024040ea.htm • Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly (Committee membership, mailing and contact information, business before the Committee, and Notice of upcoming hearings www.ontla.on.ca /committees /leg - assembly.htm CONTACT INFORMATION Chris Bahaviolos, Senior Policy Analyst, Land Use Policy Branch 135 St. Clair Ave. West, 6th Floor, Toronto, ON M4V 1 P5 Ph: (416)314 -1702 Fax: (416)326 -0461 Douglas Arnott, Clerk, Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly Deborah Adair, Assistant Clerk, Phone: (416)325 -3506 Room 1405, Whitney Block, Queen's Park, Toronto ON M7A 1A2 Email: douglas -arnott@ontla.ola.org April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G54 RES. #G32/05 - SIDEWALK SALT USE Investigation into sidewalk salt use by municipalities. Moved by: Seconded by: David Hutcheon Elaine Heaton THAT the report on the Sidewalk Salt Use be received; AND FURTHER THAT the issue of increased salt use on sidewalks be referred to the Lower Humber Subwatershed Committee for action and new information be brought to the attention of the Humber Watershed Alliance. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #1105 held on January 18, 2005, the following resolutions were passed: THAT The Humber Watershed Alliance ask its watershed municipalities to invest resources to educate the public on ways of reducing and /or eliminating their personal salt use, stressing the fact that road salt is considered a toxic substance under the Canadian Environment Protection Act; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report back to the Humber Watershed Alliance with further information on the use of sidewalk salt by municipalities. A letter to the municipal clerks of the Humber Watershed was sent on February 9, 2005 urging municipalities to make a commitment to public education on salt management issues and include this aspect as a component of their overall Salt Management Plans. TRCA staff investigated the issue of sidewalk salt use within the City of Toronto. City staff feel that their staff is now more educated on optimizing salt use. They reported that, in general, their salt use for roads from 2001 to 2004 is lower than the previous mean from 1986 to 2004. However, it was noted that actual total salt use is still marginally climbing as new roads and streets are still being added to the City's network. Sand mixtures are being used on sidewalks all across the City. This became standardized as part of the amalgamation process. However since sand by itself does not melt snow or ice , but only provides some additional traction, salt is also used in the blend. Thus, salt use has increased somewhat on sidewalks as a result of the substantial number of claims from slip and falls that occur annually. G55 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 April 19, 2005 SECTION II REPORTS - INFORMATION ITEMS BATHURST GLENN GOLF COURSE Please refer to the item titled, Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan, resolution #G25/05 above. RES. #G33/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: FOREST PEST CONTAINMENT Entry requirements for Wood Packaging Materials Produced in all Areas other than the Continental United States David Hutcheon Elaine Heaton THAT the staff report on the entry requirements for wood packaging materials produced in all areas other than the Continental United States in regard to forest pest containment, be received CARRIED BACKGROUND At the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #1/05, held on January 18, 2005, staff was requested to report back with information on monitoring and enforcing the importation of wood products into Canada. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency provides the requirements for the entry, disposal and processing of all wood packaging materials including dunnage, pallets or crating made from non - manufactured wood entering Canada from all areas except the Continental United States. Canada has established bilateral phytosanitary measures with the USA and these measures are considered sufficient protection to Canada. Wood importation requirements are reviewed every five years unless otherwise needed. The next date of review is June 1, 2009. 1. Entry of Treated, Non - Manufactured Wood Packaging Materials All non - manufactured wood packaging materials may enter Canada provided the material has been officially treated as follows: a) Heat Treatment - heated to a minimum internal core temperature of 56 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes. Kiln drying, chemical pressure impregnation, or other treatments may be used as a means of heat treatment provided that the above temperature and time requirements are met. b) Fumigation -wood may be fumigated with methyl bromide at normal atmospheric pressure at varying rates depending on temperature. c) Other Treatment Methods -the CFIA may approve other treatment measures, if it can be proven that such measures are effective in minimizing the risk of quarantine pests associated with April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G56 untreated wood packaging materials. Importers can contact a local office of the CFIA to enquire about the use of other treatments. All costs associated with the verification that an alternative treatment method is effective in precluding pest movement into Canada, must be borne by the importer. Replacement wood used in reconditioned wood packaging materials must be treated prior to export by a facility endorsed by the National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) of the exporting country. The official mark of the facility conducting the treatment of the replacement wood must be affixed to the wood packaging materials. The NPPO of the country from which the wood packaging materials originates must have a certification system in place for the approval and monitoring of facilities producing treated wood packaging materials. This certification system must ensure that the wood packaging materials or wood used in reconditioned wood packaging materials are treated in accordance with one of the methods described above. Facilities must be approved by the NPPO to affix a specified mark to the treated wood packaging materials. The NPPO must arrange to provide to CFIA on a regular basis, an updated list of facilities endorsed by the NPPO. Importers may determine eligible shippers of wood packaging materials by contacting a local office of the CFIA. Until April 1, 2005, the CFIA permitted the entry of wood packaging materials from countries that do not have certification systems in place. The wood packaging materials must have been treated as described above and must have been accompanied by a document officially endorsed by the NPPO of the country producing the wood packaging materials. The document must identify the treatment that has been applied to the wood packaging materials, the date treatment was applied, the signature and date of the certifying official of the NPPO and the nature of the product accompanying the wood packaging materials. Arrangements regarding the types of documents to be used and the type of endorsements to be applied must be made available to the CFIA prior to any wood packaging materials certified in this manner entering Canada. 2. _Inspection Requirements CFIA inspection staff inspects imports containing wood packaging materials at a rate specified within area operational work plans. Inspectors verify that wood packaging materials are marked appropriately or accompanied by appropriate certification documents and that the wood packaging material does not contain any pests or signs of living pests. 3. Non - Compliance Any regulated material found to be in non - compliance with the import requirements specified above may be ordered removed from Canada. 4. Enforcement during a Phase -in Period Canada is harmonizing import legislation with other countries of the North American continent to ensure that trade disruption is minimized. As such, until April 1, 2005, a CFIA inspector may have permitted the entry of non - compliant wood packaging that has been inspected and found free of pests and diseases and /or signs of pests and diseases. G57 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 April 19, 2005 During this transition period, should signs of pests or symptoms of disease be found, non- compliant wood packaging materials may bepermitted to be moved to a facility that safely disposes or processes the wood packaging materials in accordance with the conditions described below. The CFIA must determine that this movement of non - compliant wood packaging materials is both practically feasible and does not constitute a biological risk to introducing a pest to Canada. Any costs incurred in the disposition of non - compliant wood packaging materials are the responsibility of the person or entity in care and control of the non - compliant wood packaging materials at the time of entry to Canada. Until April 1, 2005, to ensure that pests associated with untreated ship borne dunnage are controlled during the discharge of dunnage at Canadian port areas, all non - compliant loose wood dunnage must be held at the port area in a closed container or in closed disposal bin until inspected by CFIA. Alternatively, the CFIA may permit non - compliance dunnage to enter and be moved to a facility that safely disposes or processes the wood packaging materials. The port area must obtain a movement certificate that permits the movement of the dunnage to a CFIA approved disposal or processing facility. The disposal or processing facility must have completed an "Application for Participation in the Non - Compliant Wood Packaging Materials Disposal or Processing Program" and this application must have been approved by an inspector of the CFIA prior to the non- compliant wood packaging materials being granted entry to Canada. Port facilities and ship's agents unable to comply with these requirements must ensure that non - compliant loose wood dunnage is not discharged. Failure to comply with the requirements may result in stringent enforcement measures being applied against port facilities or ship's agents. Any movement of non - compliant wood packaging materials must be authorized by the CFIA on movement certificates issued to the individual having care and control of the non- compliant item. Facilities may be permitted to move multiple shipments of non - compliant wood packaging materials on a master movement certificate issued to the facility. Movement certificates shall specify the specific conditions by which the wood packaging materials may be moved. 5. Enforcement following the Phase -in Period After April 1, 2005, any non - compliant wood packaging materials (including loose wood dunnage) entering Canada may be ordered removed from Canada. Permitting the entry of non - compliant wood packaging results in increased risks of pest establishment in Canada and increased uses of pesticide treatments including methyl bromide to remove associated pests. Canada is a signatory to the Montreal Protocol and is taking steps to reduce its overall use of methyl bromide. Costs incurred in returning the wood packaging materials to origin are the responsibility of the person or entity in care and control of the non - compliant wood packaging materials at the time of entry to Canada (including port or berthing facilities receiving untreated dunnage). April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G58 6. Methods for the Disposal, Treatment or Processing of Non - Compliant Wood Packaging (a) CFIA may permit the movement, disposal or processing of non - compliant wood packaging materials provided that facilities capable of meeting the standards prescribed here exist to conduct the disposal or processing. All costs incurred in the certification, inspection, monitoring, transport, disposal and /or processing of wood packaging materials must be absorbed by the person in care and control of the wood packaging materials at the time of entry into Canada. The material must be disposed of or processed in a manner that prevents the entry or introduction of pests into Canada. The following methods may be used to dispose or process non - compliance wood packaging materials: - incineration; - deep burial to a depth of no less than three metres that will not be disturbed (non- compliant wood packaging materials must be immediately covered with soil /dirt); - treatment by heat treatment, kiln drying or fumigation; - processing to produce wood by- products such as wood dust, wood mulch, wood fuel, paper mulch, recycled fibre wood and oriented strand board; -other methods as approved by CFIA. (b) Storage of Non - Compliant Wood Packaging Materials While Awaiting Disposal or Processing - Any non - compliant wood packaging materials must be at all times stored in a closed container that is effective in ensuring that pests may not be allowed to enter the environment. Storage areas of non - compliant wood packaging materials must be isolated from other domestic wood commodities, material that has already undergone processing and adjacent forested lands by no less than 30 metres. (c) Transpgrtation of Non - Compliant Wood Packaging Materials from Point of Entry to the Site of Disposal or Processing - Regardless of the process by which non - compliant wood packaging materials is to be handled, the material may only be moved by a transporter that is approved by CFIA, as specified on a Movement Certificate issued to the person in care and control of the non - compliant wood packaging materials. The wood must be moved in a closed container directly to the site at which disposal or processing is going to take place. (d) Specific Requirements for Disposal or Processing Facilities storing, disposing or processing non - compliant wood packaging materials must comply with the following specifications: -the designated facility undertaking disposal or processing must have completed an Application for Participation. This application, if accepted by CFIA, shall be signed by an inspector confirming the facility's participation in the program. Until the facility is approved, non - compliant imported wood packaging materials may not be moved to the facility; - designated facilities must undertake all disposal or processing in a Canadian establishment designated on the Application for Participation; - designated facilities must afford CFIA staff full cooperation for the purposes of carrying out audits, inspection, sample collection, product inspections, interviews of staff etc. G59 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 April 19, 2005 -a designated facility must have, in its employ, sufficient competent staff to undertake the requirements specified here and in the Application for Participation; -CFIA will only permit deep burial, if the non - compliant wood packaging materials are buried at a minimum depth of 3 metres below the surface of the ground. The wood must be buried at a site where the re- excavation of the material will not occur and where any covenants required on land title to ensure that re- excavation does not occur can be completed. Wood must not be left exposed within the burial pit. -any wood packaging materials that are not processed, including secondary products produced during processing, must be disposed of in the manner approved by a CFIA inspector as specified in the Application for Participation in the Non - compliant Wood packaging materials Disposal and Processing Program; -the period in which disposal or processing may be carried out may be extended by a CFIA inspector, provided the designated facility has additional mechanisms to mitigate the distribution of pests or there exists environmental conditions which preclude the distribution of pests (eg. periods may be extended during the winter in some parts of the country). A CFIA inspector will provide, in writing, the period by which disposal or processing must be completed; - designated facilities must immediately notify a local CFIA office upon the detection of any unusual pests on non - compliant wood packaging materials at the disposal or processing facility; -the designated facility must maintain records pertaining to the handling, storage, processing or disposal of non - compliant wood packaging for a minimum of two years. RES. #G34/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: HUMBERWOOD AREA UPDATE Update on the current activities and projects in the Humberwood Area John Willetts Bill Buchan THAT the staff report on current activities and projects in the Humberwood Area be received. AMENDMENT RES. #G35/05 Moved by: Seconded by: John Willetts Bill Buchan THAT the importance of valley corridors for deer be included in information signs. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G60 BACKGROUND 2003/2004 was the first phase of a three -year plan to implement the Humberwood Bird Habitat Enhancement Project. The project involves restoring a large parcel of land in the west Humber River valley, with an aim to providing suitable natural habitats which will attract a diverse community of birds throughout the year. It is the first of a multi -site initiative by the City of Toronto and its partners that will enhance bird habitat at strategic locations across the City while providing exceptional interpretation opportunities for park users about this important urban wildlife value. The Humberwood site is located in the area of the West Humber Valley which runs between Humberwood Blvd and Finch Ave. The site is flanked by the Claireville Conservation Area to the north, the Humber Arboretum to the south, and residential neighbourhoods to the east and west. The site was originally farmland, and now consists largely of floodplain dominated by old field vegetation communities and denuded riparian zone, with the West Humber River running through its centre. The West Humber trail is a popular recreation trail, and the valley is a haven for a variety of resident and migratory wildlife species, particularly birds. A naturalization master plan was developed for the site in the winter of 2002, which recommends a variety of habitat enhancement activities, including reforestation, creation of a wetland complex, and restoration of the riparian zone. A second plan (the "West Humber Bird Habitat Restoration Project" report) was subsequently developed, which is directed specifically at enhancement of bird habitat and outreach to park users, and offers a detailed planting and interpretive plan for the site. Activities to date have included: tree and shrub plantings with volunteers (well over 1,000 trees and shrubs and several thousand herbaceous plants), a large contractor tree and shrub planting along the north side of the site (approximately 1,500 trees and shrubs), archaeological surveys and report, and development of temporary signage. Construction was completed in the summer of 2004 and included shallow excavation of a large area through the middle of the site to create wet meadow and ephemeral pond habitats. Snake hybernacula and snags were also installed on the site. Work in 2005 will include creation and installation of habitat structures (snags, basking areas, etc) including several large woven nests which will be used to interpret the importance of the area for resident and migratory birds. Improvements to the trail and development and installation of an extensive interpretive signage program are also anticipated. A large community planting event is scheduled for Saturday, April 30 at 10:00 am as part of the City- wide "Trees Across Toronto" event. G61 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2105 April 19, 2005 RES. #G36/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: 2005 HABITAT REGENERATION PROJECTS IN THE HUMBER WATERSHED The capital budgets have been approved for 2005. David Hutcheon Elaine Heaton THAT the report on the 2005 Habitat Regeneration Projects in the Humber watershed be received CARRIED BACKGROUND The Regions of York and Peel, and the City of Toronto have allocated funding to support the goals of the Humber Watershed Strategy and the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The following is a list of approved projects in the Humber Watershed for 2005. Project Description Municipality 2005 Allocation William Granger Greenway wetland habitat enhancements, riparian plantings, natural environment interpretive signs, community outreach and post project monitoring York Region $10,000 Lake Wilcox Habitat Improvement develop shoreline naturalization plan and implement pilot projects with the assistance of the Humber Watershed Alliance members, educational signage, community information sessions York Region . $20,000 East Humber Riparian Planting riparian planting York Region $5,000 Eaton Hall Wetland/ Seneca College restore 2 of 9 targeted wetland projects, reforest 2.3 ha, increase riparian cover, create critical habitat features York Region $15,000 Cold Creek Management Plan Implementation wetland enhancement, forest and riparian planting, community environmental day, boardwalk repairs in ESA York Region $15,000 Project Description Municipality 2005 Allocation Nashville Natural Area Enhancement inventory and prepare forest management prescriptions, reforestation York Region $10,000 April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G62 Woodbridge Expansion Area CAS forest and riparian planting York Region $25,000 Claireville Habitat Restoration/ Indian Line Campground Naturalization/ Claireville Stewardship Wetland enhancement, forest management, riparian planting and reforestation, critical habitat features installation (nesting structures), community stewardship initiatives, shoreline enhancement cover along reservoir, aquatic habitat Region of Peel $75,000 Bolton Community Action Site tree and shrub planting Region of Peel $10,000 Caledon East Community Action Site riparian planting and in stream habitat improvements Region of Peel $20,000 Centerville Creek - Taylor Pond prepare design to improve water quality and reduce the thermal impacts of the pond Region of Peel $30,000 Centreville Creek Stewardship naturalizations, habitat improvements, private land resource management and outreach /education programs Region of Peel $35,000 Palgrave Fishway and Riparian Planting riparian planting and fishway enhancements Region of Peel $5,000 Eglington Flats Pond Restoration habitat enhancements, educational signage City of Toronto $20,000 Humber Community Environmental Projects Downsview Earth Day planting, Humber savannah rehabilitation, Black Creek riparian planting and restoration City of Toronto $20,000 Black Creek Mill Pond dredging of pond and habitat enhancements City of Toronto $20,000 G63 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2105 April 19. 2005 Project Description Municipality 2005 Allocation Humber Habitat Implementation Plan creation of: wetland cover, forest cover, riparian cover, and critical habitat features City of Toronto York Region Region of Peel $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 TOTAL $435,000 Funding from additional sources for these projects is anticipated to total over $410,000. Agencies such as Trillium, Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, Trout Unlimited, TD Friends of the Environment, Environment Canada, Ministry of Natural Resource, Ministry of the Environment and others have contributed significant funding and resources to many of the above listed projects. RES. #G37/05 - SPRING EVENTS: 2005 Schedule of spring events in the Humber watershed. Moved by: Seconded by: David Hutcheon Elaine Heaton THAT the following schedule of spring events be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND Each year, individuals, groups and agencies are encouraged to host and /or participate in events to celebrate the Humber watershed. The following spring events are scheduled. Enjoy! Lower Black Creek and Lavender Creek: Tree Planting and Clean -Up with Archbishop Romero C.S.S. Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 For More Info: Steven Joudrey, Black Creek Project, 416 - 661 -6600 x5364, sjoudrey @trca.on.ca Black Creek Parklands: Clean -up with Shoreham Public School Date: Friday, April 22, 2005 For More Info: Steven Joudrey, Black Creek Project, 416 - 661 -6600 x5364, sjoudrey @trca.on.ca Claireville Tree Planting Event Date: Saturday, April 23, 2005 Time: 10:00 AM - noon Where to meet: At the east entrance to Claireville off of Hwy 50 north of Hwy 407 For More Info: Environmental Stewardship Technician 416- 661 -6600 x5639 Councillor Suzan Hall's Community Clean Up Day Date: Saturday, April 23, 2005 Time: 9:OOAM - 12:00 noon Where to meet: Beaumonde Heights Park (On Celandine Road off Taysham Crescent) For More Info: Councillor Hall's Office 416- 392 -4255 Mayor David Miller will be kicking off this event at 9:00 AM. Garbage bags and gloves will be provided. Hope to see you there rain or shine. April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G64 Chalkfarm Park: Tree Planting with the Hispanic Development Council & Doorsteps Neighbourhood Services Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 For More Info: Steven Joudrey, Black Creek Project, 416- 661 -6600 x5364, sjoudrey @trca.on.ca Smyth Park: Tree Planting with Rockcliffe Middle School Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 For More Info: Steven Joudrey, Black Creek Project, 416 - 661 -6600 x5364, sjoudrey @trca.on.ca Palgrave Tree Planting Event Date: Saturday, April 30, 2005 Time: 10:00 AM Where to meet: Palgrave Mill Pond Parking Lot on the east side of Hwy 50 For More Info: Vince D'Elia 416 -661 -6600 x 5646, vdelia @trca.on.ca Trees Across Toronto - Humberwood Parkland Tree Planting Event Date: Saturday, April 30, 2005 Time: 10:00 AM - 12:00 noon Where to meet: Near Finch Avenue and Highway 427 For More Info: contact the City of Toronto 416 - 392 -LEAF (5323) or visit www.toronto.ca/tapp Black Creek Urban Farm Grand Opening Date: Monday, May 2, 2005 Time: TBA Where to meet: At the Farm, on the east side of Jane St. Between Shoreham Rd and Steeles Ave. W. For More Info: Karen Sun, 416 - 661 -6600 x5291, ksun @trca.on.ca Black Creek Urban Farm Community Event Date: Saturday, May 7, 2005 Time: TBA Where to meet: At the Farm, on the east side of Jane St. Between Shoreham Rd and Steeles Ave. W. For More Info: Karen Sun, 416 - 661 -6600 x5291, ksun @trca.on.ca Cruickshank Park & the Humber River: Clean -up Date: Sunday, May 8, 2005 Time: 11:00 AM - 1:30 PM Where to meet: Bottom of park stairs at Church St. and Weston Rd. Parking lot access off Lawrence Ave. at Little Ave. For More Info: Weston Ratepayers & Residents Association 416- 248 -8041, wrra weston @hotmail.com This event is hosted by the Weston Ratepayers & Residents Association. The clean -up will be followed by a Bar -B -Q for all volunteers. G65 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2105 April 19, 2005 Healthy Walk along the "Toronto Carrying Place" Date: Sunday, May 8th, 2005 Time: 2 p.m. Where to meet: Meet at Jane and Woolner finish at Jane and Alliance at Tim Hortons. For More Info: www.lostrivers.ca/WalkSchd.htm The Toronto Carrying Place Trail was a native trade route for millenia. Also included are the Foxwell allotment gardens, a remnant of the Oak Savannah and the successful TRCA wetland restorations and waterbirds in Smythe Park. Leaders Dagmar Baur, Beatiz Alas, Peter Heinz, Steven Joudry and Madeleine McDowell. Partners York Community Services, and Hispanic Development Council and TRCA.Moderate effort to promote well being. Alex Marchetti Park: Clean -Up with Don Bosco C.S.S. Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2005 For More Info: Karen Sun, 416- 661 -6600 x5291, ksun @trca.on.ca Centerville Creek Community Spring Cleanup Date: Saturday, May 14, 2005 Time: 10:00 AM Where to meet: Castlederg Road and Humber River For More Info: Vince D'Elia 416 - 661 -6600 x 5646, vdelia @trca.on.ca Cold Creek Tree Planting Event Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Activities include TRCA seminars and trail hiking, tree planting, dog retriever demos, building bird boxes, BBQ. Eglinton Flats Tree Planting Event Date: Saturday, May 15, 2005 Time: 10:00 AM - 12:00 noon Where to meet: Eglinton Flats Park (South East Corner of Jane and Eglinton) For More Info: contact the City of Toronto 416 - 392 -LEAF (5323) Agnes Dunbar Moodie Fitzgibbon's Wildflowers Walk Date: Sunday, May 15, 2005 Time: 1:00 p.m. Where to meet: Meet at the historic Lambton House, 4066 Old Dundas street West, on the east bank of the Humber River. For More Info: www.lostrivers.ca/WalkSchd.htm This walk is based on the floral information in illustrations for her 1868 book "Canadian Wildflowers." We will pass through some of the same spots frequented by the illustrator a century and a half ago. Moderately easy. Leader Madeleine McDowell. Chalkfarm Park: Tree Planting with the Hispanic Development Council & Doorsteps Neighbourhood Services Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 For More Info: Steven Joudrey, Black Creek Project, 416- 661 -6600 x5364, sjoudrey @trca.on.ca April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G66 Black Creek Parklands: Tree Planting with Shoreham Public School Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 For More Info: Steven Joudrey, Black Creek Project, 416 - 661 -6600 x5364, sjoudrey @trca.on.ca Chaminade College School's Annual Rubber Duck Race Date: Saturday, May 28, 2005 Time: 10:00 Where to meet: Chaminade College School, 490 Queen's Drive, North York For More Info: Bob Giza, 416 - 393 -5509 x80876 This event will include a presentation on the school's fish hatchery, an electrofishing demonstration by the Ministry of Natural Resources, a rubber duck race, a plant sale, and the release of one year old fish raised at the school's fish hatchery. Lambton House - Doors Open Toronto Date: Saturday, May 28 and Sunday, May 29, 2005 Time: 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. Where: Lambton House For More Info: Contact Lambton House Humber River Weston Walk Date: Saturday, June 4, 2005 Time: 2 p.m. Where to meet: Start: Entrance to Cruickshank Park, NW corner of Church St. and Weston Rd., Weston; End: Weston Lions Arena, 1 block SW of Weston Rd. and Lawrence Ave. For More Info: www.lostrivers.ca/WalkSchd.htm Difficulty mostly level on paths, but 2 dozen stairs down at start. Leader Ed Freeman. Canadian Rivers Day Date: Sunday, June 12, 2005 Time: To be confirmed Activity: "Ride the River" cycling event from Humberwood Community Centre to Lake Ontario. "Gathering at the Mouth of the Humber ". Picnic at Etienne Brule Park and a guided walk to Lambton House For More Info: Karen Sun, 416- 661 -6600 x5291, ksun @trca.on.ca Lower Humber River Canoe Tour Date: Sunday, June 26, 2005 Time: 10:00 am - noon Where to meet: "Rousseau Site" at the parking lot next to the PetroCanada Station at the South Kingsway and The Queensway For More Info: Toronto Bay Initiative 416 - 598 -2277, info @torontobay.net Cost: Toronto Bay Initiative members $15, Non - members $25. Explore the Lower Humber River and Marshes in a 26 -foot North canoe with noted tour guide, Madeleine McDowell. We'll travel back to the time of the voyageurs, when the historic Humber River was the major route for trappers and traders travelling from Lake Ontario to Lake Huron. Meet. In partnership with the City of Toronto Inner City Outtripping Centre. No experience necessary. Space is limited and pre- registration is mandatory. G67 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 April 19, 2005 A "Healthy Walk" to Rockcliffe Greenhouses and Community Gardens. Date: Saturday, June 25, 2005 Time: 2 p.m. Where to meet: Meet at Gunns Road and Weston Road, one bus stop north of St. Clair, NW corner. For More Info: www.lostrivers.ca/WalkSchd.htm Walk the rich bottomlands of Black Creek, past two TRCA wildflower restorations and site of market gardens of 100 years ago. Visit Rockcliffe where vegetables are grown organically and supplied to senior's homes and foodbanks in the area and urban agriculture is renewed. Leaders Dagmar Baur, Beatiz Alas, Steven Joudrey and Peter Heinz. Partners York Community Services, Hispanic Development Council and TRCA. Moderate effort to promote well being. Healthy Walk along the "Hydro Corridor" Date: Sunday, July 10, 2005 Time: 2 p.m. Where to meet: Meet at Jane and Woolner For More Info: www.lostrivers.ca /WalkSchd.htm checking early rail lines community gardens, to Lambton Park. Leaders Dagmar Baur, Beatiz Alas, Steven Joudrey and Peter Heinz. Partners York Community Services, and Hispanic Development Council and TRCA. Moderate effort to promote well being. RES. #G38/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the meetings for the following working groups are provided for information. Luciano Martin John Willetts THAT the following minutes be received: • Bolton CAS Steering Committee #1/05 (Jan. 20th ) • Cold Creek Stewardship Committee #1/05, #2/05 and #3/05 (Jan. 3`d, Feb. 2' and Mar. 2) • East Humber Subwatershed Committee #1/05 and #2/05 (Feb. 16th and Mar. 16th ) • Lower Humber Subwatershed Committee #1/05 and #2/05 (Feb. 15th and Mar. 15th) • West Humber Subwatershed Committee #1/05 and #2/05 (Feb. 8th and Mar. 8th ) • Humber Report Card Subcommittee #1/05 CARRIED April 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 G68 NEW BUSINESS Boyd Conservation Area Members extended their congratulations to the Friends of Boyd group for their dedication and effort in getting Boyd into the Greenbelt Plan. Cold Creek Day Members are invited to attend the Cold Creek Day on May 15, 2005. This is the first public opening day in ten years. Woodbridge Expansion Area Event D. Schulte invited members to a spring planting event at the Woodbridge Expansion Area on April 26, 2005. 225 children from local schools are expected to participate. Pine Valley Extension Pine Valley is now included in the Greenbelt Plan. MOE is reviewing the terms of reference for the EA to investigate suitable road alternatives. Vaughan Bicycle Master Plan A public meeting is scheduled for April 26, 2005 between 3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m., at the City of Vaughan Offices. Interested Alliance members are invited to attend to provide support in permitting trails in Vaughan. Oak Ridges Friends of the Environment Event K. Mabley invited Alliance members to a spring event on May 14, 2005 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at King Road and Yonge Street. G69 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #2/05 April 19, 2005 Hwy. 427 Environmental Assessment N. Stewart reported that the above EA has been revised. The revisions are such that this area will not be included in the greenbelt. N. Stewart will provide additional information to L. Lappano who will ensure that the Alliance members receive it. Humber Anniversary Reunion In an effort to recognize and celebrate Tong -term Humber volunteers and the many accomplishments that have been achieved over the past ten years, a social event is being planned for September 27, 2005 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., at Black Creek Pioneer Village. Additional details will be provided as the date approaches. DOOR PRIZE As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Humber Alliance, G. Wilkins advised that a door prize will be drawn at the end of each Alliance meeting. The door prize available at this meeting was a solar powered radio and flash light. The winning ticket belonged to Arthur Mittermaier. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:15 p.m., April 19, 2005. Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer /L. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MINUTES OF MEETING #3/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #17/05 SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #3/05 July 19, 2005 Page G70 The Humber Watershed Alliance met at Humber College, North Campus on Tuesday, July 19, 2005. Lois Griffin, Chair of the Humber Alliance, called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m. PRESENT Sandy Agnew Member Bill Boston Member Jim Bradley Member Sharon Bradley Member lain Craig Member Dianne Douglas Member Yvette Fournier Member Lois Griffin Chair Alyson Hazlett Member Jeff Hladun Alternate Steve Joudrey Alternate Luciano Martin Member Madeleine McDowell Member Hugh Mitchell Member Arthur Mittermaier Member Miriam Mittermaier Member Joanne Nonnekes Member Carol Ray Member Lynda Rogers Member Deb Schulte Member Lynn Short Member Vito Spatafora Member Nancy Stewart Member Anyika Tafari Member Peter Telford Member John Willetts Member Bill Wilson Member GUESTS Mohamed Ali Baki Aneela Bisram Dave Darker Ann Marie Farrugia - Uhalde Humber College, Civil Engineering Student York University, Faculty of of Environmental Studies West Humber Naturalists Town of Richmond Hill G71 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 July 19, 2005 Richard Hunt Bolton Community Action Site Stewardship Group Richard Piekutowski Friends of Claireville STAFF Suzanne Bevan Plans Analyst, EA's Lia Lappano Administrative Assistant Sharon Lingertat Planning Technician, EA's Arlita McNamee Conservation Foundation Karen Sun Humber Watershed Resources Planner Lisa Turnbull Humber Watershed Project Manager Karen Widmer Kortright Centre Gary Wilkins Humber Watershed Specialist Beth Williston Policy and Planning Specialist NOTE OF THANKS Special thanks were extended to Carol Ray who graciously provided the venue for the meeting and led a brief tour of the Humber Arboretum. RES. #G39/05 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Madeleine McDowell Luciano Martin THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/05, held on April 19, 2005, be approved CARRIED BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Oakdale Golf and Country Club S. Agnew advised that he made a deputation on the Oakdale Golf and Country Club proposal to the Authority's Watershed Management Advisory Board recently. A motion was passed directing staff to negotiate an agreement and that members of the Humber Watershed Alliance be invited to participate in future discussions, when appropriate, regarding terms and conditions of the proposed easement. S. Agnew will keep members of the Humber Watershed Alliance appraised of the situation. July 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 G72 CORRESPONDENCE (a) Letter from Lois Griffin to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, dated May 16, 2005, re: Comments in support of Bill 133 (b) Letter from Lois Griffin to the City of Vaughan, dated May 25, 2005, re: City of Vaughan Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Study (c) Letter to the Minister of the Environment, dated July 13, 2005, re: Permit to Take Water RES. #G40/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Madeleine McDowell Vito Spatafora THAT the above correspondence be received CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) Hwy. 427 Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment B. Williston, TRCA's Watershed Policy and Planning Specialist, gave a presentation on the Hwy. 427 Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment. Humber Watershed Alliance members expressed the desire to be flexible with respect to routing proposed in the lower portion of the study area in question. However, as part of TRCA's review, staff must look at the implications further north for the various alignment options. Members urged staff to take an aggressive look and influence decisions now even though the review has not reached the design stage. All of TRCA's information such as the Natural Heritage System should be made available to influence route alignments. B. Williston to report back to the Humber Watershed Alliance when the alignments have been received and the preferred alignment identified. In addition, the issue of public transportation will be addressed in the assessment so rail and bus transportation will be considered as well when considering the alignments. G73 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 July 19, 2005 SECTION I REPORTS - ACTION ITEMS RES. #G41/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: HUMBER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATES To validate the Humber challenge, guiding principles, and objectives identified in Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber. Bill Wilson Jim Bradley THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance reaffirm the Humber Challenge, Guiding Principles and Objectives as set out in Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber ,and that they be included in the next generation of the Humber Watershed Management Plan. AMENDMENT RES. #G42/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Bill Wilson Jim Bradley THAT Objective #5 be revised to include "sustainable" stormwater management to protect people and the health of streams and rivers; AND FURTHER THAT Objective #19 be revised to include pedestrian only trails. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2004, work began to update the Humber watershed management plan titled Legacy :A Strategy for a Hea /thy Humberto fulfill the requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Recognizing the significant watershed planning work that has already been completed for the Humber River, this study will focus on filling information gaps and providing further direction with regard to implementation of the recommendations of the watershed strategy, Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber (1997). State -of- the -art approaches to integrated watershed management will be applied and the outcome presented in a concise, user - friendly, and easy to understand document that provides a watershed context for available information. The watershed planning study is following a process that is divided into three main phases: Phase 1- Phase 2- Phase 3- Scoping and characterization (February, 2004 to August, 2005) Analysis and evaluation of alternatives (September, 2005 to December, 2005) Developing the watershed plan (January, 2006 to June, 2006) Individual component studies to fill information gaps and develop or refine tools for analyzing and evaluating alternative future scenarios will cover a comprehensive range of watershed management issues and will evaluate the interdependencies and interactions among natural system features and functions and human activities. Reports will address the following topics in a level of detail appropriate at the watershed scale: July 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 G74 Climate Terrestrial system Air quality Land resource use Groundwater quality and quantity Water resource use Surface water quality Public use Surface water quantity Cultural ecology Fluvial geomorphology Human health Aquatic system Economy More detail may be provided for subwatersheds on the Oak Ridges Moraine to the extent necessary to fulfill ORMCP requirements. In an effort to make full use of the wealth of available information and avoid duplicating efforts that went into Legacy. A Strategy for a Hea /thy Humber, it is recommended that the Humber Challenge, Guiding Principles and Objectives as set out in Legacybe utilized in the next generation of the Humber watershed management plan. The Humber Challenge Our challenge is to protect and enhance the Humber River watershed as a vital and healthy ecosystem where we live, work, and play in harmony with the natural environment. Guiding Principles To achieve a healthy watershed, we should: • increase awareness of the watershed's resources; • protect the Humber River watershed as a continuing source of clean water; • celebrate, regenerate, and preserve our natural, historical, and cultural heritage; • increase community stewardship and take individual responsibility for the health of the Humber River; • establish linkages and promote partnerships among communities; • build a strong watershed economy based on ecological health; and • promote the watershed as a destination of choice for recreation and tourism. Objectives for the Humber Watershed Objective 1: Protect the form and function of landforms such as the Niagara Escarpment, the _Oak Ridges Moraine, and the South Slope. Objective 2: Protect the form and function of the Humber River and its tributaries. Objective 3: Use ground and surface water at sustainable rates. Objective 4: Protect groundwater sources. Objective 5: Manage stormwater to protect people and the health of streams and rivers. Objective 6: Prevent groundwater contamination. G75 Objective 7: Objective 8: Objective 9: Objective 10: Objective 11: Objective 12: Objective 13: Objective 14: Objective 15: Objective 16: Objective 17: Objective 18: Objective 19: Objective 20: Objective 21: Objective 22: Objective 23: Objective 24: Objective 25: Objective 26: Objective 27: Objective 28: HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 July 19, 2005 Reduce the amount of sediment that enters surface waters. Reduce the amount of nutrients and bacteria that enter ground and surface waters. Reduce the amount of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, oil, grease, metals, road salt, and other contaminants that enter ground and surface waters. Protect ground and surface waters from spills and illegal discharges of hazardous materials. Reduce air pollution in the Humber watershed. V Protect and regenerate aquatic habitats. Protect and regenerate terrestrial habitats. Identify and document cultural and heritage resources. Protect and conserve heritage resources. Celebrate the diverse culture and heritage resources of the Humber watershed. Identify and promote the economic value of cultural and heritage resources. Create an accessible and connected greenspace system. Develop a system of inter - regional trails through the greenspace system. Identify and develop local and regional -scale recreation, education, and tourism destinations within the greenspace system. Balance economic development with protection of the environment and society. Incorporate greenspace in all urban and rural developments. Protect the integrity and the economic viability of agricultural areas. Conserve the natural resources of the Humber watershed. Create a Humber Watershed Alliance to facilitate implementation of the Humber watershed strategy. Cultivate partnerships between individuals, community groups, businesses, and public agencies in order to implement the Humber watershed strategy. Market the Humber watershed as a destination of choice for healthy living, working, and playing. Develop educational programs that focus on the Humber watershed. July 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 G76 Objective 29: Fund the implementation of the Humber watershed strategy through existing and new sources. Objective 30: Develop the Humber Report Card to monitor the health of the ecosystem. RES. #G43/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: WORKPLANS FOR THE WEST HUMBER SUBCOMMITTEE AND REPORT CARD WORKING GROUP Development of a workplan for the Humber Watershed Alliance. Dianne Douglas Carol Ray THAT the 2004 -2006 workplans for the West Humber Subcommittee and the Report Card Working Group, dated May 10/05, be endorsed CARRIED BACKGROUND The Humber Watershed Alliance Terms of Reference requires that the Alliance prepare annual work plans and that these work plans be approved by the Authority. The indicators considered of highest priority for the Humber Report Card Working Group have been used as a framework for the action in the workplans. These action categories include: • Advocacy; • Data Collection (monitoring); • Stewardship (habitat improvement, planting); • Fundraising; • Outreach Education (awareness); • Business Outreach; Events; Promotion (displays, flyers); Trails; Heritage; The Humber Watershed Alliance has three subwatershed committees, and one working group. Each of the subwatershed committees and the working group have developed a list of priority actions for their term. In designing the priority list of actions, each subcommittees goal is to undertake actions that will help achieve the objectives of Legacy: A Strategy fora Healthy Humber. G77 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 July 19, 2005 RES. #G44/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: OAK RIDGES CORRIDOR PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN Opportunity to provide comments on the draft Vision, Goals, and Objectives of the Oak Ridges Corridor Park, the spine trail and the Bathurst Glen Golf Course to the Oak Ridges Corridor Park Advisory Committee. Nancy Stewart Sharon Bradley THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance endorse the draft Vision, Goals and Objectives of the Oak Ridges Corridor Park, provided in the public meeting workbook dated July 691, 2005, produced by AMEC Earth and Environmental on behalf of Toronto and Region Conservation; AND FURTHER THAT comments provided by the Humber Watershed Alliance be submitted to Fiona Christiansen of AMEC Earth and Environmental (fiona.christiansen(amec.com) by July 22, 2005. AMENDMENT RES. #G45/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Joanne Nonnekes Madeleine McDowell THAT a wilderness philosophy reflecting the Authority's Natural Heritage System Strategy be adopted. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND The Oak Ridges Corridor Park is an area approximately 400 ha (1,000 acres) generally located between Bathurst Street and Bayview Avenue, north of Jefferson Sideroad, and south of the community of Oak Ridges, in the Town of Richmond Hill. The Province of Ontario has requested that TRCA act as their agent in the development of a management plan for the property, recognizing TRCA's proven ability to work with public and private stakeholders to achieve ecological restoration objectives within its area of jurisdiction. On May 27, 2005, the Authority authorized staff to hire AMEC Earth and Environmental to work with TRCA and its Advisory Committee to prepare a management plan for the Oak Ridges Corridor Park. On June 16, 2005, the first Advisory Committee meeting was held. The members of the Committee include: July 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 G78 Michael Scott, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation Kim Gavine, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation Harold Sellers, Oak Ridges Trail Association Barb Jeffrey, Region of York Ian Buchanan, Region of York Councillor Dave Barrow, Richmond Hill Councillor Vito Spatafora, Richmond Hill Audrey Hollasch, Richmond Hill Bryan Kozman, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Wayne Williams, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Mark Christie, Ontario Realty Corporation Debbe Crandall, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Sharon Bradley, Richmond Hill Naturalists Sonia Dong, Citizens Environment Watch Tom Farrell, Ministry of Natural Resources Randy Peddigrew, Mattamy Development Corporation Bruce Fischer, Metrus Development Inc. Mark Taylor, AMEC Earth and Environmental Fiona Christiansen, AMEC Earth and Environmental Suzanne Barrett, AMEC Earth and Environmental Peter Thoma, Urban Metrics Inc. Ian Dance, ENVision - The Hough Group Adele Freeman, TRCA Gary Wilkins, TRCA Jim Dillane, TRCA Ron Dewell, TRCA Carolyn Woodland, TRCA Russel White, TRCA Deb Martin Downs, TRCA Nick Saccone, TRCA Mark Lowe, TRCA Mike Bender, TRCA Derek Edwards, TRCA Your Humber Watershed Alliance representative is Royce Fu. On July 6, 2005, the first of three public meetings was held to obtain input on the vision, goals and objectives of the Oak Ridges Corridor Park, the spine trail and the Bathurst Glen Golf Course. To guide the discussion, the attached workbook was distributed. Approximately 70 people attended the public meeting. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Compile public comments by July 22, 2005; • Discuss and finalize a next to final vision, goals and objectives at the next Advisory Committee meeting on August 8, 2005; • Finalize spine trail alignment by early August; • Complete preliminary analysis of the Bathurst Glen Golf Course by early August; • Complete the management plan between August to December, 2005. G79 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 July 19, 2005 RES. #G46/05 - NEIGHBOURHOOD FACT SHEET PROJECT Development of neighbourhood fact sheets. Moved by: Seconded by: John Willetts Jim Bradley THAT the staff report on the neighbourhood fact sheet project be received; AND FURTHER THAT development of area specific neighbourhood fact sheets be referred to all Humber Watershed Alliance subcommittees for consideration as part of their work plans CARRIED BACKGROUND A group of interested members of the East Humber Subcommittee met on June 8th, 2005 to discuss the creation of neighbourhood fact sheets. At the meeting on June 8th, the purpose and objectives of the neighbourhood fact sheet was discussed. Examples of neighborhood guides from West Side Waterloo and Whitby Shores were reviewed for reference. The group felt that it was imperative that there be as little duplication of current literature already in circulation for the Humber Watershed as possible. In order to ensure this, it was decided that a folder approach to the project would work best. The folder would have general information that was relevant to the entire watershed on its cover and inside. Inside the folder flaps, the specific fact sheet for the neighbourhood would be added along with any other existing pamphlets or information that would be appropriate to customize the package for an area. DRAFT Layout and Table of Contents for "Your Homeowners Environmental Guide" FOLDER Front Cover: Graphics and Titles (sticker to personalize the package for each area) Inside Cover #1: Overview /Purpose Inside Cover #1: Map of the Humber Watershed Inside Cover #2: Homeowners Stewardship Guidelines (quick list - summary of key points covered in fact sheets which apply to all neighbourhoods) Back Cover: Resources /Contacts (high level - local level will be in neighbourhood pamphlet) NEIGHBOURHOOD INFORMATION PAMPHLET TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Welcome 2. Humber River Overview 3. Overview of Local Environment 4. History (ancient, pioneer and recent) 5. Protecting your Natural Heritage (why is this area important?) 6. Protecting (and Living with) Water 7. Protecting (and Living with) Land 8. Protecting (and Living with) Wildlife) 9. Protecting (and Living with) Air 10. Get Involved 11. Contacts /References (Who can help) July 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 G80 Comments and feedback on this initiative from Humber Watershed Alliance members is appreciated. It is important that each neighbourhood fact sheet has a Humber Alliance member that lives in the area who will champion and lead the process of preparing information, and giving the product a community perspective. Areas which have members who are willing the take the lead for this initiative in their community will be tasked first while others will be considered at a later time when community contacts can be established. Assistance preparing a neighbourhood fact sheet for your community is available by contacting Lisa Turnbull at: 416 - 661 -6600 ext. 5325 or Turnbull @trca.on.ca FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the production of the folder will be explored by TRCA staff. Funding for the production of the individual fact sheets will be explored by the lead member for the project with support from TRCA staff. Local funding sources will be encouraged with the hope that these sources would also be interested in assisting with the distribution of the product. Real Estate agencies and developers were considered as prime candidates to approach for financial assistance and distribution. Other avenues for distribution would be TRCA mailing lists, community meetings and special events. SECTION II REPORTS - INFORMATION ITEMS RES. #G47/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: HWY. 427 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Individual Environmental Assessment Follow up report to the former GTA North Transportation Corridor. John Willetts Sharon Bradley THAT the staff report on the 427 Transportation Corridor Individual Environmental Assessment be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority, at its meeting #5/05 held on June 24, 2005, adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS the Ministry of Transportation has initiated a new Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed 427 Transportation Corridor, as planned to begin at the current Highway 427 terminus at Regional Road 7, and end somewhere south of the King - Vaughan Road; WHEREAS staff recognize that the draft Growth P /an for the Greater Golden Horseshoe does not include the GTA North Transportation Corridor that was the subject of a former, incomplete /ndividua/ E4 connecting the existing Highway 427 from its current terminus northward to the C/ty of Barrie; G81 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 July 19, 2005 WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has yet to complete a transportation strategy associated with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; THEREFORE THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Province of Ontario be requested to ensure that the northern study limit for this project be Major MacKenzie Drive, west of the main Humber River; THAT the northern terminus of the 427 Transportation Corridor, as studied through the E4 process, be determined, minimizing any potential future impacts on the natural and cultural systems of the Humber River watershed, including but not limited to the terrestrial natural heritage system and the Carrying P /ace Trail, as well as recognize the river's status as a Canadian Heritage River and the planning requirements for the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbe /t Plan, 2005; THAT particular attention be paid to any cultural heritage features in the study area; THAT the 427 Transportation Corridor Individual Environmental Assessment be coordinated with the future Municipal Class EA to be undertaken by York Region for Major Mackenzie Drive (between Regional Road 50 and Weston Road) commencing as early as summer 2005; AND FURTHER THAT staff continue involvement in the review and stakeho /der consultation processes as related to 427 Transportation Corridor and report back to the board when alternative alignments have been determined. As of April 2005, the Ministry of Transportation has initiated a new 427 Transportation Corridor Individual Environmental Assessment. TRCA staff attended a meeting of the Regulatory Agency Advisory Group to review the draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for the study process. In 2003, the proposed GTA North Transportation Corridor /Highway 427 Extension was intended to join the existing northern terminus at Regional Road 7 to the City of Barrie. The following Authority and Watershed Management Advisory Board resolutions were approved in regards to this issue. Resolution #A10/03 was approved at Authority Meeting #1/03, held on February 21, 2003, as follows: THAT the report on the Env /ronmenta/ Assessment Act process regarding the Proposed Highway #427 Extension be received; THAT staff report back on April 11, 2003 with a more comprehensive report on the proposed Highway #427 extension, including relevant information from the soon to be released report from the Smart Growth Secretariat and out lining the process by which all the Conservation Authorities affected by the proposed extension can coordinate their comments on the project; July 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 G82 AND FURTHER THAT staff examine and report on the issue of increased infrastructure costs to the taxpayer of new development which may follow the extended highway, including sewage treatment and water taking. Resolution #A77/03 was approved at Authority Meeting #3/03, held on April 25, 2003, as follows: THAT staff report back at Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/02, to be held on June 13, 2003, on what TRCA s policies and requirements are for restoration works along highways and other major road systems, and on our naturalization objectives for new and proposed transportation corn /dors. Resolution #A128/03 was approved at Authority Meeting #5/03, held on June 27, 2003, as follows: THAT the Environmental Assessment Team for the GTA North Transportat /on Corr /dor be invited to present an update to the Watershed Management Advisory Board of the study Terms of Reference, and to /dent /41 the Smart Growth planning efforts that have been undertaken to date through the Needs Assessment phase of the project, and to present a recommended approach to assess the Smart Growth objectives through the following phases of the E4 process; THAT a representative from the Smart Growth Secretar /at be requested to participate direct /y in the Environmental Assessment process as the next stages of the planning study unfold, and to work with the E4 team assessing the implications of land use change and cost to the tax payer; THAT staff continue to prov /de input to the EA study team and work with the other two affected Conservat /on Authorit /es through the Municipal Advisory Group, the Stakeholders Adv /sory Group, the Oak Ridges Moraine Working Group and any new discussions /work groups related to inclusion of Smart Growth within the EA; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the legal position of TRCA and how the Source Protection Planning Regulation for conservation authorities can be utilized with respect to highway planning issues. Since these recommendations are specific to the extended alignment, it is staffs opinion that they are not relevant to the current project which proposes a transportation corridor to be contained within the City of Vaughan. The original EA was put on hold by the Ministry of Transportation while they awaited approval of Smart Growth (now referred to as the draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe). The draft growth plan is currently being read in the Ontario legislature, and approval of the Bill is expected in the near future. While the draft growth plan has a planning timeframe of 30 years, 10 year transportation strategies are to be developed throughout this timeframe. The transportation strategy has not yet been completed, however, the draft growth plan does allow for short term needs to be addressed. Recognizing that there are urgent planning requirements to confirm the corridor through the City of Vaughan in relation to the approved employment areas, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) is moving forward G83 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 July 19, 2005 with a new Individual EA for the 427 Transportation Corridor. The existing transportation network in the vicinity of Highway 427 is not capable of supporting the projected growth in population, employment and goods movements. The proposed corridor is intended to support planned development within the existing boundaries of the cities of Vaughan and Brampton. It is staff's understanding that the City of Vaughan has specifically identified the need to determine the alignment of this section of the highway to permit the planned employment lands in their area to proceed towards development. The city is concerned that the block plans and area plans between Regional Roads 7, 27 and 50, to Major Mackenzie could impact the future alignment of the 427 Transportation Corridor. The City of Vaughan has a current three year supply of serviced employment land and new supply is only available in the 427 Transportation Corridor area. Demand for employment land is strong and the City of Vaughan believes that development pressures will continue, potentially closing off highway corridor options. The City of Vaughan therefore requested that the Individual EA be commenced and requested that the Individual EA be complete by January 2006. It is also staff's understanding that this summer, the Regional Municipality of York will commence a Municipal Class EA process for Major Mackenzie Drive between Regional Road 50 and Weston Road. It is therefore prudent that the EA processes for these two studies be coordinated and be comprehensively included in the assessment required for the future provincial transportation strategy. Current Study Area The 427 Transportation Corridor is primarily intended to deal with the short term transportation needs of the cities of Vaughan and Brampton planning areas. While the exact study area cannot be defined at the ToR stage of the Individual EA, a key map is presented in the draft ToR. It shows an area roughly bounded by Regional Road 7, 27 and 50, and the King- Vaughan Road. TRCA staff are in receipt of a letter from King Township advising of that municipality's opposition to any extension within its municipal boundaries. The draft ToR states that there may be long term planning needs into Simcoe County, and that a future northerly extension through Simcoe County, if ever required, should not be predetermined through the current EA process. As such, the draft ToR states that one of the most important factors for this study is determining the northern terminus of the corridor in that it does not predetermine future route alignments. July 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 G84 RES. #G48/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: BOLTON ARTERIAL ROADS STAGE 2 Class Environmental Assessment To provide information regarding the Bolton Arterial Roads Stage 2 Class Environmental Assessment. Lynn Short Dianne Douglas THAT the staff report on the Bolton Arterial Road Stage 2 Class Environmental Assessment be received for information. AMENDMENT RES. #G49/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Bill Wilson Joanne Nonnekes THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance send a letter to McCormack Rankin Consulting Limited requesting them to contact the Humber Valley Heritage Trail Association regarding the relocation of the trail to have an underpass instead of a grade crossing. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1983, the Town of Caledon completed the Bolton Transportation Study which identified road network improvements to support the expanding urban development. The Bolton Transportation Study recommended that an eastern arterial be developed along the Vaughan /King /Caledon Townline Road in two stages, and a western arterial road be developed along the 6th Line. The Bolton Transportation Study was adopted by the Town in 1984 and the Town proceeded with plans to develop the first stage of the eastern arterial. The Town completed an Environmental Study Report for the proposed works in 1988. At that time, concerns were raised with respect to the need for the proposal, its links to other arterial roads in the Bolton area, and the potential environmental effects that one of the recommended options may cause. As a result, in 1989, The Minister of the Environment "bumped up" the level of study required for the project from the self- assessing Class Environmental Assessment process to an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA), which required a formal government review and Minister's final approval. In addition, the Minister also imposed a condition that required the Town to include all proposed Bolton arterial roads in this EA to ensure that alternatives were appropriately considered. The IEA report assessed existing and future traffic demands for arterial road networks around the Town of Bolton and divided the proposal into two stages. Stage 1 included immediate improvements to the transportation network, including the reconstruction /construction of both Townline Road and Coleraine Drive, south of King Street. The focus of Stage 2 was a "by- pass" road around the Town of Bolton from King G85 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 July 19, 2005 Street and Coleraine Drive in the west, north to cross Highway 50 and then south and east to connect with King Road at Townline Road. The report also identified mechanisms that would trigger the need for Stage 2. These mechanisms included a trigger based on traffic counts and /or development occurring north of Columbia Way. The !EA report was submitted to the Ministry in 1997. During the comment period, concerns were raised regarding Stage 2 activities by the Bolton Camp, TRCA and developers. TRCA concerns were related to significant impacts on Iandform features and functions of the Humber River watershed, and significant impacts on the management and operation of the Authority's Bolton Resource Management Tract. On February 21, 1997, the Authority recommended that staff advise the MOEE and the Town of Caledon that TRCA could not support the proposed east and west alignments for the Bolton By -pass (Res. #A310/96) unless the final EA document was modified. As such, the Town engaged in mediation with TRCA and others who had also opposed the alignments. During that time, the Ontario Municipal Board approved the Town of Caledon's growth strategy through to 2021. Because the strategy did not include any development north of Columbia Way, it was decided that there was no longer a need for a new arterial road linking Townline Road west to Highway 50. Through mediation, TRCA staff outlined a number of conditions which would need to be accepted by the Town of Caledon. These conditions were included in a staff report to the Authority on December 19, 1997 and are as follows: The Authority has traditionally made lands available for municipal road widenings and servicing purposes at no cost. The Town of Caledon should be aware that since the optional alignment involves a substantial area of tableland where no road presently exists, the Authority may seek compensation for the land, if and when the road project proceeds, so that further greenspace acquisition could take place; • Given the extent of Authority land holdings to the north of Bolton and the value of these large blocks of Authority lands as contiguous greenspaces, The Town of Caledon should seriously consider protecting these lands from any proposals for new road crossings between the Bolton Resource Management Tract and the north end of Albion Hills Conservation Area; • • The connection from Duffy's Lane to the by -pass be shifted north of the tributary feature and minimize further encroachment into the Bolton Resource Management Tract parcel, maximizing the length of the existing Duffy's Lane right -of -way to be decommissioned; The Humber Valley Heritage Trail Association has established a basic trail which links Bolton to Albion Hills Conservation Area, through these lands. Maintenance of the regional trail through the Bolton Resource Management Tract lands, in the vicinity of the new arterial and improvements such as the Humber River bridge, should be accomplished as part of this road project; • Aquatic habitat creation projects in the area previously impacted by the Duffy's July 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 G86 Lane crossing of the Humber River should be part of the detailed design phase of this project and put in place as part of the construction of the road; Terrestrial habitat creation projects where the opportunity exists, including reforestation efforts and the creation of wetlands where conditions permit, should be part of the final construction phases; Stormwater quality and quantity treatment for the runoff from all new impervious surfaces will need to be incorporated in the final design according to the best management practices at that time; Archaeological assessment of resources and appropriate measures to protect them; Interpretive signage along the new road; Permits pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158. Subject to these conditions, the Authority requested the Town provide written confirmation of their acceptance of the terms and conditions set out by TRCA and staff was directed to seek input from the Humber Watershed Alliance and then report to the Watershed Management Advisory Board in January with final recommendations concerning this matter (Res. #A300/97). The letter of commitment, dated January 7, 1998, was received from the Town of Caledon. The Humber Watershed Alliance was advised of the matter and confirmed their support of the amended western alignment based on the conditions outlined above (Res. #G4/98). On January 30, 1998, with the mediation complete, the Authority approved (Res. #314/97) the amended western alignment, subject to the terms and conditions previously outlined by the Authority. The eastern alignment was also approved. The Town submitted a formal amendment to the IEA in 1998. The revision included protection of the right -of -way west of Highway 50 only, crossing the Humber River at a location north of the original proposal and the elimination of the proposed extension of Townline Road that had originally bisected the Bolton Camps Lands. The Bolton Arterial Roads IEA was approved by the Minister of Environmental in April 2000. Following approval of the IEA, the Town of Caledon proceeded with the improvements outlined in Stage 1. For Stage 2, however, the Conditions of Approval set forth by the MOE had to be met prior to proceeding with the detail design for road improvements north of King Street. As part of the Conditions of Approval, it was required that a future Municipal Roads Class Environmental Assessment (EA) be carried out for the confirmation of the North West Quadrant, Duffy's Lane (WN2) alternative (see attached map). Bolton Arterial Roads Stage 2 Class Environmental Assessment (WN2) TRCA received the Notice of Commencement for the Bolton Arterial Roads Stage 2 Class Environmental Assessment on March 24, 2005. McCormick Rankin has been retained by the Town to carry out this study. This Class EA will confirm the location of WN2 alignment, identify the effects of the alternative alignments on the environment and identify the preferred alternative. There are two alignments being discussed at this time. The first G87 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3105 July 19, 2005 alignment is the WN2 alternative alignment is outlined in the approved amendment to the EA Report. The second alignment was developed in order to minimize impacts to the farm severed by the WN2 alternative alignment. The second alignment would be located approximately 230 m to the south of the WN2 alignment (see attached map). In October 2004, TRCA staff attended a site visit with Peel Region, the Town and their consultant. During that site visit, the WN2 Alternative Alignment and the second south alignment were reviewed. Staff noted at the site visit that the south alignment crossed a wetland and that the alignment would need to span the entire wetland. Staff also stated their concern with the southern alignment in respect to the fragmentation of the natural corridor. General comments re- iterating TRCA's concerns regarding the proposal were outlined in correspondence dated May 18, 2005. Further to the site visit and previous correspondence, TRCA staff met with McCormick Rankin on June 10, 2005 to discuss the two alignments. Staff explained that the south alignment would create significant issues regarding impacts to TRCA property; specifically the Bolton Resource Management Tract and impacts on the natural heritage system. Staff requested that the analysis of alignments consider a systems approach in order to understand the ecological impacts upstream and downstream of the alignment. A Public Information Centre was held on June 16, 2005 and members of the Humber Alliance were invited to attend. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • • • Staff to continue to review the proposal through the Environmental Assessment process in accordance with TRCA programs and policies, including Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program and Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber; Staff will ensure that the conditions as set forth in the TRCA staff report, as approved by the Authority in Res. #A300/97, are satisfied through the Class EA process for WN2; Staff will prepare a report to the Authority on this project. RES. #G50/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: MICROBIAL SOURCE TRACKING RESEARCH PROJECT This summer, a research project will be underway to investigate the source of fecal pollution contaminating the western beaches in Humber Bay. Hugh Mitchell John Willetts THAT the staff report on the microbial source tracking project be received ... CARRIED July 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 G88 BACKGROUND Environment Canada's National Water Research Institute (NWRI) and the City of Toronto are collaborating this summer on a research project to investigate the source of fecal pollution contaminating the western beaches in Humber Bay. Samples of water and beach sand are being collected weekly to monitor levels of E. co/i. These bacteria are used as an indicator of water quality, and when the counts get too high, the beaches are closed to protect public health. The research project will involve testing microbial source tracking techniques to determine if E co//in the beach water are more similar to the E. co /ifrom municipal wastewater or the E. co//from other potential fecal pollution sources like bird feces. Microbial source tracking takes a forensics approach by using techniques like DNA fingerprinting and antibiotic resistance profiling to measure the similarity between E. col/ bacteria. These techniques provide an ability to infer where the beach water E. coliare likely to be coming from. Previous NWRI research at other Lake Ontario beaches has suggested that bird feces (e.g. from gulls and Canada geese) can be the most significant source of fecal pollution at some beaches. However, each beach is unique and fecal pollution sources can vary. This summer, NWRI will seek to determine whether fecal pollution impacting the western beaches is coming mostly from fecal sources at the beach (e.g. bird feces), from fecal sources like municipal wastewater, or from pollution coming down the Humber River. Weekly monitoring of E. co /iwill be occurring in the major tributaries of the Humber. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has assisted NWRI in the selection of monitoring sites along the Humber. TRCA has also offered to share data collected from the Regional Watershed Monitoring Network (RWMN) and assist with the collection of specimens, if necessary. Report prepared by: Dr. Tom Edge, National Water Research Institute with revisions from Lisa Turnbull ext. 5325 For information contact: Dr. Tom Edge National Water Research Institute Environment Canada 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, Ont. L7R 4A6 p: (905) 319 -6932 f : (905) 336 -6430 e : Tom.EdgePec.gc.ca www.nwri.ca G89 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 July 19, 2005 SUBCOMMITTEE PRESENTATIONS The Chairs, or designate, of each subcommittee of the Alliance gave a brief update on progress made by their respective subcommittees as follows: Bolton and Cold Creek Stewardship Groups: East Humber Subcommittee: Lower Humber Subcommittee: West Humber Subcommittee: Report Card Working Group: Planning and Policy Working Group: RES. #G51/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Madeleine McDowell Luciano Martin Bill Wilson Sharon Bradley Madeleine McDowell John Willetts Karen Sun Gary Wilkins THAT a letter be sent to the City of Toronto thanking them for initiating a green bin pilot project at Cruickshank Park; AND FURTHER THAT a report be brought back to the Humber Watershed Alliance at a future meeting CARRIED RES. #G52/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the meetings for the following working groups are provided for information. Yvette Fournier Luciano Martin THAT the following minutes be received: • Bolton CAS Steering Committee #3/05 (June 16th ) • Cold Creek Stewardship Committee #4/05, #5/05 and #6/05 (Apr. 6th, May 4th and June 191) • East Humber Subwatershed Committee #3/05 and #4/05 (May 17th and June • 28th ) Lower Humber Subwatershed Committee #3/05 and #4/05 (May 17th and June 28th) • West Humber Subwatershed Committee #3/05 ( May 10th ) July 19, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 G90 • Humber Report Card Subcommittee #2/05, #3/05 and #4/05 (Apr. 18t, May 16`h and June 20`h) CARRIED NEW BUSINESS Notification of Projects to Humber Watershed Alliance L. Griffin advised members that she has requested a meeting with staff with respect to getting information to the Humber Watershed Alliance on Humber watershed projects in a timely fashion. G. Wilkins has agreed to arrange a meeting with senior staff to discuss concerns. If Alliance members are interested in participating in this meeting, they are asked to contact Gary Wilkins. Litterless Dinners RES. #G53/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Sandy Agnew Arthur Mittermaier THAT, for any future Humber Alliance meetings, an effort be made to provide Iitterless dinners CARRIED Volunteer Awards, City of Toronto G. Wilkins advised that the City of Toronto recently presented Volunteers of the Year Awards. In this connection, scrolls of recognition signed by Mayor Miller, were presented to Madeleine McDowell, Steve Joudrey, and Luciano Martin for the dedication and effort they have provided through their volunteer work. Agenda Items G. Wilkins extended an invitation to Alliance members to provide input to Alliance agendas and venues. If there are any items or presentations which would be beneficial to the Alliance as a whole and would like to bring to a future meeting, they are encouraged to do so by contacting either Gary Wilkins or Lia Lappano. G91 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #3/05 July 19, 2005 DOOR PRIZE As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Humber Alliance, G. Wilkins advised that a door prize will be drawn at the end of each Alliance meeting. The door prize available at this meeting was a folding camp chair and thermos. The winning ticket belonged to Deb Schulte. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:20 p.m., July 19, 2005. Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer /L. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MINUTES OF MEETING #4/05 c. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE #4/05 Page G92 October 18, 2005 The Humber Watershed Alliance met at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Tuesday, October 18, 2005. Lois Griffin, Chair of the Humber Alliance, called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. PRESENT Sandy Agnew Member Jim Bradley Member Sharon Bradley Member Bill Buchan Associate Member lain Craig Member Dianne Douglas Member Yvette Fournier Member Brenda Fowler Member Fu, Royce Member Bob Giza Member Krisann Graf Member Lois Griffin Chair Alyson Hazlett Member Ron Hingston Member Steve Joudrey Alternate Kathrine Mabley Member Luciano Martin Member Madeleine McDowell Member Joan Miles Alternate Hugh Mitchell Member Arthur Mittermaier Member Miriam Mittermaier Member Joanne Nonnekes Member Brendan O'Hara Member Lynda Rogers Member Deb Schulte Member Monique Schwarz Member Lynn Short Member Rolande Smith Member Vito Spatafora Member Nancy Stewart Member Peter Telford Member Jane Underhill Member Bill Wilson Member G93 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 October 18, 2005 GUESTS Fabiana Barbi York University Arlita McNamee York University STAFF Don Haley Water Management Technical Advisor Lia Lappano Administrative Assistant Karen Sun Humber Watershed Resources Planner Lisa Turnbull Humber Watershed Project Manager Gary Wilkins Humber Watershed Specialist INTRODUCTIONS G. Wilkins introduced two students from York University who were in attendance at the meeting as observers. One of the students is from Brazil. RES. #G54/05 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Sharon Bradley Madeleine McDowell THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/05, held on July 19, 2005, be approved CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF Vito Spatafora declared a conflict of interest in agenda item #8.3, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation Funding Proposal, as he is a member of the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation. CORRESPONDENCE (a) Letter from Ministry of the Environment, dated August 9, 2005, re: Oakdale Golf and Country Club Permit to Take Water October 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 G94 (b) Press Release from Canadian Food and Inspection Agency, dated September 28, 2005, re: Additional Asian Long- Horned Beetle Infestations Found in Toronto and Vaughan in the area north of Finch Avenue., east of Islington Avenue, and north of Hwy. 407 and east of Islington Avenue (c) Letter from Lois Griffin to McCormick Rankin Corp., dated October 12, 2005 re: Bolton Arterial Roads Class Environmental Assessment Humber Valley Heritage Trail Association Connections RES. #G55/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Luciano Martin Dianne Douglas THAT the above correspondence be received CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) Update on the August 19, 2005 Storm and Flooding Event D. Haley, TRCA's Watershed Management Technical Advisor, gave a presentation on the recent storm and flooding event, including: • storm event information; • actions taken by TRCA warning staff; • flood event information; • TRCA ongoing activities. SECTION I REPORTS - ACTION ITEMS RES. #G56/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: OAK RIDGES CORRIDOR PARK UPDATE Update on the Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan, including the revised Vision, Goals and Objectives and the preferred spine trail alignment. Members are also invited to submit a name to the Oak Ridges Corridor property naming contest. Vito Spatafora Kathrine Mabley THAT the update on the Oak Ridges Corridor Park be received; G95 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 October 18, 2005 THAT comments provided by the Humber Watershed Alliance be submitted to Fiona Christiansen of AMEC Earth and Environmental (fiona.christiansen@amec.com) by October 24, 2005; THAT be appointed as the Humber Watershed Alliance representative on the Oak Ridges Corridor Park Advisory Committee; AND FURTHER THAT interested members of the Humber Watershed Alliance participate in the Oak Ridges Moraine Corridor Naming Contest by submitting an appropriate name for the property. AMENDMENT RES. #G57/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Vito Spatafora Kathrine Mabley THAT the update on the Oak Ridges Corridor Park be received; THAT Humber Watershed Alliance members be encouraged to submit comments directly to Fiona Christiansen of AMEC Earth and Environmental (fiona.christiansen@amec.com) via the Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan Public Workshop Workbook by October 24, 2005; THAT Jim Bradley be appointed as the Humber Watershed Alliance representative on the Oak Ridges Corridor Park Advisory Committee, replacing Royce Fu; AND FURTHER THAT interested members of the Humber Watershed Alliance participate in the Oak Ridges Moraine Corridor Naming Contest by submitting an appropriate name for the property. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND At the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #3105 held on July 19, 2005 a report was submitted to members which outlined the Oak Ridges Corridor Park initiative. The following report provides an update on: the result of public meeting feedback; the updated vision, goals and objectives; the preferred spine trail alignment; and the recently launched naming contest. Royce Fu was representing the Humber Watershed Alliance on the Oak Ridges Corridor Park Advisory Committee; however, because of work commitments, he is unable to continue sitting on this committee. A replacement representative from the Humber Watershed Alliance is required. October 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 G96 July 6, 2005 and October 11, 2005 Public Meetings As a result of the comments received at this public meeting and input from the Advisory Committee, the Vision, Goals and Objectives were revised. The second of three public meetings was held on Tuesday October 11, 2005, 6:30 pm at the Langstaff Community Centre in Richmond Hill. A participants workbook was provided. Individuals who were not able to attend the October Public Meeting but would like to submit comments are encouraged to do so by completing the workbook and submitting it to Fiona Christiansen of AMEC Earth and Environmental: fiona.christiansen @amec.com by October 24, 2005. Spine Trail Alignment This alignment was developed with input from a number of sources including: • Public workshop on July 6th, 2005 • Assessment of ecological and physical features on the property, including site visits • Advisory committee discussions The spine trail is located and designed to meet the vision, goals and objectives for the property. Specifically, it is located to minimize disturbance of key ecological features such as the kettle lakes, wetlands and woodlands. The trail surface will include a combination of boardwalk and limestone fines to accommodate pedestrians, wheelchairs and strollers. A signalized crossing will facilitate pedestrian movement across Yonge Street. Installation of the spine trail is expected to proceed over the coming months in order to provide public access as soon as possible. In the meantime, the consulting team and the advisory committee are continuing to work on the rest of the management plan for the property. The plan will elaborate on a network of trails that will provide linkages to neighbouring residential areas and observation platforms so that visitors can enjoy the natural features of the property. Other aspects of the management plan will include an ecological restoration program, improvements to wildlife habitats and corridors, visitor facilities, parking, nature interpretation, and an implementation plan for the property including the Bathurst Glen Golf Course. Oak Ridges Moraine Corridor Naming Contest At the October 11, 2005 public meeting, a naming contest for the Oak Ridges Moraine Corridor was launched. Members of the public are invited to submit appropriate names for the property. The winning entry will receive a 2006 Annual TRCA Pass and be recognized in a media announcement in early 2006. G97 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 October 18, 2005 RES. #G58/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: SCHEDULE OF HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETINGS: 2006 A schedule of meeting dates is proposed for the Humber Watershed Alliance. Sharon Bradley Alyson Hazlett THAT the meeting dates for the Humber Watershed Alliance scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on the following dates be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the meetings be held at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitors Centre, unless otherwise noted. DATES 2006 #1/06 Tuesday, January 17, 2006 #2/06 Tuesday, April 18, 2006 #3/06 Tuesday, July 18, 2006 #4/06 Tuesday, October 17, 2006 CARRIED BACKGROUND A schedule of meetings is proposed to assist the Alliance. A random sample of municipalities were contacted to avoid choosing meeting dates that may conflict with municipal council meetings within the Humber River Watershed. Tuesday evenings are proposed. Meetings of the entire membership will be held quarterly. TRCA can provide meeting space to the Alliance on a regular basis at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitors Centre. This location is central to the watershed and easily accessible. However, the Alliance is encouraged to have meetings at various locations throughout the watershed. Suggestions for other meeting locations are welcome. RES. #G59/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: HUMBER PROJECT REGISTRY Adoption of the Humber Project Registry to assist staff with tracking external projects and events in the Humber River watershed. Luciano Martin Joanne Nonnekes THAT the Humber Project Registry be adopted; October 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 G98 THAT staff make the Humber Project Registry form available to the public via the internet and other means; THAT staff promote the Humber Project Registry to the public through a variety of communication tools including the Internet, newsletters, etc.; AND FURTHER THAT members complete the registry for their projects and share it with other project coordinators and return the completed forms to TRCA staff for compilation of annual accomplishment summaries CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1999, the Humber River was designated a Canadian Heritage River based on its outstanding human heritage and recreation values. There are currently 33 Heritage Rivers across Canada. With this designation came a commitment to carry out certain actions contained in our management strategy, Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber, which outlines how the river and its key heritage and recreational features will be managed in the long term. Yearly status reports must be submitted on the condition of the river and, every ten years, a "State- of -the- River" report must be submitted to the Canadian Heritage River Systems Board. In order to facilitate the recording of all of the projects and events in the Humber River watershed, we have developed a Humber Project Registry. We are encouraging individuals to complete the form for projects they have been involved with, including any environmental, recreational or heritage projects as far back as 1999 when the Humber was designated a Heritage River. In order to support the CHRS designation, the information we gather from this registry will be provided to the CHRS office in Ottawa to illustrate the types of projects and events that protect, restore and promote the values upon which the river was designated. The information will also be very useful in producing report cards and informing our partners of accomplishments. We hope you will participate in this endeavour as we strive to protect, restore and celebrate the Humber - our Canadian Heritage River! The Humber Project Registry form is available online: http: / /www.trca. on. ca /water_protection /strategies /hum ber /Humber_Project_Registry.doc RES. #G60/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: HUMBER REPORT CARD UPDATE Update on the Humber Report Card, including a revised draft workplan. Dianne Douglas Deb Schulte THAT the update on the Humber Report Card be received; G99 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 October 18, 2005 AND FURTHER THAT the revised draft workplan, dated October 18, 2005, be adopted in principle and referred to the Humber Report Card Subcommittee for refinements . CARRIED BACKGROUND The Humber Watershed Alliance released A Report Card on the Health of the Humber River Watershed in 2000. This award - winning document provided an initial assessment of the health of the Humber River watershed. The Humber Watershed Alliance has a commitment to providing a report on the health of the Humber every three years. In 2003, a Progress Report was published to provide an update on 15 key indicators. The 2006 Report Card will provide an update on all 28 of the original indicators. The Humber Report Card Subcommittee has met four times this year to review and comment on the original indicators and measurements from the 2000 Report Card. A number of technical background reports from staff were delayed and the Report Card Subcommittee meetings were postponed until these reports were received. To date, the following draft technical background reports have been received: • Public Use and Recreation • Cultural Ecology /Heritage • Air Quality • Baseflow Monitoring & Water Use Assessment • Terrestrial Natural Heritage The revised draft workplan accounts for technical delays to date. Staff will be drafting updates on the Report Card indicators based on the draft technical background reports, additional research and comments received from the subcommittee. The subcommittee will review and comment on these drafts. Technical staff will be available at meetings to answer questions from the subcommittee. For new indicators, presentations will be provided by technical staff. Progress reports will be provided to the Humber Alliance. Design and layout is expected to begin in the summer of 2006, once the text has been finalized and approved by the subcommittee, Alliance, and TRCA technical staff. The Humber Report Card is anticipated to be released in October 2006 at the last Humber Watershed Alliance meeting of this term. SECTION II REPORTS - INFORMATION ITEMS RES. #G61/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: STORM AND FLOODING EVENT: AUGUST 19, 2005 Documentation of the storm and flood which occurred on August 19, 2005. Vito Spatafora Kathrine Mabley THAT the staff report on the storm and flood which occurred on August 19, 2005 be received for information CARRIED October 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 G100 BACKGROUND At the Authority meeting held on September 30, 2005, the following resolution was adopted: 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. 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 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 G101 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 October 18, 2005 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. 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 October 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 G102 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; • • Staff has 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 has 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 has 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. G103 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 October 18, 2005 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. RES. #G62/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: OAKDALE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB UPDATE Receipt of a request from the Oakdale Golf and Country Club to provide a permanent easement for a water line on TRCA -owned property in Downsview Dells Park, City of Toronto. Sandy Agnew Jim Bradley THAT the staff report on the Oakdale Golf and Country Club be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND The Executive Committee, at its meeting #8/05, held on October 14, 2005, adopted the following resolution: THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT WHEREAS THE Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request form the Oakdale Golf and Country Club to provide a permanent easement for the installation of two wells and a water line on TRCA -owned property in Downsview Dells Park, City of Toronto, Humber River Watershed; WHEREAS it is in the best interest of the TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the Oakdale Golf and Country Club in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 0.86 hectares (2.14 acres), more or less, be granted to the Oakda /e Golf and Country Club for the installation and operation of two wells and a water line on TRCA -owned property in Downsview Dells Park, City of Toronto on the fo /lowing terms and conditions; (a) the consideration be $90,935 (may be adjusted to reflect acreage determined by final survey) p /us all legal, survey, and other costs to be paid by the Oakdale Golf and Country Club; (b) the Authority in consultation with the Black Creek Project direct the funds received from Oakdale Golf and Country Club to stream improvement projects on the Black Creek upstream of the Oakdale Golf and Country Club; October 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 G104 (c) the Oakdale Golf and Country Club be responsible for all costs associated with the installation and operation and of the wells and water line; (d) the Oakdale Golf and Country Club obtain required approva /s under Ontario Regulation 158 for applicable works; (e) the Oakdale Golf and Country Club obtain required approvals under Ontario Regulation 128/03 (wells) and Ontario Regulation 387/04 (water taking and transfer)and copy TRCA on monitoring reports that may be required by permit and that they meter the wells and provide TRCA with yearly records; (0 the Oakdale Golf and Country Club obtain the necessary work permit from the City of Toronto, through the Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department; (g) the Oakdale Golf and Country Club is to fully indemnify the TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirect /y, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; (h) an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigating measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the Oakda /e Golf and Country Club; (i) the Oakdale Golf and Country Club will prepare a comprehensive water management strategy to the satisfaction of TRCA and in consultation with the Humber Watershed Alliance; 0) the Oakdale Golf and Country Club review their water management program with TRCA and in consultation with the Humber Watershed Alliance on a annual basis; (k) any additional considerations as deemed appropriate by the TRCA solicitor; THAT said easement be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended; AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the execution of any documents. At Authority Meeting #5/05, held on June 24, 2005, Resolution #A140/05 was approved as follows: G105 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 October 18, 2005 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; (t) Market value compensation for the use of public land is achieved; (g) Members of Humber Watershed Alliance be invited to participate in future discuss ions 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. 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 October 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 G106 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 the 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. Staff has had several meetings with officials from the Oakdale Golf and Country Club to discuss the terms of the proposed easement, together with a meeting dated September 8, 2005 with a member of the Black Creek Project and a member of the Humber Watershed Alliance to seek their input. Based on these discussions staff is prepared to recommend a permanent easement be granted to the Oakdale Golf and Country Club on the basis outlined in this report. The subject TRCA -owned lands are part of larger holdings acquired from Belmar Realty Ltd., December 1959, Reudin Kunin, January 1960 and David Goodman, May 1962, under the Humber River Flood Plain Acquisition Project. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Oakdale Golf and Country Club will be responsible for all legal, survey and other costs involved in completing this transaction. RES. #G63/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: OAK RIDGES MORAINE FOUNDATION FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION PRIORITY AREA 2 Endorsement of a multi - partner funding proposal submitted to the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation for stewardship activities in Conservation Prioriity Area 2 (Humber River headwaters) Royce Fu Hugh Mitchell THAT the staff report on the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation Funding Proposal for Conservation Priority Area #2 be received for information CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority, at its meeting #7/05, held on September 30, 2005, adopted the following resolution: G107 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 October 18, 2005 THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into an agreement with the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation as a partner in the Oak Ridges Moraine Wide Stewardship Initiative which will include land owner contact to increase public awareness, establish forest cover and riparian vegetation, and create wetlands in Conservation Priority Areas (CPA) 2 (Humber River Headwaters) and 11 (Duffins Creek Headwaters); THAT the agreement be on terms and conditions that are satisfactory to staff and TRCA solicitors; THAT the ChiefAdministrative Officer be authorized to appoint staff to participate in steering committees that will guide the implementation of proposed stewardship activities in CPA 2 and 11 with the support of an internal TRCA working group to reflect the business units required to support this proposal; THAT TRCA matching funding up to $536,168 as well as in -kind services and support valued at approximately $26,780, be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA staff be authorized and directed to execute all necessary documents to give effect thereto. At Authority Meeting #4/05, held on May 27, 2005, Resolution #A98/05 was approved as follows: WHEREAS The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has established a leadership role in the management of headwater streams on the Oak Ridges Moraine through the development of watershed plans, conservation land plans, the draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy, and watershed regeneration and stewardship programs in the headwaters of the Humber River and the Duffins Creek; WHEREAS the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation (ORMF) has requested TRCA to take the lead in developing and implementing a multi year, multi partner funding proposal for the headwaters of the Humber River and Duffins Creek; WHEREAS the majority of the lands identified within the Conservation Priority Areas (CPA) 2 and 11 fall within the jurisdiction of TRCA; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THA T, subject to satisfactory terms and conditions, TRCA accept the lead role for developing and overseeing the delivery of funding grants from the ORMF for CPA 2 and CPA 11; THAT staff be directed to meet with the partners identified by the ORMF to develop the funding proposals; October 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 G108 AND FURTHER THAT staff bring forward recommendations to the Authority for the funding proposal at the earliest opportunity. TRCA staff assisted the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation (ORMF), along with other Conservation Priority Area (CPA) partners, with a funding proposal submitted to the ORMF Board. The proposal titled the "Oak Ridges Moraine Wide Stewardship Initiative ", is a multi - partnership project to be implemented in CPA 2, 11 and 17. CPA 2 (Centreville Creek) is located in the upper Humber River in the Town of Caledon, while CPA 11 (Glen Major) is centered in the headwaters of Duffins Creek in the Township of Uxbridge. CPA 17 is located in the Ganaraska area. Activities associated with CPA 17 will be led by the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA). It was decided that a one year proposal rather than a multi -year proposal would be submitted at this time with the option of submitting additional funding proposals based on the outcome of the 2005/2006 request. The ORMF Board approved the funding proposal as submitted on August 25, 2005. Details of the proposal are outlined below. The Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) Wide Stewardship Initiative focuses on the three key objectives of the ORMF Stewardship Strategy: • • Raising landowner awareness and recognition; Increasing the Oak Ridges Moraine's natural land cover; and Protecting the Oak Ridges Moraine's water resources and systems. Roles and Responsibilities: To brand an ORM landowner contact program, it was recognized that it is imperative that there be a common ORM message between all three CPAs and that program delivery tools be consistent among the three areas. In order to assure this, elements of the proposal that will be applied moraine -wide will be led by staff of the ORMF. The Program Manager from the ORMF will be responsible for: • ensuring targets and deliverables are met by the partner agencies; • working with the Research Officer to monitor the status of the projects; and • administering of funds to each of the partners. The ORM Research Officer from the ORMF will be responsible for: • • • • development and implementation of communication tools; development and maintenance of a landowner database; coordination and documentation of landowner contacts;monitoring of project status and implementation by partners and reporting to the ORM Foundation; and overall coordination of all three pilot stewardship projects. G109 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 October 18, 2005 TRCA, with assistance from the ORM Research Officer, will be primarily responsible for the following: • working with the ORM Research Officer to coordinate meetings, workshops, etc., • participate on the Steering Committee; • providing a location for the Steering Committee meetings; • proactive landowner contact within conservation priority areas as determined by the Steering Committee. Enhancing public awareness of Oak Ridges Moraine values will include individual landowner contact, workshops and participation in the creation of the landowner contact products with contributions from all project partners; and • On- the - ground projects (outlined below). In 2005/2006, the Steering Committee will: • • • • • • identify focus areas for initial landowner contact using Ministry of Natural Resources Restoration Strategy Data as well as other mapping products and associated resource material, specific to this area; develop, in more specific terms, the framework for initiating landowner contact within each of the focus area; participate in the creation of landowner information packages specific to each focus area; assist in the coordination of information inquiries as a result of the landowner contact; coordinate and communicate progress of year one stewardship projects and requests to the partner agencies; assist in the creation of the budget and timeline for future funding proposals to the ORMF; and develop selection criteria to determine the appropriate stewardship projects, resulting from 2005/2006 landowner contact. Other Partners: CPA 2 (Humber): Nottawasaga Valley CA Halton Peel Woodlands and Wildlife Stewardship Council Wetland Habitat Fund ORM Land Trust Trout Unlimited Town of Caledon and Region of Peel Watershed Science Centre/ Ministry of Natural Resources Oak Ridges Trail Association Centre for Land and Water Stewardship October 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 G110 TRCA Deliverables: The following outlines the Oak Ridges Moraine Wide Stewardship Initiative deliverables in relation to the three key focus areas (raising landowner awareness and recognition, increasing the ORM's natural land cover, and protecting the ORM's water resources and systems). Raising Land Owner Awareness and Recognition • . • • determine the highest priority areas to concentrate landowner contact efforts; create a list of needs and /or issues specific to the CPA project areas that will be incorporated into the landowner contact activities; create or modify existing landowner contact information (fact sheets, brochures, etc.) to be consistent with ORM general messaging that will be used in each of the Conservation Priority Areas; contact approximately 200 private landowners in 2006 in conservation priority areas to promote the values of the ORM and determine if in- ground stewardship projects my be of interest to the landowner; train staff in messaging and project delivery, and build capacity in other delivery organizations. Increase the ORM's Natural Land Cover While it was recognized in the proposal that many of the private land projects cannot be determined until the onset of a landowner contact program, the TRCA and the other CPA partners identified some expected Year 1 projects on public land that will help to contribute to meeting the objectives of the ORMF Stewardship Strategy. These projections were based on past project deliverables and what was believed could reasonably be accomplished in one year. Increasing natural cover will be achieved through both active and passive restoration techniques. Forest creation projects will increase the amount of natural land cover, while existing forest will be enhanced through improvements to patch size, shape and connectivity. A total of 36 ha of land will be reforested on TRCA land; half in the Humber watershed and half in the Duffins watershed. Natural succession will also play an integral part in helping to meet these targets. Improving Water Quality The ORMF's Stewardship Strategy states that over the next 3 -5 years it will fund projects that help to show significant progress in restoring riparian corridors and in creating and /or restoring wetlands in core, linkage and countryside areas on the ORM. To support this objective, the ORMF is also focusing its funding on major riparian and wetland projects in areas identified as high priority. Streams targeted for restoration include those that do not have at least 75% of their stream length with a 30 meter vegetated buffer. Two hectares of wetland and 230m of streamside vegetation will be established in each of the CPA 2 and CPA 11 in the spring of 2006. G111 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 October 18, 2005 FINANCIAL DETAILS The total project costs including all partners in three Conservation Priority Areas is $1,715,063. The ORMF is contributing $618,423 and the partners are contributing $789,717 in cash and $306,923 in -kind services and supplies. CPA 2 - FUNDING APPROVED FOR TRCA DELIVERABLES Section TOTAL ORMF Funding PARTNER PARTNER PROJECT COST to TRCA MATCH - CASH MATCH - IN-KIND Landowner $76,590 $23,800 $37,500 $15,290 Contact Increasing $296,435 $41,835 $252,500 $2,100 Natural Cover Improving Water $192,432 $78,332 $112,000 $2,100 Quality TOTAL $565,457 $143,967 $402,000 $19,490 TRCA matching funds totalling up to $536,168 as well as in -kind services and support valued at approximately $26,780, are from confirmed 2005 funding sources. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • TRCA to enter into an agreement with the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation as a partner of the Oak Ridges Moraine Wide Stewardship Initiative for CPA 2. TRCA to appoint a staff representative, with the support of an internal TRCA working group, to reflect the business units required to support this proposal, to participate in steering committees for each of CPA 2. Assess the success of the project at the conclusion of year one and determine if additional funding proposal will be submitted to the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation. RES. #G64/05 - Moved by: Seconded by: SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS The minutes of the meetings for the following working groups are provided for information. Kathrine Mabley Vito Spatafora THAT the following minutes be received: • Bolton CAS Steering Committee #4/05 (Sept. 15`h ) • Cold Creek Stewardship Committee #7/05 and #8/05 (July 6th and Sept. 7th) October 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 G112 East Humber Subwatershed Committee #5/05 (Sept. 20th ) Lower Humber Subwatershed Committee #5/05 (Sept. 20th) West Humber Subwatershed Committee #5/05 ( Sept. 13tt') CARRIED NEW BUSINESS Cold Creek Hike Members were encouraged to attend the first Cold Creek Hike on Saturday, October 22, 2005 from 11:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Lake Wilcox Halloween Tree Planting Event The Town of Richmond Hill and TRCA are hosting a tree planting event at Oak Ridges -Lake Wilcox on Saturday, October 29, 2005 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Meet at Lakeland Crescent at North Lake Road. Claireville Planting Event Members were invited to attend a planting event on Saturday, October 22, 2005 from 9:00 a.m. to 12 p.m. 700 trees will be planted. Members are urged to attend. Hwy. 400 North Employment Lands Secondary Plan Study D. Schulte advised members of a public information meeting on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 to be held at the City of Vaughan Council Chambers from 7 -9 p.m. Motorized Vehicles in Unauthorized Areas V. Spatafora reported an increase in dirt bike usage in inappropriate areas such as greenspace and other lands some of which are under the management of TRCA. He asked the members to consider designating areas for use by motorized vehicles in order to minimize damage in sensitive areas. G113 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 October 18, 2005 RES. #65/05 Moved by: Seconded by: lain Craig Vito Spatafora THAT TRCA ask their Superintendents to identify the problem of motorized vehicles, including off trail biking, going through their respective conservation areas and report back to the Humber Watershed Alliance; AND FURTHER THAT each subcommittee of the Alliance put this item on their next agendas for further discussion CARRIED Avian Flu Virus J. Nonnekes asked staff to determine whether a strategy should be prepared to deal with the Avian Flu virus. Volunteer Service Awards L. Turnbull advised that the Ministry of Culture and Immigration gives out volunteer service awards for five years and ten years of service. Six Humber Watershed Alliance members were nominated and we are happy to report that Lois Griffin, Luciano Martin, Bill Wilson, Heather Broadbent and lain Craig will be receiving ten year awards. Madeleine McDowell and Deb Schulte will be awarded five year awards. Members will be invited to a recognition celebration to be held soon. The Humber River in Newfoundland G. Wilkins asked members to view a slide and the first person to identify the location of the slide would be given a Humber t -shirt. Bill Wilson correctly stated that the slide was that of the Humber River in Newfoundland. October 18, 2005 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEETING #4/05 G114 DOOR PRIZE As a token of the Authority's appreciation for the members' participation on the Humber Alliance, G. Wilkins advised that a door prize will be drawn at the end of each Alliance meeting. The door prize available at this meeting was a framed print. The winning ticket belonged to lain Craig. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:15 p.m., October 18, 2005. Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer /L. THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES OF MEETING #1/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #5/05 JUNE 24, 2005 Rouge Park f ./ "TORONTO AND REGION "y^ onserva tion for The Living City MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #1/05 February 3`d, 2005 The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at the Council Chambers in the Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville on Thursday, February 3`d, 2005. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. PRESENT Bryan Buttigieg Member Del Fisher Member Alex Georgieff Alternate Jack Heath Alternate Murray Johnston Member Virginia Jones Member George McKelvey Alternate Terry O'Connor Member Lionel Purcell Member Jim Robb Member Clyde Smith Member David Tuley Member Paul Harpley Audrey Hollasch Kevin O'Connor Tupper Wheatley Member Alternate Alternate Alternate Timmy Lynne (for Patricia Short- Galle) Member GUESTS Mark Schollen Schollen & Company Inc. David Lawrie TRCA Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto Steve Andrews (for LiIli Duoba) Town of Markham STAFF Adele Freeman TRCA Sonya Meek TRCA Patricia Mohr TRCA Tim Van Seters TRCA Ryan Ness TRCA Tim Rance TRCA Sylvia Waters TRCA February 3, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05 L94 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Bryan Buttigieg announced two added items, Rouge State of the Watershed - Ratings of Condition and correspondence from John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. There was also a powerpoint presentation hand -out regarding the Markham Small Streams Study and a TRCA powerpoint presentation of Rouge River Aquatic System Indicators and Ratings. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES In review of the last minutes it was noted by: Clyde Smith, that wording on L88 should be changed, from: Whitchurch- Stouffville is currently entirely on wells and septics. When the 9 ' Line goes through, all the well water will be going down to Lake Ontario with nothing returning. To: Request that the Rouge Watershed Task Force "weigh -in" with a recommendation on the sustainability of large volumes of water being permanently removed from the water table. Specifically the needs of 28,000 residents of Stouffville (plus needs of commercial industrial as well) being drawn by wells from the aquifers then flushed via the YDSS to Lake Ontario. AND Jim Robb, that wording on L91 should be changed, from: Pembina Institute says overall GTA has 20 years more growth. To: Pembina Institute says overall GTA has 50 years more growth. MINUTES OF MEETING RES. #L24/05 MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: George McKelvey Del Fisher THAT the Minutes of Rouge Meeting #6/04, held on, December 9, 2004 be approved as amended CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE Rouge Park Strategic Plan for the Rouge Watershed 50'Bloomington Road West Aurora, Ontario L4G 3G8 Phone 905 - 713 -7426 Minister Gerretsen Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 777 Bay Street, 14th floor Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 Dear Minister, TORONTO AND REGION v- onserva tion for The Living City 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 Phone 416 -661 -6600 Fax 416 -661 -6898 www trca.on.ca December 20th, 2004 Re: Comments on the draft Greenbelt Plan and the draft Greenbelt Act On behalf of the Rouge River Watershed Plan Task Force, I am providing you with our comments on the draft Greenbelt Plan and the draft Greenbelt Act based on discussions at our most recent meeting. Earlier this year we wrote to the Chair of the Greenbelt Task Force expressing our support for the work outlined in the Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper. We strongly support the efforts of your government to establish a green area as a divide between major growth both current and anticipated within the Greater Golden Horseshoe area and the generally more rural surrounding areas. The Rouge watershed is similarly a green divide between York Region and Toronto to the west and Durham Region to the east. Defined by the ecological and physical boundary of a watershed, the Rouge does not bear the stigma of artificial boundaries created to address other agendas. The Rouge watershed represents a major existing Zink within your Greenbelt area between the Oak Ridges Moraine and the shoreline of Lake Ontario. We recommend that the draft Plan and Act be strengthened to adequately protect this watershed in terms of its links to neighbouring watersheds along the Lake Ontario shoreline and in the headwaters. We assume that other groups will be providing comments on aspects of the Greenbelt Plan that affect the protection of natural heritage and agricultural lands in the broader region of which the Rouge watershed is one interconnected part. As a result, we will limit our comments, to the lands within the Rouge watershed itself. February 3, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1 /05 L96 Significant portions of the Rouge River watershed, north of the designated urban areas but south of the Oak Ridges Moraine, have not been not included within the draft Greenbelt Plan area. Most of these lands are currently designated as "Prime Agricultural Areas" in regional and local official plans, - a key criteria for inclusion within the draft Greenbelt Plan. Leaving these areas outside of the Greenbelt Plan appears inconsistent with their existing use and designation and their importance to the protection of the Rouge River watershed. We strongly urge you to correct this omission by including the following existing greenspace areas of the Rouge River watershed in the draft Greenbelt Plan area: • the triangle of land north of Steeles, east of the 9th Line in Markham and southeast of the Havelock Rail line in Markham; • all lands between Reesor Road and the Rouge Park south of 16`h Avenue in Markham; • - additional lands in the headwaters of the Little Rouge River in southern Stouffville and east of the-Little Rouge in Markham; • the Main Rouge River corridor from Steeles Avenue to Milne Park; • the Morningside Tributary - Rouge Park corridor. Furthermore, the Rouge watershed lands between the current urban boundary and the Oak Ridges Moraine are the subject of several important and ongoing studies. We recognize that these studies are subject to scientific discussion and public input that will ensure the overall quality of the science behind these initiatives. We strongly recommend that the Greenbelt Act and Plan extend the moratorium on urban expansions into these rural areas, pending the completion of the following planning initiatives and their effective incorporation into municipal policy and other implementation mechanisms: - Rouge Watershed Plan, including water budget evaluations; - Rouge Source Protection Plan; - Rouge Park North Management Plan and Implementation Manual; - the TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Planning; - East Markham Strategic Review; - Markham Small Streams Study; - the MNR's Biodiversity Strategy for Ontario; and - updated monitoring and scientific information on watershed and air -shed health. Imposing a moratorium on this basis will ensure that any development that may occur within these areas is based on sound, empirically based principles, derived from the valuable work product of the above initiatives. The existing transportation network that provides east -west travel across the Rouge will, no L97 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1 /05 February 3, 2005 doubt, be considered for expansion both in scale and type. While we generally support the expansion of GTA rail transit, rail freight lines and transit - supportive growth within existing urban areas, we are concerned about the impacts of future transportation growth on the Greenbelt as a whole and the Rouge Watershed in particular. The draft Plan does not adequately address criteria and controls for ensuring that future transportation expansions do not directly or indirectly have a negative impact on the very lands the Plan purports to protect. The Plan should include explicit criteria and controls to prevent such impacts. We also recommend that you: Amend the draft Greenbelt Act to include provisions, similar to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, which would require Provincial approval of municipal official plan conformity amendments and exemption from appeals of Official Plan amendments approved in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan. Revise the Draft Greenbelt Plan to specifically identify a 600 metre corridor along the -Little Rouge Creek and that the boundary of this corridor be part of the boundary to be specifically defined by the Surveyor General. Revise the Draft Greenbelt Plan to include wording to recognize that the tributaries of the Rouge River shall be subject to the Rouge Park boundary delineation process established through the guidelines established in the Rouge North Plan as adopted by Markham Council on September 30, 2003 (OPA 116) and approved by the Region of York on April 6, 2004 (under appeal) and that a supporting regulation then be passed requiring that OPA No. 116 comply with the Greenbelt Plan with respect to the boundary delineation process. Include in the Draft Greenbelt Plan all the Rouge River watercourses extending through Markham as identified on Figure '6' to the November 23, 2003 Report to Development Services Committee, as subject to OPA No 116. Identify in the Greenbelt Plan the approach and implementation in supporting agricultural viability and sustainability in the Greenbelt Plan. In doing so, we recommend you consider the personal financial impact of the Greenbelt Plan on existing farmer - owners of agricultural lands and the need for equitable treatment of such farmer - owners in Tight of a plan that is designed to benefit our own and future generations. Finally, in an effort to ensure this Greenbelt Plan can withstand changes in government policy that may occur over time or through future changes in government, We suggest that some mechanism for permanency be incorporated into the Plan. For example, consider adopting environmental easements on Greenbelt areas which can only be changed with the agreement of the Province, Regional and local municipal governments, and the conservation authority. Before you is the challenge of balancing values and growth. Your government has in its grasp February 3, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05 L98 the opportunity to be measured by what you leave as a Greenbelt legacy. Our Task Force is actively planning for the future of Rouge River Watershed consistent with the principles we provided to your task force earlier this year. We urge you to commit your government to do its part to ensure the future protection of the Rouge River watershed as a true jewel in the Greenbelt plan. Yours Very Truly Bryan J, Buttigieg Chair, Rouge Rive: _W t rshed Task Force cc Chair, TRCA, Dick O'Brien Members, Rouge Watershed Task Force* * Provincial government representatives on the Task Force withdrew from deliberations regarding this letter. L99 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1 /05 February 3, 2005 Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Responsible tor Seniors 777 Bay Street 1 oionto ON M5G 2E5 Tel (416) 585 -7000 Fax (4161 585 -6470 www mah gov on ca 13:2• January 27, 2005 Mr. Bryan J. Buttigieg Chair Rouge River Watershed Task Force 50 Bloomington Road West Aurora ON LAG 308 Ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement Ministee delegue aux Affaires des personnes ogees /77 we Bay rorontc ON MSG 2E5 Tel (416) 585 -7000 Telec. (416) 585 -6470 www mah gov on ca Dear Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you for you letter of December 20, 2004, written on behalf of the Rouge River Watershed 1 ask Force, expressing the Task Force's support for the draft greenbelt. 1 note that you also raise concerns about the extent to which the draft Plan recognizes lands within the Rouge River Watershed and the need to extend the moratorium on development to allow for the completion of a number of local planning studies. The Government of Ontario is committed to building strong communities. The greenbelt protection initiative, led by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the proposed Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan, led by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal. are designed to work together to help plan and manage Ontario's growth in the future while ensuring that our valuable greenspace, agricultural lands and natural resources are protected. The. draft Growth Plan addresses the larger growth issues and would ensure that the greenhell does what we intend it to do — stop sprawl The draft Greenbelt Plan identifies where growth cannot take place, but allows room for growth The Growth Plan would indicate where and how that growth would take place in areas beyond the proposed greenbelt. The proposed boundary in the draft Greenbelt Plan was developed recognizing the need to strike a balance between protecting environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands and meeting the needs of growing communities to ensure a permanent greenbelt. The proposed greenbelt was developed through a combination of technical. scientific and land -use policy analysis. The draft Plan is based on municipal conservation authority and provincial data and builds on the systems approach of the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. February 3, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05 L100 Mr Bryan J Butn'ieg During our consultation sessions at locations throughout the Golden Horseshoe. we hcard that the government needs more time to consider comments before releasing the final Greenbelt Plan. In recogniuon of this, legislation was passed on December 8, 2004, to extend the current moratorium on new urban development on lands designated rural and dgricultural in the Greenbelt Study Area until March 9, 2005. This will allow the government more time to work toward permanent g?eenhelt protection in the Golden Horseshoe and to more fully consider all the comments we have received. Over the coming weeks, staff will be meeting with each and every municipality and local Conservation Authorities in the greenbelt, to discuss the draft Greenbelt Plan and mapping before we finalize the plan. We will make sure that the Greenbelt Plan is the best possible plan for the citizens of Ontario. I appreciate hcanng from stakeholders and members of the public on the proposed plan for permanent greenbelt protection. Submissions such as your letter are an important part of the consultation feedback on our greenbelt initiative. 1 assure you that your concerns will he fully considered as we work towards finalising the draft Greenbelt Plan. Thank you, again, for writing. 04 1:510 L101 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1 /05 February 3, 2005 RES. #L25/05 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE - Membership Moved by: George McKelvey Seconded by: Del Fisher THAT Anil Wijesooriya, Planning Coordinator be appointed as the alternate representative of the ORC for the Rouge Watershed Task Force. CARRIED BACKGROUND The membership of the Rouge Watershed Task Force was approved at the Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/04, held on April 16`h, 2004. At that time an alternate for ORC was not appointed. As per the attached correspondence the ORC is now appointing Anil Wijesooriya as the alternate to the Rouge Watershed Task Force. Report prepared by: Sylvia Waters, extension 5330 For Information contact: Sylvia Waters, extension 5330 Date: February 3`d, 2005 February 3, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05 L102 21;;;; Ontario Saclott Realty irnmobiliere 'Corporation de I'Orttario December 22'", 2004 11' Ftoof Ferguson Bloct Queen's Park Toronto Ontario M7A 1N3 Tel 416.327 -2755 11" 4tage Edifice Ferguson Queen s Park Toronto, Ontano M7A 1N3 Fax. 416-212-1131 Mr. Brian Denney Chief Administration Officer /Secretary Treasurer Toronto & Region Conservation Authority 50 Bloomington Rd. W, Aurora, ON L4G 3G8 Dear Mr. Denney: am writing today with regard to Ontario Realty Corporation's (ORC) representation on the Rouge Task Watershed Force. This is to advise you that the undersigned will serve as an alternate in place of ORC's environmental specialist, Garry Pringle, who will be away until March 2005 on a leave of absence. I look forward to being part of the Task Force and please feel free to contact me, at 416 -212- 6183 or anil.wijesoorivaaorc.gov_on.ca , should you have any questions. Regards, Anil Wiijesooriya Planning Cuor dir valor Cc: Patricia Mohr, Project Manager, TRCA Tony Miele, President & CEO. ORG Garry Pringle, Environmentat Specialist. ORC Gary Waddington, VP Asset Review, ORC L103 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1 /05 February 3, 2005 REPORTS RES. #L26 ROUGE STATE OF THE WATERSHED - Ratings of Condition Moved by: Seconded by: Lionel) Purcell Jim Robb RECOMMENDATION THAT ratings of watershed conditions be assigned on a subwatershed basis and summarized for the watershed as a whole; AND FURTHER THAT these findings be presented in the SOW Report and the detailed rationale be published in a Rouge Watershed Ratings Methodology Report. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Draft Rouge State of the Watershed (SOW) Report presents existing conditions and goals to guide watershed protection (June, 2004). It also includes a set of objectives and associated indicators, measures and targets, defined to facilitate achievement of these goals. Where available, targets were derived from established, recognized sources and in other cases they were proposed for review during the study. A rating was assigned for each objective as a means of describing the extent to which current watershed conditions meet the targets. The rating can also be used to measure future progress using a "report card" format. This rating system was based on quantitative and qualitative analysis and best professional judgement of TRCA staff following a review of all available information. The ratings are defined as follows: "excellent ", "good ", "fair ", "poor ", "fail ", "to be determined during later stages of the study ", "further study required" and "baseline data not available" or "insufficient ". Brief notes explaining the rationale for the rating were included in the SOW Report. All information was subject to peer review. In an email dated January 26th, 2005, Task Force member Jim Robb requested modifications to the rating system adopted in the SOW. They are provided below, along with proposed actions that the Task Force is requested to consider. 1. "... the watershed rating system needs to be addressed by subwatersheds and 1 - areas within the urban envelope and 2 - areas outside the urban envelope "; and "An overall watershed rating system can be developed based on the weighting and combination of the subwatershed areas, their contribution to flow, their respective ratings and the health of the main channels ". Proposed Action: February 3, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05 L104 It is recommended that subwatershed -based ratings be developed to: reflect variance in existing conditions: • between tributaries and the entire watershed • inside and outside the urban envelope. allow for subwatersheds to be considered for "de- listing" from the Toronto A.O.C. pursuant to the Toronto RAP program. It should be noted, however, that the lack of adequate data may preclude the assignment of ratings to all subwatersheds during this study. However, these data deficiencies will be considered and where appropriate will be addressed by recommendations for enhanced monitoring programs. The study subwatersheds are named as follows: • Upper Rouge • Berczy Creek • Bruce Creek • Little Rouge • Middle Rouge • Lower Rouge • Rouge Marshes Once subwatershed ratings are identified, the overall rating for the watershed will be re- examined and Jim Robb's recommendations on the development of this system will be incorporated. Jim Robb also recommended that:' 2. "The subwatershed and watershed ratings would have far greater veracity and public confidence if they are based on better monitoring and numerical criteria and if they are based on a regular review by independent University scientists rather than self - assessment by the TRCA and its partners ". Proposed Action: Watershed planning is an adaptive management process, which makes the most of what is available and evolves as new data appears. An important part of the planning process is the recommendation of where to fill gaps in monitoring data. Efforts will be made to provide better documentation of data gaps and of the review process, to increase opportunities for Task Force input. L105 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1 /05 February 3, 2005 DETAILS- OF WORK TO BE DONE • TRCA technical staff will re- compile and analyse data; assign a rating on a subwatershed basis; and re- examine watershed ratings, as added components of their Phase 2 work. A detailed account of the ratings methodology and rationale for the assignment of ratings will be published in a supportive "Ratings Methodology" report and an abbreviated summary of the rationale included in the SOW Report. Report prepared by: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 For Information contact: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 Date: February 3rd, 2005 PRESENTATION Bryan Buttigieg introduced Mark Schollen who gave a half hour powerpoint presentation (attached) regarding the findings of the Markham Small Streams Study. The Study can be found on the Town of Markham website. February 3, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05 L106 L107 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05 February 3, 2005 MARKHAM SMALL STREAM STUDY DISCUSSION Del Fisher What is the life expectancy of sand filters? Mark Schollen Life expectancy can vary from 50 -100 year life span. Durham College biofilter consists of a larger core rock in addition to the sand which helps with the life span. De/ Fisher Have there been any studies performed on the impact of road salt on these biofilters? Mark Schollen No research has been done to date. Pau / Harpley In the class 1 stream - What effect does the added fill have on the meander belt? Mark Schollen None has been noted. Paul Harpley Jim Robb Should you be doing small scale tests on these areas to follow the geomorphology of these areas over time? How is this impacted by large storm events? Would like to compliment the Town of Markham in showing leadership in this study. Have you had the study peer reviewed by the scientific community. (Suggested Dr. Dudley Williams). How does this fit in with the Watershed Plans? Mark Schollen The recommendations and targets in the Watershed Plans come first. Jim Robb What is the percentage of impervious cover in the study area? Have you calculated the percent of effectiveness? Mark Schollen To achieve a 5 % target would be good. Jim Robb Kevin O'Connor Concerned that this study will lead people down the wrong path. Spoke of classification of stream 1 & 2 and the use of fish as the indicator species should make sure this is not done too narrowly, that frogs, etc. are important. There is value to be found in swales and ditches with respect to animals etc. Markham Small Streams Study is a technical fast track tool. He is concerned people will see it as a quick fix way to justify a technical approach to rationalize development. Consider application of this study very carefully. February 3, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05 L108 Pau/ Harp /ey Regarding form and function, more work and science could take this study much further. These small streams are significant for water but they are very significant for other ecological features as well. Tupper Wheatley Reason for study - 3 years ago there was much concern regarding small streams in the Markham area being put into pipes. The developers then were not concerned about stream orders 1 & 2, felt they had no value. This group will always hit a wall with discussions of the greenbelt and Markham Small Streams Study. Please go to Council and give this study your support. George McKelvey The difference with this study is we are looking at the engineering piece first, before we decide what to use the land for. This is a step forward. The developers are not going to object. Jim Robb Again I would stress that we proceed in a cautionary way with this engineering. L109 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05 February 3, 2005 WORKSHOP 7.1 DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED TARGET TASK FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - Surface Water Quality (Tim Van Seters, TRCA, PowerPoint Presentation) DISCUSSIONS Jim Robb Tim Van Seters Bryan Buttigieg Tim Van Seters Have we looked at chloride effects on metal mobility? How does the Rouge River watershed compare to Highland Creek watershed? We have looked at this in SWM ponds but not in the rivers where there has been more mixing. There are differences in stratification between the 2 watersheds. Is Ecollcoming from the river or the marsh? Should we be resolving what the source is? Does the Task Force need to recommend that the study clarify the source? Toronto is performing some studies. Clyde Smith The Canadian geese are a major contributor of Ecol/. Bill Snodgrass Suggest need for a contaminant burden study in upstream reaches due to the potential for contamined fish to now go around the fishway at Milne Dam. Would suggest monitoring tissue samples of fish at the Milne Dam. Tupper Wheatley Sediment build up at Milne Dam is full of contaminants, but fish there are OK. What does this mean for upstream and downstream? In the 70's there were grab samples taken. Currently, samples are taken daily during the swim season. The 95% target for this area is high, but this is a RAP target. Paul Harpley Rouge River has always been a turbid river. Why is turbidity not being examined? Tim Van Seters We are monitoring suspended solids, which are low during dry weather. Jim Robb There are SWM ponds without enough vegetation around them and that need to be narrower. They are magnets for geese. February 3, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05 L110 L111 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1 /05 February 3, 2005 7.2 DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED TARGETS TASK FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - Fluvial Geomorphology (Ryan Ness, TRCA, PowerPoint Presentation) DISCUSSION Jim Robb Concern over classification of Morningside tributary (moderately unstable) in the Markham study. Different from Mark Schollen's description 2 years ago of "unstable ". Questions conflict of interest by Aquafor as they installed BMP pond. Audrey Hollasch Noted Ryan Ness's recommendations that SWM alone is not enough and that we must lower the densities of development. BUT trends toward (Smart Growth) will result in increased population density on a small piece of property. Jack Heath The increase in instability is astounding from 1996 -2004 the results /responses are very rapid. We must address the question of SWM practice, not working as predicted initially. Ryan Ness Current thinking is that controlling flow is not adequate; we must control volume of water as well. We have not as yet explored all the alternatives available to better deal with the movement of water. Tupper Wheatley Would you be prepared to say that SWM, may not or does not work; that this will not be sufficient? The more impervious the soil, the more runoff. Bryan Buttigieg What are the implications of leaving existing storm water infrastructure? If development was to stop today, would we still see degradation? Ryan Ness Yes, Toronto's WWFMMP illustrated that the system will continue to adjust to the runoff volumes generated as a result of past development. Paul Harpley The believe that rivers and streams will try to maintain their natural form (a stable state) is really being challenged. It is not possible to simplify a complex system and the literature criticizes attempts to do so. We are making decisions in the face of lots of uncertainty. Historical change is another issue. Then we add an extreme event in (eg. climate change) and estimate what happens. This requires much more study. February 3, 2005 Jim Robb Ryan Ness Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05 L112 Bryan Buttigieg Ryan Ness Voiced concern on these issues in 80's, and is pleased they are being addressed. The wetland developed at Morningside Heights was to overflow twice a year; however it overflows five times a year. It was made too small. Flashiness and volumes are in excess of what development engineers are predicting and are being approved. Statistics are not realistic. Must speak of large events and how they have changed the morphology of the river. Unfortunately, we really do not have the data to obtain the historical component. Are looking into a website which would allow for individuals to capture their subjective representation of the watershed over time. Does the Task Force need to recommend the development of this website. Yes L113 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1 /05 February 3, 2005 7.3 DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED TARGET TASK FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - Aquatic Ecosystem (Tim Rance, TRCA, PowerPoint Presentation) DISCUSSIONS Jim Robb Is there a sample site at Milne Dam? Are fish getting above the fishway? Tim Rance There is not a Regional monitoring site at that location. There will be more detail in the Fisheries Management Plan (FMP). Mark Heaton (MNR) has observed fish above the fishway. Tupper Wheatley When you have a road crossings barrier, are these fixed? Tim Rance Tupper Wheatley Tim Rance Jack Heath Road crossing are investigated, however, tend to be very expensive to fix. They are changed if a road is reconstructed. The FMP must prioritize mitigation projects. Can you clarify if your term "loss of stream length" includes IVlark Schollen's "stream ". Yes. Do you classify streams using a similar methodology as used in Markham Small Streams study? i.e. Mark is saying class 3 streams can be eliminated, therefore Tim needs to incorporate Mark's recommendations in his calculations and acknowledge the protection of stream length, except for Class 3. 77m Rance In some cases there are similarities. Tupper Wheatley If these methodologies cannot be integrated and these reports are contradictory, we will have continual conflicts with development. Jack Heath Jim Robb All should not be integrated. Rouge Task Force is developing a watershed plan; Mark Schollen is developing a small streams planning study. Pleased that the Watershed Plan and Fish Management Plan are being done. The Small Streams report is good, but we must follow the Watershed Plan through. February 3, 2005 Adele Freeman Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05 L114 Spoke of SWM plans when first developed, dealt with quantity, then moved to dealing with quality as well. SWM is not a complete failure, planning is done with the best science available at that time. Toronto's WWFMMP deals with treatment and drainage; treatment at the source would be the next step. What Mark is speaking of will be beneficial, but we must develop this science further. Bill Snodgrass No net increase in total volume of annual runoff is the challenge to strive for. Can we achieve this? Bryan Buttigieg No net increase from today or from 50 years ago? Jim Robb We should raise our standards much higher, so when we fail we have some room. Bill Snodgrass Sand bed streams take — 20 years to expand and accommodate urban flow regime. Silt/clay bed streams take — 70 -200 years to expand and accommodate urban flow regime. The streams are unstable while they expand. We must remember that the Town of Markham is primarily on a clay -till plain. Tupper Wheatley If we can save 2 out of 3 streams with Markham Small Streams study that is a great. Has the decrease in pesticides over the years shown up in the way of better health of the fish? Tim Rance Fish survival is not dramatically impacted by pesticides as are birds. Tupper Wheatley Are amphibians discussed in the SOW Report. Tim Rance Not in the Aquatic System chapter. L115 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05 February 3, 2005 CONTINUATION OF TARGET DISCUSSIONS Bryan Buttigieg There are still 4 -5 more topics to cover and it would seem that not many changes are being suggested. Would members still like to continue to hear all the target presentations. There was consensus that the information being covered is very helpful. However, members would like clarification that comments are being heard and changes made. Sonya Meek TERMINATION Staff and the Implementation Committee will be reporting back at the next meeting on the 2005 Workplan and can try to address how recommendations which you have brought to the table can be integrated into the remaining work. Bryan Buttigieg announced that for any Task Force member interested that Jim Robb had requested to give a Update of the York - Durham Sanitary Sewer project after the meeting. ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m., on December 9, 2004. Jim Robb gave an update and a off -line discussion took place with interested members. /slw Adele Freeman Brian E. Denney Director, Watershed Management Secretary- Treasurer THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES OF MEETING #2/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #5/05 JUNE 24, 2005 Rouge Park MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #2/05 March 10`h, 2005 TORONTO AND REGION-N.- onserva tion for The Living City The Rouge Watershed Task Force met in the OMB Room of the Town of Richmond Hill 1' Floor, 225 East Beaver Creek Road, Richmond Hill on Thursday, March 10`h, 2005. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Bryan Buttigieg Member Christine Caroppo Member Gay Cowbourne Member Elio DI'iorio Member Alex Georgieff Alternate Audrey Hollasch Alternate Murray Johnston Member Virginia Jones Member Yom Melymuk Alternate Kevin O'Connor Alternate Terry O'Connor Member John Pisapio Member Mike Price Member Lionel Purcell Member -Jim Robb Member Frank Scarpitti Member Sue Sherban Alternate Patricia Short-Galle Member Clyde Smith Member Lorne Smith Member Tupper Wheatley Alternate Anil Wijesooriya Alternate STAFF Lewis Yeager Rouge Park Gord Weeden Rouge Park Alliance Sonya Meek TRCA Patricia Mohr TRCA Natalie Iwanycki TRCA Cathy Crinnion TRCA Cindy Kambeitz TRCA Tim Rance TRCA Peter Attfield TRCA Sylvia Waters TRCA March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 L117 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Bryan Buttigieg introduced Gord Weeden as new Chair, Rouge Park Alliance. He also introduced TRCA staff members, Natalie Iwanycki, Cindy Kambeitz and Cathy Crinnion who were present to give powerpoint presentations in the target workshop. Bryan Buttigieg led the Rouge Watershed Task Force in a moment of silence in memory of the four RCMP Officers killed in the line of duty in Alberta, upon Lionel Purcell's suggestion. RES. #L27/05 MINUTES Moved by: Lorne Smith Seconded by: Mike Price THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/05, held on, February 3, 2005 be approved. CARRIED ADDED ITEM RES. #L28 /05 GREENBELT PLAN 2005 - HIGHLIGHTS The Province of Ontario has passed the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and released its Greenbelt Plan. Moved by: Seconded by: THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force write to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to congratulate him on the implementation of the Greenbelt Act and Plan; THAT above -noted report be received and further discussed at the Rouge Watershed Task Force at Meeting #3/05, to be held on April 21, 2005; AND FURTHER THAT above -noted report be deferred to the Rouge Watershed Task Force at Meeting #3/05, to be held on April 21, 2005; BACKGROUND The Rouge Watershed Task Force and its partners have been very energetic in making our needs known throughout the Greenbelt process. While the entire Plan is important, there are a few highlights that have particular significance to Rouge Park. L118 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 March 10, 2005 Section 3.2.6: "The Rouge River Watershed and Park" is a new addition to the earlier draft Plan, and it has several features of great importance. This section establishes the Rouge River watershed's particular significance within the Protected Countryside and recognizes Rouge Park's vital ecological corridor role between the Oak Ridges Moraine and Lake Ontario. Second, the Plan solidifies the Little Rouge ecological corridor by identifying a 600 -metre ecological corridor between the Oak Ridges Moraine and Lake Ontario. This builds on efforts in the Rouge North Management Plan and Markham Official Plan Amendment 116 to protect such a corridor by establishing this corridor as a Provincial requirement. Most important, the Greenbelt Plan requires that land use planning and resource management within the Rouge River watershed portion of the Greenbelt Protected Countryside comply not only with the Greenbelt Plan, but also with the Rouge North Management Plan. The more restrictive policies between the two plans will apply, and I will be having discussions with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to define a process for determining which policies are more restrictive. Outside of the Protected Countryside area, the Province has clearly stated that in the area of the Rouge River watershed north of Steeles Avenue, the Rouge North Management Plan and the Rouge North Implementation Manual (ecological criteria), along with other plans that support them, should be considered as the guiding land planning and resource management documents. South of Steeles Avenue, the Rouge Park Management Plan should be considered as the guiding document. This is an important statement of endorsement by the Province of Rouge Park's management plans, and particularly, the ecological criteria as described in the Rouge North Implementation Manual. I have also attached copies of Regulation 58/05 and Regulation 61/05 under the Greenbelt Act, 2005. The former defines the boundary of the Greenbelt area, with detailed mapping still being produced. Regulation 61/05 is important to the Rouge Watershed Task Force since it is a retroactive transition regulation that applies to the Rouge River watershed municipalities. Unapproved planning applications in the Rouge Greenbelt area, regardless of when they were filed, must comply with all policies of the Greenbelt Plan. These are only a few of the key features of the Greenbelt Plan, but they are important steps forward and show that the Government has understood some of the major concerns that the Task Force and its partners expressed during the entire process. Report prepared by: Lewis Yeager, General Manager, Rouge Park For information contact: Lewis Yeager, 905 - 713 -7374 Date: March 4, 2005 March 10, 2005 Attachment 1 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2105 L119 EXCERPT FROM GREENBELT PLAN 2005 These external connections are generally depicted by a dotted green line on Schedule 1 and 4, but are not within the regulated boundary of the Greenbelt Plan. 3.2.6 The Rouge River Watershed and Park The Rouge River Watershed is of particular significance within the Protected Countryside because of the extensive public investment in establishing the Rouge Park and the efforts of all levels of government in preparing the Rouge North Management Plan The Rouge Watershed and the Little Rouge River serve as a vital ecological corridor linking the environmental systems of Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine in this area of the Greater Toronto Area. This plan identifies a 600 m wide corridor for the Little Rouge River as the main ecological corridor, between Lake Ontario and the southerly boundary of Oak Ridges Moraine Area, as well as several other Rouge River tributaries, in recognition of the longstanding commitment to establishing the Rouge Park. Land use planning and resource management within those portions of the Rouge River watershed within the Protected Countryside shall comply with the provisions of both this Plan and the Rouge North Management Plan In the case of a conflict between this Plan and the Rouge North Management Plan, the more restrictive policies apply For those lands within the watershed north of Steeles Avenue, outside of the Protected Countryside, the Rouge North Management Plan and the Rouge North Implementation Manual, together with any municipal or conservation authority plans or initiatives which build on and /or support the Rouge North Management Plan, should be considered as the guiding land planning and resource management documents. For those lands within the Rouge Park south of Steeles Avenue, outside of the Protected Countryside, the Rouge Park Plan together with any municipal or conservation authority plans or initiatives which build on and /or support the Rouge Park Plan should be considered as the guiding land use planning and resource management documents. 3.3 Parkland, Open Space and Trails 3.3.1 Description A system of parklands, open spaces, water bodiespand trails across the Greenbelt is necessary to provide opportunities for recreation, tourism and cultural /natural heritage appreciation, as well as to support environmental protection. This system currently supports a variety of passive and active uses, as well as health, economic and other quality of life benefits within the Greenbelt It should be recognized that parkland, open space and trails exist within surroundings of predominantly privately held lands While private land owners 19 of 56 L120 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 March 10, 2005 Attachment 2 ONTARIO REGULATION 59/05 made under the GREENBELT ACT, 2005 Made: February 25, 2005 Filed: February 28, 2005 Printed in The Ontario Gazette: March 19, 2005 DESIGNATION OF GREENBELT AREA Designation 1. (1) For the purpose of section 2 of the Act, the following areas of land are designated as the Greenbelt Area: 1. The Oak Ridges Moraine Area composed of the area of land designated under subsection 1 (1) of Ontario Regulation 1/02 (Designation of Oak Ridges Moraine Area) made under the OakRidges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001. 2. The Niagara Escarpment Plan area shown on Niagara Escarpment Plan maps 1 to 9, signed and dated by Mark Frawley, Director, Niagara Escarpment Commission on February 22, 2005 and filed in the offices of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, 232 Guelph Street, Georgetown, Ontario, and those lands added to the Niagara Escarpment Plan under subsection 19 (1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. 3. The area of land designated as Parts 1 to 36, both inclusive, on a plan entitled "Plan of the Boundary of the Protected Countryside" dated February 23, 2005 and filed on that date with the Office of the Surveyor General of Ontario in the Ministry of Natural Resources. (2) Copies of the plan referred to in paragraph 3 of subsection (1) are available for public inspection at the following locations: 1. The offices of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing at 777 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario. 2. The offices of the Niagara Escarpment Commission located at 232 Guelph Street, Georgetown, Ontario. 3. The offices of the Ministry of Natural Resources at 300 Water Street, Peterborough, Ontario. Commencement 2. This Regulation shall be deemed to have come into force on December 16, 2004. March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 L121 Attachment 3 ONTARIO REGULATION 61/05 made under the GREENBELT ACT, 2005 Made: February 28, 2005 Filed: February 28, 2005 Printed in The Ontario Gazette: March 19, 2005 PRESCRIBED APPLICATIONS, MATTERS, PROCEEDINGS AND POLICIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBSECTION 24 (3) OF THE ACT Prescribed applications, matters, proceedings and policies 1. (1) An application, matter or proceeding described in subsection (2) is prescribed under clause 22 (1) (d) of the Act for the purposes of subsection 24 (3) of the Act if, (a) the application, matter or proceeding is commenced on or after December 16, 2003 but before December 16, 2004; and (b) no decision, within the meaning of section 3, was made with respect to the application, matter or proceeding before February 28, 2005. (2) The applications, matters and proceedings referred to in subsection (1) are applications, matters and proceedings under section 17, 21 or 22 of the Planning Act relating to an official plan or an official plan amendment to permit mineral aggregate uses within the lands described in paragraph 3 of subsection 1 (1) of Ontario Regulation 59/05, as that Regulation read on February 28, 2005. (3) All of the policies of the Greenbelt Plan, as they read on February 28, 2005, are prescribed under clause 22 (1) (d) of the Act for the purposes of subsection 24 (3) of the Act in relation to decisions made in applications, matters or proceedings prescribed by subsection (1). Prescribed applications, matters, proceedings and policies 2. (1) An application, matter or proceeding described in subsection (2) is prescribed under clause 22 (1) (d) of the Act for the purposes of subsection 24 (3) of the Act if, (a) the application, matter or proceeding is commenced before December 16, 2004; and (b) no decision, within the meaning of section 3, was made with respect to the application, matter or proceeding before February 28, 2005. (2) The applications, matters and proceedings referred to in subsection (1) are applications, matters and proceedings under section 17, 21 or 22 of the Planning Act relating to an official plan or an official plan amendment where the official plan or official plan amendment affects any area of land that is, (a) within the Town of Richmond Hill, the Town of Markham, the Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville or the City of Toronto; (b) south of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan southern boundary; and (c) described in paragraph 3 of subsection 1 (1) of Ontario Regulation 59/05, as that Regulation read on February 28, 2005. (3) All of the policies of the Greenbelt Plan, as they read on February 28, 2005, are prescribed under clause 22 (1) (d) of the Act for the purposes of subsection 24 (3) of the Act in relation to decisions made with respect to applications, matters or proceedings prescribed by subsection (1). Interpretation — when decision made 3. For the purposes of sections 1 and 2, a decision shall be deemed to have been made with respect to an application, matter or proceeding, (a) in the case of an application, matter or proceeding relating to an official plan or official plan amendment, on the day that the council adopts or refuses to adopt all or part of the official plan or official plan amendment or on the day that the approval authority approves, modifies and approves or refuses to approve all or part of the official plan or official plan amendment, whichever is earlier; or (b) in the case of an application, matter or proceeding appealed or referred to the Ontario Municipal Board from the council's neglect, refusal or failure to make a decision relating to an official plan or official plan amendment, on the day that the Ontario Municipal Board makes a decision disposing of the application, matter or proceeding. Li 22 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 March 10, 2005 GREENBELT PLAN Lewis Yeager distributed a copy of the above mentioned report summarizing the implications of the Greenbelt Plan to the Rouge Watershed. OVERVIEW • Introduced how the Greenbelt Plan will affect the Rouge Park and the Rouge Watershed; • The Plan will stand as an excellent implementation tool (mechanism) for the watershed plan. • In the Rouge Watershed the Greenbelt Plan will be dealt with retroactively, which is a departure from any other area; • It defines the Rouge Watershed as very valuable in having had extensive funding invested by the public and government; • The Greenbelt Plan also addresses the Task Force recommendation to strengthen links, by including links to surrounding major lake systems and watersheds, as well as links between the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine. The accomplishments described are cause to celebrate. The final Plan does not appear to address other Task Force recommendations, namely • the addition of greenspace lands, • the extended moratorium, • transportation corridor controls, • provincial approvals of amendments, • equitable treatment for farmers, and • mechanisms for permanency. The Task Force must continue to address these gaps through our watershed planning process. It is hoped the Task Force will be encouraged by the gains it has achieved with the final Greenbelt Plan and feel inspired to contribute to advancing other goals prior to the completion of the Watershed Plan through participation in our Implementation Committee Workplan activities. DISCUSSION Jim Robb Tabled a letter that the Friends of the Rouge Watershed would be sending to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the Greenbelt Plan and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. He encouraged the Task Force to send a further letter regarding issues not addressed. Bryan Buttigieg Expressed the initial letter to be sufficient; however, for Jim Robb to send electronic copy of Friends of the Rouge Watershed letter to Task Force members for their information. March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 L123 REPORTS RES. #L29/05 REVISED ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN WORKPLAN SCHEDULE To adopt the revised Rouge Workplan Schedule. Moved by: Seconded by: Mike Price Alex Georgieff RECOMMENDATION THAT the revised Rouge Watershed Plan Workplan Schedule, dated March 2005, be adopted; AND FURTHER THAT any recommendations for substantive changes in scope, products or time lines be brought back to the Rouge Task Force for approval. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Rouge Watershed Plan Workplan, presented to the Task Force for approval at meeting #1/04, April 7th, 2004, included a schedule that spanned from 2004 to the beginning of 2006. Staff would now like to bring forward an updated workplan schedule for 2005 (Attachment 1) and request approval for proceeding with the actions as proposed. The attached figure illustrates the primary work streams, schedule, and subjects for discussion at each of the Task Force meetings. This workplan will be carried out in cooperation with the Task Force members, Implementation Committee, technical team, and staff of Rouge Park and TRCA. This work will result in the production of a draft watershed plan by the end of the year. Studies that formed the basis for the plan will have been peer reviewed to ensure their scientific defense ability, and a broader community of target audiences for the plan will have been engaged. Setting specific implementation recommendations, particularly for key Rouge issues, is an important objective of this study and an area of work which deserves immediate attention, while the other analytical studies are being completed. A workplan of the Implementation Committee (see separate report in this agenda) recommends a more detailed workplan for this work and identifies activities aimed at fostering support and leadership for implementation action by members of target audiences. The draft watershed plan will be the subject of further consultation, finalization, and polishing in the first half of 2006. Supportive, detailed implementation manuals and background technical reports will be completed in conjunction with the final watershed plan. Report prepared by: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 For information contact: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 Date: March 8, 2005 Attachment 4 (unable to send digitally) OVERVIEW by Sonya Meek • Task Force members were walked through the key products which must be produced by the end of the year and where Task Force member input would be required; • Focus of wokplan is to ensure that the plan will advance implementation; as was an L124 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 March 10, 2005 important objective expressed by many stakeholders • Staff have recently spent time reviewing all past meeting recommendations and comments assuring all Task Force member suggestions have been addressed in the workplan for e.g. how principles, such as the "precautionary approach" and "adaptive management ",should be considered in the development of the management strategy to address uncertainties and lack of monitoring data in the Rouge; Jim Robb Suggested having Les Stanfield to a Task Force meeting to discuss % impervious cover and natural cover. Questioned how source protection will be worked into the watershed plan and requested that the Task Force be kept informed of source protection activities. RES. #L30/05 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE WORKPLAN Workplan of the Implementation Committee of the Rouge Watershed Task Force. Moved by: Seconded by: Lionell Purcell Alex Georgeiff RECOMMENDATION THAT the Workplan of the Implementation Committee of the Rouge Watershed Task Force be received; THAT the Implementation Committee oversee the following five strategic activities, aimed at developing more specific implementation recommendations for key issues and fostering early action by the implementers: 1. Communications - Outreach, Awareness 2. Preparation of a Homeowner's Manual 3. Concept Site Plan(s) 4. Management Summits 5. Final Rouge Watershed Plan Documents; THAT Task Force members review the Implementation Committee activities for opportunities to provide assistance as either Committee members or information sources and advise Patricia Mohr of their interests; AND FURTHER THAT the Implementation Committee report back to the Task Force regularly on its progress. CARRIED BACKGROUND RES. #L22/04 at Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting #6/04, held on December 9, 2004, was approved as follows: THAT Task Force members provide feedback to the Implementation Committee via Patricia Mohr on the following matters: March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 L125 a) comments on the Implementation Committee report, b) any available reference materials, guidelines, handbooks, etc. for "backyard" residential stewardship, c) suggested locations for demonstration projects associated with each of the primary target audiences; AND FURTHER THAT the Implementation Committee report back at the March 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting on progress in advancing the Implementation aspects of the Rouge Watershed Plan. Since the December 9th, 2004 Task Force meeting, no feedback on Implementation Committee matters has been received on the initial three activities identified: 1. Rouge Watershed Promotional Materials (i.e. Communications - Outreach, Awareness) 2. Preparation of a Resident's Handbook (Le. Homeowner's Manual) 3. Preparing "Concept Site" Plans. The Implementation Committee proceeded to finalize their workplan (Attachment 2) and discuss ways to advance the strategic activities at a meeting on Tuesday, February 8, 2005. Recognized, were two additional activities critical to a successful implementation workplan, that include: • the convening of experts and stakeholders at management summit meetings to confirm key Rouge watershed management issues, implementation barriers and recommendations to resolve issues, and • the determination of audience(s), framework and format for the final watershed plan and implementation plan documents to help ensure a user - friendly plan. These five strategic activities of the Implementation Committee require participation by Task Force members and staff, to carry out designated tasks and confirm that watershed targets are being addressed through their actions. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Task Force members are invited to comment on this workplan and participate in the pursuit of the strategic activities. Report prepared by: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 For Information contact: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 Date: March 3, 2005 Patricia Mohr walked the Task Force members through the Report DISCUSSION Mike Price L9 of Agenda under Community and Outreach - Suggested investigating having the Rouge Watershed designated as a Heritage River similar to the Humber. Bring someone from the Humber Watershed together with the Implementation Committee to discuss the work and process involved in designation. L126 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 March 10, 2005 Lewis Yeager There is no real barrier to having the Rouge designated as Heritage; requires quite a lot of work and a lot of cost. Lionel Purcell Agree. This should be pursued, the Little Rouge and Rouge were much better rivers for navigation and used much before the Humber. Christine Caroppo This should be pursued on a parallel course with the Watershed Plan. Could begin now to link wording of the Rouge River with Carrying Place to give the notion of it being a Heritage River. It is a large task. Jim Robb Derek Lee could use an assistant to gather material for Heritage designation. - Gay Cowbourne Suggested that herself and Mike Price could possibly work together on this possibility. March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 L127 Attachment 5 ROUGE WATERSHED PLANNING STUDY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE WORKPLAN March 1, 2005 Although implementation is an essential phase of a successful watershed plan, there is typically insufficient time allocated in the planning process to develop an effective implementation plan to guide the required actions. Accordingly, a need was identified by the Rouge Watershed Task Force to establish an Implementation Committee early on to advance strategic implementation aspects of the Rouge Watershed Plan while the plan is being developed. This paper summarizes the steps taken by the Committee in approaching its task, and presents a proposed workplan comprising five activities. As a first step in identifying a workplan, the Implementation Committee reviewed "lessons learned" from watershed planning and implementation experiences of other jurisdictions. They found that effective watershed plans: • included a mix of voluntary and regulatory implementation tools; • provided specific and clear implementation recommendations; • engaged the implementors in the development of the plan; and • ensured a champion or leader, to maintain consistency and momentum from plan development to plan implementation. Rouge Watershed goals were developed by the Task Force and presented in the Rouge State of the Watershed Report (draft, June 2004), along with current watershed conditions and management issues that were defined in relation to these goals. Using this information and with the help of a Task Force workshop, the Implementation Committee then developed a list of problem statements and associated target audiences (i.e. implementors) in relation to watershed issues. This led to an examination of potential delivery mechanisms, or implementation tools (voluntary and regulatory), that could be applied in approaching target audiences, as well as gaps and barriers that may need to be addressed to facilitate implementation through these audiences. Working tables and notes generated are contained in the Committee's meeting records. This preliminary work was used to help identify the following five strategic activities to advance the implementation aspects of the final watershed plan. L128 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2105 March 10, 2005 1. COMMUNICATIONS - OUTREACH, AWARENESS Objective: To begin raising awareness of watershed issues and management approaches among members of primary target audiences and the media, while the planning studies are underway. Rationale: This communication and outreach work will be important so that we can attract stakeholders' attention and foster shared concern for our goals as the plan is being developed. In this way, stakeholders will be anxious to participate meaningfully in the preparation of the final draft plan and be in a position to implement our recommendations more readily. This initiative will also be a primary mechanism for addressing cultural ecology, public use, and land and resource use targets amongst the resident, business, farmer and school target audiences. Primary Tasks: 1. Promote Key Messages. Examples (to be confirmed with Task Force): • Rouge is becoming degraded; is at a threshold, so now is the time to make decisions about its future • major steps have been taken (Rouge Park, Oak Ridges Moraine Act, Markham Small Streams, etc.); more are needed to protect the watershed and investments already made • Rouge Task Force is developing recommendations for the future; everyone is invited to participate in the process • Rouge decisions also contribute to other initiatives of public concern, eg. RAP, GLWQA, Source Protection, etc. 2. Informal and Formal Awareness /Consultation Sessions • Promote key messages through Task Force members' networks within their broader constituency and the media • Use existing opportunities to promote Rouge, eg. events, and other communication pieces /venues, etc. • Coordinate messaging with meetings and summits described under Activity 4 • Assist in the planning and design of formal consultation sessions in fall, 2005 (e.g. open houses, focus group meetings, peer review) 3. Development of Other Supportive Materials and Initiatives • Prepare Rouge backgrounder kit (main messages, primary references) • Prepare standard display and powerpoint presentation • Maintain web site • Support partner initiative of signage of watercourses March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2105 L129 Coordinate with: Activity 2 (Homeowners Manual); Activity 3 (Concept Site(s)); Activity 4 (meetings and summits). Lead Staff Liaison: Implementation Committee Liaison: Working Group Participants: Maryam Nassar, Rouge Park 2. PREPARATION OF A HOMEOWNER'S MANUAL Objective: To assemble educational and "how to" information that could be distributed to homeowners to assist in raising awareness of stewardship practices that are especially important in the Rouge watershed. Rationale: The private homeowner will be a significant target audience for the watershed plan, so we should begin with this audience. Similar manuals for businesses, schools, and other specialized landowners may follow. The manual would assist in illustrating practical tips for implementation of the watershed plan's recommendations. A "how to" manual is an effective strategy for encouraging environmentally - friendly practices among resident, business, farmer and school target audiences that may address many watershed targets. Primary Tasks: This initiative will be coordinated with an already planned Rouge Park -led homeowner manual project. It is recognized that many materials are already available, so the Committee's intent is to build on the available materials by filling gaps, improving access, and making it "Rouge" relevant. Coordinate with: Activity 1 (Communications) Lead Staff Liaison: Maryam Nassar Implementation Committee Liaison: David Tuley Working Group Participants: 3. CONCEPT SITE (DEMONSTRATION PROJECT) PLAN(S) Objective: To develop conceptual management plans for selected site(s) within the Rouge watershed to demonstrate the implementation of innovative watershed management practices for key issues. Rationale: The process of developing these concept site plan(s) could inform the Task Force on the practicalities of implementation challenges, that in turn could assist in fine - tuning the final watershed plan. The sites could also be a mechanism to engage the local community and target audiences in the watershed planning study on a "ground level" application. As a truly integrated strategy, effort will be made to demonstrate the implementation of as many watershed targets as possible at selected concept sites, appealing to all target audiences. Primary Tasks: • Identify candidate sites, possibly at least one for each target audience. L130 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 March 10, 2005 • Develop selection criteria for selecting the preferred sites. • Members of working group could assist in gathering info about each candidate site (i.e. interested sponsors, site opportunities /constraints, etc.) • Seek available in -house resources or necessary external resources to develop concept site plans. Coordinate with: Activity 1 (Communications) and appropriate local consultation. Lead Staff Liaison: TBD (depending on the nature of the site) Implementation Committee Liaison: Working Group Participants: 4. MANAGEMENT SUMMITS Objective: To discuss the key Rouge watershed management issues and implementation barriers with experts and stakeholders, and develop recommendations as to how the study and the final plan can advance our ability to address these issues. Management or implementation "issues" may involve data /knowledge gaps or they may be associated with the need for stronger implementation tools, policies, programs, enforcement, etc. Rationale: Although the Rouge Watershed Plan will attempt to provide sound direction on all aspects of watershed management, it is important to ensure that adequate attention is paid to key issues. These are issues which, if not managed, will result in irreparable change to the watershed which will jeopardize the ability to achieve other goals, despite good effort in those other areas. Given the limited time available, the most expedient role of the Task Force is that of a facilitator and a forum for convening all the necessary experts and stakeholders who can help resolve the issues. "Management summits" will be established as needed. Draft List of Key Management Issues /"Management Summits" 1. In- stream Erosion/Water Balance /Stormwater Runoff Volume/Water Quality Mgmt. Issues: limits of % impervious, SWM practice and technology, water re- use /trading, need for more monitoring /research into the effectiveness of BMPs, Contingency planning /adaptive management for SWM implementation? How to overcome implementation barriers associated with building codes and lack of financial incentives, etc. 2. Impacts of construction practices Mgmt. Issues: poor construction practices, E &SC, enforcement, infrastructure installation impacts etc. Summit may explore what improvements are in the works and what the Rouge can do to fill gaps. 3. Lack of natural cover Mgmt. Issue: lack of natural cover in upper and mid reaches and reliance on private landowners to cooperate in stewardship initiatives. Build on TRCA's TNH consultation. 4. Sustainability Practices Mgmt. Issue: public uptake of innovative practices, building code conflicts, etc.. This March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 L131 input will be necessary for the finalization of the sustainable community design scenario and development of associated implementation recommendations. 5. Model Policy 'Working Group Meeting" Issue: Need for improved implementation through municipal OPs. Integrate with Rouge Park Management Plan implementation. Meet with the municipal planners to discuss generic model policy document and its application in Rouge. Primary Tasks: • STEP 1: Confirm the proposed list of key management issues /summit topics (see Attachment 3) with technical colleagues and TF members. • STEP 2: Convene pre- summit "scoping/preparatory" meetings for each topic ASAP with small local groups to ferret out all the issues and determine strategies for advancing them as part of the study and /or specific recommendations of the final plan. Where a "summit" with additional experts and decision - makers is warranted, develop the best approach for designing the summit meeting (eg. Who should be invited? Need for discussion paper in advance; workshop format, timing, etc.). • STEP 3: Conduct follow -up work on each issue, culminating with a summit meeting and /or the planned fall, 2005 focus group consultation to test the recommendations. The goal for each summit meeting is to develop a consensus on the management and implementation recommendations to be published in the final draft watershed plan. • NOTE: The summit series may lead into the planned "stakeholder focus group" consultation, and so the two initiatives would be coordinated. The initial "preparatory" meetings and summits will likely be arranged by management issue, as they would require scoping by a range of practitioners representing different perspectives. These discussions may then lead into "focus group" meetings that would be associated with specific target audiences. Some meetings could occur immediately, while others may need to wait until modelling results provide a better indication of the significance of certain issues or effectiveness of implementation approaches. L132 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2105 March 10, 2005 Coordinate with: Technical analysis and findings; Activity 1 (Communications - key issues, messaging); SOW "Exec. Summary/Key Issues" exercise. Lead Staff Liaison: Implementation Committee Liaison: Working Group Participants: Patricia Mohr 5. FINAL ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN DOCUMENTS Objective: To determine the audience(s) and the most appropriate framework and format for the final watershed plan and implementation plan documents. Rationale: Packaging is a factor in the creation of an effective plan. Primary Tasks: • Consider the role for a widely consumable, succinct watershed plan document and a separate user - oriented implementation manual and model policy that may contain more technical implementation details, Zook -up tables, criteria, maps, etc. • Inventory and critique available implementation mechanisms and programs. Use this as a basis to determine how to wrap up Part 2 of SOW report and for developing an implementation framework and a short list of implementation strategies for the plan. Lead Staff Liaison: Implementation Committee Liaison: Working Group Participants: March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 L133 Attachment 6 PREP MEETING DISCUSSION STARTER pkt4 fiT7`r��+�� In- strearn, rosion a'tetance /Stnrrnwater runoff volume iier,quali li Draft: February 26th, 2005 1. Definition of the Issue • Impervious surfaces associated with urbanization are causing increased surface runoff volumes and watercourses are experiencing higher volumes and increased frequency of peak flows that are leading to unstable channel conditions and unnatural levels of erosion • By impeding infiltration, the impervious surfaces are also reducing the amount groundwater available for discharge into the watercourses, thereby exacerbating risks during periods of low water • With increased surface runoff, more contaminants are reaching watercourses • Instream temperatures are rising with increased surface water and decreased groundwater contributions • Updated hydrology and floodplain mapping studies may have implications for changes in flood risk • Stormwater management (SWM) ponds designed to provide quantity control are helping to mitigate peak flows downstream of the developments they service, but recent finding in Richmond Hill suggest that ponds may not be fully functioning as designed for quantity control objectives. • Watercourses are still receiving high volumes of surface runoff from lands without SWM • SWM ponds designed to provide quality control are meeting or exceeding their design objectives, but no studies have been done to confirm the cumulative benefits to in- stream water quality. Evidence is suggesting there are limits to the ability of SWM to mitigate water quality degradation and that effective analysis extends beyond concentration - based criteria to include loadings. • To operate correctly, SWM ponds require regular maintenance, and should be recognized as part of municipal infrastructure maintenance programs • Unmaintained SWM ponds may increase the potential for West Nile virus • The unnatural quantity and quality conditions are threatening terrestrial and aquatic systems • Extended detention SWM facilities, designed to maintain flows below the determined erosion index for downstream reaches, are improvements over past practices but still do not appear to mitigate entirely against erosion L134 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 March 10, 2005 2. What is being done? • Maintenance of overall water budget is being added to the traditional list of SWM objectives, which includes quantity control for flood risk and erosion and water quality. The implementation challenge is to maintain existing infiltration and control total volume of runoff. • Recent research identifies a threshold of 7 -10% impervious in a subwatershed, beyond which impacts to the aquatic system are inevitable. • Green roofs, permeable pavements, and other innovative lot level technologies are being promoted and evaluated through the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP; formerly SWAMP) • Incentives for implementing lot level SWM practices are being promoted through the development of lot level credits as part of SWM implementation policies. • Retrofit programs for improving SWM in already urbanized areas are underway (e.g. Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Master Plan; Markham's retrofit program) • Downspouts are being disconnected and rainwater is being allowed to infiltrate • Initiatives for increasing natural cover will contribute to reduced surface runoff • Markham is preparing a SWM facility operations and maintenance plan for all of its SWM facilities, including a funding program. Richmond Hill has already prepared a similar . plan. 3. What are the gaps and implementation barriers? • Urban growth is occurring before technologies to maintain water balance are fully tested, therefore we are planning in the face of some uncertainty as to their performance • Need to develop and adopt policy and guidelines that require the maintenance of overall water balance • Need provincial standards /specifications for new technologies, such as green roofs, permeable pavement • Innovative technologies need to be designed, monitored and evaluated in terms of their performance at achieving water balance objectives • Subwatershed -based monitoring studies are needed to determine if innovative stormwater management practices mitigate the cumulative effects of urban development on aquatic systems; they may only increase the impervious surface threshold to 10 -15 %? • consider a no net loss in topsoil policy, as a means of maintaining soil moisture storage capacity • strategies for dealing with increased water temperature and chloride must be developed • maintenance and enforcement programs must be developed and funded • adaptive management planning, including monitoring at appropriate scales, needs to be incorporated into stormwater designs and watershed management programs. March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 L135 NEXT STEPS 4. What can the Implementation Committee do to advance /resolve these issues as part of the Rouge Planning Study? -To be determined in consultation with experts, for eg.: • identifying strategies for filling data gaps • improving awareness through communication strategies and, at a more specific level, target audience manuals. • convene "management summit" meetings with key players in policy generation and implementation to discuss the development of water balance policy and implementation guidelines, including percent impervious limits • investigating opportunities for demonstrating reductions in impervious surface and new and improved SWM ponds through concept sites 5. What are possible recommendations to consider for the final Rouge Watershed Plan? Yr a z.� �, � *'��i�` . y {, 4 kx . .I ,h ' ti a .�.r n }iFY`...%,i �1 e +L '� ° �� ,.�,T,�i.� rts`''�'4vs �� $ �.°S' {�"�i � �� Recommendafions 4}' fry � . 1 ?b .rat C, �' k t; �'. 1� K7 `1.�...;HM \.nh`U.if:.;"n A \y ^r ".1 Iv . r �.., r� ��` � �' „,,.. d - r iN .Met Audience �l w, ., , .,...i..�.,,.;. ti: . Planning /Policy - limit the percent impervious in development designs to a percent TBD Public Agency - promote sustainable design practices to reduce impervious surface, by increasing building density and leaving more in natural cover; by incorporating green roofs in commercial /industrial areas; etc. Public Agency - ensure that new stormwater management designs include plans for maintaining infiltration so that pre - development flows are attainable Public Agency Regeneration /Retrofit • - apply pervious surface where possible as old surfaces are replaced Public Agency - retrofit stormwater ponds for quality and erosion Public Agency - address thermal conditions and chloride fully in stormwater control criteria Public Agency Li 36 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2105 March 10, 2005 Education /Stewardship - encourage the use of pervious surfaces and renaturalization programs around the home, business, school Resident, Business, School - promote pollution prevention Resident, Business, School - distribute downspout disconnection brochures to property owners in affected older urban parts of the watershed Resident, Business, School - adopt SWM infrastructure maintenance programs and establish funding program Municipality - examine the Environmental Farm Plan package to see that it serves our needs for opportunities to promote increases in infiltration Farmer Incentives /Disincentives - develop policy of lot level credits for SWM Public Agency - provide funding for award incentives for each audience, such as "Most Environmentally - Friendly Design" ? Monitoring - require monitoring and enforcement to ensure stormwater pond performance targets are met Public Agency March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2105 L137 PREP MEETING DISCUSSION ay _ Wd■ Will STARTER tetr4 ` >TORiC .ImpactsofConstructio Practice:. 4 Draft: February 28`h, 2005 1. Definition of the Issue , , , , drr dpr Lt_L-41C1_AC • current construction practice of lowering a floodplain to provide gravity -fed servicing to adjacent developments disrupts natural systems for many years • when soil is removed from a construction site, the reduced soil productivity significantly delays site restoration and restricts plant longevity • restoration plantings typically include exotic species • during construction, the exposed soil erodes into the adjacent watercourse and builds up on the channel bed, smothers benthic communities, and increases in- stream turbidity • contaminants are transported with the soil, thereby lowering in- stream water quality • infiltration is impeded through the soil compaction resulting from construction activities • the cleared land increases the exposure of the stream to sunlight, causing significant increases in in- stream water temperature, leading to algal blooms and poorer water quality 2. What is being done? • new draft TRCA Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines, updated from 1994, are being circulated to the municipalities and other conservation authorities for comment and are expected to be completed within a few months • studies show that current provincial standards for erosion and sediment control practices are inadequate. Eg. sediment fencing products comply with provincial standards, but they do not filter particles of Tess than 50 microns and much of the sediment on construction sites with fine soils is less than this • TRCA requires "Level 1" control (ultimate SWM pond quality control criteria) with permanent pool during construction, which is more stringent than provincial standards, but even this may be inadequate • where watercourses are redirected, natural channel design is employed • an increasing number of restoration plans specify native species • top soil is being retained for replacement at the site 3. What are the gaps and implementation barriers? • there is a need for new standards for erosion and sediment control ponds - "Level 1" control is inadequate for controlling sediment and compliance is actually easier to demonstrate with higher sediment inputs • there should be more regular maintenance of sediment and erosion control ponds during construction, with a clean -out required when it is 50% full; due diligence is required in maintaining ponds and increasing the length to width ratio of their dimension • control efforts are inadequate for stopping erosion and the fabrics in use may be presenting hazards to wildlife • the soil profile is not restored to the site and restoration success continues to be impeded • site compaction is still too great, hindering restoration success • natural channel design as a preferred strategy is under debate • there is insufficient inspection of construction activities and not all planned practices are L138 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 March 10,'2005 being adhered to • there is insufficient monitoring of long term effects of construction practices • need for improved mechanisms for enforcement and compliance • not enough effort is extended to examine design alternatives that would avoid water table lowering • need new provincial standards for various technologies and practices (e.g. sediment fences) in order to encourage product manufacturers to improve technologies • need for education and training for conservation authorities, municipalities and contractors in relation to erosion and sediment control • to make "letters of credit" for maintenance more effective, there should be a web -based tracking system for regular site inspection reports to demonstrate compliance NEXT STEPS 4. What can the Implementation Committee do to advance /resolve these issues as part of the Rouge Planning Study? These actions, to be determined in consultation with experts, may include: • identify strategies for filling data gaps • convene "management summit" meetings with key players in policy generation and implementation to identify appropriate initiatives • investigating opportunities for demonstrating improved construction practice through concept sites 5. What are possible recommendations to consider for the final Rouge Watershed Plan? At • .} r. " d �� •�;`�' " ;'tr�. � , ,� Tool, , , ;a� a �-i. , �.; �: .i1 gi.N i4 - ° �,' " + .x.4+,; t Recom endton R ;W .c ,ahkYi�; 1r' x+f.,�� :� >L';, .. Tar eAud,ience , Planning /Policy - no stream diversions unless absolutely necessary Public Agency/ Developer - improve erosion & sediment control during construction Public Agency/ Developer - use construction - phasing to minimize impacts Public Agency/ Developer - reconstruct original soil profile Public Agency/ Developer - reduce on -site soil compaction Public Agency/ Developer - no basements within ?? of the watercourse to limit Iowerings associated with infrastructure requirements Public Agency/ Developer - make full EA mandatory for large projects Public Agency / Developer March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2105 L139 - use most environmentally - friendly products for erosion control Public Agency/ Developer - include Development Charges for pre- development site inventory, site inspections, monitoring, enforcement Public Agency/ Developer - update outdated OPs that no longer conform with current practice Public Agency/ Developer - wait for completion of ongoing related management plans before construction begins and ensure development design conforms with these plans Public Agency/ Developer Incentives /Disincentives - increase funding for acquisition of land critical to the health of watershed Public Agency/ Developer - provide funding for award incentives for developer, such as "Most Environmentally - Friendly Design" Public Agency/ Developer Monitoring - require monitoring and enforcement to ensure construction plans are adhered to Public Agency/ Developer L140 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 March 10, 2005 OP1 a aturalCo■er PREP '� "" ,4 gR �� .r,? Loss • MEETING t DISCUSSION "A•"` ,. "._..,.•.r STARTER Draft: Feb 1. Definition of the Issue • the Rouge watershed has been recognized at national, provincial, regional and local levels for its significant natural heritage features • the features are being threatened as land is cleared for human use • terrestrial and aquatic systems have been lost and degraded; the cleared landscape has lead to substantial increases in surface runoff and deteriorating water and air quality • demand for urbanization continues from the growing human population and high development pressures in the unprotected middle reach areas threaten to sever the watershed • the watershed is at an urbanizing threshold, beyond which species are rapidly lost from the system • the watershed is at risk, as are extensive investments made to protect it 2. What is being done? • broad scale initiatives, culminating in Rouge Park and the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan, have been taken to protect the Rouge watershed • the province has released a Greenbelt Plan to limit urban sprawl in the Golden Horseshoe region and has recognized the importance of protecting a natural heritage system within the Greenbelt areas • municipalities are helping to restore natural cover on public and private lands and an effort is being made to plan more healthy communities with areas of natural cover that will benefit air, water quality and recreation and contribute to a natural heritage system • an environmental threshold is being developed to provide a more effective quantitative target for watershed protection and it will be linked to natural cover • naturalization efforts, including the planting of native tree and herbaceous species and creation of wetlands, are being adopted by a small percentage of residents, businesses and schools • farmers are leaving lands in natural cover to reduce the environmental impact of their activities March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2105 L141 3. What are the gaps and implementation barriers? • encouraging the adoption of strategies whose benefits, although greater, accrue over the longer term is still a difficult and often unsuccessful process • successes in natural heritage protection are often marginal and insufficient, particularly as they result from site level planning in the absence of a watershed perspective and an appreciation of cumulative impacts • scientific data are frequently inadequate at a site level for generating specific, statistically supported management direction • natural cover protection and restoration, as broad -based strategies with long term benefits, require more policy incentives than are currently available • there is still a lack of awareness among resident, school, farm and business audiences of the importance of natural cover and the issues related to it NEXT STEPS 4. What can the Implementation Committee do to advance /resolve these issues as part of the Rouge Planning Study? The actions, to be determined in consultation with experts, may include: • identify strategies for-filling data gaps • improve awareness through communication strategies and, at a more specific level, target audience manuals. • convene "management summit" meetings with key players in policy generation and implementation to identify appropriate initiatives • investigate opportunities for demonstrating increased natural cover through concept sites L142 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2105 March 10, 2005 5. What are possible recommendations to consider for the final Rouge Watershed Plan? f, .r,:... i'lritekt444,-;‘, •*,:tte•Eti.",_ .‘'.4,4,44,#.4;ie:',,,-'"".,-4, Warist: "'" ;;V:i4tVi'4-=.:74*."-:FlOiziil,7-,'; qt*.j*gC.A.90P-PP9,'-.14:$ Planning/Policy • - protect lands designated by TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage targeted system; the Provincial Natural Heritage System; and the Markham Small Streams Study and if necessary acquire these lands Public Agency - extend Rouge North Boundary Criteria and the Markham Small Streams Study recommendations to areas in the watershed outside the Town of Markham Public Agency - increase the percentage of natural cover in new development plans, compensating with denser building design Public Agency . - prohibit the planting of invasive species Public Agency - restrict the dumping of fill to discourage the spread of invasives Public Agency - restrict the use of exotic plants, exotic fish stocking, exotic bait fishing in favour of native species Public Agency - prohibit the draining of wetlands Public Agency - identify planning tools for limiting encroachment and gaps in the tools available Public Agency - identify any regulatory tools that conflict with naturalization; resolve . conflicts in favour of the environment Public Agency Regeneration/Retrofit , - restore forest, wetland and riparian zones to natural cover where possible with priorities to enlarge and create functioning linkages with existing natural areas Public Agency - naturalize public sodded areas Public Agency - expand invasive species control Public Agency March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 L143 Education /Stewardship - adapt the Rouge Park homeowner's manual for the watershed, stressing the importance of natural cover for watershed health and discouraging encroachment on such lands; vary the manual as necessary to target each of the audiences. Resident, Business, School - examine the Environmental Farm Plan package to see that it serves our needs for promoting increase in natural cover for watershed health Farmer - sponsor watershed promotional days Public Agency - fund interpretive signs that identify the watershed and the importance of it, in all municipal parks with Rouge watercourses Public Agency - sponsor farm appreciation days within urban areas Public Agency Incentives /Disincentives - promote environmental easements Public Agency - provide funding for award incentives for each audience, such as "Most Environmentally - Friendly Design" Public Agency - allow developers a tax break on marginal lands in the urban envelope or encourage them to apply for a tax break before it becomes part of the designated urban area, to increase the protection of natural cover Public Agency - fund programs for fencing adjacent to watercourses, to protect riparian zones Public Agency - increase funding for implementation of environmental farm plans Public Agency - remove the tax on marginal farmlands that are allowed to re- naturalize (including wetlands) Public Agency Monitoring - increase monitoring and enforcement in relation to natural area protection Public Agency L144 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 March 10, 2005 RES. #L31/05 Moved by: Seconded by: IMPORTANT ROUGE MANAGEMENT ISSUES Development of a consensus among Task Force members on the key Rouge watershed management issues and messages for use in awareness building initiatives and other Rouge studies and documentation. Murray Johnson Gay Cowbourne RECOMMENDATION THAT Task Force members send any further comments on the draft key issues and messages to Patricia Mohr by March 18, 2005; AND FURTHER THAT staff incorporate comments provided by the Task Force members during and subsequent to the meeting and circulate a revised set of key issues statements and messages prior to the next Task Force meeting. CARRIED BACKGROUND Now that Task Force members have had a chance to discuss many component systems described in the Draft Rouge State of the Watershed Report and a significant number of stakeholder review comments have been received, it is time to develop a consensus on what we now consider to be the "key issues" and how we could best convey a compelling case for action. The results of this exercise will serve a number of purposes: • focus our management and implementation work on the most critical problems; • double -check that our analysis and modelling work is addressing the important issues; • supply Task Force members with a common "story" for broader awareness building and engagement of primary target audiences; • provide a basis for developing an Executive Summary for the State of the Watershed Report; and • provide a basis for preparing the introductory sections of the Watershed Plan. A draft list of "key messages" has been prepared in consultation with members of the Implementation Committee. These draft "key messages" are presented on the attached worksheet and the Task Force is invited to contribute to this list along with the list of key issues, as part of a workshop discussion. It should be recognized that we will update these lists from time to time, as results of the ongoing modelling and analysis work and other studies generate new information and understanding about the Rouge watershed. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will incorporate comments provided by the Task Force members during and subsequent to the meeting and will circulate a revised set of key issues statements and messages prior to the next Task Force meeting. Report prepared by: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 For Information contact: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 Date: March 4, 2005 March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 L145 IMPORTANT ROUGE MANAGEMENT ISSUES WORKSHEET Draft Key Messages: (based on discussion at the Feb. 8/05 Imp. Ctte. Meeting) • Rouge is becoming degraded; is at a threshold, so now is the time to make decisions about its future • major steps have been taken (Rouge Park, Oak Ridges Moraine Act, Markham Small Streams, etc.); more are needed to protect the watershed and investments already made • Rouge Task Force is developing recommendations for the future; everyone is invited to participate in the process • Rouge decisions also contribute to other initiatives of public concern, eg. RAP, GLWQA, Source Protection, etc. Comments or other suggestions: 1 3 4 5 Key Issues: 1 2 3 4 5 Li 46 DISCUSSION Murray Johnson Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2105 March 10, 2005 Christine Caroppo Tupper Wheatley Bryan Buttigieg Jim Robb Virginia Jones Bryan Buttigieg Tom Melymuk Bryan Buttigieg Virginia Jones Gay Cowbourne Jim Robb Elio D /'iorio First and foremost protect the Rouge; ongoing impacts; problems linked between policy and education. Protect the Rouge is the first priority. Protect what is there before it is too late. Watched 15 trucks of soil driving up Markham Road from Major Mackenzie Drive to Stouffville. Property is being built up with fill up to the watercourses. Please recall the written words in the goal statement set out in the State of the Watershed Report "To achieve a healthy, sustainable Rouge watershed by protecting, restoring and enhancing its ecological and cultural integrity within the context of a regional natural heritage system." Transfer of top soil has become a very big business. There is a lot of money in accepting soil removed for development. Hydro corridors are being filled to get rid of soil. I would consider the key issues of concern are 1) % impervious soil surface and Les Stanfield's work; 2) % natural cover - Environment Canada recommends at least 30% forest; 3) giving strength to CA's to move TNHS and watershed plans into legislation. Must be more' proactive, as we always seem to be one step behind. We use "enhance" but the status quo is not good enough. "restore" or "revive" the Rouge as the message should be more than just protect. (something like Bring Back the Don). The Rouge has so many people working on it that it may appear to the public that the watershed is OK (is being taken care of, but too much falls through the cracks). Public perception is that too much is being done and messages get lost. There is much the public doesn't know. Citizens in the lower part of the Rouge are unaware of the upper reaches. We require a great deal of public education. Once a name is associated with it, as in the naming of watercourses there is more personal attachment to it. Voiced great concern over the dewatering issue. Feels we did not envision the enormity of the dewatering and the issues involved in placing a huge sewage pipe in an aquifer. It will leak at some point and contaminate the aquifer. The dewatering must stop. Concerned what will happen from here. Work has stopped and there is a chance to do. something. Ten years down the road, how do we explain how it happened? March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2105 L147 Lorne Smith Tributaries up to 8 km away from the dewatering site on the Little Rouge are being affected and wells are becoming contaminated (bacteria, change in minerals, different elements, harder water). Persons with wells in the lower aquifer are becoming contaminated, because of fissures. The Region is using ultraviolet and other devices to clear water. Jim Robb The area from the top of the Moraine to Scarborough is influenced by dewatering. Clyde Smith Would like to see a session in the Management Summit meetings on Groundwater Quality and Quantity Management. As the population explodes, groundwater is being flushed down the York - Durham sewer. Bryan Buttigieg Observed several members have referred to an overarching issue of infrastructure installation. WORKSHOP (DISCUSSION) DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED TARGET TASK FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - Terrestrial System COMMENTS Lionel Purcell Are there survey data on the Little Rouge? Also, staff were out last year surveying my Lot and I would be interested in looking at the data. Is this possible? Natalie /wanycki All data is kept digitally and can be narrowed down to Lot /Concession. ACTION: Natalie to check with Carolyn Woodland whether this information can be released, due to issues on OPA116. Christine Caroppo Can you explain the term, Cultural Meadow? Natalie /wanycki An open meadow which has been established because of cultural use. Christine Caroppo From aerial views can you see non - native species i.e. lilac, which would identify settlement areas? This would be a cost effective way to select potential cultural heritage sites. Natalie /wanycki Can't see from aerial views, however do identify during field surveys. Jim Robb Can you compare natural cover of Rouge vs. Little Rouge? The Little Rouge has potential for an education model. Could target 50% of Little Rouge for forest, some needs to be left for farmland. Doesn't leave much for urbanization Natalie /wanycki We have draft regional cover data. L148 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2105 March 10, 2005 Tupper Wheatley Natalie lwanycki Tupper Wheatley Natalie lwanycki Kevin O'Connor ACTION: Would linking natural areas help remnant species survive or are species in the areas so different connections would not help? Yes connections would help. We look at urbanization and how the land is fragmented. Some urban development is more compatible with natural cover that others. Industrial areas are a better choice to have backed onto valley land than residential communities, because they are generally less invasive. A 10 metre buffer on either side is not sufficient for a corridor. A 10 M buffer is not sufficient and TRCA is in the process of updating several policies and guidelines. Can we get copies of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy. Please send requests for a copy of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy to Sylvia and she will send out copies. DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED TARGET TASK FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - Air Quality and Climate Change • At this time TRCA does not collect specific air quality data, nor have a staff member specialized in the field of air quality. • The data sources used are Ontario Ministry of the Environment - which allow for a good comparison of urban vs. rural. • Lichen collection and analysis is a second source of data for air quality. The current years collection of data was not sufficient to run analysis. Monitoring is being reworked and will be run next year. COMMENTS Please forward any questions in writing to Cindy Kambeitz and she will follow up the research. DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED TARGET TASK FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - Cultural Ecology Cathy Crinnion The Cultural Ecology program at TRCA has expanded over the past years. We have increased from 369 archeological sites in the Rouge Watershed to 500 recently. On the Rouge Watershed the rating is Good, but public awareness could support heritage even further. March 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05 L149 Recommendations would be: • regular scheduled surveys; , continued investigation; application of a standard approach; assistance from the public. Cathy announced the 29th Annual Boyd Field Centre Archaeological program. This summer the program will investigate a site in the Rouge watershed. Christine Caroppo A great number of students have gone through the Boyd Field Centre program and continued on to be archaeologists. Tupper Wheatley Can we not actually view the watershed as a cultural heritage? Natural heritage protection leads to cultural heritage protection (i.e. Mill Ponds). Jim Robb If we increase the buffer from the water we will capture more of the cultural heritage while also protecting the natural heritage. Cathy Crinnion Up to 300 m from the river there can be sites found. Christine Caroppo Before the 1980's archaeology was research orientated. A theory was cast, then the researcher went out to explore the possibility of that theory. After the 80's archaeology became more of a business. Archaeologists had clients to serve and deadlines to meet for those clients. Now archaeology is very development driven. If a road or other development is to be put in a, archaeology search assessment must be completed and reported. This model is currently under review by the Province. Virginia Jones Will we have access to the data collected by the Boyd Field Centre? We may want to look at a Media Event at the site for public exposure for the Rouge Watershed Cathy Crinnion The Ministry of Culture requires that a report be submitted, which could then be used. Brian E. Denney Chief Administrative Officer /slw THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES OF MEETING #3/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #8/05 OCTOBER 28, 2005 TORONTO AND REGION The onserva tion Rouge Park for The Living City MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3/05 April 21St, 2005 The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at the Rouge River Community Centre in the Town of Markham on Thursday, April 2151, 2005. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. PRESENT Bryan Buttigieg Member Christine Caroppo Member Del Fisher Alternate Alex Georgieff Alternate Paul Harpley Alternate Jack Heath Alternate Stacey Steele for Audrey Hollasch Alternate Murray Johnston Member George McKelvey Alternate Kevin O'Connor Alternate Terry O'Connor Member Lionel Purcell Member Patricia Short-Galle Member Lorne Smith Member David Tuley Member Tupper Wheatley Alternate STAFF Lewis Yeager Rouge Park Maryam Nassar Rouge Park Gord Weeden Rouge Park Alliance Sonya Meek TRCA Patricia Mohr TRCA Peter Attfield TRCA Tim Rance TRCA Sylvia Waters TRCA GUESTS Brian Hindley Aquafor Beech Limited Lilli Duoba Town of Markham Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto L151 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 April 21, 2005 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Bryan Buttigieg noted the earlier start to the meeting due to the size of the agenda and thanked members. RES. #L32/05 MINUTES Moved by: Terry O'Connor Seconded by: Paul Harpley THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05, held on, March 10, 2005 be approved. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES In the review of #2/05 Minutes: Christine Caroppo suggested the following changes on pg.149 in strikeout and bold Christine Caroppo Before the 1980's archaeology was research orientated. A theory was cast, then the researcher went out to explore the possibility of that theory. After the 80's archaeology became more of a business. Archaeologists had clients to serve and deadlines to meet for those clients. Now archaeology is very development driven. if a road or another development is to be put in a, archaeology search assessment must be completed and reported. This model is currently under review by the Province. In review of #2/05 Minutes: Anil Wijesooriya noted (by phone) that he did attend #2105 held on March 10`h and that the attendee list be amended. AMENDMENT MINUTES RES. #L33/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Terry O'Connor Paul Harpley THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/05, held on, March 10, 2005 be approved as amended. CARRIED April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L152 MARKHAM CENTRE PRESENTATION • The Markham Centre is estimated to be a 10 -15 year build -out; 1000 acres; Runnymede holdings 25% of area in SW corner (Centre Core); 4,000 dwellings, 25,000 people over course of build out; 25% of lands dedicated to greenspace • Markham Centre Masterplan was amended in 2003 • Guiding Principles 1. Protect Enhance the Rouge River Valley 2. Support Public Transit 3. Transform Hwy 7 into an Urban Boulevard 4. Develop an effective Street Network 5. Provide a "Sense of Place" 6. Enhance Pedestrian Activity 7. Ensure Ecological Sustainability 8. Provide Cultural and Social Focus 9. Manage Traffic and Parking Issues 10. Deliver a Financial Framework 11. Respect Quality of Life in Markham • a stakeholder group of 20 -25 persons from a wide range of disciplines was formed to develop performance measures • Performance Measures 1. Greenlands 2. Open Space 3. Green Infrastructure 4. Transportation 5. Built Form • Markham Centre Report Card - projects applications are submitted and reviewed by the Markham Centre Advisory Committee, allowing changes /suggestions to be made to the plans Pau/ Harpley Are the Markham Centre Report Card criteria parallel to the Rouge Watershed criteria? Richard Kendall The report card criteria result from input by an Advisory Committee which consists of stakeholders from the area and are tailored to the Markham Centre project. Lionel Purcell How are the storm water issues being dealt with, because the area is very flat? Richard Kendall Markham Centre is working very closely with the TRCA on these issues. Lionel Purcell You are not planning on lowering the river bed of the Rouge. Richard Kendall No Del Fisher How wide is the corridor on either side of the Rouge River? L153 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3105 April 21, 2005 Richard Kendall Murray Johnston Richard Kendall Bryan Buttigieg Richard Kendall Tupper Wheatley Richard Kendall Tupper Wheatley Richard Kendall Christine Caroppo Richard Kendall Christine Caroppo Richard Kendall Bryan Buttigieg Richard Kendall Paul Harpley Markham Centre is working with TRCA on this buffer. The roads will be along the valley and a large buffer will exist. What about commuting and communications? There is a transit system being developed. Will tie into the new York Region rapid transit system called "VIVA ". Are looking at a dedicated 407 Bus Lane and networking of existing roads, widening of roads and new roads. Within the Markham Centre Plan would you look at the Rouge Watershed criteria? Would have to view the criteria and integrate with the Markham Centre existing policies. Will Markham Small Streams be adhered to at Unionville Gate? Remington's original plan was for a man made lake, TRCA reviewed, however this did not work out technically. This lead to the Land Mark Feature, it will be a tributary 4 (with a 30 -60m meander). Basically a man made channel, to be directed into the Rouge River. Are existing by -laws strong enough to make sure we get this right? This type of storm water management has never been used before. We are addressing this issue through the Performance Measures. Are you using native species for plants? Are attempting to keep to native species, however in some areas this is difficult. What is the greening possibility for single dwellings? It is more difficult to do this on an individual basis. Will you look at the Task Force recommendations as you develop and track the conditions of the Rouge? We are relying on the TRCA to monitor the changes in the watershed. In looking at the issue of sustainability, what social science tools are you using to develop your targets, in the area of transit? April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L154 Sy /via Waters RES. #L34 /05 Moved by: Seconded by: At meeting #2/05 held on March 10"', Lewis Yeager tabled a report entitled GREENBELT PLAN 2005 - HIGHLIGHTS. At that time there was a brief discussion, however, voting did not take place. At this time we would like to open the floor for further discussion if necessary, followed by a vote. GREENBELT PLAN 2005 - HIGHLIGHTS The Province of Ontario has passed the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and released its Greenbelt Plan. George McKelvey Lionel Purcell THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force write to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to congratulate him on the implementation of the Greenbelt Act and Plan; THAT above -noted report be received and further discussed at the Rouge Watershed Task Force at Meeting #3/05, to be held on April 21, 2005; AND FURTHER THAT above -noted report be deferred to the Rouge Watershed Task Force at Meeting #3/05, to be held on April 21, 2005; AMENDMENT RES. #L35 /05 Moved by: Seconded by: GREENBELT PLAN 2005 - HIGHLIGHTS The Province of Ontario has passed the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and released its Greenbelt Plan. George McKelvey Lionel Purcell THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force write to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to congratulate him on the implementation of the Greenbelt Act and Plan. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED • THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND The Rouge Watershed Task Force and its partners have been very energetic in making our needs known throughout the Greenbelt process. While the entire Plan is important, there are a few highlights that have particular significance to Rouge Park. Section 3.2.6: "The Rouge River Watershed and Park" is a new addition to the earlier draft Plan, and it has several features of great importance. This section establishes the Rouge River watershed's particular significance within the Protected Countryside and recognizes Rouge Park's vital ecological corridor role L155 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3105 April 21, 2005 between the Oak Ridges Moraine and Lake Ontario. Second, the Plan solidifies the Little Rouge ecological corridor by identifying a 600 -metre ecological corridor between the Oak Ridges Moraine and Lake Ontario. This builds on efforts in the Rouge North Management Plan and Markham Official Plan Amendment 116 to protect such a corridor by establishing this corridor as a Provincial requirement. Most important, the Greenbelt Plan requires that land use planning and resource management within the Rouge River watershed portion of the Greenbelt Protected Countryside comply not only with the Greenbelt Plan, but also with the Rouge North Management Plan. The more restrictive policies between the two plans will apply, and I will be having discussions with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to define a process for determining which policies are more restrictive. Outside of the Protected Countryside area, the Province has clearly stated that in the area of the Rouge River watershed north of Steeles Avenue, the Rouge North Management Plan and the Rouge North Implementation Manual (ecological criteria), along with other plans that support them, should be considered as the guiding land planning and resource management documents. South of Steeles Avenue, the Rouge Park Management Plan should be considered as the guiding document. This is an important statement of endorsement by the Province of Rouge Park's management plans, and particularly, the ecological criteria as described in the Rouge North Implementation Manual. I have also attached copies of Regulation 58/05 and Regulation 61/05 under the Greenbelt Act, 2005. The former defines the boundary of the Greenbelt area, with detailed mapping still being produced. Regulation 61/05 is important to the Rouge Watershed Task Force since it is a retroactive transition regulation that applies to the Rouge River watershed municipalities. Unapproved planning applications in the Rouge Greenbelt area, regardless of when they were filed, must comply with all policies of the Greenbelt Plan. These are only a few of the key features of the Greenbelt Plan, but they are important steps forward and show that the Government has understood some of the major concerns that the Task Force and its partners expressed during the entire process. Report prepared by: Lewis Yeager, General Manager, Rouge Park For information contact: Lewis Yeager, 905 - 713 -7374 Date: March 4, 2005 Bryan Buttigieg This report gives us direction to send a letter of thanks to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing "... congratulate him on the implementation of the Greenbelt Act and Plan". The draft letter in your Agenda here tonight is not the correct version. There was drafted an additional paragraph which asked for the government to continue to consider the Task Force's additional concerns, that are not yet addressed. April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L156 DISCUSSION Terry O'Connor I wish to reiterate the concern of the Agricultural community. Bryan Buttigieg Concur with the concerns for agriculture. Terry O'Connor Greenbelt is on the backs of agriculture. In the state of Pennsylvania, the Governor of Delaware spoke of urban sprawl and needing an easement, in public support of the preservation of agriculture; We want agriculture to continue in the Rouge area; We need an interface between urban sprawl and agriculture. Bryan Buttigieg The Rouge Watershed Implementation Committee can review and consider recommendations to bring forward regarding the specifics of the agricultural issues. ACTION: Terry O'Connor to send David Tuley, Chair, Implementation Committee - specifics on agriculture. Pau/ Harp /ey There are other models, such as England's National Trust Greenbelt around London, countryside commons to address these issues. Murray Johnston Gave support to the issues of agriculture which Terry raised. Pickering farmers asked David Crombie to consider ways of supporting agriculture. Bryan Buttigieg Continuation of agriculture is in the public's interest, therefore cost should be shared. Jack Heath How does the Task Force deal with these issues? Bryan Buttigieg Would suggest through the Implementation Committee. Jack Heath East Markham Strategic Review was completed a year and a half ago which reviewed models from elsewhere regarding agriculture and more profitable ventures for agriculture lands. Terry O'Connor I wish to reiterate yet again that the Greenbelt letter should address the concern of the Agricultural community. ACTION: Sylvia to e-mail the revised Greenbelt letter to members for their review and comments to be returned by Tuesday April 26`h for final letter to be sent April 27`h. MOTION THAT Bryan Buttigieg's draft Greenbelt Letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be sent electronically to Rouge Watershed Task Force members for their review and comment by Tuesday April 26th; L157 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 April 21, 2005 AND FURTHER THAT with consensus of reviewers, that the revised letter be sent the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. RES. #L36/05 IMPORTANT ROUGE MANAGEMENT ISSUES Revised set of key Rouge watershed management issues and messages Moved by: Seconded by: George McKelvey Del Fisher THAT Task Force members approve the revised set of key Rouge watershed management messages and issues, and update it as new information and understanding is generated; AND FURTHER THAT these key messages and issues be used to help guide the evaluation and implementation stages of the Rouge Watershed Plan BACKGROUND At the March 10th, 2005 Task Force meeting, members reviewed the "key issues" and draft list of "key messages" prepared by staff in consultation with members of the Rouge Task Force Implementation Committee. Task Force members were instructed to provide comment at the meeting and send any further recommendations in by March 18th, 2005. Staff were to incorporate the comments and circulate a revised set of key messages and issue statements prior to the April 21' Task Force meeting. The following summary of key messages and issues incorporates the Task Force comments provided at and subsequent to the March 10th, 2005 Task Force meeting. KEY MESSAGES • Protect the Rouge watershed - it is at a threshold and now is the time to act; • The Rouge watershed is a source of your drinking water; • You can help the Rouge watershed - by helping to implement the Rouge Watershed Plan. KEY ISSUES • It is important to maintain water flow characteristics as near to the normal historic pattern as possible in spite of increasing development. Stream life and erosional patterns are greatly affected by changes to the annual and seasonal flow patterns; Groundwater deserves a higher profile. As an underground resource, it is typically overlooked, yet the use and interception of groundwater are threatening the state of the Rouge watershed. With increasing urbanization, it will be necessary to maintain groundwater recharge on a site by site basis to prevent cumulative impacts. Also, where possible, groundwater extracted within the Rouge watershed should be kept within the Rouge watershed; April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L158 • Improving water quality in the Rouge watershed is important for many reasons, from the swimming use of Rouge Beach to the improvement of aquatic life and fish communities. There may even be the potential to reestablish a sustainable Atlantic Salmon population in Little Rouge Creek if temperature and water quality conditions can be slightly improved;Parkland and wilderness areas should no longer be considered inexpensive dumping grounds for society's infrastructure such as sewers, water mains, transportation corridors, transmission towers, etc. These wildlands are protected at great expense and provide a broad range of environmental services to millions of residents in the Greater Toronto Area. New and enlarged rights -of -way progressively diminish the values and continuity of our increasingly depleted natural habitats; There is mounting evidence that present storm water management measures are not going to protect the Rouge River and its tributaries from erosive flow patterns, dangerous temperature regimes and other water quality impacts. Further, many storm water ponds are placed in valley lands, parks or natural areas, where they occupy space better devoted to other purposes. Municipalities should demand that storm water management take place within new developments at the source of the problem; The interaction and interdependence of aquatic and terrestrial habitats has never been more apparent. Many organisms depend upon aquatic, wetland and terrestrial environments at various stages of their lives. Land use planning in a watershed context also requires water use planning and management. This watershed plan is an important opportunity to bring those studying and managing lands and waters together for their mutual benefit; Rouge Park is home to most of Toronto's best examples of wetlands, interior forests, meadows and aquatic communities. Invasive non - native terrestrial species and lack of terrestrial cover in the northern and central reaches, particularly on tableland are threatening the watershed's ecological health. Support is needed to restore natural cover through implementation of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy; Public use must be tailored to the unique habitats that exist or will be developed in the Rouge watershed, and directed away from sensitive habitats. The major north -south habitat corridor along Little Rouge Creek will inevitably become home to bears and large canine predators, so public use plans will need to plan for interesting outdoor activities that will avoid interior forests where encounters with large wildlife species are likely; The connection between watershed planning and existing policy needs to be strengthened to improve success in implementing protective strategies. Increased commitment to monitoring and enforcement is required to ensure efforts are realized at the site level; The Greenbelt Plan recognizes the status of the Rouge Park Management Plan and the Rouge North Management Plan as key documents in planning in the Rouge River watershed. Studies that support or build upon these Rouge Park plans have a clearer pathway for implementation than was previously the case. Close coordination between the Rouge Watershed Task Force and Rouge Park's Little Rouge Creek Master L159 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 April 21, 2005 Planning Study and the upcoming Rouge Watershed Fishery Management Plan are essential to ensure that compatible initiatives are recommended. The above summary will be used to focus the analysis, evaluation and implementation work. It will also be used to develop an Executive Summary for the State of the Watershed Report and introductory sections for the Watershed Plan. In addition, it will form the basis of a common "story" for building broader awareness. The key issues and messages will need to be updated from time to time, as results of the ongoing modelling and analysis work and other studies generate new information and understanding about the Rouge watershed. Report prepared by: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 For Information contact: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 Date: April 14, 2005 DISCUSSION Lewis Yeager This list of Management Issues are very general and are meant to be a work in progress. Bryan Buttigieg Very well written. George McKelvey Bryan Buttigieg I would refer to this document as a Living document; so should we include a paragraph on agriculture? Lewis Yeager Yes, I would suggest as well a paragraph be included on cultural heritage. Lionel Purcell It has always been known as the Little Rouge River not the Little Rouge Creek. Lewis Yeager Yes, it has been referred to by both names over the years. The TRCA officially refers to the system by Creek. Tupper Wheatley 3rd paragraph speaks of: "Improving water quality in the Rouge watershed is important for many reasons, from the swimming use of Rouge Beach to the improvement of aquatic life and fish communities. There may even be the potential to reestablish a sustainable Atlantic Salmon population in Little Rouge Creek if temperature and water quality conditions can be slightly improved;" Should we not be more specific to say that we are speaking of Lake Ontario, instead of Rouge Beach? April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3105 L160 MOTION THAT The Rouge Management /ssues report be expanded to include points on agriculture and cultural heritage; AND FURTHER THAT The Rouge Management /ssues report become a Living Document to be updated through time. RES. #L37/05 Moved by: Seconded by: COMMENTS ON THE ROUGE WATERSHED PLANNING STUDY PHASE 2 WORKPLAN Comments on the Rouge Watershed Planning Study Phase 2 Workplan and proposed actions to respond to them. David Tuley George McKelvey THAT the report of comments on the Rouge Watershed Planning Study Phase 2 Workplan, as of April 14th, 2005 be received; AND FURTHER THAT staff proceed with actions as indicated in the report. BACKGROUND Comments on the draft Rouge State of the Watershed Report (dated June 2004) were received by the Task Force at the December 9th, 2004 Task Force meeting. The Task Force, government and NGO contacts were also requested to review the Rouge Watershed Planning Study Phase 2 Workplan. While Task Force and government reviewers contributed at the draft stage, peer reviewers were asked to comment on the final workplan. Their comments, which have been considered during the application of the workplan, are presented in Table 1. In general, reviewers approved of the use of future scenario planning. Some remarked that the work should be more interdisciplinary. There was also some question as to the quantity and location of data collection supporting the analyses. Furthermore, it was advised that the policies outlined in the Rouge North OPA be applied to the future scenarios. Details of comments from a total of 7 peer reviewers are provided in the subsequent table, along with the actions proposed to address them. This is followed by a list of the peer reviewers that submitted comments on the Phase 1 and Phase 2 and their specialization. Report prepared by: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 For Information contact: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 Date: April 14th, 2005 L161 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 April 21, 2005 Table - 1 Comments on the Rouge Watershed Planning Study Phase 2 Workplan, as of April 14th, 2005 1 � Scenarios are very appropriate as a way to explore different aspects of the desired future state, but should not replace the need for visioning. Since the review, we have been determining details for the full build -out with all opportunities scenario and visioning is a fundamental part of developing the sustainable community design applied here. This scenario also provides the opportunity for the Task Force to review and re- confirm its overall goal for the Rouge watershed. 2 What is the rationale for using 2 X CO2 when recent findings suggest that 4 X CO2 is more appropriate for our climate change model of future conditions? 2 X CO, is a more realistic forecast for the time period of our scenarios, at years 2050 and 2080. 3 Increase the interdisciplinary approach. Effective completion of the next stage of the planning process, the evaluation and analysis phase, will depend to a large extent on our ability to assume an interdisciplinary approach, an exercise we are striving to excel at through use of interdisciplinary team workshops, multi - stakeholder Task Force, integrated models, GIS- based visual presentation of results and multi - objective decision- making evaluation methods. 4 Recognize Rouge North OPA in full build- out scenarios 5, 6, and 8, with Rouge Park on private and public land in the Town of Markham. The Rouge North boundary will be incorporated into future scenario modelling. 5 Include ORM Act and Plan and Rouge North OPA as predictive tools before doing the landscape analysis for the target system as this is natural cover as it will exist. The land cover as directed by the ORM Act and Plan and Rouge North OPA will be assumed as existing, and therefore will not be included as part of the watershed target for the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System. 6 Groundwater quality modelling "has not been attempted yet" rather than "cannot be modelled at this time ". Will be revised as recommended. 7 Emissions in the watershed would be a good indication of local contribution to air quality and in the future. Emissions projections for the future can be primarily based on the degree of development in the watershed. We have added emissions in the watershed as an air quality measure. We are looking into the possibility of partnering in an air quality modelling initiative. 8 For Climate Change: hydrological outputs are mentioned for HSP -F; will there not be an attempt to simulate water quality too? Yes, this will be made apparent in the text. April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L162 9 The 8 scenarios are somewhat confusing and also probably do not cover some of the scenarios you might want to look at (for example, the range of retrofits. Detailed scenario definitions should clarify the discrete differences among scenarios. There are two different levels of effort being tested with respect to retrofits (low level: end -of -pipe, only; and significant effort: lot level conveyance and end -of- pipe). 10 May need to separate proposed development from opportunity to retrofit to see who should pay for what. Scenarios 2 & 3 do this at low level of retrofit effort and scenarios 6 & 7 do this for high level of retrofit effort. 11 Quantitative data on economic and social indicators is available through the Credit Watershed Study. This data source will be investigated. 12 Getting a handle on the water balance and deciding how to manage allocation is the number two need after impervious and terrestrial cover, as water balance affects them. Water balance is a key indicator in analyzing and evaluating watershed response to the future scenarios. 13 Modelling results provide one source of information to help decide what can /should be done but they should not be the primary source for decision- making as there are many other facts and insights to consider. We are exploring key management and implementation approaches, in addition to information from the modelling exercise and will be defining additional evaluation criteria to determine our preferred management strategy. 14 The holistic, interdisciplinary approach is starting to sound like just a modelling exercise The interdisciplinary approach is inherent in all phases of this study. As noted in #3, a number of tools are being used to foster an interdisciplinary approach. The results will appear as better informed final decisions reflected in integrated final products supported by a broad base of stakeholders. 15 We all agreed that the watershed is impaired; so should all evaluations be based on current conditions? That is the "typical planning approach ", not what I would expect from a "future planning approach ". Evaluations are based on the Task Force's working targets and multi- objective evaluation approaches. Many of the targets either establish a defined future or suggest a direction for improvement. 16 I seriously doubt that there is nearly enough groundwater data/information in this watershed to populate such a detailed model (seven - million cell, eight layer, steady state groundwater flow model). If these cells /layers are loaded with "default" or assumed data, is there really any benefit to designing a model to this level of complexity ? The 100x100m grid gives sufficient resolution to recognize local stream flow and groundwater discharge while also delivering unbiased, regional coverage. It is based on information from MOE wells, York Region wells (YDSS), TRCA spot baseflow measurements, climate stations, OGS boreholes, and GSC spot baseflow, and will be recalibrated as new data is generated. L163 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3105 April 21, 2005 [r n .+vn.- T+n m"^:^ .,,,r. n - .1' +^"dn 'R'm+ ' - �� 41444., ' «ew.rr,.., +- -ex- ^ls.e."7:n r,M , , i. • :.w.,.....�.___, 17 Are these enough surface water quality - stations statistically (6 stations) and are they the appropriate stations to be representative of the watershed? A more effective addition to the water quality monitoring program would be the introduction of sediment sampling. Sediment provides a better indication of long term impacts and can be related to existing information on implications of sediment Toads to benthic invertebrates. 18 What about modelling pollutant loading as a predictive tool for the aquatic system; predicting changes in river stages and flow; sediment loading, etc.? The future scenario modelling will generate sediment load estimates which can be compared to the provincial guidelines on total dissolved solids. 19 What about the fauna species analysis as a predictive tool for the terrestrial system? Indices have been developed that score and rank faunal species in terms of their sensitivity so that they can be monitored and managed over time. Once defined, sensitive species can be used as a predictive tool, providing effective indicators of land use change. 20 If all that is being assessed under climate are "local future climate predictions provided by Environment Canada for input to HSP -F model ", then I'd move this discussion to the surface water section as it has no bearing on air quality Agreed. Climate change will be moved from a source discussion in the Air Quality Charter, to an integrated discussion on impacts to all, likely in the new water budget section. 21 I still don't understand what the public use category is intended to describe or evaluate. Please give a clear specific description of what we're evaluating. Isn't this a good use for GIS mapping techniques? See work by Utah State University on the Mohave Desert, Wasatch Front and Oregon State University on the Unatilla Valley as an example. The targets relate to key public use issues, that of potential negative impacts of use; and the connection of local and regional trail networks. We are attempting to investigate the recommended resources. 22 I still don't fully understand the land and resource use category, either. How does it differ from land cover/ Ind use changes and what are the other resources we're concerned about? It's too vague. Please describe clearly and specifically It has not yet been fully developed by the Task Force and is meant to address the economic and social aspects of watershed management. Objectives for industry (e.g. aggregate), human behaviour (e.g. water conservation, energy efficiency, etc) and quality of life indicators may be developed. 23 If there is no attempt to address atmospheric sources of pollutants in the analysis, then why do we have a section on predicting changes in air quality on p. 14? Or is this statement limited to only to atmospheric deposition to surface water? If so, specify this. Air quality modelling TBD. April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L164 .i 1PlF. n..% +lreii.' i,rr.6 i1l.Iior -igSt !AU Iti i 24 Interesting from an ecological and in some This will be an important consideration in the cases from a physical processing evaluation of watershed response to future standpoint, development has or will scenarios. essentially bisect the watershed, potentially severing the natural ecology and many of the chemical and physical processes. - 25 Set up sampling and monitoring programs The Watershed Plan will include for the most appropriate times (SOW and recommendations for improvements in data the two workplans both indicate that the present infrastructure and programs don't match up with the needs. collection and monitoring. 26 Is "no additional loss of stream length Channel morphology and stream complexity another way of saying we'll quit features are addressed as fluvial geomorphology straightening and channelizing streams? If targets. This aquatic system target was so, reflect it. Also reflect that we want to established to protect streams outside the maintain stream complexity (e.g. riffles, pools, sinuosity) regulatory floodplain that are subject to filling. 27 A more rounded habitat shape is not always It is standard practice in natural heritage planning a good goal. Use instead "ecological edge to adopt round shapes as habitat goals in order will be reduced, potentially reducing to minimize edge effects. Also, the shape goal species reliant on edge qualities ". must be quantifiable to facilitate terrestrial system design modelling. L165 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 April 21, 2005 28 Found this section of the report to be the most disturbing. The Planned Buildout (4th watershed map) would, in my opinion, compromise the entire Rouge watershed irreversibly. Even the Approved OP Buildout (2nd map) would be ecologically unrealistic as it would create a very artificial, narrow corridor of relatively unaffected land and water on the eastern boundary of the watershed. This single Zink between upstream and downstream habitats would be highly susceptible to both natural disasters (e.g., floods and subsidence), and especially human - induced ones. Further, such restriction of the connections between upstream and downstream areas would severely restrict the natural fluvial, geochemical, and biological processes that exist in watersheds - indeed, upstream - downstream linkage is at the very heart of what makes a watershed tick. Such habitat fragmentation is simply untenable in running water systems. In all of the scenarios except that of maintaining existing conditions, there is no margin for error, especially human fallibility, and there wil /be errors. Status quo is the only viable option to maintain this unique watershed. In our future scenario modelling, we are attempting to show whether the protective policies of the ORM, Greenbelt and Markham's Rouge North OPA and Small Streams Study guidelines together with mitigation by using state - of- the -art technologies will be enough to maintain or enhance watershed health. If these measures cannot achieve the desired results, this will be reflected in the final recommendations for the preferred management strategy. , ._ .y,. • 'ir ��', x `; U.v,ar *s§P- tion: '' s it � i ... .,a. t ^�T�, S .�, o'�_ e Dr. Rick Gerber Gerber Geosciences Inc. Hydrogeology Dave Maunder Aquafor Beech Surface Hydrology /Stormwater Dr. Rick Kolomeychuk Envirometrex Corporation Environmental Monitoring /Air Quality Modelling Mark Schollen Schollen & Company Inc. Landscape Architecture Dr. Gerald Sehlke Ecological & Cultural Resources, Idaho Integrated Watershed Planning Dr. Chandra Madramootoo University of McGiII Integrated Watershed Planning Dr. Bruce Mitchell University of Waterloo Integrated Watershed Planning Dr. D. D. Williams University of Toronto Ecological Studies of Running Water Communities, incl. Rouge watershed April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L166 RES. #L38 /05 Moved by: Seconded by: SCENARIO UPDATE Update of Phase 2 Future Scenarios for Task Force discussion and comment. Murray Johnston Kevin O'Connor THAT comments on the scenario update received from the Task Force during its April 21, 2005 meeting and comments from other municipal staff during a recent workshop, be applied to future scenario modeling by TRCA staff. AMENDMENT RES. #L39 /05 Moved by: Seconded by: SCENARIO UPDATE Update of Phase 2 Future Scenarios for Task Force discussion and comment. Murray Johnston Kevin O'Connor THAT comments on the scenario update received from the Task Force during its April 21, 2005 meeting be applied to future scenario modeling by TRCA staff. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND At the September 23`d, 2004 Task Force Meeting (Meeting #4/04), staff were directed to proceed with the development of scenarios and modelling analysis as laid out in the Phase 2 Workplan. Phase 2 of the Rouge Watershed Plan involves the formulation and analysis of scenarios depicting potential future stresses that may be imposed on the watershed, along with potential management opportunities for dealing with these stresses. Through a review of key issues and opportunities in the Phase 1 draft State of the Watershed Report, eight different scenarios were identified. The analysis of watershed response to these future scenarios will assist the identification of a preferred management strategy for the Rouge watershed. Since the completion of the Phase 2 Workplan, staff have been assembling databases, maps and assumptions needed to define each scenario in adequate detail for technical analysis and modeling. Task Force members and other municipal staff are now being invited to provide input to the updated scenario details. Table 2 provides a summary of up -to -date definitions for the eight scenarios, revised from the Phase 2 Workplan version. L167 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 April 21, 2005 Details to the "Full Build -out with All Opportunities" scenario extend outside the scope of the table, due to the wide range of potential opportunities available. This scenario looks beyond opportunities applied in previous scenarios, to implement every reasonable innovative management action known, advancing 100 -year stormwater retrofit plans and incorporating sustainable design into urban and rural land use practices. Selection of sustainable community designs involves establishing desired standards along with examples of the kinds of practices that would have to be undertaken in order to meet these standards. Defining the sustainable community for this scenario can be summarized in a four - pronged approach: 1) definition of sustainable community design attributes and future trends in implementation practices and design features 2 establishment of design criteria, standards, and assumptions 3) understanding the requirements of various modeling and evaluation tools 4) developing a working base map with assumptions about what the future land use will be in the Rouge watershed. DISCUSSION Input is sought on all scenarios, but in particular on the "Full Build -out with All Opportunities" scenario, in relation to: • overall approach and specific assumptions about future land use (eg. locations and type of greenfield development, intensification, agricultural practices, aggregate operation and rehabilitation); future design, standards; and the likely acceptability of various design practices for rural and urban land uses. Report prepared by: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 For Information contact: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 Date: April 14, 2005 Table 2: Ei ht Scenarios Updated as of A • ril 14, 2005 r m 2002 Conditions Existing conditions as of 2002. Some survey data includes other years, e.g. water quality may span 1991 -2004. Provides a baseline for comparison April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L168 2 Official Plan (OP) Build- out 7 l; N!f- OP Build -out (ap. 2025). Assume current stormwater management practices, valley and stream corridor, implementation of Rouge North boundary in Markham on public lands and in Greenbelt. Water use as per municipal plans, and dictated by land use change. Flood plain mapping from 2005. Rouge Park restoration areas are functional forest. Will show effect of build -out of already approved or adopted urban growth using current practices (eg. stormwater management) 3 OP Build -out and Stormwater Retrofit 2 + Implementation Toronto's 25 yr Wet Weather Flow Master Plan (WWFMP) and "905" municipalities' stormwater retrofit plans, as specified in related reports Will show benefits of stormwater retrofit implementation in moderating effects of existing and future urban growth 4 OP Build -out and Enhanced Natural Cover 2 + enhanced natural cover as per TRCA's targeted terrestrial natural heritage system (TNHS). Assume larger of TNHS, Rouge North boundary in Markham Will show benefits of the targeted TNHS in moderating effects of existing and future urban growth 5 OP Build -out, Stormwater Retrofit and Natural Cover 2 + 3 + 4 Will show combined benefits of stormwater retrofit implementation and the targeted TNHS in moderating effects of existing and future urban growth 6 Full Build -out Full build -out to boundary of Oak Ridges Moraine Protection with valley & stream corridor but no increase in natural cover. Assume current water use and stormwater practice. Will show impact of build -out into remaining developable lands in the watershed 7 Full Build -out Using All Opportunities 5 + sustainable community design. Assume implementation of Rouge Park North in Markham's urban growth area, 100 yr stormwater retrofit plan and water conservation plans. Will show whether improvements from all opportunities are adequate to mitigate full build -out. Extend the Town of Markham's sustainable community design commitments from OPA 16 to allow growth areas. 8 a) Climate Change 2050 with OP Build -out and Enhancement(s) 5 + climate change 2050 Will show whether improvements to OP build -out are adequate to mitigate effects of climate change in 2050 L169 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 April 21, 2005 4 e.._. .. rte '. "' 'Y'.a- .•'.-'15""`s q` y ;. _+:a:,�.:_...__.i.:'_.. _.., .. ._w,.vJY.•... b) Climate Change 2080 with OP Build -out and Enhancement(s) ` .- H., ... .. .._. `: .. ..::... .. ._...:.1{ 7w *id pps,, +/.� ..,. _I.:wr....._. ... ...L..... ..a..w.. I.r.Kie:,:J.:....nL.�� 5 + climate change 2080 Will show whether improvements to OP build -out are adequate to mitigate effects of climate change in 2080 c) Climate Change 2050 with Full Build -out and Enhancement(s) 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 with Full Build -out and Enhancement(s) 7 + climate change 2080 Will show whether improvements to full build -out are adequate to mitigate effects of climate change in 2080 Patricia Mohr Christine Caroppo Sonya Meek Bryan Buttigieg Sonya Meek Tupper Wheatley Patricia Mohr There was a lot of support for the application of future scenario modelling as it promotes visioning and the adaptation of innovative practices. We were praised on the fact and that we were maximizing integration Do you feel there are any gaps in the peer review in any specific discipline? The peer review was focused on the methodology and modeling aspects of the Watershed Plan, and in addition, individual technical staff oftem work with technical peers on their work groups. We are generally comfortable with moving forward based on the comments received. Were the reviewers given any compensation for their work? Several key reviewers were offered, but declined at this stage. There seemed to be a gap of information on amphibians. Are we working on this gap? The TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage staff are surveying amphibians and are also working on a partnership with the Toronto Zoo to obtain additional information. ACTION: Patricia to keep Tupper informed of the progress of this issue. April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L170 SUSTAINABILITY SCENARIO DISCUSSION Brian Hind ley of Aquafor Beech, a consultant retained by TRCA, presented an overview of the sustainability scenario. The scenario describes a vision of the watershed if every innovative management action known is implemented. A defined set of desired performance standards, consistent with the Rouge goals, guided the definition of this scenario. Lorne Smith Would you suggest if we stop development now, that we would not have to deal with the suggested issues? Brian Hindley Not exactly, there would still continue to be degradation after the fact. Lorne Smith Is degradation due to the imperviousness, the largest issue? Lewis Yeager You could identify additional benefits if the development was grade on slab everywhere and not just along the watercourses, as suggested in the Markham Small Streams Study. This study suggested commercial development along rivers because of being on slab. Brian Hindley This study was giving an example of a vision of sustainable development. Lewis Yeager Cannot a whole subdivision be developed - grade on slab to assist with the imperviousness issue? Tracey Steele Would suggest breaking the scenario down even further, to examine watershed response to each land use option, however, this would take time and money. Bryan Buttigieg How do the Scenario's take into account the Greenbelt Plan? Brian Hindley At this time we are looking for more clarity on the Greenbelt Plan and several of the Federal Lands? Jack Heath What is meant by "current practices" when there exists no conventional forum for development? George McKelvey Must look at build out and make sure it is sustainable. The municipality is told to plan for 3 years of serviced Tots and 10 years of build out, Markham does not have this now. The important thing is to put on conditions of how the land will grow out. Easement of development only proceeds based on what is sustainable for the environment. It's beating a dead horse to stop development. Lorne Smith Does the municipality have the power to say to a developer that ".. You cannot put in a basement ..." L171 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 April 21, 2005 George McKelvey When the Markham Small Streams study is adopted by council, developers will have to abide by the study. Most of the developers feel that this is the direction that the Province is taking Kevin O'Connor We are looking at which sustainable community design option, when the watershed is already destroyed. Should we not be looking at the most sustainable scenario? Sonya Meek If the sustainable community design cannot completely mitigate full build out this scenario will still show degradation in the end. One of the principles of this study which the Task Force agreed on was that it should be defensible and based on science. This scenario analysis will provide that science. Bryan Buttigieg These scenarios are being developed as options and the Task Force is to choose one or a combination of several in the end. Jack Heath We have touched on some of the questions asked of us by Brian Hindley. For example, the future of agriculture is in question. We need to find ways to reimberse the farmer. Here in Ontario in comparison to Saskatchewan we have the developer coming to us with dollars in hand wanting to purchase the land. Have touched on the transit issue, would like to investigate this area further. We need to look at use of the car, the more we facilitate use of the car, the more we degrade the watershed. For example, what is the average commute distance for private auto? How much parking is at grade level in commercial /industrial areas? How much do you have to pay for parking? These are some of the items which are at the root of the problem. Look at the Rouge Park as a more secure area; you would never think of building in Algonquin Park. Pau/ Harpley Maybe there should be a stream study on the existing developed areas as a predictive model of what the future would bring. Tupper Wheatley Concerned that build out density standards are based on Markham statistics. Three to ten years prediction of build out is way off on what actually usually happens. Be careful to use terms like "if" development occurs. Considering discussion tonight regarding agriculture I would suggest we should mention "food" under "land" to recognize agriculture. Redevelopment - clarify assumptions Lilli Duoba It would be fair to assume a "do better" assumption (scenario /model), not a status quo. Bryan Buttigieg Assume redevelopment /intensification will have neutral affect. This will fill one of our assumptions of No Net Gain. April 21, 2005 Lorne Smith Pau/ Harpley Murray Johnston Bryan Buttigieg Christine Caroppo Brian Hindley Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L172 Box Grove is being developed now, when will Legacy be redeveloped. This Task Force must think of the future and consider issues like climate change. The year 2050 is not that far away. It would seem we are boxed in by the developer. We must develop a different scenario, 2050 is actually very close. Our water will be impacted over time. We cannot be driven by economic concerns. We need to develop the Master Plan ourselves and get legislation to put them into effect. We should admit that it is actually people (us) who drive everything. The developers develop because the people demand it. Therefore we need to change the social policy to have a disincentive. These are the scenarios which we can choose. Can we discuss in one of the scenarios the issue of retrofitting existing property (e.g. removing pavement and putting porous pavement)? These assumptions are included in the sustainabilty scenario. L173 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3105 April 21, 2005 DEFERRED TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, Meeting #3/05, April 21, 2005 FROM: Lewis Yeager, Watershed Specialist and Rouge Park General Manager RE: EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PREFERRED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY KEY ISSUE Review and discussion of evaluation criteria and approach for developing a preferred management strategy. THAT the evaluation criteria and approach outlined in this report (as may be modified based on discussion at this or subsequent Task Force meetings) be used to develop a preferred management strategy; AND FURTHER THAT Task Force members apply these criteria in consultation with the broader watershed community. BACKGROUND The Phase 2 Workplan, approved by Task Force members at the September 23`d, 2004 Task Force meeting, describes the analysis and evaluation phase of the watershed planning process. Determining an effective evaluation approach is a crucial step in watershed planning, as it is through this mechanism that a preferred management strategy is selected. The main criterion for evaluating results of the scenario modelling analysis, is the comparison with watershed targets. Not all analyses are modelling exercises, however. Some issues or management opportunities have a comparatively low potential impact on modelling results or lack quantifiable relationships and must be analyzed using alternative means. The Implementation Committee Management Summit Meetings, described in the Implementation Committee Workplan that was approved at the March 10`h, 2005 Task Force Meeting, are expected to generate additional evaluation considerations. With these factors in mind, proposed evaluation criteria can be organized into the following two -stage approach: Proposed Evaluation Approach Stage 1 - Primary Evaluation Criterion • ability to meet selected Rouge objectives and targets (see Table 3 summarizing the current set of Rouge overall goal, detailed goals, objectives, indicators and targets) Technical staff will evaluate and present modelling results. Stage 2 - Additional Evaluation Criteria (from the Phase 2 Workplan) April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L174 • • • • • consistency with task force principles, as in Task Force Greenbelt letter (Attached) long term sustainability cost public acceptance ease and time to implement multiple benefits The Task Force, assisted by the technical team and the broad range of key stakeholders, will develop the full set of evaluation criteria to be used in determining the preferred management strategy. As a guideline to remain in keeping with an integrated approach the evaluation process adopted should strive to maximize the integration of watershed components, their issues and opportunities, and the evaluation criteria based on them. Review of the proposed evaluation approach may result in either additions or revisions to the existing criteria. For example, the Task Force may wish to update their principles, considering the recurring themes in discussions at Task Force meetings, of precautionary approach and adaptive management approach in the face of uncertainty due to lack of data and yet unproven new technologies. The Task Force is not precluded from re- examining the criteria and approach at a future date as a result of knowledge gained from the analysis phase or management summit meetings. This type of cross - checking of information sources is fundamental to an integrated strategy. DISCUSSION During the Task Force meeting, the Task Force will be asked to discuss: 1. The overall evaluation criteria and approach being proposed 2. The completeness of the set of Task Force principles and how the principles should be applied in the evaluation Report prepared by: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 For Information contact: Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 Date: April 14, 2005 L175 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3105 April 21, 2005 Table 3: Summary of current set of Rouge overall goal, detailed goals, objectives, indicators and targets. S N s 1-0 �, RC 5 Groundwater of sufficient quantity and quality to support ecological functions, aquatic habitats and sustainable human needs, including drinking water, agricultural, industrial, and commercial uses. Protect, restore and enhance groundwater recharge and discharge. recharge /discharge - less than 15 % overall watershed imperviousness - maintain baseline piezometric surfaces - maintain or enhance baseline infiltration rates and distribution - maintain baseline discharge rates Protect, restore and enhance groundwater quality. groundwater chemistry and bacteria - the more stringent of MOE Ontario Drinking Water Standards or MOE Provincial Water Quality Objectives - maintain or reduce chloride levels Ensure sustainable rates or groundwater use. water consumption - no restrictions in use April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L176 Surface waters of a quality, volume and naturally variable rate of flow to • protect aquatic and terrestrial life and ecological functions; • protect human life and property from risks due to flooding; • contribute to the protection of Lake Ontario as a domestic drinking water source; • support sustainable agricultural, industrial, and commercial water supply needs; • support swimming, fishing and the opportunity to safely consume fish; and • contribute to the removal of Toronto from the Great Lakes list of Areas of Concern. Eliminate or minimize risks to human life and property due to flooding. Protect and restore the natural variability of annual and seasonal stream flow Maintain and restore natural levels of baseflow. peak flow water level flood vulnerable areas and roads ice jams Streamflow Baseflow Surface Water Withdrawals - maintain existing peak flows (2 -100 year and Regional events - maintain baseline flood lines+ - maintain or reduce existing flood vulnerable areas and roads+ - maintain the number of sites and frequency of ice jams Maintain or reduce baseline flow volume - Maintain or enhance baseline seasonal and annual baseflows. - Maintain or enhance baseline seasonal and annual baseflows. - All surface water users offline from watercourse L177 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3105 April 21, 2005 Surface waters of a quality, volume and naturally variable rate of flow to • protect aquatic and terrestrial life and ecological functions; protect human life and property from risks due to flooding; contribute to the protection of Lake Ontario as a domestic drinking water source; support sustainable agricultural, industrial, and commercial water supply needs; • support swimming, fishing and the opportunity to safely consume fish; and • contribute to the removal of Toronto from the Great Lakes list of Areas of Concern. Meet standards for body contact recreation at nearshore beaches and in the river Swimming and body contact recreation Greater than 75% of surface water samples meet the PWQO of 100 coliforms /100 mL. Rouge Beach is open for an average of at least 95% of the swimming season Protect and restore surface water quality with respect to conventional pollutants, to ensure protection of aquatic life, ecological functions and water supply needs. conventional pollutants Concentrations of conventional pollutants meet available guidelines, as follows: - suspended solids: 30 mg /L' - phosphorus: 0.03 mg - nitrate: 1.0 mg /L (eutrophication) -2.5 mg /L (amphibians) -un- ionized ammonia: 0.02 mg /L -DO: 6.0 mg /L warm water biota -9.5 mg /L cold water biota - chloride: 250 mg /L sediment Toad Target to be determined April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3105 L178 r• la Natural, stable stream banks and channels that provide hydrologic flow regulation, support diverse aquatic habitat, limit sediment loading, and protect human life and property from risks due to erosion and slope instability. Maintain or restore natural channel morphology and stability. channel morphology - maintain baseline (TBD) natural channel structure (Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (RWMP)) - maintain baseline erosion index - maintain baseline erosion rates (RWMP) - 100% natural stream corridors 1"1 r •'. M A healthy aquatic system that supports a diversity of native habitats and communities and provides sustainable public use opportunities. Protect, restore and enhance the health and diversity of native aquatic habitats and communities. - maintain or restore historical distribution of native target species, as specified in the Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan (OMNR and TRCA, 1992), until the updated plan is completed. - minimum 80% of stations have an IBI score of "good" Protect and restore Heavy metals and Concentrations of surface water quality organic contaminants metals and organics with respect to toxic contaminants, to ensure protection of meet PWQOs. Banned priority toxics aquatic life, ecological are not detected in functions, human health, and water supply needs. surface waters. Organic contaminant levels in young -of -the year fish meet IJC and CCME guidelines. Restrictions on sport fish consumption have not increased from 1999 levels. r• la Natural, stable stream banks and channels that provide hydrologic flow regulation, support diverse aquatic habitat, limit sediment loading, and protect human life and property from risks due to erosion and slope instability. Maintain or restore natural channel morphology and stability. channel morphology - maintain baseline (TBD) natural channel structure (Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (RWMP)) - maintain baseline erosion index - maintain baseline erosion rates (RWMP) - 100% natural stream corridors 1"1 r •'. M A healthy aquatic system that supports a diversity of native habitats and communities and provides sustainable public use opportunities. Protect, restore and enhance the health and diversity of native aquatic habitats and communities. - maintain or restore historical distribution of native target species, as specified in the Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan (OMNR and TRCA, 1992), until the updated plan is completed. - minimum 80% of stations have an IBI score of "good" L179 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 April 21, 2005 habitat • - minimum 80% of stations "unimpaired" - coldwater minimum 25 %; maintain or enhance existing in cool and warm water - maintain or increase in baseflow and maintain or reduce annual flow - thermal stability should reflect the target species, specified in the updated Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan - only strategic barriers to remain - maintain or increase current wetland area - 100% cover with riparian vegetation; 75% of the riparian vegetation is woody - no additional loss of stream length invasive and exotic species - reduce the number and distribution of invasive species - reduce reliance on stocking of exotic species Provide for sustainable fishing opportunities and the safe consumption of fish consumption advisories - no consumption advisories beyond the monthly maximum of no more than 8 meals per month angling opportunities - increased angling opportunities and locations baitfish harvest - maintain existing level of baitfish harvest April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L180 GOALS OBJECTIVES > ,. :. INDICATORS TARGETS Terrestrial System A healthy terrestrial system that supports a diversity of native habitats and communities, a more natural watershed hydrology, cleaner air, and sustainable public use opportunities. Protect, restore and enhance natural cover to improve connectivity, biodiversity and ecological function. Quantity of natural cover - increase the percent natural cover to at least the minimum target defined by the regional terrestrial natural heritage system Distribution of natural cover - improve natural cover distribution in accordance with the regional targeted terrestrial natural heritage system - distribution improvements will also be addressed using minimum values for percent natural cover at a subwatershed scale or other local scale (future work) - increase the amount of natural cover that has some measure of 'protection' as defined by TRCA's Living City partners (The Living City Report Card). Protect, restore and enhance terrestrial natural heritage system quality and function to minimize the negative influences of surrounding land uses. Habitat Patch Size - increase patch sizes by restoring land to natural cover - average habitat patch size scores determined by the watershed's target terrestrial natural heritage system (based on regional targets) L181 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 April 21, 2005 Habitat Patch Shape - enhance patch shape to be more round with lower edge to area ratios - average habitat patch shape scores determined by the watershed's target terrestrial natural heritage system (based on regional targets) Matrix Influence - mitigate negative external influences of the matrix - average matrix influence scores or a targeted ratio of urban /rural /natural land uses to be determined by the watershed's target terrestrial natural heritage system (based on regional targets) Total Patch "Quality" Score (Size, Shape, Matrix Influence) - expand terrestrial system - average total scores to be determined by the watershed's target terrestrial natural heritage system (based on regional targets) Maintain and restore native terrestrial biodiversity. Biodiversity (vegetation communities and species) - enhance native habitat and species type representation in terrestrial system - abundance and distribution of vegetation community types and species April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L182 Air of a quality that protects human health, natural ecosystems and crops, and contributes to the reduction of global climate change. Protect and restore air quality. Air Chemistry Smog Lichen (TBD) AQI of "Very Good" (AQI does not exceed 15) 0 smog days and smog advisories issued per year Index of Atmospheric Purity (IAP) values (TBD) Recognition, preservation, and celebration of cultural heritage in the Rouge watershed to increase awareness and understanding of past human relationships with the environment Identify, document and protect cultural heritage resources cultural heritage resources - increase the database of known archaeological, historic and burial sites, and built structures. Opportunities for sustainable public enjoyment that contribute to human well -being and raise awareness and appreciation of natural and cultural heritage. Provide access to greenspace and recreational opportunities without compromising ecological integrity Phase out or re- locate public uses that are incompatible with the protection and improvement of ecological health. L183 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3105 April 21, 2005 .41* .�. ` vlw- 1.`��._.�... . Create a network of trails - 100% of planned trail El: nj } _. •.� , an a,.r e l! • • 1... • ete4. watershed trail systems linking Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges y'f. y, .. f'3 '°�' b t[4. Fv_/ 'li�,}:!%diA,3: i w«:wl w. ''±•r Y y' systems A healthy watershed where land and resource uses (including Rouge Park, urban and rural settlements, agriculture, golf courses, aggregate extraction, and transportation and utility corridors) are compatible with the protection and improvement of ecological and hydrological health. Moraine and connecting to east- west watersheds, while ensuring compatibility with ecological health. greenspace accessibility ? Compatible Uses .41* .�. ` vlw- 1.`��._.�... . ��'r 4' '. B' ., 9 r � • , "� @ .10 ®RS riyj(+ n1 �i�(. S �Illr t*,c ARG TSa 9 !+.T�L1�4':en. r„,3 �'i' '%' El: nj } _. •.� , an a,.r e l! • • 1... • ete4. . ,.Ij °�'r a :; ; ",j}+h 'Zti.YF NG •. ..:.5 y'f. y, .. f'3 '°�' b t[4. Fv_/ 'li�,}:!%diA,3: i w«:wl w. ''±•r Y y' 1 r4i' 3s" 1. wC^�' } . • 1 � ... y ': A healthy watershed where land and resource uses (including Rouge Park, urban and rural settlements, agriculture, golf courses, aggregate extraction, and transportation and utility corridors) are compatible with the protection and improvement of ecological and hydrological health. Provide access to greenspace and recreational opportunities without compromising ecological integrity greenspace accessibility ? Compatible Uses Promote sustainable levels of land and resource use that are compatible with watershed health objectives. levels of land use and resource use. - establishment of land and resource use targets are under the mandate of provincial and municipal governments and will be guided by analysis in further phases of this watershed planning study. - the final watershed plan will provide recommended management criteria/targets and guidance on best management practices for land and resource activities. April 21, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 L184 WORKSHOP (DISCUSSION) DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED TARGET TASK FORCE REVIEW PROCESS - Public Use and Recreation Jack Heath I would question what you mean by 100% planned trails to achieve target. PeterAttfie /d You would be required to develop the plan initially (based on knowledge of greenspace and ecological limits). Bryan Buttigieg Could you give us some insight of what goes into planning a trail? PeterAttfield For example, one would look at whether there are areas which need to be avoided within the watershed such as sensitive areas, areas of slope; what the community needs are. There are a variety of foundations for trails, earth, mulch, pavement. TRCA has developed guidelines for trails. Christine Caroppo Why did you focus only on trails? Would promote integration of natural and cultural interpretation on trails; a shorter looped trail (to accommodate seniors and children); scenic trails and trails that would end at a look out point. Maryam Nassar To address the question of 100% trails, in 2001 gaps in trails were investigated and noted. Various trail types have been reviewed as well as connectivity of trails Lewis Yeager Tracey Steele Tupper Wheatley Terry O'Connor The Task Force has the benefit of recently completed work on trails. All municipalities have trail system plans built into their OP. Yes, many municipalities have trail plans and there is the Provincial Trails Strategy. Suggest that the Task Force use this opportunity to set ecological guidelines. We need land acquisition for trails. We should broaden the Public Use & Recreation section to include horse back riding, boats, canoes, fishing, etc. Agriculture has commented on the Provincial Trail Strategy. Would suggest that we as a Task Force be commenting on the document "Places to Grow" ACTION: Lewis Yeager to draft a letter to be brought to the next meeting L185 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05 April 21, 2005 Li lli Duoba Murray Johnston Tracey Steele Tupper Wheatley Bill Snodgrass MOTION Expressed concerns of implementing the Public Use & Recreation target at the municipal level. Finds the grade of fail for trails offensive, because it takes a long time to achieve the target. We need incremental growth targets. Targets need to be achievable within set time frames. Need shorter term goals /milestones toward long term targets. There is difficulty in lands being privately owned, as well little funding to develop trails. Agree with Tupper, to develop this section in a more holistic fashion. Would it be possible to develop a map of the existing trails in the watershed? Agree, a map with interpretive systems would be beneficial. Reiterate the suggestion that the section is too simplistic, need to address fishing, swimming, etc. Suggestion that navigable water be mapped. THAT staff revisit the Public Use and Recreation Chapter of the SOW and broaden the scope to cover such aspects as swimming, canoeing, fishing, etc.; AND FURTHER THAT staff include more detail, for example maps. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:30 p.m., on Thursday April 21st, 2005. Bryan Buttigieg Chair THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES OF MEETING #4/05 AUTHORITY MEETING #8/05 OCTOBER 28, 2005 L i St 67- Rouge Park TORONTO AND REGION -Y g •onservation for The Living City MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #4/05 June 2 "d, 2005 The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at the OMB Room of the Town of Richmond Hill 1s1 Floor, 225 East Beaver Creek Road, Richmond Hill on Thursday, June 2 "d, 2005. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Bryan Buttigieg Member Alex Georgieff Alternate Paul Harpley Member Jack Heath Alternate Tracey Steele (for Audrey Hollasch) Alternate Murray Johnston Member Virginia Jones Member Kevin O'Connor Alternate Terry O'Connor Member Patty Hall- Hawkins (for Frank Scarpitti) Alternate Lorne Smith Member David Tuley Member Tupper Wheatley Alternate Anil Wijesooriya Alternate STAFF Lewis Yeager Rouge Park Sonya Meek TRCA Patricia Mohr TRCA Tim Rance TRCA Sylvia Waters TRCA GUESTS Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Bryan Buttigieg announced to the Task Force that we did not have quorum. He asked whether members wished to proceed or call the meeting. Through a show of hands a consensus was reached to continue the meeting. Lib+ 1=1 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 June 2, 2005 RES. #L40/05 MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05, held on, April 21, 2005 be approved. In the review of #3/05 Minutes: Tupper Wheatley suggested the following changes on L153 shown in strikeout and bold Tupper Wheatley Richard Kendall - -: -- :- ; -- i 111 Markham Small Streams Study grew out of concern for the proposed Unionville Gate Development. Remington's original plan was for a man made lake, TRCA reviewed, however this did not work out technically. This lead to the Land Mark Feature, it -will be which is a tributary 4 (with a 30 -60m meander). Basically a man made channel, to be directed into the Rouge River. In the review of #3/05 Minutes: Paul Harpley noted that he was listed as an Alternate and should be listed as a Member AMENDMENT MINUTES RES. #L41/05 Moved by: Seconded by: THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05, held on, April 21, 2005 be approved as amended. Li Et, June 2, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE LETTER - to the Honourable David Caplan regarding congratulations on the implementation of the Greenbelt Act and Plan. Bryan Buttigieg DISCUSSION: Voiced his concern that consensus was not met on the draft Greenbelt "congratulatory" letter which had been revised and e- mailed to Task Force members. The Task Force was advised that the letter had, therefore, not been sent. Two options were posed: (1) send out letter, noting persons who wish to be excluded from the sign off at the bottom of the letter; (2) do not send out letter on behalf of the Task Force, although members could send out individual letters on their own behalf if desired. Terry O'Connor Would only be comfortable with signing the letter on behalf of the agricultural sector if the government had committed to investigating the easement issue. Bryan Buttigieg Lewis had felt a letter was warranted due to the advances in the Rouge Park which are commendable. Tupper Wheatley Are we holding this letter to help the agricultural sector? Terry O'Connor Spoke of a new Committee of nine people with only two members for the agriculture sector; agriculture is not being allowed a strong enough voice. Tupper Wheatley However we word this letter, we should not diminish what we have said thus far and how far the plan has come. Terry O'Connor Government has taken money out of the agricultural budget. Supports the letter, but not on the backs of the agricultural sector. Bryan Buttigieg What is happening is similar to expropriation. Terry O'Connor The other issue which must be recognized is that there is NO appeal process for any of these Acts being passed (ie. ORM, Greenbelt, ). David Tuley The first letter does support the agricultural point. Lf 89 •L453 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 June 2, 2005 Bryan Buttigieg If we can have a consensus by a show of hands that the letter go out as it stands with a sentence at the bottom of the page noting the representatives who withdrew from deliberations, then we will send out. As direction for this letter was given by a quorum of members at the last Task Force meeting, the input at this meeting is simply regarded as a re- confirmation of how to act on the original motion. Show of hands gave consensus. ANNOUNCEMENT Kevin O'Connor Announced that Task Force member Jim Robb's mother had passed away. Bryan Buttigieg PRESENTATION Suggested a sympathy card be sent to Jim Robb on behalf of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, expressing condolences at the passing of his mother. LITTLE ROUGE CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN Lewis Yeager, Rouge Park General Manager, presented an overview of the Little Rouge Corridor Management Plan study and noted opportunities for Task Force member involvement • The Little Rouge Corridor Management Plan initiative is supported by municipalities and the conservation authority. • The Provincial land transfer has been worked on for over 6 years; 1300 hectares transferred from the province to TRCA for Rouge Park purposes. These lands are the subject of the planning study. • A corridor from Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine is the ultimate goal. • This plan arises from a recommendation in the Rouge North Management Plan. • Main purpose of the study is to delineate the corridor and develop a management plan for the lands. • The Little Rouge Corridor Management Plan will consist of 3 Phases; currently are in Phase 1- Issues & Opportunities. • An Advisory Committee has been formed and consultation process initiated. Lewis invited any Task Force members to join in the Management Plan initiative. • Little Rouge Corridor Management Plan to be ready for early 2006. Lt q0 June 2, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4105 ds1�4 DISCUSSION David Tuley Lewis Yeager Will this management plan be ready to integrate into the Watershed Plan? Yes Terry O'Connor How wide are the Federal Lands? Lewis Yeager 300 metres wide on either side of the Little Rouge; have a 5 year window to find managers for these lands. Tupper Wheatley Concerned that 600 metres wide is not sufficient; need 200 m for forest with 100 m buffer from adjacent existing land use. Paul Harpley Would be good to have an understanding of the upper Little Rouge to make sure we manage it now before existing lands are sold and developed. Lewis Yeager Yes, we should be using stewardship planning as is being used in the southern parts of the Rouge. The only working farms in the City of Toronto are in the Rouge Watershed; we would like to work towards moving these farms to long term leases. CORRESPONDENCE DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE LETTER - to the Honourable David Caplan regarding comments on the Draft Growth Plan: Places to Grow (draft, May 30, 2005) Bryan Buttigieg Asked Lewis to present the proposed letter to the Task Force members; Suggested that members present come to a consensus on wording and send the revised draft letter by e-mail to members absent to reach a consensus and quorum. Lewis Yeager Hoped for the two plans (Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan) to complement each other. Must realize that it was only with lobbying that the extra paragraph, explicitly recognizing the particular significance of the Rouge River Watershed and Park, was added to section 3.2.6 in the Greenbelt Plan. This letter should be seen as a first engagement of the province to have the Rouge Watershed significantly noticed in the Growth Plan as in the Greenbelt Plan. LIci I �-335r Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4105 June 2, 2005 Terry O'Connor Asked about the status of the East Metro Transportation Corridor. Lewis Yeager It seems to be dead. Lewis Yeager Highway 7 is due for intensification. Very concerned about new roads going across the Rouge Watershed. Rail transit in hydro corridors is being suggested and this is not a good idea. • A number of editorial comments were noted for incorporation into a revised letter, including the use of subheadings to highlight key messages. ACTION: Staff to circulate a revised draft letter to all Task Force members and finalize and send the letter upon approval of the Chair only if supported by a majority (quorum) of Task Force members. RES. #L42/05 Moved by: Seconded by: ROUGE WATERSHED LAND AND RESOURCE USE GOAL, OBJECTIVES, INDICATORS AND TARGETS THAT a revised land and resource use goal and supporting framework of "working" objectives outlined in this report be adopted in principle; AND THAT a working group of the Task Force be convened to review comments provided at and subsequent to the Task Force meeting and report back to the Task Force with a revised set of objectives, indicators and targets for the land and resource use goal. BACKGROUND At meeting #2/04, the Rouge Task Force approved a draft overall goal and set of ten supporting goals and objectives for the Rouge watershed (see Attachment 1 sent with agenda ). The overall goal calls for the achievement of "a healthy sustainable Rouge watershed... ", which implies the need to "live within the Earth's limits" and "balance the needs of the environment, the economy and human society ". Seven of the ten Rouge supporting goals emphasize environmental needs, while also addressing the quality or quantity requirements for human needs (e.g. water for drinking water supplies, human health standards associated with recreational uses, etc.). Two additional goals identify cultural and recreation needs. However, of the ten supporting goals, the "land and resource use" goal was never fully defined in terms of supporting objectives, indicators and targets. The role of this goal is to depict the mosaic of land and resource uses anticipated in the watershed and establish "performance standards" or "codes of conduct" for these uses. Although sustainability is inherent to the other nine goals, the land and resource use goal was deemed necessary to deal with other specific sustainable living and design attributes. Q June 2, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 El-5e In considering the land and resource use objectives, two caveats are recognized: 1. Establishment of specific land use targets are under the mandate of provincial and municipal governments. This exercise is not intended to replace that more detailed municipal planning process, but rather to better integrate the targets in a watershed context. 2. Land and resource use objectives, indicators and targets will overlap to some degree with direction to be provided in the management and implementation component of the watershed plan, as both areas are concerned with human activities. Proposed Objectives, Indicators and Targets A proposed set of objectives, indicators and targets in support of the land and resource use goal is presented for discussion purposes in (see Attachment 2 sent with agenda). These have , been prepared with reference to the objectives of relevant local plans, plans from other jurisdictions, and based on a review of Task Force comments made during the discussion of a future "sustainable community" scenario for the watershed at the April 21, 2005 Task Force meeting. Selected Reference Literature Leading jurisdictions are attempting to define sustainability in practical terms as part of their plans and management strategies. They recognize the need to understand the relationships between social and economic decisions and effects on the natural environment. They have also begun to recognize the need for integration across different scales. For example, management directions at a watershed or municipal scale should be reflected in and supported by built forms and designs at a community scale, and likewise decisions regarding personal behaviour at the lot scale should contribute to overall goals. There is also a trend toward demand management in resource use sectors (e.g. water, energy), whereby the preferred standard of practice is to curtail demand first or find an alternate sustainable /renewable source before seeking ways to increase the supply of a traditional source. Practical implementation of sustainability therefore requires that new standards of practice in land and resource use be defined. Copies of selected references appended to this report are summarized briefly below: Markham Centre Performance Measures Document. The Markham Centre Vision for Sustainability and Smart Growth - (see Attachment 3 sent with agenda) The Markham Centre study has produced a very extensive list of performance indicators for objectives.grouped into five theme areas: greenlands, built form, green infrastructure, open space and transportation. Although these indicators were designed for the site level, and therefore are largely too detailed for the watershed scale, they provide a useful point of reference against which to review the completeness of the watershed objectives and indicators. Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 June 2, 2005 At a Watershed - Ecological Governance and Sustainable Water Management in Canada (POLIS Project, 2005) - (see Attachment 4 sent with agenda) This report identifies demand management as the new paradigm for integrating human needs within ecological limits. It refers to demand management as a foundational tool for watershed managers. Comprehensive demand management programs are those that integrate diverse activities such as consumer behaviour, water provision, waste disposal, energy use, and land use to redirect social development onto a new "soft path ". The report calls for "ecological governance ", where natural ecosystem processes are carefully considered at all levels of decision making and by all three pillars of governance - government, business and civil society. A Sustainable Urban System: The Long -term Plan for Greater Vancouver - Attachment 5 This document represents a case study of long term sustainable urban systems planning. It presents a diverse set of goals and strategies illustrating the integration of natural and built systems. RATIONALE The Rouge watershed goals and objectives help define the scope of the watershed planning study and point to the necessary management directions. The associated indicators and targets are being used as benchmarks against which to evaluate the effectiveness of potential management strategies. In particular, the "land and resource" use objectives, indicators and targets will serve as a guide to finalize the definition of the sustainable community scenario. By completing a more comprehensive framework of indicators and targets, the Task Force will ensure a more thorough evaluation of all aspects of the proposed management strategies. The Task Force review of all goals, objectives, indicators and targets will continue until they are finalized in the watershed plan. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE It is proposed that a smaller working group of Task Force members and staff discuss comments received at and subsequent to the Task Force meeting. The group will report back to the Task Force with recommended revisions. Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Date: May 27, 2005 ATTACHMENT #1: Rouge River Watershed - Draft Goals, Objectives, Indicators and Targets (May 2004) Overall Goal: To achieve a healthy, sustainable Rouge watershed by protecting, restoring, and enhancing its ecological and cultural integrity within the context of a regional natural heritage system. June 2, 2005 RovgovvatemhoUTasxFonmMemmg#4/no Groundwater of sufficient quantity and quality to support ecological *uncxiuns. aquatic habitats and sustainable human needs, including drinking water, agricultural, industrial, and commercial uses. ' Pnotncx, restore and enhance groundwater recharge and discharge. recharge/discharge ' less than 15 % overall watershed imperviousness maintain baseline piezometric surfaces - maintain or enhance baseline infiltration rates and distribution - maintain baseline discharge rates P,otoo\, restore and enhance groundwater quality. groundwater chemistry and bacteria the more stringent of MOE Ontario Drinking Water Standards or MOE Provincial vvoun, Quality Objectives - maintain or reduce chloride levels Ensure sustainable rates or groundwater use. water consumption - no restrictions in use uq5 trig Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 June 2, 2005 . . i •.>, :u } F t; ; Al. » 21 e^.' f { „ : , TVf f- Y gii 7 FJ. D vegn„ ' , .. R.t4;4 aAti44.14- ' Y: r ar • St4 , kV44.4i t '6 i ,? ;i. w c, { ., .. -" . RvGx E T� SW f tof. " 'imi S a ater, - uat 17' ' j 1 ` H�s <er r aY f? i K kT, Surface waters of a quality, volume and naturally variable rate of flow to • protect aquatic and terrestrial life and ecological functions; • protect human life and property from risks due to flooding; • contribute to the protection of Lake Ontario as a domestic drinking water source; • support sustainable agricultural, industrial, and commercial water supply needs; • support swimming, fishing and the opportunity to safely consume fish; and • contribute to the removal of Toronto from the Great Lakes list of Areas of Concern. Eliminate or minimize risks to human life and property due to flooding. peak flow - maintain existing peak flows (2 -100 year and Regional events water level - maintain baseline flood lines+ flood vulnerable areas and roads - maintain or reduce existing flood vulnerable areas and roads+ ice jams - maintain the number of sites and frequency of ice jams Protect and restore the natural variability of annual and seasonal stream flow Streamflow Maintain or reduce baseline flow volume Maintain and restore natural levels of baseflow. Baseflow - Maintain or enhance baseline seasonal and annual baseflows. Surface Water Withdrawals - Maintain or enhance baseline seasonal and annual baseflows. - All surface water users offline from watercourse June 2, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 L1 R 4,1.60 GOALS', w,u �' ,, OBJECT .)VES. ' ,k, ,., vC. 'INDICATORS,A� ,�,� ;_TARGETS ; .,.1;$,44,;.•'.0;•,.,..;,, fi ' A %11 Wt'! �7 Surface1Wate�'Qualitys; , .i :-0 i.tif1� 4 I ...'.mac v ,�' Ff �i I. �� 1ik: tt{ '1 �.' A. t hS`4 4.',1:44q, #- F k w�YS1{ a +I�y y N a Surface waters of a quality, volume and naturally variable rate of flow to • protect aquatic and terrestrial life and ecological functions; • protect human life and property from risks due to flooding; • contribute to the protection of Lake Ontario as a domestic drinking water source; • support sustainable agricultural, industrial, and commercial water supply needs; • support swimming, fishing and the opportunity to safely consume fish; and • contribute to the removal of Toronto from the Great Lakes list of Areas of Concern. Meet standards for body contact recreation at nearshore beaches and in the river Swimming and body contact recreation Greater than 75% of surface water samples meet the PWQO of 100 coliforms /100 mL. Rouge Beach is open for an average of at least 95% of the swimming season Protect and restore surface water quality with respect to conventional pollutants, to ensure protection of aquatic life, ecological functions and water supply needs. conventional pollutants Concentrations of conventional pollutants meet available guidelines, as follows: - suspended solids: 30 mg /L' - phosphorus: 0.03 mg - nitrate: 1.0 mg /L (eutrophication) -2.5 mg /L (amphibians) -un- ionized ammonia: 0.02 mg /L -DO: 6.0 mg /L warm water biota -9.5 mg /L cold water biota - chloride: 250 mg /L sediment Toad Target to be determined Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 June 2, 2005 -� ' ' !GOALS ��*.��` Protect and restore Heavy metais and Concentrations of `c �L�� FWv�|��".�p/+\�/qgV� � ^ `|.�_��\��.�`�� .�.�`.r ., �.��_��,�� ^^ surface water quality organic contaminants metals and organics maintain baseline with respect to toxic contaminants, to ensure protection of natural channel meet PVVOOo. Banned priority toxics (TBD) natural channel aquatic ife, ecological morphology and are not detected in structure (Regional functions, human health, and water supply needs. stability. surface waters. Organic contaminant levels inyuung-of-tha year fish meet IJC and VvaoeshoUKXonbo,|ng Program (RWMP)) maintain baseline erosion index - maintain baseline erosion rates (RWMP) - 100% natural stream corridors CCME guidelines. Restrictions on sport fish consumption have not increased from 1999 levels. -� ' ' !GOALS ��*.��` . - /lo3E `�'^' �VY��. �x�'' ��, ^� ��u/ |un�� TARGETS: ^��` ~' `c �L�� FWv�|��".�p/+\�/qgV� � ^ `|.�_��\��.�`�� .�.�`.r ., �.��_��,�� ^^ Namro|, stable stream Maintain or restore channel morphology maintain baseline banks and channels natural channel benthic invertebrates (TBD) natural channel that provide hydrologic morphology and structure (Regional flow regulation, support diverse aquatic habitat, limit sediment loading, and protect human Iife and property from risks due to erosion and slope instability. stability. VvaoeshoUKXonbo,|ng Program (RWMP)) maintain baseline erosion index - maintain baseline erosion rates (RWMP) - 100% natural stream corridors A healthy aquatic system that supports a diversity of native habitats and communities and provides sustainable public use opportunities. Protect, restore and enhance the health and diversity of native aquatic habitats and communities. fish - maintain or restore historical distribution of native target species, as specified in the Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan (OMNR and TRCA, 1992), until the updated plan is completed. benthic invertebrates - minimum 80% of stations have an IBI score of good" June 2, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 V1116 X1-@2 habitat - minimum 80% of stations "unimpaired" - coldwater minimum 25 %; maintain or enhance existing in cool and warm water - maintain or increase in baseflow and maintain or reduce annual flow - thermal stability should reflect the target species, specified in the updated Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan - only strategic barriers to remain - maintain or increase current wetland area - 100% cover with riparian vegetation; 75% of the riparian vegetation is woody - no additional loss of stream length invasive and exotic species - reduce the number and distribution of invasive species - reduce reliance on stocking of exotic species Provide for sustainable fishing opportunities and the safe consumption of fish consumption advisories - no consumption advisories beyond the monthly maximum of no more than 8 meals per month angling opportunities - increased angling opportunities and locations baitfish harvest - maintain existing level of baitfish harvest L1 qg -x}83 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 June 2, 2005 = GOALS. - , er OBJECTIVES+ 5 J t„ d :INDICATORS TARGETS `47, a~ •4 '; 4 V .ti �. er egtrlal SystehTt a' ''," , .wii 6..4, 4, � ea �,,��kl a 7 �•, � � � 1_ ' -- ,'. -''' 4 �P •zt? 4 A healthy terrestrial system that supports a diversity of native habitats and communities, a more natural watershed hydrology, cleaner air, and sustainable public use opportunities. Protect, restore and enhance natural cover to improve connectivity, biodiversity and ecological function. Quantity of natural cover - increase the percent natural cover to at least the minimum target defined by the regional terrestrial natural heritage system , Distribution of natural cover - improve natural cover distribution in accordance with the regional targeted terrestrial natural heritage system - distribution improvements will also be addressed using minimum values for percent natural cover at a subwatershed scale or other local scale (future work) - increase the amount of natural cover that has some measure of 'protection' as defined by TRCA's Living City partners (The Living City Report Card). Protect, restore and enhance terrestrial natural heritage system quality and function to minimize the negative influences of surrounding land uses. Habitat Patch Size - increase patch sizes by restoring land to natural cover - average habitat patch size scores determined by the watershed's target terrestrial natural heritage system (based on regional targets) June 2, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4105 L201) �t�94" Habitat Patch Shape - enhance patch shape to be more round with lower edge to area ratios - average habitat patch shape scores determined by the watershed's target terrestrial natural heritage system (based on regional targets) Matrix Influence - mitigate negative external influences of the matrix - average matrix influence scores or a targeted ratio of urban /rural /natural land uses to be determined by the watershed's target terrestrial natural heritage system (based on regional targets) Total Patch "Quality" Score (Size, Shape, Matrix Influence) - expand terrestrial system - average total scores to be determined by the watershed's target terrestrial natural heritage system (based on regional targets) Maintain and restore native terrestrial biodiversity. Biodiversity (vegetation communities and species) - enhance native habitat and species type representation in terrestrial system - abundance and distribution of vegetation community types and species L 201 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4105 June 2, 2005 • G',y 'Lfi *' �'rr •uktlNl�iirTLi 1�'sAt 4i �t Y, yy,, BJEC�TIV .�`� �''+' y,a,-;,...1:,!..,.,,,,,,, �. 0. .! ,�'.,,. 'TARGETS 1,INDi TC RS , °r' A . ft , YT'iti ;4 -. "i tr t:, - TARGETS - F. OJriPS ,, e J,A 1 a Riiy "�ee<� f ellty, �l e .µ:+re ,;. r r '`�'i, "tY i 'r r fy'L e I L1,.R. - •, 5 �'. yr i '16, ^pv..i t i, �7,P 1 1 +xs r Air of a quality that protects human health, natural ecosystems and crops, and contributes to the reduction of global climate change. greenspace accessibility Protect and restore air quality. Air Chemistry AQI of "Very Good" (AQI does not exceed 15) Smog 0 smog days and smog advisories issued per year Lichen (TBD) Index of Atmospheric Purity (IAP) values (TBD) .t GOALS '' OBJECTIVES 'INDICATI�FRS; " 'TARGETS Cultural Ecology , , �Yk' "' Recognition, preservation, and celebration of cultural heritage in the Rouge watershed to increase awareness and understanding of past human relationships with the environment • Identify, document and protect cultural heritage resources cultural heritage resources - increase the database of known archaeological, historic and burial sites, and built structures. 5. A'YA *'.' '.CF -; i.�5 Y.4 GOALS ) �` �+" ,.s- tmr"i° ' "' T' i►.r ^�Y %} s.5:fit• ;x -t o , :c1r^ .'�i'.: OBJECTIVYE,�S,, a,r • AFR 'i,;.(f.444i ilK5•r0.e d1.'F a to ! 'i ,, . t x4.,, 3 1'"'" 't t t' NDICATORS y' `t�:1.0 : A:.f..,) f:„ *.; {R;;', TARGETS 1 o , . yiL •44"^‘''A. v TIP• 1� uubliall r t� .� ?S',',‘ .., TT... >t • ka ti/ ' {R cre�tjon v: �', 5 ,.' . ' ! .,K •� * Y 4,;tt� 5 :e ,�.jy e,,., ♦r $ .:r G -III 2� Y� I rk { ti x v ire •- j� '...y. Y 1 1i yn !Al, Y'#►�, �f t� 1 t f: F ,l.t ,c �'' f .�'S '.e e y a �,- y t �� 7 "+j?52„ H z k y ry.u�'i Z 1 , i ti Opportunities for sustainable public enjoyment that contribute to human well -being and raise awareness and appreciation of natural and cultural heritage. Provide access to greenspace and recreational opportunities without compromising ecological integrity greenspace accessibility - compatible uses Phase out or re- locate public uses that are incompatible with the protection and improvement of ecological health. greenspace accessibility - no incompatible uses June 2, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4105 L 2W- � 'GOALS '� . ` ��'��'�z�"�'*�� Create a network of watershed trail systems linking Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine and connecting to east- west watersheds, while ensuring compatibility with ecological health. trails 100% of planned trail systems � 'GOALS '� . ` ��'��'�z�"�'*�� &�� ' ! ` � ,' ]-andand Reopun�U r �' .',� (��:-: . `'�?�. `` 'r ' ,�\�� A healthy watershed Promote sustainable Ieves of land use and Establishment of land where land and levels of land and resource use. and resource use resource uses resource use that are targets are under the (including Rouge pam, urban and rural compatible with watershed health mandate of provincial and municipal somnmonua, agriculture, golf courses, aggregate extraction, and transportation and utility corridors) are compatible with the protection and improvement of ecological and hydrological health. objectives. governments and will be guided by analysis in turther phases of this watershed planning study. The final watershed plan will provide recommended management criteria/targets and guidance on best management practices for land and resource activities. Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 June 2, 2005 Attachment #2: Proposed Objectives, Indicators and Targets for the Land and Resource Use Goal - For Task Force Discussion (May 27, 2005 Land and Resource Use Goal Objectives -'` ' ° . - �_ -Indicators.-•:.' •. Targets Example Actions and References PROPOSED NEW WORDING: Practice sustainable Water consumption Reduce water use by_% to Conservation measures: A healthy watershed with a resource use by individuals, households, and and sources per capita per day -City of Toronto 25% -York Region 25% _ mosaic of land and resource uses businesses. - Regent Park redevelopment 35% (at watershed and community scales) that are compatible with the protection and improvement of ecological and hydrological health. - Markham Centre 25% - LEED standard 20 to 30% - Rocky Mountain Inst. 80gaI /day Land and resource uses include: Example actions: • Rouge Park Greywater reuse, onsite water • urban and rural settlements Shift % of potable water treatment, rainwater use, front load • agriculture • golf courses use (2002) to sustainable sources. washers. • aggregate extraction • transportation and utility corridors. Waste generation Generate less waste per Waste Diversion Targets: and diversion _% capita (or total tonnes) - Toronto 75% - Markham Centre 75% -Trinity County, CA 50% -MEC 72% - General Motors 30% - Ontario 60% (MOE) Divert of waste to reuse Example actions: _% compost, recycling, salvage incentive programs June 2, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 Energy consumption and sources Reduce energy demand by _% per capita per year. Energy Star certification for all appliances. See LEED* One Tonne commitment by communities - Environment Canada (www.climatechange.gc.ca /onetonne /calculator) -Eco Superior Thunderbay Shift to % of energy (www.ecosuperior.com) - Peterborough Green -Up -One Tonne Toronto - Markham Centre 30% demand from green power sources (where drawn from grid). E.g. solar, wind... - - Markham Centre 90% of units connect to District Energy or altemative - Calgary Rail Trans. 100% - Exhibition Place 1,700 kw (380 tons of GHG) Improve sustainability in Development Density which supports transit - Growth Plan urban form at building site and community scales. density and design use _ Efficient land use through intensification and compact form. Increased integration of natural areas within mixed and uses. Transportation Increased per capita use of transportation alternatives (eg. Bike /walk, transit) Modal split for transportation L% auto: %_walk/bike: Markham Centre: 6 autos; 1 bike/walk; 3 transit % transit) Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 June 2, 2005 'LEED - Framework for LEED standards considers the latest environmental /sustainability considerations for: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere in building systems, materials and resources supplied to the building, indoor environmental quality, and innovation and design process (Canada Green Building Council, 2004). Green Buildings All new public buildings should be LEED* certified; and retrofits to the extent possible. All buildings should be designed for multiple uses, and diverse densities to increase lifespan of buildings and maximize on land use efficiency Examples -Vancouver: All buildings must meet LEED Examples -Smart Growth Network - Energy Protect agricultural lands for food production and as a vital component of the watershed landscape, by sustaining a viable agricultural industry. Agricultural land use area of agricultural land _ Soil quality meets standards for agricultural uses. Local food production Meet _% of local food needs with production from regional agriculture and community gardens. Examples - Toronto Food Policy Council - Community Garden Network Practice sustainable rural land use Rural Uses _ New rural developments will incorporate principles of green building, striving toward zero footprint; retrofits to the extent possible. Examples - Vancouver: to become net contributors, surpassing zero footprint _ , 'LEED - Framework for LEED standards considers the latest environmental /sustainability considerations for: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere in building systems, materials and resources supplied to the building, indoor environmental quality, and innovation and design process (Canada Green Building Council, 2004). June 2, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 ATTACHMENT #3: Excerpts from: Markham Centre Performance Measures Document - The Markham Centre Vision for Sustainability and Smart Growth (January 2004). Five key themes for performance measures and objectives associated with each *. Greenlands ✓ Water - in terms of hydrology, hydrogeology, water quality and base flow ✓ Air - in terms of clean air quality and microclimate ✓ Vegetation - in terms of health, species composition, diversity, extent and patch configuration ✓ Wildlife - in terms of health, diversity, size and extent ✓ River Processes - in terms of erosion, slope stability, fluvial geomorphology and sediment transport ✓ Social Factors - including recreation, interpretation, education and user experience Green Infrastructure ✓ Water conservation ✓ Air quality ✓ Multifunctional stormwater management ✓ Reduction of waste ✓ Conservation of energy Built Form ✓ Character ✓ Attractive building and lively streets ✓ Transit support ✓ Environmental support Open Space ✓ Adequate open space ✓ Integration of open space systems ✓ Variety of open spaces ✓ Pathways, passageways, courtyards ✓ Urban street treatment ✓ Sustainable site development practices Transportation ✓ Roads ✓ Transit ✓ Biking ✓ Walking ✓ Transportation Demand Management *The full report provides a more detailed breakdown of indicators and targets for each objective. Full report available upon request. L2.0- L-1.71 ATTACHMENT #4: ATTACHMENT #5: * These attachments can be found at the end of the Agenda package. Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 June 2, 2005 Executive Summary: At a Watershed - Ecological Governance and Sustainable Water Management in Canada (POLIS Project, 2005) A Sustainable Urban System: The Long -term Plan for Greater Vancouver (Cities Plus, 2004) DISCUSSION Sonya Meek presented the staff report outlining the need to refine the draft land and resource use goal and objectives in order to articulate sustainable "standards of practice" that guide human activities in the watershed. She acknowledged the potential overlap with the implementation plan and the likely need to revise this goal through an iterative process. This discussion began with general comments about the role and thrust of this goal statement. Lionel Purcell Spoke of street trees. In the past we were taking down all the trees to build houses (south of Major Mackenzie); so what you are saying is north of there we are to learn to do things in a new way. Paul Harpley Spoke of sustainability; that this is the piece which has been missing; and we definitely need this part. Bill Snodgrass Structure, function and attributes are words which describe ecological land and water. We are struggling for the words to describe the human aspects. Lionel Purcell I believe what you are saying is that we want future urban growth to occur in a softer way. Jack Heath I don't think we can isolate one area to change the way development happens. I think we should be focusing on increasing the corridors around the watersheds. Can you find a target for the amount of land that will be developed within the Rouge? Tupper Wheatley Be careful not to compromise the environment by using wording in the document that the developers can box us into. Bryan Buttigieg Noted this exercise addresses one of the peer review comments on the need to clarify the land and resource use goal. Sonya Meek summarized the general discussion by confirming a consensus on the need for a goal that addressed social and economic sustainability in the context of watershed management. 26g June 2, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 Discussion of Goal & Objectives Sonya Meek led a discussion of specific comments on the goal and objective statements: This goal should be about minimizing our impact. Discussion of the Title - Land and Resource Use Goal - possibly Sustainable Land and Resource Goal, possibly Sustainable Economic and Social Vitality /Use Goal. Protecting agricultural lands for "food" production objective, may wish to change to "agricultural" production to recognize role of nurseries, tree farms, pumpkins and other non -food crops. Could distinguish between objective for security (self reliance) of food production and other agricultural crops. Lot level objective should target no rainwater runoff from lot. Bill Snodgrass Jack Heath With a bill or a by -law you would be able to change; improve sustainability to no net rainwater runoff from site. Houses go up in large quantities. Developers are very aware of what the public wants. If the public starts asking for more sustainable houses the developers will start building them. We need to promote awareness of more sustainable building options that could be offered on the market. ACTION: David Tuley offered that the Implementation Committee could form a sub- committee on housing to look at barriers to implementation of the sustainability scenario. It appears that Task Force members Kevin O'Connor and Jack Heath may be interested in assisting. Due to time constraints and the will of the group, there was no specific discussion of the proposed indicators and targets. Sonya asked if there were volunteers to work with staff on revisions to the Land and Resource Use Goal statements. Many Task Force members indicated they had no additional time available to participate in more meetings and prefer if staff took the lead with revisions and circulated them for comments via e-mail. It was noted that this procedure seemed successful in getting comments on the Task Force letters. ACTION: Staff to incorporate comments and circulate a revised version of the Land and Resource Use Goal for comments by e-mail. SUMMER MONTHS: It was noted the next Task Force meeting is in September but work will continue over the summer. Staff will be continuing the modeling and analysis; Management Summits will be held in cooperation with the Implementation Committee; and sustainability scenario will be finalized. Virginia Jones Will the final report be written for the lay person and how will it be implemented? L2b° U7� Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 June 2, 2005 Sonya Meek Yes, it is intended to be short, concise and usable; not a document to be left on the shelf. The Implementation Committee will be developing a proposed format and structure for discussion by the Task Force. RES. #L43/05 Moved by: Seconded by: EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PREFERRED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY THAT the evaluation criteria and approach outlined in this report (as may be modified based on discussion at this or subsequent Task Force meetings) be used to develop a preferred management strategy; AND FURTHER THAT Task Force members apply these criteria in consultation with the broader watershed community. BACKGROUND The Phase 2 Workplan, approved by Task Force members at the September 23r', 2004 Task Force meeting, generally describes the analysis and evaluation phase of the watershed planning process. A major component of the analysis involves modelling the watershed's response to future scenarios. The various scenarios embody different degrees and types of management, including different extent and form of urban growth, stormwater retrofits, and enhanced natural cover. Not all analyses are modelling exercises, however. Some issues or management opportunities have a comparatively low potential impact on modelling results or lack quantifiable relationships and must be analyzed using alternative means. The Implementation Committee Management Summit Meetings, described in the Implementation Committee Workplan that was approved at the March 10'", 2005 Task Force Meeting, are expected to generate additional evaluation considerations. The purpose of the management summits is to engage affected stakeholders and expertsan the development of effective management and implementation recommendations for critical issues. Determining an effective evaluation approach that can bring all of the analytical results together is a crucial step in watershed planning, as it is through this mechanism that a preferred management strategy is selected. With these factors in mind, proposed evaluation criteria can be organized into the following two -stage approach: Proposed Evaluation Approach Stage 1 - Primary Evaluation Criterion L2-Ib June 2, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 ability to meet Rouge objectives and selected targets (with a focus on those targets which are "modellable" and quantifiable) Technical staff will evaluate and present the modelling results. Stage 2 - Additional Evaluation Criteria - considerations for effectiveness, efficiency and equity consistency with task force principles, as in initial Task Force Greenbelt letter (Attachment #1) 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 the broad range of key stakeholders, will apply and reference these evaluation criteria during a series of meetings and facilitated workshops, designed to develop a preferred management strategy. As a guideline to remain in keeping with an integrated approach the evaluation process adopted should strive to maximize the multiple benefits arising from preferred management directions. The following "integration" factors will be considered: affected length of stream; upstream- downstream benefits area of watershed affected effects beyond the Rouge watershed significance to critical targets (i.e. human health, critical ecological functions) number of other watershed targets being met by the management option Review of the proposed evaluation approach may result in either additions or revisions to the existing criteria. For example, the Task Force may wish to update their principles, considering the recurring themes in discussions at Task Force meetings, of precautionary approach and adaptive management approach in the face of uncertainty due to lack of data and yet unproven new technologies. The Task Force is not precluded from re- examining the criteria and approach at a future date as a result of knowledge gained from the analysis phase or management summit meetings. This type of cross - checking of information sources is fundamental to an integrated strategy. DISCUSSION During the Task Force meeting, the Task Force will be asked to discuss: 1. The overall evaluation criteria and approach being proposed 2. The completeness of the set of Task Force principles and how the principles should be applied in the evaluation Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 For Information contact: Sonya Meek extension 5253 or Patricia Mohr, extension 5624 Date: May 30, 2005 L21) '1775 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 June 2, 2005 DISCUSSION Evaluation Approach Due to time constraints, Sonya presented a very brief overview of the proposed two stage evaluation process. One stage would involve a quantitative comparison of watershed conditions to targets for each scenario. The second stage would involve facilitated discussion among Task Force members during which the results of the stage one evaluation would be considered along with other criteria being considered (eg. multiple benefits and integration considerations, public acceptability, etc.) Tupper Wheatley Sonya Meek Most of the presentations which we have seen thus far have referred to modelling. Are you saying now we are to become more subjective? Not necessarily, the results from the scientific modelling approach is one piece of information for you to use to recommend your preferred management strategies for the Rouge watershed. Some management approaches will benefit some areas more than others and you will have to draw from the information and considerations to create an overall preferred management strategy. Sonya concluded the discussion on the proposed evaluation process by suggesting that this discussion be regarded as an introduction and that staff proceed to present the preliminary results of the modelling analysis, using this approach. Task Force members will then be given another opportunity to confirm the approach. Amphibian Follow -up Tupper Wheatley We expressed a concern of lack of information on amphibians. I have since then received a letter which addresses some concerns, however, still feel there is gap in data of amphibians in the SOW. Lionel Normand Tupper Wheatley Lewis Yeager Patricia Mohr Spoke of a 3 fold monitoring program which the Terrestrial Natural Heritage program at the TRCA run. Firstly, they perform an airphoto interpretation and landscape analysis through GIS; secondly, staff over a 10 year period survey, in the field all natural cover in the jurisdiction including flora, fauna and Ecological Land Classification (ELC); thirdly, volunteers visit 60 fixed sites every year; eight species of frogs surveyed in this jurisdiction. The SOW did not go into specifics on amphibians I would suggest that the Task Force look at enhancing the habitat (ephemeral ponds, interim streams) which these creatures need. The SOW chapter is being edited and expanded to address this gap, however, there is not enough amphibian data to assess trends. L212 June 2, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05 �-3-76 Tupper Wheatley Public Use Follow Up Tupper Wheatley Patricia Mohr FINAL REMARKS Task Force Meetings Bryan Buttigieg In terms of implementation, if you can let the public know where there is a lack of knowledge or data gaps, this would be helpful. Questioned, as to whether the Public Use chapter was being revised and would be brought back to the Task Force; also as to having Cindy Lee of the Toronto Zoo come to speak briefly on amphibians. Confirmed the Public Use chapter is being revised and will be brought back to the Task Force for review. Staff will arrange for presentations and appropriate reports back on SOW report revisions addressing amphibians. Reiterated that still at the end of this meeting we could not meet quorum. Spoke of the additional discussion of members' concerns of the Greenbelt letter and the number of members who would be withdrawn from the signature. Revisited the first Task Force meeting and his duties as Chair, and invited any discussion of individual's thoughts (good /bad) of the direction which the Task Force has taken and the satisfaction of members. Members continued to express satisfaction with the process and meeting procedures. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:15 p.m., on Thursday June 2nd, 2005. Bryan Buttigieg Chair, Rouge Watershed Task Force THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES OF MEETING #5/05 L 2'l A Rouge Park MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #5/05 September 15`h, 2005 TORONTO AND REGION" - onserva tion for The Living City The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at Bruce's Mill Conservation Area Bruce's Mi // C.A. 3292 Stouffville Road (Warden Ave. & Stouffvllle Rd) on Thursday, September 15`h, 2005. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Bryan Buttigieg Member Christine Caroppo Member Gay Cowbourne Member Elio Di lorio Member Jack Heath Alternate Murray Johnston Member Virginia Jones Member Rimi Kalinauskas Member George McKelvey Alternate Kevin O'Connor Alternate , Mike Price Member Jim Robb Member Frank Scarpitti Alternate Erin Shapero Member Patricia Short-Galle Member Clyde Smith Member David Tuley Member Tupper Wheatley Alternate Anil Wijesooriya Alternate Lewis Yeager Alternate Gord Weeden Member STAFF Sonya Meek TRCA Bob Clay TRCA Tim Rance TRCA Sylvia Waters TRCA Beth Williston TRCA Deborah Martin -Downs TRCA GUESTS Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto Bala Araniyasundaron Region of York Debbie Korolnek Region of York September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L212 A WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Bryan Buttigieg announced to the Task Force the appointment of Bob Clay as the Project Manager charged with finalizing the Rouge Watershed Plan. He introduced several guests present, Bala Araniyasundaron, Director of Capital Delivery and Debbie Korolnek, General Manager, Water and Waste Water, York Region and TRCA staff members Deborah Martin - Downs, Director of Ecology and Beth Williston, Manager of Environment Assessment projects (specifically YDSS). They will present the report "YDSS PROJECT AND ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN" and be available for questions. Bryan referred to materials available for tonight's meeting, namely, a quick reference to past business items and minutes to be voted on, due to the lack of quorum at the June 2 'd meeting; a sign -up sheet as to availability for proposed alternate dates for the October Task Force meeting and a date for a Full Day Workshop. RES. #L40/05 MINUTES #3/05 (of April 21', 2005) Moved by: Seconded by: David Tuley Murray Johnston THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05, held on April 21st, 2005 be approved. In the review of #3/05 Minutes: Tupper Wheatley suggested the following changes on L153 shown in strikeout and bold Tupper Wheatley Richard Kendall Markham Small Streams Study grew out of concern for the proposed Unionville Gate Development. Remington's original plan was for a man made lake, TRCA reviewed, however this did not work out technically. This lead to the Land Mark Feature, it will be which is tributary 4 (with a 30 -60m meander). Basically a man made channel, to be directed into the Rouge River. In the review of #3/05 Minutes: Paul Harpley noted that he was listed as an Alternate and should be listed as a Member. AMENDMENT RES. #L41/05 Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES #3/05 (of April 21', 2005) David Tuley Murray Johnston L213 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05, held, April 21st, 2005 be approved as amended. CARRIED RES. #L42/05 ROUGE WATERSHED LAND AND RESOURCE USE GOAL, OBJECTIVES, INDICATORS AND TARGETS Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Christine Caroppo THAT a revised land and resource use goal and supporting framework of "working "objectives outlined in this report be adopted in principle; AND FURTHER THAT a working group of the Task Force be convened to review comments provided at and subsequent to the Task Force meeting and report back to the Task Force with a revised set of objectives, indicators and targets for the land and resource use goal. CARRIED RES. #43105 EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PREFERRED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Moved by: Seconded by: Tupper Wheatley Kevin O'Connor THAT the evaluation criteria and approach outlined in this report (as may be modified based on discussion at this or subsequent Task Force meetings) be used to develop a preferred management strategy; AND FURTHER THAT Task Force members apply these criteria in consultation with the broader watershed community. CARRIED RES. #L44/05 Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES #4/05 (June 2 "d, 2005) David Tuley Tupper Wheatley September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5105 L214 THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/05, held, June 2, 2005 be approved. CARRIED REPORTS RES. #L45/05 Moved by: Seconded by: ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED PLANNING STUDY - STATUS REPORT AND FALL SCHEDULE Review of work completed to date, work in progress and next steps in the Rouge Watershed Planning Study to meet the original goal of producing a full draft plan by year end 2005. Proposal to extend the mandate of the Task Force to June 2006. Patricia Short-Galle Virginia Jones THAT the focus of Rouge Watershed Task Force and staff activities in fall 2005 will involve: continuing to convene management summit meetings around key issues and proposed management actions; completing the scenario modelling, analysis and development of a preferred management strategy; and preparation of a first full draft watershed plan by year- end; THAT the primary means of key stakeholder involvement in the fall 2005 will be through invitation to participate in the management summit discussions and broad -based community consultation and peer review will be rescheduled to winter 2006; THAT the schedule of Task Force meetings during fall 2005 be revised as follows: October 24, 25, or 26 , 2005 (Regular evening Task Force meeting with a focus on modelling and management summit results) November 19 or December 3 , 2005 (Full day workshop with a focus on development of management strategy and implementation plan) December 15, 2005 (Regular evening Task Force meeting with a focus on the full draft plan) 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; L215 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 AND FURTHER THAT staff report back with a proposed set of Task Force meeting dates and winter /spring 2006 workplan, upon approval of the Task Force extension by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. AMENDMENT RES. #L46/05 Moved by: Seconded by: Patricia Short-Galle Virginia Jones THAT the following replace the third paragraph of the main motion: THAT staff propose additional dates by email and Task Force members respond promptly to allow confirmation of dates be approved; THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND The Task Force approved its 2005 workplan at its March 10, 2005 meeting. The attached status report (Attachment #1) highlights the main accomplishments to date and notes ongoing work and next steps in italics. Workplan and Schedule A considerable number of initiatives are underway on all aspects of this project, and it is still expected that a final Rouge watershed plan can be prepared by June 2006. However, there are several circumstances that necessitate revisions to the original fall 2005 workplan and schedule. Delays in defining the future scenarios in modelling terms, coupled with delays in calibrating the primary hydrology model to the technical team's satisfaction, have meant that the modelling results originally expected over the period June to September, will now be available over October. This will compress the time available to determine the overall preferred management strategy and implementation recommendations and consultation that would go into a refined draft plan by year end. Rather, we will more than likely have a first full draft plan by year end that would still be at an early enough stage to be suitable for consultation and peer review. Staff believe that the goal of producing a full draft watershed plan by year -end is still a valuable target, in that it will keep us focussed on the end - product and allow us to draft component parts that we are able to bring to fruition. However, we believe the expectation should be for a first full draft plan, that would then go out for broader consultation during January- February 2006, while the plan is being refined by the Task Force. A final plan would still be targeted for June 2006. September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L216 Task Force Term of Office The Task Force's original terms of reference set out a mandate ending December 31, 2005 with the production of the draft watershed plan. Task Force members need to consider their willingness to extend their mandate to June 2006 to oversee the finalization of their plan. The Task Force's request would need to be approved by the TRCA and Rouge Park Alliance. Task Force meetings The Task Force meeting originally scheduled for October 27, 2005 conflicts with the Charles Sauriol Fundraising Dinner. An alternate date earlier in that week is proposed - either October 24, 25, or 26. A Saturday workshop in November was proposed as part of the original workplan, but no date was set. November 19`h or December 3rd are proposed, with a weekday during the week of November 21st being suggested as an alternate. L217 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 ' September 15, 2005 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: 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 7s// s, eojo3 *se' ay! o/ ppe o/ sa /diouud /euoijippe se peesa66ns uaaq anew - /uewe5euepv an/ ,1dep y pue e /diauud Aaeuoi /neoaJd paysa(9laM e6noy awl ui a /diouud sly" 6u /A/dde ui epin6 e se paMainad fiuieq si „uis5 jeu„ Jo uoi /eai /dde s,paysJe /eM )fe9JQ suijjnp eq/ uo 6uisnooj doyss/.poM egojd uogn / /od- ygg1 e wog s //nsabr - uie j /aN .ue /d oo'Z uoisin //ay/ 10 ped se au /7 wo / /og a /dul ay/ 6ui /uewa /dwi /e aoueuadxe Jiay/ wall urea/ 01 uo / //weH Jo Milo ay/ woJ7 ieuue /d io/ues e (AM 6ui eew aq ,1/144 gels 6uiuue /d uoi5e y yJo,� pue vjj `(ggl 6a15i / /ng ue/fig `a /yM as /ad) sane /e /uesaidaa ealod )/se1 - aui7 wallas a /duj .ways y }inn 6u!dee ui s! NJonn 6wuueld peusielem aye ensue of ew!T o} ew!T woal pe4isinaa ueeq any seidiouud aseq j .).{.ioM ski ui uoi }eJep!suoo Jo)L ea of )1sei iiequeei aye 10 aieyo ay4 o� pe 4iwgns }i goiynn `seldpuud 6uipinb 10 les e buidolenep ui eoaod )isel aye pad aIiyM Jeled said/au/id ao10 / ./sel ,uewwoo Jo] pa /e/na//a aq / /iM podaa pesinel A//n7 e `sseaojd ay/ jo pua ay/ o/ Jesoo / /ej ay/ .iano eoiod )/se1 ay/ o/ pale/no./p-a/ eq / //M suo/s/nai eni /ue /sgns 6uiofiapun sJa /deyo A/up ./fauejsisuoo ensue o/ Jay /a6o/ pazi/eug s /uewnaop 6uwue/d pegsJe /eM //e pue pepn /oui eq use saipn /s eql waif s5uipuij Jaypn7 Aue Nun /7eJp u/ewaJ o/ enuquoa / //M podia! eta .a /ep o/ pan /aoal s /uawwoo Aue uo paseq podaa aqua sJeldeya Jay /o pasinal aneyije /s - safiueyq /euo /1p3 Jay /p )/JOM e ped pas/no./ s /w,1 ui pepiooe fiulaq si sjiwwns /uawa6euew ay / 7o /Jed se ueNepapun swe'6oJd jo enbi /ua ay' .s5u/pun podej suo // /puoa /uejjna awl woJ7 esoJe /ey/ sans'si /uawa6euew pue san / /oalgo /s /eo6 paysJa /eM ay/ 10 /xa/uoa awl ui peiedeid 6uieq si sweJ6ojd ,1uejjna ui sde6 pue sessaW/eem `sy /6uaJ /s ay/ Jo /uawssasse pue kO/uanu/ peSplaJ v pawsJa ,1eM e5nobr awl ui swev5oid /uawa6euew 6ui /sixa Jo Mainei a/a/dwooul ken e peuie/uoo 'Jades mos 'gyp awl - )/JOMaweJ3 /uawa6euew ,1uaJJnQ - z ped 's/daouoa if/i/igeuie /sns ssaippe o/ Je/noi /Jed ui pue 5/JOMeweJj sit!' ui pessedwoaue Ja//ew /oe /qns Jo adoos Japeoiq awl sse ppe o/ ua//UMaJ 6uieq si Ja /deya awl '6ui eew gOO `z aunt J/ay/ /e eoiod./sel ay/ y ,1144 pessnosip aJaM s/a6Je/ pue sio /eaipui 'se/Igoe/qv `/eo6 ay/ o/ suols/nag - Ja/dey,9 asn a0.11-loses pus pue7 •wa ,1sifs a5e ,1uay /eJn ,1eu ay/ u1 e /o1 .nay/ pue seioeds Jay /o pue sueiglydwe ssaJppe o/ apew 6u/aq ale suo /sloes - sJa ,1dey9 aye /pay /eJn /eN .suol/eoo/ uen /6 u/ sesn „ e qe ,1deooe,,1O uo1 /eu/W elep aw/ u1,s/sse o,1 saul /ap /n6 Jo] peeu ay/ 6u /pn /oui `asn 01 1qnd y ,1144 pale/posse senssi ,1uewe6euew Apjuep/ 0,1 ponies os /e 6u/ ,1aaw awl Ma /naJ Joj OOJOd . 'sel ay,1 o,1 pa ,1e /naa /o aq / //M pue / /6u /pi000e ua / ,1UMaJ 6u/aq si Jeldeyo awl pa ,1dope 6u /aq 91.31 50/5# aaao,j Nsel paysiejem a nou 5002 '91. Jagwe des L219 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 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: ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 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. Defined Scenarios The watershed's response will be modelled for eight future land use and management scenarios, described in Table 1. TABLE 1 Rouge �iiverUh%�rshe 'Seat�QS Y� ` v, a 4v { Narnecnsr1 +sue '�.� `,{ 3 'X. "a _ , dp°'�`0.r'' �.�' k afonal 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 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 September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L220 # r Name Y G nerai Deserlptitirts b� a ; ^ Rationale 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. Sustainab /e 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. L221 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 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 mode/, 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 - Pee/- 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. September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L222 Rouge Watershed Response Model and Predictive Tools Climate Geology Changes in Land Corer Changes in Watershed Hydrology - Water Bw yet A• DIel (Y -ISPF) Changes in Stream Hydrology - +"ydt'o5yMale' (Usu.?? 0 ITHYA40) 1 Changes in Stream Morphology - Pro.kthc za' .Cdgemezt"r1 F Changes in Air Quality — ,■arrca' .Re'a.tarrJrr :: 4 Changes in Groundwater Quality and Quantity - 3D Gourrdwa'erAWE,' (tfenk. )) i Changes in Surface Water Quality - ?-iSPF Changes in Aquatic Systems - Earpi aca' Re'aturrth ps - Proks3crra' .Gdgerre:zt 1 • Changes in Cultural Heritage - .'77te75a' Arc a?otss'Ca. Stec kbdd - Proksac,aa' .C•dyerren: Changes in Terrestrial System — iamis :fie Ara'yds Tod ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY Recreation Quality of Life Human Health Agricult ure and Food 1 Water t Supply /' • Tourism and Economics Energy 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. Management Summits 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. :6u!Teew 5002 `Z aunt agl Te aoaod >{sel age gpM pessnosp seM sllnsaa T!wwns iuewe6euew pue 6uwepow eq� 6ugenlene Jo'sseooid ebeis oMT pesodoad v •segoewdde uoRelueweIdw! pue luewa6euew luatepp to !(me}deooe enigelei 6u!puelsiepun s,wea1 age oT e nqujuoo osle II!M suo!ssnoslp „ilwwns ivawe uew„ 4o s}Insal{ •se!pnls 6u!Ilapow g6noJg1 pe ei suowep se `suor do fuewe6euew pue sseijs jo soueueos puodseJ pagsae eq} u!gp!M seam TueJegp Moq 6u!Me!nei /(q peu!unelep eq II!M A6emils juewe6euew peiie lid v yoeoidd y pue eu91.u,9 uo11en /en3 •s5u,jeew 6ulwoodn Jo /oe/gns ay/ aq os /e !pm swiss! a5e/uey lain //no pue saui/apin6 asn oggnd uo suoissnosip /ei1 /u! Jo uo! /enui /uoo pue uo / /e/! / /geyal /!d 8/9581559 - soldo/ /uawa5euew Jay /p • iegwa/des ex? RN pa /npayos 6u/aq Jo sseooJd ay/ ui s! /lwwns /uawe5euew e - spue/ /eJn / /nou &e Jo ua!/oajojd ay/ o/ sJau1eg • 'sea/paid an/ /enouul Jo uo! /e /uawa /dw! ay/ o/ sJauJeq ewoo1ano o/ s/feM pue sen//oa/go e5nos J07 sal5a/eJ /s 6ui/aapew an/1oa]/a auiuua/ap o/ `a5noy ay 170 so //sue /oeieyo o /ydeJ6owap pue !allying 814170 and /e /uasaldaJ `sesseuisnq pue sseuMoewoy a /en/Jd e5e5ue Xpn /s siy1 passnosip os /e seM ifpn /s 6u! /aNew 'epos pasodowd v i 'oo ' `6 'ides uo p /ay sem /lwwns /uewa6'u'w e - saol./oewcb ,z/pgeule/sns Jo uo! /e /uewe /dcul a y/ o/ siauieg punoJ6)/oeq /euo✓ //ppe Jo X/gwesse ay/ 6u/ /leMe s/ pue pe /npayos aq o/ 1eA sec/ /lwwns /uewe5euew e - seoi/awd uo!/onj /suoo 10 s /oedcui /iewodwal .saloeds oi/oxe pue /uawyoeoioue ti/!M 6u! /eep pue Janoo /eJn /eu 6uloueque J07 swslueyoew aio /dxe o/ goo' `g 'ides uo p /ay SOLI iwwns /uewa5euew e - Janoo /eJn /9U Jo i/oe7 .suo! /olpsun /asoy/ W04 seouauadxa pue uo11ewJO7ui 8J911s o/ `uol /eJOdJOQ 6u/snoy pue a6e6 /Jop epeueQ ay/ y5noJy/ pa /e/!/ioe7 pue e /Jaq/ y pue )g ui sJeua! /!/aeJd ague /eq Ja /eM 6uin /on ui `dnoi6 uoissnasip e peuio /os /e aney77e /s vow •6ui/aaw ay/ /e uolssnosip J07 a/qe/ aq //!M Jaded au/lap/mg pue e Jo7 au/ / /no uv ague /eq Ja /eM e Jo] paau ay/ pall! /uapl77e /s `enss/ s/y/ J07 y9Jeasa1 punoi6./oeq ay/ 6uunp iegwa/dag ale! Jo7 pa /npayos Sula97o ss000id ay/ ui s/ //wwns „ a9ue/eq J8/814„ SAL - X/!/enb Ja /e4 pue `/uawe5euew J8 /eMWJO /s `eoue /eq Ja /e4 `uo /sofa weal /sui :epnlou! e ep OT pal4!Tuep! soldo} enss! !(am eta 500Z 'S l Jagwaldes 50/5# 6uileayj eaJod Ise' paysialeM a6noa EZZ1 September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5105 L224 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 focusing 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. L225 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 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 Newsletter 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. STATUS REPORT OF PLANNING STUDY Sonya Meek Task Force members have had a break over the summer months and at this time I would like to present a status report of the staff work done over the summer and establish a revised Fall Schedule. Staff continued to have scoping meetings and peer review of the SOW chapters has been completed. The Public Use and Land & Resource chapters have undergone major revisions upon the advise of Task Force members. Also staff have increased the content in Part 2 of the SOW making it more complete. September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L226 Chapters - Public Use and Land & Resource as well as Part 2 of the SOW will be sent to Task Force members for Final Approval upon completion and a completed version of the SOW will be distributed on CD when finalized. Phase 2 Prep, Analysis and Evaluation • 8 scenarios were approved for modelling (staff have completed 5); • the HSPF model has taken longer to calibrate than first expected; • groundwater modelling is progressing. Scenario Modelling - will be sent out to Task Force members for review upon completion DISCUSSION Jim Robb I have concerns about one consultant being utilized for all data required for the groundwater modelling. Who is the consultant? Sonya Meek EarthFx is the consultant who will run the groundwater model, because they are currently the only one who operates the groundwater flow model for the York Peel Durham Toronto (YPDT) groundwater program, which is the two we are using. However it is staff supplying the data for input to the model and staff who interpret the results. Jim Robb I have concerns that we may need a new set of eyes to look at the model parameters and what is being modelled. Even the best of models can be narrowed by the views of just one consultant. Sonya Meek Agreed, it is an important role of our peer review process. Also, we have established a series of checks in our integrated planning process where data output from the surfacewater model is entered as input for the groundwater model, and likewise, output from the groundwater model will be reviewed by surfacewater and aquatic teams. Inconsistencies between models can be identified and evaluated further. Elio Di'lorio Can you clarify how the consultant EarthFx was contracted? Also, what is EarthFx contracted to do for the Rouge Watershed studies? Sonya Meek EarthFx was contracted about four years ago by the YPDT Groundwater Study to develop a geological model and groundwater flow model for the study area. There was a Request fo Proposal process overseen by the YPDT Steering Committee, which includes hydrogeologists L227 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 from four regions, six CA's and outside experts from the Geological Survey of Canada and Rick Gerber. Clyde Smith I would like to speak of Whitchurch- Stouffville and ask whether it is sustainable for 100% of water to be taken from groundwater sources (aquifers) and flushed directly (through sewers) into Lake Ontario? Are we going to be modelling this? Sonya Meek We won't be duplicating any modelling that the Region has already done, but we will bring these results forward as part of the overall evaluation. Jim Robb It'is crucial to investigate this, because of the population size. Currently the population is 28,000 and 100% of the water supply is taken from the aquifer. Beyond that population water must be brought from Lake Ontario. Murray Johnston This modelling will be peer reviewed, as was the SOW Report. Tupper Wheatley I support Jim Robb's misgivings of the modelling. Modelling is only as good as the data that is fed into the model. Sonya Meek Please recall, that the scenario modelling is only one piece of information we are relying on to build our Watershed Plan. Christine Caroppo I am unfamiliar with the consultant hired. This hydrological model is crucial to our work at hand and will be crucial for future generations. Underlying assumptions in the basis of modelling must be made and are not done intentionally. The key would be to assure that these assumptions which are made are transparent. Bill Snodgrass Understanding the modelling, adds value to the understanding of the subsurface layer. Phasel calibration of the model (Yonge E. Yonge W.) was rigorous, through the incorporation of many variables, for example rainfall, baseflow, groundwater levels, etc. We are pushing for the next phase of calibration of the model to establish a final tool. Christine Caroppo When complete, will this model be transferable to another area? Bill Snodgrass Somewhat. Jim Robb I am not necessarily objecting to the modelling. I am just being cautious. We saw that Morningside Heights did not follow the prediction of the model. September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L228 Tupper Wheatley Is data collected from bore holes? Bill Snodgrass MOE wells, coring in some locations, baseflow monitoring, etc. Bryan Buttigieg I am going to suggest when the model results are complete that a presentation be brought back to the Task Force members that includes more information about the modelling methods. We had initially a presentation of the modelling in theory only when the TRCA hydrogeologist came to our groundwater target workshop. I sense the need to bring this back to the table. ACTION: Staff to arrange for a presentation of modelling and analysis methods, when results are presented at future meetings. Sonya lead a discussion about the proposed alternate dates for the October Task Force meeting and a Full Day Workshop, but no dates could be confirmed, due to many apparent conflicts and lack of responses. RES. #47/05 Moved by: Seconded by: ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN DOCUMENT FORMAT Discussion of proposed format for final set of Rouge Watershed Plan documents and draft table of contents for the Watershed Plan. THAT Task Force comments on the proposed Rouge River Watershed Plan document format and table of contents be incorporated in a revised outline and considered as the plan is developed. WITHDRAWN BACKGROUND Planning the format of the final Rouge Watershed Plan documents was one of the five strategic activities that comprised the Implementation Committee's Workplan, as presented to the Rouge Task Force at its Meeting #2/05, held on March 10, 2005. The objective of this activity is to determine the audience(s) and the most appropriate framework and format for the final watershed plan and implementation plan documents. "Packaging" is an important factor in the creation of an effective plan. 1229 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 The Implementation Committee discussed draft outlines of the overall set of documents and the watershed plan table of contents at their July 28, 2005 meeting. The two revised draft outlines are attached for Task Force review and comment. Notable considerations for these proposed outlines are as follows: • Aim to produce a succinct watershed plan, suitable for a broad audience (i.e. 26 pages, . or thereabouts), because most people don't have time to read more than that; • Rely on other documents to provide additional information needed by certain audiences; and • Design each document to be accessible for its target audience. NEXT STEPS Updated and more detailed outlines of the Watershed Plan and Implementation Reference Guide will be brought back to the Task Force for comment. A working "point form" version of the Watershed Plan will be developed for consultation so that key messages can be verified before the first full draft text is written later in the fall. Edits to the State of the Watershed Report have mostly been made based on the comments received to date, and the chapters will continue to undergo revisions as new information arises from the study. Selected chapters that have undergone more substantive changes, such as public use, land and resource use and all of Part 2, will be re- circulated for Task Force members' review. Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Date: September 6, 2005 September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L230 ATTACHMENT 1 Rouge Watershed Plan - Proposed Final Documents Draft - August 30, 2005 PRIMARY DOCUMENTS Watershed Plan General contents • strategic watershed management and implementation recommendations • adequate rationale (key issues, study methods and process) • key maps illustrating compelling findings and summarizing management and implementation strategy • watershed scale maps with selected subwatershed or local site maps • identification of the study partners • reference to supporting documents, detailed maps, modelling tools, data Audience and Role • broad: politicians, senior decision - makers, public • entry portal for all others: technical, stakeholders, implementors • concise, compelling communication of "what needs to be done differently ", "why ", "by whom ", "where ", "how ", and "when" Format and distribution • desk -top published • mass produced hard copy and .pdf formats • one page Executive Summary • 26 page total (or less) ' Slide Presentation • digital format designed for broad audience • overview of plan and planning process • available for any study partner's use Implementation "Reference Guide" General contents • model policy, supportive maps and criteria • regeneration priorities, supportive maps • Audience and Role • implementors • technical staff, consultants, proponents • planners, engineers, regeneration planners /biologists • accessible one stop shopping for all key "look up" information Format and distribution • limited hard copy • CD • ultimately web - based; policy for updates (approval, notice, etc.) L231 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 State of the Watershed Report General contents Part 1: Current conditions • Rouge watershed goals, objectives, indicators, targets • Current conditions and issues, based on latest technical information • Baseline report card • Current monitoring network Part 2: Current management programs and critique Bibliography Audience and Role • technical and interested stakeholder • entry portal to orient oneself to watershed systems, available data, and current knowledge • references to additional technical background reports for more information Format and distribution • lightly desk -top published • limited hard copy print run • .pdf format for CD and web -based distribution • distributed to each watershed municipality, library, Task Force member BACKGROUND TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS Management Strategy Development Report • Management summit discussion backgrounders and workshop notes • Long list of management actions for each objective and associated issues Modelling, Analysis and Evaluation Summary Report • scenario definitions, assumptions, data sources and references • summary of modelling tools, calibration, methodology • summary of scenario modelling results; key maps • evaluation of watershed response to each scenario according to watershed objectives, indicators and targets • discussion of integration considerations; multi- objective evaluation perspective • key maps illustrating integration considerations and key findings in support of preferred management strategy • Task Force consultation • Peer Review Technical Reports (final tit /es to be confirmed) • Scenario Definitions and Assumptions Report for the Rouge Watershed Planning Study • Development of the Sustainable Community Scenario for the Rouge Watershed • HSP -F Modelling report (water balance, water quality...) • Groundwater • Water use and Low Flow Analysis in the Rouge Watershed • Aquatic - Les Stanfield modelling method /results • Fisheries Management Plan • Terrestrial - methodology behind targeted system, Rouge refinements • Public Use - Rouge Watershed Trail Plan September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L232 • Adaptive Management Guidelines for Climate Change in the Rouge Watershed • State of the Watershed Ratings Report for the Rouge Watershed L233 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 ATTACHMENT 2 Rouge Watershed Plan Annotated Table of Contents Draft - August 30, 2005 Executive Summary Letter of Transmittal (from Task Force Chair) 1.0 Introduction 1 page text 1 page map • rationale for Rouge watershed planning study • unique Rouge setting (map): ORM, Rouge Park, within RAP • global, national, provincial, regional, Rouge Park, and local context for planning • introduction to the Rouge Watershed Task Force • brief look back at pre- European times, where we are now and the vision of where we'd like to be • "protect and enhance" • new imperatives for management: sustainability 2.0 Rouge Watershed Goals and Objectives 1 page • goals and objectives • Task Force principles 3.0 Current Conditions, Issues and a View to Future Challenges 2 pages text 2 pages maps /photos • summary of State of the Watershed report (x -ref report) • compelling synthesis of key issues and "story" of Rouge (timely opportunity to make vital management decisions; functions of Rouge systems; key current and future issues) • note that watershed plan focuses on key issues 4.0 Management Strategy 6 pages text 2 pages maps (base scenarios) 3 pages maps (key findings /strategy) * *Brief overview of methodology, adequate to demonstrate basis for strategy and reference background reports • future scenarios (and management options embodied within them) • summary of modelling methods and key findings • management summit approaches for key issues • evaluation criteria and process • consultation * *Management Strategy September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L234 • introduce integrated management strategy (sustainability and natural systems approach; at all scales; "green web and blue ribbons "; low impact design, demand management) • explain rationale with selected maps /graphics • organize "integral" management actions by key issue /strategy, for example: Integral Management Actions (and likely Implementation Mechanisms) Protect and enhance natural cover (policy, securement, stewardship /regen) Managing water balance and stormwater (policy, protection; SWM /mitigation; incentives; retrofit; re -use) Improving construction practices (policy, stewardship, educ, enforcement) Protecting agricultural lands /industry (education /marketing..) Guiding new sustainable urban form (planning design; stewardship) Living sustainably (stewardship, education, incentives, enforcement) Celebrating culture, public use.... (policy, stewardship, education, enforcement) Managing aquatic systems (policy, stewardship /regen, education, enforcement) Monitoring and Further study 5.0 Implementation Plan (at least for Key Issues) 7 pages may include maps - possibly some from ch. 4 • present management actions by implementation tool /implementor, for example: ► Policy (link to existing municipal OP, ORMCP, Greenbelt, Rouge Park Plans and identify new policy; reference implementation guide containing maps, model policy, criteria, definitions etc.) ► Regs /permits ► Stewardship and Regeneration (priority areas to be shown on map; Zink to existing and new programs) ► Education and Awareness (priority messages to be identified; link to existing and new programs) ► Land Securement (priority areas identifies; link to existing programs) ► Operation and Maintenance (enhancements to existing programs) ► Monitoring (enhancements to existing network identified) L235 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 • provide summary table to demonstrate relevance to each objective cross - reference to comprehensive set of management actions, implementation recommendations, and other details (in other reports) recommend a body for overseeing implementation and reporting on progress 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Appendix A: List of Supporting Documents Appendix B: Five year workplan and budget 1 page TOTAL: 26 pages 1 page DISCUSSION: Due to Time constraints and recognizing that this outline is a workplan in progress, Bryan Buttigieg suggested Task Force members send comments on the proposed document outlines by email rather than convening discussion at this meeting. ACTION: Task Force members to send comments to Sonya Meek (smeek @trca.on.ca) on the proposed document outlines. RES. #48/05 Moved by: Seconded by: ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN NEWSLETTER Approval of a draft newsletter designed to raise awareness of Rouge watershed issues and opportunities to participate in the watershed planning process. Patricia Short-Galle Clyde Smith THAT the draft Rouge River Watershed Plan newsletter, dated August 31, 2005, [as may be amended with comments provided at the Task Force meeting] be approved for graphic design and printing; AND FURTHER THAT copies of the newsletter be provided to Task Force members, municipal offices, and other partners for further distribution to broader audiences CARRIED BACKGROUND Communications, Outreach and Awareness Initiatives were one of the five strategic activities that comprised the Implementation Committee's Workplan, as presented to the Rouge Task Force at its Meeting #2/05, held on March 10, 2005. The objective of the communications initiatives is: to begin raising awareness of watershed issues and management approaches among members of primary target audiences and the media, while the planning studies are underway. It was felt that this work would be important in attracting stakeholders' attention September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L236 and fostering shared concern for Rouge watershed goals as the plan is being developed. In this way, stakeholders will be anxious to participate meaningfully in the development of the management strategy and be in a position to implement our recommendations more readily. The attached draft newsletter (Attachment 1) has been prepared as a tool to raise awareness of Rouge watershed issues and opportunities to participate in the watershed planning process. The key issues and messages contained in the newsletter are based on previous draft summaries of "key issues" prepared by the Implementation Committee and discussed with the Task Force at their March 10, 2005 and April 21, 2005 meetings. The newsletter also draws on factual information from the State of the Watershed Report. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Task Force members are invited to review and comment on the newsletter. Comments will be incorporated into a revised document, that will then be graphically designed and printed. Staff are currently investigating the potential for having a version of the newsletter translated in an Asian language and may be able to provide an updated report at the Task Force meeting. Multiple copies of the printed newsletter will be distributed to Task Force members, municipal offices, and to other partners for distribution to their broader constituencies. Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 and Maryam Nassar (905) 713 -6007 For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 or Maryam Nassar (905) 713 -6007 L237 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 ATTACHMENT 1 Rouge River watershed and Watershed Plan communication piece Last revised: Monday, 29 May 2006 format: 4 colour process, bleed? considering 1 tabloid sheet, landscape orientation, single fold middle, or different format depending on amount of content ? ?? [no unusual sizes for finished, folded product] basic design concept: • lots of white space, clean lines, not boxy; • very contemporary look, sans serif font (maybe TRCA corporate font); columns in use if it saves significant amount of space; • brief content in plain language tied to internet site(s) for more info; PDF version of entire document for web; • high level of graphic design and playful visual theme to engage public All colour graphics: 1. TRCA Togo 2. RP logo 3. watershed line map - no floating watersheds 4. aerial photos: 1 natural areas, 1 urban development 5. z photo with people, recreation 6. z photo fauna (can be graphic element) 7. >_ photo flora (can be graphic element) 8. z photo depicting cultural heritage (can be graphic element) Text content: Date, publishing /design credits; environmentally - friendly paper /ink /printing choices. - contact information for TRCA, Rouge Park, York Region, City of Toronto.... - other? Proposed titles: At A Threshold; A River Runs Through It, or...[perhaps Task Force can think of a catchy title] What is a watershed? A watershed is a geographic area of land where all surface water flows through a river system. The Rouge River system flows from the Oak Ridges Moraine to Lake Ontario, draining an area of 336 km2 that includes parts of Markham, Pickering, Richmond Hill, Toronto and Whitchurch- Stouffville. The Rouge River watershed is unique because 11% is protected as public ecological park land by Rouge Park, the largest urban nature .ark in North America. September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L238 Although the watershed still displays signs of a healthy river system, many people believe that decisions in the next 5 -10 years will significantly influe ice the long term health of the watershed. [109 word count] Water Balance Rain and snow add to rivers and lakes directly, or soak into the ground where they help plants grow and travel to underground aquifers to replenish the groundwater. In deep aquifers, water may remain underground for long times and distances. Groundwater near the surface can emerge as springs and seeps, adding to the surface water. This is an important water source during drought. Water returns to the air through evaporation from rivers and lakes, and transpiration from plants, to complete the "water cycle ". Though parts of the water cycle undergo seasonal changes, the system maintains a balance and the watershed is dependent on this "water balance ". Hydrogeologists estimate a drop of groundwater takes 3000 years to travel through the lower as uifer from the Oak Rid. es Moraine to Lake Ontario, a distance of 50 km [136 word count] A watershed is more than just water, it includes the plants, people and other animals who live there and depend on a healthy environment. Wildlife Habitat Plants and animals depend on water for their survival and have adapted to natural variability in the water balance and water quality. Many organisms depend upon aquatic, wetland and terrestrial environments at various stages of their lives. Understanding these interactions is an important part of protecting a watershed's health. Animals and plants are excellent indicators of a thriving watershed because they reflect the condition of the many factors on which they depend. The loss of one species is a signal that a threshold has been exceeded and the watershed can no longer support it. Rouge Park has many types of plants and animals that have disappeared from other parts of the Greater Toronto Area, one of the reasons it was designated as park land. However, historical records show that many species have been lost from the watershed and more are at risk. Only 14% of the watershed is well vegetated with forests, meadows, wetlands and reforested fields while the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) estimates that 32% is needed for a healthy system. We must protect against further losses and restore natural cover in the northern and central parts of the watershed to meet this goal. L239 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 [199 word count] People: Past and Present Human settlement patterns are closely linked to water. In the Rouge River watershed, over 1000 archaeological and historical sites show evidence of human habitation, some as old as 10,000 years. Certain First Nations settlements and artifact areas are protected as official historic sites. Many historic buildings, cemeteries, and farmsteads give us a glimpse of early European settlement. The Carrying Place Trail was a portage route from Lake Ontario to Lake Simcoe of National Historic significance. The eastern arm of this route, linking the Rouge River to the Holland River, is protected in Rouge Park. More than XXX people live in the Rouge River watershed. Many others come to the area to play golf, visit pick - your -own produce farms and attractions such as the Toronto Zoo, which has over 1.2 million visitors annually. A large amount of green space and natural areas protected in Rouge Park makes the watershed home to a variety of outdoor recreational activity. Day use areas in York Region offer picnic facilities and nature trails. Further south, canoeing and swimming at Rouge Beach and camping at Glen Rouge campground are available for Park visitors. Bird watching is popular, as is hiking on trails, some of which connect to regional trail networks such as the Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail. More trails are needed to connect the Oak Ridges Moraine to Lake Ontario and link adjacent watersheds while protecting important ecological reserves from impacts of recreational activity. The major north -south habitat corridor along Little Rouge Creek in Rouge Park will inevitably be home to bears and other large wild animals such as large canine predators. The Park will need to plan for interesting outdoor activities that will avoid interior forests where encounters with large wildlife species are likely. [word count: 229] Urbanizing the Landscape Human settlement continues to be a major cause of Toss of wildlife habitat and disruption to the natural water balance. Cutting forests and altering meadows and wetlands reduces and fragments habitats, reducing the number and diversity of natural species and encouraging the spread of exotic ones. We all need clean water and clean air to survive. The protection of groundwater is important to the watershed's northern residents who rely on wells. Protecting the entire watershed is important since the Rouge River drains into Lake Ontario, the source of drinking water for most Toronto residents. September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L240 While stream flow in rural areas is relatively natural, urban areas dramatically change flow patterns because of the extensive impervious surfaces associated with them. Roads, rooftops and parking Tots, do not absorb water from rain and melting snow, creating more stormwater runoff and turbulent streams. Stormwater management in new and existing urban areas is one of the most serious issues facing this watershed. Also, with much less water reaching the soil, ground water reserves are not replenished, potentially reducing surface flows below levels needed to support aquatic wildlife during drought conditions. Water use and ground water transfer increase this risk. In the Rouge River watershed, 18% of the main Rouge subwatershed, and 2% of the Little Rouge Creek subwatershed is covered by impervious surfaces. Stream flows are becoming more irregular as a result. In spite of its urban location, the Rouge River watershed still displays many signs of a healthy river system, but plans for urban growth upstream threaten to push the amount of impervious cover beyond the point that key fish species and diverse aquatic communities can survive. Water draining into rivers can carry pollutants with it, particularly if it is not filtered through soil or vegetation first. Even water filtered through soil may carry excess nutrients and road salt, which negatively impact streams. In the Rouge River watershed, bacteria levels have been increasing, which resulted in beach closures for 62% to 95% of the swimming season between 1999 and 2003. Warm water from unprotected streams and sediment from erosion are also problems that affect aquatic life. The number of smog advisory days increased over 360% for York Region and over 450% for Toronto between 1997 and 2002. Vehicle emissions are a primary cause of smog days and of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. High levels of ground level ozone from local and distant combustion sources harm human and animal health and damage crops and natural vegetation, especially forests. ork Region residents commute longer distances to work in passenger cars than the average Ontario resident. In the Rouge River watershed, urbanization is occurring at the expense of natural spaces and prime farmland which provides a secure local food supply. Many progressive jurisdictions are moving toward more sustainable community development by protecting natural areas and farmland, improving public transit, and developing water and energy conservation, waste diversion and clean energy strategies. The connection between holistic environmental planning and in- the - ground policy must be improved as many initiatives toward watershed protection are not being realized. 90% of the XX million litres of waste water generated by York Region's 1 million residents, flows hrough the Rouge River watershed via the York - Durham Sanitary Sewer to a Pickering sewage reatment • Iant, then is released into Lake Ontario. [568 word count] L241 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 [new page] Why a Watershed Plan? In 2002, concerns about protecting water, land forms and the natural environment led the Province of Ontario to identify a number of actions to be taken by municipal governments and government agencies. Among these was the completion of watershed plans for all river systems which originate in the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Rouge River has its headwaters in this important land form. In early 2004, the TRCA and Rouge Park began to create a plan for the Rouge River watershed. A Task Force of citizens, government agencies, community groups and other stakeholders was established to steer the process. Watershed plans help guide decision - making by a variety of governments and make recommendations for educating the public about protecting the water and other natural features which make our communities healthy, attractive places in which to live. [138 word count] What is involved in creating watershed plan? From the beginning of the process in early 2004, experts in ground water, geology, ecology, archaeology and urban planning evaluated existing data and gathered new information on the natural features of the Rouge River watershed. This material was compiled into a "State of the Watershed" report. Scientists and others then used these findings to create different scenarios for computerized modelling. The use of scientific modelling helps in developing a watershed plan. It allows scientists and urban planners to evaluate and compare different circumstances which may occur in the near future, such as urbanization of an entire municipality, increasing the amount of vegetation in an area or increased water use by the public and industry. It can be used to identify ways of preventing the watershed from exceeding thresholds. In 2005, the Task Force has studied ways to improve how we address key management issues such as enhancing natural vegetation cover and maintaining and restoring natural water balance on different scales: an entire watershed, a local community, a back yard. The last half of 2005 and the first half of 2006 will be spent evaluating the model results, writing the final report and consulting local government and other decision - makers about integrating the report's recommendations into their plans, processes and tasks. Funding was received from York Region, the City of Toronto and other partners to create this watershed plan. You may access the plan by contacting any of the groups involved. [278 word count] September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5105 L242 How does a watershed plan affect me? We are all affected by what happens in the natural environment that surrounds us, and we affect the nearby natural environment. In our urban areas, the protection of these natural features and how they benefit us depends largely on successful planning and putting those plans into action. The Rouge Watershed Plan will have many recommendations for municipalities, government agencies and community groups to consider when making decisions. The Plan will also have suggestions and recommended programs for commercial and industrial uses, as well as for individual members of the public. Reading the plan, or its short Summary, will help you to be better informed about the issues being considered and choices made by decision - makers which will affect you for years to come. [129 word count] [back cover] How can I become involved? - Browsing our web site www.trca.on.ca - Attending public meetings, which are announced on our web site or through our mailing list... - Contacting your citizen or council representative.... It's Easy Being Green Individual action makes a difference! Here are some resources to get you started: • Rick Mercer's One Tonne challenge [web site] • Calculating your Ecological Footprint [web site] • David Suzuki's Nature Challenge [web site] • York Region Environmental Alliance [anti - pesticide stuff, web site] • Markham Healthy Yards • Markham Anti - idling challenge • Community gardens • Richmond Hill? • York Region Water for Tomorrow • Energuide, energy audits for homes, energy efficient ratings for appliances, vehicles, etc • Public transit • York & Toronto waste & haz waste links • Toronto Environmental Alliance L243 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 DISCUSSION Gay Cowbourne Level of language seems too high. I would like to volunteer to edit. Who is the audience? Are there plans for future newsletters? Sonya Meek The newsletter is meant to convey information about the Key Rouge issues to the general public, in such a way that they feel compelled to get involved in the process. We are looking at distribution by mailings, public events, Task Force members' networks, libraries, etc. It is hoped that the "shelf -life" of this news letter can extend through to the consultation period on the draft plan (i.e. spring 2006). Lewis Yeager Yes, I do realize that at this point it is very text heavy. Suggestions for condensing text are welcome. Clyde Smith Will pass along comments regarding a content change to Water Balance section. Kevin O'Connor In the section - What is a watershed ?, should we not be talking about groundwater? We must establish that the groundwatershed is a different shape than the watershed. RES. #49/05 Moved by: Seconded by: YDSS PROJECT AND ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN Receipt of the staff report regarding the York - Durham Sanitary Sewer project in relation to the Rouge Watershed Plan. Erin Shapero Elio Di'lorio THAT the YDSS PROJECT AND ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN report be received for review; THAT a Sub - Committee of interested Task Force members be established and charged with the tasks of reviewing and revising the YDSS PROJECT AND ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN report recommendations for consideration by all members of the Rouge Watershed Task Force at the next possible Task Force meeting; THAT Sub - Committee members consist of Task Force members, Elio Di'lorio, Erin Shapero, Jim Robb and Mike Price; THAT Jim Robb's draft letter brought to the September 15th, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting be received as a late delegation; September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5105 L244 AND FURTHER THAT the Sub - Committee, established, review Jim Robb's draft letter, make revisions as necessary, and prepare a recommendation for the Task Force's consideration. CARRIED BACKGROUND The following recommendations were presented to the Rouge Watershed Task Force, but members chose not to deal with them. WHEREAS it is recognized by the Rouge Watershed Task Force that the planning and construction of sewer projects in York Region and Durham Region follows guidelines set forth in the YDSS Master Plan and the Environmental Assessment Act; WHEREAS it is recognized that the YDSS Master Plan supports the approved York Region Official Plan as well as growth management policies of the federal and provincial governments; WHEREAS it is further recognized that the YDSS Master Plan is intended to service planned growth in the Region; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force is committed to modeling and predicting the impact that this and future development will have on the health of the watershed; THAT the Rouge Watershed Plan include a recommended model policy regarding groundwater withdrawals, such that ecological principles would be required to ensure that the natural environment is not adversely effected through groundwater takings; THAT the Rouge Watershed Plan include a recommendation regarding requirements for baseline monitoring, including a review of historical information, for all projects where the natural environment is potentially impacted, as well as requirements for such monitoring to be continued as the project is constructed and for sufficient time afterward to ensure environmental issues have been resolved; THAT such monitoring systems be integrated with the TRCA Regional Watershed Monitoring Network in both the short and long term; THAT the federal and provincial governments be encouraged to fund and maintain their respective environmental monitoring programs in the Rouge watershed; THAT the Rouge Watershed Plan include in its recommended model policy section a requirement for net environmental gain as related to all infrastructure projects, and that this requirement be directly tied to the predicted impacts that the pending growth is anticipated to have on watershed health; L245 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 AND FURTHER THAT the Rouge Watershed Plan include a futuristic review of development post- YDSS, such that growth management planning relies on sustainable infrastructure as a requirement for fulfilling the Rouge Watershed Policy of achieving net environmental gain in all development. The 1995 York Region Official Plan identified substantial growth in the Region, primarily around the existing urban centres of Aurora, Newmarket, Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Markham. To support this development, a need for increased capacity in the York Durham Sanitary Sewer (YDSS) was also identified. In 1997, York Region approved the York Durham Sanitary Sewer (YDSS) Master Plan. The plan was intended as an upgrade to the existing system which was installed in the 1970 and 1980s, and was considered to have insufficient capacity to meet the planned population and industry growth. Subsequent to the approval of the master plan, York Region initiated a number of environmental assessments for the various projects identified in the master plan. Attached to this report is a copy of the existing and proposed YDSS system. In summary, the status of each project is as follows: Projects in the Rouge Watershed • 16th Avenue • Phase I - construction complete • Phase II - construction underway • 9`h Line • Main Branch - construction underway • 9`h West Branch - construction underway • Interceptor Sewer - Class EA complete; Minister's Letter of October 1, 2004 regarding request for Part II Order was denied with conditions; final draft submission review complete by TRCA • Southeast Collector - Individual EA underway; Terms of Reference being reviewed by the Minister Proiects in the Duffins Watershed • 9`h Line • East Branch - construction underway • Stouffville STP Decommissioning - Class EA complete; detailed design underway • Duffins STP - Class EA underway Projects in the Humber Watershed • King City - construction in various stages of planning, development and completion • Nobleton STP - Class EA complete; detailed design underway • West Rainbow - Class EA underway • Steeles Avenue - project complete Projects in the Don Watershed • Bathurst - Langstaff • Phase I - Class EA complete; Minister's Letter of October 1, 2004 regarding request for September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L246 Part ll Order was denied with conditions; final draft submission under review by TRCA • Bathurst - Langstaff Phase II and 111 - under construction MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT - RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR A PART II ORDER In 2004, the Minister of the Environment received a request for a Part II Order for a number of the YDSS projects. Typical for the era of environmental assessment planning, sewers were generally considered to be appropriate projects for review under the Municipal Engineer's Association, C /ass EA for Municipal Infrastructure document. As stipulated in the act, however, any individual or agency can request the Minister review the class designation of a particular project and if appropriate, order an Individual EA be conducted. While this request was denied, the Minister did establish additional conditions for approval of a number of the YDSS projects. As appropriate, some of these conditions are noted in this report. PROJECTS IN THE ROUGE WATERSHED Four projects identified in the master plan are located within the Rouge Watershed. The planning and construction timing for each phase of the project was set forth in the master plan based upon a review of growth scenarios and capacity requirements. Below is a more descriptive outline of project status, issues and TRCA concerns: 16TH AVENUE 16t' Avenue was constructed in two phases. The first phase is from Box Grove on 9th Line, north to 16" Avenue, and across 16" Avenue to Stone Mason Drive. A small section also extends north of 16th Avenue on 9' Line. The second phase is along 16" Avenue from Stone Mason to Woodbine Avenue where it connects with the existing trunk sewer. 1 6th Avenue Phase I - construction complete As part of Phase I construction of the 16th Avenue York - Durham Sanitary Sewer (YDSS), dewatering was required for the tunnel boring machine (TBM) to complete the project. The Ministry of the Environment reviewed and approved the Permit to Take Water (PTTW) for Phase 1. Based on the anticipated dewatering rates and the discharge rates and locations, it was determined that no TRCA permit was required for Phase 1. As the TBM neared Robinson Creek at the western end of the Phase 1 contract (shaft C8 at Stone Mason Drive), an unpredicted high permeability zone in the aquifer led to doubling of the dewatering rates, along with the associated discharge rates into Robinson Creek. Without the increased dewatering, it is likely that the TBM would have been disabled or destroyed. The results of this increased dewatering were erosion and deposition of iron precipitates on the banks and streambed of Robinson Creek both at the dewatering site and downstream. TRCA, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) staff L247 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 were all on site to assess the situation. DFO, MOE and Environment Canada are investigating the incident. Individual charges applied by an individual against York Region under the Federal Fisheries Act have been laid. At their own discretion, the York Region contracted Parish Geomorphic Ltd. to assess the condition of Robinson Creek both at the discharge site, and downstream.York Region applied to TRCA for permits to restore Robinson Creek, and these permits were granted. The restoration works are to be complete this year. 1 6th Avenue Phase 11 - construction underway TRCA, MNR, DFO, and MOE were unwilling to approve the proposed tunnelling for Phase II, given the significant impacts from Phase I until a detailed environmental management plan could be submitted to agency satisfaction. Therefore, the contractor requested an amendment to the Phase 1 PTTW to tunnel an additional 150 metres west of the C8 shaft. After extensive discussions, TRCA and Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) staff determined that the request for additional tunnelling was reasonable, since it would allow the contractor to finish the sewer up to the C8 shaft, and use the sewer as a mechanism to disperse the dewatering discharge. Therefore, the MOE was advised that the request was reasonable, and the Phase I PTTW was amended accordingly. From May 2003 to December 2004, the TBM was in the ground west of shaft C8, waiting for the Phase II Environmental Management Plan to be completed, and for agency permits and approvals of the construction of the Phase II section of this YDSS project to be issued. To ensure the integrity of the existing tunnel and shafts, dewatering at the C8 shaft continued at a rate of approximately 12,000 L/m during this time. Until the spring of 2004, the water continued to be discharged into Robinson Creek. In spring 2004, TRCA staff approved a dispersal plan for the discharge waters such that the waters would flow through the storm system into the York - Durham sanitary sewer; the Avenue sewer, before being discharged to Robinson Creek; and the Mint Leaf and Avida stormwater ponds, before being discharged into Exhibition Creek. This discharge system was further revised in the summer of 2005, and the Wismer Commons Pond was been added as an additional discharge point. To facilitate the development of the environmental management plan, MOE granted a one year extension to the Phase 1 PTTW. In December 2004, with the issuance of the PTTW for Phase 11 by MOE, the proponent was required to construct an extensive mitigation and monitoring system to ensure that the environmental impacts that were anticipated would be effectively dealt with. It was acknowledged by the proponent and all agencies that the dewatering had the potential to create adverse impacts on groundwater users, as well as the natural environment. The main issues concerning the natural environment were associated with: • Interference to existing water wells; • Loss of groundwater contributions to natural streams, wetlands and ESAs; and • Discharge of excess volume of water and its potential to change the natural regime of the receiving watercourses. September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L248 To address the above issues, the Region has divided the environmental component of the project into two major parts: • A proactive well mitigation and monitoring plan to address adversely affected private wells and specialized groundwater uses, including golf courses and farms; • An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to manage stress to the natural functions of the ecosystem during the dewatering operation and associated recovery period of the aquifer. The proactive well mitigation and monitoring plan was reviewed by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) as part of the Region's Permit to Take Water (PTTW) application. The EMP was reviewed by staff at TRCA for permits under Ontario Regulation 158; MOE for the PTTW; the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) for permits under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act; and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) for permits under the Federal Fisheries Act. Key considerations associated with the EMP included: • • • • Complexity of the natural ecosystem; Deficiency in historic baseline information Deficiency of documented effects from projects of this type and scale; and Due to ecosystem complexity and stated deficiencies, incorporating flexibility into the EMP through an adaptive management approach. Adaptive management for the 16th Avenue Phase II project is being used to guide and revise the EMP. The impetus to use an adaptive management approach is so that the proponent or their agents are able to react in a timely manner to results from continuous monitoring of environmental trigger parameters and values, and operational rules. To assess the potential zone of impact (ZOI) associated with the water - takings during the dewatering operation, a three - dimensional groundwater flow model developed as part of the York -Peel- Durham - Toronto (YPDT) Groundwater Study was used. The results obtained from this modelling were used to define the area within the 0.5 metre drawdown in the shallow aquifer. This area was defined as the ZOI associated with the natural ecosystem dependant on groundwater. A conservative buffer zone to extend all monitoring by an additional two kilometres or more was added to reduce the level of uncertainty associated with the ZOI. The YPDT Study was also used to identify streams which will be impacted through anticipated reductions in groundwater contributions to baseflow. Within the ZOI and its buffer, all ESAs, wetlands and watercourses were identified and an analysis of these ecosystem receptors was carried out for fish and fish habitat; wetlands and ESAs; critical stream capacity; woodlots; and agriculture. The mitigation for these systems was addressed in the EMP, as follows: Fish and Fish Habitat: • Piping dewatering discharge upstream to supplement stream baseflows within the ZOI; L249 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5105 September 15, 2005 Establishing holding tanks within the ZOI to supplement stream baseflows within the Z01; Dispersing dewatering discharge to alternate waterbodies; Thermal regulation of dewatering discharge; and An extensive temperature and flow monitoring system. The amount and temperature of supplementation will be regulated through the adaptive management process. Wetlands and ESAs • An extensive species and groundwater monitoring system in select areas; and • Piping water to, or planting species, was required through the adaptive management process. Critical Stream Capacity • A fluvial geomorphological assessment of creeks that may be physically impacted was concluded to determine maximum discharge velocities. These rates are reflected in the adaptive management process. Woodlots • Soil moisture conditions and tree growth will be monitored in sample plots Adaptive management techniques include making more water available, and planting to replace loss. The adaptive management program will continue to be in effect for at least three years after the works are completed, or until the aquifer has rebounded to 80 per cent and shows a steady rate of gain. Upon completion of the project, the supplementation waters will be reduced through consultation with agency staff depending on the results of the monitoring program. To coordinate the inter - agency review of the monitoring program, TRCA has hired a staff person on behalf of ourselves, MNR, DFO and MOE. Funding for this position has been committed by the Region of York. In order to implement the adaptive mitigation strategy of the EMP, six permits from TRCA in accordance with Ontario Regulation 158 were issued. Five of these permits were associated with the required piping of the dewatering discharge upstream to supplement the stream baseflows within the ZOI in order to reduce the potential impacts to fish and fish habitat. The sixth permit was to create a discharge channel from Wismer Pond to Robinson Creek. In accordance with conditions in the PTTW, the proponent was able to increase pumping capacities as of April 1, 2005. The requirements set forth for mitigation and monitoring had been installed, and the tunnel boring machine began to move toward McCowan. Pumping rates have been substantially less than those prescribed in the PTTW, and with the construction of an additional shaft at McCowen Road, the dewatering at shaft C8 is anticipated to stop approximately six months ahead of schedule. September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L250 There have, however, been some issues in the implementation of the EMP which, while not in compliance with the PTTW, have not had an adverse impact on the environment within the ZOI. These impacts are related to thermal and baseflow conditions during the month of July, and investigations by DFO, MNR and MOE are underway. 9`h Line Main Branch - construction underway The construction of the main branch will be completed at the end of 2005. A permit to take water was issued by MOE, as were permits from TRCA. The local forest and wetland are being addressed though a monitoring program, and mitigation contingency plans are in place should established trigger values be reached. To date, no such issues have occurred. This project is under review by the YDSS Monitoring and Mitigation Coordinator. 9th Line West Branch - construction underway The construction of the west branch will be completed by spring 2006. A permit to take water was issued by MOE, as were permits from TRCA. A Letter of Advice was issued by TRCA on behalf �f DFO for two watercourse crossings. The in -water works are now complete. The local forest, wetland, and stream baseflow are being addressed though a monitoring program, and mitigation contingency plans are in place should established trigger values be reached. To date, no such issues have occurred. This project is under review by the YDSS Monitoring and Mitigation Coordinator. Interceptor Sewer - Class EA complete; Minister's Letter of October 1, 2004 regarding request for Part II Order was denied with conditions; final draft submission review complete by TRCA The draft report reviewing route and construction alternatives, as required by the Minister, is complete; peer review is being undertaken; and an extensive public consultation process is underway. Through construction methodologies, dewatering requirements and the potential for impacts will be significantly minimized. Extensive baseline data has been collected, and an extensive monitoring program has been initiated. Southeast Collector - Individual EA underway; The Region chose to upgrade the environmental assessment of this project from a schedule C to an Individual EA. The Terms of Reference for the EA is now final, and is in the Minister's office for review and approval. The study area, as per the Minister's letter has been expanded beyond that proposed in the Master Plan to encompass areas within the Region of Durham, and Durham is now a partner in the project. Baseline data has been collected in York Region, and is now being collected in Durham Region. Extensive monitoring is occurring, and will be tied to the TRCA Regional Watersheds Monitoring in the long term. APPLICABILITY TO THE ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN In response to federal and provincial growth strategies, the Region of York approved its growth management strategy in the early 1990s. Following that, the Region undertook a comprehensive review of its Official Plan. This was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in 1995. The next step in the planning process was the approval of master servicing plans for L251 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 the infrastructure required to support the proposed growth and the approved official plan. In terms of sewage, the YDSS Master Plan was approved in 1997 and updated in 2002. The next update is required in 2007. Once the YDSS Master Plan was approved by York Region Council, the next step in the process was to commence the environmental assessment for each of the project components identified in the plan. The first project to go through this assessment was 16th Avenue. The last project will likely be Southeast Collector. Another important part of the on -going planning process relates to the required approvals for development under the Planning Act for the development proposals. This process is separate, but somewhat parallel. So while the sewers are being planned, so too are the subdivisions. The total time frame from federal growth predictions to the new homeowner moving in can be upward of 20 years. What has yet to be assessed, however, is the impact that this growth will have on the Rouge watershed. It is imperative that this assessment be completed, and that steps be undertaken to ensure-that there is a net environmental gain built into the process. Studies in the US and Canada have shown that once a watershed has surpassed 10 percent imperviousness, the stability of the channel and aquatic life are threatened. At this point we know that there is degradation in the Rouge watershed, particularly in the more heavily urbanized sub - basins. What has yet to be predicted is the impact of future growth and the effectiveness that management practices will have on mitigating the impacts of that growth. In addition, there has yet to be an assessment of what happens to watershed heath if infrastructure and development proceed with a net environmental gain approach? What happens if watercourse health is protected or restored prior to development? What happens to watershed health through protection and enhancement natural areas? What happens to watershed health if only sustainable communities are planned and developed? Development of the Rouge Watershed as related to approved official plans is inevitable, what is not inevitable is the form and function of how that development will proceed. A final question to the task force is larger. Moving past what is approved in today's development scenario, what happens next? Let's assume for a minute that its 2030, and York Region's Official Plan of 1995 is fully built out. Now let's assume that a maximum watershed build out is proposed - one that reaches out to the edges of all the protected areas. What will happen to watershed health then? What will happen if the development is planned through sustainable community design versus the standards of today? And what does this mean for sewage infrastructure - will another "big pipe" be planned, will there be enough capacity in the existing pipe achieved through water conservation, or will more local or even unit based treatment systems be the norm? What impacts do these scenarios have on the watershed? Tomorrow's infrastructure planning can only be changed if today, there is a vision of what that change could be. September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L252 The Rouge Watershed Task Force has the opportunity to ensure that the watershed plan: provides clear performance objectives, targets and standards for watershed health; sets guiding management philosophies and approaches; and suggests potential alternatives to today's infrastructure planning and design technologies without precluding the opportunity that new technologies in infrastructure planning may afford. The specific preferred alternatives in growth and servicing will be determined through the planning and environmental assessment processes. Report Prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 5217 For information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217 Date: September 15, 2005 YDSS PROJECT PRESENTATION - Deborah Martin -Downs Bryan Buttigieg introduced Deborah Martin- Downs, Director of Ecology, TRCA who presented an overview of the YDSS projects and their planning and approvals context. Following Deborah's presentation, Sonya Meek highlighted the role of the watershed plan in making recommendations, such as management principles and performance standards, that will guide decisions on future growth and servicing in the watershed. Bryan noted we have seen aspects of these projects throughout our Task Force meetings. Bryan impressed upon members that the mandate of the Task Force can only be simply to find "lessons learned" in these projects and to put forward recommendations as a Task Force. (copies of presentation are attached separate/}) DISCUSSION Gay Cowbourne - Can we as a Task Force give recommendations to the regions involved in these projects? Erin Shapero Would like to see data on pumping rates prior to 2005. Bryan Buttigieg Will look into this possibility. DISCUSSION Elio Di %rlo I would like to caution all, that what you see is not always correct. I question why we have only been shown the last 6 months of dewatering data when dewatering has been done for 4 years. L253 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 The effects of discharge and the drying of surrounding lands where dewatering is occurring have not been illustrated. I find your temperature information to be misleading. I have taken temperature readings and it was 30 degrees celciuuis. How can we be expected to vote on recommendations which have been brought forward to this Committee on the same night as the meeting. All these YDSS projects are linked; they are not individual projects. I find this report and presentation offensive and will not accept these recommendations which endorse the YDSS projects. I would recommend the first three WHEREAS statements be struck from the recommendations and replaced with sections from the draft Newsletter pages L22 -23, Urbanizing the Landscape (of the Agenda package) Bryan Buttigieg Jim Robb has had some concerns over the summer months with regards to the YDSS projects and had suggested to the Rouge Watershed Administrative Team the need for an emergency meeting of the Task Force. I share also your thoughts of the WHEREAS statements that they do not add any content. It would seem we have several options, we could simply receive the report or we could receive the report and adopt a plan to report on lessons learned. Jim Robb I would like to offer a presentation to the Task Force (which was presented yesterday to the City of Toronto Works Committee) which shows a different angle (version) of the projects. On behalf of the Task Force, I have drafted a letter to the Minister. I believe the presentation which has been given glosses over the issue of temperature. Yes, with the PTTW an average daily temperature taking is required; however, temperatures upstream and downstream of discharge may vary. A professor from the University of Toronto has been monitoring stream temperature. I had 200 people out to a well meeting that are having their wells impacted by the dewatering. I find the Consultant report misleading. Bryan Buttigieg There would appear to be a clear difference in opinions of the factual information. There are 2 sets of data that are at odds and no way to judge which is correct. This can't be resolved but can we move ahead to the future. September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L254 Christine Caroppo I would suggest a motion to receive this report, to send copies of the powerpoint presentation to all members and defer further discussion until members have had adequate time to review. George McKelvey am disappointed with Task Force member's accusations of staff presentations. The Task Force is an advisory committee to the TRCA, and as such the draft letter which Jim Robb is proposing should go through the TRCA. Tupper Wheatley My question is not of the recommendations but of the cost of these projects. Debbie Korolnek York Region water rate payers pay 20% of the project cost, 80% is paid by the developers. Tupper Wheatley So this error is being paid by the residents. I understand there was an option brought forward to York Region Council which would have cost less. Debbie Korolnek Yes, this was a non - gravity fed system which would have required routine mechanical maintenance and long -term use of non - renewable fossil fuel. Erin Shapero If the project was stopped - if there were law- suits, the liability would be with York Region. I believe lessons have not been learned. Have we looked at the fact that we are putting a sewer pipe through our aquifer. I am not looking for a debate, I am only saying how I feel. Beth Williston Lessons learned is a continuous process. As TRCA's EA Coordinator, she has learned lessons from the YDSS project which she has applied in her review of projects being planned throughout the TRCA's jurisdiction. STOPPING YORK REGION'S DRAINING AND WASTING OF PRECIOUS GROUNDWATER RESOURCES - Jim Robb (copies of presentation are attached separately). Clyde Smith In my opinion York Region is putting no value on water, because they are pumping sewage through water (the aquifer). As a Task Force for the Rouge Watershed plan, we have the opportunity to put forward recommendations which will put a strong value on our water. Jim Robb If the watershed is unable to deal with growth and reached its carrying capacity, the expansion of that area should not be allowed to occur. 1255 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05 September 15, 2005 Gay Cowbourne I would say this group is currently at odds and could not reach consensus on these recommendations. I would move that a subcommittee be formed to revise the recommendations of this report. Jack Heath I would like to speak of my actions on these matters. I voted at council against the 19th Avenue collectors; I brought together York Region staff to implement further mitigation and I sit here on the Rouge Watershed Task Force to better the Rouge Watershed. The tasks at hand are difficult, if laws have been broken, this is not the place for solutions. Jim Robb has taken York Region to court, and a class action suit is being laid. Elio Di'lorio has begun to address lessons learned, there is no project that is the same, so one must apply all lessons learned. This is not the forum to resolve these issues - data shown here tonight by TRCA was not false, nor was the data presented by Jim Robb. The Task Force plays a role in the policy. Bill Snodgrass Advised that the Task Force try to get back to the Watershed Plan and develop criteria on form and development, assigning mitigation and realize development cannot be stopped. The Task Force must realize that the issue of PTTW being dealt with in the Rouge Watershed Plan as a first time experience. Bryan Buttigieg Can we not make recommendations, while not resolving our disagreements of the factual information? It would seem I am hearing that the two sides are wanting the same end results (a list of recommendations of lessons learned) and are willing to say there were mistakes made. Elio Di'lorio There are things we can agree on. Would like to see more information on the provincial government's Source Water Protection legislation. I would like to put forth a motion for staff to report back on these government initiatives and how they may influence the Rouge Watershed Plan. Virginia Jones Was an EA done at the beginning of these projects? Deborah Martin -Downs Yes. Virginia Jones What was the premise of bringing this Report forward to the Rouge Watershed Task Force? Bryan Buttigieg It was always clearly an issue with the Task Force members and I felt it had never been brought forward and clearly discussed. In the coming months this Task Force is mandated to assemble recommendations in the form of a report, namely the Rouge Watershed Plan. I felt September 15, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/05 L256 that these issues had to be addressed before the full Watershed Plan could be formalized. Virginia Jones Recommend that this never happen again. Jim Robb I say we must act, our patient is haemorrhaging. We approached the Rouge Alliance three years ago and noted there was a problem. Bryan Buttigieg What as a Task Force are we to do, other than what we are doing? Jim Robb would suggest writing a letter to the Minister. Erin Shapero We should form a subcommittee to further discuss and revise the report recommendations. Jack Heath May I suggest a field walk and additional presentations from York Region. Gay Cowbourne would suggest we do not need to go that far. We need to have a group sit around a table and make high level recommendations. Clyde Smith I agree with Gay. Patricia Shorte -Galle I do not see the need for further presentations. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:30 p.m., on Thursday September 15th, 2005. Bryan Buttigieg Chair, Rouge Watershed Task Force THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES OF MEETING #6/05 rAlsw Rouge Park MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #6/05 November 10th, 2005 L 2 53- TORONTO AND REGION - - onserva tion for The Living City The Rouge Watershed Task Force met in the OMB Room, Town of Richmond Hill, 1St Floor, 225 East Beaver Creek Road on Thursday, November 10th, 2005. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT Bryan Buttigieg Member Wendy Burgess Alternate Elio Di Iorio Member Alex Georgieff Alternate Paul Harpley Member Jack Heath Alternate Natalie Helferty Member Audrey Hollasch Alternate Murray Johnston Member Virginia Jones Member George McKelvey Alternate Theresa Mckenzie Alternate Kevin O'Connor Alternate Terry O'Connor Member John Pisapio Member Lionel Purcell Member Jim Robb Member Erin Shapero Member Clyde Smith Member Lorne Smith Member Tupper Wheatley Alternate Anil Wijesooriya Alternate Gord Weeden Member STAFF Sonya Meek TRCA Bob Clay TRCA Tim Rance TRCA Natalie Iwanycki TRCA Peter Attfield TRCA .25t. Sylvia Waters TRCA GUESTS Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto Suzanne Barrett Barrett & Associates Lois James Citizen L 259 November 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/05 E2+2 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Bryan Buttigieg announced that the Committee which was formed at meeting #5/05 held on September 15th, 2005 had a redraft of recommendations on YDSS project and wished to present them to Task Force members. This would be dealt with under New Business. RES. #L50/05 Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES #5/05 (of September 15, 2005) Elio Di Iorio Lorne Smith THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/05, held on September 15, 2005 be approved. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES In the review of #5/05 Minutes: Jim Robb suggested the following changes on L253 shown in strikeout and bold Jim Robb vam- It is more important to look at fluctuations in temperature, not daily averages, it is not sufficient. In the review of #5/05 Minutes: C /yde Smith noted the following changes on L254 shown in strikeout and bold . Clyde Smith In my opinion York Region is putting no value on water, dewatered water down the pipe. AMENDMENT MINUTES #5/05 (of September 15, 2005) RES. #L51/05 Moved by: Elio Di Iorio Seconded by: Lorne Smith while they are wasting the THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/05, held, April 21St, 2005 be approved as amended. CARRIED L7-40 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/05 November 10, 2005 DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST At Meeting #8/05 of The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Board, held on October 28, 2005 the Rouge Watershed Task Force was granted an extension for 6 months until June 2006. RES. #L52/05 Moved by: Seconded by: ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED TERRESTRIAL SYSTEM SCENARIO EVALUATION Review of the methodology for scenario comparison by using the preliminary results of natural cover evaluation for scenarios 1 (present conditions), 2 (existing Official Plan build -out) and 4 (Existing and TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage strategy implementation). Lionel Purcell Paul Harpley THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force receive the report and approve of the process that will be used to assess changes in natural cover; AND FURTHER THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force recognizes that it is critical that all scenarios be examined and compared simultaneously before recommendations can be made. CARRIED BACKGROUND Phase II of the watershed planning process for the Rouge River Watershed involves the evaluation and analysis of several potential land use scenarios. Three scenarios have been evaluated to -date for the terrestrial system component: Scenario 1, 2 and 4. These scenarios are described below and evaluated using the goals and objectives set in the State of the Watershed Plan. Part of the Terrestrial evaluation involved applying Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Landscape Analysis Model to assess the quality of habitats in the watershed. Results for the Landscape Analysis Model are presented here for Scenario 1 and 4. The Landscape Analysis Model assesses the landscape -level patch quality by assigning scores to each habitat patch for its size (area), shape (perimeter -to -area ratio) and the matrix influence (influence of the surrounding land use). The results (scores) for size, shape and matrix influence are combined together to obtain a total patch score for each habitat patch in the watershed. Scenario 1 - Existing Watershed Conditions (2002): This scenario represents existing conditions, as they were in 2002. Approximately 24% of the watershed's land base is under natural cover. Of this, 13% is forest, less than 1% comprises wetland and coastal communities, and 10% is cultural meadow. Under existing conditions, the terrestrial system is extremely fragmented, poorly connected and the natural cover is poorly distributed. The results of the Landscape Analysis Model for Scenario 1 show that most patches are within the mid - functioning or "fair" range of habitat quality (Figure 2, attached X261 November 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/05 .L-214 under separate coves). This is due to the small nature of the remnant patches, their linear shape, and the highly urbanized matrix in a good part of the watershed. Conditions vary from one subwatershed to the next (refer to Table 1). Typically, where agricultural lands predominate in the watershed, natural cover is more abundant and the habitats are of a higher quality (Figure 2). The Little Rouge, Bruce and Berczy subwatersheds are largely agricultural and only have small proportions of their areas under existing urban cover and numerous opportunities exist for terrestrial system enhancement. The Middle and Lower Rouge are almost entirely urbanized, and very little natural cover exists - except for Rouge Park. In these heavily urbanized areas there is very little opportunity for terrestrial system enhancement. The existing natural cover is low in the urban areas of the watershed but the quality of habitats and their ability to support native biodiversity is strongly affected by the urban matrix. In particular, within the urban category, we are concerned with residential cover (estate residential, high density, medium /low density residential); field observations throughout the Toronto region indicate that in many situations residential development poses a higher threat to natural areas when compared to other urban land uses (i.e. industrial and commercial), especially when in close proximity to natural features. Negative impacts from adjacent residential areas include increased levels of encroachment (e.g. increased dumping of refuse), greater recreational use pressures, higher density of informal trails, trampling and plant • collection, a higher proportion of non - native invasive species, hydrological changes, and a higher predation rate on native fauna by roving pets and opportunistic fauna such as raccoons. Even if land uses remained unchanged from this scenario, a decline in native biodiversity over time is likely to continue. Many species are slow to react (e.g. vegetation community shifts, invasive species spread) and there can be a lag time of several years to decades before the effects of urbanization and public use are seen. The existing terrestrial system, although currently supporting numerous sensitive species and communities needs restoration and enhancement work if our objectives are to be met for the watershed. Scenario 2 - Official Plan Build -out The changes in urban cover in Scenario 2 reflect the areas that are currently identified in municipal Official Plans. There is an increase in urban cover in all subwatersheds except in the Rouge Marshes where no further opportunities exist for urban expansion. These changes amount to a net increase in urbanization for the entire watershed from 17% in Scenario 1 to 26 % urban cover in Scenario 2. The Little Rouge, Lower Rouge, and Upper Rouge face the greatest increase in urbanization in this scenario (refer to Table 2). This increase in urban cover is accompanied by a change in natural cover. When comparing Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, there is an overall net loss of natural cover of about 676 ha or 2% of the watershed's natural cover. This change is due to several assumptions that were built into scenario 2. In particular, it was assumed that natural cover in the build -out areas would be lost to development unless the natural features were identified in the Official Plans (e.g. valley corridors). In some areas in the watershed, there is a slight gain in natural cover due to the increased natural cover in valley corridors (i.e. it was assumed that areas which were x.262 1421-5 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6105 November 10, 2005 previously farmed within valley and stream corridors would be meadow habitat in this scenario once urbanization is complete). Changes in natural cover between Scenario 1 and 2 vary from subwatershed to subwatershed (Table 1). There is a net loss in natural cover in every subwatershed except for the Little Rouge and Rouge Marsh. In the Little Rouge, an overall gain in natural cover occurs due to the addition of the ORC transfer lands and the assumption that any agricultural lands present in 2002 would be modeled as meadow; this accounts for only a 1% increase in natural cover compared to Scenario 1. There is no . change in natural cover in the Rouge Marshes. Existing Cover losses are by far the greatest in the Upper Rouge (Table 1). The impact exerted on the terrestrial system in Scenario 2 due to the increased urbanization and Toss of existing cover will be greatest in the Little Rouge, Upper Rouge, and Bruce subwatersheds. It is in these areas where terrestrial biodiversity will suffer the most. This would largely be due to the direct removal of natural cover and the replacement of a favorable agricultural matrix with urban cover. Urbanization in the these areas will also further disrupt the connectivity in the watershed and affect the movement of species and geneflow across the watershed. Even large areas of natural cover undergo considerable pressure when surrounded by urbanization. Take Rouge Park as an example - a large natural area, which is known to be incredibly diverse and supports several sensitive species and communities. However, over the last 20 years, many of the rare and sensitive species have been extirpated or have been reduced in number as urbanization surrounded the park. The influx of invasive plants, informal trails, high deer densities, and a lack of natural disturbance are what we attribute this decline to - issues brought about by an increasingly urbanizing landscape. We would expect these trends to continue as further urbanization takes place. If Scenario 2 was adopted (i.e. continuing with the status quo) we would face losses in natural system function and opportunities to expand and enhance the existing system would be minimal. The terrestrial system goals and objectives could not be met in this scenario. Not only would the terrestrial system face greater negative impacts when compared to today's conditions, but other natural system components and recreational use opportunities would also suffer. Scenario 4 - Official Plan Build -out and Enhanced Natural Cover Scenario 4 applies the TRCA's Target Terrestrial System and assumes full restoration of all lands that do not currently support existing natural cover (including ORC transfer lands in the Little Rouge Corridor). It was assumed that rural and urban land uses are the same as in Scenario 2, except where the target system is projected. Any natural cover occurring outside of the target system lands was assumed to be converted to the surrounding urban land use class. The target terrestrial system shares increases in natural cover from Scenario 1 and 2. In this scenario, natural cover represents 34% of the Rouge River watershed, an increase of 10% compared to Scenario 1. However, it is not TRCA's goal to merely increase natural cover. The target system represents an area that is needed, as a minimum, to achieve TRCA's targets for quality and distribution of habitats. In this scenario, habitat patch quality is greatly improved, L2,3 November 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6105 L2-14 better distributed, and connectivity is also significantly improved throughout the watershed. Figure 6 (attached under separate cover) depicts the results of the Landscape Analysis for this scenario. Terrestrial system quality improvements are obvious - the majority of habitats in Scenario 4 are now at within "good" range of habitat quality according to TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage System. An enhanced terrestrial system such as Scenario 4 would be better able to withstand the effects of urbanization and would also prove to be more resilient in case of the unknown (i.e. climate change, invasive organisms, and extreme events). Not only does Scenario 4 meet the goals and objectives for terrestrial system improvement and promotes overall watershed health, it also assists with other goals for the watershed. For example, the terrestrial system in Scenario 4 provides for excellent public use opportunities, promoting healthy living in the watershed. It also assists the Region of York in identifying terrestrial restoration opportunities to reach their 25% forest cover target. This scenario can also help in prioritizing lands for restoration within the Greenbelt Plan Natural Heritage System and within the Natural Core and Linkage Areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Table 1: Percent Natural Cover Subwatershed Scenario 1 Scenario 2 I Scenario 4 Berczy 21% 16% 34% Bruce 25% 23% 42% Little Rouge 24% 25% 47% Lower Rouge 23% 20% 22% Rouge Marshes 32% 32% 32% Middle /Beaver 19% 13% 10% Upper Rouge 31% 24% 33% ROUGE WATERSHED 24% 22% 34% Table 2: Percent Urban Cover Subwatershed Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Berczy 18% 38% 38% Bruce 9% 13% 13% Little Rouge 5% 14% 14% Lower Rouge 41% 59% 59% Rouge Marshes 53% 53% 53% Middle /Beaver 65% 79% 79% Upper Rouge 28% 52% 52% ROUGE WATERSHED 25% 38% 38% Report prepared by: Natalie Iwanycki, extension 5298 _ For Information contact:: Natalie Iwanycki, extension 5298 Date: November 2, 2005 L26 Li Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/05 November 10, 2005 DISCUSSION Tupper Wheatley Terrific presentation. Staff are very knowledgeable about subject. In Scenario 4, are there plans for some land to go into private ownership through stewardship? What is the timeline between Scenario 1 to Scenario 4? Natalie twanycki Yes, our TNH Strategy recognizes stewardship programs as one of the main means for implementing the enhanced terrestrial system. However, in the delineation of the enhanced terrestrial system we do not discriminate against lands in public and private ownership. Second question, there would be a 100 year timeline between Scenario 1 to Scenario 4 to have the system fully restored. However, we would like to have the land base secured for the system within the next 30 years. Lionel Purcell Did your survey's capture the smaller creeks? Natalie twanycki The TRCA's terrestrial surveys are most often focused on the terrestrial features adjacent to where development proposals are made. Our inventories are also contingent on landowner access. It is very difficult to obtain full coverage of the entire area of land for many reasons, but to date we have covered close to 40% of the terrestrial cover in the Rouge. Jim Robb I believe there are patches which are not in the higher category which should be there. There is a agricultural designated area at the top of the Rouge Park for example. Natalie twanycki Please realize that this does not include site level data and many areas that did not receive highest scores in the landscape analysis could very well be supporting sensitive flora and fauna species. Jim Robb We must not sacrifice buffers along the watercourse, there are many cultural and aquatic aspects to preserve in these areas. Natalie twanycki We will in the later Scenario's be assessing integration of cultural, aquatic, etc to ensure our recommended natural heritage system is comprehensive. Lorne Smith How does the targeted system include parks, golf courses, etc. Natalie twanycki The system does pick up the natural features within the boundaries of parks and golf courses and rates them accordingly. However, we did not make any assumptions that golf courses or L'.65 November 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/05 - h24-8- parkland would be available for restoration. These areas could represent additional opportunities for enhancement if they become available for naturalization purposes. Barb Davies The natural environmental plans should be picked up more on the site level and should hold as much weight as urban areas. Natalie lwanycki Scenario 6 & 7 will address the Greenbelt and Growth Plan. John Pisapio Glad to see a designation of OP build -out. Would like to see further qualification. Gord Weeden Would like to see the watershed map go more east -west as well as north - south. Natalie. lwanycki Yes, the map has been cropped more to be looked at on a watershed basis. Remember that TRCA has a Regional Target Terrestrial System and that this will assist us in identifying terrestrial system connections beyond the boundary of the Rouge Watershed. Pau/ Harpley Will invasive species be looked at on a more refined basis at a site level. Natalie lwanycki Yes, we will be trying to get a more realistic, site level look at invasive species. Changes to the SOW will include a more detailed discussion of invasive species as well as maps of the currently known distribution of invasive species in the watershed. Bryan Buttigieg Thank you Natalie, great presentation, good discussion. MANAGEMENT SUMMIT UPDATE Sonya drew attention to the availability of notes from the agriculture and aggregate management summits and reviewed highlights. DISCUSSION Jim Robb There is a need to integrate water budget, natural cover, etc. Unsure whether this will even be enough. We have not yet heard from Les Stanfield, OMNR. � 2 (0 .1-24-9 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/05 November 10, 2005 Clyde Smith Would like to see a policy on the restoration of gravel pits, not only for requirement to restore the contour of the land but also to add natural cover. Tupper Wheatley I understood gravel pits to be a hole in the aquifer. How does one fill this open area without contaminating the aquifer? Clyde Smith If this is done properly, it is actually better than leaving the aquifer exposed. Bryan Buttig /eg Does this filling of gravel pits increase the ability to push natural cover in these areas? Clyde Smith Yes, once the gravel pit is filled it is rezoned and cannot be developed. RES. #L53/05 Moved by: Seconded by: REVISED PUBLIC USE GOAL AND OBJECTIVES Revised Public Use Goal and Objectives and next steps in setting management directions. Kevin O'Connor Murray Johnston THAT the revised Public Use Goal and Objectives be approved for use in completing the State of the Watershed Chapter and guiding management direction; AND FURTHER THAT staff proceed to arrange a Public Use Management Summit workshop to develop more detailed management direction and public use opportunities mapping for inclusion in the draft watershed plan. BACKGROUND Goal and Objectives CARRIED At the April 21St , 2005 Task Force meeting, members discussed the draft Public Use goal, objectives, indicators and targets, as included in the draft Rouge State of the Watershed report. The main comments were as follows: broaden the scope to include other public use activities besides trail use; include a map of existing and planned trails in the revised chapter; promote connectivity of trail systems and opportunity to interpret natural and cultural heritage; and include incremental and achievable targets. L2GO- November 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/05 h2.20 A revised draft set of goals and objectives were discussed at a meeting of Task Force, municipal parks department, Rouge Park and TRCA representatives, held on July 26, 2005. Further to this discussion, findings from the Little Rouge Corridor Management Plan have also been reviewed by staff. Key directions from this work included the following considerations: need to address both public and private lands throughout the watershed; need to define terms, such as greenspace or natural areas, and understand how these terms may be used in planning documents (e.g. permitted uses in zoning); and goals and objectives should define the desired public use experiences in the Rouge. Revised public use goal, objectives, indicators and targets have been drafted based on comments received to date (Attachment 1). Upon approval by the Task Force, the public use chapter of the State of the Watershed Report will be revised to reflect the changes. Management Issues and Opportunities During the above -noted July 26th meeting, the group also identified key management issues and opportunities associated with public use in the Rouge watershed. The results of this discussion have been summarized in Attachment2 Management Issues and Directions report. It is proposed that a management summit workshop be arranged to discuss how the draft management directions could be further developed for inclusion in the draft watershed plan. A component of this workshop will involve the preparation of a public use opportunities map for the Rouge watershed, in which opportunities for natural and cultural heritage interpretation, the establishment of local "looped" trail networks among regional and community trail systems, and considerations for a range of future public use opportunities could be noted. Report prepared by: Peter Attfield, extension 5320 For Information contact: Peter Attfield, extension 5320 Date: November 2, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/05 November 10, 2005 ATTACHMENT 1 Rouge Watershed Public Use and Recreation Objectives, Indicators, Measures and Targets, for Discussion November 10, 2005 Goal: Opportunities for public enjoyment which are compatible with, and raise awareness of, the watershed's natural and cultural heritage. Objective 1: Ensure that public use activities in the watershed are compatible with ecological and cultural integrity Overall Rating Indicator Measure Target Adoption of standards of practice Number of public and private parks and 100% for managing recreational open recreational facilities operating under an space environmental management system Number of golf courses designated under 100% Audubon International Cooperative Sanctuary Program, or better Number of agri- tourism farms and equestrian stables operated under an . Environmental Farm Plan 100% Example Management Actions: • Phase out or relocate public uses that are incompatible • Identify and decommission unauthorized trails • Increase enforcement of unauthorized or incompatible uses • Promote adoption of standards of practice by public use operators, including environmental management systems by public agencies, Audubon Program by golf courses, and environmental farm plan by agri- tourism operators, equestrian stables. • Ensure existing and proposed uses are compatible with the objectives set out in the watershed plan (see model policy and compatibility guidelines /checklist) November 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/05 Objective 2: Provide opportunities for a variety of appropriate public uses and experiences at representative natural and cultural features. Overall Rating Indicator Measure Target Variety of opportunities Presence of opportunity fishing, swimming, non - motorized boating, skating, camping, nature appreciation, walking, horseback riding, cycling, mountain biking, snowshoeing, cross - country skiing, tourism (country drives, farm markets, B &Bs) Variety of uses distributed through watershed Access to representative sites . Access point or publicized route - Rouge Beach area - Glen Eagles Vista - ORM and South Slope vistas - valleylands - rural countryside landscapes (e.g., Reesor Rd) - heritage villages, including Unionville, Cedar Grove, Box Grove, Locust Hill, .... - headwater stream, swamp, marsh, upland forest, valley slope, floodplain forest Variety of opportunities for persons with disabilities to enjoy natural and cultural features Access point or publicized route Public facilities to meet standards for access All trails to be surveyed and posted by Universal Trail Assessment Process Example Management Actions: Develop a public use opportunities map to show potential sites for public access Establish policies and guidelines to protect unique experiences Objective 3: Develop a continuous trail network linking Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine, with connections to local communities, neighbouring watershed trail systems, and natural and cultural heritage features. Overall Rating Indicator Measure Target Trail network Length of trail, as defined in trail plan 100% completion (may set incremental targets) Connectivity Degree of completion of key links, as 100% defined in trail plan Example Management Actions: Complete implementation of the trail network as set out in the trail plan Develop links and loops from the regional trail to neighbourhoods and natural and cultural heritage features Promote interpretation of natural and cultural heritage L Lit) 1-23 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/05 November 10, 2005 ATTACHMENT 2 Rouge Public Use - Summary of Management Issues and Proposed Directions 1. Public land management Opportunities - A large amount of land is publicly owned, by TRCA for Rouge Park purposes, by federal, provincial, local and regional governments, and by school boards; some may have the potential for greater public access and activities Issues - Who will maintain Rouge Park lands outside of the City of Toronto? Who will pay? - Managing encroachment and inappropriate uses, as well as a coordinated approach to enforcement How to address in Watershed Plan: Present a public use opportunities map that captures suggestions from the Task Force and other watershed partners. Recommend /support the establishment of clear management responsibilities and resources for Rouge Park and other public lands. 2. Ecological compatibility of public uses (and their associated infrastructure) Issues - Some existing public uses are not compatible with, and are negatively impacting natural and cultural heritage features - Proposed public uses need to be evaluated for compatibility How to address in Watershed Plan: Provide and recommend a model policy with guidelines to assist in evaluating the compatibility of public uses. 3. Trail Planning and Implementation Opportunities - In Rouge Park in Toronto and in the Little Rouge Corridor, Rouge Park and its partners have already built, or are planning to complete a significant amount of the Moraine to Lake trail. Richmond Hill and Markham have networks of community trails. -Task Force could focus on the missing links in the north -south trail spine and links to local communities, trail loops, and opportunities to interpret natural and cultural heritage features. Issues - Getting municipal trails established early in the land use planning process, and getting those trails funded, e.g. through development charges How to address in Watershed Plan: L241 November 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/05 6224 - Present existing and proposed trail system with opportunities for improved linkages, interpretation - Make recommendations for Implementing trail plans. - Present annotated maps of key features of natural and cultural heritage interest that could be interpreted without negative impacts 4. "Public Experience" Planning Opportunities - Rouge Park offers rich experiences unusual in an urban setting, such as historic settlements in protected rural landscape, wilderness feeling - Other areas in the Rouge River watershed may complement and augment the Park experience How to address in Watershed Plan: If the Task Force feels that the Watershed Plan shou /d include objectives for experiences, then it could identify a range of experiences on a public use opportunities map as reference for future planning. 5. Lack of data on actual public use numbers How to address in Watershed Plan: Recommend priorities for monitoring trail use and participation rates in other public use activities. 6. Ensuring adequate lands for sport fields and other recreation facilities outside of Rouge Park without negatively impacting on natural heritage lands and cultural heritage landscapes. Issue - municipalities are under pressure to provide more active recreation opportunities How to address in Watershed Plan:? 7. Other? DISCUSSION Jack Heath The question is where should we support soccer fields? At the Rouge Park visioning session, we discussed how we would fund aspects of the Park, parking being one way. There could be one part of the Park which would be designated as high access and charge for this area and this would pay for the Park. Audrey Hollasch We must distinguish between natural heritage open space lands vs planned /programmed /active urban park lands. 425 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/05 November 10, 2005 Jim Robb Have concerns regarding Scenario 6. Would suggest no bikes trails in the valleys, that bikes be left in the urban areas. I understand and agree that there must be money generated to fund these natural areas. However, I disagree that the natural area's be used to generate the money. For example the Safety Village at Bruce's Mill CA. Keep this activity more to the urban areas and keep the natural areas natural. Tupper Wheatley We must be careful about how and what we do to pay for the natural cover we would like to maintain /create. Lionel Purcell The Rouge River is steep in history. The fur traders came up the Rouge (the Little Rouge). We must preserve this heritage. Bill Snodgrass My concern would also be of the funding. If we put trails in the valley lands we must have either a self sustaining trail plan or a management plan and funding. Lorne Smith A controlled interpretive experience could be used, eg. Bus trip of east side of Markham for urbanites. Paul Harpley Need to do further visioning before or during Public Use Management Summit. Gord Weeden Have noticed a Bill Board along the Markham By -Pass, marketing miles of trails in the Rouge Park, in order to entice people to buy houses. Murray Johnston Provided we protect the natural areas; we must have the soccer fields because of the rising population. Audrey Hollasch, Jack Heath We must realize we are going to have the soccer fields the public will demand them. We can focus where we are going to put them. LITTLE ROUGE CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE - Barb Davies • Public owned land at Steeles and Major Mackenzie • Are currently in the 3rd and Final Phase of plan, are working on mapping • Plan is to finalized in January 2006 • three key cultural areas: 1) Cedar Grove; 2) Locust Hill; 3) A significant heritage farm which is in the valley • will be taking reports back to Rouge Alliance once more and will have one more Public Open House. Ln November 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/05 L229 SCENARIO PURPOSE - Bob Clay Would like to review the purpose of the Scenarios. The Scenarios are to examine the effects of: • Natural cover • Urbanization, population growth • Storm -water management • Climate change MODELLING UPDATE - Bob Clay • The land use mapping for Scenarios 1 -6 completed; • Staff are working on Scenario 7 Full Build -out Using All Opportunities • Both the surface- and ground -water models have been calibrated • Staff are currently working on the interface of the two models DISCUSSION Lorne Smith Will the hydrogeology component be incorporated ? Bob C /ay Yes Jim Robb Modelling is a great idea. Within modelling have we factored in infiltration to the sewers? (i.e. from Gary Hunter's review). Bob Clay These are all questions which can be asked of the modelers at our next meeting. Murray Johnston Can we have information on effects on people's wells? Further discussion and details will be brought to next meeting. MEMBERSHIP UPDATE - Bryan Buttigieg We have noticed recently that a number of group's (member /alternate) representative have not been able to attend the Rouge Watershed Task Force meetings on a regular basis. The concern with this is as we are moving into a very important phase in our watershed plan's development, we would like to ensure all groups perspective are represented. Thus a letter was sent to these groups urging them to attend the upcoming meetings /workshops. We have advised these representative groups that if they were not represented at the on November 10, 2005, we will transfer the group to "observor" status, rather than "member" status. The group will continue to receive the meeting agendas and may attend meetings, but will not be entitled to vote. Below is a list of responses from these letters. John Van Voorst, Ministry of Transportation - moved to "observer" Lit !' Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/05 November 10, 2005 Michael Scott, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation - moved to "observer" Victor Doyle, Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs - moved to "observer" Andre Flys, Save the Rouge Valley System - did not attend meeting David Charleton, Urban Development Institute - did not attend meeting John Pisapio, OMNR - present at meeting Wendy Burgess, Golf Courses - present at meeting Pauline Browes, Waterfront Regeneration Trust - present at meeting Natalie Helferty, Richmond Hill Naturalists - present at meeting, alternate designated (Theresa McKenzie) MOTION Moved by: Seconded by: THAT the member groups who have been sent a letter RE: Rouge Watershed Task Force Membership and Participantion and are still not represented at this November 10/05 meeting be moved to "observor ". Jack Heath Lionel Purcell RES. #54/05 Moved by: Seconded by: ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN DOCUMENT FORMAT Discussion of proposed format for final set of Rouge Watershed Plan documents and draft table of contents for the Watershed Plan. Clyde Smith Lionel Purcell THAT Task Force comments on the proposed Rouge River Watershed Plan document format and table of contents be incorporated in a revised outline and considered as the plan is developed. CARRIED BACKGROUND Planning the format of the final Rouge Watershed Plan documents was one of the five strategic activities that comprised the Implementation Committee's Workplan, as presented to the Rouge Task Force at its Meeting #2/05, held on March 10, 2005. The objective of this activity is to determine the audience(s) and the most appropriate framework and format for the final watershed plan and implementation plan documents. "Packaging" is an important factor in the creation of an effective plan. The Implementation Committee discussed draft outlines of the overall set of documents and the watershed plan table of contents at their July 28, 2005 meeting. The two revised draft outlines are attached for Task Force review and comment. Notable considerations for these proposed outlines are as follows: Aim to produce a succinct watershed plan, suitable for a broad audience (i.e. 26 pages, or thereabouts), because most people don't have time to read more than that; L215 November 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/05 .1= -2-2ff Rely on other documents to provide additional information needed by certain audiences; and Design each document to be accessible for its target audience. NEXT STEPS Updated and more detailed outlines of the Watershed Plan and Implementation Reference Guide will be brought back to the Task Force for comment. A working "point form" version of the Watershed Plan will be developed for consultation so that key messages can be verified before the first full draft text is written later in the fall. Edits to the State of the Watershed Report have mostly been made based on the comments received to date, and the chapters will continue to undergo revisions as new information arises from the study. Selected chapters that have undergone more substantive changes, such as public use, land and resource use and all of Part 2, will be re- circulated for Task Force members' review. Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Date: September 6, 2005 1 -21-(D Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/05 November 10, 2005 ATTACHMENT1 Rouge Watershed Plan - Proposed Final Documents Draft - August 30, 2005 PRIMARY DOCUMENTS Watershed Plan General contents • strategic watershed management and implementation recommendations • adequate rationale (key issues, study methods and process) • key maps illustrating compelling findings and summarizing management and implementation strategy • watershed scale maps with selected subwatershed or local site maps • identification of the study partners • reference to supporting documents, detailed maps, modelling tools, data Audience and Role • broad: politicians, senior decision - makers, public • entry portal for all others: technical, stakeholders, implementors • concise, compelling communication of "what needs to be done differently ", "why ", by whom ", "where ", "how ", and "when" Format and distribution • desk -top published • mass produced hard copy and .pdf formats • one page Executive Summary • 26 page total (or less) Slide Presentation . • digital format designed for broad audience • overview of plan and planning process • available for any study partner's use Implementation "Reference Guide" General contents • model policy, supportive maps and criteria • regeneration priorities, supportive maps Audience and Role • implementors • technical staff, consultants, proponents • planners, engineers, regeneration planners /biologists • accessible one stop shopping for all key "look up" information Format and distribution • limited hard copy • CD • ultimately web - based; policy for updates (approval, notice, etc.) State of the Watershed Report General contents Part 1: Current conditions • Rouge watershed goals, objectives, indicators, targets • Current conditions and issues, based on latest technical information • Baseline report card • Current monitoring network Part 2: Current management programs and critique Bibliography November 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/05 L 277- L-23.0 Audience and Role • • • technical and interested stakeholder entry portal to orient oneself to watershed systems, available data, and current knowledge references to additional technical background reports for more information Format and • lightly desk -top published distribution • limited hard copy print run • .pdf format for CD and web -based distribution • distributed to each watershed municipality, library, Task Force member BACKGROUND TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS Management Strategy Development Report • Management summit discussion backgrounders and workshop notes • Long list of management actions for each objective and associated issues Modelling, Analysis and Evaluation Summary Report • scenario definitions, assumptions, data sources and references • summary of modelling tools, calibration, methodology • summary of scenario modelling results; key maps evaluation of watershed response to each scenario according to watershed objectives, indicators and targets • discussion of integration considerations; multi- objective evaluation perspective • key maps illustrating integration considerations and key findings in support of preferred management strategy • Task Force consultation • Peer Review Technical Reports (final tit /es to be confirmed) • Scenario Definitions and Assumptions Report for the Rouge Watershed Planning Study • Development of the Sustainable Community Scenario for the Rouge Watershed • HSP -F Modelling report (water balance, water quality...) • Groundwater • Water use and Low Flow Analysis in the Rouge Watershed • Aquatic - Les Stanfield modelling method /results • Fisheries Management Plan • Terrestrial - methodology behind targeted system, Rouge refinements • Public Use - Rouge Watershed Trail Plan • Adaptive Management Guidelines for Climate Change in the Rouge Watershed • State of the Watershed Ratings Report for the Rouge Watershed L2:78 1231 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/05 November 10, 2005 ATTACHMENT 2 Rouge Watershed Plan Annotated Table of Contents Draft - August 30, 2005 Executive Summary Letter of Transmittal (from Task Force Chair) 1.0 Introduction 1 page text 1 page map • rationale for Rouge watershed planning study • unique Rouge setting (map): ORM, Rouge Park, within RAP • global, national, provincial, regional, Rouge Park, and local context for planning • introduction to the Rouge Watershed Task Force • brief look back at pre- European times, where we are now and the vision of where we'd like to be • "protect and enhance" • new imperatives for management: sustainability 2.0 Rouge Watershed Goals and Objectives 1 page • goals and objectives • Task Force principles 3.0 Current Conditions, Issues and a View to Future Challenges 2 pages text 2 pages maps /photos • summary of State of the Watershed report (x -ref report) • compelling synthesis of key issues and "story" of Rouge (timely opportunity to make vital management decisions; functions of Rouge systems; key current and future issues) • note that watershed plan focuses on key issues 4.0 Management Strategy 6 pages text 2 pages maps (base scenarios) 3 pages maps (key findings /strategy) * *Brief overview of methodology, adequate to demonstrate basis for strategy and reference background reports • future scenarios (and management options embodied within them) • summary of modelling methods and key findings • management summit approaches for key issues • evaluation criteria and process • consultation * *Management Strategy • introduce integrated management strategy (sustainability and natural systems approach; at all scales; "green web and blue ribbons "; low impact design, demand management) • explain rationale with selected maps /graphics • organize "integral" management actions by key issue /strategy, for example: Integral Management Actions (and likely Implementation Mechanisms) Protect and enhance natural cover (policy, securement, stewardship /regen) November 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/05 L2 q L23.- Managing water balance and stormwater (policy, protection; SWM /mitigation; incentives; retrofit; re -use) Improving construction practices (policy, stewardship, educ, enforcement) Protecting agricultural lands /industry (education /marketing..) Guiding new sustainable urban form (planning design; stewardship) Living sustainably (stewardship, education, incentives, enforcement) Celebrating culture, public use.... (policy, stewardship, education, enforcement) Managing aquatic systems (policy, stewardship /regen, education, enforcement) Monitoring and Further study 5.0 Implementation Plan (at least for Key Issues) 7 pages may include maps - possibly some from ch. 4 • present management actions by implementation tool /implementor, for example: Policy (link to existing municipal OP, ORMCP, Greenbelt, Rouge Park Plans and identify new policy; reference implementation guide containing maps, model policy, criteria, definitions etc.) Regs /permits Stewardship and Regeneration (priority areas to be shown on map; Zink to existing and new programs) ► Education and Awareness (priority messages to be identified; link to existing and new programs) ► Land Securement (priority areas identifies; link to existing programs) ► Operation and Maintenance (enhancements to existing programs) ► Monitoring (enhancements to existing network identified) • provide summary table to demonstrate relevance to each objective • cross - reference to comprehensive set of management actions, implementation recommendations, and other details (in other reports) • recommend a body for overseeing implementation and reporting on progress 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 1 page TOTAL: 26 pages Appendix A: List of Supporting Documents 1 page Appendix B: Five year workplan and budget L' -L263- Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/05 November 10, 2005 NEW BUSINESS Bryan Buttigieg At our last meeting a report on the York Durham Sanitary Sewer project was presented, followed by a discussion of this project. From this discussion it was recommended that a Committee be formed and they be charged with revising the recommendations of that report. Elio Di lorio • The Sub - Committee which Bryan has spoken of presently includes Mike Price, Jim Robb, Erin Shapero and me. The Sub - Committee apologizes for not getting this information out to the members earlier, however, some information only became available recently. We grappled with how to deal with this issue considering the Task Force's mandate. • This Task Force is reflecting - these issues at hand affect the watershed, everything going on in our watershed affects our mandate. • The Sub - Committee while revising the recommendations referred to the Rouge Alliance Res. #46/05 and Res. #47/05 of meeting #5/05 held on September 16, 2005 and the City of Toronto resolution dated October 27, 2005. These documents as well as the recommendations the Sub - Committee brings you tonight were sent by email yesterday and hard copies are available here tonight • The Sub - Committee reviewed the harm to fish habitat, removal of groundwater, and the affect on source water protection of the YDSS project. We had conversations with Gord Miller (Commissioner of Environment for Ontario) and he was supportive of the recommendations to the City of Toronto. • There is an issue with the fact that a Full Environmental Assessment (EA) has never done, and that the Province did not ask for this process; which means the public was not brought in for consultation. • This is the resolution which the Sub - Committee puts forth to the members. Natalie Helferty There was a 16 page report brought forward to be used instead of a Full EA. Not enough. Elio Di lorio The 19`h Avenue portion of this project will go through the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM). The ORM Act states that a person is not able under the Environmental Bill of Rights to prescribe acts against the ORM Act. The YDSS project is not in compliance with the ORM Act George McKelvey How can you effectively stop the dewatering? Dewatering must continue as the EA is being performed. Jim Robb You can stop the dewatering by capping the sewer and bring the machine out. Bryan Buttigieg Is what you are asking the Task Force to approve is in affect the City of Toronto recommendations, to stop the dewatering. Elio Di lorio Extra $2M capital which would have been dedicated to source water protection lands acquisition. L281 November 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/05 1:234 Jack Heath I would like to ask the role TRCA plays in this capital funding. Would also like to ask about the Task Force and whether it is a sub - committee of the TRCA. Erin Shapero The $2M was pulled back from funding set aside for source water protection land acquisition. Sonya Meek The TRCA did not support the City of Toronto resolution. This Task Force is an advisory body of the TRCA and the Rouge Park Alliance. The mandate is to develop a watershed plan, not to comment on the ongoing development, but to guide future development. TRCA has other groups as ours, for example the Humber Alliance, Don Council. Until this watershed plan is complete the Task Forces Terms of Reference will not move to a commenting role, as in the Humber and Don. Bryan Buttigieg Noting that this is not in the mandate of our Task Force, I would like to walk through the other Resolutions which members are being asked to adopt and that the members understand all the details clearly. John Pisapio I would express on behave of OMNR, that our membership and participation on this Task Force was to be of a technical nature. With the current discussion OMNR would question moving to "observer" status. Elio Di lorio I would suggest you could abstain from the vote. Terry O'Connor As a member of York Region's Community Liaison Committee (CLC), our group was presented with information of the YDSS projects. Tonight I am hearing very different information from what was told at that meeting. Although, I agree with George McKe /veythat this project is to far along to stop. We should finish this project as quickly as possible. Elio Di lorio Yes, this is a huge project. At this point we are not looking at the ecological costs. I would suggest stopping, "just pause" the project and taking a look at what the landscape will look like under and above, if this project continues. Clyde Smith The Stouffville municipal well has decreased 20 metres and it is in the zone of influence of the dewatering. Elio Di lorio We have not looked at the matter of sewage going through the pipe. The sewer will be paid back only when it is in full capacity. Have we looked at the impacts of greenhouse gases when all this development is in place? To tie it back to why we are looking at this project. It was brought to us and it does affect the watershed. L-2, 2 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/05 November 10, 2005 Lorne Smith My well went dry in 2002, and I fought with the region to see this. The EA for Phase II was simply copied from Phase I. The zone of influence was said to be 500m and it is out to 1200m now. I initially went to the Rouge Park Alliance and then to York Region concerning this problem. York Region is mitigating now, this is costing them $30M over and above the existing project cost of $55M. The major dewatering problems at C8 will be finished soon. My suggestion would be to make sure a Full EA is completed on anything further that is built. Phase II of 16th Avenue has gone to far, it must be completed. Must have Box Grove to Lake Ontario, completed to be able to have any capacity. I know what the City of Toronto wants; I can't support the request to stop pumping. The key will be to not start the pumping. The stupidest thing York Region ever did was to start in the middle section. Erin Shapero York Region was actually smart, because by starting in the middle of the region, they would have to do the rest for the system to be all connected enabling it to come to full capacity. The TRCA has said hurry and finish the dewatering. Have looked at the mandate of the Task Force and feel that this project does affect the watershed. Thus, we should be commenting. We have commented on the Greenbelt Act and Places to Grow. Jim Robb I have looked at these files for 4 years. York Region has broken the law, the Environmental Commissioner for Ontario has said they have broken the law. Mike Price has said they have done the environmental assessment piece meal. There was an agreement with Whitchurch- Stouffville because they paid for some of the pipe so they could develop. Clyde Smith The York Region website states that the project is 40% complete. Jim Robb A similar increase in the dewatering rate may occur again, with construction in the west. And we may have blow outs like we had at Robinson Creek. How far are you willing to let York Region go to destroy the watershed. Evidence has been presented to City of Toronto. Dudley Williams states there is already impacts on the fish. We should be supporting the Rouge Alliance and City of Toronto recommendations. Elio Di lorio Mr. Chair have you decided whether this motion is out of order? Bryan Buttigieg I am struggling with this issue. Spoke of Rouge Watershed Task Force mandate and Terms of Reference and read these to the members. The Task Force commented on the Greenbelt Act because it was posted for public comment. I feel that Mike Price's recommendations have not been fully assessed. Sonya Meek The rationale for the mandate focus was (1) to allow the Watershed Plan to be prepared in a 2 year period, and (2) because there are other forums for input of this kind. Welcome to send comments back to the TRCA. Jim Robb I would have to reconsider our continued involvement on the Task Force if we were not to comment on the issues of the York Durham Sanitary Sewer. L2$� November 10, 2005 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/05 .236 Bryan Buttigieg do believe that the 3 Whereas states on pg L244 of #5/05 Minutes were statements outside of our mandate as a Task Force. Erin Shapero The problem is that the 19th Avenue part of the YDSS project will take place in a rural area. Bryan Buttigieg I am very concerned about adopting a Resolution as it stands with the discussion I have heard tonight. Many members are of the opinion that we are acting outside our mandate. Kevin O'Connor What you are saying is that we cannot comment on ongoing or past development projects. Perhaps when formulating the recommendations we need to broaden our scope. Clyde Smith would motion that we receive as a policy to groundwater, 10 best management practices. Bryan Buttigieg I'm inclined to not allow the voting on this issue tonight. I will meet and work with this Sub - Committee to develop recommendations which the Task Force as a whole feels comfortable of signing off. Erin Shapero Would look at issue on a go forward basis. Elio Di lorio understand and share the concern, and struggle with our mandate. It is difficult to plan for the future when the data we have is in question and that it is questionable what the future will look like. ACTION: The Sub - Committee to meet further with Bryan Buttigieg to develop recommendations for inclusion in the watershed plan, with respect to future servicing projects. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:30 p.m., on Thursday September 15th, 2005. Bryan Buttigieg Chair, Rouge Watershed Task Force