HomeMy WebLinkAboutWatershed Management Advisory Board 2006c.
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/06
April 21, 2006
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/06, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, April 21, 2006. The Vice Chair Nancy
Stewart, called the meeting to order at 10:55 a.m..
PRESENT
Maria Augimeri Member
Gay Cowbourne Member
Frank Dale Member
Elaine Moore Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Nancy Stewart Vice Chair
ABSENT
Shelley Petrie Member
Dave Ryan Chair
RES. #D1106 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Gay Cowbourne
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #6/05, held on February 10, 2006, be approved.
DELEGATIONS
CARRIED
(a) Mr. Terry Fahey of 369 Sunnyside Avenue, Toronto, speaking in regards to the Don
Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project.
(b) Ms. Sharon Howarth of 58 Langley Avenue, Toronto, speaking in regards to the Don
Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project.
(c) Mr. Daniel Matmor of 168 First Avenue, Toronto, speaking in regards to the Don Mouth
Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project.
1
(d) Ms. Karen Buck of 58 Leuty Drive, Toronto, speaking in regards to the Don Mouth
Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project.
(e) Mr. Michael Rosenberg of 73 McCaul Street, Toronto, speaking in regards to the Don
Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project.
RES. #D2 /06 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Maria Augimeri
Elaine Moore
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT above -noted delegations (a) - (e)
be referred to Authority Meeting #3/06, to be held on April 28, 2006 for consideration by
the Authority as the Authority has already dealt with the matter at Meeting #11/05, held
on January 27, 2006, and would require a re- opening of the item for any reconsideration.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a)
A presentation by Patricia Lowe, Manager, Outreach Education and Stewardship,
TRCA, in regards to item 8.1 - Healthy Yards Program.
RES. #D3 /06 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Frank Dale
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D4 /06 - CLAIREVILLE COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP PROJECT
Initiation of a three -year Ontario Trillium Foundation stewardship project
at Claireville Conservation Area.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Frank Dale
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be authorized to take such
action as is necessary to implement the Claireville Community Stewardship project;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the progress of the Claireville
Community Stewardship project.
CARRIED
2
BACKGROUND
Claireville Conservation Area is an 848 hectare (2,100 acre) property owned by the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). The area is located in the West Humber
subwatershed in the Humber River watershed. It is one of the most publicly accessible natural
environment properties in Peel Region. It has vast tracts of natural areas, open field, cultural
heritage buildings, and existing recreation and educational facilities. There are many residential
communities, businesses and special interest groups who, along with local and regional
municipal governments, have expressed an interest in seeing a wider variety of outdoor
recreation, education and commercial recreation activities and programs at Claireville.
The Friends of Claireville (FOC) are a volunteer group that since their inception in 1999, has
sought to educate the public on environmental issues and to engage the community in
environmental stewardship activities at Claireville Conservation Area. Joint initiatives include
community plantings (over 20,000 trees planted to date), clean -ups, guided hikes and other
community events that reach out to families, seniors, youth and new Canadians. The FOC are
also an active group on the Humber Watershed Alliance.
TRCA has worked closely with the FOC for over 6 years. During this time, both groups have
identified opportunities for restoration projects and the further development of community
stewardship. Although Claireville is not an operating conservation area, many residents from
the surrounding areas enjoy passive recreation, such as hiking and nature viewing, on site.
Under the collaborative name of Claireville Community Stewards, TRCA and the Friends of
Claireville submitted a proposal to the Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF) in March 2005 to
initiate the Claireville Community Stewardship project. The proposal was approved by the OTF
allowing for the hiring of a full -time staff person dedicated to Claireville.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
With the financial support of the OTF grant and the Region of Peel capital budget, the
Claireville Community Stewardship project will employ one full -time project ecologist who will
coordinate the implementation of deliverables laid out in the OTF proposal as well as other
initiatives at Claireville.
The main objectives of the project are as stated below:
Increased Quality and Quantity of Program Implementation at Claireville
The project ecologist will be responsible for assisting the Friends of Claireville with the
organization of their annual work plan, fundraising and creating a "Stewards in the Field"
volunteer program. The workplan includes community plantings (2 per annum), annual
community engagement events (such as hiking, birdwatching, clean -ups) and outreach to local
community groups when opportunities are available.
Increased Public Access Opportunities at Claireville
The Claireville Community Stewardship project aims to build upon and improve public access
features in Claireville. This will include the installation of a dock and three trailhead kiosks.
Multilingual maps, flyers, brochures will be developed and free family nature events will
continue.
3
Increased Administrative and Organizational Management for the Friends of Claireville
One of the main goals of the OTF funding grant is to build capacity in community groups and
strengthE n volunteerism. The project ecologist for the Claireville Community Stewardship
project will be responsible for assisting the Friends of Claireville in becoming more sustainable
by management of administrative tasks such as a participants database and liaison with other
commun ty stakeholders.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
A total of $100,500 from OTF has been approved over a three -year period. Other funding
sources for this project will include: TD Friends of the Environment (proposed), Ministry of
Natural F esources: Community Fisheries and Wildlife Involvement Program (CFWIP)
( proposed), corporate sponsorship (proposed) and the Region of Peel capital budget. The
total cos' of this three -year project is estimated at $280,718.
The funding will be used to hire a project ecologist that will coordinate and promote community
outreach and naturalization activities at Claireville consistent with TRCA's business plan, the
Humber Watershed Strategy and the environmental initiatives of the Friends of Claireville.
TRCA wi I provide staff supervision, technical support and budget administration. The project
will also •eceive substantial in -kind support from the members of the Friends of Claireville.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Final ze a multi -year detailed workplan in consultation with the Friends of Claireville.
• Train new staff.
• Initia e project implementation.
• Raisu matching funds for future activities, as required.
Report prepared by: Lisa Turnbull, extension 5325
For Information contact: Lisa Turnbull, extension 5325
Date: March 23, 2006
RES. #C5/06 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK INTERIM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
To report on the Tommy Thompson Park 2005 Interim Management
Program and plans for 2006.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Elaine Moore
Frank Dale
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue to
negotiate the formal agreement with the Toronto Port Authority regarding access and
other such items deemed necessary for the 2006 program;
THAT s Caff be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the
Annual Operating Program and the Master Plan Implementation Program including the
executi Dn of any documents and agreements;
4
AND FURTHER THAT staff work with the appropriate agencies to develop a Tong -term
management plan for Tommy Thompson Park (TTP).
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1959, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (now known as the Toronto Port Authority or
TPA) began construction of a spit of land at the base of Leslie Street in the City of Toronto.
From 1959 until present day, a combination of lakefilling and dredging activities created the
current configuration of the Leslie Street Spit extending 5 kilometers into Lake Ontario, and
having a total land /water base of approximately 471 hectares. The TRCA currently owns 247
hectares of this land and water which is formally known as Tommy Thompson Park (TTP).
Those areas still under construction are owned by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
(OMNR) and are leased to the Toronto Port Authority (TPA). The OMNR have confirmed their
intent to transfer a further 224 hectares of land and water to the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) upon the completion of lakefilling activities by the TPA.
Tommy Thompson Park has evolved into one of the most significant features along the north
shoreline of Lake Ontario. It is home to numerous birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, mammals,
and vegetation communities, which have distinguished Tommy Thompson Park as an
Important Bird Area (IBA), and as an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA #130). The IBA
international designation demonstrates Tommy Thompson Park's significance nationally, as
well as globally for its biological contribution to bird life. As an ESA, Tommy Thompson Park is
recognized as supporting an unusually high diversity of biological communities, including
provincially, and regionally rare plant species.
Tommy Thompson Park has also established itself as a unique place for a variety of human
activities, attracting well over 300,000 visitors a year. These users only access the Park on
weekends and holidays, and represent a very broad range of park users including;
birdwatchers, naturalists, cyclists, in -line skaters, pleasure walkers, joggers, researchers, and
students.
The Aquatic Park Sailing Club (APSC) is a small community sailing club that has leased a
portion of the waterlot and landbase at Tommy Thompson Park since 1976. The revenue from
the lease currently supports the Interim Management Program. The current three -year lease
agreement was executed for the 2005 -2007 season under Resolution #A75/05 of the Authority
Meeting #3/05 held on April 29, 2005.
The Aquatic Park Sailing Club contributes $2,500.00 to the annual operation of the TTP Shuttle
Van which services park users and APSC members on weekends and holidays from May
through to October. The Club also assists staff with a variety of projects including; garbage
clean up, tree wrapping for protection against beaver damage, and has financially contributed
to shoreline naturalization and enhancement activities around their club house.
The Master Plan for Tommy Thompson Park was completed in 1989, and then revised in 1992
through the Minister of the Environment's approval under the Environmental Assessment Act.
Implementation of the Master Plan, until 2003 had been very limited due to continued TPA
construction and lake filling activities, and the lack of implementation dollars. The park vision
has been realized through funds directed to the Interim Management Program, and through
habitat creation and enhancement projects projections.
5
The Park is currently operated under the Interim Management Program in accordance with the
delegated responsibilities assigned to the TRCA by the Province of Ontario. The Annual
Operating Program is in keeping with an agreement with the City of Toronto for the TRCA to
operate the site until such time that the Master Plan is implemented, and a management plan
developed.
2005 Tommy Thompson Park Interim Management Program
The following outlines the regular activities and special events that occurred during the 2005
Interim Management Program.
The Park was open to the public Saturdays, Sundays and Statutory Holidays commencing
January 8th, 2005. The public hours were as follows: 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. January 8 to April
3, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. April 9 to October 22, and 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. October 29 to
December 18. In the interest of public safety, security and access, a staff member was on duty
at all times during public hours.
Public transportation was provided by means of a shuttle van operating during public hours
from May 7 until October 10. The Aquatic Park Sailing Club helped defray the cost of the
service by providing a $2,500 contribution toward its operation.
A nature interpretation program was continued in 2005 and operated on weekends from June 5
to September 5. Guided walks were conducted on holidays focusing on different aspects of
the Park's natural history. The interpretive "spit cart" was staffed on Sunday afternoons
throughout the summer, and the TTP Bird Research Station was open to the public on
weekends and holidays during the spring and fall migratory windows. In addition to the
regularly scheduled programs, staff offered a special TRCA spring birding event, aquatic
planting events with local schools, and numerous guided tours with various special interest
groups.
In addition to the above programs, a new educational program titled 'Winged Migration' was
offered to grades 4 - 7 in 2005. Twenty school groups, totaling 545 students took part in the
Winged Migration program. This program introduces school children to the miracle of bird
migration by bringing together a spectacular natural event and an internationally recognized
location. This program was well received in 2005 and will be offered again in 2006 during the
spring and fall migration periods at the Park. Funding for the Winged Migration program was in
part provided by Imperial Oil. Imperial Oil has agreed to provide funding for the delivery of the
program in the spring of 2006.
Wildlife Management Activities undertaken in 2005 included the continuation of the ring - billed
gull control program, the creation of new nesting islands for common terns and the
construction of bank swallow nesting area in Cell 1, Caspian tern recovery program through
the creation of nesting mounds, a double- crested cormorant management program, control of
nesting Canada geese and mute swans, and a general wildlife enhancement and monitoring
program.
6
Special Activities
In addition to the regular park programs, other special events and activities have taken place at
Tommy Thompson Park during the 2005 season. The following is an outline of these various
events:
• Lake Ontario Mid - Winter Waterfowl Inventory (January 9)
• University of Toronto, 4th year Ornithology class (Feb & Mar)
• University of Toronto, School of Landscape Architecture (April)
• TRCA Bird in the Hand Event (May 15)
• Numerous birding walks with special interest groups (May)
• York University, Environmental Science Course (May 24 & Oct 28)
• Aquatic Plants Program Planting Days (May 19 & 26 and June 1 -9 )
• Lake Ontario Clean Up Event (September 17 & 18)
• Deloitte Staff Day (September 29)
• Unilever Impact Day (September 30)
• Scotia Bank Toronto Waterfront Marathon (September 25)
• Centennial College, Environmental Technology Program (Oct 14)
• Annual Christmas Bird Count (December 18).
Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Committee
As part of the original master plan process, a Natural Area Advisory Committee was
established with representation from a variety of governmental and non - governmental groups,
local universities, naturalist groups, Friends of the Spit and the TRCA. The group was formally
known as the Tommy Thompson Park Natural Area Advisory Committee (NAAC). Upon
completion and approval of the master plan, the NAAC was disbanded.
At Authority Meeting #2/02, held on April 26, 2002, the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan
Design Project was formally endorsed by Resolution #A97/02 which resolved in part the
following:
"...THAT staff be directed to establish a Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Committee
with broad representation of park users, interest groups, and the City of Toronto to
assist Toronto and Region Conservation staff with the development and
implementation of various Park Master Plan components;..."
In 2003, a formal terms of reference for the Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Committee
( TTPAC) was completed. Regular meetings of the TTPAC continued in 2005. The TTPAC
assists TRCA with the planning and implementation of activities that are consistent with the
goals, objectives, policies and guidelines of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and
Environmental Assessment. The group represents a range of stakeholders including; TRCA,
Friends of the Spit, Toronto Ornithological Club, University of Toronto Botany, Toronto Field
Naturalist, Toronto Entomologists Association, City of Toronto Parks, Aquatic Park Sailing
Club, Toronto Port Authority, Toronto Cycling Committee, volunteer naturalists, park
user /resident, Toronto Bird Observatory and the Ashbridge's Bay Sewage Treatment Plant
Neighbourhood Liaison Committee. The committee convened for seven meetings in 2005.
7
Tommy Thompson Park Bird Research Station
In 2003, TRCA entered into a partnership with the Toronto Bird Observatory to form the Tommy
Thompson Park Bird Research Station (TTPBRS). A small banding laboratory was constructed
and outfitted with research supplies. A memorandum of understanding was developed
between the groups, and a pilot project was commenced in 2003. The primary objective of the
TTPBRS is to help in the protection and preservation of migratory birds and their habitats. It
also includes training volunteers and staff; public education programs; communicating with the
media and decision - makers; bird banding and other research techniques; bird and habitat
preservation and related issues; and communication with local, regional, provincial, national
and international organizations. In 2005, the research station was in operation from April 1 to
June 9 and, August 3 to November 12. A total of 6794 birds of 93 species were banded at
TTPBRS in 2005. In three years, a total of 17,661 birds have been banded and 8,200 volunteer
hours have been contributed.
Tommy Thompson Park Trails Master Plan
An integral component of the implementation of the TTP Master Plan is a Multi -Use Trail
System. In 2005 the TTP Trails Master Plan was developed. The concept plan maintains the
original Master Plan philosophy by restricting vehicular access and offering trail types that
cater to various user groups. The trail layout will reflect the need to provide a safe and inviting
recreational opportunity while minimizing the impact on the natural heritage of the Park. Trail
design and construction will ensure that the majority of the Park is fully accessible to visitors of
all abilities.
Tommy Thompson Park Natural Area Enhancement Plan
Using the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan as the framework for design, the Tommy
Thompson Park Natural Areas Enhancement Plan has been developed. It outlines plans for
both aquatic and terrestrial habitat creation and enhancement projects within TTP. The TTP
Natural Areas Enhancement Plan was developed in consultation with the TTPAC, and various
stakeholder groups. A workshop was held in March 2005 to engage stakeholder groups in the
Park and to obtain ideas and direction for the plan.
Critical Wildlife Habitat Creation
Installation of habitat components that are critical to various life stages of wildlife and flora in
the form of reproductive, juvenile /nursery, resting /loafing and overwintering areas have been
created. Specifically these include denning structures, small mammal /hibernaculi habitats,
nesting and perching structures, and basking structures.
Cell 1 Capping Project
Tommy Thompson Park contains the confined disposal facility (CDF) for the Port of Toronto
and surrounding area. This CDF complex consists of three disposal cells of which Cells 1 and
2 are filled to operational capacity. Since 1990 the TRCA has developed a capping and
wetland creation proposal for disposal Cell 1. The Cell 1 capping project began in 2003, and
construction was completed in 2005. Cell 1 will provide functional habitat for a wide variety of
wetland dependant fish and wildlife species. This habitat complex will represent 7.7 ha of
coastal wetland habitat, and represents the largest wetland gain in the Toronto waterfront area.
8
RATIONALE
Recently there has been a growing interest in the City of Toronto's waterfront. With this
renewed interest, numerous waterfront plans and strategies have emerged, and have even
been implemented. This has resulted in new funding opportunities, and the allocation of
additional funds to begin the implementation of the TTP Master Plan.
The popularity of TTP has increased to where it currently hosts well over 300,000 people
annually who are restricted to access on weekends and holidays only. TRCA staff anticipate
that the Park will be available for additional public access in the next few years therefore it is
important that a long -term management program be developed with the appropriate agencies.
Staff will proceed with the development of this management plan and report back to the Board
upon substantial completion.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
2006 Interim Management Program
The 2006 Interim Management Program will be run as in 2005, with only slight modification.
Activities for 2006 will include:
• public access year round on weekends and statutory holidays;
• public transportation in the form of a shuttle van operating from May to Thanksgiving;
• staffing to offer interpretive opportunities and to operate public transportation;
• Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Committee meetings;
• bird monitoring programs at the Tommy Thompson Park Bird Research Station;
• gull management /monitoring programs;
• Double- crested Cormorant monitoring and management programs;
• habitat and wildlife enhancement and monitoring;
• summer nature programs on Sundays and holidays with coordinated volunteer walks;
• park facilities operation, maintenance and improvements;
• interpretive program development;
• staffing for park management and coordination and;
• a licence agreement with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club for sailing activities.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget for the 2006 Tommy Thompson Park Interim Management Program is
$160,000. Funds are provided through the City of Toronto Waterfront Capital budget.
Report prepared by: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366
Tamara Chipperfield, extension 5248
For Information contact: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366
Date: April 13, 2006
9
RES. #D6/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
EATON HALL WETLAND AND FOREST ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
Proposal to the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation. Approval to enter into
agreement with the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation to implement the
Eaton Hall Wetland and Forest Enhancement project in partnership with
Seneca College (King Campus).
Maria Augimeri
Frank Dale
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to enter into an
agreement with the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation to undertake the Eaton Hall Wetland
and Forest Enhancement project which will take place on Seneca College's King Campus
and include: implementation of a wetland enhancement demonstration site;
establishment of a forest wildlife corridor and an old growth buffer zone; development of
interpretive signage and a Seneca Campus nature guide;
AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
staff be authorized and directed to execute all necessary documents to give effect
thereto.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Eaton Hall property is located within the boundaries of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Foundation's Conservation Priority Area 4 at Seneca College King Campus on Dufferin St. and
15th side road in King Township. The area is part of a provincially significant wetland complex
and one of the valued sources to the headwaters of the Humber Watershed. The Eaton Hall
complex includes a kettle lake (Eaton Hall Lake) which is composed of two basins that are
approximately 27.13 hectares in total. See Attachment 1 for a map of the area.
Eaton Hall is part of a larger wetland complex that was identified as the Eaton
Hall- Mary- Hackett wetland complex which spans from the northern half of King City east to
Bathurst Street and west to the 8th Concession - and then north to the 17th Sideroad and
south to King Road. The area is one of the largest and most diverse wetland complexes on the
Oak Ridges Moraine and is very well known for its kettle lakes and its large adjacent upland
woodlands. The entire complex received a score of 205 through the Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR) Wetland Evaluation process for its biological components. A score of 200 or
more points in either the Biological or Special Features component of the evaluation program
qualifies a site to be provincially significant. Surveys completed as part of the wetland
evaluation process reported 78 breeding bird species, 12 reptile and amphibian species and
524 vascular plant species in the complex. Although this area has been recognized as being
very rich in natural features, surrounding land use such as agriculture exert pressure on the
complex and have altered much of the natural hydrology.
10
Seneca College (King Campus) is a well developed educational facility for college students
offering a wide range of programs. Some of these programs include: Recreation,
Environmental Landscape Management and Golf Course Technician. Some general education
(elective) subjects are focused on environmental sustainability and make use of the campus
natural environs as a learning lab. The college Outdoor Centre, located at Recreation Island,
provides outdoor education programs for area schools and conducts a summer camp for area
children and youth. King Campus is fortunate to contain such a rich natural setting for outdoor
education. The complex and its surrounding wetlands are also an important area to local and
migrating wildlife and to ground water discharge.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Seneca College (King Campus) have
worked in partnership previously to implement habitat restoration projects. In 2005 two small
scale wetland enhancements were implemented by TRCA on campus and monitoring such as
electrofishing in Eaton Hall Lake has taken place on a yearly basis. TRCA staff have
undertaken a detailed survey of the property and identified priority area for restoration.
Stewardship planning work has also been completed by Seneca College in the "King Campus
Land Use Plan and Environment -Based Education Plan" (2000).
PROJECT DETAILS
In February 2006, in collaboration with Seneca College, a proposal was submitted to the Oak
Ridges Moraine Foundation (ORMF) for the Eaton Hall Wetland and Forest Enhancement
project. The TRCA has recently been informed that the proposal has been approved by the
ORMF board. The project will be implemented over the course of two years and is eligible to
receive $39,646 in 2006 and $32,819 in 2007 from the Oak Ridges Moraine Fund (totalling a
maximum of $72,465 over two years).
The Eaton Hall Wetland and Forest Enhancement Project includes the implementation of a
significant wetland enhancement over a two year period (2006 and 2007). The existing small
wetland areas at Eaton Hall are currently compromised by the lack of buffer and transitional
zones (such as wet meadows) separating them from agricultural practices in the area. Buffer
zones provide habitat for local and migrating wildlife along with reducing erosion, improving
water quality, and assisting in flood control. Tile drain systems in near by active fields have also
altered the natural hydrological system of many of the existing wetlands. This wetland
enhancement project will be implemented adjacent to Eaton Hall Lake in an area which is
currently seasonally wet and surrounded by active agriculture. The enhancement of this site
will involve decommissioning a small portion of the current agriculture field and removing the
existing tile drainage. The completed project will result in 15,778 squared meters wetland gain.
The main objective in restoring wetlands at Eaton Hall is to bring back a more natural
hydrological system and provide a deeper wetland pocket for over wintering amphibians and
reptiles. Eaton Hall Lake will be positively impacted by this project as the wetland will help to
reduce agriculture run -off from the surrounding fields. The wetland component of the project
will also contribute 1.661 hectares of reforestation adjacent to the proposed wetland
enhancement.
11
In addition to buffering the area surrounding the wetland enhancement, a 50 meter wide wildlife
corridor will be created which will connect the enhanced wetland area to the mixed hardwood
forest to the west. This initiative will result in a gain of 2.05 hectares of forest cover. There are
currently no links from the existing forest stand to the lake. Providing this linkage from the lake
- wetland - forest will result in considerable habitat gain. The corridor will be planted on land
that is presently used for agriculture and will (eventually) complete full forest cover from east to
west across Seneca's King Campus.
The establishment of a treed buffer around the east and north perimeter of an old growth forest
segment near Seneca Campus' Log Cabin will be a the second reforestation project to be
undertaken in association with this project and will serve to protect existing interior forest
habitat. The site's existing old growth forest segment currently stops abruptly at mowed fields.
Buffer plantings in this area will result in an additional gain of 0.5 hectares of forest cover.
Other project deliverables include interpretive signage, which will be created for the project site
and other identified key areas of the campus' trail network to increase public awareness of the
Oak Ridges Moraine and encourage private land stewardship activities. Along with signage, a
campus 'nature field guide' will be produced which will have a strong environmental
stewardship theme and focus on Oak Ridges Moraine key natural heritage features like the
kettle lake. Planting activities at the proposed wildlife corridor and buffer sites will engage
college students and local schools with the assistance of the Outdoor Centre on Recreation
Island. A community planting will serve as, a public 'opening' of the wetland enhancement site
and bring profile to the project. Faculty and students will use the site during implementation
and upon completion as an outdoor classroom. A Seneca co -op student will also be involved
in project implementation on a regular basis as a means of technology transfer. Faculty and
student involvement throughout the various stages of the project will ensure continued
engagement in the project sites after implementation has been completed.
Implementation sites are accessible by the Oak Ridges Moraine Trail System and is within
walking distance from the head office of the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation. The location
makes the Eaton Hall Wetland and Forest Enhancement Project an ideal opportunity for the
Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation and its partners to showcase demonstration sites.The Oak
Ridges Trail Association (ORTA) has also committed to support the project by assisting with
stewardship duties associated with the near -by trail system.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNERS
TRCA will be responsible for the following activities under the project:
• Wetland restoration /creation implementation;
• Aquatic plant planting;
• Forest cover site preparation and planting (excluding college and public plantings);
• Providing site preparation and plant material for college student plantings and public
plantings;
• Habitat structure installation;
• Co- operatively leading the planning and implementation of a community event to
launch the site (public planting);
• Design and layout work and coordination of printing for the nature guide;
• Leading the content and design and printing of an interpretive sign for the wetland
demonstration site;
12
• Printing and assisting with the design of interpretive signs other than those at the
wetland demonstration site;
• Conducting 2 site visits (one in 2006 and one in 2007) to the wetland enhancement
project for technology transfer to Seneca faculty, staff and students; and
• Project management and accounting for financial details.
Seneca College (King Campus) will be responsible for the following activities under the project
partnership:
• Planting portions of the wildlife corridor, wetland buffer and old growth buffer, involving
college students from the Environmental Landscape Construction program, the Golf
Course Technician program and Recreation program, relevant environment -based
elective subjects, and the Environment Club
• One or more planting days involving local schools, organized by the Outdoor Centre
• Permission or administration required for any of the agriculture leases that may be
affected by project implementation.
• Any trail work that may be needed on the trail system as a result of the wetland
enhancement;
• Trail maintenance around the project sites including garbage removal (with support
from the Oak Ridges Trail Association).
• Implementing a Frog Watch or Marsh Monitoring Program through the staff, students,
and Environmental Committee as part of the site monitoring program;
• Preparation of content for the nature guide;
• Preparation of content for interpretive signage (excluding the wetland demonstration
site);
• Input into interpretive sign to be located at the wetland demonstration site;
• Assisting in community event planning and participation in event day;
• Coordination and organization of two faculty, staff and student site visits with TRCA staff
for technology transfer (one in 2006 and one in 2007); and
• On -going stewardship of the site including garbage removal, reporting of any vandalism
or ecological issues.
• Coordination of Seneca co -op student participation in project implementation.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
2006
Partner
Partner Cash
Contribution
Partner
In -kind
ORMF
$39,646
--
TRCA
*$15,000
$2,920
Seneca College
$10,000
$10,335
Outdoor Centre
--
$4,425
ORTA
--
$1,040
TOTAL
$64,646
$18,720
13
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS IN 2006: $83,366
*TRCA's 2006 cash contribution is through approved York Region capital budget.
2007
Partner
Partner Cash
Contribution
Partner
In -kind
ORMF
$32,819
--
TRCA
*$20,000
*$4,480
Seneca College
$10,000
$10,265
Outdoor Centre
--
$3,325
ORTA
--
$1,040
TOTAL
$62, 819
$19,110
TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2007: $81,929
*TRCA's 2007 contributions to be confirmed.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• TRCA to enter into an agreement with the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation as a partner
with Seneca College (King Campus) in the Eaton Hall Wetland and Forest Enhancement
project.
• TRCA to complete a detailed workplan with project partners.
• TRCA to include the Eaton Hall Wetland and Forest Enhancement project in 2007 requests
for capital funding.
Report prepared by: Lisa Turnbull, extension 5325
For Information contact: Lisa Turnbull, extension 5325
Date: March 22, 2006
Attachments: 1
14
Attachment 1
Eaton Hall Lake - Seneca College, King Campus
Eaton Hall lake
Seneca College
Complex
15
RES. #D7/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP
Extension of Term of Appointment. Extension of term of appointment for
Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group members
Gay Cowbourne
Maria Augimeri
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the term of appointment for
members of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group be extended for one
year to December 31, 2007, subject to confirmation of appointments by the municipalities
after the November, 2006 municipal election;
AND FURTHER THAT following the municipal elections on November 13, 2006, the
watershed municipalities appoint members to the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed
Resource Group.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority meeting #4/04, held on April 30, 2004, resolution #A130/04 adopted the
Implementation Framework for A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek, and
the Terms of Reference for the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group (DCWRG).
According to the Terms of Reference, the term of the DCWRG was to commence in the spring
of 2004 and continue until the end of the current term of municipal council in November 2006.
Since its formation, the DCWRG has guided the successful implementation of the Watershed
Plan for Duffins and Carruthers Creek. A recently completed assessment of progress on
implementation of the Watershed Plan, adopted at Authority meeting #6/05, on February 10,
2006, revealed tremendous success with 180 of the 202 recommendations in the watershed
plan being addressed. Given the changes that are occurring or may be forthcoming in the
watersheds, such as the proposed development on the Seaton lands and the proposed
Pickering Airport, the current membership of the DCWRG has expressed an interest in
continuing their efforts until the end of 2007. The extension will allow the DCWRG to address
Watershed Plan recommendations that have not been acted upon and follow through on
actions that have been initiated.
Members of the DCWRG are in favour of the term extension and at meeting #1/06, held on
February 22, 2006, adopted the following recommendation:
THAT the term of the DCWRG be extended until the end of 2007 in order to accomplish
objectives.
16
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for implementation of the watershed plan has been provided through municipal capital
budgets. Provisions to continue this work have been made in TRCA budgets and work plans
for 2006 and would have to be extended until the end of 2007. TRCA staff will continue to
pursue funds from other external sources and explore opportunities to build on existing
partnerships.
Report prepared by: Brent Bullough, extension 5392
For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385
Date: March 24, 2006
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #D8/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
HEALTHY YARDS PROGRAM
2006 Update. An update regarding the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) watershed -wide Healthy Yards Program.
Gay Cowbourne
Frank Dale
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the 2006 Healthy Yards Program update be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 2003, stewardship staff conducted an extensive review of yards - related programs, products
and services available to homeowners in the TRCA jurisdiction. The Healthy Yards Program
was designed to compliment these multiple offerings and to fill in any gaps that were identified.
The program also responded to homeowners' concerns regarding outdoor pesticide and water
use, and their frustration over a lack of alternative products and training opportunities.
The Healthy Yards Program provides watershed residents with the inspiration, information and
tools required to create naturally beautiful lawns and gardens. Workshops, fact sheets, a
website and pre - packaged garden and lawn kits ease the adoption of sustainable practices in
private yards. Continued support is offered through the website, feedback forms and annual
workshops to ensure sustainable behaviours are maintained.
Initial program offerings included a native plant workshop and kit (including one tree, two
shrubs and 25 wildflowers /grasses), a website (promoted with a bookmark) and a series of five
fact sheets (Naturescaping, Landscaping for Energy Conservation, Organic Lawn Care,
Butterfly Gardens and Beneficial Insects).
17
As the program gained support and momentum, additional products were developed including
packaged presentations related to natural insect control and bird and butterfly gardening, a
Healthy Yards display, seed packets and the very successful organic lawn care kit and
workshop. Pledges, participant questionnaires and "prompt" stickers have also been
developed to remind and encourage people to behave in a certain way.
The success of this program is based on a foundation of strong partnerships. Since 2003, the
Town of Markham, Rouge Park, garden clubs and residents associations have assisted greatly
with event promotion and program delivery in Markham.
In this municipality alone, the following accomplishments have been met:
• 1,400 information kits distributed;
• 484 trees and shrubs planted;
• 4,650 wildflowers /grasses planted;
• 120 birdhouses installed;
• 64 organic lawn care kits distributed;
• 10 public events held with about 700 people attending.
In 2005, stewardship staff met with the Town of Richmond Hill and a local naturalists club to
deliver a Healthy Yards Program in Richmond Hill. We also worked with staff from the City of
Toronto and the Highland Creek Environmental Stewardship Project to deliver the program in
Scarborough.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
2006 has already proven itself a fruitful year with the strengthening of existing partnerships and
establishment of new ones. Most noteworthy is the new partnership with York Region
Environmental Alliance to deliver a series of organic lawn care workshops, create a
Markham - specific lawn care manual and distribute 80 lawn care kits. The Town of Markham is
also heavily involved, providing both funding and in -kind support.
Also of great value are the new partnerships formed with Centreville Creek Environmental
Project, Caledon Countryside Alliance and Peel Region to deliver the Healthy Yards Program in
Brampton and Bolton. Together we will deliver two large events, distribute 30 native plant kits
and 30 organic lawn care kits, and pilot a garden visit program.
Also in Peel, the Malton Environmental Stewardship Program is adopting the Healthy Yards
Program and offering two spring workshops. Ten native plant kits and 20 organic lawn care kits
will be distributed to City of Mississauga residents.
In Toronto, partnerships with Toronto Water, LEAF, North Toronto Green Community and
South Mimico Stewardship Group have been strengthened, resulting in greater assistance
provided to small organizations, value -added events and higher participation levels.
Healthy Yards has also bloomed in the Town of Ajax and City of Pickering this year with
support from local municipalities and stewardship groups. A native plants workshop and sale
is planned for June and an organic lawn care workshop for September.
18
2006 deliverables include the following items:
• posting of a garden gallery on the Healthy Yards website (www.trca.on.ca /yards);
• establishment of a Healthy Yards hotline (extension 5714);
• planting of a demonstration meadow garden at the Boyd Office;
• development and delivery of a pilot garden visit program;
• creation of a bird garden fact sheet;
• delivery of about 25 workshops, covering various topics such as natural insect control,
organic lawn care, bird and butterfly gardens, arboriculture for the homeowner and
native plant gardening;
• distribution of 120 organic lawn care kits and 40 native plant kits to watershed
residents.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the Healthy Yards Program comes from the regional municipalities of York, Peel
and the City of Toronto, as well as the Remedial Action Plan, the Town of Markham and TD
Friends of the Environment Foundation. Native plant and organic lawn care kit recipients also
provide a small amount of revenue to this program. The Healthy Yards Program operating
budget for 2006 is $76,000.
Report prepared by: Colleen Cirillo, extension 5338
For Information contact: Colleen Cirillo, extension 5338
Date: April 07, 2006
RES. #D9/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES MORAINE COALITION
2005 Accomplishments. Update on the 2005 accomplishments of the
Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition.
Gay Cowbourne
Elaine Moore
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the report and brochure on the 2005 accomplishments of
the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The nine conservation authorities with watersheds on the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM)
partnered together in late 2000 as the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC). The
mission of the CAMC is to:
• advance the science and understanding of the Oak Ridges Moraine; and
• work towards government, agency and community support for the form, function and
linkages of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
The goals of the CAMC are to:
• define and protect natural heritage and water resource systems of the Oak Ridges Moraine
through watershed studies and monitoring;
19
• support an accessible trail system;
• ensure effective stewardship services on the moraine; and
• build partnerships to provide education, information and land securement opportunities on
the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Gayle Wood, Chief Administrative Officer of Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority,
served as Chair of CAMC for 2005. David Burnett, Manager, Provincial and Regional Policy,
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), has been the coordinator of the CAMC
since mid -2001.
2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The brochure in Attachment 1 details the accomplishments of the CAMC in 2005. Highlights
include:
• the permanent protection of 208 hectares of significant ORM land through the acquisition of
four new properties, including two parcels totaling 61 hectares in the Duffins Creek
watershed;
• the creation of a stewardship handbook for rural non -farm landowners on the ORM titled
"Caring for Your Land ";
• the completion of 21 stewardship projects that restored more than 56 hectares of land;
• the completion of an interim version of model watershed policies titled "Watershed Planning
- from Recommendations to Municipal Policies - A Guidance Document ";
• the undertaking of drilling programs to locate potential new sources of groundwater supply;
and
• the expansion of the core groundwater model to include all of Peel Region.
Numerous TRCA staff from the following divisions were instumental to the ORM achievements
made by TRCA under the CAMC umbrella:
• Watershed Management - development of the ORM -wide landowner contact program;
contributions to the "Caring for Your Land" landowner stewardship manual; on- the - ground
stewardship projects.
• Restoration Services - on- the - ground stewardship projects.
• Planning and Development - CAMC coordinator and planner.
• Finance and Business Services - securement of 2 properties in the Duffins Creek
watershed.
• Ecology - permeable pavement research; commenting on related provincial technical
guidelines; contributions to the York -Peel- Durham - Toronto groundwater program.
• CAO's Office - contributions to ORM promotional and educational products currently under
development.
The CAMC has distributed the 2005 accomplishment brochure to ORM municipal councils and
senior staff, provincial MPPs, federal MPs, CAMC partners and ORM stakeholders. The
brochure is also posted on the TRCA website.
Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361
For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361
Date: February 06, 2006
Attachments: 1
20
Together We Can Protect the Moraine
lire nine Conservation Authorities (CA) on the Oak Ridges Moraine are .corking hard to protect it.
Our stewardship programs ":
• Managed ForeSt Program
Private land Tree Planting
•
• cral Clean evater Program
• • Conservation Seminars
• Agricultural Stewardship
• Public Widget Monitoring
• Conservation Easements
t Gifts
•nram .n now nor all wino, are
weem5 by all C.,
Call your local CA to find
nut how gnu can help:
Central lake Ontario !CLOCA)
e•✓wcloca.com • 905.579.041 I
Credit Valley (CVCI
wm.creditvalle,,,cons. ro9,
905 i.l0,15
Ganaraska Region (GRCA)
w.vw.Fna ono • 905885.8173
NawaNta Region (KRCA)
w.'.kawanhac morvatien.c0rn
1115,328
21,. e
lake 5irncue Region (LSRCAI
,nwn%arca.onca • 905.895.1251
tower Trent (8118)
ww.v.11c.onu • 613.394.4829
lvettawasege Valley RVVCAI
1. • 705 -424 -1429
Olonanee Region R)RCAI
• 705-745-5791
Toronto and Region (TR18)
wwr rrca.on.rn • 418-68146W
sent
o
the C Asir 11 /11 Authorities M1)6d1110'
o.daron M he nine;; C )r Se 1 sat/int Aefht)rill5 S whose watorsllr} ,at
hour rhosulciu tie.the(131<RidgenMoranikt
Accomp
In 2Q05 the nine partners in the
Cor sgrvation Authorities Moraine Coalition
achieved some significant milestones in
their work on the Oak Ridges Moraine:
Over 208 Hectares of sir odicant. Oak Ridges
Moraine lands permanently protected through the
acquisition of 4 new properties
Partner in the creation of "Caring for Your Land ",
an Oak Ridges lvloraine stewardship handbook for
rural, non -farm landowners
Drilling programs to locate potential new sources of
groundwater supply and expansion of the
groundwater model to include all of Peel Region
*Completed 21 stewardship projects to restore more
Man 56 ha of land
To advance the science and understanding of the Oak
Ridges Moraine.
To work toward government, agency and community
support for the conservation and protection of the
form, function and linkages of the Oak Ridges ,Moraine.
CAMC Goals
*To define and protect natural heritage and water
resource systems of the Oak Ridges Moraine through
watershed studies and monitoring.
o support an accessible trail system.
To ensure effective stewardship services on the Oak
Ridges Moraine.
To build partnerships to provide education, information
and land securement opportunities on the Oak Ridges
Moraine.
In April 2005, with support from the Oak
Ridges Moraine Foundation, the Ganaraska
Region CA conducted a prescribed burn
Onset photo) to help restore atallgrass
prairie remnant in the Ganaraska forest.
Watershed, Planning & Polic Activities
CAMC member conservation authorities worked with their
municipal partners to prepare watershed plans and water
budgets to meet the requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan (ORMCP). In addition, members worked on
other related initiatives, such as:
Completing and distributing an interim version of model
watershed policies entitled "Watershed Planning
- from Recommendations to Municipal
Policies - A Guidance Document"
',Reviewing and commenting on related
provincial policy documents including:
.9 technical guidelines prepared by
the Ministry of the Environment for
the water policies of the ORMCP
.2 Environmental Standards &
Highway design guidelines from the
Ministry of Transportation
.The Policies & Procedures Manual for the
Administration of the Aggregate Resources
Act, prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources
"Publishing an article in the Ontario Planning Journal
describing how the ORMCP was interpreted at five Ontario
Municipal Board hearings
'Mapping for the Townships of Alnwick /Haldinland and
Cramahe for their ORMCP conformity zoning by -law.
amendments
Research Activities
In keeping with the mission of
CAMC and it individual members,
a number 01 research projects are
advancing the science and
understanding of the Oak Ridges
Moraine. In addition to the
groundwater and watershed
'.studies, research is also being
undertaken to evaluate the
ffectiveness of permeable
pavement in helping to
restore natural infiltration
functions. This includes
monitoring of soil quality,
surface heat flux, runoff
rates, and the quality of
surface runoff and infiltrated
water. Appropriately, monitoring
equipment is powered by solar
panels and a wind turbine as a
part of 1 RCA's Sustainable
Technologies Evaluation Program
(STEP).
Stewardshi • and Land Securement Acti
As a founding member of the Oak Ridges Moraine Stewardship Partners Alliance (ORMSPA), CAMC
partnered with more than 30 organizations plus individual private landowners to:
Restore habitats or, the moraine by
completing 21 stewardship projects on more
than 56 ha of land, including planting of
more than 20,000 trees and shrubs, wetland
creation, riparian habitat restoration and
prairie creation
" Permanently protect significant Oak Ridges
Moraine lands through the acquisition of 4
new properties totaling over 208 ha
including:
.61 ha in the Duffins Creek watershed in the
Township of Uxbridge
.100 ha in the Enniskillen Valley (totaling
over 240 ha secured in the area)
.47.2 ha of Natural Core Area Lands in the
Burnley Creek watershed in
Alnwick /Haldimand
'Produce and distribute "Caring
for Your Land', an Oak Ridges
Moraine stewardship handbook
for rural non -farm landowners
Seven of the nine .Moraine
Conservation Authorities, with many
other stewardship partners active on
the Moraine and with funding
support from the Oak Ridges
Moraine Foundation. have been
working on a partnership project to
irnplement landowner contact and stewardship
projects in strategic areas on the Moraine - 2005
was the pilot year and the project is still in the
development stages, with hopes of beginning
implementation in spring 2006
Groundwater & Hydro :eolo:fcal Activities.,.11
The successful partnership that began in 2000 between the CAMC and
the Regions of York, Peel and Durham and the City of Toronto (YPDT)
continued in 2005. The key focus areas of the groundwater program
continued to be data management, geological understanding,
numerical groundwater modeling and policy development.
Highlights include:
Drilling programs to determine the depth and
extent of bedrock valleys and to locate potential
new sources of sustainable water supplies:
.near Port Perry in Durham Region, to about
70 metres depth
.south of Caledon East in Peel Region. to
about 152 metres depth
•west of Barrie where coarse grained
materials from ground surface to bedrock
indicate significant potential for
groundwater use
T airing of technical staff of the partner
agencies to develop their skills in specific
software applications and modeling
Natural Heritage Activities
Preparation of two
scientific papers, in
collaboration with the
Geological Survey of Canada and the Ontario
Geological Survey (OGS), discussing
sedimentation and groundwater resources
within the Caledon bedrock channel and the
Laurentian valley system near Schomberg
Presentations at the Latornell Conference, an
OGS Source Water Protection workshop and at
the annual meeting of the municipal
Environmental Advisory Committees
CAM me "; b2r,.` irf¢ g s `ran "eco oglets advanc
partnerships and natural heritage science on the Oak
Ridges Moraine by:
Completing Ecological Land Classification mapping for all
Oak Ridges Moraine headwaters that feed into the Lake
Simcoe watershed
"Finishing a Baseline Biological Inventory for the East Cross
Forest project, including bird, amphibian, plant, and
vegetation community inventories, and producing a draft
report summarizing current conditions and defining
protection, restoration and securement priorities
Digitizing the mapping of Wetlands and Forest areas for the
entire Nottawasaga Valley watershed, including the Oak
Ridges Moraine lands
"Rerouting a portion of the Oak Ridges Trail through Purple
Moods Conservation Area (north end of the City of Oshawa)
through an initiative of Central Take Ontario CA and the
Oak Ridges Trail Association
Completed Phase 1 of the Ganaraska Plains Initiative,
involving a prescribed burn and subsequent plant
inventory of the Ochonski Prairie site in the Ganaraska
Forest; modeling and :mapping forest and tallgrass
restoration priorities over the GRCA's portion of the
moraine
!! <. .S
Ccntrr.lor l .0 d &itiyate
Sh:traf cL flip - I rmts.lr:ily' Of'
t,u,- (Isli�
flit, Of iorfiet0
{'nit 1)111 .11'10
Uf1�at laic. Yusl'.ai1 atiih ty fund
C; 11;171 C.4 Surf 09 01 1 .10acla
N,lllf i' C011,Sl?I'.31149' pl 4
tl rl I (d:,ex li a 1s>ocf.ition
(inter° (,s'Olo>;rl .1 sun..oi
f)RAf 1 .undatiou
°Rist land Trust
OR4I d'ltnlioq,aairinw,
CIRRI SI ivarilsh111 Costa dis
l'!t.,!'IIiF£'
41110cn COI IE,;,0 - king t..unpus
\v,^tlan11 lirlinl.L. fund'. Lkildhfe
1- l41)itnt 1.491 9 ;fa
111ada
RES. #D10 /06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes #4/05 and #1/06 held on October 18, 2005 and February 21,
2006 respectively.. The minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance
meeting #4/05 and #1/06, held on October 18, 2005 and February 21,
2006, respectively, are provided for information.
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting
#4/05 and #1/06, held on October 18, 2005 and February 21, 2006, respectively, as
appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December 2003 and
adopted by the Authority at meeting #10/03, held on January 9, 2004, by resolution #A289/03,
includes the following provision:
3.9 Reporting Relationship
The Humber Watershed Alliance is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed Management
Advisory Board. The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, at least, on a semi - annual basis on
projects and progress.
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: March 21, 2006
RES. #D11 /06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE MINUTES
Minutes of Meeting #1/06, January 13, 2006. The Minutes of Meeting
#1/06, held on January 13, 2006, are provided for information.
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Rouge Park Alliance Meeting #1/06, held
on January 13, 2006, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Rouge Park Alliance are provided to the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authortiy through the Chair of the Authority, who is a member of the Rouge Park
Alliance, and forwarded to the Watershed Management Advisory Board for their information.
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: March 31, 2006
23
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:33 a.m., on Friday, April 21, 2006.
Nancy Stewart
Vice Chair
/ks
24
Brian Denney
Secretary- Treasurer
(..
erTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/06
June 16, 2006
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/06, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, June 16, 2006. The Vice Chair Nancy
Stewart, called the meeting to order at 10:42 a.m..
PRESENT
Maria Augimeri Member
Gay Cowbourne Member
Frank Dale Member
Elaine Moore Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Nancy Stewart Vice Chair
ABSENT
Shelley Petrie Member
Dave Ryan Chair
RES. #D12 /06 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Frank Dale
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/06, held on April 21, be approved.
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A letter dated May 29, 2006 from Councillor Brian Ashton, City of Toronto, in regards to
item 7.1 - Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project.
RES. #D13 /06 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Elaine Moore
Gay Cowbourne
THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received.
CARRIED
25
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
tiiitTonuNro
c Jrc
[male AsEJiidl
TOrcri. c C CO _1 Ci
Wall 36
yborriuSh
Brian Dczmcv. 1'.Eng ,
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,
5 Shoreham Drive,
17ownsview, Ontario
M3N 154
Dar Mr. Denney
May 29, 2006,
Re: McndoweliifcShoreline Sectnt
T/IRQNir7 TP.d 1iIT :�7farlli5'th
CoM.%l 35I7HER
1 have been working with the Mcadowcli ffe community, TRCA and City staff for
several years on erosion concerns and related issues for this shoreline sector between Oates
Cully srnd Bluffer's Park.
In 2001 TRCA euatniission c4 Tcr-raprobc to undertake a geotechnical review of slope
stability and erosion for Meadoweliffe Drive which resulted in the City undertaking some
drainage improvern.enls and TRCA increasing its shorelineerosion monitoring.
With increasing slope erosion concerns from the rodents over the last r iiple of years;
TRCA had Terraprobe complete a, further` geotechnical study dated April 26, 2006. Through a
briefing from Ter aprohe and TRCA staff,, it is my understanding that significant changes have
occurred in slope crest recession especially in the east agcd,acentral poriions of the study area_
With the 2005 information, the slope toe and the long -t:emt stable slope crest were plotted
indicating a significant change liom the 2001 report. 'late consult:.ant eras also reconuncnding
completion of all drainage works in accordance with. finer 2002 study and design. f am
following up with City staff to ensure all drainage works are implemented to minimize
overland drainage impacts on slope crest erosion.
26
On May 3, 2006 l convened a community meeting for TRC:/V 1'erruprube to present the
April, 2006 report findings and to obtain community comments. TRCA staff indicated that
based on the new study they would be recom nendine to the Authority that the appropriate
environmental assessment study be initiated to determine: the appropriate~ shoreline
management design to address public Safely and natural heritage issues. 1 would suggest Thai
the study area not only include the Nlcadowcliffc section but also the remaining shoreline over
to Bluffers Park,
As Councillor for this area and on hehalf of the Me<idowctiffe community 1 strongly
enwurage the Watershed Management Advisory Board at its June 16th meeting. to approve
moving forward with the environmental assessment work. 'Ibis work will beeritir al in
providing a solution before homes are at risk and allocating the capital monies in subsequent
Toronto funded TRCA budgets. 1 offer to assist TRGA at the appropriate time on your capital
shoreline erosion control budget submission and approval.
Upon approval by the Authority, i would recommend TRCA continue with its very
sueecssfid "community working committee" approach (le Sylvan Ave. project) for the
environmental amassment and implementation phases.
Hook forward to working with TRCA and participating on the community working
committee tor the Mcadowcliffc project.
Yours truly,
l3AJdf
c.c. Larry held, TRCA
Jim Berry. TRCA
Councillor Brian Ashton,
Scarborough Southwest — Ward 36.
27
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D14/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
MEADOWCLIFFE DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Initiation of the Class Environmental Assessment process for the
Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project, Scarborough Bluffs, City of
Toronto.
Gay Cowbourne
Maria Augimeri
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT based on the recommendations
in the April 2006 Terraprobe "Geotechnical Review of Slope Stability and Erosion" report
and the 2005 ranking in our Erosion Priority List, the shoreline management options for
the Meadowcliffe Drive Sector be expanded beyond the recommendations cited in the
1996 Integrated Shoreline Management Plan;
THAT staff be directed to commence a Class Environmental Assessment for the
Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project, Scarborough Bluffs, City of Toronto, to
review and evaluate a range of shoreline management options;
AND FURTHER THAT Councillor Brian Ashton and Toronto Water and Parks, Forestry &
Recreation be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Meadowcliffe Drive Sector is located along the Scarborough Bluffs and comprises
approximately 1,400 metres of shoreline extending from Gates Gully westerly to the East Beach
at Bluffers Park. Roughly half of the tableland at this sector is dedicated greenspace at Cudia
Park, located to the west of Meadowcliffe Drive and east of Lakehill Crescent. The remaining
portion of tableland at Meadowcliffe Drive and Lakehill Crescent is privately owned with 21
residential properties that back onto the bluffs. The 600 metres of bluffs along Meadowcliffe
Drive are approximately 57 metres high with an average inclination of about 1.2 : 1 (horizontal :
vertical), with the shoreline in direct contact with the bluff toe. The slope face is generally bare
of vegetation with some localized areas of sparse vegetation on the upper slope. Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff have been monitoring erosion rates on
Meadowcliffe Drive since 1985 at the request of several homeowners who have expressed
concern over the loss of property and the potential long -term risk to their homes.
In 1996, TRCA prepared the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (ISMP) to provide a more
detailed understanding of the shoreline ecosystem within the boundaries of Tommy Thompson
Park and Frenchman's Bay, and to provide the necessary framework for TRCA and local
municipalities to establish priorities for future initiatives and for evaluating site - specific shoreline
erosion works, protection of natural features, lakefilling, habitat protection and regeneration,
private development and public recreation activities. The ISMP states that the shoreline of
Reach 38, Meadowcliffe Drive, should remain in a natural state because it represents one of the
few unprotected and natural shores of the Scarborough Bluffs.
In 2001, following a period of accelerated erosion, TRCA commissioned Terraprobe Limited to
carry out a geotechnical review of slope stability and erosion along the Lake Ontario shoreline
immediately south of Meadowcliffe Drive. This study included a review of historical air photos,
soil and groundwater conditions, erosion processes and rates, detailed slope stability analysis,
coastal engineering review and recommended erosion protection.
In their final report dated November 27, 2001, Terraprobe provided calculations of slope crest
erosion rates between 1991 and 2001 and determined that localized crest'Ioss ranged from 6
to 12 metres at the west part of the study area, to about 2 to 3.5 metres at the east part of the
study area. Noting that the erosion was primarily the result of toe erosion by wave action and
surface run -off flowing over the slope crest, the following recommendations were made:
• A significant upgrade of the stormwater collection system along the Meadowcliffe Drive
right -of -way.
• Connection of existing roof eavestroughs to the street storm sewer.
• Construction of small earth berms along the slope crest.
• Placing boulders near the shore on an experimental basis, as recommended in the 1996
Integrated Shoreline Management Plan.
• Planting /seeding along the gullies and on bare slope areas.
29
Recommended further studies included:
• Continued monitoring of the slope crest on an annual or bi- annual basis.
• A stormwater management assessment of the area to determine the quantities of surface
run -off over the slope crest.
Following the release of the 2001 Terraprobe report, staff continued to monitor the slope crest
on an annual basis and the City of Toronto commissioned the firm of Winter Burnside to carry
out a storm drainage study for the Meadowcliffe Drive area. The release of the Winter Burnside
report in November 2002 resulted in several upgrades being carried out by the City of Toronto
in 2004. It is understood that these improvements included depression storage, enhanced
ditches and storm sewers, and a landscaping component.
In the spring of 2005, slides occurred along several sections of the Scarborough Bluffs,
including Meadowcliffe Drive. Numerous homeowners expressed concern to Councillor
Ashton's office over the extent of property lost in a single year. In response to the residents'
concerns, TRCA commissioned Terraprobe Limited in 2005 to re- assess the site and slope
conditions and compare these findings with their 2001 report, and to provide recommendations
on slope and erosion stabilization works.
As part of this study, detailed measurements of the slope crest position were taken relative to
existing structures and features at each of the 12 residential properties. Based on Terraprobe's
measurements, slope crest recession rates ranged from 0.04 to 2.14 metres per year between
2000 and 2005. Toe erosion rates were inferred through a comparison of the shoreline
positions available on maps of air photos from 1980, 1991, 2002 and 2005, indicating that the
toe receded at an average rate of about 1.1 to 1.3 metres per year between 1980 and 2005. As
a general trend, localized deepening in the lake bed topography was also noted in the order of
0.2 to 0.3 metres and may be attributed to ongoing erosion and recession of the toe. It was
also noted that the potential for waves to uprush and erode the slope toe increases with the
deepening of the lake bed.
Based on the 2005 slope stability analysis results, the long -term stable slope crest (LTSSC) is
predicted to be projected inland by a further 48 metres on average from the 2005 slope crest.
This LTSSC was determined under the assumption that wave erosion at the slope toe had
been mitigated, however it must be noted that wave erosion is currently still an active force at
the slope toe and that the LTSSC will continue to move further inland if the toe continues to
recede.
The final report, dated April 26, 2006 illustrates the long term risk to the Meadowcliffe
properties by providing a minimum distance from each property to the LTSSC, which clearly
indicates that three houses are within the LTSSC and two others are less than 10 metres from
the LTSSC. Two additional houses are within 15 metres of the LTSSC; one house is within 25
metres; and the remaining four houses are within 44 to 69 metres. Also within the LTSSC is the
easternmost portion of Meadowcliffe Drive and the associated storm water collection drains.
Based on the significant recession of the slope toe and respective recession of the LTSSC,
Terraprobe strongly recommends that shoreline protection works be implemented in addition
to implementing the remaining stormwater drainage improvements recommended in the 2002
Winter Burnside report.
30
In May 2006, staff attended a public meeting hosted by Councillor Ashton's office for the
Meadowcliffe Drive residents. The purpose of the meeting was to present the findings in
Terraprobe's 2005 report and to give the property owners an opportunity to voice their
concerns in an open forum. At the meeting the public requested that action be taken to provide
long -term protection for the shoreline, and TRCA has since received a letter from Councillor
Ashton's office in support of this initiative.
RATIONALE
Based on the significant change in recession rates the high ranking on our 2005 Erosion
Priority List and the support of Councillor Brian Ashton /Meadowcliffe Community for immediate
action, staff recommend that we investigate a broader range of shoreline management
alternatives than described in the ISMP, and that we evaluate these options through the Class
Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (2002); the
prescribed process for projects of this type.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff recommend that the study area be expanded beyond Meadowcliffe Drive to include the
area from Bluffers Park east to Gates Gully to gain a thorough understanding of the coastal
processes affecting the site and the shoreline sector east of Bluffers Park, and to ensure that
the alternative options developed address natural heritage, public access and public safety
issues along the shoreline.
The planning and design phases of this project will be carried out under the Class
Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Project (2002). The Class
Environmental Assessment (Class EA) approach is considered a suitable means for the
planning of remedial flood and erosion control projects because it provides a consistent,
streamlined process that ensures compliance with Environmental Assessment Act (EAA)
requirements.
The planning and design process of a Class EA project is illustrated in as follows:
Yq;
INRIATE CLASS EA
I UBLISH NOTICE OF INTENT
l
LSLAUL1S1! CONLIUM 1 Y
LIA SON COMMITTEE
PHLIPAHL UASLLINL
ENVIRONMENTAL I NVENTC 41
4
EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE REfLEOIAL MEASURES A I
SELECT PREFERRED MEASURE
COHUUCI ULIAILLU ANALYSIS GI LNVU ONVILNlAL INFRA..
L M A J ALL EHVI RONM�11 AL IM ?ACI S CIE
CED, MITIGATED OR COrAPENSATED7
N^
PREPARE PROJECT PLAN
1
PROVIDE NOTICE OF FILING TO
INTERESTED PARTIES
IAppenitx L1
i
PREPARE AND FILL worleL of
ADDENDUM AS NECESSARY TO
ADDRESS CO4 MENIS
'At VAU th
rPliAkARE Eh1VIRONMENYAL STUDY REPORT
1
IAaE I1.1PAGT5 DEEMEDACCEPTABLE4 I
I roA;
I PUBLISH NOTICE OF FILING FOR REVIEW
Il . &,,.walk F
ARE ALL CONCERNS ADOREESED4
(No Pu-t II Orsr I 111=Z)
IYes
PROJECT APPROVED UNDER EA ACT
PROVIDE NOTICE Of PROJECT APPROVAL
& PROCEED TO CONSTRUCTION
IPPF =L]ItF 17;
No
•
PREPARE 1HDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMCNI OR
REASSESS PROGRAM CATION
19pAFkIi- 1A1
rrart II
Omer
VLJPURTER OF ENVIRONMEIIr
REVIEWS PART II ORDER REQUEST
Re.lueul
f7AnIAA
As indicated in Step 2, a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) will be established as part of
the Class EA process. Staff are committed to working with the Councillor's office in the
formation of the CLC, and will request representation from the City of Toronto and local
community groups to ensure that all views and concerns are taken into consideration during
the development and evaluation of alternative options.
The Class EA process includes retaining geotechnical and coastal engineering consultants to
assist staff in the development of alternative options and in the detailed design of the preferred
alternative.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
It is anticipated that the study, design and approvals for this project will cost approximately
$120,000 over two years. Funding is available from the City of Toronto in TRCA's Valley and
Erosion Control budget under account code 145 -01.
Report prepared by: Moranne Burnet, 416- 392 -9690
For Information contact: Moranne Burnet, 416 - 392 -9690
Date: May 29, 2006
32
RES. #D15/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ATWOOD PLACE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Initiation of the Class Environmental Assessment process for the Atwood
Place Erosion Control Project, 4 -8 Atwood Place, Humber River
watershed, City of Toronto.
Gay Cowbourne
Maria Augimeri
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to commence a
Class Environmental Assessment for the Atwood Place Erosion Control Project, 4 -8
Atwood Place, City of Toronto.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Atwood Place is a residential cul -de -sac bordering on the Humber Parklands near Islington
Avenue and Finch Avenue West in the City of Toronto. Three residential dwellings at Nos. 4, 6
and 8 Atwood Place have rear yards that back onto the coincident slope in the park. Situated
between the rear yards of these properties and the top of bank, is a heavily used footpath
which connects from the right -of -way on Atwood Place to a formal pedestrian path located
approximately 100 metres downstream.
A review of staff files indicate that riverbank erosion has been occurring along this outside
meander of the Humber River since as early as 1978, when the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) first added Atwood Place to the list for annual erosion
monitoring at the request of a local homeowner. While monitoring records to date demonstrate
that there is no imminent risk to the houses, ongoing erosion has threatened the heavily used
footpath since at least 1998.
Correspondence with the City of Toronto Parks department in 1998 indicates that the footpath,
although not maintained by Parks, is recognized as a well - traveled trail despite the potential
hazards. To address these concerns, TRCA agreed to carry out interim measures solely to
protect the footpath until a more permanent solution could be implemented. These measures,
completed in 1998, included minor bank re- grading, jute logs placed at the toe of slope, and a
post and cable fence installed at the top of bank. As of staff's last inspection in November
2005, the jute logs have disappeared, the slope is oversteepened, sections of the fence are
missing and /or failing, and the footpath has been reduced to less than 0.5 metres in width at
several sections. A large erosion scar has also formed downstream of the slope in the
floodplain, creating a risk to the pedestrian bridge.
A site meeting was held between TRCA and Parks department staff on November 25, 2005 to
discuss an appropriate course of action to protect public safety. The option of preventing
access by installing barriers and heavily vegetating the area was considered, however the
Parks department reiterated the concern that people will continue to use the footpath despite
these efforts. TRCA staff also expressed the desire to provide long -term protection for the
houses at Nos. 4, 6 and 8 Atwood, which are anticipated to be at risk in the next 15 -20 years if
no remedial works are undertaken. A consensus was reached at this meeting that the preferred
option is to provide formal protection for the pathway and downstream pedestrian bridge,
thereby providing long -term protection for the houses on Atwood Drive.
33
RATIONALE
This site has ranked 6th, on average, on TRCA's Erosion Priority List since 1999 and therefore
has not ranked high enough to be considered for remedial works under our Erosion Monitoring
and Maintenance Program. However, because the issue is one of public safety with respect to
the footpath and pedestrian bridge, this project is eligible under the Parks Priority Program,
whereby the City of Toronto annually identifies a list of priority sites on TRCA property which
require remedial or maintenance works.
Recognizing that this project presents an opportunity to meet the City of Toronto's objective of
protecting the footpath and pedestrian bridge, and TRCA's objective of providing long -term
protection of private property, staff request that the Class Environmental Assessment process
be initiated to determine a preferred remedial measure of erosion control.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The planning and design phases of this project will be carried out under the Class
Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Project (2002). The Class
Environmental Assessment (Class EA) approach is considered a suitable means for the
planning of remedial flood and erosion control projects because it provides a consistent,
streamlined process that ensures compliance with Environmental Assessment Act (EAA)
requirements.
The planning and design process of a Class EA project is illustrated below:
YQ6
I EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL MEASURES Or
SELECT PREFERRED MEASURE
INITIATE CLASS EA
1'LIBU$H NOTICE OF IINTE3JT
LSTAUUSH COMMUNITY
LIA:SOH COMMITTEE
1
PREPARE BASELINE
ENVIROILMENTAL INVENTORY
CONDUCT DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ICAN ALL CNVIRONMENFALIMPA.CTS DE
AVOICFJD, MITIGATED OR COMPENSATED?
PREPARE PROJECT PLAN
1
PROVIDE NOTICE OF FILING TO
INTERESTED PARTIES
lAo =enil: C1
1
PRCPARL AND FILL NOFLCC OF
ADDENDUM AS `1ECESSATIV TO
ADDRESS COMMCNIS
: 1PeloJu E"1
Nn
U-I.he Ler. •
PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL BTUDYREPORT
ILL *J
L
ARE IMPACTS OEESIED ACCFFTAGLET
1 w
I PUBLISH NOTICE OF FILING FOR RERUN Il i,o{^,paMM F.
,
1
ARE ALL COACr7iN 9 ADDRESSED?
(VD Vol 11 Orre• I-c -lu,
4
Yes
PROJECT APPRO>+E1 UYDER E0. ACT
PROVIDE NO f ICL Of PROJECT APPROVAL
& PROCEED TO COI,STRUCflOI9
HeP .1]lac 1'
No
1
PREPARE DIDIYIDUALENVIRONMENITAL
ASSLSSICENT OH
REASSESS PROGRAM OPTION
1611A RlI11R 1A1
Port 11
Order
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT
REVIEWS PART 0 CINDER REQUEST
R•aueel
flRnhrl
34
The Class EA process includes retaining geotechnical engineering and geomorphology
consultants to assist staff in the development of alternative options and in the detailed design
of the preferred alternative.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
It is anticipated that the study, design and approvals for this project will cost approximately
$50,000 over one year. Funding is available from the City of Toronto in TRCA's Valley and
Erosion Control budget under account code 155 -01.
Report prepared by: Moranne Burnet, 416 - 392 -9690
For Information contact: Moranne Burnet, 416- 392 -9690
Date: May 26, 2006
RES. #D16/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
REVISED BUDGET FOR THE DELIVERY AGREEMENT FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE NATURALIZATION AND
FLOOD PROTECTION OF THE LOWER DON RIVER
Funding increase to undertake the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port
Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment.
Gay Cowbourne
Maria Augimeri
WHEREAS the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been identified as
the recipient agency to undertake the naturalization and flood protection of the mouth of
the Don;
WHEREAS the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) and TRCA signed a
delivery agreement in December 2002 for the sum of $2 million dollars for the delivery of
two projects: the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project (LDRW) and
the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project (DMNP);
WHEREAS the Delivery Agreement was subsequently increased to $3 million in late
summer 2004 in recognition of the requirement to undertake two separate environmental
assessments, increased administration costs, additional design requirements and the
complexity of the issues;
WHEREAS TRCA and TWRC have recommended to the three levels of government that
the Delivery Agreement be increased by a further $1,018,460.00 (excluding TWRC project
management costs) in recognition of an expanded scope of work and study area, added
complexity related to new waterfront issues and an increased contingency to address
uncertainty related to other possible issues, such as the World's Fair Bid;
35
WHEREAS TRCA has nearly completed the Stage One Project activities with the
submission of the DMNP Project Environmental Assessment (EA) Terms of Reference to
the Ministry of Environment on May 5, 2006;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
AUTHORITY THAT TRCA enter into an amended Eligible Recipient Agreement with TWRC
providing an additional $1,018,460.00 (excluding any additional costs for TWRC) for the
second stage of the DMNP Project;
THAT following authorization by TWRC, the contract for the consultant team led by
Gartner Lee Limited be increased from $1,182,100.00 to $1,706,716.39 plus $256,007.46
for contingencies;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to
implement the foregoing, including the signing of any documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 2002, a $2 million Delivery Agreement for the Naturalization and Flood
Protection for the Lower Don River was signed between the TWRC and TRCA. This Delivery
Agreement called for two separate environmental assessments to be conducted at the mouth
of the Don River: the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project, which has been
completed and has proceeded to construction, and the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port
Lands Flood Protection Project. The DMNP Project will require detailed land -use planning
through an individual environmental assessment to devise the best solution to re- establish a
natural, functioning wetland at the mouth of the Don River, while providing flood protection to
approximately 230 hectares of land south and east of the existing Keating Channel.
In October 2003, the TWRC and TRCA approached the three levels of government to approve
a $1 million increase in funding for the two projects under this Delivery Agreement due to the
recognition of the requirement to undertake two separate environmental assessments, the
increased administration costs and the additional design requirements involved. This increase
in funding was approved by the TWRC in September 2004. Gartner Lee Limited (GLL) was
awarded the contract to undertake the EA for the DMNP Project at an upset cost of
$1,149,400.00 as per Authority Resolution #A37/04, February 27, 2004. GLL was later assigned
the hydraulic modelling component of the project bringing the upset cost of their award to
$1,182,100.00 as per Sole Source RFQ #1/05 authorization.
Stage 1 of this Individual EA is to undertake an EA Terms of Reference (EA ToR). The EA ToR
outlines the project background, range of alternatives, criteria to be used in evaluating
alternatives and public consultation to be used during the actual EA (Stage 2). A
comprehensive public consultation process was also utilized to develop the EA ToR.
36
Early in the development of the EA ToR, it was apparent that given the extensive infrastructure
constraints surrounding the mouth of the Don, that the original proposed alignment for the
naturalized mouth of the Don, directly into the Inner Harbour, may not provide sufficient
opportunities to achieve the desired goals: to provide for a naturalized mouth of the Don and to
remove the risk of flooding to lands surrounding the Don. TRCA received approval from TWRC
to increase our study area to examine a 300 metre wide swath of land from the Don Roadway
westward that extended southward to the Ship Channel and encompassed the entire proposed
Don Greenway.
Furthermore, the complexity in land use planning in the surrounding areas (such as the Port
Lands Implementation Strategy, Film Port Studios, Worlds Exposition Bid, etc.) have greatly
increased since 2003 when the original Request for Proposals was released, resulting in much
more complexity to be considered during the EA process.
Recognizing this expanded scope of work and complexity, TWRC has approved TRCA's
request in February 2006 for an additional $1,018,460.00 (including a 15% contingency) to
undertake the EA for the DMNP Project, which will result in an approved budget for the Delivery
Agreement of $4,018,460.00. This increase will include a new approved budget for GLL of
$1,706,716.39 plus $256,007.46 in contingencies.
TWRC is awaiting approval from the levels of government to officially revise the Contribution
Agreement and Delivery Agreement for this project. Until such time, TRCA will finalize all Stage
1 activities (EA ToR) through the Ministry of Environment, as per Authority Resolution
#A302/05, January 25, 2006, and will, upon approval of the EA ToR, proceed with all Stage 2
activities for the DMNP EA to an upset limit of the currently approved $3.0 million budget under
the current Delivery Agreement.
Report prepared by: Ken Dion, extension 5230
For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230
Date: May 26, 2006
RES. #D17/06 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DON MOUTH
NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION
PROJECT
Community Liaison Committee. Update on the Don Mouth Naturalization
and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Terms of Reference and
Community Liaison Committee Membership.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Maria Augimeri
37
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the updated membership of the
Community Liaison Committee (CLC) for the second stage of the Environmental
Assessment for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project,
be approved.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection (DMNP) Project will transform
the existing mouth of the Don River into a sustainable and functional naturalized river mouth,
while removing the risk of flooding to 230 hectares of land east and south of the river.
The DMNP is being conducted as an Individual Environmental Assessment (EA). A Terms of
Reference (ToR) is required as the first stage of a two stage Environmental Assessment Act
(EM) approval process in the Province of Ontario. The ToR for the DMNP was submitted to the
Minister of Environment on May 5, 2006. The public comment period ended on June 5, 2006.
Comments are now being addressed so that the Minister can approve the ToR and the project
proceed to the next stage.
On February 28, 2005, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting was held to initiate the
DMNP Project EA. It was recommended at the TAC meeting that a CLC be established as part
of the DMNP Project EA. The Individual Environmental Assessment process does not require
the establishment of such a committee. However, given the benefits derived from the CLC for
earlier projects and that the establishment of a CLC is consistent with Toronto Waterfront
Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) practice, it was deemed that a CLC for the DMNP Project
would provide similar results with regards to public consultation.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has long been involved with issues within
the Don River watershed, particularly along the Lower Don River. During this period of
involvement, TRCA has established relationships with many of the key community
associations, and interest groups within the study area. TRCA invited representatives from
these interest groups to participate on the CLC.
At Authority Meeting #3/05, held on April 29, 2005, Resolution #A89/05 was approved as
follows:
THAT a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) be established to assist the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and consultants in maintaining contact with
community residents, groups, associations and organizations;
THAT the CLC provide community input into the project and in particular to the design of
the public consultation process;
THAT staff be directed to work with the Technical Advisory Committee to identify
community members for the CLC and in particular with the citizen members, Cynthia
Wilkey and John Wilson;
THAT the Terms of Reference including the interim membership be approved;
38
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority for formal endorsement of the
membership of the CLC by June 2005.
The CLC met on four occasions during the ToR stage of the DMNP Project EA (May 19, 2005,
July 13, 2005, October 17, 2005 and December 13, 2005). Members offered advice and the
CLC acted as a sounding board for the information being presented at public meetings
following the CLC meetings.
Several organizations identified in the previous Terms of Reference for the CLC did not appoint
representatives during the ToR stage of the DMNP Project. Further, CLC members suggested
additional groups not listed in the previous CLC Terms of Reference and these groups were
invited to join the CLC and appointed representatives.
Upon approval by the Minister of Environment of the Terms of Reference for the DMNP Project,
it will enter the second stage of the EA process. This approval is anticipated in July 2006. Prior
to beginning the next public consultation for the EA phase of the project, TRCA staff will
contact the organizations listed in the attached CLC Terms of Reference to confirm their
continued membership on the CLC and to appoint a representative to the CLC during the
second stage of the project.
The CLC Terms of Reference for the DMNP outlined in Attachment 1 has been updated and
includes a list of theorganizations that had appointed members to the CLC during the ToR
stage of the DMNP.
Staff will report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board with updates as needed.
Report prepared by: Michelle Vanderwel, extension 5280
For Information contact: Michelle Vanderwel, extension 5280
Date: May 24, 2006
Attachments: 1
Attachment 1
TERMS OF REFERENCE
DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT
COMMUNITY LIAISON COMMITTEE (CLC) MEMBERSHIP
FOR STAGE TWO OF THE INDIVIDUAL EA
JUNE 7, 2006
The Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project (DMNP Project) will
transform the existing mouth of the Don River into a sustainable and functional naturalized river
mouth, while removing the risk of flooding to 230 hectares of land east and south of the river.
The DMNP Project is being conducted as an Individual Environmental Assessment. A CLC has
been established for the first stage of the EA, the Terms of Reference stage. The continuation
of these organizations as CLC members will be confirmed for the second stage of the EA.
FUNCTIONS OF THE CLC
• provide input in defining the project objectives, range of alternatives and alternative
methods, and evaluation criteria as part of the Environmental Assessment Terms of
Reference process;
• identify items of public concern and interest with regard to the impact and design of the
proposed alternatives;
• provide direct input on the proposed alternatives to the conservation authority throughout
the planning and design process;
• assist in the design of the public consultation framework;
• attend and assist at public meetings organized by Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) to facilitate the resolution of concerns relating to the proposed project;
and
• disseminate information.
The following groups will be requested to appoint a representative during the second stage of
the EA process for the DMNP.
• Citizens for the Old Town
• Corktown Residents and Business Association
• Don Watershed Regeneration Council
• Gooderham & Worts Neighbourhood Association
• Mississaugas of the New Credit
• Parkdale Waterfront Group
• Port Lands Partnership
• Port Lands Action Committee
• Riverside Area Residents Association
• St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association
• Southeast Downtown Economic Redevelopment Initiative
• Task Force to Bring Back the Don
• Toronto Bay Initiative
• Toronto Cycling Committee
• Toronto Metis Council
• West Donlands Committee
• Woodgreen Community Services
40
In addition, the City Councillor, MP and MPP for each of the following wards or ridings will be
requested to participate in the CLC process during the second stage of the EA.
• Councillor, Ward 28
• Councillor, Ward 30
• MPP, Broadview - Greenwood
• MPP, Toronto Centre - Rosedale
• MP, Broadview - Greenwood
• MP, Toronto Centre - Rosedale
MEETINGS
During the EA stage of the DMNP, approximately five CLC meetings are anticipated to be held,
during key decision - making points in the DMNP EA, and prior to public meetings. These
meetings are currently anticipated to begin in September 2006 and will be held as required.
Appointed CLC members will be reimbursed for travel costs for each CLC meeting, based on
the cost of TTC tokens or mileage (at TRCA rates).
41
RES. #D18/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
MIMICO WATERFRONT LINEAR PARK PROJECT
Provide a status report for the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park project, and
obtain authorization to proceed with Phase 1 implementation based on
the current Delivery Agreement with the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Corporation.
Gay Cowbourne
Maria Augimeri
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to initiate
Phase 1 of the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park project on July 3, 2006 based on the
conditions and budget in the Delivery Agreement dated November 2003;
THAT the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) be requested to execute
the necessary funding agreements in a timely fashion to ensure the full implementation of
Phase 1;
AND FURTHER THAT the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and the Toronto
Waterfront Secretariat be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 2003, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Toronto Waterfront
Revitalization Corporation entered into a Delivery Agreement to undertake the Mimico
Waterfront Linear Park Project. At that time, TRCA was undertaking a coordinated provincial
and federal environmental assessment process. A preliminary budget estimate was developed
by TRCA based on available information which provided $1 million for property acquisition,
$4.5 million for construction and another $1 million for project management, public
consultation, approvals and detailed designs. The total project budget of $6.5 million was set
out in the Delivery Agreement. This budget was calculated in 2002 dollars without any
contingencies or TWRC project management allocations.
As TRCA moved through the environmental assessment process, refinements were made to
the park concept to address issues or requirements of regulatory agencies. Additional park
elements resulted in revised park designs which were then incorporated into an updated
project budget.
TRCA undertook property appraisals for all necessary private lands required to implement the
project. Based on appraisals completed in 2004, TRCA and TWRC agreed to pursue the
purchase of all available properties required to implement the project. If all the properties were
acquired, the projected expenditure would exceed the original budget of $1 million. At
Authority Meeting #1/05, held on February 25, 2005, TRCA approved Res. #A5 /05 to authorize
the implementation of the property acquisition strategy, as approved by TWRC. TRCA was
successful in acquiring all but four properties from three owners required for the full
implementation of the project. As provided in correspondence from John Campbell, (TWRC -
dated July 11, 2005) TWRC directed TRCA to purchase all available properties within the
project boundaries and to implement a stand alone Phase 1 (central and west sectors) of the
project (see Attachment 1).
42
The original shoreline configuration was modified to reflect a stand alone Phase 1 and to reflect
property negotiations with the owners at the foot of Superior Avenue. The new configuration of
the shoreline required the inclusion of the storm sewer extension component of the project be
undertaken in Phase 1, not Phase 2 as initially determined. This component increased the
estimated budget for Phase 1 implementation.
Furthermore, TWRC has suggested that the Crown lands required for the project could be
conveyed to TRCA for nominal consideration. To date, Ministry of Natural Resources staff has
not received any direction to deal with TRCA's requirement at any amount other than market
value. Therefore, TRCA is required to purchase the Crown lands required for the project. An
estimated cost of $400,000 is now included in the updated cost projections for the project.
A prerequisite for the implementation of Phase 2 is the securement of the remaining properties
from landowners unwilling to sell at this time. Properties must be acquired by the City of
Toronto through the planning process which could take many years. A budget to implement
the Phase 2 components of the project is not provided at this time. TWRC committed to revisit
the possibility of additional funding in future discussions relating to the 10 Year Business Plan
to complete Phase 2 of the project.
RATIONALE
TRCA has all approvals necessary to implement Phase 1 of the project. Initiating construction
in July, 2006 will ensure regulatory compliance with all approval agencies, including Fisheries
and Oceans Canada. TRCA has developed an implementation schedule which includes
commitments to receive continuous supplies of construction materials during the preparation
of the land base. Any delays in the construction start-up could jeopardize the availability and
receipt of these required materials.
TRCA has a signed Delivery Agreement for $6.5 million, dated November 2003. Construction
activities would be initiated this July and continue until the end of the fiscal year (March 31,
2007). TRCA would not incur any expenses beyond the approved budget. TRCA staff have
discussed risks associated with proceeding with the project in July 2006 and based on
timelines presented by the TWRC for changes to the funding Contribution Agreement and
subsequent changes to the TRCA Delivery Agreement, it is staffs assessment that the risk is
minimal to TRCA.
TRCA and TWRC have continued to promote the current implementation schedule for the
project to the general public and the funding partners. The proposed start date of July 3, 2006
would maintain current public support for the project and the support of TWRC and its
partners. The existing implementation schedule would meet expectations of the community,
TWRC and its funding partners.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
TRCA signed a Delivery Agreement with the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation for
$6.5 million in November 2003. In December 2005, TRCA initiated discussions with TWRC to
develop a revised project budget based on project scope changes and recent TWRC
budgeting protocols. In early 2006, TRCA provided TWRC with a revised project budget which
included an acquisition strategy requiring an expenditure of $3.1 million to acquire the
necessary properties for project implementation.
43
Late in 2005 and early 2006, TRCA met with TWRC a number of times regarding the budget
shortfall identified following the acquisition of necessary private properties. There was
consensus among senior management at both TRCA and TWRC to pursue a revised project
budget for Phase 1 of $10.6 million. At TWRC's Board of Director's meeting held on January
12, 2006, a revised project budget of $10.6 million for Phase 1 was accepted and TWRC staff
was directed to provide this funding through the new 10 year business plan. On January 18,
2006 TRCA provided a letter to Mr. Campbell providing details of the implementation for Phase
1 as follows:
• TRCA would begin construction of Phase 1 in July, 2006 once the fisheries restrictions were
lifted.
• TRCA would continue to prepare invoices to TWRC for project expenditures up to $2.77
million, which is the balance of the original $6.5 million budget. As per the current Delivery
Agreement, TRCA will not commit to incurring any expenses beyond the approved budget.
• TRCA requests that TWRC continue discussions with its funding partners to secure the
additional $4.1 million required to complete Phase 1, as supported by the Board of
Director's recommendation.
• TRCA would submit a revised Annual Expenditures and Work Plan reflecting the changes
to the budget, schedule and scope of work (submitted May 3, 2006).
TRCA will work with the TWRC to revise the Delivery Agreement in a timely manner as to not
jeopardize the completion of Phase 1. Staff have prepared the necessary Authorization for
Expenditure reports based on the $10.6 million dollars budget, reflecting a cash flow that
meets our $6.5 funding limit. Once approved, TRCA can implement the project as set out in
the Work Plan provided on May 3, 2006.
Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313
For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313
Date: May 26, 2006
Attachments: 1
44
Attachment 1
45
RES. #D19/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY
Waterside Marsh Restoration Initiative. A progress report on the
accomplishments and next steps for the Waterside Marsh Restoration
Inititative.
Gay Cowbourne
Maria Augimeri
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the City of Vaughan be
requested to include capital funding for the completion of the Bartley Smith Greenway
trail as soon as possible.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Located at Waterside Drive, north of Rutherford Road and west of Keele Street in the City of
Vaughan, this one hectare wetland is currently the focus of the Bartley Smith Greenway
Planning and Advisory Committee, and the ongoing efforts to rehabilitate the upper west Don
River. The Bartley Smith Greenway (BSG) trail linkages and the regeneration of aquatic habitat
projects at this site are key to the ongoing deliverables of the BSG Business and Community
Outreach Initiative.
The main goal of this initiative is to improve the function of the existing wetland, while providing
nature education and recreational opportunities for the citizens of the City of Vaughan. The
main objectives of the Waterside Marsh Restoration Initiative are to:
• Improve the quality of water and aquatic habitats within the upper west Don River through
the development of wetlands.
• Establish riparian habitats to provide in- stream cover and control excessive river bank
erosion.
• Increase diversity of habitats through planting a variety of native tree and shrub species to
attract and sustain local and migratory wildlife.
• Contribute to the linked recreational trail system, within or adjacent to the Don River valley
to improve the health and enjoyment of residents and visitors.
• Provide environmental awareness to the local community and offer opportunities for
stewardship programs, including nature interpretation outings.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), in partnership with the City of Vaughan,
Great Lakes Sustainable Fund, Ontario Trillium Foundation, First Maple Boy Scouts, Maple
Rotary Club, Mackenzie Glen Rate Payers, Vaughan Chamber of Commerce, Richmond Hill
Field Naturalists, Toronto Ornithological Club, Mackenzie Glen Public School, Don Watershed
Regeneration Council and The Bartley Smith Greenway Advisory Committee have
accomplished the following in support of the Waterside Marsh Restoration Initiative:
• Received municipal support from the City of Vaughan council through a public consultation
process in 2005.
• Completed detailed drawings and specifications for approval by Fisheries and Oceans
Canada and TRCA.
• Submitted a successful proposal to Great Lakes Sustainability Fund for $50,000 for project
implementation. -
46
• Secured overall support from the surrounding community through a public consultation
process to assist with implementation.
• Completed 0.5 hectares of excavation and grading of selected areas to enhance habitat
and vegetation community diversity.
• Installed a variety of habitat features for wildlife including, twenty two bird nesting boxes,
woody debris, basking Togs and raptor poles.
• Completion of conceptual drawings for the pedestrian trail alignment and associated
infrastructure.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Create approximately 2 km of recreational trail to the existing BSG trail system managed by
the City of Vaughan.
• Install a new pedestrian bridge in July 2006, to Zink existing east and west communities. On
site surveys and drawing preparation are underway, however final fisheries approvals will
be required. Financial commitments for the bridge installation have been confirmed by the
City of Vaughan.
• Create a 1.8 km natural buffer area between the trail and watercourse.
• Install interpretive signage.
• Host a public planting event to highlight accomplishments and engage local residents.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
This project is funded through the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund (GLSF), City of Vaughan
and TRCA through The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto.
FUNDING SOURCE
AMOUNT
PRODUCT
STATUS
Great Lakes Sustainability Fund
$ 50,000
Habitat Creation
Confirmed
TRCA
$ 30,500
Habitat Creation
Confirmed
City of Vaughan
$ 65,000
Bridge
Confirmed
City of Vaughan
$ 225,000
1.8 km of trail
Not
Confirmed
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$ 400,500
Report prepared by: Greg Sadowski, extension 5668
For Information contact: Greg Sadowski, extension 5668
Date: May 26, 2006
RES. #D20/06 - ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
Extension of Term. Extension of the Rouge Watershed Task Force
mandate for a further period of five months to November 30, 2006.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Maria Augimeri
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the term of the Rouge
Watershed Task Force be extended by five months to November 30, 2006.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #5/05, held on October 21, 2005, Res. #A242 /05 was approved to extend
the mandate of the task force to June 2006 in recognition of delays associated with the
modelling component of the study and the extra time that had to be taken to address new
provincial initiatives including the Greenbelt Plan and the Growth Plan. Complexities in the
modelling studies have caused further delays in the ability of the technical team to bring
forward the results of this component of the analytical work. To avoid putting the task force
members in the position of developing their draft /final plan in a very compressed time frame,
and risking inadequate discussion time for key decisions, the task force approved the following
resolution at their meeting held on April 12, 2006:
THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force request that The Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority extend the term of the Rouge Watershed Task Force by five
months to November 30, 2006 (RES #L71 /06)
It is expected that an additional three to four task force meetings (in addition to the ones
already scheduled) would be required to complete the work as part of this extension, in
addition to separate issue - specific working group and management summit meetings.
Since February 2006, encouraging progress has been made on the modelling aspect of the
study, generating a much improved understanding of the groundwater flow system in the
watershed and its sensitivities to changes in land cover. The modelling is expected to be
completed by the end of June with a full draft watershed plan in September, such that formal
public consultation and continued refinement by the task force can take place during the fall. A
final plan will be prepared by the end of November 2006.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The additional task force meetings can be supported within the current approved budget for
the watershed planning study (Account #121 -06).
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
For Information contact:Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: May 29, 2006
RES. #D21 /06 - FINAL REPORT ON STORM AND FLOODING
August 19, 2005. Receipt of final report on the August 19, 2005 storm
event.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
48
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff report back with a Flood
Warning Work Plan outlining activities and actions related to improvements to the
Program.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/05, held on September 23, 2005, staff
presented the Preliminary findings related to the August 19, 2005 storm and flooding event.
Subsequently, at Authority Meeting #7/05, held on September 30, 2005, Resolution #A208/05
was adopted as follows:
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.
Staff have completed formal documentation of this major flooding event, which looked at the
conditions leading up to the storm, the meteorological conditions which triggered the storm, a
chronology of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff actions, analysis of the
storm rainfall, impacts from the storm, damages and lessons learned. The text of this
communication provides a brief synopsis of the full report which will be available at the
meeting.
After one of the driest and warmest summers on record, a cold front passed across the region
on the afternoon of Friday, August 19, 2005. The front created severe weather, including
tornadoes, along a relatively thin line across most of southern Ontario prior to entering the
TRCA region. The collision of the warm air along the front with the cool air at the western end
of Lake Ontario created a change in the storm and resulted in a series of extremely intense
thunderstorms which moved west to east across the TRCA watersheds, centered over the
Highway 401 to Highway 7 corridor.
TRCA staff monitored this weather system throughout the day, issuing a Flood Safety Bulletin
at 10:30 a.m. based upon a precipitation forecast of 25 mm. The initiation of severe weather
reflected by radar prompted the issuance of a Flood Advisory at 3:15 p.m.. Between 3:15 -4:15
p.m., a series of severe thunderstorms passed over the region. The flood warning staff on duty
recognized the seriousness of the event and met at G. Ross Lord to discuss their actions and
to begin to collect data on precipitation amounts and flows in the reservoirs, rivers and
streams. Operations at Claireville and G.Ross Lord dams continued throughout the evening. A
Flood Warning was issued at 8:30 p.m. as the extent of flooding became more apparent. Staff
continued to monitor conditions and operate the flood control reservoirs throughout the
remainder of the evening and overnight. While reservoir operations continued for several more
days, the Flood Warning was cancelled at 10 a.m. on Saturday, August 20, 2005.
49
Rainfall amounts of 100 to 150 mm were generally recorded between 3:15 -4:15 p.m. exceeding
any previously recorded in TRCA's jurisdiction for a one hour storm. Widespread urban
flooding occurred which consisted of flooded roads and interchanges, roadway underpasses
and basement flooding. Traffic within the north portion of Toronto and in southern York Region
was in chaos as most major street interchanges were flooded to depths in excess of one metre.
Many motorists were stranded after driving into flooded areas. Finch Avenue at the Black
Creek was washed away after the upstream end of the culvert collapsed and the Black Creek
tributary of the Humber River overtopped the roadway. The West Don River feeding into the G.
Ross Lord Reservoir experienced a large amount of run -off from the storms and quickly
flooded, overtopping both Dufferin Street and Steeles Avenue. Throughout the evening and
overnight, TRCA staff operated the dams, checked stream gauges, visited flood vulnerable
sites and communicated with municipal staff. Operations at G. Ross Lord controlled flows
downstream along the west branch of the stream to minimize flooding through sites such as
Hoggs Hollow at Yonge Street and York Mills Road. While flooding did occur along the main
branch of the Don River at Bayview Avenue at several locations, including the Brick Works and
at sections on the Don Valley Parkway, flood damage directly related to river overflow was
limited with no significant residential or commercial building flooding reported.
With an event of this magnitude, documentation entails cooperation from a number of
agencies, including Environment Canada, the insurance industry and municipalities.
Cooperation from these groups was sought and staff have prepared a document which
includes a review of actions by TRCA staff, flooding damages, an assessment of the rainfall,
the extent of flooding that occurred, estimated municipal direct damage costs and insurance
costs. The direct municipal costs at present are estimated to be in the $10 -11 million range
and consist principally of costs related to repairing road damages and repairs related to
erosion to municipal infrastructure, such as sewers. A comprehensive assessment of
insurance claims is still being compiled. To date, claim amounts are anticipated to be in the
range of $350 million, slightly Tess than initially thought. Intangible damages such as lost
wages, reduced business and increased travel times resulting in reduced productivity have not
been looked at to date. Similarly, flood damages not covered by insurance have not been
examined. The costs of these damages can and often are much higher than the tangible ones,
and may never be fully documented.
While no loss of life occurred and our operations and flood control infrastructure worked well in
minimizing flood damages, a review of operations and communications revealed opportunities
to improve the TRCA Flood Forecasting and Warning Program and TRCA's abilities to respond
more effectively to future events. To date, the review has indicated that the day -to -day
operational procedure referred to as the Daily Planning Cycle (DPC) worked well and allowed
for the recognition of a potential event and the issuance of an early public safety message. The
communication of this message to the press did not work as well, and actions have been taken
to resolve this.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board with a Flood Warning
Work Plan outlining activities and actions related to improvements to the program.
50
As mentioned above, a review of operations and communications revealed opportunities to
improve the TRCA Flood Forecasting and Warning Program and TRCA's abilities to respond
more effectively to future events. The need to work more closely with the municipal emergency
planning and response departments in TRCA's jurisdiction in understanding roles and
responsibilities and training for future events was clearly defined as an area for additional work.
Staff are involved in ongoing works with municipal departments in Toronto to improve our
abilities to coordinate a more effective response and improve our understanding of where and
how we can work more closely together, both from a response and an emergency planning
perspective. A workshop held with local and regional municipalities in February 2006
provided a first step. Internal communications, training and the need to address the need for
more staff capabilities in larger events was also recognized as a future need.
The extraordinary nature of this event in terms of the rainfall intensities may be indicative of
future climate trends related to climate change. TRCA's ability to operate a Flood Forecasting
and Warning Program that is adaptive and effective at protecting against flood risk will require
a commitment to have adequately trained staff and up -to -date technological resources. The
documentation of such flood events and a review of operations will continue to be a necessary
component of ensuring this.
Report prepared by: Donald Haley, extension 5226
For Information contact: Donald Haley, extension 5226
Date: June 5, 2006
Attachments: Final report to be provided at meeting
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #D22/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meetings #9/05, held on October 20, 2005; #10/05 held on
November 17, 2005; #1/06, held on January 19, 2006; #2/06, held on
February 16, 2006; #3/06, held on March 16, 2006 and #4/06, held on
April 20, 2006.. The Minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council
Meetings #9/05, held on October 20, 2005; #10/05 held on November
17, 2005; #1/06, held on January 19, 2006; #2/06, held on February 16,
2006; #3/06, held on March 16, 2006 and #4/06, held on April 20, 2006
are provided for information.
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council
Meetings #9/05, held on October 20, 2005; #10/05 held on November 17, 2005; #1/06,
held on January 19, 2006; #2/06, held on February 16, 2006; #3/06, held on March 16,
2006 and #4/06, held on April 20, 2006, be received.
CARRIED
51
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the
Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the
formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the
Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed
Task Force's report "Forty Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed.
Report prepared by: Michelle Vanderwel, extension 5280
For Information contact: Michelle Vanderwel, extension 5280
Date: May 26, 2006
RES. #D23 /06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DUFFINS CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP
Minutes of Meeting #1/06, February 22, 2006. The Minutes of Duffins
Carruthers Watershed Resource Group Meeting #1/06, held on February
22, 2006, are provided for information.
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource
Group meeting #1/06, held on February 22, 2006, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group are forwarded to
the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute
the formal record of the work of the Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group, and serve
to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement A
Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek.
Report prepared by: Joanna Parsons, extension 5575
For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385
Date: June 07, 2006
RES. #D24 /06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION
Minutes of Meeting #5/05, held on November 24, 2005.. The Minutes of
Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition Meeting #5/05, held on
November 24, 2005, are provided for information.
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
52
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition
meeting #5/05, held on November 24, 2005, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, dated May 2002, and
adopted by the Authority at Meeting #5/02, held on May 24, 2002 by Resolution #A124/02,
includes the following provision:
Section 3.5 - Reporting Relationship
The Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coaltion is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed
Management Advisory Board. The Watersheds Coalition Chair will report, at least, on a
semi - annual basis on projects and progress.
Report prepared by: Joanna Parsons, extension 5575
For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
Date: June 07, 2006
RES. #D25/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes #2/06 held on April 18, 2006. The Minutes of the Humber
Watershed Alliance meeting #2/06, held on April 18, 2006, are provided
for information.
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting
#2/06, held on April 18, 2006, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December 2003, and
adopted by the Authority at meeting #10/03, held on January 9, 2004, by resolution #A289/03,
includes the following provision:
3.9 Reporting Relationship
The Humber Watershed Alliance is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed Management
Advisory Board. The Watershed Chair will report, at least, on a semi - annual basis on projects
and progress.
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: May 18, 2006
53
RES. #D26 /06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #2/06, held on February 22, 2006 and Minutes of
Meeting #3/06, held on March 31, 2006. The Minutes of Meeting #2/06,
held on February 22, 2006 and Minutes of Meeting #3/06, held on March
31, 2006, are provided for information.
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Rouge Park Alliance Meeting #2/06, held
on February 22, 2006 and Minutes of Meeting #3/06, held on March 31, 2006, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Rouge Park Alliance are provided to the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authortiy through the Chair of the Authority, who is a member of the Rouge Park
Alliance, and forwarded to the Watershed Management Advisory Board for information.
Report prepared by: Andrea Fennell, extension 5254
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: May 16, 2006
RES. #D27 /06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE MINUTES
Minutes of Meeting #5/05, held on September 15, 2005; #6/05, held on
November 10, 2005; #1/06, held on January 11, 2006; #2/06, held on
February 16, 2006; #3/06, held on March 23, 2006 and #4/06, held on
April 12, 2006. The Minutes of Meeting #5/05, held on September 15,
2005; #6/05, held on November 10, 2005; #1/06, held on January 11,
2006; #2/06, held on February 16, 2006; #3/06, held on March 23, 2006
and #4/06, held on April 12, 2006 are provided for information.
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Minutes of the Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting
#5/05, held on September 15, 2005; #6/05, held on November 10, 2005; #1/06, held on
January 11, 2006; #2/06, held on February 16, 2006; #3/06, held on March 23, 2006 and
#4/06, held on April 12, 2006, be received.
CARRIED
54
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Rouge Watershed Task Force are forwarded to the Authority
through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal
record of the work of the Rouge Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority
members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Rouge Watershed Plan.
Report prepared by: Sylvia Waters, extension 5330
For Information contact: Sylvia Waters, extension 5330
Date: May 29, 2006
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:35 a.m., on Friday, June 16, 2006.
Nancy Stewart
Vice Chair
/ks
55
Brian Denney
Secretary- Treasurer
PrTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/06
July 14, 2006
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/06, was held in the Humber
Room, Head Office, on Friday, July 14, 2006. The Chair Dave Ryan, called the meeting to
order at 10:33 a.m..
PRESENT
Gay Cowbourne Member
Frank Dale Member
Elaine Moore Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Dave Ryan Chair
Nancy Stewart Vice Chair
ABSENT
Maria Augimeri Member
Shelley Petrie Member
RES. #D28/06 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Nancy Stewart
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/06, held on June 16, 2006, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
a) A presentation by Andy Valickis, Project Manager, Project Development Group, Ontario
Clean Water Agency, in regards to item 7.1 - Collaborative Source Water Protection
Study for Lake Ontario Based Municipal Drinking Water Supplies
b) A presentation by Joanne Jeffrey, Acting Manager, Watershed Stewardship and
Outreach Education, in regards to urban and rural community stewardship..
56
RES. #D29 /06 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Gay Cowbourne
THAT above -noted presentations (a) and (b) be heard and received.
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D30 /06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CARRIED
COLLABORATIVE SOURCE WATER PROTECTION STUDY FOR
LAKE ONTARIO BASED MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
Participation in the municipal lead collaborative source water protection
study for western Lake Ontario based drinking water supplies.
Frank Dale
Gay Cowbourne
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) as the CTC Watershed Region lead, participate in the
collaborative source water protection study for western Lake Ontario based drinking
water supplies;
THAT staff be authorized and directed to take such actions as is necessary to participate
in the study;
THAT staff consult with the CTC's municipal Technical Advisory Committee to refine the
work plan being developed for this study and to coordinate efforts for areas of shared
roles and responsibilities;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto and regions of Halton, Peel, York and Durham
and waterfront municipalities of Oakville, Mississauga, Pickering, Ajax, Oshawa and
Clarington be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Under the provincially funded Great Lakes Surface Water System Grant Program, a long -term,
proactive and strategic approach for the protection of drinking water supplies for over 5 million
residents is underway. In early 2006, the Ontario Water Works Research Consortium (OWWRC)
members with support from the five Source Water Protection Region lead conservation
authorities (CA) submitted a Source Water Protection Grant Proposal to the Ministry of the
Environment (MOE) to "Undertake Assessment Studies and Develop (Modeling & Other) Tools
to Evaluate Present and Future Risks to Drink Water Supplies in the Lake Ontario Basin ".
57
The western half of Lake Ontario is unique due to intensive urbanization and projected growth
and the complex lake currents that circulate water near the shore and into the lake.
Accordingly the investigations towards the protection of lake based drinking water supplies
requires a regional "watershed to receiving water quality based focus" for source water intake
protection. In addition to assessing the potential influence from the multitude of sources of
pollutants, this study will stream -line and standardize the efforts required to evaluate the
vulnerability of intakes and the development of intake protection zones. Municipalities have
been directly funded by the province to determine their intake protection zones as part of the
anticipated source protection requirements of Bill 43, the draft 2005 Clean Water Act to protect
drinking water at the source. Under the third Memorandum of Agreement amongst the
province, Conservation Ontario and the Source Water Protection regions, CAs are required to
track and report on the progress of these studies and to incorporate the information in their
Source Water Assessment Reports.
The resulting dataand geographical information base will also be the basis for the proposed
Phase 2 of the study to develop tools for assessing impacts, and optimizing intake locations on
behalf of municipalities and by regulatory agencies. Outcomes from the study are also relevant
to municipalities for assessing impacts of water and servicing plans (Places to Grow) and for
assessing the benefits of implementing watershed plans and water quality studies, such as
Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan.
This proposal was accepted by the MOE and an initial grant of $595,000 was provided to
identify intake protection zones and possible threats and issues for the intakes to the water
supply plants along Lake Ontario. The participants include the regions of York, Peel, Halton,
Niagara and Durham, the cities of Toronto and Hamilton, the Municipality of Port Hope, the
Town of Cobourg and Prince Edward County. The CAs represented by the five Source Water
Protection regions, including: Niagara Region Conservation; Hamilton and Halton Region
Conservation; Credit Valley Conservation, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; Central
Lake Ontario Conservation Authority; Ganaraska Region (representing the Trent Conservation
Coalition) and the Quinte Conservation, are partners in the study.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Work on this project has begun with the selection of a project manager, and development of a
work plan to fulfill the completion of this first phase with a report to MOE due by March 2007.
Phase 1, includes a detailed analysis of existing information, a needs assessment, GAP
analysis of existing information, additional data gathering, and a review of tools and model(s)
selection. The first phase will also strengthen working relationships amongst the
aforementioned partners to address issues such as the long -term governance, institutional
responsibilities and maintenance of the tools (hydrodynamic models, risk assessment models,
pathway models and their supporting databases). Under this phase the CAs will work with
Environment Canada and the Ministry of the Environment to calculate pollution loads and
related information needed to help delineate the intake protection zones and support future
modelling. Under the proposed 2006 -2007 CTC Source Protection work plan and
Memorandum of Agreement for funding for 2006 -2008, TRCA staff will coordinate this work on
behalf of all the participating conservation authorities. An initial grant of $595,000 was provided
to the consortium.
58
The province has deferred the decision on whether to fund Phase 2 at a cost of $1,130,000
pending successful completion and findings of Phase 1 which would indicate potential threats.
The proposed Phase 2 emphasis is primarily on model setup and testing, but could include
additional field data collection to support needed management tools. It would provide the
scientific basis for considering the cumulative impact of many pollution sources that potentially
could affect drinking water supplies. This could be viewed as an Assimilative Capacity
Modelling study, but the main intention would be to primarily focus on intake water quality and
vulnerability.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
A Grant Funding Agreement was executed between the Region of Peel and the MOE. Under
this agreement the Region of Peel will provide the financial administration resources for the
project. Further, the CTC Region has budgeted $20,000 for the CA component of the
proposed Phase 1 work. Another $20,000 is being contributed by the other CA source
protection areas. Discussions are underway to see if the Phase 1 studies could be funded
directly by the Collaborative Study. As a partner in the Phase 1 work, Environment Canada is
contributing an additional $60,000 from their Great Lakes research funding.
Report prepared by: Gary Bowen, extension 5385, Beverly Thorpe, extension 5577
For Information contact: Beverly Thorpe, extension 5577
Date: June 29, 2006
RES. #D31/06 - SOURCE WATER PROTECTION MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
FOR FUNDING FOR 2006 -2008
Approval to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement for the delivery of
provincially funded partnership capacity building projects for the period
July 1, 2006 to April 30, 2008 with administrative and technical
responsibilities pursuant to the previously approved Memorandum of
Agreement with respect to Source Water Protection Program
Administration signed amongst the CTC Watershed Region conservation
authorities - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Credit Valley
Conservation and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the
coordination and administration of partnership capacity building projects, among the
Crown in right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources (MNR),
2002796 Ontario Limited ( "Conservation Ontario "), Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) and
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) for the period July 1, 2006 to April
30, 2008;
59
THAT the terms and conditions of the MOA be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitors;
THAT appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take such action as may
be necessary to implement the MOA including the execution of all necessary documents;
THAT staff of TRCA, CVC and CLOCA consult with affected municipalities through the
CTC Municipal Technical Advisory Committee to refine the workplan, in particular
identifying respective roles and responsibilities for areas of shared responsibility;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto and regional municipalities of Halton, Peel, York
and Durham be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #8/05, held on October 28, 2005, Resolution #A24/05 was approved, in
part, as follows:
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a Memorandum
of Agreement with respect to coordination and administration of partnership capacity
building projects, between the Crown in right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister
of Natural Resources, 2002796 Ontario Limited ( "Conservation Ontario"), Credit Valley
Conservation (CVC) and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) for the
period August 1, 2005 until June 30, 2006;
THAT staff be authorized and directed to take such action as may be necessary to
implement the Memorandum of Agreement including the signing of documents;
THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to execute all necessary
documentation required;
THAT staff of the 3 conservation authorities (CA) continue to seek additional funding from
the province through Conservation Ontario (CO) to enable the CTC group to deliver the
complete 2005 -2006 deliverables as set out by the province;
AND FURTHER THAT copies of the staff report be provided to the CAOs of the City of
Toronto and regions of Halton, Peel, York and Durham.
Highlights of Work Accomplishments for 2005 -06
The CTC received an additional $303,000 in contingency funding for 2005 -06 from
Conservation Ontario (CO) to undertake the work specified in the 2005 -06 MOA. In addition,
$20,000 was received to undertake a pilot project to develop map products that are consistent
across the CTC. The total CTC allocation for 2005 -06 (August 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006) was
$1,399,605.51.
The CTC conservation authority's (CA) are currently completing the technical and
administrative work as specified by the 2005 -06 MOA, a summary of which is to be submitted
to CO, along with the year -end financial report in mid -July, 2006. The main accomplishments
for 05 -06 include:
60
1. An Interim Watershed Characterization Report for each CA area (Under the draft Clean
Water Act, each CA area is a Source Protection Area and there must be assessment
reports and source protection plans developed for each Source Protection Area.). The
Interim Watershed Characterization Reports will undergo a peer evaluation process with
the members of the municipal Technical Advisory Committee in September 2006.
2. Report on the mapping pilot project and map products.
3. Conceptual water budget report for each CA area and initial peer evaluation report.
4. Consultation sessions with municipal staff and formation of a municipal Technical
Advisory Committee with representation invited from the works, planning and public
health or equivalents from all upper, lower and single tier municipality, to provide advice
and serve as a clearing house on the source water protection work of the CTC.
5. Support to municipalities in preparing submissions and technical support for
applications to Ministry of the Environment's (MOE) municipal source water protection
grant program.
6. Successful meeting with senior provincial staff from MOE and the Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR) as an initial value for money audit.
7. Ongoing database development and maintenance.
8. Ongoing technical work, capacity building and project management and administration.
Provincial Funding Agreement
CO and the province, as represented by the MNR, are signing a MOA setting out the terms and
deliverables associated with the transfer of provincial source protection funding for the next
funding period, 9 months from July 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007.
This MOA requires the three conservation authorities in the CTC Region, the province and CO
again to sign a Project Agreement setting out the respective responsibilities contained in
Schedule C to the MOA between the province and CO.
The purpose of this staff report is to seek approval for TRCA's participation in this third
provincial MOA that sets out the scope, administrative and financial ternms for undertaking
source water protection activities.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The objective of the provincial funding is to ensure conservation authorities have sufficient
capacity to meet the aggressive goals and objectives of the proposed Clean Water Act. Over
the course of this agreement, the CTC conservation authorities will undertake the following
work:
1. Complete the watershed characterization reports and Tier 1 water budget numerical
modeling in the period up to March 2007.
2. Participate in the provincially- funded municipal source water protection studies,
including tracking and reporting on progress (e.g. Lake Ontario Collaborative Study).
3. Initiate and complete work on other modules of the Assessment Report pending
finalization of provincial guidance documents and adequate future funding to CAs and
direct grants to municipalities.
4. Prepare for the formation of the Source Protection Planning Committee (SPPC) and
support the SPPC to complete its time mandated tasks pending passage of the
legislation and promulgation of the necessary regulations.
61
5. Undertake a variety of communication activities in support of the province's source
water protection program, including developing and maintaining a CTC website,
preparation of mandated communication materials, and tracking and reporting on
stakeholder issues and media activities.
6. Develop map products, database management and data sharing protocols.
7. Other activities as outlined in the work plan.
The parties will collaborate on the development of planning, communications, mapping and
other technical skills and capacities. Details of the project, including specific products,
deliverables, activities and milestone dates are set out in Attachment 1.
Staff of TRCA, CVC and CLOCA have prepared work plans and budgets in support of this
MOA. Additional meetings to seek input from municipal staff are planned for late summer. It is
recognized that individual municipalities will have the lead in preparing some of the
Assessment Report modules, while the CAs will lead some, and others will be joint initiatives.
The CTC CAs will be responsible for providing technical support to the SPPC in compiling the
individual modules into the required Assessment Report for each Source Protection Region. It
is anticipated that the work plan will undergo revisions /updates as a result of discussions with
the municipalities on the work plan, and once legislation and regulations are finalized.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The CTC Region will receive $1,261,700 from the province for July 2006 to March 31 2007.
Funding allocation for the period April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008 is anticipated to be
$1,682,266.67. These funds will be shared amongst CVC, TRCA (covering both the technical
work and CTC -wide work) and CLOCA according to the agreed upon work plan and budget
allocation.
Report prepared by: Beverley Thorpe, extension 5577, Adele Freeman, extension 5238
For Information contact: Beverley Thorpe, extension 5577
Date: June 29, 2006
Attachments: 1
62
CA Deliverables Table July 1, 2006 - March 31, 2008 SWP Memorandum of Agreement
KEY DELIVERABLE
DELIVERABLE ACTIVITY
Protect
Management'
Administrative
Source Protection Committee
§
Specific requirements in the Clean Water
Act (TBC) related to Source Protection
Region (SPR) establishment.
Specific requirements in me Clean Water
Act (TBC) related to Source Protector
Committee (SPC) Formation
o Establish SPC in Region
o Work with MOE to organize and
facilitate training sessions around
the legislation and regulations
based on MOE training package
for SPC members in watershed
o Support SPC members (and
working groups) in development
of the Terms of Reference,
Assessment Report and Source
Protection Plan
o Communications: Support SP
Committee in
communication /consultation as
Der legislative requirements
PRODUCTS
Source Protection Committee:
§ 90 days (TBC) following royal assent of
regulation addressing formation of Source
Protection Regions (SPR) provide, Partnership
Agreement with partner Source Protection
Author ties (SPA) in a SPR
§ Specific requirements in the Clean Water Act
related to Suurce Protection Committee (SPC)
o Provide Minister with SPC Cnair
nominations
o Provide Minister with SPC Member
appointments for her information
o Submit to Minister SPC Terms of
Reference
o Suhmd to Director Assessment Report
Communications
o Quarterly summary report (using status
report template) of stakeholders
consulted and outcomes including
significant opportunities, where
problerns exist, etc
o Maintain "Stakeholder Reaction"
database on CO discussion forum
o Post'Develop lead CA/SWP Website for
SPC information and consultation dates
1 of 12
DURATION i PROVINCIAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
Continuous MOE to develop SPC
training material andior
curriculum
Develop Terms of
Reference Template
Provide technical
guidance on
Assessment Report (i e
training, guidance
model, etc.)
Communications:
§ Work with CO to
develop
communications
guidance.
§ Approve CO
Communications
Guidance
§ Provide guidance
for
communications,
CO RESPONSIBLITIES
Communlcatlons:
§ Create
Communication
Guidance, (in
consultaLon with the
Crown) to facilitate
aeveloprrenl uI CA
comm,tnication
§ Coordinate Quarer,y
so
n
i3
KEY.DEUVERABLE
- DEUVEAABLEACT!vire'
�;,la � --` PRODUCTS DtiRATtOi
;._ � L:
T CORESPOFSIBLtTIES
issues
managementfforec
est, outreach and
consultation
process.
Summary of
, Stakeholder Reaction
i database
Terms of
Reference -
Source protection
committee,
Assessment
Report and
Source Protection
Plan
TBC- pending
legislation
§ Identify CA roles and responsibitties for
the Terms of Reference including_
o Work with the Source Protection
Committee to develop workplans
o Undertake a gaps of analysis
0 Delineate vulnerable areas
o Identify drinking water threats that
impact more than one murpatity
o Identity drinking water threat that may
originate in one municipality but affect
another.
§ The portions of the Terms of Reference template
requiring CA input "(e.g. roles and responsibilities,
workplan, gaps analysis, initial delineation of
Vutnerabte Areas, etc), pending legislation,
6 -9 months
1. Provincial
regulations and
guidance on the
Terms of Reference
Project I
Management/
Administrative
(cont'd)
,
1
CA Administrative /Operations
§ Multi-year work plan development
including high level outline of timelines for
Assessment Report completion and a
detailed description of activities to be
undertaken within the Year 3 MOA.
§ Ongoing staffing, project, administration,
skills training to build capacity at the CA
level to meet Year 3 MOA deliverables_
IN Ongoing work planning, budgeting and
reporting. -
CA Adm€nietraiive/Operations:
§ Provide mutt -year work plan as per
CO, /MNR /MOE guidance.
§ Quarterly "Staff Development Plan" (using
status report template) detailing staff recruitment
and outlining staff development priorities
planned, attended, and needed
r3 Quarterly workplan and budget status reports as
per COfCrown guidance.
§ Communications:
o Issues. Management Tracking as per
Continuous
MOE and MNR to
provide delivery dates
for key products to
facilitate project
implementation..
Review warkplans
provide feedback, and
participate in quarterly
review meetings.
Review training
Quarterly Review and "
Assessment et SP
Region status reports
Report on SP Region
performance (all
modules) including
coordination of Quarterly
Review meetings with
Crown.
Compile training priorities
2of12
KEY DELIVERABLE I
Project
Management/
Administrative
(cont'd)
DELIVERABLE ACTIVITy
CO/Crown communications guidance
o Media contact report as per CO
Ensure ongoing communication guidance
between ail CA SWP staff and
Communications:
b.
other CA proararns (where
warranted).
Notify CO of media material.
issues and concerns
Coordination of Technical Studies
• Track status of work completed on the
Assessment Report components,
including work related to municipal
drinking water systems and other
components of the Assessment Report fl
being carried out by CAs (this willtre
based on the list of municipal drinking
water systems provided by MOE andfor
OVINClAL
k4(i4cOS.
priorities and develop
training material and/or
curriculum
Review
communications/
outreach reports from
CO website as required
and provide feedback
CO RESPONSIBLITIES
quarterly for the Crown
Distribute Crown
communication material
to CAs for loosl
distribution
Review CA
communications for
consistency with
CO/Crown
Communications
Guidance Document
Quarterly Summary of
Issues Management
Tracking
Coordinate media
responselroll-up and
stakeholder consultation
databases to provide the
Crown with local issues,
concerns ( on-going
access through CO
Discussion Forum and
Quarterly Summaries)
Coordination of Technical Studies : Continuous ' Provide municipal
§ Status report tracking (check list) work .
. drinking water system
completed on the Assessment Report, inciuding i summaries to CO for
work on municipal drinking water systems and distribution to CAs.
other components of the Assessment Report not
being carried out by CAs, including identification
of significant accomplishments and issues.
Note: This is done in the work Mari status reports
, and updated quarterly as need, its also identifies
3 of 12
ELIVERABLE ACTIViri
municipalities, as well as other information
provided by municipalities).
• Identify significant accomplishments,
where problems exist. etc. related to work
completed on municipal drinking water
systems.
• Coordination of the various technical
studies prepared for the Assessment
Report within each Source Protection Area
• Ensure consistency of data and
information across SPA and with
neighboring SPAs (e.g. compliance with
data standards, edge mapping/information
000rdination,of technical datalstudies
between each Source Protection Area
within the Source Protection Region.
roles of CAs /municipalities, for example:
§ CA coordinating work (i.e. compiling wank
completed) but municipality leading technical
studies (Le. completing work)
§ CA coordinating work (i.e_ compiling work
completed) and leading technical studies on
municipality's behalf (i.e, completing work).
-CO RESPONSISLITIES
fPIOTIes
Project
Management,!
Administrative
(cont'd)
Note: See specific
note of information
management
needs under
Technical
Deliverables listed
below.
Information Management
§ Establish and/or maintain local data
sharing agreements / protocol with
municipalities to ensure efficient and
successful transfer Of data between
parties.
§ Ensure transfer of data between
organizations te,g, provision of Provincial
data to municipalities where required).
§ Upholding and incorporating;knowtedge
on the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act ( FIPPA)/
Municipal Freedom of Information and.
Protection of Privacy (MFIPPA):
§ Based on the Provincial information
Management standards being .developed
on evolving OUTPUT prodtPtia, ensure
that Provincial standards are adhered to
(QA /OC) in both CA and municipal work to
ensure consistency in technical
Information Management
o Local data sharing agreement/protocol with
municipalities. (where applicable)
u Documentation of FIPPA training
Documentation that Provincial Data Output
Standards have beentoltowed within both CA
and municipal technical work
A of 12
Continuous
Develop and make
available Provincial
information
Management
Standards
Provide FIPPA training
to all watershed
regions.
•
Map consistency/
• standards
documentation
Through available forms
(e.g. Conservation
Ontario Provincial
Information Management
Group), ensure sharing
of tools and common
applications for
information management
(e.g. standard operating
procedures for data
transfer between
organizations to provide
a level of consistency as
per agreed upon
standards) and ensure.
KEY DELivERABLE DELIVERABLE ACTIVITY
PRODUCTS DUP11011 PROVINCIAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
de;verablas o Upload OW PUT data and enhanced INPUT
§ Pmvide OUTPUT data and enhanced 1 data to appropriate custodian
INPUT data back to Province to ensure
improvements (parcel, georeferenced,
etc.) to existing data sets (e.g. water well
records, PTTW, threats, etc.).
§ Maintain, publish and update various
components of assessment report and
supporting documentation including
technical studies (i.e. document
Project management).
Management/
Administrative
(cont'd)
Assessment
Report
•
§
Develop meta data catalogue (i.e.
indicating where documents stored,
accessibility, etc.)
Develop and maintain a
database/catalogue of technical data used
in the development of the Assessment
Report deliverables. including data
generated by Municipalities and other
partners and supplied to the CA.
Maintain technical environment (e,g,
hardware, software, training) throughout
partnership agreement.
Provide feedback to province on data
gaps, data quality issues, etc
a. Watershed Characterization
Watershed Characterization Report
1. Interim Watershed Characterization Report
2. Peer Evaluation report on Watershed
Characterization
3. Final Watershed Characterization Report
Information Management (IM): information
products as per guidance (TBC).
Communications: Communications/Consultaton
as per provincial guidance (TBC)
5 of 12
3 months
(Oct. 2006:
CO RESPONSISUTIES
Crown representation on
tortnns.
Provide ongoing rrrrrrrrrrrrrr of Crown
techaical guidance technical guidance to
CAs.
DURATION PROVINCIAL CO RESPONSIBLITIES
FIESPONSiBILITIES
Assessment
Report (cont'd)
Assessrnent
Report (cont'd)
b. WaterBudget
Note: A Tier 3 Numerical Water Budget is
required on the individual drinking water
systems within subwatersheds determined in
the Tier 1 or 2 Complex Water Budgets
determined to be under significant water
quantity stress.
2. Water Budget
Conceptual Water Budget Report including Peer
Review
b.. Report documenting Water Budget Screening
Decisions, Level of Effort and Numerical Model
Selection (S)mple vs. Complex) including Peer
Review
Numerical Mo deling Report including Peer
Review
O Tier 1 - Analytical (Simple)
O Tier 2 - Numeric: (Comptex) where
required
O Tier 3 Numeric (Complex) where
required
The reports for this module will include:
• Maps, graphics, figures, and/or tables that
illustrate the results of the Conceptual and
Numerical Water Budgets.
111 Maps illustrating the subwatersheds
determined in the Tier 1 or Tier 2 Complex
Water Budgets to have a high level of water
quantity stress,
• Map S illustrating the boat area water supply
systems and associated wells or intakes
Velete a Tier 3 Water Budget is required.
• A PreiiminerY inventory af major Pefrnithed
and non permitted water users and
accompanying Map of drinldng water
threats to water quantity where a -Tier 3
Water Budget is required.
6 of 12
Conceptu
at
MOA 2
Agreemen
1
(June
2006)
Tier 1
Analytical
Lsimple)
4 months
(October
2006)
deperrden
cy =
requires
conceptu
al water
budget to
be
complete)
Tier 2
12
months
(OCtraber
2007)
dependen
cy
requires
Tier 1
numerical
model to
be
complete)
Provide ongoing Transfer of Crown
technical guidance technical guidance
to CAs
,fKEY DELIVERABLE DECIV6IABLEAbniirrf
PRODUCTS DURATION PROVINCIAL CO RESPONSIBILITIES
RESPONSIBILITIES
IM:
1. Digital database outputs for surface and
groundwater quantity assembled for each
watershed within the Source Protection Area
according to data specifications
1. Additional information products as per guidance
(TBC).
Communications:
Comrnunications/Consuftation as per provincial
guidance (TBC).
Der 3
dependen
requtres
cy
Tier 2
water
budget to
be
complete)
Assessment
Report
(contld)
b. Municipal Long-Term Water Supply iiil Municipal Long-Term Water Supply Strategies
Strategies d. Tracking Report on Municipal completion of
a. Compile municipal water supply strategies water supply strategy
within each Source Protection Area 1. Compile results of the municipal water supply
strategies for at inunicipalities for incorporation
into a single report for the Source Protection
Area to represent this module of the
Assessment Report. This report shall also
include:
a. Mapts) ot existing drinking water sources
(aquifers and surface water features) as per
the municipal long-term water supply
strategies.
b. Map(a) of water supplies (aquifers and
surface water features) that are planned to
address the future water needs as per the
municipal water supply strategies
IM: Information products as per guidance (TBC).
Communications: Cciinmunications/Consuitatkin
as per provincial guidance fTBC).
12 months
(June 2007)
Provide ongoing
technical guidance
Transfer of Crowr
technical guidance to
CAs.
Surface Water Vulnerability Analysis i 4. Surface Water Vulnerability Analysis
7 of 12
l 16 months l Provide ongoing Transter of Crown
YDELitienatit_e. ,DetivenAat..E:Actrivirirt..
't Note: multi-year workplan will need to make
Iassumptions on who will be undertaking work
(Le. CA vs. municipality)
5
IM:
ON' ',PROV/INCIAL CO RESPONS B
ref RESPONSIBILITIES
ncorporate rruits of Z Water (Nov. 2007) technical guidance technical guidance to
i the Surface
Vulnerability Analysis for existing and proposed *Dependency CAs.
future municipal supplies into a single report for = requires
each Source Protection Area to represent this watershed
module in the Assessment Report-This report cheractenzatio
will include: n and
§ Intake Characterization (including data gaps) collection of all
§ Maps of Intake Protection Zones (IPZ) work occurring
§ Document vulnerability scoring (including through
level of uncertainty) municipal
§ Maps and accompanying assessment report technical
worksheet showinc the vulnerability scores studies.
for each IPZ
Dgtai intake protection zones assembled for
Source Protection Area according to data
specifications
Additional information products as per guidance
crsc).
Communications: Communications/Consultation
as per provincial guidance (IBC)
-r—
Assessment - Groundwater Vulnerability Analysis 5. Groundwater Vulnerability Analysis 16' months : Provide ongoing . Transfer of Crown
i -
Report (cont'd) I Note: multi-year workplan will need to make Incorporate the results of the Groundwater (Nov. 2007) i technical guidance ' technical guidance to
assum P tions on who will be undertaking work Vulnerability Analysis for existing and proposed *Dependency ' CAs.
i (Le. CA vs. municipality) future municipal supplies and carry out a = requires
GrOundwater Vulnerability Analysis for Significant watershed
i Groundwater Recharge Areas and Highly Vulnerable ochaarnoacterizatio
Aquifers. Compile this information into a single
report for each Source Protection Area to represent collection of at I '
this module &the Assessment Report . The report work occurring
for this (nodule tivill include:
through
- Description of Vulnerability Analysis approach municipal i
■ :
- Map(s) of Wellhead Protecton Areas (WHPA) 1 technical
- Map(s) of Significant Groundwater Recharge t studies.
Areas (SGRA) and Highly Vulnerable Aquifers
8 of 12
Assessment
Report (contld)
16.01,,IFTM15,14T
pm:0001-s i. PROVINCAL I CO RESPONSIBLITIES
RESPONSIBILITIES S I
(HVA)
- Assignment of Vulnerability Scores (including
levetof uncertainty)
Maps and ate-Ompanying Assessment Report
worksheet showing the Vulnerability scores for
each WHPA, SGRA, HVA. and future municipal
supply areas .
IM:
1. Didital wellhead protection areas and other
vulnerable areas including highly vulnerable
aquifers, significant oroundwater recharge
areas, future water supplies assembled for
Source Protection Area according to data
specifications
2. Additional information products as per guidance
(TBC)
Communications: Communications/Consultation
as per provincial guidance (TBC).
6. Threats Inventory and Issues Evaluation i Threats Inventory and Issues Evaluation
Note: mufti-year workplan will need to make I Incorporate the results of the Threats Inventory and
assumptions on who will be undertaking work Issues Evaluation into a single report for each
(i.e. CA vs. municipality) ; Source Protection Area to represent this module in
the Assessment Report including:
a. Documentation of threats inventory and issues
evaluation (including Assessment Report
worksheet with drinking water threats inventory
and associated contaminantts) of concern.
issues inventory, evaluation. hazard ratings. and
inventory of known humari-made preferential
pathways), peer evaluated
b. Docurrie.rrt Assignment of Hazard'Ratinas
(ncluding level of uncertainty)
c. Maostsl) indicating: (i) the location of each
9 of 12
17 months Provide ongoing Transfer c,f Crown
(Dec. 2007) technical guidance technical guidance 10
*Dependency I CAs.
= requires
Surface and
Groundwater
Vulnerability
Analysis
t
KEY DELIVERABLE .; DiLpiER48 -LEAcTIO;Ty':
'PRODUCT-' 1)11RATION PROVINCIAL CO RESPONSIIILITIES
RESPONSIBILITIES
Assessment
Report (cont'd)
drinking water threat and associated hazard
rating, (ii) drinking water issue, and (iii) human-
made preterenttal pathway.
Digital threats inventory and issues databases
assembled for each Source Protection Area
according to data specifications
Additional information products as per guidance
(TBC).
Communications: Communications/Consultation
as per provincial guidance (TSP.
3. Water Quality Risk Assessment (requires
SWP Committee to be in place)
Note: multi-year workplan will need to make
assumptions an who will be undertaking work
(Le, CA vs. municipality)
IM: Maintain an inventory which documents
how the risk assessment score was derived for
each threat, and the consultation process
involved prior to the categorizing the threat
Assessment
Report (cont'd)
7. Water Quality Risk Assessment
8 months Provide ongoing
i (*date tbd due technical guidance
Incorporate the results of the Tier 1 semi- to dependency
quantitative water quality risk assessment within the . = requires
vulnerable areas (i.e. Significant Groundwater vulnerability
Recharge Areas, Highly Vulnerable Aquifers, and analysis
existing and future IPZ and WHPA) into a single : (vulnerability
report for each Source Protection Area to represent scores) and
this module In the Assessment Report, including: threat
a. Risk score for each drinking water threat within inventory/issue
each vulnerable area evaluation
n
b. Modified es ied risk.scor for each drinking water t rd
threat that take into account/give credit to
known risk management measures already in
place.
c. Assessment Report worksheet fisting each
drinking water threat and associated risk score
and modified risk score.
d. Map that identifies the location of all significant
drinking water threats to water quality,
Communications: Communications/Consultation
10 of 12
Transfer of Crown
technical guidance 10
CAs.
KEY DELIVERABLE DELIVERABLE 'ACTIVITY
PRODUCTS
DURATION
Assessment
Report (=it'd)
2. Water Quantity Risk Assessment (requires
SWR Committee to be in piace)
Note: Where a Tier 3 Numerical Water Budget
was initiated (i.e. on individual drinking water
systems within subwatersheds determined in
the Tier 2 Water Budgets to be under
significant or moderate water quantity stress),
a Water Quantity Risk Assessment will be
completed.
Note: multi-year workplan will need to make
assumptions on who will be undertaking work
(i.e. CA vs. municipality)
as per provincial guidance (IBC).
IM:
• Additional information products as per
guidance (IBC).
TBC- additional guidance from MOEIMNRJCO will
be provided.
8. Water Quantity Risk Assessment
incorporate Inc results at the water duantity risk
assessment for the local area water supply system
associated with each drinking water system that
was subject to a Tier 3 Water Budget into a single
report within each Source Protection Area to
represent this module in the Assessment Report
including:
a. The exposure level of the system,
b. The supply tolerance of the drinking water
source supplying the system:
c, Risk scores far each local area water
supply system.
d. inventory. Assessment Report worksheet,
and maps of drinking water threats to water
quantity located in the local area water
supply system.
Communications: Communications/Consultation
as per provincial guidance (TBC),
IM:
• Additional information products as per
guidance (TBC)
TBC- additional guidance from MOE/MNRICO will
PROVINCIAL CO RESPOt4SIBLITIES
RESPONSIBILITIES .
(*date tbd due I Provide ongoing ! Transfer of Crown
to dependency technical guidance ! technical guidance to
= requires CAs
initiation of Tier
3 numerical
(complex)
water budget
model and
requires
municipal long-
term water
supply
•
strategies.
•
:••
•
•
•
be provide°.
2. Assessment Report Compilation Assessment Report Compilation (*date tbd due Province to develop
1. Compile the repcirts prc!p_ared for Inc various i to dependency and make available
11 of 12
EY'DELIVERABLE
DELIVERABLE ACTIVITY.
'PRODUCTS-, ' DURATION "
.
,PROyiNCtAL , : -
- RESPONSIBILITIES
CO RESPONSIBLITIES
i 1.
Compile and integrate technical studies
modules into a completed Assessment Report
= requires
Assessment Report
3 2.
Approvals process
for each Source Protection Area ready for
completion of
worksheet
i 3.
Coordinate inputs to a worksheet that will
submission for approvals.
all Assessment
serve as a tool for tracking inforr: ration
developed in the various components of
the Assessment Report as per provincial
guidance (TBC)
2.
Assessment Report worksheet
listingisummarizing the key deliverables
developed In the various components of the
Assessment Report as per provincial guidance
Report
modules)
Target March
2008
(under development)
1 iii` 12
RES. #D32/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
MALTON ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PROJECT
Progress Report. A progress report on the accomplishments and next
steps for the Malton Environmental Stewardship Project.
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) continue to work with the City of Mississauga, Malton
Residents Association, Mississauga- Airport Rotary Club, Ontario Trillium Foundation,
and Region of Peel to implement the Malton Environmental Stewardship Project work
plan deliverables;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to report back to the board annually regarding the
project milestones and accomplishments.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #2/02, held on February 22, 2002, Resolution #A34/02 was approved, in
part, as follows:
THAT the Malton Community Action Area Stewardship Group be established to oversee
the implementation of the Malton Community Action Area Plan;
This plan followed targets and priorities set out in the Etobicoke - Mimico Watershed Coalition's
document: Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico
Creeks (May 2002).
The Malton Environmental Stewardship Project (MESP) began in July 2004 as a four -year
community initiative through an Ontario Trillium Foundation grant of $253,700. The goal of the
MESP is to demonstrate the goals of The Living City in Malton by creating Healthy Rivers and
Shorelines, and Regional Biodiversity supported by a network of greenspaces and people
committed to sustainable living. This is being accomplished through hands -on environmental
stewardship program activities designed to engage local schools, faith groups, agencies,
businesses and the many culturally diverse communities living in this watershed.
MESP's main stewardship activities are:
• Creek Clean -Up and Habitat Naturalization Plantings;
• outreach education programs to foster a connection to nature, provide a better
understanding of the importance of natural habitats, and promote lifestyle practices to
reduce negative environmental impacts;
• to engage the many segments of Malton's culturally diverse community;
• to build community capacity through strong local partnerships with organizations and
residents to continue supporting stewardship in Malton.
To date, this project has reached over 13,500 people and engaged over 2,000 volunteers who
contributed over 8,300 hours of their time. The program has been very successful in meeting or
exceeding its targets. A summary of the expected results and accomplishments to date are
summarized as follows:
75
Expected Results
(July 1, 2004 — June 30, 2006)
Accomplishments to Date
(July 1, 2004 - June 1, 2006)
12 naturalization /clean -up /restoration events each
year in 7 community action sites
17 Creek Clean -Up /Habitat Naturalization
Planting events held at 5 of the 7 sites
Approximately 1,000 native trees, shrubs &
meadow plants to be planted in total
1,032 native trees and shrubs planted to date
2
Approximately 5,600m of forest, wetland, riparian
and meadow areas enhanced
2
Over 7,800m of riparian, meadow and forest
areas enhanced to date
2 wildlife structures (two hibernacula and two
habitat piles) and 18 nest boxes installed
35 bird nest boxes constructed for installation
in backyards in Malton
6 community /business education
workshops /seminars to be held each year
7 community workshops /seminars
1 two -day youth environment conference
5 presentations to community groups
5 display events
4 interpretive nature hikes
2 annual environmental festivals
2 annual Malton Stewardship Day festivals
Malton Environmental Stewardship Group (Malton
Community Action Area Advisory Committee)
established with representation from key
community stakeholder groups
Malton Environmental Stewardship Group
(MESG) formed in fall of 2004 and remainders
engaged in regular meetings with
ever - increasing participation
An environmental youth corp to be formed for
participation in stewardship activities
MESP Youth Action Group formed in late 2004
and has membership of 70+ youth aged
14 -25
4 schools to participate in stewardship activities
each year
5 schools participated to date
10 activities and events to be held by each
participating school annually
5 participating schools engaged in 2 -6
environmental activities in each year
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will continue to work with the City of Mississauga, Malton Residents Association,
Mississauga - Airport Rotary Club, Ontario Trillium Foundation, Region of Peel and community
partners to implement the following work plan deliverables over the next two years:
• 12 naturalization /clean -up /restoration events (six per year) with 1,000
2
trees /shrubs /herbaceous plants planted, and approximately 14,500 m of habitat enhanced;
• install 2 hibernacula, 2 habitat piles and additional nest boxes;
• host 6 community /business education workshops /seminars (three per year);
• host Malton Stewardship Day;
• engage local schools in environmental activities (with at least 2 participating schools per
year, 5 activities per school per year);
• continue to build capacity of Malton Environmental Stewardship Group (Community Action
Area Advisory Committee);
• continue to engage Youth Action Group in stewardship activities;
• produce and distribute a newsletter highlighting MESP programs and events;
• construct a wetland viewing platform and install interpretive signage at Wildwood Park;
• develop and promote school program packages; and
76
• implement Sustainable Schools program in partnership with EcoSource Mississauga's
Green Schools Program.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
This project has been granted core funding by the Ontario Trillium Foundation in the amount of
$253,700 and subsequently has received annual funding from the Region of Peel's Sustainable
Communities Program in the amount of $25,000 to $30,000 per year. MESP has an average
annual budget of $125,000. The following funds have also been raised over the last two years
including $9,000 from the WaI -Mart - Evergreen Green Grants Program, $700 from Wal -Mart
Canada Inc., $5,000 from Cargill Inc. and Cargill Foods Toronto, and $1,750 from the
Mississauga - Airport Rotary Club.
Report prepared by: Marnie Branfireun, 905 - 615 -4640, Extension 2513
For Information contact: Marnie Branfireun, 905 - 615 -4640, Extension 2513
Date: June 23, 2006
RES. #D33/06 - CENTREVILLE CREEK COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
Progress Report. Update on the Centreville Creek Community Outreach
and Environmental Stewardship Program.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) continue to implement the Centreville Creek
Environmental Stewardship Program (CCESP) in partnership with Trout Unlimited
Canada, Ontario Trillium Foundation and the Region of Peel;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to provide an annual project progress report that
highlights the milestones and the accomplishments of the program.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #7/04, held on July 23, 2004, Resolution #A223/04 was approved as
follows:
THAT the Centreville Creek Community Outreach and Environmental Stewardship
Program be approved;
THAT staff be authorized to take such action as is necessary to implement the Centreville
Creek Community Outreach and Environmental Stewardship Program, including the
signing and execution of all required documentation;
77
AND FURTHER THAT staff provide an annual project progress report that highlights the
milestones and the accomplishments of the program.
In 2004, the CCESP was granted $159,000 in financial support from the Ontario Trillium
Foundation (OTF). This three -year community stewardship program is designed to increase
awareness and educate the community about environmental issues impacting the Centreville
Creek subwatershed, while protecting, restoring and enhancing the ecological health of the
area through naturalization projects and stewardship activities. This program includes
hands -on initiatives such as monitoring, habitat creation, watershed clean -ups and tree
plantings that empower and involve the community.
The program has recently completed its second year and has been successful in meeting and
exceeding its targets. The expected results and actual accomplishments are summarized
below.
Expected Results to date
(May 1, 2004 to June 1, 2006)
Accomplishments to date
(May 1, 2004 to June 1, 2006)
Engage 800 individuals
Engaged 2,300 individuals
Deliver 8 community planting events
Organized and implemented 12 community
planting events
Deliver 8 community clean -up events
Organized and implemented 8 community
clean -up events
Work with 8 school groups
Worked with 22 school groups
Plant 400 aquatic plants
Planted 1,200 aquatic plants
Plant 6,000 native trees and shrubs
Planted 13,000 native trees and shrubs
Install 50 wildlife habitat structures (duck
nesting structures, songbird nesting boxes,
snake hibernaculums, etc.)
Installed 90 wildlife habitat structures
Complete 8 monitoring programs
Completed 9 monitoring programs
Deliver 2 educational workshops
Hosted 3 educational workshops
Assist 2 private landowners with private land
stewardship initiatives
Assisted 33 private landowners with private
land stewardship initiatives
These deliverables were achieved through the following program components:
• public community events;
• a partnership with Albion Hills Conservation Area and the Albion Hills Field Centre;
• private landowner outreach.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will continue to work with Trout Unlimited Canada and community partners to implement
OTF deliverables, present annual OTF reports and secure in -kind and matching funds.
Over the next year (2006/07), staff will work to implement the OTF deliverables outlined below,
and exceed those expected results wherever possible.
• engage 400 individuals;
• deliver 4 community planting events;
78
• deliver 4 community clean -up events;
• work with 4 school groups;
• plant 200 aquatic plants;
• plant 3,000 native trees and shrubs;
• install 25 wildlife habitat structures;
• complete 4 monitoring programs;
• deliver 1 educational workshop;
• assist 1 private landowner with a private land stewardship initiative.
In anticipation of the OTF grant commitment concluding in the summer of 2007, staff will meet
with existing and potential project partners to define the future direction of the project and
develop a renewed collaborative model.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
To date, core funding for the CCESP has been provided by OTF and through the Region of
Peel Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Regeneration Fund. Additional funds supporting various
initiatives within the program have been provided by the Community Fisheries/Wildlife
Involvement Program, Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, Izaak Walton Fly Fishing Club, Ontario
Streams, Shell Environmental Fund, TD Friends of the Environment Foundation, Trout
Unlimited Canada and Winter Hatches Fly Fishing Club.
Report prepared by: Vince D'Elia, extension 5646
For Information contact: Vince D'Elia, extension 5646
Date: June 23, 2006
RES. #D34/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DON VALLEY BRICK WORKS
Lease Agreement with Evergreen for Restoration and Operation of the
Industrial Building Portion. Recommends approval, together with the City
of Toronto, to enter into a lease with Evergreen for the restoration and
operation of the industrial pad portion of the Don Valley Brick Works.
Dick O'Brien
Frank Dale
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a lease with Evergreen for the "leased
premises ", being the portion of the Don Valley Brick Works which includes the industrial
buildings and parking areas at the southern end of the site at 550 Bayview Avenue,
subject to the following:
1) the lease be on terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitors;
2) the lease be subject to approval by the City of Toronto;
79
THAT, if formally requested by Evergreen, and subject to negotiation of a satisfactory
agreement with the City of Toronto, TRCA consider a joint and several loan guarantee for
Evergreen not to exceed $3 million to a financial institution acceptable to TRCA and the
City of Toronto and subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA and solicitors;
THAT the Evergreen Master Plan for the restoration and adaptive re -use of the heritage
and cultural resources of the Toronto Don Valley Brick Works dated June, 2006, be
approved;
THAT said lease be subject to obtaining approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in
accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.27, as
amended, and Section 42 of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O.1990, E.26;
AND FURTHER THAT appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take all
necessary action to implement the lease including the signing and execution of
documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #9/04, held on October 29, 2004, Resolution #A293/04 was approved as
follows:
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with the Evergreen Environmental Foundation (Evergreen) and
the City of Toronto (the City) to enable the adaptive re -use of the heritage and cultural
resources of the Toronto Don Valley Brick Works (Brick Works);
THAT staff be authorized to enter into negotiations with the City of Toronto and the
Evergreen Environmental Foundation to formulate a lease of 21 years less a day on terms
and conditions as set out in the Memorandum of Understanding and satisfactory to
TRCA staff and solicitor;
THAT staff work collaboratively with Evergreen and the City by recognizing the Brick
Works project as an important priority for third party funding to be raised by Evergreen to
complete the project;
THAT staff work with the City and Evergreen to devise the appropriate trail connection
from the Brick Works to the Don Valley trail system and links to Todmorden Mills;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed and authorized to take the necessary action to
give effect to the foregoing including the signing of documents on behalf of TRCA.
In September of 2003, the City of Toronto designated Evergreen as the preferred proponent
following a call for proposals to adaptively re -use the designated heritage and cultural features
of the Don Valley Brick Works. TRCA staff cooperated with the city in reviewing proposals and
worked with the city staff steering committee to prepare the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU).
80
The Brick Works site was acquired by TRCA by expropriation in 1987. The attached drawing
(Attachment 1) illustrates the site and its buildings. The site is under management agreement
with the City of Toronto. Staff has confirmed with our solicitor that the proposed uses of the
leased premises, upon receipt of the necessary Minister's approval, would be consistent with
the expropriation.
Evergreen is a charitable, non - profit organization that has been active in environmental
programs in Toronto for some time. Evergreen has developed a capital fundraising strategy
and a vision of an exciting Toronto destination on the themes of community, culture and urban
ecology. Evergreen proposes to convert the large shed building into a native plant nursery
and a garden centre. In addition, there will be demonstration gardens, including a children's
teaching garden, market space, community space for meetings and public programming, food
outlets, an amphitheatre for outdoor performing arts and office space for the Evergreen
national headquarters. Partnering primarily with other like minded and community based
organizations, the balance of the buildings on site would be used for heritage and cultural
community uses respecting the themes of youth and leadership, visual arts and music, health
and wellness, food and nutrition, ecological and heritage interpretation. To ensure that all
programming and tenant use of the site is consistent with the vision and themes, all
sub - tenants will be required to conform to a "charter" of themes and prescribed uses.
RATIONALE
Since the signing of the MOU, staff has worked with City of Toronto staff to negotiate terms and
conditions of the proposed lease. The City of Toronto, TRCA and Evergreen will be signatories
to the lease with the city continuing in its role of managing the lease as well as the balance of
the Brick Works site.
Project Financing
Evergreen, as part of the MOU, pledges to raise $25 million from the federal and provincial
governments. In 2006, the federal government announced funding of $15 million for the
project. The federal Minister of Finance has visited the site and confirmed that the funding is
available. Evergreen has advised that $10 million in funding commitment from the province
has also been approved. Evergreen has secured funding of $3 million and pledges of a further
$2 to $3 million. Total funding is at $30 million toward a target of $50 million. Under the terms
of the MOU, Evergreen has advised that it has satisfied the condition that a minimum of $20
million be committed as a pre - qualification to lease the site.
Evergreen has plans for fundraising a further $8 million which will ensure that the "hard cost" of
the project, estimated at $38 million is in place. The remaining funds will be required for
programs and ongoing maintenance of the site.
Evergreen has advised that provincial and federal funding will be paid in arrears. Evergreen
has indicated that to secure financing from a major financial institution it may be necessary for
Evergreen to secure a loan guarantee from the City of Toronto and TRCA. This is to resolve
cash flow issues during the period of construction. The city will report further on this to
Council and seek approval for the loan guarantee if requested to do so by Evergreen. TRCA
staff recommend that TRCA consider a request for a loan guarantee up to $3 million on terms
and conditions satisfactory to TRCA, one of which would be City of Toronto approval of the
request.
81
There is some risk that if the Evergreen project were to fail to proceed after the $3 million was
advanced, the city and TRCA would be asked to reimburse the lending institution. As the
project proceeds, the risk diminishes as the asset value of the restored site grows. While the
city and TRCA might have to pay out the funds, without the project, the city and TRCA face at
least $3 million in costs to deal with the deteriorating buildings. While some restoration has
been completed, many of the Brick Works buildings are in generally poor condition so the city
and TRCA must invest in the site. Evergreen assumes the bulk of the financial risk.
Evergreen's Master Plan
The master plan is identified in the lease and is a conceptual plan for the restoration and re -use
of the leased premises. The plan details Evergreen's proposed use of each building and the
new construction planned for the site. Evergreen, under the terms of the lease, will be
responsible for all maintenance and restoration of the buildings.
The area of the site known as the quarry, including features such as the Weston Quarry
Garden, will not be part of the lease and will continue to be managed and maintained by the
city. Evergreen will be granted a non - exclusive licence for the use of the quarry which will
entitle them to the same use of the quarry as the public.
Evergreen's Business Plan and Operational Model
Evergreen has completed a business plan for the site as a self- financing enterprise
demonstrating environmental, social and economic sustainability. It is to be a year round
destination for discovery and learning about nature and culture that will change the way we
think about the city, the environment and our health.
Evergreen has partners including Outward Bound, YMCA, the Gardiner Museum of Ceramic
Arts, Jamie Kennedy Kitchens, Foodshare Toronto, the Merchants of Green Coffee and the
University of Toronto Health Knowledge Lab. Evergreen will have its national headquarters on
site as well as a native plant nursery and demonstration gardens. Evergreen estimates that
annual operating costs will be about $5 million.
Community Involvement
The Don Valley Brick Works Advisory Committee has been an advocate for the Brick Works
restoration for many years. The committee supports the project albeit with some reservations
and with the hope that Evergreen will raise their sights to include a global perspective.
Evergreen has consulted a variety of stakeholders over the last four years and this consultation
has extensively shaped the project. Evergreen has coordinated stewardship events on site
and interpretive tours. The master plan contains an extensive list of community engagement
activities.
82
Flood Management and Evacuation Plan
Evergreen is required as a condition precedent to the lease to have approved by TRCA a flood
management and evacuation plan. This leased premises flood on a regular basis and building
restoration plans take into account the fact that the leased premises will be flooded to various
depths. All electrical and other critical systems are to be constructed above the maximum
flood levels. Evergreen and any of its sub - tenants will be required to acknowledge the
potential for flooding of the site and to indemnify TRCA and the City of Toronto. In the event of
conditions likely to lead to flooding, TRCA will notify Evergreen and the site will be closed and
evacuated.
TRCA Regulatory Requirements
As the Brick Works site is regulated by TRCA, all development of new structures on site, or
redevelopment proposals will require a permit from TRCA under Ontario Regulation 166/06.
Proposals with working drawings will need to be reviewed to determine implications to hazard
planning and the conveyance of flood waters within the Brick Works site and valleyland.
Natural Heritage
Evergreen has retained a consultant to prepare a Natural Heritage Impact Study and
Enhancement Strategy. The study will assess the potential impacts of Evergreen at the Brick
Works and make recommendations on the management of any impacts. Going a step further,
the study will provide direction on how the natural heritage of the Brick Works property could
be enhanced. Staff of Parks, Forestry and Recreation and TRCA are represented on the project
steering committee. The study's findings will satisfy the natural heritage - related regulatory
requirements of the city Planning Division as well as the management and operational needs of
Parks, Forestry and Recreation. The study will be completed in July 2006.
The Brick Works park will remain under the management of the city and TRCA. Thus., the
funding and decision - making related to the findings of the Natural Heritage Impact Study and
Enhancement Strategy will remain the responsibility of the city and TRCA. Nevertheless,
Evergreen is eager to assist with the stewardship of the remainder of the site, including the
Weston Quarry Garden over the long -term. These lands are subject to an agreement with the
W. Garfield Weston Foundation and the lease will have to be consistent and in compliance with
the terms of this agreement. Evergreen will mobilize its staff, volunteer and fundraising
resources in support of the work of the city, TRCA and their community partners.
Environmental Remediation
The City of Toronto remains responsible for site remediation. The latest estimates on the cost
to abate the historic contamination on site to be $840,000. The removal of designated
substances from the site must be complete in order for Evergreen to secure a building permit
through the Building Department.
To date, the city has completed a Designated Substance Survey and Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment (ESA). A Phase II ESA is currently underway and upon completion will enable
city staff to undertake a Site Specific Risk Assessment.
Planning Approvals
The site is zoned as parkland "G" in the Borough of East York Zoning By -law 6752. The zoning
permits the following uses:
83
• Uses incidental and contributory to the operations of the City of Toronto and Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority;
• Public Recreational Uses; and
• Accessory Uses.
A Preliminary Project Review (PPR) application was submitted to the Building Department on
May 15, 2006. The PPR report was completed on June 7, 2006. The review determined that a
majority of the uses proposed in the Evergreen Master Plan are educational and recreational in
nature, and, as such, can be defined as Public Recreational Uses. In the opinion of City of
Toronto Building Department officials, three of Evergreen's proposed uses will require
additional approvals: the proposed retail nursery, restaurant and administration space (for
Evergreen and its non - profit partners). These required approvals will be sought from the
Committee of Adjustment through a Minor Variance application filed by TRCA as owner of the
site and Evergreen and /or the city as agent for the owner.
TRCA staff, city staff and the Don Valley Brick Works Advisory Committee are of the opinion
that a procedural path that involves the Committee of Adjustment is appropriate because:
• The uses in question are subordinate to, and supportive of, the proposed main public
recreational uses, in terms of the floor area, the on -site public experience and the long -term
sustainability of the proposed facilities;
• Evergreen's facilities will contribute to the operations (i.e. educational programming) of the
city and TRCA;
• The uses in question can be found in other city parks, including High Park, Edwards
Gardens and the Toronto Islands, as well as at city/TRCA- operated cultural assets,
including the Toronto Zoo and Black Creek Pioneer Village;
• Evergreen, in partnership with the city and TRCA, has managed a thorough community
consultation process in support of the development in the Evergreen Master Plan (over 700
members of the community have been consulted); and
• City Council and TRCA will have substantively endorsed the project by entering into this
lease with Evergreen.
In addition to TRCA regulatory requirements, there are a number of planning - related
permits /approvals required as conditions precedent to Evergreen obtaining a building permit:
• Toronto Preservation Board (the buildings and site are designated);
• Ontario Heritage Trust (provincial heritage easement agreement);
• Ontario Ministry of the Environment (a Record of Site Condition); and
• City Planning Department (Site Plan Control).
Transportation and Site Access
The city is responsible for providing a signalized intersection at the entrance of the site on
Bayview Ave at the appropriate time. The city and TRCA are to share responsibility to make
appropriate connections to the existing trail system in the Don Valley.
84
Other Terms and Conditions
Attachment 2 is the list of major terms and conditions which was considered by the City of
Toronto Administration Committee on July 4, 2006. This is included for the information of the
members as it summarizes all of the major terms and conditions of the proposed lease.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Staff recommend approval of the lease subject to the required terms and conditions. The
current draft lease is the result of extensive negotiation with Evergreen and has been reviewed
by TRCA's solicitors, Gardiner Roberts LLP, as well as a team of city lawyers.
Staff has assessed the risks of the lease. A city report points out that if Evergreen were to fail,
the city and TRCA would inherit a partially improved site but no significant capital or
programming obligations. Without the project, the city and TRCA will be faced with finding
significant capital and operating funds to restore and secure the site.
In summary, the lease with Evergreen represents the best available opportunity for TRCA and
the city to fulfill their heritage and cultural objectives for the Brick Works. For TRCA, the
Evergreen proposal is consistent with The Living City vision and will help advance many of our
sustainability objectives. The city and the Toronto region will have a vibrant renewed heritage
attraction for public recreation, learning and enjoyment.
Report prepared by: Jim Dillane, 416 - 667 -6292
For Information contact: Jim Dillane, 416- 667 -6292
Date: July 05, 2006
Attachments: 2
85
Attachment 1
.=•
5 z E
••••,.
, .
Attachment 2
APPENDIX "A"
Major Terms and Conditions
Leasing of 12 acres (app.) of Don Valley Brick Works Site
550 Bayview Avenue, Toronto
1. Parties:
Owner /Consenting Party: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ( "TRCA ").
Landlord: City of Toronto pursuant to a memorandum of agreement made between
TRCA and the City dated June 14, 1961.
Tenant: Evergreen Environmental Foundation, a not - for - profit charitable corporation
incorporated under the Corporations Act (Canada) and registered under the Income Tax
Act (Canada).
2. Leased Premises:
Approximately twelve (12) acres comprising the southerly portion of the approximately
40.7 acre site formerly occupied by the Don Valley Brick Works (the "Site ") located on
the west side of Bayview Avenue, just north of the Bloor Street Bridge, being the lands
shown more or less as Parts 1 -8 inclusive on draft Reference Plan 66R -_ attached as
Appendix "B" together with the existing buildings and structures thereon. Under
memorandum of understanding between the Parties contained in Clause No. 2 of
Report No. 6 of the Economic Development and Parks Committee adopted by City
Council meeting held on September 28, 29, 30 and October 1, 2004 (the "2004 MOU ")
the Leased Premises are limited to the horizontal land strata from the surface of the
ground up and do not include the subsurface or ground water (the "Retained Lands ").
3. Reservation of City Rights in Buildings 4, 5 and 9:
The City will be allowed to continue to occupy Building 4 at one dollar ($1) rent, and
Building 5 at one dollar ($1) rent plus a proportional share of additional rent until
satisfactory alternative space can be found to relocate Culture's wood - working shop.
The City will also be allowed to use the interior of Building 9 at one dollar ($1) rent until
such time as the Tenant can demonstrate a bona fide use for it with an approved
budget to match at which time the City will surrender these premises.
4. Assumption of Existing Tenancies and Occupancy Arrangements:
Tenant assumes the following:
87
Buildin.
Space
Subtenant /Licensee /Occupant
Base Rent
Bldg 1
Large room on the
2nd Floor (or like
space)
Don Valley Art Club
TBD
Bldg 1
A.P. Coleman room
on 2nd Floor (or
like space)
Parks, Forestry and Recreation
Department
$1 + % share of
add'I rent
Bldg 4
Storage Room
Culture Division (until replacement
space is secured)
$1
Bldg 5
Existing Shop
Culture Division (until replacement
space is secured)
$1 + % share of
add'I rent
Bldg 9
Ground Floor
Storage by Parks, Forestry and
Recreation Department (until new
use & budget by Evergreen is
secured)
$1
5. Reservation of Mutual Satisfactory Easements and Rights-of-Way:
The Lease will reserve satisfactory compensation -free easements, rights -of -way,
licences and other privileges in favour of the City and TRCA, including members of the
public, permitting ingress and egress to and from and use of the balance of the Site,
including the Weston Quarry Garden Lands and the parking area, in a form acceptable
to the City Solicitor and legal counsel for TRCA. The City and TRCA will also have the
compensation -free right, as long as they do not materially affect the Tenant's use and
enjoyment of the Leased Premises, to grant easements, licences, rights -of -way, road
widenings and other rights and interests to others.
6. Term:
21 years Tess a day.
7. Commencement Date:
May 1, 2008, subject to extension by agreement of all Parties to a date not later than
December 31, 2008. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by all Parties, on or before
December 31, 2006, the Parties shall have negotiated and entered into a Lease
consistent with the terms and conditions set out in Appendix A to the satisfaction of
TRCA and the City and their respective legal counsel.
8. Option to Renew:
None.
88
9. Nature of the Project:
The Brick Works shall be an innovative and diverse range of mixed -use programs,
facilities and attractions modelled on the Themes described in the 2004 MOU and
consistent with the Tenant's Site Charter, setting out the purpose and vision of the
Leased Premises and the roles and responsibilities of the Tenant and all permitted
occupants at the Leased Premises. Contemplated uses include: a Visitor's Centre; a
Garden Centre; a native plant nursery; demonstration gardens; children's camps;
leadership and youth at risk programs; health and wellness programs; community
meeting space, arts studios food service functions including a cafe; a fine dining
restaurant; an organic food market; office /administration space for non - profit
organizations and socially responsive businesses (including some for - profit that
conform to the conservation nature of the site charter); conference and event facilities;
and winter activities such as a skating facility. Certain of these uses may be weather
dependent. Although there will not be any prohibition on significant life events such as
"weddings" and "sporting events" carried out in the spirit of a "good neighbour policy"
and in accordance with applicable laws, the Lease will contain such provisions as are
considered appropriate by the General Manager of Economic Development, Culture
and Tourism (the "General Manager ") and TRCA, to warn all sub - tenants and other
permitted occupants of the Tenant as well as the public of the risks of cancellation of
such events on short notice due to force majeure or other reasons considered
appropriate by the Chief Corporate Office in consultation with the General Manager.
10. Minimum Annual Rent:
$1 plus GST on the Commencement Date and every anniversary.
11. Additional Rent:
Except for space in Buildings 1, 4, 5 and 9 which will continue to be used by the City as
described in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, this will be a triple net and carefree Lease to
the City including taxes, insurance, electricity, water, gas or oil, heat and air
conditioning, sewers and all other services, supplies, utilities, communication services
and repair and maintenance.
12. TRCA and City's $3 Million Line of Credit Guarantee:
The Tenant has expressed concern with respect to its operating cash flow during
construction which will be constrained and, secondly, its capital cash flow since the
timing for its pledges and the flow of recently announced Federal and Provincial funding
to the Tenant will not correspond directly with the Tenant's spending on construction.
The Tenant may require a joint and several TRCA and City guarantee on a $3,000,000
line of credit that it is currently negotiating with its banker in order to meet its cash flow
requirements for construction purposes. The intent of the loan guarantee is to provide
bridge financing between the receipt of various funds raised from private and public
donors as well as the Federal and Provincial governments and progress payments
required by various contractors, firms and suppliers during the course of completing
various stages of the Project.
89
Therefore, in connection with and to facilitate completion of the Tenant's construction
work, Evergreen may request TRCA and the City to issue a joint and several guarantee
on the $3,000,000 credit facility that Evergreen is currently negotiating with its financial
institution (a Canadian chartered bank) and, if so, to enter into a four -party agreement
with the Tenant and its financial institution, for a loan guarantee in the maximum amount
of three million dollars ($3,000,000.00) (inclusive of all interest payable by the Tenant)
for a three year period commencing on the Commencement Date of the Lease, such
guarantee to be consistent with the City's policy and terms and conditions for capital
loans and line of credit guarantees embodied in Report No. 2 of the Policy and Finance
Committee as adopted by City Council at its meeting held on March 6, 7 and 8, 2001,
as amended, and including, without limitation, the concurrence and approval of the
Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer and the General Manager with the
Tenant's financial statements, business plan as well as other documentation and
information as required by Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer and, to the
extent possible, assignments of any funding contribution agreements or related
commitments from all levels of government and other financial contributors (private and
public) will be obtained on terms and conditions entirely acceptable to the City and
TRCA, in form acceptable to the City Solicitor and TRCA's legal counsel.
13. Construction Lien Concerns:
Typically, the Tenant should provide security to ensure that its obligations to the
contractor will be fulfilled, otherwise, the general contractor, if unpaid, could lien the
Leased Premises and the City and TRCA may be at risk for the unpaid amount. There
is a concern with respect to possible construction liens attaching to the Leased
Premises because the Tenant has not provided confirmation that any acceptable
security against this risk to TRCA and the City will be provided. Until the Tenant's
construction and payment schedules are determined and staff has had an opportunity
to review them and the Tenant's financing commitments, it is not possible to quantify
this risk. We are awaiting further assurances.
14. Environmental:
1. Under the 2004 MOU approved by Council, the Tenant was not to assume
responsibility for existing contamination of the Leased Premises. Accordingly,
TRCA and the City are to remediate the existing buildings on the Leased Premises
by removing the asbestos roofs and other historical contamination found within
these buildings at an estimated cost of approximately eight hundred and forty
thousand dollars ($840,000.00). The Tenant has agreed to be responsible for
disposal of the existing asbestos roofs at an estimated cost of approximately two
hundred and seventy thousand dollars ($270,000.00).
90
2. Under the 2004 MOU approved by Council, TRCA and the City are also responsible
to ensure that the Retained Lands comply with Ontario Regulation 153/04 under the
Environmental Protection Act (Ontario) for the Tenant's uses. Accordingly, the City
and TRCA will provide a Record of Site Condition ( "RSC ") for the Retained Lands
based on a Risk Assessment ( "RA ") accepted by the Ministry of the Environment
and will pay all costs associated with the implementation of risk management
measures in accordance with such RA and Risk Management Plan ( "RMP "), except
that the Tenant shall pay the disposal costs of any soil where:
a. the Tenant elects to excavate or requests the City to remove the soil, and
b. removal of such soil from the Retained Lands would not have been required to
permit the use of the Retained Lands for parkland.
3. Once the RSC is registered on the Environmental Site Registry, the Tenant will not
require the City or TRCA to perform any additional remediation of the historical
contamination except as provided in the RMP or as ordered by the Ministry of the
Environment. The Tenant will release TRCA and the City from all risks that the
Tenant may incur, including economic loss, direct or indirect, relating to or arising
from or associated with the historical contaminants and the condition of these lands
as described in the RSC. The Tenant will also require that the same release be
included in all subleases and occupancy agreements that the Tenant may enter into
for the Leased Premises.
4. During the term of the Lease and upon its termination or expiration, the Tenant will
remediate any contamination it or its permitted occupants as defined in the Lease
have caused or allowed to the Leased Premises and the remaining Brick Works site,
including the Retained Lands and the Weston Quarry Garden lands, to the extent
required by all applicable laws, including Ontario Regulation 153/04 under the
Environment Protection Act (Ontario) and the RA and RMP, as amended.
5. No digging or excavation of any part of the Retained Lands will be permitted without
the prior written approval of the City and TRCA, acting reasonably, whether or not
such digging or excavation is contemplated in the Master Plan or the Lease.
6. Once the RSC is registered on the Environmental Site Registry, if additional
contamination is discovered in, on or about the Retained Lands which the Ministry
of the Environment orders the City, TRCA and /or the Tenant to investigate, manage
or remediate in compliance with then current environmental legislation and
regulations:
a. TRCA and the City will use their commercially reasonable efforts to comply with
such requirements, up to a cumulative aggregate sum of five hundred thousand
dollars ($500,000.00) inclusive of soil testing, excavation and related work,
which sum shall be CPI adjusted on an annual basis from the Commencement
Date.
91
b. If the cumulative aggregate cost of such requirements is more than five hundred
thousand dollars ($500,000.00), as adjusted,
i. The Tenant will have the option to pay the additional costs of complying with
such requirements that are reasonably attributable to the occupancy of the
affected area by the Tenant or its permitted occupants as defined in the
Lease, i.e., those costs that the City and TRCA would not be required to pay
if the affected area were excluded from the Leased Premises. If so, the City
and TRCA shall pay the remaining costs and shall comply with the
regulatory requirement;
ii. If the Tenant does not agree to pay the additional costs as set out in clause
a:
1. the Parties will endeavour to negotiate the terms and conditions of a
mutually satisfactory cost - sharing agreement to deal with such excess
costs, in form acceptable to the City Solicitor; or
2. if the Parties, acting reasonably, do not wish to enter into any such
cost - sharing agreement, then:
a. the City and TRCA may isolate the contaminated area or areas in
question and may delete such portion(s) from the Lease, for the
period of time required to comply with the Order;
b. If the Order requires remediation of the entire Leased Premises, the
area deleted from the Lease may be the entire Leased Premises, and
the Lease will be suspended for the period of time required to comply
with the Order;
c. If the Order permits the City and TRCA a choice of options for
compliance, including an option of non -use or limited use, the Tenant
will not require the City and TRCA to select an option that requires
unlimited use or a more expensive option;
d. The Tenant will have an option of terminating the entire Lease if it
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the General Manager and TRCA,
acting reasonably, that isolation and deletion of any such
contaminated area would materially and negatively affect an integral
area of the Tenant's operation;
e. If all or part of the Leased Premises are deleted from the Lease under
this clause, or if the Tenant terminates the Lease under this clause,
each Party will be released from all obligations to the other arising
after such deletion or termination and for all related liabilities
including economic loss, mutatis mutandis. The Tenant will have the
reasonable right to remove its fixtures and chattels from the Leased
Premises if not in default; and
f. The Tenant will require that an acknowledgement to the foregoing
effect and the same release in favour of TRCA and the City be
included in all permitted subleases and other occupancy agreements
that the Tenant may enter into for the Leased Premises.
92
15. Maintenance and Repair:
The Tenant will build and retrofit all buildings and other improvements to flood - proofing
TRCA regulatory standards. Since the Leased Premises are in a flood plain, the
Tenant's all -risk insurance coverage may exclude flood coverage if unavailable at
commercially reasonable rates. If so, the Tenant's obligation to repair and to leave the
Leased Premises in good order and condition will necessarily exclude damage due to
an uninsured catastrophic flood. In this regard, the Lease will require the Tenant to
reserve and to set aside from its operating funds, one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000.00) annually up to a maximum cumulative amount of two hundred and fifty
thousand dollars ($250,000.00) to be applied for clean -up and remediation in the event
of such major flood damage on terms and conditions acceptable to TRCA and the City.
16. General Pre - Conditions to Lease Commencement for all Parties:
Receipt of satisfactory approvals from the Minister of Natural Resource to the Lease and
related agreements pursuant to s.42 of the Expropriations Act (Ontario) and s.21 of the
Conservation Authorities Act (Ontario).
Approval of a satisfactory transportation and access plan for the Site, including the
Leased Premises, to be prepared by the City.
All Parties will have entered into a tri -party use agreement, in form and substance
satisfactory to them, concerning rights of access and egress to and from certain
portions of the Site and the timing and method of the Tenant's construction work to
ensure minimal interference with the City and TRCA's use of the remainder of the Site.
All Parties will have entered into a heritage easement agreement, in form and substance
satisfactory to them, for the protection, management and enhancement of the heritage
landscape, designated buildings including the heritage building fabric as well as
industrial heritage artefacts and equipment, which is to be registered by the Tenant on
title at its expense.
Approvals of all authorities required to permit construction of the Tenant's Project in
accordance with plans and specifications to be approved by TRCA and the City, shall
be obtained by the Tenant and be final and unappealable including, any minor variance
approvals from the local Committee of Adjustment, site plan approvals and building
permits. TRCA shall, at the Tenant's expense, consent to the submission of any
application contemplated by this condition in its capacity as owner.
All Parties will have entered into a further tri -party agreement, in form and substance
satisfactory to them, in which TRCA and the City assign all their rights, benefits and
obligations in respect of existing tenancies and occupancy arrangements at the Leased
Premises and the Tenant assumes the same.
93
17. Pre - Conditions to Lease Commencement in favour of City and TRCA:
On or before May 1, 2008, the Tenant will submit to TRCA and the City for approval, its
construction plans and specifications, pre- tender cost estimates and a detailed
construction schedule and shall demonstrate it has fulfilled all the preconditions
necessary to obtain a building permit.
On or before May 1, 2008, the Tenant will have entered into a binding lump sum
construction contract and all necessary agreements with the architect and architect's
consultants for the project and a general and specific assignment of the benefit of such
agreements, as continuing collateral security, all in form and substance satisfactory to
the City and TRCA.
On or before May 1, 2008, the Tenant will have entered into a binding offer of interim
financing from an institutional lender acceptable to TRCA and the City in an amount not
less than three million dollars ($3,000,000) and on terms and conditions entirely
satisfactory to TRCA and the City and providing for an assignment of such financing on
Tenant default to TRCA and the City upon requested and for a forbearance and priority
agreement to be entered into between the Parties and such institutional lender, in a
form acceptable to the City Solicitor and legal counsel for TRCA.
On or before May 1, 2007, the Tenant will have entered into a binding offer of finance
and contribution agreement with the Province of Ontario in the principal amount of not
less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) and with the Federal Government of Canada
in the principal amount of not less than fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) on terms
and conditions entirely acceptable to TRCA and the City in their unfettered discretion
and providing for an assignment thereof or alternative assignment arrangements in
respect thereof satisfactory to the City and TRCA and for a forbearance and priority
agreement to be entered into between the Province of Ontario and Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of Canada and the Parties, in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor and
legal counsel for TRCA.
On or before May 1, 2008, the Tenant will provide TRCA and the Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer of the City with evidence of the Tenant's receipt of not less than thirty five
million dollars ($35,000,000.00) in unqualified capital fundraising for its Project on
terms and conditions entirely acceptable to TRCA and the Deputy City Manager and
Chief Financial Officer of the City, and the Tenant shall have entered into one or more
binding agreements for the assignment thereof or alternative assignment arrangements
in respect thereof to TRCA and the City, in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor and
legal counsel for TRCA.
On or before its application for a building permit in respect of the Project, the Tenant will
submit a hoarding and construction access plan to the City and TRCA for their approval
by them in their capacity as Parties to the Lease.
94
On or before the Commencement Date, the Tenants architect shall have provided
TRCA and the City with satisfactory written evidence of the Tenant's receipt of all
necessary approvals from all authorities required to construct and complete the Project,
including all requisite building permits.
There shall be no material default under the interim licence or permit arrangement
which the Tenant has requested the Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department to
issue for its limited use and occupancy of certain parts of the Leased Premises prior to
the Commencement Date and any other obligation of the Tenant to the City or TRCA in
respect of the Site or any part, including any heritage easement agreement.
18. Tenant Construction Obligations:
The Tenant will not let any capital contracts or commence any construction until it has
secured all agreed -upon funding commitments for 120% of the anticipated construction
obligation to the satisfaction of the Treasurer.
The Tenant shall apply for all required building permits within twelve (12) months after
delivery by TRCA and the City of a RSC and, in no event, later than December 31, 2008.
The Tenant shall comply with the City's "Fair Wage" and "Labour Trades Contractual
Obligations in the Construction Industry" policies during demolition and until completion
of its Project and, thereafter at any time during any further construction, maintenance,
repair or other similar work in respect of the Leased Premises during the Term. The
Tenant will provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior to the Lease Commencement
Date and, thereafter, upon request, with a satisfactory release and indemnity related to
these issues in form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor.
The Tenant shall comply with all collective agreements in the Construction Industry
(under the Labour Relations Act (Ontario), as amended) to which the City is or may
become bound prior to the commencement of any Project construction work. The
Tenant will provide the City, upon request, with a complete list of all unions, including
construction trades, that hold certificates and /or have collective bargaining rights with
the Tenants and any of its subsidiaries or related companies.
At all times during the Term, including during the period of any project construction
work and any time thereafter during any further period of construction, maintenance,
repair or other similar work in respect of the Leased Premises, the Tenant will comply
with the City's purchasing policies respecting non - discrimination and interprovincial
fairness legislation and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Act (Ontario).
TRCA and the City have the right to terminate if the Tenant does not commence
construction on or before December 31, 2008 or if the Project is not substantially
completed on or before December 31, 2010
95
The Tenant shall provide TRCA and the City with a bid bond posted by the contractor in
the minimum amount of ten percent (10 %) of the construction cost of the overall capital
improvements contract price and performance and labour and material bonds posted
by the contractor for construction of its capital improvements, each in the minimum
amount of fifty percent (50 %) of the overall capital improvements contract price, with the
City and TRCA named as dual obligees on terms and conditions acceptable to the City.
19. City Obligations:
Subject to the City completing a favourable traffic study, the City will install traffic lights,
an appropriate stacking lane and a pedestrian trail link to enhance public access to the
Site.
Subject to Council approval, the City will construct and maintain appropriate
way - finding signage along the Don Valley Parkway, Bayview Avenue and Bloor Street to
promote the Leased Premises.
Subject to Council approval, Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department will establish
the Weston Quarry Garden, as a "Regular" city park or as a "Garden Park" to be
maintained in accordance with the current Parks policy from time to time.
20. Sub - tenancies:
The Lease requires the assignment by the City and TRCA of existing tenancies, licences
or occupancy arrangements of the Don Valley Art Club on the second floor; and for the
office space currently utilized by Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department in Building
1.
The Lease will permit various subleases, licences, and other occupancy arrangements
by the Tenant to its permitted occupants as defined in the Lease, conditional upon
compliance with numerous specific safeguards and other terms and conditions to
protect the interest of TRCA and the City, including the provision of appropriate
releases and discharges relating to any injury or damage from such permitted
occupants' use of the Leased Premises or the remainder of the Site and the
acknowledgement and releases from such permitted occupants in favour of the City
and TRCA as contemplated in section 14 of Appendix "A ".
21. Signage:
The City shall name the Project the "Evergreen at the Brick Works ".
96
Subject to obtaining municipal approvals, the Tenant shall be permitted to honour
donors making significant capital donations to the Tenant from time to time, by
associating the name of such donors with respective buildings, spaces and facilities in
the Leased Premises for an appropriate period of time during the Lease. Spaces in the
Weston Quarry Garden lands will not be named without the prior approval of the W.
Garfield Weston Foundation. Representatives from the City and TRCA will participate in
the decision making of all donor honours, including naming. If any naming privilege is
anticipated to extend beyond the term of the Lease, the City and TRCA may, in their
sole discretion, consider extending donor recognition agreements beyond the Lease
Term on a case -by -case basis, provided that no such recognition will extend in
perpetuity.
22. Municipal Capital Facility and Development Charges Exemption:
The Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer of the City, in consultation with the
City Solicitor and the General Manager of Economic Development Culture and Tourism,
will be requested to consider the feasibility of declaring the Leased Premises or any
part(s) thereof, a municipal capital facility and exempting it or such part(s) from taxation
for municipal and school purposes and from development charges.
23. Other:
Such other lease terms and conditions as are deemed appropriate to the Chief
Corporate Officer, in consultation with the General Manager and TRCA, in a form
acceptable to the City Solicitor and TRCA's legal counsel.
97
RES. #D35/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
SEATON TRAIL MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL TO ONTARIO TRILLIUM
FOUNDATION
Endorsement of a proposal to the Ontario Trillium Foundation to develop
the Seaton Trail Management Plan. The Oak Ridges Trail Association
will be the lead on the proposal, with Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority and the City of Pickering as collaborators.
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the proposal to the Ontario
Trillium Foundation for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to be a
collaborator in the project to develop a trail management plan for the Seaton hiking trail
be approved;
THAT representatives of the Oak Ridges Trail Association, the City of Pickering, Ontario
Realty Corporation and Dell Management be advised of TRCA's approval of the proposal
and consulted on the plan to ensure appropriate trail planning design, development and
management;
THAT TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to submit
the proposal including the execution of any documents;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the status of the Ontario Trillium Foundation
proposal and details regarding the management plan.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Located on lands owned by the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) in the North Pickering
Planning area, the Seaton trail stretches 11 kilometres along the West Duffins Creek valley and
is used for hiking and cross country skiing. Dell Management Solutions has been contracted
to manage the land, including the trail, on ORC's behalf.
In 2004 ORC and TRCA requested that the Oak Ridges Trail Association (ORTA) assemble a
report on the condition of the Seaton Hiking Trail. This report evaluated the trail and contained
a series of recommendations for improvements.
In addition to recommendations made by the ORTA report, the Seaton trail is recognized in A
Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek as being a key component of a
continuous trail system in the watershed. A key recommendation in the State of the
Watershed report is the creation of a management plan.
The province is planning to develop a master plan for the Seaton Natural Heritage System.
The management plan for the Seaton hiking trail will be coordinated with studies done by the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs of Housing.
98
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Oak Ridges Trail Association (ORTA) will draft a Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF)
proposal and review it with partners, including TRCA, the City of Pickering and the Ontario
Realty Corporation. ORTA will then revise the proposal according to those consultations and
submit the proposal to the OTF.
TRCA staff will complete a natural heritage inventory and report on the Seaton trail lands.
TRCA staff will report back to the board on that status of the OTF proposal and details
regarding the management plan.
RATIONALE
A trail management plan will help to build community support for the trail and is consistent with
an integrated watershed management approach and watershed public use initiatives TRCA.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The proposal to the Ontario Trillium Foundation will be for approximately $75,000. The funds
will be spent on developing the management plan for the Seaton hiking trail and consulting
with the community. TRCA staff will provide in -kind services along with City of Pickering staff to
develop both the proposal and the plan.
Report prepared by: April Mathes, extension 5320
For Information contact: Mike Bender, extension 5287
Gary Bowen, extension 5385
Date: June 23, 2006
RES. #D36/06 - WESTERN BEACHES WATERCOURSE FACILITY
To report on the status of the Western Beaches Watercourse Facility.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Elaine Moore
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT UMA Projects Limited be
congratulated for their excellent management of the Western Beaches Watercourse
Facility project resulting in significant savings and efficiencies to the project;
THAT Aecon Construction and Materials Limited be recognized for their commitment to
the success of the project and their willingness to work with the project management
team to complete the breakwall under budget and ahead of schedule;
99
AND FURTHER THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) thank all
federal, provincial and municipal agencies who worked together to provide excellent
advice and support, resulting in timely approvals allowing the project to be constructed
on schedule.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The International Dragon Boat Federation (IDBF) awarded the 2006 World Club Crew
Championship to Toronto, conditional upon the ability to deliver a watercourse and the
necessary supporting facilities in time for the event (August 2006).
The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) confirmed that the Contribution
Agreement for the Western Beaches Watercourse Facility (WBWF) in the amount of $23 million
was executed by all funding partners. An additional $4 million dollars was also set aside for
contingencies to ensure that the watercourse was completed in time for the event.
At Authority Meeting #9104, held on October 29, 2004, Resolution #A281/04 was approved, in
part, as follows:
THAT staff be directed to develop an Eligible Recipient Delivery Agreement with the
Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) for the purpose of development
and implementation of a dragon boat course within the City of Toronto along Toronto's
western beaches between Ontario Place and the mouth of the Humber River at an
estimated cost of $23 million;
The accommodation of this event required the construction of a new multi -sport watercourse
facility. It was recognized that the time available to complete an Environmental Assessment
(EA), design and construct a facility for the 2006 event was very restricted, and therefore
required an aggressive implementation schedule. To this end, TWRC engaged a consulting
team led by MacViro Consultants Inc. to complete the EA and design components of this work.
Through a very cooperative effort by the consulting team, the regulatory agencies and all
funding partners, approvals for the project were in place by the end of September 2005.
In anticipation of the restricted construction schedule, and the requirement for onsite
supervision and direction, TRCA retained the project management services of UMA Projects
Limited. UMA's first task was to prepare a tender package for the supply, delivery and
placement of armour stone, filter stone and core stone for the construction of the Western
Beaches Watercourse Facility. To optimize the procurement process the tender document
required changes to reflect the refined breakwater design and quantity information. In order to
meet the aggressive project schedule, a new public tender for supply, delivery and placement
was issued and awarded to Aecon Construction Materials Limited. TRCA staff and consultants
worked to refine the scope of work by undertaking additional modeling while seeking to
achieve efficiencies wherever possible. Construction of the watercourse began in September
of 2005. With less than 8 months to build the watercourse an aggressive implementation
schedule was prepared and equipment arrived on -site from all over North America. The
breakwall construction and demolition continued throughout the winter and were substantially
completed by April 2006. The Jameson Avenue outfall diversion was completed in May and by
the end of June, Marilyn Bell Park was reinstated to the satisfaction of the City of Toronto.
Other associated construction activities included on -site fish habitat features within the
100
watercourse itself, and off -site fish habitat at the mouth of the Humber River and at Ontario
Place.
On February 4 and 5, 2006 a severe winter storm resulted in the failure of several sections of
the existing breakwater adjacent to the project. The damaged sections of breakwater would
affect the safety of boaters traveling along the western beaches shoreline, threaten public and
private assets along the affected areas of shoreline and undermine the quality of flat water
boating which is utilized along this section of the waterfront. In response to the need for
maintenance and repair works on this section of breakwater, TRCA and the TWRC partnered to
undertake these works in association with the construction of the Western Beaches
Watercourse Facility. It was only through the efficiencies of utilizing the equipment already
mobilized at the WBWF that this work could be undertaken in a cost effective and timely
manner. The maintenance and repair work was completed in April, 2006. The funding for
these repairs was provided through budget savings realized through efficiencies in other
components of the project.
RATIONALE
The Western Beaches Watercourse Facility project proved to be very challenging to plan,
design and construct due to the time constraints and potential winter weather conditions which
could result in lost time. However, due to the commitment of all levels of government
throughout the various stages of project' approval, the project has been a tremendous success
and will prove to be a significant asset to the City of Toronto. Federal, provincial, and
municipal staff exceeded expectations in facilitating a quick funding and environmental
assessment approval process that enabled construction to begin in a timely fashion. Once all
approvals were in place, UMA Projects Limited and TRCA staff worked diligently with Aecon
Construction and Materials Inc. to ensure that the budget was met and that the project was
completed on time. The successful completion of this project is a clear example of a
committed group of agencies working together to create a facility that will serve the long term
recreational needs of the City of Toronto. The International Dragon Boat Federation have
inspected the site and have offered their congratulations to the project team for the project.
TRCA is facilitating a land transfer from the Ministry of Natural Resources to the City of Toronto
by year end. As per conditions of approval for the project, TRCA will continue to monitor the
site.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
All funds for the project were made available by the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Corporation through a Delivery Agreement with TRCA.
Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313
For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313
Date: June 26, 2006
101
RES. #D37/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
PROPOSED DURHAM REGION TRAIL NETWORK AND
IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
Request for endorsement of the Proposed Durham Region Trail Network
and Implementation Framework.
Frank Dale
Gay Cowbourne
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Proposed Durham Region
Trail Network and Implementation Framework be endorsed;
THAT staff work with the Durham Trails Coordinating Committee as they prepare and
recommend an implementation strategy for the trails network;
THAT staff report back to the Authority on the details of the implementation strategy;
AND FURTHER THAT The Regional Municipality of Durham be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On May 26, 2006, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) received a request from
the Planning Committee of Durham Regional Council for consideration and endorsement of the
Proposed Durham Region Trail Network and Implementation Framework.
In 2004, Durham Regional Council established a Durham Trails Coordinating Committee
(DTCC) to develop a proposal for a regional trail network (phase 1) and to facilitate the
implementation of the approved proposal (phase 2).
In developing the trail network, DTCC first identified a base of existing higher order trails that
formed the framework for a region wide system. The higher order trails included the Lake
Ontario Waterfront Trail, Oak Ridges Moraine Trail and the Trans Canada Trail, all of which
exist on TRCA -owned land. Important linkages and gaps to complete the network were then
identified and mapped, such as destination points, unopened road allowances, and
connections to trails external to the region. The four key missing links that were identified in
TRCA's jurisdiction included:
• West Duffins Creek, from the Seaton Trail to the Oak Ridges Trail;
• a cross link from the Rouge watershed to the top of the Carruthers Creek watershed;
• a cross link in the Rouge - Duffins Wildlife corridor; and
• an additional link to the Uxbridge Countryside Trail.
The draft Regional Network was completed at the beginning of the year and submitted to
Regional Planning Committee prior to the start of the public consultation process.
Public consultation lasted three months and involved:
• placing notices in the local newspapers and on the regional web site;
• co- hosting a joint open house with the regional Cycling Plan Study;
• hosting open houses in each area municipality; and
• circulating the draft network to area municipalities, conservation authorities and other
stakeholders for comment.
102
The vast majority of feedback from the consultation indicated full support for the development
of the Regional Trail Network.
In May 2006, the DTCC completed the implementation framework that would guide the
development of a more detailed implementation strategy that would be undertaken following
receipt of partner endorsement. The implementation framework identified:
• resources available to municipalities, conservation authorities and non - government
agencies to implement the Regional Trail Network;
• ongoing support of area municipalities and others in implementing the network by regional
Planning staff, as may be required;
• guidelines for trail signage and standards to be endorsed and forwarded to our
municipalities and others for their consideration; and
• on -going monitoring of the implementation of the network by regional Planning staff
through an annual report to Planning Committee.
RATIONALE
The Proposed Durham Region Trail Network and Implementation Framework provides a
regional perspective and coordination of trail systems that connects public open space and
supports an active and healthy lifestyle. The proposal will help to improve public use and
enjoyment of the trails across the region.
The proposal is consistent with TRCA's vision for The Living City, A Watershed Plan for the
Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek, Duffins Creek Headwaters Management Plan and the
Waterfront Plan. In addition, conservation authorities and partner municipalities have been
invited to participate in this project. TRCA staff previously provided information and comments
to Durham Region Planning on this project including an inventory of trail networks. The
proposal supports the ongoing trail work of TRCA in the region and it has identified the
important roles of the region in implementation, including making resources available.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Work with the DTCC on the development of the detailed Trail Network Implementation
Strategy.
• Report back to the Authority on the implementation strategy.
Report prepared by: Mike Bender, extension 5287
For Information contact: Mike Bender, extension 5287 or Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
Date: July 06, 2006
Attachments: 1
103
Attachment 1
us.u:wan
thlra le.ttbn
bv, anvdr
L4 a ti M.anu Owrrrnr1 715
PROPOSED REGIONAL TRAIL NE I
PROPOSED REGIONAL NETWORK
Thal PraVaWJidg^p RAka`Rg Teat Pv9aM10. 7,7725174
NATURAL AREAS
„. aGm Arce MOM Ow.)
104
K
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
RES. #D38 /06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Elaine Moore
THAT the committee move into closed session to discuss item 8.1 - Port Union Waterfront
Improvement Project.
CARRIED
ARISE AND REPORT
RES. #D39(06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Elaine Moore
Gay Cowbourne
THAT the committee arise and report from closed session.
RES. #D40 /06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CARRIED
PORT UNION WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Provide a project status for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement
Project.
Gay Cowbourne
Nancy Stewart
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the project status report on the Port Union Waterfront
Improvement Project be received.
RES. #D41 /06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CARRIED
WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Receipt of Minutes of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Watershed Committees
Gay Cowbourne
Dick O'Brien
THAT Section IV items 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 in regards to watershed committee minutes, be
received.
CARRIED
105
Section IV Items - 8.2.1 and 8.2.2
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #4/06, held on May 12, 2006
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meeting #5/06, held on May 11, 2006
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:36 a.m., on Friday, July 14, 2006.
Dick O'Brien
Chair
/ks
106
Brian Denney
Secretary- Treasurer
ts.
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/06
September 15, 2006
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/06, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, September 15, 2006. The Vice Chair
Nancy Stewart, called the meeting to order at 10:40 a.m..
PRESENT
Maria Augimeri Member
Gay Cowbourne Member
Frank Dale Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Dave Ryan - Chair
Nancy Stewart Vice Chair
ABSENT
Elaine Moore Member
Shelley Petrie Member
RES. #D42 /06 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Gay Cowbourne
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/06, held on July 14, 2006, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(A) A presentation by Dena Lewis, Manager, Terrestrial and Aquatice Ecology, TRCA, in
regards to item 7.1 - Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy.
RES. #D43 /06 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Frank Dale
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
107
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D44/06 - TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM STRATEGY
Approval of the strategy document.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Frank Dale
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Terrestrial Natural Heritage
System Strategy (herein The Strategy') be approved;
THAT staff publish the Strategy and provide it to member municipalities, stakeholder
watershed councils and task forces, the Urban Development Institute, the Aggregate
Producers Association of Ontario, contributing private foundations, the Ministry of
Natural Resources, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Canadian Wildlife Service, local
universities and colleges, Conservation Ontario, the South Central Ontario Conservation
Authorities (SCOCA) Natural Heritage Discussion Group, and participating or interested
non - governmental organizations, citizens and professionals;
THAT staff use the Strategy in their permitting, plan input and review activities to promote
the expanded terrestrial system and improve regional biodiversity;
THAT staff be directed to promote the use of the Strategy and provide support to local
and regional municipalities in its interpretation and application in official plans and
site -level plans to assist them in setting and achieving natural heritage protection and
restoration goals;
THAT staff use the Strategy for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
activities including watershed planning, land securement, land stewardship, conservation
land planning, restoration planning and education;
AND FURTHER THAT staff encourage, monitor and report on progress toward achieving
the Strategy's target system, and continue research and monitoring to provide leadership
in advancing the science in sustainable ecosystem management for regional biodiversity.
BACKGROUND
As part of The Living City vision, TRCA has established objectives for Healthy Rivers and
Shorelines, Regional Biodiversity, Sustainable Communities and Business Excellence. The
Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy is a significant undertaking toward achieving the
objective for Regional Biodiversity, which is to protect and restore a regional system of natural
areas that provide habitat for plant and animal species, improve air quality, contribute to livable
environments and neighbourhoods and provide opportunities for enjoyment of nature.
108
The Strategy is designed to protect and improve biodiversity by increasing the quality and
amount of forest and wetland habitats in a system that builds upon the existing terrestrial
system and optimizes the opportunities for native species diversity. It uses ecologically -based
analytical tools to identify an expanded (target) terrestrial natural heritage system. The
Strategy incorporates the current thinking on terrestrial natural heritage protection and
restoration as well as comprehensive data on the terrestrial natural heritage assets of the
TRCA's jurisdiction.
The Strategy represents over 5 years of work including on -going input from the scientific
community, municipalities, the development community, watershed councils and other key
stakeholders. The draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy was presented at
Authority Meeting #4/04, held on April 30, 2004. Resolution #A123/04 was approved as
follows:
THAT the draft Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (April 2004) be circulated to
its member municipalities, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs, Conservation Ontario, South - central Ontario Conservation Authorities Natural
Heritage Discussion Group (SCOCA NHDG), non - governmental organizations, the Urban
Development Institute, the Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario, watershed
councils and task forces, and interested professionals for comment;
THAT the draft Strategy be provided to the Greenbelt Advisory Panel and the Smart
Growth Secretariat for consideration;
THAT staff be directed to implement a consultation process to facilitate the review of the
draft Strategy document;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the comments received
regarding the proposed Strategy to enable finalization and adoption.
Consultation
Staff distributed copies of the draft Strategy to approximately 250 stakeholders with a request
to comment on the document and to attend one of two facilitated workshops held on June 14
and 15, 2004. Participation was solicited from municipal staff, government (provincial and
federal) staff, watershed advisory group members, public interest groups, non - government
organizations (NGOs), the consulting industry, development industry, professional associations
and academics. The objectives of the workshops were to provide an overview of the Strategy
and its content in terms of other TRCA programs; to answer questions on the Strategy; and to
receive feedback on the strategic directions outlined in the Strategy. Each of the two half -day
workshop sessions (one daytime, one evening) were open to all. Forty -seven individuals
participated in the daytime workshop and 21 in the evening workshop. Staff presented the
rationale and methodology behind the Strategy and participants were then separated into
small roundtable discussion groups, each with a facilitator. TRCA staff was available to answer
questions that participants raised about the Strategy and related TRCA initiatives. Participants
were posed the following questions:
1. Do you support an expanded Terrestrial Natural Heritage System?
2. Do you generally support the strategic directions?
109
3. Are there any strategic directions that you think should be changed?
4. Is there anything that you think is missing?
Following the workshops, stakeholders were encouraged to continue providing comments.
The draft Strategy was posted on the TRCA website to solicit additional comments. To date
TRCA has distributed nearly 500 printed copies and 50 CDs of the draft Strategy. Staff sought
opportunities to present the Strategy and accepted invitations to attend individual meetings to
continue the dialogue on stakeholder needs and discuss constraints and opportunities to
achieve the target system. This included presentations to the Regional Municipality of Peel
Council, Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora District staff, the province's Natural Heritage
Dialogue Group and Ontario Nature's (FON) workshop entitled 'New Directions in Natural
Heritage Planning for Southern Ontario' held in Port Hope. Staff met with City of Toronto staff
for a half day workshop on July 20, 2004 and presented to Caledon Council on August 10,
2004. Meetings were also held with the Regional Municipality of York, City of Mississauga and
City of Pickering. Staff met on three occasions with the Urban Development Institute (UDI) and
their technical advisory team.
Staff met with Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) staff on July 7, 2004 to present
the Strategy, its underlying data layers and to promote its benefit to the Greenbelt planning
and implementation process. The target system map provided support for the Ministry's
delineation of the Greenbelt boundary and in some cases provided rationale for additional
extensions (e.g. Boyd Conservation Area and Pine Valley Forest on the Humber River in the
City of Vaughan). The final Greenbelt plan also included text reference to the importance of
identifying sub - provincial natural heritage systems to support and maintain the provincial
system defined in the Greenbelt Plan. TRCA's Strategy provides a comprehensive
regional -scale plan to assist in that regard.
TRCA also met with the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (MPIR) to discuss the
provincial Growth Plans for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and TRCA's local work.
Discussions were also held regarding the province's own work in the protection of natural
systems, specifically the Natural Spaces program. Staff introduced how the Strategy's target
system plays an important role in TRCA's integrated watershed planning process and the
development of watershed plans. It is expected that watershed plans and the Terrestrial
Natural Heritage System Strategy will continue to provide municipalities with local level,
detailed data and analysis for the update of official plans, planning for new urban areas and
redevelopment within existing urban areas as part of the province's growth planning process.
This local information will also be available to complement provincial scale information in the
implementation of the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
Summary of Feedback
Through the consultation there was clear support for the need to protect, improve and expand
the terrestrial natural heritage system within TRCA's jurisdiction. There was a general
agreement that the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy is a positive, science -based
step towards improving the natural environment and the quality of life for citizens in TRCA's
jurisdiction. There is also general support for the strategic directions that inform the Strategy.
However, areas were identified where the Strategy could be improved and strengthened.
Some common themes raised by the stakeholders included:
110
• the implementation approaches and the potential inability to achieve the system
(municipalities);
• cost and equity issues associated with the plan for an expanded terrestrial system;
• the apparent level of rigidity in the target system implementation through the planning
process (UDI);
• clarification on the intent for implementation through TRCA mandate /policy;
• the ability to coordinate with other initiatives of other levels of government such as the Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Greenbelt Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement;
• the need for cooperation between municipalities, NGOs and upper levels of government;
• inability of practitioners to use the models to design natural cover scenarios to assist in
planning;
• the need to set interim targets and review and monitor the terrestrial natural heritage
system on an ongoing basis; and,
• the need to strengthen the link between an enhanced natural system and human health,
quality of life and a more natural water cycle, including source water protection.
The results of the 2004 -2005 consultation process have been compiled into a table that lists the
questions /comments and provides the responses. As well, a summary report of the workshop
discussions was prepared and distributed to the participants and others that requested it. A
copy of this table and the workshop summary will be available at the September 15th`
Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting for those interested in receiving a copy.
The Strategy was revised to respond to the comments received wherever possible and
appropriate. Although the modeling approach to derive the target system did not change from
the 2004 draft, the system design process was updated to use the more recent 2002 aerial
photographs (the 2004 draft relied on 1999 photography). This has resulted in some minor
changes in the target system map, largely as a result of urban areas that were built post 1999.
The key changes to the Strategy document are summarized below:
• The inclusion of a summary of the legislative mandate behind this Strategy;
• A better explanation of the level of flexibility and a recognition of the collaboration and
negotiation that will be necessary for the implementation of the Strategy (e.g. the proposed
policies were clearly identified as 'model' policies and moved from the body of the Strategy
to an appendix);
• A better depiction of how field - collected species data and the regional distribution of
species assisted in setting targets for, and designing, the target system;
• A fuller discussion of the Zink between the terrestrial natural system, ecosystem services
and quality of life;
• A clearer description of how the target terrestrial natural system will be integrated and
evaluated with the hydrologic and aquatic systems through the development of the
watershed plans, with special attention to multiple benefits.;
• The inclusion of an introduction to economic benefits of an improved terrestrial natural
system; and
• The inclusion of technical appendices, including detailed descriptions of the methodologies
that were employed and the rationales for their use.
111
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Implementation of the Strategy depends on securing, protecting and ultimately restoring the
land base identified for the target system. The Strategy contains a number of strategic
directions including model polices for land use and infrastructure planning as well as directions
for land management, stewardship, outreach and monitoring.
The improvement of the terrestrial natural heritage system offers many benefits beyond
biodiversity. The target system based on 2002 aerial photography is being refined through
watershed plans to link with water and aquatic ecosystem management benefits. Revisions to
the target system at the watershed scale are now well underway for the Rouge, Humber and
Don watersheds.
TRCA is currently awaiting final comments from the development community through UDI.
Once approved by the Authority, the final Strategy will be sent to TRCA's design group to be
finalized for publication, and the published version will be made available to municipalities and
stakeholders. Work will continue to ensure that the needs of municipalities and stakeholders in
terms of terrestrial natural heritage protection and management are met. This will be done by:
• improving the accessibility and adaptability of the Geographic Information System (GIS)
modeling tools for use by practitioners in decision - making at smaller /site scales;
• developing implementation guidelines and /or decision making frameworks for restoration,
stewardship and recovery planning for species and vegetation communities of concern;
• providing support for the inclusion of the Strategy target system in municipal and TRCA
projects;
• assisting iri the watershed report card process in reporting progress toward implementing
the Strategy; and,
• assisting the Regions of Peel and York in their growth planning process and continuing to
assist the City of Toronto in support of its official plan implementation of the Natural
Heritage System.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Money has been allocated in the 2006 budget for publication of the Strategy. The work
outlined above has been included in the TRCA 2007 -2011 capital budget request. Staff
continue to seek other funding partners for the implementation of the Strategy, for example, in
the adaptation of a desktop tool to allow users to refine the regional system in site planning.
Report prepared by: Lionel Normand, extension 5327
For Information contact: Lionel Normand, extension 5327
Date: August 28, 2006
RES. #D45/06 -
BILL 51
Amendments to the Planning Act and Conservation Land Act. Summary
of proposals for two regulations under Bill 51.
112
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Maria Augimeri
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) support the proposed regulation under Bill 51 with
respect to "complete" Planning Act applications, the content of municipal official plans,
and the information and materials developed in preparation of official plans;
THAT TRCA generally supports the proposed regulation under Bill 51 with respect to
prescribed conditions for zoning approvals, provided that the fundamental issue of
development feasibility of a site is addressed early in the planning process and that
conditions of zoning approval be only for minor and detailed design items that can be
cleared before final approval;
THAT municipalities consult with and incorporate the requirements of conservation
authorities with respect to complete applications, official plan content and zoning with
conditions, to enable conservation authorities to efficiently and effectively fulfill their
responsibilities with respect to the Natural Heritage, Water and Natural Hazard policies of
the Provincial Policy Statement;
AND FURTHER THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, TRCA's participating
municipalities and Conservation Ontario, be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Bill 51 proposes reforms to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and amendments to the
Planning Act aimed at promoting sustainable development, intensification and brownfield
redevelopment. Bill 51 received first reading on December 12, 2005 and second reading on
April 26, 2006. TRCA provided comments to the provincial government on the proposed Bill 51
through Resolution #A303/05, as approved at Authority Meeting #11/05, held on January 27,
2006. Resolution #A303/05 commends the province for OMB reform and supports the
proposed amendments to the Planning Act subject to the incorporation of minor amendments
as set out in the staff report.
The province has now posted notice on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) registry of its
proposal for regulations to implement Bill 51. The purpose of the EBR notice is to inform the
public, stakeholders and municipalities that the province is considering introducing regulations
under the Planning Act, to provide the basic outline of the proposed regulations and to provide
90 days for comment on the proposed regulations. Among the seven regulations proposed,
TRCA's interests lie with two. They are discussed here and accordingly, our comments and
recommendations will be forwarded to the province by the due date of October 2/06.
113
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF TWO BILL 51 REGULATIONS
1) Complete Application and Content of Official Plans - EBR# RF06E0003
The proposed content of one of the Bill 51 regulations would expand the information and
material that is required by existing Ontario regulations for a 'complete' Planning Act
application. The information and material in support of an application would be related to the
subject site and impacts related to the development (unless the Provincial Policy Statement
(PPS), a provincial plan or municipal official plan (OP), require a broader view). The
information and material would include a planning justification report demonstrating that the
application is:
a) consistent with the PPS;
b) that it conforms to, or does not conflict with, the applicable provincial plan or plans; and
c) conforms to municipal OPs. This would be in addition to any technical reports or studies to
meet the PPS or provincial plan(s) requirements.
TRCA staff support the proposed-content of this regulation given that staff are, at times,
circulated Planning Act applications lacking the appropriate technical reports required to
assess the true environmental impact of a proposed development, and /or the applications are
not consistent with the PPS on natural heritage, water quality and quantity or natural hazards.
Examples of studies that TRCA recommends should be included as part of the definition of a
complete application, where site - specific circumstances warrant, are geotechnical and flood
studies to address erosion and flooding impacts and water budgets to address water quality
and quantity issues.
Also in this regulation, it is proposed to prescribe additional matters to be contained in an OP
(including performance monitoring policies) and to prescribe information and materials to be
developed in the preparation of OPs, such as background studies and reports to demonstrate
consistency with the PPS and conformity (or not in conflict) with provincial plan(s). TRCA staff
support this provision of the proposed regulation also. Examples of studies that should be
prescribed in the preparation of official plans or secondary plans include broad scale
environmental studies such as (sub)watershed plans or Master Environmental Servicing Plans
(MESP).
Bill 51 would require that municipalities have policies in their official plans to address the
matters in the regulations, as described above. TRCA has agreements with most of our
municipalities to provide planning services and application review with respect to the Natural
Heritage (2.1), Water (2.2) and Natural Hazard (3.1) policies of the Provincial Policy Statement.
Staff therefore recommend that municipal official plan policies to address complete
applications and background studies to the development of official plans incorporate the
requirements of conservation authorities to enable them to fulfill their responsibilities with
respect to sections 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1 of the PPS.
2) Zoning with Conditions - EBR# RF06E0004
A second proposed regulation under Bill 51 would set out the conditions that a municipality
may impose as part of zoning approval, provided their OP contains relevant policies.
Proposed prescribed conditions include measures that:
114
a) provide for energy conservation and alternative energy provisions, such as district energy;
b) promote the maintenance, restoration and improvement of the diversity and connectivity of
natural features, long -term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems;
and
c) that relate to open space (e.g. restrictions on impervious surface coverage).
TRCA staff generally support the proposed content of this regulation since these prescribed
conditions on a zoning approval could contribute to protecting and enhancing natural systems
by enabling municipalities to require energy conservation measures, restoration and
maintenance planting plans and detailed stormwater management plans as conditions to be
fulfilled before final zoning approval. However, staff caution that this regulation should not be
used to 'push back' traditional zoning approval requirements to a later stage in the approvals
process. Indeed, major, broad based plans and studies that help determine what portions of a
land development parcel should be zoned for protection, (e.g. an environmental impact study
or preliminary stormwater management scheme), should be submitted as requirements for a
complete zoning application prior to conditions of zoning approval being issued. The
fundamental issue of development feasibility of a site must be established early on in the
planning process and not deferred to a condition of zoning approval. Hence, zoning conditions
should only be for minor and detailed site - design issues that could be cleared after as -of -right
zoning has been granted (e.g. a detailed planting plan or a detailed stormwater management
report). In this way, streamlining the development review process will not be done at the
expense of natural heritage protection.
Report prepared by: Mary -Ann Burns, extension 5374
For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361
Date: August 28, 2006
RES. #D46/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Options for Managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Water Levels
and Flows. To report on the "Options for Managing Lake Ontario and St.
Lawrence River Water Levels and Flows" - final report by the International
Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence Study Board - March, 2006 and the
recommendation adopted at the Conservation Ontario Council meeting
of August 28, 2006.
Maria Augimeri
Gay Cowbourne
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the three selected
candidate plans labeled A +, B+ and D+ and other recommendations outlined in the final
report "Options for Managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Water Levels and
Flows" by the International Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study Board to the
International Joint Commission dated March, 2006 be received;
115
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) endorse Conservation
Ontario Council's resolution from its August 28, 2006 meeting with emphasis on the
strong support for Plan B+ - Balanced Environmental;
AND FURTHER THAT the International Joint Commission (by the end of the public
comment period - September 15, 2006), Conservation Ontario and TR\CA's waterfront
municipalities be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The International Joint Commission (IJC) issued an Order of Approval on October 11, 1952,
amended on July 2, 1956, for the construction of the St. Lawrence River Hydropower Project
(Moses Saunders Dam, Cornwall). Regulation of Lake Ontario water levels and outflows in
accordance with the Commission's orders began in 1960. The current plan, 1958 -D, which has
been in effect since October 1963, was designed for the hydrologic conditions experienced
from 1860 to 1954. For that reason, 1958 -D has not performed well under the extreme high and
low water supply conditions experienced since that time. As a result, the IJC and its
International St. Lawrence River Board of Control have had to deviate from the plan to better
address changing needs and interests.
On December 11, 2000, the IJC issued a directive to the International Lake Ontario -St.
Lawrence River Study Board, which it had appointed, to:
i) review the current regulation of levels and flows in the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence River
system, taking into account the impact of regulation on affected interests;
ii) develop an improved understanding of the system among all concerned; and
iii) provide all the relevant technical and other information needed for the review.
Attachment 1 shows the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence River Basin including the watersheds of the
St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers. The location of the St. Lawrence River control structures
between Massena, New York and Cornwall, Ontario and the river through Montreal Harbour are
also shown.
As part of the 5 -year study and in preparation of the final report, the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence
(LOSL) Study Board released in mid -2005 three Candidate Plans for public and agency
comment. After consideration of the staff report and Watershed Management Advisory Board
recommendations, the Authority at Meeting #6/05, held on July 22, 2006, approved Resolution
# A178/05 as follows:
THAT the report on the Candidate Plans recently released for public and agency
comment by the International Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence Study Board be received;
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) support the study board's
vision "to contribute to economic, environmental and social sustainability of the Lake
Ontario and St. Lawrence System" and the integrated evaluation approach in developing
the Candidate Plans for the six interests;
THAT comments contained in this report on the Candidate Plans be forwarded to the
International Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence Study Board for their consideration in preparing
the recommendations to the International Joint Commission;
116
AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario, the conservation authorities on Lake Ontario
and the St. Lawrence River and TRCA's waterfront municipalities be so advised.
Current Status
The International Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence River Study Board has prepared "Options for M
anaging Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Water Levels and Flows" (March 2006). The IJC
has released the final report for public comment until September 15, 2006 and the IJC will
develop a draft decision based on consideration of the final report, public comment and any
other relevant information. The IJC will hold public hearings and invite written comments after
the release of the draft decision and will consult with the governments of Canada and the
United States to seek their concurrence before making a decision whether to change its Orders
of Approval or the current regulation plan. The IJC's final decision will be released to the
governments and to the public in print and online.
Summary of Lake Ontario Report
This summary borrows heavily from the Executive Summary of the Main Report. Copies of the
Study Board Main Report and Annexes are available on -line at
http://www.losl.orgireports/finalreport-e.html.
The document summarizes findings from the scientific and other undertakings of the study,
describes three new candidate plans for IJC consideration, presents recommendations on
public involvement and regulation- related matters and outlines some steps towards
implementation of a new regulation plan. The study board indicates confidence that each of the
three candidate plans performs better than the current operating regime (1958D) in terms of
overall net economic and environmental benefits to interests throughout the system and that a
plan selected from these three will satisfy most of the affected interest groups. The report notes
that changes to the criteria and existing operating plan are not possible without harm to some
interests and that the majority of board members do not consider these damages a "
disproportionate loss." It is indicated that the Study Team has identified all the significant
trade -offs that have to be made among competing interests and quantified the relative benefits
and costs. The result is an intensive, comprehensive and detailed analysis of the physical and
ecological dynamics that are interacting with the human uses of the system. The study
presents a comprehensive set of tools, models, supporting data and information that is
intended to facilitate the ability of the IJC to make the final decision regarding regulation of
Lake Ontario levels and outflows.
117
New Candidate Regulation Plans
The Study Team formulated and evaluated numerous possible regulation plans. It has selected
three candidate plans labeled A +, B+ and D +, which address the range of interests and
issues that emerged as part of an extensive evaluation effort. These plans have the designation
+ as they represent improvements over the versions of plans A, B and D that were made
public during the study's summer 2005 outreach activity. From an interest perspective, all three
candidate plans benefit commercial navigation and hydropower and have no impact on
municipal, industrial and domestic water use relative to Plan 1958 -D with Deviations (1958 -DD).
The greatest difference between the plans is in how they address recreational boating, the
shoreline flood and erosion or coastal interests and the environment or natural ecosystem.
Attachment 2 shows a comparison for the three candidate plans and 1958 -DD and represent
average levels, the level exceeded 1% of the time and the level exceeded 99% of the time in
each quarter -month of the year based on the 50,000 year stochastic sequence for Lake
Ontario.
The report summarizes that Plan A+ is the most regimented of the three plans, striving to keep
Lake Ontario within as narrow a range as possible. It provides the highest overall net economic
benefit, the greatest economic benefit for recreational boaters, both upstream and
downstream, and benefits in terms of shore protection maintenance and flood concerns on
Lake Ontario. In comparison with Plan 1958 -D with Deviations, higher erosion rates along
unprotected Lake Ontario shoreline are of concern, as are increased flood damages on the
lower St. Lawrence River. Plan A+ provides small improvements for the environment, but, of
the three candidate plans, has the smallest gain in this regard when compared with Plan
1958 -D with Deviations.
The report summarizes that Plan B+ strives to return the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence system to
a more natural regime, with conditions similar to those that existed prior to the St. Lawrence
River Hydropower Project, while at the same time attempting to minimize damages to present
interests. In comparison with Plan 1958 -D with Deviations, it does indeed provide overall
improvement for the natural environment on Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence River
(e.g. coastal wetlands). It also provides net benefits for hydropower and commercial
navigation. Its downside is that it results in higher damages for Lake Ontario shoreline
properties and is associated with increased flood damages on the lower St. Lawrence River.
Although Plan B+ has some negative recreational boating numbers -, at public meetings, many
in the boating community, especially on the upper St. Lawrence, supported Plan B as
presented at the summer 2005 public meetings prior to its final "fine tuning." From their point of
view, this plan has better St. Lawrence River and Lake St. Lawrence performance, generally
higher Lake Ontario levels in spring and fall, and better overall performance for boaters more
than half of the time than Plan 1958 -D with Deviation. In the eyes of many, Plan B+ is the only
candidate plan that consistently transforms and improves the diversity and productivity of the
natural ecosystem (e.g. coastal wetlands), addresses species at risk legislation objectives, and
represents an important step forward towards a level of ecological integrity that would
otherwise be difficult to achieve.
118
According to the report, the intent of Plan D+ is to increase the net economic and
environmental benefits of regulation, relative to Plan 1958 -D with Deviations, without
disproportionate losses to any interests. In this respect, this plan succeeds in achieving gains
in net benefits for recreational boaters, hydropower and commercial navigation. Despite some
small losses in the Lake Ontario shore protection category, Plan D+ is very close to 1958 -D
with Deviations in terms of shoreline property interests. Plan D+ also provides a general level
of improvement for the environment across the range of performance indicators considered.
Summary of Study Board Recommendations
The study highlights that conditions and the priorities for lake level and flow regulation always
change over time, and new scientific and technological advances will continue to be made. It is
recommended that "An adaptive management process should support the selected regulation
plan and incorporate performance tracking: an initial performance review of the new plan
should be undertaken five years after its implementation; and a more in -depth evaluation
should be carried out ten years from its implementation to include consideration of adaptive
changes to the selected plan."
The study indicates that they've considered in detail the trade -offs between interests, and this
is reflected in the plan rules. The Study Board has agreed that long -term deviations from plan
rules and flows have the effect of changing the intended performance of the plan(s) as
designed and the benefits that flow from the plan(s). However, the Board recognizes and
supports the need for short-term deviations from plan flows under specified emergency
conditions but there would be a need for considerable public relations support at such times.
The Study Board indicated that a significant opportunity exists to move forward on longterm
resolution of a few vexing issues related to fluctuating water levels, for example, shoreline flood
and erosion problems. They recommend that: "During International Joint Commission
consultations with governments, the Commission should act as a catalyst to promote and
advance mitigation of persistent shoreline flood and erosion problems. For example, in light of
the findings of this study, responsible state, provincial and municipal authorities could
undertake a review of shoreline management practices and policies.
Shoreline management strategies and permitting processes could be revisited and renewed for
critical reaches of the shoreline utilizing new data and information gathered during this study,
including water level regime information for a new regulation plan. This review should help to
identify options for dealing with problems affecting land use and existing structures within
shoreline flood and erosion hazard zones. ". The report recommends that the IJC should
consider applying the general planning approach used in this exercise ( "Shared Vision
Modeling ") in subsequent International Joint Commission studies.
The study suggests that the basic data and information collected, the research undertaken, the
models developed and the body of knowledge accumulated during the study have many
possible and potential uses beyond the review of the Commission's Lake Ontario regulation
criteria and plan. The report recommends that the IJC and the International St. Lawrence River
Board take steps to make this information as accessible and useful as possible to a broad
range of organizations and applications.
119
Additionally, the Study Board recommends that additional resources and personnel needed to
meet new responsibilities of plan implementation by the International St. Lawrence River Board
of Control be sought and provided. As a first priority, a full -time communications officer should
be engaged to lead outreach activities relating to implementation of a new plan. Then, as a
second priority, more science capacity should be added to develop links with science
organizations, monitor regulation plan performance and assume responsibility for seeking out
and identifying future adaptation actions and strategies.
Further recommendations derived from the outreach activities and experiences of the Study
Board and Public Interest Advisory Group include the following:
i) People living and working along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River shorelines need
to be educated and informed with respect to the basic hydrology of the Great Lakes -St.
Lawrence system. An education program is necessary.
ii) People affected by changing water levels and flows resulting from regulatory actions, in
both the short term (hours) and the long term (years), need to understand and be
informed of these conditions so that they can prepare for and adapt to them. It is
recognized that shoreline development, infrastructure and regulatory programs have
evolved with some dependence on the current Orders of Approval and regulation plan
operations. Changes should be accompanied by education, outreach and help in
accommodating a new water level regime and water management decision - making
structure.
iii) The International St. Lawrence River Board of Control should be restructured to better
reflect the views of all interests and should incorporate a public advisory body.
Consideration should be given to renaming the Board, deleting the term "Control. "; and,
iv) For studies such as this, the Commission should appoint Public Interest Advisory Group
members for their expertise and ability to reach out to local interest groups.
Publication of the results of Study Board and Commission research should be encouraged and
supported by the Commission. In that vein, the Commission's website could reference current
and future study - related publications in order to broaden public awareness.
Scientific and, Technological Advances
The report describes how the Study Board has introduced a new planning approach referred
to as "Shared Vision Planning." This approach combines scientific and public input in an
interactive analytical framework that has helped the Study Team and public interest groups
explore numerous plan formulation opportunities, operating nuances and performance impacts
in an organized fashion.
The Shared Vision Planning approach used in the study integrates a hierarchy of advanced
models. They include an ecosystem response model, shoreline dynamics models used for
flood damage and erosion predictions, and a series of new economic models that provide the
economic benefits and costs associated with recreational boating, hydropower and
commercial navigation.
120
The report indicates that the Study Board used highly sophisticated hydrologic modeling to
ensure the reliability, resilience and robustness of each plan under a stochastically generated
50,000 -year sequence. Four different climate change scenarios were analyzed and used to
thoroughly test candidate plans, ensuring that none had fatal flaws that would inhibit their
performance under these extreme potential conditions. When choosing options, the Study
Board decided that a legitimate comparative analysis of the benefits and costs associated with
the various plans, should be based on the long -term stochastic hydrologic sequence rather
than the 100 -year historical record.
The report highlights that implementation of a candidate plan will impose a new set of
requirements on the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control. The new requirements
(including information management; greater public communication and outreach; model
running, maintenance and upgrading; the analysis of monitoring data) must be addressed to
enable the Board to remain aware of plan impacts and to know when and to what extent
adaptive changes in policy should be considered.
Conservation Ontario Review and Recommendations
The study was reviewed by Conservation Ontario and the 11 authorities (Central Lake Ontario,
Credit Valley Conservation, Ganaraska Region Conservation, Conservation Halton, Hamilton
Conservation Authority, Lower Trent Conservation, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority,
Quinte Conservation, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Cataraqui Region and Raisin
Region Conservation Authority) along the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence system.
The following recommendations on the Study Board's final report were adopted by
Conservation Ontario Council at its meeting held on August 28, 2006
WHEREAS the International Joint Commission established in December 2000 the
International Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Study Board to comprehensively
evaluate options for regulating levels and flows in the Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River
System beyond the current plan 1958 -D which has been in effect since October,1963.
WHEREAS the Study Board adopted a Vision to contribute to the economic,
environmental and social sustainability of the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River
System and a Goal - to identify flow regulation plans and criteria that best serve the
range of affected interests, and address climatic conditions in the basin.
WHEREAS the Study Board was directed to consider six interests - 3 interests under Plan
1958D (commercial navigation, municipal - industrial - domestic water uses and
hydroelectric power generation) and 3 new interests (wetlandslenvironmental,
recreational boating /tourism and coastal processes).
WHEREAS the International Joint Commission has initiated a five -step decision process
and is requesting by September 15, 2006 public comment on the Lake OntarioSt
Lawrence River Study to assist them in their deliberations towards a draft decision.
WHEREAS Conservation Ontario advocates the need for implementation of "integrated
watershed approaches" and the continued preservation and restoration efforts of the
environment to ensure the sustainability of the Great Lakes Basin.
121
AND WHEREAS Conservation Ontario will have further opportunity after development of a
draft decision to participate in Commission hearings on the draft decision.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Conservation Ontario strongly support Plan B+ -
Balanced Environmental as the basis for regulation of out flows from Lake Ontario
consistent with the Study Board's vision, goal and guidelines.
THAT predicted small increases in shoreline erosion and flooding under Plan B+ be
managed, as discussed in the study, with measures employed by various levels of
government, including the conservation authorities regulation of development within
hazardous lands.
THAT Conservation Ontario supports the Adaptive Management recommendations as
critical in maintaining the investment and benefit of data collection, scientific analysis
and plan evaluation models to monitoring and performance review of a new operating
plan and making informed adjustments in future.
THAT Conservation Ontario and the 11 Conservation Authorities along the Lake
Ontario -St. Lawrence system will continue to support the Adaptive Management
Approach and recommendations by providing monitoring information, analysis -and
commenting on future plan adjustments.
AND THAT this recommendation be forwarded to the International Joint Commission.
RATIONALE
The Study Board's approach in formulating the three candidate plans A +, B+ and D+ and the
associated recommendations on mitigation actions, adaptive management including data
management/sharing and changes to the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence Board of Control and
public outreach activities, etc. has provided a scientific based model for other Great Lakes
work of the IJC. The IJC recently announced the initiation of a major study on the Upper Great
Lakes (Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Erie) to investigate the factors affecting water levels and
flows including physical changes in the St. Clair River and possible improvements to the
regulation of outflows from Lake Superior.
The study and recommendations are very consistent with the summer 2005 resolutions passed
by the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative and Conservation Ontario's advocation of
"integrated watershed approaches and the continued preservation and restoration efforts of the
environment to ensure the sustainability of the Great Lakes Basin. ".
Plan B +- Balanced Environmental is the preferred candidate plan as set out in Conservation
Ontario's adopted recommendations but also "is the only candidate plan that consistently
transforms and improves the diversity and productivity of the natural ecosystem (e.g. coastal
wetlands), addresses species at risk legislation objectives, and represents an important step
forward towards a level of ecological integrity that would otherwise be difficult to achieve."
Any predicted small increase in erosion /flooding which for Lake Ontario are existing hazard
concerns on the south shore can be managed by complimentary actions of different levels of
government as recommended by the Study Board.
122
As important are the study's recommendations for 'adaptive management" in maintaining the
investment and benefit of data collection, scientific analysis and plan evaluation models to
monitoring and performance review of a new operating plan and making informed adjustments
in future.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The comments and recommendations should be forwarded to the IJC by September 15, 2006
and also forwarded to Conservation Ontario and our member municipalities along Lake
Ontario. As a result, TRCA staff will forward the recommendations of the Watershed
Management Advisory Board after the meeting on September 15, 2006.
Once the IJC has made a draft decision on a plan, public hearings will be held. TRCA will work
with our other conservation authorities along the Lake Ontario -St. Lawrence system and
Conservation Ontario to recommend the appropriate participation at the future public hearings.
We will report back to the Authority at a future meeting on the draft decision of the IJC.
Report prepared by: Larry Field, extension 5243
For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243
Date: August 30, 2006
Attachments: 2
123
Attachment 1
Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence
River Drainage Basin
OT 30 0 ee 1.1010:metws, N
Trois Rhlints
Moses Saunders Dam
kvssfi
Lower River
k_egitiLd
International Border
1 Crainage Basins
2:
-St. La fence
1
IfiGULKAS=C
vaPQINSPVP4
VG".
IlatnNtrarn'tdtAtan
OISITA
1,406ES4atIrtorna
POWerltd011erS Ceittarata
—
477-,
"7--)
), ClonnuantiSSMO
,ttSHOU. K ,
========
4 # ea 0 10
FIi
3: Location of the control structures in the St. Lawrence River and other features,
to Montreal, Quebec
Attachment 2
Lake Ontario Water Levels: Average, 1°/0 and 99% Probability of
Exceedance
SEP OCT NOV DEC
248.0
247.0
246.
245.1
244 1
243.1
242.1
CO
C.)
Flow 29: Lake Ontario water levels: average, 1% exceedance and 99% exceedance based on
the 50,000-yeat stochastic simulation
125
RES. #D47/06 - NITRO -SORB
Regional Municipality of Durham. Request from the Regional Municipality
of Durham to support the region's appeal to the Minister of the
Environment to provide a regulation outlining terms of reference for a
certificate of approval for the production and use of Nitro -Sorb.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Maria Augimeri
Gay Cowbourne
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority support the Regional Municipality of Durham in its request to the
Minister of the Environment to provide a regulation outlining terms of reference for a
certificate of approval for the production and use of Nitro -Sorb.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
A request has been received from the Region of Durham, in their letter to the Minister of the
Environment - The Honourable Laurel Broten, dated July 6, 2006, requesting that the City of
Toronto and the conservation authorities endorse part (c) of the region's resolution as follows:
"(c) THAT the Minister of the Environment be requested to provide a regulation outlining
the terms of reference for a certificate of approval for the production and use of Nitro- Sorb."
Nitro -Sorb is a trade name for a material that is a combination of composted leaf and yard
waste materials mixed with paper fibre bio- solids. The paper fibre bio -solid is a waste
by- product of the recycled paper and paper industry consisting of unusable short fibres, inks
and dyes, clay, glues and other residues. Nitro -Sorb is spread on agricultural land as a
fertilizer or soil amendment.
The Ministry of The Environment's (MOE) Regulation 347 allows certain wastes to be exempt
from control if they are to be transferred directly to a site, wholly used in a process for
purposes other than waste management, and then offered as a product for sale. As a result,
the 'product' Nitro -Sorb is not subject to supervision or control by MOE.
The Joint Works /Planning /Health and Social Services, and Finance & Administration
Committee ( "the Joint Committee ") of the Regional Municipality of Durham, in its Report No.
2006 -J -18, recommended the approval of a 1 year contract with Waste Management of Canada
Company (WMCC) for the composting of Christmas trees, leaves, garden and yard wastes for
the communities of Whitby and Oshawa within Durham Region, including the use of the
compost to produce Nitro -Sorb. Council added that the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) be
requested to provide a regulation outlining terms of reference for a certificate of approval for
the production and use of Nitro -Sorb. The Region of Durham is also investigating the
implementation of a ban on the spread of Nitro -Sorb within the regional boundaries until
appropriate regulations are implemented by the province.
126
RATIONALE
Public concern has been raised in a number of different municipalities in Ontario regarding the
use of paper fibre bio -solid (PFB) mixtures. Concerns include the potential adverse effects of
pathogens, heavy metals and chemicals on groundwater and surface run -off, as well as the
possibility of airborne exposure to pathogens such as moulds and fungus spores from the
decomposition of the materials. Nitro -Sorb has the potential to contain unknown ingredients in
addition to paper fibre bio- solids since the composition of 'finished compost' is not known. As
an unregulated product, compost producers are under no obligation to disclose what is in it or
where it came from.
Studies and opinions regarding the benefits of Nitro -Sorb on agricultural production seem
inconclusive in that there are varying reports whose findings are contradictory. The application
of Nitro -Sorb seem to be beneficial in some crop /soil instances and of no value or detriment in
others. There appears to be concern that the long -term effects of putting Nitro -Sorb (and other
PFB's) on the land is not well understood.
When considered with the requests from several municipalities, conservation authorities and
other individuals, it seems prudent to support Durham Region's call to the Minister for more
regulatory control over the production and use of such 'products' be implemented, and that the
use of Nitro -Sorb as an agricultural soil amendment be halted until such time that the concerns
regarding potential adverse effects and environmental contamination issues are adequately
addressed
Report prepared by: Dave Rogalsky, extension 5378
For Information contact: Dave Rogalsky, extension 5378
Date: August 17, 2006
RES. #D48/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
HUMBER BAY PARK
Air India Memorial at Humber Bay Park East. Amendment to the Humber
Bay Park Master Plan.
Maria Augimeri
Gay Cowbourne
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Humber Bay Park Master
Plan be amended and approved to incorporate the installation of the Air India Memorial at
Humber Bay Park East as approved by City of Toronto Council at its May 23 to May 25,
2006 meeting;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to take the necessary actions to implement the
installation.
CARRIED
127
BACKGROUND
The City of Toronto staff report, dated April 20, 2006, was prepared for the Economic
Development and Parks Committee to seek City Council approval to accept the donation of a
memorial from the Government of Canada in memory of the victims of Air India Flight 182. City
Council approved the recommendations in the report at council meetings held May 23 to May
25, 2006.
On June 23, 1985 Air India Flight 182 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean just off the coast of Cork,
Ireland due to an act of terrorism. A total of 329 innocent lives were lost in this aviation
tragedy, the world's worst prior to September 11, 2001. Given that a majority of victims were
from the Greater Toronto Area, family members are eager to see an appropriate and
permanent memorial established that would offer a place for congregation and reflection in
peace and tranquility. The families wish to have the memorial located on the shore of Lake
Ontario, given that they feel a close affinity to a large body of water because it is the final
resting place for many of their loved ones. The preferred location at Humber Bay Park East
(Attachment 1) received unanimous support from the family members as it has open views of
Lake Ontario, is easily accessible by vehicle and transit, and has modern facilities including
washrooms and telephones.
The design of the memorial will be a landscaped area very similar to the one that was created
in Ireland which has the names of all the victims engraved on a wall behind a sundial. The
memorial will be designed to accommodate large gatherings during annual memorial `
ceremonies and will also serve as a touchstone of remembrance for victims of terrorism around
the world as part of the new National Day of Mourning for Victims of Terrorism as announced
by Prime Minister Paul Martin while in Ireland in June 2005. The memorial will also become
part of the City of Toronto's Discovery Walk as a landmark terminus to the interpretive walking
experience.
City of Toronto staff has prepared a preliminary design concept (Attachments 2 and 3) The full
project is expected to consist of an orientation point, the primary site and a walkway leading to
a resting area at the shoreline to the south -east. Working titles for these elements are:
Memorial, Remembrance Walk and Reconciliation. Signage will be included to provide
directional information and to assist in the interpretation of the site.
This project has been reviewed and recommended by the City of Toronto's Official Gifts and
Monuments Committee.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
As per the Prime Minister's pledge, the project will be funded by the Federal Treasury Board
through the Federal Air India Review Secretariat. Additional funding, equal to ten per cent of
the total cost of the memorial, will be provided to the city for the ongoing maintenance of the
memorial and a reserve fund will be established for this propose.
RATIONALE
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff have met City of Toronto staff to
discuss the concept designs and staff report. TRCA staff are generally in agreement with the
design concept as presented.
128
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will modify the Humber Bay Park Master Plan to reflect the location of the Air India
Memorial at Humber Bay Park East.
Report prepared by: Connie Pinto, extension 5387
For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313
Date: August 30, 2006
Attachments: 3
129
Attachment 1
Humber Bay Park East
130
‘" ''. yfr=w "P.. VISUAL. SCREENING
�t .. f __ 1.\-'7% ,- - I,-
ti.':-• ) ' _�� ' x'A VIEWS
t .. (INFORMAL LINK \ ,+✓ -v-
IV r 'N MEMORIAL '. ( /
A" �4J„ Jim,
IA-) P' -'1%., /
5.
VISUAL SCREENING
' r \ r6 t \,:NNN.N......._ ''''',..4._
. t. )\ (1 `y` DP P -OFF .\ J . ,r-r f IE -��' ,
r t . _ _ ^ —_ OR NTATta— C
\��\ i ,1 i`I- 1� �_ ice,- '•,t.�'1.
MALAPPROACH 4-rm--/-',
1
PARKING
O ri
I --
r sn.:,ctk
LAGOON
7
\,REMEMBRANCE WALK L i
s
r
WASHROOMS
POND
BRIQGE
\
\ RECONCILIATION
•
POND
rri v
Z luewyoe11d
Attachment 3
Air India Memorial at Humber Bay Park East
132
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #D49/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
PLACES TO GROW
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. A summary of the
changes made in the final version of the Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe from the draft version.
Dave Ryan
Gay Cowbourne
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal issued the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe (GGH) on June 16, 2006 under the authority of the Places to Grow Act, 2005. The
Growth Plan expresses the Government of Ontario's interests and directions for growth
management in the GGH. The final version of the plan follows the draft version released in
November, 2005; the final version does not contain any major changes from the draft.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) commented to the provincial government
on the proposed Growth Plan in January, 2006. Staff's comments were approved by the
Executive Committee at Meeting #11/05, held on January 20, 2006. Executive Committee
Resolution #B148/05 stated that TRCA supports the proposed Growth Plan, as it promotes the
sustainable communities objective of TRCA's vision for The Living City. This support was
subject to the incorporation of minor amendments as set out in staff comments.
A number of TRCA comments were addressed in the final version of the Growth Plan,
including:
Definitions
New and vague terminology relating to natural systems has been clarified in the final Growth
Plan through its deletion and replacement with specific direction that the 2005 Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS) governs natural heritage protection in the GGH. The 2005 PPS is a significant
improvement over the previous version (PPS 1997) that provides for the Tong -term protection of
natural features and areas and the maintenance, restoration or improvement of the diversity
and connectivity of natural features and the long -term ecological function and biodiversity of
natural heritage systems. The 2005 PPS also supports the implementation of TRCA's Terrestrial
Natural Heritage System Strategy in that the PPS allows for natural heritage systems to include
lands that have been restored and areas with the potential to be restored to a natural state.
133
Identifying Natural Systems
"Other stakeholders" will now be consulted to identify the natural systems for the GGH through
sub -area assessment, whereas previously only the province and municipalities were listed. The
development of additional policies (beyond PPS requirements) for the protection of natural
systems is permitted, where appropriate. Consistent with clarifying undefined terminology (see
Definitions above) the term 'locally significant natural areas' has been deleted. However,
planning authorities are still "encouraged to identify natural heritage features and areas that
complement, Zink or enhance natural systems ".
Watershed Plans
The "encouragement" for municipalities and conservation authorities to prepare watershed
plans remains intact, but not, as TRCA requested, listed as a specific criterion for the
expansion of settlement area boundaries.
The definition of a watershed plan was improved and now more closely matches the
comprehensive definition used in the Greenbelt Plan. The final Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe defines a watershed plan as follows:
"A watershed plan provides a framework for integrated decision - making for the
management of human activities, land, water, aquatic life and aquatic resources within a
watershed. It includes matters such as a water budget and conservation plan;-land and
water use management strategies; an environmental monitoring plan; requirements for
the use of environmental management practices and programs; criteria for evaluating
the protection of water quality and quantity, and hydrologic features and functions; and
targets for the protection and restoration of riparian areas."
NEXT STEPS
1) Municipalities must amend their official plans to conform to the Growth Plan within three
years.
2) The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is leading the Natural Spaces program, which
will define the Natural Heritage System for the GGH as one of its objectives. Both
Conservation Ontario and the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition are represented
on the expert advisory committee.
Report prepared by: Mary-Ann Burns, extension 5374
For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361
Date: August 28, 2006
134
RES. #D50/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Receipt of Minutes of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Watershed Committees
Dave Ryan
Gay Cowbourne
THAT Section IV items 8.2.1 - 8.2.3, inclusive, in regards to watershed committee minutes,
be received.
CARRIED
Section IV Items - 8.2.1 - 8.2.3, Inclusive
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #5/06, held on May 18, 2006 and Minutes of Meeting #6/06, held on June
15, 2006.
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #3/06, held on July 18, 2006
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #4/06, held on May 12, 2006.
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:25 a.m., on Friday, September 15, 2005.
Nancy Stewart
Vice Chair
/ks
135
Brian Denney
Secretary- Treasurer
c.
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/06
December 8, 2006
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #5/06, was held in the Humber
Room, Head Office, on Friday, December 8, 2006. The Chair Dave Ryan, called the
meeting to order at 10:07 a.m.
PRESENT
Maria Augimeri Member
Gay Cowbourne Member
Frnak Dale Member
Elaine Moore Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Dave Ryan Chair
Nancy Stewart Vice Chair
ABSENT
Shelley Petrie
RES. #D51/06 - MINUTES
Moved by: _ Frank Dale
Seconded by: Nancy Stewart
Member
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/06, held on September 15, 2006, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Lois Griffin, Chair, Humber Watershed Alliance, and Gary Wilkins,
Humber Watershed Specialist, TRCA, in regards to item 7.1 - A Report Card on the
Health of the Humber River Watershed - 2006.
(b) A presentation by Gord MacPherson, Manager, Restoration and Environmental
Monitoring Projects, TRCA, in regards to item 8.1 - Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Priority Areas.
136
RES. #D52 /06 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Nancy Stewart
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
RES. #D53 /06 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Maria Augimeri
Gay Cowbourne
THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received.
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D54 /06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CARRIED
CARRIED
A REPORT CARD ON THE HEALTH OF THE HUMBER RIVER
WATERSHED - 2006
Distribution of 'A Report Card on the Health of the Humber River
Watershed - 2006'. Copies of the document, prior to final printing, will be
available at the meeting.
Dick O'Brien
Nancy Stewart
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance
and staff be thanked for their hard work and dedication in preparing 'A Report Card on
the Health of the Humber River Watershed - 2006';
AND FURTHER THAT the report card be distributed to federal governments, provincial
ministries, watershed municipalities, community groups, schools and the public
throughout the Humber watershed.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Humber Watershed Alliance was formed in 1997 to implement "Legacy: A•Strategy for a
Healthy Humber ", Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) vision and action plan
for a healthy Humber ecosystem. The Humber Watershed Alliance is a volunteer task force
comprised of residents, representatives from community groups, municipalities, government
agencies and elected officials. One of the responsibilities of the Humber Watershed Alliance is
to periodically produce a report card to describe the condition of the Humber River watershed.
The first report card was produced in 2000 and, in 2003, a progress report was prepared that
described the multitude of actions that were underway to achieve the objectives set out in"
Legacy: A Strategy to a Healthy Humber River Watershed ".
137
This report card assesses the current health of the Humber River watershed in three main
categories: Environment, Society and Economy, and Getting it Done (stewardship). Within
each of these main categories, there are 26 indicators that provide a more detailed picture of
the existing conditions in the watershed. Each of the indicators has been assigned a letter
grade and given an assessment of whether the indicator is relatively stable, in decline, or
improving.
This document also identifies a series of time - linked, measurable targets for each indicator that,
if achieved, will ensure that the Humber River watershed has a healthier future. Specific
actions are given to help achieve the targets.
How healthy is the Humber River watershed? Based on the grades that were assigned to
the 26 carefully chosen indicators of health, this is what we have learned. See attachment 1 for
a summary of the grades assigned to each indicator.
The results are mixed, showing a wide range of conditions. The grades reported range
from an "A" for protection of significant Iandforms, which is very good, to an "F" for protection
of wetlands, which is an acknowledged failure due to the significant historic loses of this habitat
type. The ratings for many of the indicators, such as forest cover and conventional pollutants,
vary widely from the upper reaches of the river to the lower ones. These variations reflect the
large size and diverse nature of the watershed, the range of land uses, and the different
stresses imposed in different areas. Environmental health is generally better in the upper
reaches of the watershed, which are dominated by agricultural and rural land uses, than in the
heavily urbanized southern reaches.
A few aspects of the Humber watershed are relatively healthy. Six of the 26 indicators were
graded as very good or good. The two indicators with an "A" rating are the protection of
significant Iandforms and progress in developing an inter - regional trail system. "B" ratings,
indicating good conditions, were assigned to the sustainable use of groundwater, the
protection of groundwater quality, the amount of public greenspace and municipal stewardship
initiatives.
Most aspects of the Humber watershed are still in fair health. Fifty percent of the 26
indicators received a "C ", or fair grade, indicating that the watershed has many problems, and
there is much that can be done to improve on current conditions.
Some aspects of the Humber watershed are in poor health. Eight of the indicators were
rated "D" or "F" (poor and fail respectively). Several of these relate to water quality and aquatic
habitats: fish communities, stormwater management and the levels of bacteria effecting
swimming opportunities. A related concern is the failure of wetland protection. Poor grades
were assigned to air quality, the protection of agricultural land, the recognition and celebration
of human heritage, and outdoor environmental education.
138
Some aspects of watershed health appear to be declining. It is disappointing to report that
six indicators received worse ratings in 2006 than in 2000. This is due, in part, to the availability
of much more new information, data collection methods and assessment criteria. Four of these
- wetland protection, levels of bacteria in surface waters, benthic invertebrates and fish
communities - are direct reflections of declining environmental conditions. The other two -
outdoor recreation opportunities and outdoor environmental education - reflect a deficiency of
public investment in activities that could help to raise awareness and increase stewardship
among watershed communities.
Many aspects of watershed health appear to be improving. It is encouraging to find that five
indicators have improved and are showing upward trends, reflecting actions that have been
taken by agencies, businesses, community groups and citizens. The improvements are shown
in the protection of significant Iandforms, groundwater quantity and quality, conventional
pollutants and trails. Six other indicators also appear to show the hopeful signs of upward
trends, but not yet enough to result in improved grades. They are the amount of natural
vegetation cover, percentage of urban areas that discharge untreated stormwater to rivers,
levels of heavy metals and organic contaminants, percentage of riparian vegetation, awareness
of human heritage via public events and percentage of public greenspace.
Overall, the watershed is in fair shape, but under significant stress. On average, the
Humber watershed receives only a "C" grade. Development pressures continue in the
watershed, particularly in the upper reaches, and the population is expected to grow from
670,000 to over one million people by 2021. Depending on where and how this growth is
undertaken, we could expect increased impacts on the water cycle, water quality, aquatic
systems, air quality, terrestrial systems and human heritage.
What is the prescription for better health? As any doctor would tell us, prevention is better
than cure, so we want to ensure that those indicators with very good and good ratings remain
in a healthy state and continue to improve. We need to step up our efforts across the board to
address the prevalent fair conditions. The greatest priority for immediate remedial action
should go to those indicators that show poor, failing and declining conditions. This report card
suggests key actions that should be taken to improve conditions and work towards our targets.
In addition, an update to the watershed plan is in progress and will provide more details and an
integrated approach to achieving our vision of the Humber River watershed as a "vital and
healthy ecosystem where we live, work and play in harmony with the natural environment ".
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Distribute 'A Report Card on the Health of the Humber River Watershed - 2006' to
government agencies, watershed municipalities, community groups, school_ s and the
public throughout the Humber watershed.
• Promote the key messages and actions in the report card through presentations, media
and events.
139
• Incorporate the findings and key actions into the integrated Humber watershed
management plan currently being prepared to meet the requirements of the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan.
Report prepared by: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: November 27, 2006
Attachments: 1
140
Attachment 1
SUMMARY OF HUMBER REPORT CARD INDICATORS AND GRADES - 2006
CATEGORY
INDICATOR
GRADE
Environment
Landforms
Indicator 1: Significant Landforms
How well are significant Iandforms being protected?
Al
Terrestrial
Habitat
Indicator 2: Forest Cover
How well are forests being protected and regenerated?
C
Indicator 3: Wetlands
How well are wetlands being protected and restored?
F
Indicator 4A: Quantity of Natural Vegetation Cover
How well is the quantity of natural vegetation cover being protected?
Ct
Indicator 4B: Quality of Natural Vegetation Cover
How well is the quality distribution of natural cover being protected and restored?
C
Indicator 5: Wildlife
How well is wildlife protected?
C
Groundwater
Indicator 6: Groundwater Quantity
Is groundwater being used sustainably?
B
Indicator 7: Groundwater Quality
How well is the quality of our groundwater being protected?
B
Surface Water
Indicator 8: Stormwater Management
How well is stormwater runoff from urban areas being managed?
Ft
Indicator 9: Bacteria
How swimmable are surface waters?
F
Indicator 10: Conventional Pollutants
How degraded are surface waters with respect to conventional
pollutants?
CI
Indicator 11: Heavy Metals and Organic Contaminants
What is the condition of surface water with respect to heavy metals
and organic compounds?
Ct
Indicator 12: River Flow
How stable are the flows in the river?
C
Aquatic Habitat
Indicator 13: Benthic Invertebrates
How healthy are benthic (bottom - dwelling) invertebrate
communities?
C
Indicator 14: Fish Communities
How healthy are fish communities?
D
Indicator 15: Riparian Vegetation
How healthy is streambank vegetation?
Ct
Air
Indicator 16: Air Quality
How healthy is the air we breathe?
D
141
CATEGORY
INDICATOR
GRADE
Society and Economy
Heritage
Indicator 17: Heritage Resources
How well are heritage resources being protected?
C
Indicator 18: Heritage Events
How well is heritage recognized and celebrated?
Dt
Outdoor
Activities
Indicator 19: Public Greenspace
How much publicly owned greenspace is there?
Bt
Indicator 20: Outdoor Recreation
How extensive are outdoor recreation opportunities?
C
Indicator 21: Trails
What progress has been made in developing a system of inter - regional trails?
A
Agriculture
Indicator 22: Agricultural Land
How well is agricultural land being conserved?
DI
Development
Indicator 23: Sustainable Use of Resources
How well are people doing at using resources wisely and living a sustainable
lifestyle?
C
Getting It Done
Stewardship
Indicator 24: Community Stewardship
To what extent are people taking responsibility as stewards of the Humber
River watershed?
C
Indicator 25: Outdoor Environmental Education
What is the extent to which young people are being educated about the outdoor
environment?
D
Indicator 26: Aesthetics
What is the aesthetic condition of the watershed?
Not
Evaluated
Indicator 27: Business Stewardship
To what extent are businesses taking responsibility as stewards of the Humber
River watershed?
Not
Evaluated
Indicator 28: Municipal Stewardship
To what extent do municipalities take responsibility as stewards of the watershed?
B
142
RES. #D55/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CANADA - ONTARIO AGREEMENT RESPECTING THE GREAT LAKES
BASIN ECOSYSTEM AND TORONTO AND REGION REMEDIAL
ACTION PLAN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The five year Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan Memorandum of
Understanding expires on March 31, 2007. This coincides with the
expiration of the Canada - Ontario Agreement. A renewed Memorandum
of Understanding is questionable if the Canada - Ontario Agreement has
not been negotiated.
Nancy Stewart
Elaine Moore
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority encourage the federal and provincial governments to extend the
Canada - Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA) to
ensure COA related activities to protect the Great Lakes are maintained;
THAT the governments be encouraged to ensure there is no Toss or break in Great Lakes
program funding to such programs as the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) implementation,
monitoring efforts and restoration activities;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to support Conservation Ontario in its
efforts to ensure conservation authorities (CA) have a continued role in protecting and
enhancing the health of the Great Lakes.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) signed between the federal governments
of Canada and the United States (U.S.) commits these governments to protect the waters of
the Great Lakes. First signed in 1972, then revised in 1978 and amended by Protocol in 1984,
the "Parties" - the federal governments of Canada and the U.S. - launched a review of the
GLWQA in April 2006.
COA is a federal - provincial agreement aimed at enhancing and protecting the Great Lakes
Basin ecosystem. COA outlines how the two governments will cooperate and coordinate their
efforts regarding Great Lakes basin management, and how Ontario will assist Canada in
meeting its commitments under the GLWQA. First signed in 1971, COA has been renewed six
times and is up for revision in 2007.
Under the present COA, Canada and Ontario share responsibility for the management of the
Toronto and Region RAP. Recognizing the value of TRCA in helping the governments meet
their COA targets, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Environment Canada, the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment and TRCA was signed November 1, 2002 (effective date
July 1st 2002 - March 31st 2007) which assigned lead responsibility for RAP implementation to
TRCA.
143
At present, the Toronto and Region RAP receives $250,000 annually from both Environment
Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. These dollars are divided amongst
projects led by TRCA, academia and others; these projects help meet the objectives of the
RAP. Often this funding provides "seed" or leverage dollars necessary to encourage other
partners.
The COA Issue
As the lead implementing agency for the Toronto and Region RAP, TRCA has not yet received
any formal indication of the status of funding past March 31, 2007. Without the continuation of
these funds, momentum will be lost and a number of projects are in jeopardy.
Beyond the Toronto and Region RAP, COA helps establish priorities and responsibility for
Great Lakes protection, thus is a key component for driving activities to reach this aim. For
example, the release of Atlantic Salmon into the Duffins Creek earlier this year was action
stemming from commitments made by the provincial government under COA.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Issue Related to COA
If the governments decide to renew GLWQA, the process could take several years. Thus,
establishing priorities for Great Lakes programming may be delayed. As COA aids the federal
government in meeting its commitments under the GLWQA, there will be a timing disconnect in
terms of the agreements' negotiations. As the current COA expires on March 31, 2007, the
governments will need to establish interim measures to bridge this gap while discussions of
COA renewal continue independent of the timeframe established for GLWQA renewal
discussions.
IJC Recommendations Regarding the GLWQA
On October 24, 2006, the International Joint Commission (IJC) recommended that the federal
governments of Canada and the United States replace the current GLWQA with a shorter, more
'action- oriented' document. The IJC also recommended the incorporation of key concepts of
ecosystem protection and watershed planning, including human health, as a clear objective
and use the ecosystem approach.
Of particular relevance to CA's is the IJC's reference to the CA's comprehensive watershed
planning as a tool to apply the ecosystem approach which has been long called for by the IJC
and is currently called for under Annex 2 of the GLWQA. The timing of this recommendation is
important as it also has the potential to influence the governments as they discuss COA
renewal. Such a recommendation helps set the stage for CA's to better position themselves for
a more defined role in the implementation of COA and other Great Lakes protection activities.
TRCA Directed Activities to Encourage a Renewed COA
Some of the monies directed to the RAP through COA are used to support the
community -based watershed task forces within TRCA's jurisdiction. Recognizing the
importance of COA to enhancing environmental conditions in the Great Lakes and within their
own watershed, three of the watershed groups within TRCA's jurisdiction supported a motion
to submit a letter of support for the extension of the current COA and a renewed COA.
144
At Humber Watershed Alliance Meeting #4/06, held on October 24, 2006, the group supported
the Chair sending a letter on behalf of the alliance to the federal and provincial Ministers of the
Environment.
At Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition Meeting #2/06, held on October 26, 2006, a
resolution was approved to send a letter to encourage COA renewal.
At Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #10/06, held on November 16, 2006, a
resolution was also approved to send a letter.
In their own voice, each of the watershed groups urged the Ministers to extend the current COA
with funding and renegotiate a new agreement as soon as possible, a copy of each letter was
also mailed to all of the MPs and MPPs in the watershed groups' respective watersheds, as •
well as:
• Pradeep Khare, Regional Director General, Environment Canada
• Susan Nameth, Acting Director, Integrated Ecosystem and Public Engagement Programs,
Environment Canada
• Michael Williams, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of the Environment
• Richard Raeburn- Gibson, Assistant Director, Kingston Regional Office- Eastern Region,
Ministry of the Environment
• Mayor David Miller, City of Toronto
Members of the community -based task forces were also encouraged to write individual letters
to express their support of COA.
In response to receiving a copy of the letter from the Humber Watershed Alliance, the
Honourable Roy Cullen, P.C., M.P.- Etobicoke North, wrote a letter to both Ministers urging
them to renew COA. Laurel Broten, Minister of the Environment, responded to the letter
received from the Humber Watershed Alliance regarding COA. In her letter, Minister Broten
stated the Ministry of Environment was working with Environment Canada to begin planning
and organizing the renewal processes.
Activities to Influence Priorities on Great Lakes
Setting Conservation Ontario's Great Lakes Priorities
On November 9, 2006, Conservation Ontario held a workshop to establish their priorities for the
protection of the Great Lakes. With support from TRCA, Dr. Gail Krantzberg was hired to draft
a paper which outlined possible vision and mission statements and potential priorities for
Conservation Ontario. The Great Lakes general managers working group and CA staff that has
been involved in the review process established by the parties (the federal governments of
Canada and the U.S) to the GLWQA were invited to reflect on the paper and suggest
modifications that would best capture the CA perspective. Rooted in this priorities paper was
The Healthy Watersheds, Healthy Great Lakes program which was proposed to the federal
government in 2004.
145
NEXT STEPS
As CAs play a critical role which aids the governments' commitment to protect and restore the
Great Lakes, it is important that the CAs through Conservation Ontario (CO) ensure the
governments are both aware of this role and recognize the need to strengthen financial
partnerships to allow CAs to continue and improve in their capacity to fulfill this role.
The staff at CO will be bringing a report based on the outcomes of the workshop to their board
on December 11, 2006. It is anticipated the priorities stemming from this workshop will be
used to inform future resolutions and directions of CO; as well, the priorities will be provided to
the governments for their consideration as they continue the review of the GLWQA and embark
on negotiations for a renewed COA.
Staff recommend the Authority support the drafting of a letter to the federal and provincial
Ministers of the Environment to express the above - mentioned concerns regarding expiration of
the current COA and the need to continue funding support to COA related programs in the
absence of a new agreement. Importantly, the letter should highlight that although current
levels of funding are critical, they are not sufficient to adequately protect Great Lakes water
quality nor are they enough to tackle the restoration and infrastructure improvements required
in the Toronto and Region RAP area.
Report prepared by: Kelly Montgomery, extension 5576
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: November 22, 2006
RES. #D56/06 - PICKERING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES PROJECT UPDATE
An update on the Pickering Healthy Communities Project.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Nancy Stewart
Elaine Moore
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) continue to implement the Pickering Healthy
Communities Project in partnership with Environment Canada's EcoAction Community
Funding Program, the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham, Ontario Power Generation
and Hydro One;•
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back upon completion of the project regarding the
milestones and accomplishments made.
CARRIED
146
BACKGROUND
The Pickering Healthy Communities Project (PHCP) began in October 2005 as a two -year
community initiative through an EcoAction Community Funding Program grant of $70,000. The
PHCP is designed to increase awareness and educate the community about environmental
issues impacting the Frenchman's Bay and Petticoat Creek watersheds, while protecting,
restoring and enhancing the ecological health of these watersheds through naturalization
projects and stewardship activities. This project includes hands -on initiatives such as
monitoring, habitat creation, watershed clean -ups and native plantings that will empower and
involve the community.
The main components of the PHCP include:
Engaging the community and project partners at the following three community action sites
(CAS) :
• Site #1 - Wetland Works (Hydro Marsh /Alex Robertson Park);
• Site #2 - Petticoat Environmental Junction (Petticoat Creek watershed);
• Site #3 - Protecting Our Beach (Frenchman's Bay Barrier Beach West).
Providing outreach and education opportunities through:
• The Residential Homeowners Program;
• The Corporate Challenge Program.
The PHCP has recently completed its first year and has been successful in meeting and
exceeding its targets. The expected results and actual accomplishments are summarized in
the following table:
Expected Results
October 1, 2005 to September 31, 2006
Accomplishments to Date
October 1, 2005 to September 31, 2006
Engage 500 volunteers in site restoration and
education programs
Engaged 1,100 volunteers
Implement restoration initiatives at 2 community
action sites
Completed restoration initiatives at 2 community
action sites
Plant 500 native trees and shrubs
Planted 2,740 native trees and shrubs
Plant 200 native aquatic plants and wildflowers
Planted 1,130 native aquatic plants and wildflowers
Install 1 water quality improvement structure
Installed 1 water quality improvement structure
using 900 recycled Christmas trees
Install 25 wildlife habitat structures
Installed 47 wildlife habitat structures
Remove garbage and litter from 1 km of shoreline
habitat
Removed garbage and litter from 1 km of shoreline
habitat
Enhance 5 hectares of terrestrial habitat
Enhanced 7 hectares of terrestrial habitat
Implement 2 residential homeowners information
sessions /workshops
Hosted 2 homeowner workshops
Distribute 70 rain barrels to homeowners
Distributed 100 rain barrels to Pickering residents
Distribute 25 healthy yards toolkits to homeowners
Distributed 30 healthy yards toolkits to
homeowners
Conduct 1 Corporate Challenge event to engage
local businesses
1 corporate tree planting event was hosted for a
local business
147
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will continue to work with the City of Pickering, Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One, the
Region of Durham, the EcoAction Community Funding Program and community partners to
implement and exceed whenever possible the 2005 expected deliverables with the addition of
2 Corporate Challenges during the second and final year of the project.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
To date, core funding for the PHCP has been provided by Environment Canada through the
EcoAction Community Funding Program in the amount of $70,000. Additional funds
supporting the project include $20,000 from the Regional Municipality of Durham through
TRCA's watershed planning and implementation work and $10,000 from Hydro One.
Report prepared by: Steve Joudrey, 905 - 420 -4660 extension 2212
For Information contact: Steve Joudrey, 905 - 420 -4660 extension 2212
Date: September 26, 2006
RES. #D57/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
FILL PROJECTS ON TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION
AUTHORITY -OWNED LANDS
Monitoring Results. A progress report on the accomplishments and next
steps for the Inland Fill Placement Program.
Elaine Moore
Frank Dale
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) continue to identify and develop filling opportunities on
TRCA -owned lands for the creation and /or enhancement of wetland interpretive habitat
features and the creation of sound and visual attenuation barriers;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff continue to report back to the Watershed Management
Advisory Board annually regarding the project milestone and accomplishments.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #6/05, held on February 10, 2006, the
members requested a report from staff on the monitoring results of fill projects on TRCA -owned
land and photos of the work.
Beginning in 2000, staff identified TRCA -owned lands where habitat enhancement and
regeneration work could be achieved through a combination of innovative design and strategic
soil placement. Given the readily available sources of clean soil, it was determined that project
development, implementation and restoration costs could be offset by collecting tipping fees
associated with soil placement. Ultimately, TRCA's intent was to undertake substantial and
significant regeneration work at no additional cost to TRCA, its funding partners or the public.
148
The selection process for appropriate regeneration sites is determined through an extensive
process involving input from interested public groups and partners, as well as various TRCA
internal departments. Each project is unique, and is designed to accomplish strategic goals
which may include one or more of the following: wetland and habitat creation, wetland and
habitat enhancement, site rehabilitation (i.e. aggregate pit rehabilitation), sound attenuation
and visual screening. The intent of the final design of all projects is to create a regeneration
project resulting in a net gain to wildlife habitat and the natural environment.
Upon approval of the final design, the implementation component of the regeneration projects
are undertaken by private contractors who deliver and place clean soils generated from various
excavation sites. TRCA selects a single contractor based on a submitted proposal to
implement the supply and placement of soils for each project. The soils supplied by the
contractor is sampled, pre- approved and monitored throughout the delivery and placement
process. TRCA staff pre- approves all soils prior to delivery by reviewing consultant's soil
quality reports, ensuring that all soils meet Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) "
Residential Parkland" quality criteria. In addition, daily on -site visual monitoring of incoming
soils is undertaken by staff, along with the collection and chemical analysis of random soil
samples as part of on ongoing quality control program. Over 200 soil samples have been
collected and analyzed from completed projects. Laboratory analytical results indicate that
soils meet Parkland criteria.
A brief description of the completed regeneration projects and on -going projects has been
compiled in Attachment 1.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The completed regeneration projects have resulted in the ecological enhancement of more
than 15 hectares of tableland, with the creation of over 3 hectares of wetland. Some of the new
vegetation communities to appear include submergent, emergent and marginal wetland
vegetation species. Examples of some of the emergent species include Cattail, Hardstem
Bulrush, Soft Stem Bulrush and Water Smartweed. Submergent species include Tape Grass,
Coontail and Common Bladderwort. The wetlands are now providing a permanent habitat for
amphibians, mammals and waterfowl.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
TRCA staff anticipates that direct project operating and restoration costs associated with all
aspects of the soil placement and habitat enhancement projects can be offset by revenue
generated through tipping fees.
Report prepared by: David Hatton, extension 5365
For Information contact: David Hatton, extension 5365 and Mark Lowe, extension 5388
Date: February 13, 2006
Attachments: 2 -
149
Attachment 1
COMPLETED PROJECTS
Claireville Buffer
Hwy 407 at Gorewood Dr.
City of Brampton
•
•
Work completed summer 2001
Berms designed to provide visual screening and sound
attenuation from the 407 within Claireville Conservation Area .
Boyd Regeneration &
•
Work completed summer 2001
Wetland Complex
•
Berms designed to capture and retain surface water run -off
Islington Ave.
for wetland creation & habitat enhancement. Also provides a
City of Vaughan
visual screen and sound attenuation barrier along Islington
(see attached photo)
Avenue.
Rouge Park North -Phase I
•
The first of a two phase berm construction project that was
Ninth Line & 16th Avenue
completed during the summer of 2003.
Town of Markham
•
The design provides a visual screen and sound attenuation
barrier against the adjacent Markham By -Pass
•
Ephemeral wetland, riparian and upland habitats resulted
from this enhancement project.
•
Completed in partnership with Rouge Park and the Town of
Markham.
Boyd North Pit
•
Work done between 2002 & 2005.
Rehabilitation
•
Topsoil was strategically placed for purpose of restoring
Rutherford Rd. west of Pine
vegetation and habitat potential of this abandoned aggregate
Valley Dr.
pit, as well as providing the safe route needed for the
City of Vaughan
completion of the Granger Greenway Trail.
(see attached photo)
•
Done in partnership with the City of Vaughan and Rom -Nag
Construction
Kortright Regeneration
•
Work started in summer 2005 and completed spring 2006
Project
•
Native soil and topsoil was used for the creation of a berm
Kortright Centre for
designed to capture and redirect surface run -off for wet
Conservation,
City of Vaughan
meadow enhancement & wetland creation. Also provided a
needed sound attenuation barrier from Major MacKenzie
(see attached photo)
Drive.
150
ACTIVE PROJECTS
Claireville Phase I - Habitat
Enhancement
Intermodal Dr.
City of Brampton
(see attached photo)
•
•
The first of a two phase berm construction project was
started during the summer of 2004, with additional soil
placed during summer 2006.
The design provides a visual screen and sound attenuation
barrier to the adjacent heavy industrial complex on
Intermodal Drive. The resulting berm also diverted and
captured surface run -off used to create significant wetland.
Claireville Phase II -
•
The second phase of this two phase berm construction
Habitat Enhancement
project is 80% complete as of fall 2006, with completion
Intermodal Dr.
expected in spring 2007.
City of Brampton
•
TRCA looking into the possibility of implementing
Claireville Habitat
•
This enhancement project, which started in summer 2005, is
Enhancement
80% complete with an anticipated completion for spring
Hwy 50 & Hwy 407
2007.
City of Brampton
•
The completed berm is designed to provide a visual screen
(see attached photo)
and sound attenuation barrier to the adjacent Highway 407.
The berm has already diverted and captured surface run -off
and resulted in the creation of a significant wetland and
enhancement to the natural environment.
Rouge Park North
•
The second phase of a two phase berm construction project
— Phase II
is 50% complete with an anticipated completion for spring
Ninth Line & 16th Avenue
2007.
Town of Markham
•
Done in partnership with the Town of Markham and Rouge
Park.
FUTURE PROJECT
Kleinburg New Forest North
•
TRCA anticipates a December start to this multi year fill
Islington Ave. and
placement project with a design strategy that will provide both
Hwy 27
sound attenuation for local residents and habitat enhancement
City of Vaughan
features. An extensive open space design with pathways,
parking and substantial native tree and shrub planting.
Bruce' Mill Conservation
•
TRCA looking into the possibility of implementing
Area.
regeneration work on the existing driving range, and /or on
nearby agricultural lands.
151
Attachment 2
Claireville Buffer facing Hwy 407
� ���:� .` .°k*� �.i::�.�• s ate` � : ���e�z>
Claireville Buffer — Wetland
152
Boyd Regeneration & Wetland Complex eye level and aerial view.
Bo d North Pit Rehabilitation
Kortri • ht Regeneration Pro'ect
154
Claireville Phase 1 Intermodal Drive
Claireville at Hwy 50 & 407
RES. #D58/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
URBAN FORESTRY UPDATE
Status report on current pests that threaten southern Ontario forest
resources.
Nancy Stewart
Elaine Moore
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to work
cooperatively with all levels of government to monitor trends and conditions of current
forest insect and invasive pest populations and to formulate and implement appropriate
strategies and methodologies directed at the control and eradication of these pests;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back annually on any significant changes in the status
of forest pests in Ontario.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Staff had previously reported on the status of urban forests pests to Watershed Management
Advisory Board meetings #7/04, held on December 10, 2004, and #6/05, held on February 10,
2006. This report is provided as an update on the status of forest pests and their impacts for
the 2006 period.
The Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR)
continue to monitor existing pest infestations, and search for new outbreaks. These findings
are reported quarterly, through publications and yearly at the Annual Forest Health Review,
held this year on October 26.
This year marks the addition of the Sirex Wood Wasp to Ontario, the increased spread of
previously noted pests and two potential success stories, relating to actions taken on previous
pest infestations. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has helped with the
monitoring of some pests and continues to play an active role in the locating and tracking of
existing pest problems.
Issues of concern within TRCA's jurisdiction discussed in the 30th Annual Forest Health Review
include:
• Asian Long- horned Beetle (ALHB);
• Emerald Ash Borer (EAB);
• Gypsy Moth (GM);
• Sirex Wood Wasp (SWW);
• Butternut Canker.
Asian Long- horned Beetle
The battle to eradicate the ALHB from the Toronto and Vaughan jurisdictions is one that
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) ALHB program managers and partners are confident
can be won. Ground and aerial survey teams have not found any new occurrences within the
regulated area in 2006. The CFIA led monitoring program is expected to be ongoing for the
next few years. TRCA remains committed to the support of CFIA and our municipal and
agency partners in seeing this destructive pest eradicated.
156
Emerald Ash Borer
Emerald Ash Borer was first discovered in Michigan in 2002, with discoveries in Ontario
occurring shortly after. Areas in City of Windsor and Essex County have been devastated, with
almost total removal of Ash trees from the landscape. EAB is a forest pest with some very
disturbing characteristics. This pest attacks Ash trees of all sizes, ages and condition, while
killing all of the trees it attacks. It is not yet known how persistent EAB will be after all of its
suitable hosts had been killed. The Toss in these counties represents between 25% and 50% of
all forest cover. Additional pressures are created by invasive plant species which have been
given ideal conditions to infiltrate these already decimated forest stands.
In 2003 an Ash free "Fire Break" was created from Lake Erie to Lake St. Clair in hopes of
stemming the advancing outbreak. This proved to have little effect, with pockets of infection
being found well beyond the eastern edge of the zone. The EAB infections seem to have been
following transportation corridors, possibly with the movement of wood and wood products.
CFIA continues to monitor for and implement federal regulations on the restrictions for
movement of nursery stock and forest products.
This past summer two trees were found to be infected in the London area. While no one knows
how long it will take EAB to reach the Greater Toronto Area, CFIA's efforts have been aimed at
slowing the spread, until further counter measures can be developed.
TRCA staff is still looking for any evidence of stressed or declining Ash trees, related to EAB,
within our watersheds, with no evidence of EAB being detected to date. It is our policy to limit
the planting of Ash trees to not more than 10% of any individual planting project and with that
10% spread out within the planting as much as possible. It is felt that with a healthy population
of Ash trees when the infestation occurs, the better our chances are of maintaining Ash in the
landscape.
Gypsy Moth
The Gypsy Moth is another invasive exotic plant pest, having been released accidentally in
Massachusetts over 130 years ago. It has become well established over much of North
America with damage generally occurring only when populations reach very high levels. In
2003, most of the damage in Ontario occurred near Parry Sound in the Muskoka district. The
population almost collapsed in 2004. In 2005 population levels began to spike in areas of
Mississauga, Caledonia and Guelph.
Mississauga embarked on a very extensive aerial spray program with tremendous support
from the community. This type of a program had never been previously attempted in southern
Ontario, yet proved to be extremely effective. Agencies including Ministry of the Environment,
Transport Canada, Ontario Provincial Police, local police and fire departments, to name a few,
all had to be coordinated to enable an operation of this scope. The final results have not been
compiled, but it is believed to have been a tremendous success.
There have been a few small outbreaks of Gypsy Moth in TRCA's jurisdiction, including
Etobicoke, near Princess Margaret Boulevard and Kipling Avenue, south of the Rosedale Golf
Club, and in an eastern part of the Mount Pleasant Cemetery. As of yet, the populations have
not reached epidemic levels and are still being monitored, due to their cyclic nature.
157
Sirex Wood Wasp
The Sirex Wood Wasp was first discovered in Oswego, New York in 2005. The Canadian
Forest Service (CFS) and OMNR established a series of trap sites on the Canadian side of the
St. Lawrence River in hopes of an early detection of this potentially damaging forest pest. This
past summer, traps were also set up throughout many more areas in southern Ontario.
Specimens have been discovered in Cambridge and Durham in 2005, and several more in
2006 (including at the Boyd Office).
SWW generally attacks suppressed or stressed trees and seems to act as a natural thinning
agent. In unmanaged forest stands, mortality can reach 66 %. In managed forest stands,
mortality is extremely low. The preferred host is Scots Pine, although it is believed that all 2 -3
needled pines are a target, with White Pine being susceptible if it is suppressed. Trees are
killed by the combined effects of a toxic mucous, a white rot fungus and feeding by the larvae
of the wood wasp.
There are currently no natural predators, and active forest management appears to be the best
approach to decreasing the damage potential of the invasive forest pest.
Butternut Canker
Butternut Canker continues to ravage populations of Butternut trees in Ontario. Butternut was
added to the list of endangered species in 2005. The disease attacks all trees in all age
classes, with vigorous trees on good growing sites appearing to be the most resistant. TRCA
is continuing to note live healthy trees, in an effort to find individuals resistant to the canker.
We will continue to manage to the benefit of those trees remaining, and to educate landowners
on these issues.
Other Concerns
Red Pine decline continues to be a major concern among forest managers in southern Ontario.
Many portions of the TRCA forests have large components of Red Pine and are beginning to
show some of the symptoms of this condition. It is possibly the result of many different causes,
with few answers to date. It appears that the only option presently is the removal of Red Pine
from the forest as soon as possible once the condition becomes apparent.
Dog Strangling Vine (DSV) is beginning to reach very high population densities in some of our
forest tracts, in what are still small areas. It appears to spread both naturally and along
pathways and roads. The actual vector for dispersal has not been confirmed, but the vine
moves much faster in areas with higher usage.
Garlic Mustard is found in a larger portion of our forests than DSV, but has not been as
damaging of a problem as DSV. This pest also takes over the ground layer in a forest and
does not allow for the regeneration of the native forest species. It also has a profound affect of
the growth and vigor of the trees in the forest stands where it is found-. Growth of the trees may
be slowed by as much as 90% in many areas.
158
The combination of Red Pine decline, and invasive forest ground covers, presents forest
managers with new challenges to keep our forests healthy and diverse. It is with these
concerns in mind, that we are modifying our planting and management prescriptions to
increase biodiversity and decrease the damaging potential of these pests.
IMPLICATIONS
The implications of most of these pests have not changed appreciably from the position stated
in the previous Watershed Management Advisory Board report from Meeting #7/04, held on
December 10, 2004. The new implications arising since that time are as follows:
In regard to the increased threat from the Sirex Wood Wasp, TRCA staff continue to work with
other community foresters in trying to determine best management practices, and policies to
deal with this pest. There has been no research conducted in North America on SWW and we
are presently relying heavily on work conducted in Australia. It is becoming even more
important to actively manage plantations where host trees are found, to increase biodiversity,
and promote vigorous and healthy stands. Future planting projects will address biodiversity
concerns by increasing species planted, and decreasing the amounts of host species where
applicable.
Red Pine decline is becoming a major threat on some TRCA properties. The general
recommendation for these areas, would be the removal of all or most of the Pine trees once the
condition is confirmed. Left unchecked, most or all of the host trees will die, often within
months, creating hazards. These trees would then have to be removed at great cost to TRCA.
Removal of these trees just prior to impending mortality could be done to possibly generate
revenue, and salvage any timber value currently present.
The implications of Garlic Mustard and Dog Strangling Vine are more difficult to quantify. Both
of these invasive exotic pests threaten to decrease biodiversity in any of our forested areas.
Current best forest management practices suggest that the only control methods are heavy
chemical applications for several years in succession. This technique would likely destroy
much of the diverse ecosystems that we are trying to protect. The biggest challenge in
ecosystems where either of these plants is present is in the establishment of young seedlings.
As such, the immediate problem is in areas which require the establishment of a new forest
community, particularly in areas which show signs of Red Pine decline. In areas with Red Pine
decline and DSV or Garlic Mustard, natural regeneration following removals may not be a
viable option.
TRCA staff is currently exchanging ideas and experiences with other community foresters to
find solutions to this problem. It is expected that the threat posed by these invasive pests may
decrease over time, as natural pathogens may develop to pray on these species. Current
options would include limiting or excluding public uses from pristine areas in an attempt to
slow the spread. Public education will be necessary to increase awareness as to the vectors of
dispersal for these invasives.
159
Controls
Sirex Wood Wasp has no natural enemies in North America at this time. It is possible that
some predators that prey on similar wasp species may adapt to feed on SWW. It appears that
only stressed and declining trees are susceptible to this pest, and the best control, is to
manage our forests for optimum health and vigor.
DSV and Garlic Mustard are both controlled by either physically removing them from the forest
or with heavy chemical applications two or three times in the growing season, prior to seed
dispersal. These control measures need to be repeated for three or more years, due to the
presence of viable seed in the forest floor. While this may be possible on individual properties
with small infestations, it is not a reasonable solution when hundreds and thousands of acres
may be affected. This also only identifies the current problem and not what caused that
problem initially. In areas where adjacent lands are seen as a major contributor of the pests,
the TRCA will attempt to work with these landowners to find a suitable solution.
No control measures for Red Pine decline have yet been discovered. The only option here is
the use of "Best Forestry Practices" to decrease the damage potential and to decrease
susceptibility of future forested properties.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff continue to work with other community foresters and industry to try and find
solutions to the ever increasing threats to our forest communities. It is through improved or
modified management that we may find the best long term solutions to these threats.
TRCA is continuing to monitor the presence and potential threats posed by the remainder of
forest pests. Understanding, monitoring and managing for these threats will be linked to
TRCA's ongoing work on its Terrestrial Natural Heritage Systems Strategy and its
implementation.
Report prepared by: Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379
For Information contact: Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379
Date: November 15, 2006
RES. #D59/06 - ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN: TOWARDS A HEALTHY AND
SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
Release of final draft Rouge watershed plan for consultation.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Nancy Stewart
Elaine Moore
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Chair, Mr. Bryan Buttigieg,
and members of the Rouge Watershed Task Force be thanked for their outstanding effort
in the development of the Rouge watershed plan, entitled "Rouge River Watershed Plan:
Towards a Healthy and Sustainable Future ";
160
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to undertake
public and stakeholder consultation on the final draft Rouge watershed plan and its
supporting technical documents;
THAT TRCA staff offer presentations on the final draft Rouge watershed plan to all Rouge
watershed municipalities and solicit their comments;
THAT TRCA staff develop an implementation guide, a five year implementation workplan
and budget, and implementation committee structure for the Rouge watershed plan, in
consultation with implementing partners;
THAT TRCA staff finalize the Rouge watershed plan, in cooperation with the Rouge
Watershed Task Force Chair, to ensure the comments are in keeping with the task force
principles, tone and spirit of the final task force plan;
THAT TRCA staff report back to the April, 2007 Watershed Management Advisory Board
meeting with a final Rouge watershed plan, proposed implementation committee Terms
of Reference, and preliminary implementation guide and implementation workplan;
AND FURTHER THAT the Chair and Members of the Rouge Watershed Task Force be
invited to attend the meeting when the Rouge watershed plan is to be considered for
adoption by the Authority.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 2003, TRCA entered into a five year work program with York Region and the City of Toronto
to prepare a watershed plan for the Rouge River. This initiative was to assist the York Region
municipalities in fulfilling the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORCMP) requirement to
have watershed plans completed by April 2007. The study was also designed to update the
original 1990 Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge River Watershed,
provide a watershed context for Rouge Park plans and give direction,for applying TRCA's
vision for The Living City at a watershed scale.
The Rouge Watershed Task Force, formed by TRCA in April 2004, has completed its mandate
with the approval of a final draft Rouge watershed plan at its final meeting, held on November
30, 2006 (see Executive Summary - Attachment 1). The document draws on technical
modelling and analysis work, review of experience in other jurisdictions, and input provided on
key issues during meetings and workshops of the Rouge Watershed Task Force and other
experts. A preliminary draft plan was discussed with the task force at their October 5 and
October 19, 2006 meetings, and their comments subsequently incorporated into a first draft
plan that was circulated for initial consultation with municipal staff and members of the public
during the first half of November, 2006. In acknowledgement of the limited opportunities for
consultation to date, the task force has requested TRCA undertake additional consultation, as
per amended Resolution #L93/06 from Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #10/06, held
on November 30, 2006 as follows.
THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force forward its final Watershed Plan to the TRCA for
its consideration;
161
THAT TRCA be requested to complete all supporting documents as soon as possible
and conduct further consultation, including an expert peer review, on the final draft Plan
and supporting documents;
THAT TRCA and Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force undertake
additional public meetings;
THAT TRCA circulate to Rouge Watershed Task Force members dates of public
meetings;
THAT TRCA circulate to Rouge Watershed Task Force members comments arising from
the consultations;
THAT Rouge Watershed Task Force members be invited to the final presentation of the
Rouge River Watershed Plan: Towards a Healthy and Sustainable Future to the
Watershed Management Advisory Board and the Authority Board;
THAT Rouge Watershed Task Force members be circulated a copy of the expert peer
review report;
THAT TRCA be requested in the finalization of this document, in coordination with Bryan
Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force to ensure that comments have been
addressed in keeping with the Task Force principles, tone and spirit of the final Task
Force Plan;
THAT TRCA be requested to present the findings of the Rouge Watershed Plan to the
Town of Markham and offer to present t� all Rouge Watershed municipalities and solicit
their comments; and circulate further comments to Rouge Watershed Task Force
members;
THAT TRCA be requested to facilitate the development of an Implementation Guide and
a five year Implementation Workplan and budget for the Rouge Watershed Plan, in
consultation with key implementing partners;
THAT the TRCA be requested to establish an Implementation Committee as soon as
possible following the finalization of the Watershed Plan in order to promote and track
the implementation of the Watershed Plan;
AND FURTHER THAT the Rouge Park Alliance, the Municipal partners, the Provincial and
Federal governments as well as all residents, organizations and relevant interest groups
be requested to provide their ongoing support for the implementation of the principles
and goals of the Rouge Watershed Plan.
162
Further consultation on the final draft Rouge watershed plan and its background documents is
recommended as a critical step in ensuring the practicality and support of the public and
implementing partners, prior to final approval by the Authority. Staff will bring the final report to
the Authority, recommending approval of the Rouge watershed plan, by the end of April 2007,
which will enable the Region of York to fulfill the requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan. The watershed plan will be instrumental in guiding land use decisions
affecting the watershed.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The following next steps are to be undertaken:
• complete all technical supporting documents;
• circulate final draft Rouge watershed plan by mid - January with request for comments by
March 15, 2007.
• convene 2 -3 public meetings throughout the watershed (February);
• convene municipal and other expert peer review workshop (February);
• prepare a draft outline of the implementation guide and seek municipal input (February);
• begin to prepare implementation workplan (March);
• draft a Terms of Reference and outline for a Rouge implementation committee;
• finalize Rouge watershed plan.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the Rouge watershed planning study was provided by the Region of York and City
of Toronto as part of the capital budgets.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: December 5, 2006
Attachments: 1
163
Attachment 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
revised November 30, 2006
The Rouge River watershed is an extraordinary resource in Southern Ontario, treasured
and enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. It spans 336 km2 of land and water in the Regions
of York and Durham, cities of Toronto and Pickering, and towns of Markham, Richmond Hill
and Whitchurch- Stouffville. It includes all the lands that drain to the Rouge River and its
tributaries, including the Little Rouge River, starting in the hills of the Oak Ridges Moraine and
flowing south to Lake Ontario.
Why do we need this watershed plan? If you live, work or play in the Rouge watershed, you
depend on its health in a number of ways. The Rouge watershed is a source of your drinking
water - whether you rely on wells or water from Lake Ontario. Unpaved land absorbs water
from rain and snowfall to replenish groundwater and streams and reduce the impacts of
flooding and erosion. Healthy aquatic and terrestrial habitats support diverse communities of
plants and animals. Agricultural lands provide local sources of food and green spaces, and
provide recreational opportunities. A rich human heritage affords links to the past that enrich
and inform our lives today. The natural beauty of the forests, meadows, farmlands, wetlands,
rivers and creeks provides urban dwellers with solace, renewal and contact with nature.
Increasing concerns about the health of our cities and countryside, the safety of our
drinking water and the future of the Oak Ridges Moraine have lead to a number of initiatives
toward sustainable living in Ontario, the Greater Toronto Area and the Great Lakes region.
Actions taken in the Rouge watershed can provide a model for actions in other watersheds, as
well as influence the environmental health of larger systems.
This plan was prepared by a multi - stakeholder task force that includes representatives from
all levels of government agencies, private businesses, not - for - profit organizations and the
public and is coordinated by TRCA and Rouge Park. The plan has a strong technical
foundation, based on decades of monitoring of environmental conditions combined with a
leading edge approach to modelling of potential future conditions. A series of management
summits was held to convene experts who could help identify best practices and
recommendations to achieve the objectives of the Rouge Watershed Task Force.
The guiding framework for this watershed plan comprises an overall goal, a set of
principles, nine goals and 22 objectives with specific targets. Our overall goal is:
to work towards a healthy and sustainable Rouge watershed by protecting, restoring and
enhancing its ecological and cultural integrity within the context of a regional natural
heritage system.
Our goals, objectives and targets address:
• groundwater;
• surface water;
• stream form;
• aquatic system;
164
• terrestrial system;
• air quality and climate change;
• cultural heritage;
• nature -based recreation;
• sustainable land and resource use.
One of the foundations of this plan is the State of the Rouge Watershed Report, which
provides a wealth of recent information about natural and cultural resources and human
activities in the watershed. Land use in the Rouge watershed today is approximately 40% rural,
35% urban, 24% natural cover and 1% open water. The lower watershed is dominated by
Rouge Park, with a small but well established area of urban development to the west. The
middle and western parts are experiencing rapid urban expansion and have sparse natural
cover except in Rouge Park. The upper and eastern portions of the watershed are primarily
rural and agricultural with some small towns and villages.
The Rouge watershed represents a rich inheritance for current and future communities. The
Little Rouge watershed is still relatively undeveloped with considerable natural cover and a
water balance typical of a rural watershed. The aquatic systems in the upper Little Rouge and
parts of the main Rouge are healthy enough to support cold- and cool -water communities
including species of concern such as redside dace and brook trout. Natural habitats support a
high diversity of plants and animals, including many that are rare or at risk (such as the
nationally threatened Jefferson salamander, provincially significant Cooper's hawk and
regionally rare one flower cancer - root). Major blocks of publicly -owned lands have been
reserved for conservation and greenspace purposes, most notably the 40 square km Rouge
Park. The Rouge watershed also has a rich cultural heritage, including many archaeological
and historic sites, landscapes, stories and artifacts from earlier inhabitants as well as the
diverse cultures of present day communities.
Unfortunately, there are signs of stress. Decades of urban development have resulted in
harmful changes that exceed the carrying capacity of natural systems. These changes include
increased surface runoff, more water pollution, greater annual flow volumes in rivers and
streams, increased erosion and sedimentation, channel instability, reduced groundwater
discharge, loss of biodiversity and greater incidence of smog. They are signs that the ability of
the air, land and water to absorb the impacts of human activities is strained and cannot be
sustained over the long term unless fundamental changes are made. Rehabilitation of
infrastructure and restoration of natural habitats to address these issues is underway, but is
expensive and time consuming.
To help us understand how the watershed might react to changes in land use, environmental
management and climate in the future, we undertook a multi- faceted process of analysis and
synthesis. This included modelling studies to compare eight potential scenarios, combined
with examination of existing conditions and trends in the watershed, a review of watershed
research in other areas, and the best professional judgement of a range of experts in many
fields.
165
What can we expect in future? We discovered that if future development proceeds with
current approaches to community design and stormwater management, it will not be possible
to maintain current watershed conditions, let alone improve them. If development practices are
changed to use the best foreseeable community designs and management techniques, it may
be possible to maintain and in some cases enhance current conditions. However many of the
new designs and technologies for sustainable urban development are still evolving and being
tested, so we recommend that development proceed with caution, accommodating
adjustments as necessary to achieve watershed targets.
Fortunately, the Rouge watershed offers many unique opportunities, including the
assembly and renaturalization of lands as part of Rouge Park and the continuation of
agriculture on public and private lands. Watershed municipalities are already working to
address the impacts of existing developments and are among the leaders in promoting
sustainable practices. These opportunities provide us with valuable tools to help address
concerns with current watershed conditions, manage impacts from future land use changes
and adapt to the uncertainties associated with global climate change.
The pathway to a healthy watershed that emerged from this analysis is based on a
comprehensive and inter - dependent set of strategies that will protect and enhance valued
resources, regenerate damaged systems and build more sustainable communities. These
strategies encompass three broad themes:
1) Establish the targeted terrestrial natural heritage system: Figure 5.1 in the watershed
plan illustrates an expanded natural heritage system that is designed to provide multiple
benefits, including biodiversity and habitats, water balance maintenance and restoration,
opportunities for nature -based recreation, improved quality of life and greater resilience to
urban growth and climate change. It can be accomplished by protecting existing valued
assets, securing additional lands, regenerating degraded areas and improving stewardship
of public and private lands.
2) Build sustainable communities: We have identified more sustainable approaches to
urban form, infrastructure, transportation and resource use that will contribute to overall
improved quality of life. They should be applied to new communities, as well as to the
intensification or redevelopment of existing ones. Some of the key features include reduced
imperviousness, measures to maintain or restore water balance, design features to facilitate
sustainable choices (e.g. energy conservation, reduced vehicle use, support for local
agricultural products) and protection and adaptive re -use of cultural heritage features.
Development should proceed at a pace and extent that allows sufficient time to adopt, test
and evaluate the effectiveness of new technologies and to make adjustments if the results
do not meet our objectives and targets for the watershed.
3) Recognize and develop a regional open space system: The Rouge watershed has the
basis for a significant, inter - connected regional open space system including Rouge Park
and regional trails, conservation areas and major municipal parks. We recommend that this
system be further developed to reach its potential to provide nature -based recreation
experiences for a growing population, support for healthy communities, interpretation of
natural and cultural heritage, linkages with local neighbourhoods and connections to
surrounding watersheds.
166
An important prerequisite for action will be to increase awareness among watershed
residents, businesses, developers and agencies of the importance of the watershed, its water
cycles, natural systems and cultural heritage. We recommend a long -term outreach program to
provide information and understanding, explain how people can act on this knowledge and
inspire action. Our social marketing study, Action Plan for Sustainable Practices, showed that
there is a modest basis of understanding and support for sustainability, but the public needs
more specific information, marketing campaigns and assistance to inspire action. It also
highlighted a number of issues that reduce opportunities for businesses to adopt sustainable
practices, so we plan to remove barriers and provide incentives for the business community.
The coordinated efforts of government agencies and community leaders are also crucial to
the success of this watershed plan. They have many complementary tools available, including
plans and policies, permits and regulations, enforcement, infrastructure operations and
maintenance, stewardship and regeneration programs, and education and awareness
initiatives. We provide more details about how these existing tools can be used to help
implement the watershed plan in the accompanying implementation guide.
We are standing at a crossroads. In one direction lies a future modelled on the past, with
continued losses of environmental quality, biodiversity and cultural heritage and considerable
costs to address the health, social and economic consequences of degraded environmental
conditions. In the other direction is a future with healthy natural systems and a rich natural and
cultural heritage, supporting a higher quality of life for our communities. This plan outlines the
key steps to achieve the best possible future for ourselves and our grandchildren. We hope
you will support it and become a partner in its implementation.
167
RES. #D60 /06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
TORONTO WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION CORPORATION
INITIATIVES
To provide a status report on the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Corporation initiatives with highlights of Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority's (TRCA) involvement and participation.
Gay Cowbourne
Frank Dale
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the report on waterfront initiatives funded through the
Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) be received.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D61 /06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Dick O'Brien
THAT the main motion be replaced with the following:
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority continue consultation with the Port Union Working
Implementation Committee for Phase II of the Port Union Waterfront Improvement
Project, such meetings to be held quarterly, or more frequently as required.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
TRCA staff is currently working on a number of key waterfront initiatives funded through Eligible
Recipient Delivery Agreements with TWRC or through participation on steering committees.
The 2006 calendar year marked the largest capital budget in TRCA's history stemming from
current waterfront initiatives. This report captures the highlights for 2006 and the role of TRCA.
Projects include the following:
• Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Project;
• Western Beaches Watercourse Facility;
• Central Waterfront Innovative Design Competition;
• Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project;
• Bala Pedestrian Underpass;
• Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project;
• Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Implementation Project; -
• Lake Ontario Park Master Plan; and
• Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project.
168
Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Project
In 2003, TRCA entered into a Delivery Agreement with TWRC to undertake the Mimico
Waterfront Linear Park Project for an estimated cost of $6.5 million. TRCA is responsible for all
aspects of project planning and implementation.
In April 2004, TRCA undertook property appraisals of all necessary private lands required to
implement the project. Based on completed appraisals, TRCA and TWRC agreed to pursue
the purchase of all available properties. TRCA was successful in acquiring all but four
properties from three owners; TWRC directed TRCA to implement a stand -alone Phase 1
(central and west sectors) project.
Late in 2005 and early 2006, TRCA met with TWRC a number of times regarding the budget
shortfall identified following the acquisition of the private properties. Based on these
discussions, a consensus was reached among senior management at both TRCA and TWRC
to pursue a revised project budget of $10.6 million to implement Phase 1. At the TWRC Board
of Director's meeting held on January 12, 2006, a revised project budget of $10.6 million for
Phase 1 was accepted and TWRC staff was directed to provide this funding through the new 10
year business plan.
Following direction from TWRC, the implementation of Phase 1 began in July 2006. As
provided in correspondence from John Campbell (TWRC - dated November 3, 2006), TWRC
supports TRCA's approach in moving ahead with the expanded scope of work to complete
Phase 1 on the basis of the increased budget of $10.6 million as proposed in the Amended
Contribution Agreement. The next step is to have the Amended Contribution Agreement
executed and a subsequent change made to the Delivery Agreement. The completion of
Phase 1 is scheduled for July 2008.
A prerequisite for the implementation of Phase 2 is the securement of the remaining properties
from landowners. Properties must be acquired by the City of Toronto through the development
application process which could take many years. A budget to implement the Phase 2
components of the project is not provided at this time. TWRC committed to revisit the
possibility of additional funding in future discussions relating to the 10 Year Business Plan to
complete Phase 2.
Western Beaches Watercourse Facility
The Western Beaches Watercourse Facility involved the construction of a 600 metre long
multi -sport watercourse with a budget of $23 million. Additional project activities included the
creation of on -site and off-site fish habitat at the mouth of the Humber River and Ontario Place,
the completion of the Jamieson Avenue outfall diversion and the restoration of Marilyn Bell Park
following construction.
169
TWRC engaged a consulting team led by MacViro Consultants to undertake a feasibility study.
In November 2004, TRCA was directed to develop a Delivery Agreement for the purpose of
developing and implementing the project by 2006. Given the aggressive implementation
schedule, the consultant team was retained by TWRC to undertake the environmental
assessment (EA) process and design components in conjunction with TRCA and the City of
Toronto. To undertake on -site supervision and direction, TRCA engaged the project
management services of UMA Engineering Limited. Following receipt of necessary approvals
and detailed design, construction began in September 2005. A new public tender for supply,
delivery and placement was issued and awarded to Aecon Construction Materials Limited.
In June 2006, the Western Beaches Watercourse Facility was completed on -time and under
budget. The successful completion of this project is a clear example of a committed group of
agencies working together to create a facility that will serve the Tong -term recreational needs of
the City of Toronto.
Central Waterfront Innovative Design Competition
In March 2006, TWRC selected five internationally recognized teams to participate in a
competition to design continuous waterfront access from the Western Gap to the Parliament
Street Slip. The purpose of the design, which integrates the Music Garden, York and John
Quay Promenades and HTO Park, is to provide a distinct and recognizable identity for Toronto'
s revitalized waterfront. The design competition was decided by a jury; TRCA advised the jury
through participation on the City of Toronto's Technical Advisory Committee for the project.
Key components in the winning design included:
• continuous public promenade from the Western Gap to the Parliament Street Slip;
• completion of Martin Goodman Trail in this area;
• creation of major points of arrival where the heads of slips meet Queens Quay;
• improved Queens Quay Boulevard;
• consistent standards for finishes, furniture, pavers, boardwalks, railings and fixtures; and
• sustainable approach that includes habitat and water quality improvements.
In June 2006, TWRC announced the winner of the competition as the team led by Rotterdam's
West 8 urban design and landscape architecture. Key features of the design include the
creation of a continuous water's edge public promenade with a wooden boardwalk and a
series of bridges spanning the ends of the slips, floating finger piers and the transformation of
Queens Quay into an iconic boulevard. As a preview to the project, TWRC hosted the "Quay to
the City" event from August 11 -20, 2006 to illustrate the benefits of a continuous promenade.
Traffic along one kilometre of Queens Quay was detoured and cycling and pedestrian trails
with grass seating areas were installed.
The winning design will be implemented in phases over several years. The first phase of
construction includes the transformation of Queens Quay between Spadina Avenue and York
Street, including the completion of the Martin Goodman Trail and is scheduled to begin this
year. As part of this project, TRCA staff will work with TWRC and its consultants to integrate
the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy into the Central Waterfront design.
170
Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project
The following is an update of project components of the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood
Protection Project including the Flood Protection Landform (FPL), Don River Park and the Don
River Bridge extension.
Flood Protection Landform
Visually, the FPL will appear as a gently sloping, aesthetically pleasing hill about 3 to 3.5 m
high and 125 m wide. It will prevent floodwaters from moving westward from the Don River into
downtown Toronto. The key steps involved with constructing this structure involve the removal
of all existing structures under the footprint of the FPL, the protection of utilities that cannot be
reasonably relocated elsewhere, the compaction of the underlying existing soils, the placement
of a clay core (the key component of the FPL) and the placement of topsoil and park features
on the top of the FPL.
The first step, the demolition of the existing structures in the West Don Lands, will be
completed by December 2006. The protection of existing utilities is anticipated to occur
between February and April 2007, with soil compaction and the construction of the FPL to
commence shortly thereafter. The FPL is anticipated to be completed by May 2008. All work
on the FPL is being led by the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC), as they are the principal
landowner in the West Don Lands. TRCA staff work closely with ORC for all phases of the
project including the design, site preparation and construction to ensure the FPL is designed in
compliance with the Class EA for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project
prepared in 2004 -2005.
Don River Park
Don River Park will be a 7 hectare new park space built on top of the FPL and will be the
cornerstone public space for the new West Don Lands community. The Don River Park design
is being led by TWRC through a consulting team consisting of Michael Van Valkenburgh
Associates Inc., The Planning Partnership Limited and Ken Greenberg Consultants. TRCA staff
work closely with TWRC and the consulting team to ensure that the park is designed in
compliance with the Class EA for the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project.
The design for the park is approaching its final stages and construction will follow in phases as
the underlying FPL is completed throughout 2007 and 2008. The park should be completed in
the fall of 2008.
Don River Bridge Extension
The Don River Bridge extension is an essential first element of the flood protection identified in
the Class EA. On April 11, 2006, TRCA announced the award of the contract to build the Don
River Bridge Extension and Bala Pedestrian Underpass to Underground Services (1983)
Limited. As of October 2006, the bridge sections supporting the two northern tracks have been
completed. The bridge supporting the remaining three tracks to the south is anticipated to be
completed by July 2007. The section of river channel to be created under the new Don River
Bridge will be designed to improve fish habitat within this section of the Don River.
171
To facilitate the construction of the Don River Bridge work, the Don Watershed Trail has been
closed between Queen Street and Lakeshore Boulevard since April 2006 and will remain
closed until July 2007. Sections of the trail will be fully upgraded with a new, widened section
under the railway bridge and the new Bala Pedestrian Underpass connecting to the future West
Don Lands community. Once reopened, the occurrence of flooding along the trail under the
Don River Bridge will be greatly reduced, allowing for increased use and enjoyment of the trail.
TRCA staff lead the design and construction of the Don River Bridge Extension Project for an
estimated cost of $22 million on behalf of TWRC. Additionally, the Canadian National Railway
has been managing components of the railway bridge construction on behalf of TRCA.
Bala Pedestrian Underpass
The Bala Pedestrian Underpass will link the new West Don Lands community to the existing
trail system along the Don River and the waterfront. Construction of the underpass has
commenced on the west side of the Bala Subdivision railway embankment. The western half of
the underpass is anticipated to be completed by the end of November 2006. Construction will
be halted for the winter season and is anticipated to recommence in early spring, 2007. The
underpass is expected to be completed by the end of June, 2007. The new underpass will not
be open to the public until construction of the FPL and Don River Park has been completed in
2008.
Landscaping of the area between the Bala Pedestrian Underpass and the new Don River
Bridge, known as the Don River Landing, will consist of native vegetation, informal seating and
a new lookout along the Don River, immediately upstream from the Don River Bridge.
Landscaping plans have been developed in concert with the Don River Park designs to match
the character of the area on both sides of the Bala Subdivision. Landscaping and maintenance
will continue throughout the summer and early fall of 2007. TRCA staff lead the design and
construction of the Bala Pedestrian Underpass on behalf of TWRC and funding is provided as a
component of the Don River Bridge Extension Project Delivery Agreement.
Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project
In 2004, TRCA retained a consultant team led by Gartner Lee Limited (GLL) to undertake an
individual EA for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection (DMNP)
Project. In August 2006, TRCA received approval for the EA Terms of Reference (foR) for the
DMNP Project from the Ontario Ministry of Environment. TRCA and GLL together with other
project partners, organized a public interpretative site walk and boat cruise in the area of the
Port Lands on Saturday, October 14, 2006. Over 180 people members of the public attended.
The itinerary included stops around the study area to discuss opportunities and challenges of
the project. The boat cruise ferried passengers on the Island Princess between the Keating
Channel and the Ship Channel, providing rare opportunities to view the Port Lan_ ds, East
Bayfront and the central waterfront from the water.
172
TRCA and GLL are currently developing a long -list of alternative methods which will undergo
an initial technical screening based on their ability to provide for flood protection and
naturalization. Following the technical screening, TRCA anticipates a list of 14 to 20 alternative
methods to be brought forth to the public at an open house scheduled for December 5, 2006.
This list of alternatives will undergo a further detailed technical evaluation over the coming
months, whereby a short-list of alternatives (5 to 10) will be identified by mid - spring 2007. The
selection of a preferred alternative is anticipated by September 2007, with the submission of
the EA by March 2008.
In 2004, the three levels of government signed a Contribution Agreement with TWRC that
authorized an increase in study funding from $2 million to $3 million as part of the Delivery
Agreement between TWRC and TRCA. This funding was directed to complete two studies
including the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project and the DMNP Project.
Due to significant increases in scope of work and study area than originally anticipated, TRCA
staff anticipate receiving approval from TWRC in the next few months for an increased study
budget to support this work.
Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Implementation Project
The Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan was completed by TRCA in 1989, revised in 1992 and
approved by Minister of the Environment in 1995. Implementation of the master plan has been
very limited due to continued Iakefilling activities by the Toronto Port Authority and the lack of
implementation funds. The park is currently operated under the Interim Management Program
in accordance with the delegated responsibilities assigned to TRCA by the Province of Ontario.
On May 20, 2004, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada announced that $8
million would be allocated to begin the implementation of the Tommy Thompson Park Master
Plan. TRCA is responsible for all aspects of project planning and implementation. Due to the
nature of the funding, the Government of Canada required approval under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. Following the completion of a screening report, TRCA received
a determination to proceed from the Responsible Authorities on August 14, 2006 authorizing
the implementation of this project.
Key components of the project to be implemented with this funding include the design and
implementation of the trail system and installation of necessary park infrastructure including a
formalized park gateway, environmental shelter, washrooms and interpretive signage.
Furthermore, a Natural Area Enhancement Plan including both terrestrial and aquatic habitat
enhancement projects will be undertaken. The implementation of these key components is
expected to be completed over the next three years.
Lake Ontario Park Master Plan
TWRC is currently undertaking a master plan for the area known as Lake Ontario Park (LOP).
The project area spans between the Eastern Gap and the RC Harris Filtration Plant and
includes Tommy Thompson Park and Ashbridges Bay Park. A consulting team was
assembled, led by TWRC Field Operations to prepare the LOP Master Plan with the goal of
fostering the creation of a new waterfront park that is beautiful, sustainable and that serves as a
special place for Toronto, analogous to Vancouver's Stanley Park. The LOP Master Plan will
have regard for the approved Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and the Master Plan
Implementation Project which has just been initiated.
173
TRCA staff participate on the LOP Steering Committee which provides feedback to TWRC and
the consulting team. Comments on the Draft Summary Report on Field Work and Key Findings
as prepared on July 19, 2006 (revised September 5, 2006) were recently submitted to TWRC.
Staff will continue to provide feedback on this TWRC initiative as a member of the steering
committee and as the implementing agency for the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan
Implementation Project. A public meeting will be scheduled in early 2007 and will be hosted by
TWRC.
Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project
On September 24, 2006, TRCA, in coordination with the Port Union Working Implementation
Committee, celebrated the Phase 1 opening of the Port Union Waterfront Park. Following this
celebration, the park was officially opened on September 29, 2006 with a media event
coordinated by TWRC. Phase 1 of the park, extending from Highland Creek to Chesterton
Shores, was initiated in September 2002 and involved the construction of a prominent park
feature, the pedestrian node, four headlands and cobble beaches, and a pedestrian bridge
over Highland Creek. Trail creation and landscaping were undertaken, including the creation
of 1.44 km of new multi -use waterfront trail. In addition, both on -site and off-site fish habitat
compensation projects were constructed.
In 2003, TRCA entered into a Delivery Agreement with TWRC to undertake the Port Union
Waterfront Improvement Project for an estimated cost of $16 million. TRCA is responsible for
all aspects of project planning and implementation. In 2005, it was determined that the
estimated cost to complete Phase 1 would be approximately $13 million. TRCA met with
TWRC a number of times to discuss the budget shortfalls as a result of the revised scope of
work, property acquisition costs and TWRC budgeting protocols. Based on these discussions,
a consensus was reached among senior management at both TRCA and TWRC to pursue a
revised project budget of $13 million for Phase 1 and $16 million for Phase 2. At the TWRC
Board of Director's meeting held on January 12, 2006, a revised total project budget of $29
million was accepted. TWRC staff was directed to provide the revised project budget through
the new 10 year business plan. TWRC and TRCA are presently working on changes to the
Contribution Agreement and subsequent changes to the Delivery Agreement for
implementation of Phase 2.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will continue negotiations on new initiatives and undertake project reporting and other
appropriate participation in all TWRC initiatives. Staff will report to the Authority on specific
projects, as appropriate.
Report prepared by: Alex Phillips, extension 5570 and Ken Dion, extension 5230
For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 or Ken Dion, extension 5230
Date: November 17, 2006
174
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #D62/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONSERVATION PRIORITY AREAS
2006 Projects
Project highlights and key results from the 2006 Private Land
Stewardship Program and Habitat Natural Cover Projects - Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Priority Areas 2 and 11.
Maria Augimeri
Gay Cowbourne
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the 2006 Private Land Stewardship
Program and Habitat Natural Cover Projects - Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Priority
Areas 2 and 11 be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 2004, the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation (ORMF), in partnership with Oak Ridges Moraine
Stewardship Partners Alliance (ORMSPA) produced a Stewardship Strategy that provides a
vision and direction for Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) stewardship activities. The Stewardship
Strategy included targets to help achieve the vision of increased natural cover, enhanced
protection of the ORM's water resources and improved landowner awareness. To achieve
these targets, ORMF invited stewardship partners on the ORM to implement the "Caring for the
Moraine" Project. The "Caring for the Moraine Project' has two components 1) landowner
contact and 2) natural cover projects.
In the fall of 2005, ORMF supported the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
Stewardship program with funding for natural cover projects and private landowner contact
program in the Conservation Priority Areas (CPA 2 and 11). The CPAs are a key component of
the ORM Stewardship Strategy and outlined priorities and locations for natural cover
restoration projects and the landowner contact program.
Natural Cover Projects
The natural cover components of this program were developed and delivered by the
Restoration Services division of TRCA. The natural cover work focused on providing a variety
of locations that showcased wetland, woodland and riparian habitat creation, rehabilitation and
restoration projects. This initial year of effort was directed at TRCA properties with the purpose
of using public lands to demonstrate natural cover improvement to private landowners.
Overall, this work within the ORM was focused on delivering the following objectives:
• develop and deliver innovative natural cover projects;
• test restoration techniques that have a broad application throughout the ORM;
• utilize the geographic information system (GIS) based resource management information to
assist in the design and development of restoration projects;
• increase the ORM's natural land cover;
• highlight techniques that protect the ORM's water resources and systems.
175
Our efforts at improving natural cover were also directed at developing projects that used
non - traditional techniques and highlighted broad ORM issues of importance to landowners and
resource managers.
The following is an account of the area enhanced through the CPA natural cover program:
Project Site
Wetland
(ha)
Woodland
(ha)
Riparian
(linear m)
CPA 11
Goodwood Resource Management Tract
0.5
1
Glen Major Resource Management Tract
1.3
10.5
800
CPA 2
Castlederg Bolton Resource Management Tract
2.15
16.1
700
Albion Conservation Area
150
Total
3.95 ha
27.6 ha
1,650
Within all of the project sites, a total of 9,000 shrubs and by next spring over 28,000 tress will
have been planted on the Oak Ridges Moraine. In addition, the natural cover projects helped
to further define and identify additional project sites throughout the CPA areas, and highlighted
many innovative habitat techniques, including:
• a GIS model calibrated to identify key riparian habitat areas;
• within reforestation areas new techniques are being tested to reduce herbivory from
wildlife;
• cedar swamp wetlands were restored on ecologically and geologically appropriate
locations.
Landowner Contact Program
The first year proposal focused primarily on the development and implementation of a well
branded and coordinated private landowner contact initiative to represent the many
organizations offering stewardship services to landowners on the ORM. The promotional
materials were developed by the project steering committee, funded by the ORM and delivered
by the Stewardship section of the Watershed Management division of TRCA. Standard
processes for landowner contact and communication materials to support the project were
developed by the partners for use across the ORM. It was an important first step in bringing
together all of the key stakeholders to develop a well planned, strategic and properly
resourced landowner contact project.
With this framework in place, the first round of on- the - ground landowner contact was initiated
in the spring of 2006. Landowners with more than 2 acres of property were identified through
the tax rolls. Letters were sent out in batches every few weeks to allow sufficient time for
follow -up, site visits and project planning as needed.
The following results were achieved in year one of the Landowner Contact Program:
• As a result of the mail campaign, 140 letters were distributed in CPA 2 and 18 site visits
were conducted. In CPA 11, 130 letters were sent and 18 site visits were conducted.
176
• Through these site visits a number of implementation projects have been identified for 2007
including wetland enhancement, tree planting, a riparian enhancement and a possible
conservation easement. Several landowners were interested in pursuing Managed Forest
Tax Incentive Plans for their lands and exploring ways to manage their conifer plantations
to promote greater diversity and forest health.
• Staff attended three workshops promoting the program and answered questions from the
public.
• Over 30 landowners responded to a newspaper article inviting their participation in the
TRCA Bird Box Program. All respondents received information on enhancing wildlife habitat
on their property. Thirteen projects resulted from this outreach initiative.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
ORMF funding for the stewardship projects was applied directly to the on- the - ground projects
within CPA 2 and CPA 11. For each CPA, TRCA received $41,000 for increasing natural cover,
$13,000 for riparian enhancements and $65,000 for wetland creation /enhancement. The total
grant received was $238,000. The ORMF funding formula requires a 2:1 match for every dollar
received. Matching funds were leveraged from existing internal programs and projects carried
out on the ORM including regeneration projects, habitat implementation plan funding and
watershed management plan implementation.
The Landowner Contact Program was funded through a $47,000 grant from the ORMF with
matching funds from existing TRCA stewardship programs operating in the CPA areas and
funding received from Peel Region. A portion of the grant will be carried over into the second
year of the Caring for the Moraine Project.
Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246;
Joanne Jeffery, extension 5638
For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246;
Joanne Jeffery, extension 5638
Date: November 06, 2006
RES. #D63/06 - DUFFINS HABITAT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Report on the 2006 habitat projects completed in the Duffins Creek
watershed under the Habitat Implementation Plan and Fish Management
Plan Implementation.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Maria Augimeri
Gay Cowbourne
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the 2006 habitat projects completed
under the Duffins Creek Habitat Implementation Plan and Fish Management Plan
Implementation, be received.
CARRIED
177
BACKGROUND
Over the past five years, the Restoration Services division has developed and delivered Habitat
Implementation Plans (HIP) for a number of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA) watersheds. This process was developed as a strategic mechanism for the
implementation of prioritized habitat projects on TRCA and partnered municipal properties.
The HIP methodology was developed to follow the recommendations outlined in TRCA
watershed and jurisdictional strategies, including the watershed plans, fish management plans
and Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. The HIP process identifies habitat
improvement opportunities including wetlands, woodlands, riparian and wildlife habitat
features.
The Duffins Creek watershed was assessed during 2005 and the projects implemented during
2006 were identified as high priority sites under this plan. Our focus during this initial
implementation year was directed at showcasing all of the major habitat project types and
components. Projects in Lower Duffins, Claremont, Paul -Lynn Park and the Stouffville
Greenway were the four principal sites under this program. In addition, support from this
project was directed at the Oak Ridges Moraine project sites within the Duffins Creek
watershed and some detailed planning around wetland and riparian opportunities within the
upper watershed areas. The 2006 projects are identified on Attachment 1.
All of the projects contributed to increasing natural cover in high priority HIP areas. Specifically,
riparian habitat was created at Paul -Lynn Park and the Claremont Field Centre. Woodland
cover was created at the Stouffville Greenway and wetlands were created in the Claremont
Conservation Area and lower Duffins Creek. In addition, at all sites a variety of habitat
structures and features were constructed to improve the habitat functions of the site. Special
attention was directed at utilizing logs and tree stumps to improve planting zones and facilitate
the utilization of the sites by wildlife.
At the Claremont Field Centre, plantings were directed at improving the habitat cover
associated with intermittent stream that originate in an agricultural field and drained directly
into the Duffins Creek. This restoration technique was identified by the Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR), and has been implemented in a number of locations and Restoration
Services division projects. The intent is to showcase the importance of intermittent streams
and the use of geographic information system (GIS) modeling in future restoration projects.
Financial support was also directed at restoration projects within the Oak Ridges Moraine at
the Goodwood and Glen Major Resource Management Tract. Wetland restoration
opportunities were also identified in the upper headwater areas of the Duffins Creek watershed.
In total, 1.91 hectares of natural cover was created and 5,260 trees and shrubs were planted.
Over a kilometre of riparian habitat was restored, two wetlands were restored and a variety of
essential habitat was installed. Attachment 2 outlines the specific deliverables of each of the
major projects completed under this program.
178
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Implementation planning is underway for the 2007 field season and project sites are being
selected. Emphasis in 2007 will be placed on improving riparian cover and wetlands on private
lands and TRCA properties.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for this project is available in the Durham budget and from the Oak Ridges Moraine
Foundation, accounts 109 -15, 111 -80, 109 -10.
Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
Date: November 24, 2006
Attachments: 2
179
Attachment 1
2006 Duffins HIP Projects Site Map
Goodwood
Stouffville Greenway
,- Glen Major
South Glen Major
Claremont
Paulynn Park
* Project Sites (Duff HIP)
* Project Sites (ORM)
Pickering Property Assessed
IN Ajax Property Assessed
jj® TRCA Property Assessed
A/ Watercourse
4ti1 Roads
Watershed Boundary
180
Lower Duffins
Attachment 2
Location
Project Type
Area (ha)
Length (m)
Trees and
Shrubs
Essential
Habitat
Claremont
Conservation
Area
Riparian
Enhancement
0.23
260
1,100
• Hibernaculum
Wetland Creation
0.29
Paulynn Park
Riparian
Enhancement
1.16
1,128
3,170
• small mammal
habitats
• Hibernaculum
• Nesting boxes
Duffins Creek
(Lower)
Wetland Creation
0.065
• small mammal
habitat
Stouffville
Greenway
Lowland
Reforestation
1.7
990
• 1 small
mammal
habitat
• 20 songbird
boxes
TOTAL
1.91 (ha)
1388 (m)
5,260
181
RES. #D64/06 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Maria Augimeri
Gay Cowbourne
THAT Section IV items 8.4.1 - 8.4.6, inclusive, in regards to watershed committee minutes,
be received.
Section IV Items - 8.4.1 - 8.4.6, Inclusive
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #7/06, held on August 3, 2006
Minutes of Meeting #8/06, held on September 21, 2006
Minutes of Meeting #9/06, held on October 26, 2006
DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP
Minutes of Meeting #2/06, held on April 19, 2006
Minutes of Meeting #3/06, held on June 21, 2006
Minutes of Meeting #4/06, held on September 13, 2006
ETOBICOKE - MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION
Minutes of Meeting #1/06, held on March 23, 2006
Minutes of Meeting #2/06, held on October 26, 2006
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #4/06, held on October 24, 2006
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #5/06, held on June 30, 2006
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meeting #6/06, held on June 22, 2006.
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:47 a.m., on Friday, December 8, 2006.
Dave Ryan
Chair
/ks
182
CARRIED
Brian Denney
Secretary - Treasuer
c.
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY.
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/06
February 9, 2007
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #6/06, was held in the Victoria
Room, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, February 9, 2007. The Chief
Administrative Officer Brian Denney, called the meeting to order at 10:43 a.m.
PRESENT
Gay Cowbourne Member
Frank Dale Member
Grant Gibson Member
Richard Whitehead Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
ABSENT
Maria Augimeri Member
Bonnie Litt ley Member
Shelley Petrie Member
CHAIR OF THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Dick O'Brien was nominated by Gay Cowbourne to serve as Chair for Watershed Management
Advisory Board Meeting #6/06, held on February 9, 2007.
RES. #D65/06 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Dale
Grant Gibson
THAT nominations for the office of Chair for Watershed Management Advisory Board
Meeting #6/06, held on February 9, 2007 be closed.
CARRIED
Dick O'Brien was declared elected by acclamation as Chair for Watershed Management
Advisory Board Meeting #6/06, held on February 9, 2007.
183
RES. #D66 /06 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Frank Dale
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/06, held on December 8, 2006, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by a John Parish of Parish Geomorphic, in regards to monitoring results
of the Morningside Heights Tributary.
(b) A presentation by Laurian Farrell, Water Resource Engineer, Etobicoke /Mimico/West
Humber (Brampton), TRCA, in regards to item 9.1 - Flood Forecasting and Warning
Program.
RES. #D67 /06 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Frank Dale
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back in 2 years with a comparison of fish invertebrates
and plant species from before the works were conducted to current day, including an
indication of the time it will take for Morningside Creek to be restored to its original or
design state, as appropriate.
CARRIED
RES. #D68 /06 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Frank Dale
THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received.
CARRIED
184
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #D69/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL GUIDELINE FOR URBAN
CONSTRUCTION (December 2006)
Approval of the Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban
Construction (December 2006) prepared for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe Conservation Authorities.
Richard Whitehead
Grant Gibson
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report entitled Erosion and
Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (December 2006) prepared for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe Conservation Authorities (GGH CAs) be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to disseminate the report to municipal staff, the
development industry and other agencies through technology transfer workshops and a
posting on the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program website.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Each year thousands of tons of sediment are transported and deposited in rivers, lakes and
wetlands, destroying fish habitat and impairing water quality. A major cause for this damage to
the environment is poor sediment control at construction sites. To mitigate these impacts,
sediment and erosion control measures have been required on construction sites for over a
decade.
To achieve effective erosion and sediment control during construction, various conservation
authorities and municipalities developed guidelines (such as the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Construction,
April 1994) that provided technical and procedural guidance for the planning and design of
erosion and sediment controls. However, even on sites where recommended practices are
applied, sediment continues to be discharged at concentrations above those required to
protect aquatic life.
RATIONALE
In an effort to improve sediment and erosion control, TRCA in collaboration with the GGH CAs
have updated the existing guidelines and developed a consistent approach to erosion and
sediment control across the GGH. The GGH CAs include Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, Conservation Halton, Credit Valley Conservation, Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Authority, Grand River Conservation Authority, Hamilton Conservation Authority, and Niagara
Peninsula Conservation Authority.
This new guideline titled "Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction
(December 2006)" includes best management practices from various erosion and sediment
control guidelines currently applied within the GGH.
185
It provides proponents and practitioners with:
• a review of erosion and sedimentation processes;
• an overview of the current regulatory framework in which these undertakings are reviewed;
• clarifies the roles and responsibilities of those involved in the construction process;
• new best management practices and technologies;
• improved site plan guidance such as the importance of a multi barrier approach (e.g.
erosion prevention measures followed by sediment controls);
• dynamic plans; and,
• improved inspection, monitoring and maintenance protocols.
The Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (December 2006)
document has been reviewed by the GGH CAs, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment
Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, consulting engineers, the development
industry and municipalities. It is intended to be applied within the GGH watersheds to protect
and preserve the water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and form and function of their
natural water resources. A compact disc (CD)copy of the Erosion and Sediment Control
Guideline for Urban Construction (December 2006) is included with the agenda package. The
document can also be found on the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program website <
http://www.sustainabletechnologies.ca/>.
To ensure the success of this guideline, it is important that staff be directed to disseminate this
document to municipal staff, the development industry as well as other agencies through
technology transfer workshops, publications and the internet. A workshop scheduled for
Spring 2007 will introduce this guideline to municipal staff, consulting engineers, contractors
and the development industry.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Financial contributions to develop and produce the guideline were provided by the
Government of Canada's Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Environment Canada and the Ministry of Environment through the Toronto and Hamilton
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs).
Costs to deliver the training workshop will be provided by the financial contributions from the
agencies listed above.
Report prepared by: Dana Khademi, extension 5353
For Information contact: Glenn MacMillan , extension 5212
Date: January 30, 2007
Attachments: A digital copy (CD) of guideline was included in the agenda package
186
RES. #D70/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CANADA - ONTARIO AGREEMENT RESPECTING THE GREAT LAKES
BASIN ECOSYSTEM
Renewal, Amendments and Development of New Annexes. The current
Canada - Ontario Agreement (COA) will expire March 31, 2007. The
Government of Ontario is seeking public comment on a proposal to work
with the Government of Canada to renew the current COA for up to three
years with the possibility of amending the existing Annexes and /or
developing new Annexes to the agreement.
Richard Whitehead
Grant Gibson
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) submit comments on the Environmental Bill of Rights
Registry (EBR) to the Government of Ontario acknowledging strong support for the three
year extension of the Canada - Ontario Agreement (COA) to ensure COA related activities
to protect the Great Lakes are maintained;
THAT the Government of Ontario be encouraged to develop new Annexes which aim to
conserve biological diversity, encourage the promotion of sustainable communities,
better understand the impacts of climate changes on the Great Lakes and determine
strategies to adapt to a changing climate and protect the Great Lakes as a source of
drinking water and unique ecosystem of global significance;
THAT the provincial and federal governments be requested to increase the funding for
TRCA's jurisdiction which includes Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Area to
$200,000,000 (2007 -2010) to provide partner funding to significantly advance the
implementation of the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan and
other plans now in place to move the Toronto Area of Concern closer to a target of
becoming an "Area of Recovery';
THAT the federal and provincial governments be urged to fund the Healthy Great Lakes
proposal submitted previously by Conservation Ontario to address watershed
management issues throughout Ontario;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA's watershed municipalities and Conservation Ontario be
advised of TRCA's comments regarding COA.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
COA is a framework through which the governments of Canada and Ontario work
cooperatively to restore, protect and conserve the aquatic health of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem. COA assists the Government of Canada in meeting commitments under the
Canada - United States (U.S.) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The ministries
of the Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs are Ontario's
signatories to the current COA and are responsible for Ontario's commitments under the
agreement. Signed in March 2002, the current COA expires on March 22, 2007.
187
The first COA was signed in 1971 in advance of the 1972 Canada -U.S. Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement. Subsequent COAs were signed in 1976, 1982, 1986, 1994 and 2002 in
response to changes to the GLWQA, emerging priorities for Great Lakes rehabilitation and
protection, and the need for a broader aquatic ecosystem approach.
As the Government of Ontario is actively participating in the current review of the GLWQA, the
Government of Ontario is proposing a three -year extension to the current COA and is exploring
the notion of amending existing Annexes, or developing new ones. This will allow the province
to: (1) participate fully in the review of the GLWQA; (2) respond to potential changes to the
GLWQA that are ultimately proposed and any subsequent renegotiation of the GLWQA; and (3)
address emerging issues with a comprehensive renegotiation of COA following the conclusion
of the GLWQA process.
There are four Annexes to the current COA:
1) Areas of Concern -There are currently 15 Canadian Areas of Concern at various stages of
progress toward completion of their remedial action plans. Toronto and Region is
considered an AOC.
2) Harmful Pollutants
3) Lake -wide Management
4) Monitoring and Information Management.
The Proposal
The Government of Ontario is seeking public comment regarding their proposal to work with
the Government of Canada to renew the current COA for up to three years with the possibility
of amending the existing Annexes and /or developing new Annexes to the agreement. The
topics proposed for possible amendment of existing and /or development of new Annexes
include the following: (1) Reduction of harmful pollutants; (2) Conservation of biological
diversity; (3) Promotion of sustainable great lakes communities; (4) Climate change and
adaptation; and (5) Protection of Great Lakes as sources of drinking water. Submissions with
respect to this proposal will be shared with the Government of Canada.
Recommendations to the Governments
• In lieu of the possible review of the GLWQA, TRCA is supportive of the Government of
Ontario's rationale for extending the current COA by three years.
• TRCA is encouraged by the forward thinking to expand COA to include issues not
presently addressed in the current COA. Several of the issues listed on the EBR for
comment are of critical importance to TRCA, as described below.
Conservation of Biological Diversity
The Toronto and Region is one of the fastest growing regions in North America, with population
anticipated to increase by 48% in the Greater Toronto Area the next 25 years. As the region
grows so does the pressure it places on the environmental resources, including biological
diversity. TRCA is presently working with its municipal and provincial partners to ensure the
best possible strategy is developed to protect terrestrial natural heritage in the region, in Tight
of current and expected population and development. It is a significant challenge for this
region. On Friday January 26, 2007, the Authority unanimously approved the Toronto and
Region Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS) - a significant milestone in
188
regional cooperation and planning. The TNHSS aims to protect natural heritage as a functional
ecosystem unit and enables municipalities, planners and biologists to establish targets for the
quality, distribution and quantity of terrestrial natural heritage needed in the landscape in order
to promote biodiversity.
TRCA staff has been involved with development of the Lake Ontario Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy, a Lake Wide Management Planning (LaMP) initiative lead by the Nature Conservancy
of Canada and the U.S. Nature Conservancy. This initiative is focused on making the linkage
between the protection of biological diversity in the Great Lakes Basin and protection of
ecosystem function - making the connection of the importance of the watershed to the lake.
• TRCA supports the Government of Ontario in elevating the importance of conserving
biodiversity by focusing attention on the issue. TRCA recommends that the
Government of Ontario consider the aforementioned initiatives as partnership
opportunities.
Promotion of Sustainable Great Lakes Communities
The Toronto and Region exerts tremendous environmental pressure on Lake Ontario. TRCA
recognized there was a need to go beyond the protection of greenspace and ensuring water
quality in order to preserve and protect life in this region. The need for sustainable
communities is important to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem, as well as the health and
economy of the people living and working in the region. TRCA has adopted a vision for The
Living City - a vision for the region to be greener, cleaner and healthier. With this vision, TRCA
is pushing the envelope, moving into sectors that go beyond what is traditionally considered a
conservation authorities (CAs) environmental role - partnering with others to green hospitals,
retail and other businesses; demonstrating the utility of sustainable technologies and other
means to improve energy efficiency in industry, schools and homes. This work contributes
directly to current government initiatives to establish a "Culture of Conservation ".
A key component to encourage the promotion of sustainable Great Lakes communities is to
engage the local municipalities in the discussion and development of germane plans and
policies. Local governments have direct influence on activities that will impact the Great Lakes;
their input is critical in order to make plans and policies relevant.
• TRCA is supportive of the Government of Ontario strengthening partnerships with
organizations such as the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative in order to
increase local governments' voice in Great Lakes planning initiatives.
• TRCA recommends that CAs continue to have a vital role in the implementation of
COA initiatives.
Protection of the Great Lakes as Sources of Drinking Water - link to watershed planning
The importance of the Great Lakes as a source of drinking water cannot be emphasized
enough; for example Lake Ontario provides drinking water to over 50% of Ontario residents.
Studies show that the protection of drinking water, particularly for the western half of Lake
Ontario will require a regional "watershed to receiving water quality based focus" for source
water protection due to the intensive urbanization, projected growth and complex lake currents
in the nearshore.
189
Through source water protection funding, work is underway by a Lake Ontario collaborative
partnership amongst conservation authorities in the proposed source water protection regions
from Niagara to Prince Edward County, respective municipalities responsible for operating
municipal drinking water systems, Environment Canada and the Ontario Clean Water Agency.
The collaborative's work is aimed at identifying the risks to drinking water and measures
contributing to the protection of water quality in Great Lakes nearshore areas, tributaries and
aquifers. In light of such work already being carried out under the auspices of source water
protection, TRCA considers it imperative not to duplicate such work where it is underway using
COA resources, provided that source water protection funding and initiatives are not in
jeopardy - but to provide for complementary initiatives. For example, COA could set water
quality and quantity targets for the individual Great Lakes which can be used to ensure that
locally -based source protection plans will provide sufficient protection to the overall Great
Lakes. Such targets can also be used for monitoring trends. Likewise efforts at assessing and
limiting emerging chemical and pharmaceutical threats to drinking water are best done at the
international - federal - provincial level. TRCA encourages the province to take on a leadership
role of promoting integrated watershed management, of which drinking water protection is one
component. The work underway by partner CAs to characterize their watersheds will help to
provide a basis for the development of integrated watershed plans and risk management
plans. COA support for the development and implementation of these plans will also address
other COA objectives including such topics as biodiversity, natural heritage and climate
change. (See below: Focus on Watershed Planning).
• TRCA encourages the Government of Ontario to take on a leadership role of
promoting integrated watershed management.
Climate Change Understanding and Adaptation
Adaptation
Recognizing the impact climate change will have on our watershed, TRCA staff has begun to
incorporate climate change scenarios into the development of the next generation of watershed
plans. Significant on- ground projects such as the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port lands
Flood Protection have also been designed with some parameters of climate change (i.e. higher
intensity storms).
Understanding
Improving our understanding of how our region will be altered under a new climate regime is
imperative as TRCA continues to develop and update plans. Our planning needs to consider
climate change impacts on ecosystem function (including biodiversity), nearshore impacts,
infrastructure (such as water supply and waste water) and perhaps most importantly, its impact
on water quality. And while, TRCA supports future research and the development of regional
and local scale models, we stress that the implementation of adaptation and mitigation
measures cannot be delayed in lieu of exacting the science.
Mitigation
The Living City vision and the projects stemming from it aim to reduce impacts on the
environment with a significant focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. TRCA, through
The Living City projects, aims to demonstrate the practical means we currently have available
to reduce greenhouse gases emissions.
190
Developing partnerships is key as TRCA moves into sectors which have not been traditionally
considered by CAs. TRCA is actively pursuing public- private partnerships such as that which
has developed at Block 39 where TRCA, the City of Vaughan, Powerstream, zerofootprint and
several major builders are developing a sustainable neighbourhood to showcase energy
efficiency, on -site stormwater controls and geothermal heating and cooling. The City of
Toronto is actively pursuing green building standards.
Stormwater management is a core function of CAs. As the predictions of more intense and
increased flooding concern our core function, TRCA staff is working with business and
academic partners to further the research into technologies that will reduce stormwater
quantity (i.e. greenroofs, porous pavement) as well as to develop guidelines to improve
stormwater quality (i.e. sediment and erosion control guidelines).
• TRCA encourages the Government of Ontario to focus attention on issues relating to
climate change - include adaptation, mitigation and understanding in the next COA.
Focus on Watershed Planning
As mentioned above, TRCA is supportive of the Government of Ontario to include the issues
discussed above in the extended COA. However, TRCA strongly encourages the inclusion of a
watershed annex and /or the concept of watershed planning to be integrated into these issues.
Watershed plans are required under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Clean
Water Act; these plans are necessary to help direct development and accommodate growth.
The integrated watershed plans being developed by TRCA focus on the interdependencies
among watershed systems and evaluate proposed actions based on their ability to achieve
multiple and synergistic benefits (i.e. co- benefits).
• TRCA recommends the inclusion of a watershed management Annex or at least
strong references to the importance of watershed planning and management in the
next COA.
• TRCA recommends the government of Ontario explore means to strengthen the
linkages between watershed planning and management and the Lake wide
Management Plans.
RAP
The TRCA jurisdiction includes areas which lie within and outside of a designated Area of
Concern. The funding provided through RAP has assisted in making TRCA one of the leading
agencies in stormwater management. Ideas for monitoring, research and development of
stormwater technologies are incubated in the RAP area and distributed to a wider area. This
has helped reduce harmful pollutants from reaching the Lake - one of the key objectives of the
current COA. However, there is a recognition that we must think beyond remedial actions and
need to be more protective in protecting those watersheds which Iie outside the AOC
designations.
191
On behalf of Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, TRCA has been
responsible for the administration of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan since 2002.
Over the past five years, the RAP funds have been extremely important in providing leverage
and seed money. Important monitoring activities, education and stewardship and habitat
works have been accomplished as a result of this funding. It is well acknowledged that the
scale of Toronto's issues requires a substantial amount of financial commitment in order to
restore environmental conditions. As a result, the Toronto and Region RAP•Management Team
has adopted resourceful methods to use the funds provided through COA; for example funding
is spent to develop staff capacity in our municipal partners by providing them with the
information and knowledge about green technologies, improved stormwater management
techniques and improved spills response. TRCA encourages the governments of Ontario and
Canada to continue this source of funds and would strongly encourage them to increase
funding levels in order to meet the level of challenge we have in this region to restore
environmental conditions in a rapidly developing area and become more aligned with the scale
of funding contributed from the municipalities.
• TRCA requests that the provincial and federal governments increase the funding for
TRCA's jurisdiction which includes Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Area to
$200,000,000 (2007 -2010) to provide partner funding to significantly advance the
implementation of the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan
and other plans now in place to move the Toronto Area of Concern closer to a target
of becoming an "Area of Recovery".
Recognizing the role of Conservation Authorities in protecting the Great Lakes
While the CAs complete most of their work in the watersheds, we recognize that ultimately this
contributes to the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. Recognizing this important
role, Conservation Ontario (CO) in November 2006, hosted a workshop to discuss CA priorities
as they relate to the Great Lakes. A paper was prepared on the outcomes of the workshop and
CO Council endorsed a Position on Great Lakes Sustainability in December 2006 (Attachment
1).
Land use and its associated impacts on the Great Lakes remains a significant challenge and
impediment to protecting Great Lakes water quality. In the past, the federal and provincial
governments were able to work within their jurisdictions to improve conditions in the Great
Lakes (i.e. legislation, point source controls and reductions in toxics). However, land use
planning and management are fundamentally the responsibility of local governments. The CAs
are well positioned institutionally to work with municipalities to implement watershed
management plans and other initiatives that protect water quality in the watershed and
ultimately the Great Lakes.
• TRCA recommends that the Government of Ontario strengthen its partnership with,
and build capacity in, the CAs.
192
Monitoring .
Funds provided by the Government of Ontario through the RAP program are leveraged with
municipal contributions to support the Regional Monitoring Network (RMN). The RMN aims to
fill in water quality data gaps created when the province reduced its water quality monitoring
network. The RMN is designed to provide information regarding ambient conditions; it does
not provide detail regarding the impacts of wet weather flow on the lake or capture the
conditions of water quality within the nearshore. Monitoring to better understand these
conditions /situations is necessary - it is recommended the Government of Ontario strengthen
its commitment to provide for additional monitoring stations and provide the technical expertise
required to analyze the information generated.
• TRCA recommends that the Government of Ontario strengthen its commitment to
monitoring and provide assurances that analysis of the data will be undertaken and
reported out to the public in a timely manner.
Report prepared by: Kelly Montgomery, extension 5576
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: January 26, 2007
Attachments: 2
193
Attachment 1 - From Conservation Ontario Council Minutes #6/06, December 11, 2006
1) Conservation Ontario Great Lakes Positioning
#C.W. 62/06 Moved by: Jim Kelleher Seconded By: Fred Nix
THAT the Conservation Ontario proposed positioning for the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement Review be utilized in a submission to the Parties responsible for the Review and
shared with the Great Lakes Cities Initiative
AND THAT the associated "Conservation Ontario Position on Great Lakes Sustainability"
be endorsed
AND THAT involvement with the Great Lakes Cities Initiative be pursued.
CARRIED
194
Attachment 2 - From Conservation Ontario Council Agenda #6/06, December 11, 2006
To: Conservation Ontario Council - Committee of the Whole
From: Bonnie Fox (CO)
Subject: Conservation Ontario Great Lakes Positioning
Date: November 23, 2006
Background
• The review of the GLWQ Agreement (working group reports due end of
December 2006) and the renegotiation of the Canada - Ontario Agreement (current
COA expires March 2007; discussions on a 2 year renewal are underway) are
opportunities for Conservation Ontario to champion the watershed approach and
to establish our collective abilities and roles in the furtherance of the health,
protection and restoration of the Great Lakes.
• Council endorsed Conservation Authority participation in the review of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement (the Review) in April 2006.
• To assist CA representatives on the GLWQA review groups, a Great Lakes
Priorities Workshop was held (co- sponsored by Toronto and Region CA and
Conservation Ontario) on November 9, 2006.
• 15 CAs were represented with a total of 22 staff in attendance, as well as, CO
staff, Craig Mather, and Dr. Gail Krantzberg. Dr. Gail Krantzberg prepared a
paper "Setting Conservation Ontario's Great Lakes Priorities" to facilitate
discussions at the workshop. In closing the workshop, attendees were asked to
provide additional comments in writing to CO by November 13th. Gail finalized
the workshop discussion paper to include the workshop outcomes as the basis
from which recommended Great Lakes priorities could flow and it was circulated
by CO to all CAs and workshop attendees for feedback. The full document can be
accessed on CO's "members only" website at http://www.conservation -
ontario.on.ca/members /member_pol icy_ planning /great_lakes /great_lakes_index. h
tm
• Based on feedback received, the proposed Vision /Mission/Principles (see
Attachment 1) have been modified from the workshop report as a basic
positioning framework for the sustainability of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
ecosystem.
Upcoming Points of Influence/Participation:
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement ( GLWQA) - Review
• Working group reports are due by end of December. Elements of proposed CO
positioning to submit by end of December:
o CO supports the International Joint Commission's Special Report to
Governments with regard to:
• Development of a Binational Action Plan with achievable goals and
timelines, measures for evaluating performance, and provisions for
195
monitoring and reporting for greater accountability when it comes to
clean up of the Great Lakes
• Invitation of municipalities to join in development of the Binational
Action Plan
• Identification of watersheds as the geographic units to coordinate,
integrate and implement programs called for by the Agreement and set
out in the Binational Action Plan
• Inclusion of human health as a clear objective
• Utilization of an ecosystem approach. As stated in the IJC report, "The
comprehensive watershed planning conducted by the Conservation
Authorities in Ontario also constitutes an ecosystem approach"
(NOTE: CO calls it integrated watershed management)
o Ontario's Conservation Authorities have a strong track record in delivery of
watershed- based, on- the - ground partnered actions to protect and restore the
waters and associated lands of the Great Lakes at the local and regional scale.
o Conservation Authorities as representative of "watershed communities" are
prepared to work with all levels of government and other stakeholders to meet
the goals and objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
o Conservation Ontario has a Position on Great Lakes Sustainability
(Attachment 1)
o Conservation Ontario respectfully requests a seat at the table for development
of a Binational Action Plan recommended by the international Joint
Commission (IJC).
• Governance and Institutional Arrangements (Nov 29 -30 workshop)
o Don Pearson received an invitation as a "Municipal Government"
representative to participate in two day discussions regarding the governance
and institutional arrangements supporting the GLWQA.
o This event is "by invitation only" and represents a significant opportunity to
liaise with the key, binational Great Lakes leaders and to explore the best way
to position "watershed communities" (and therefore, Conservation
Authorities) in the GLWQA.
Canada /Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA) -
Renewal
• In the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario's Annual Report 2005 -2006
"Neglecting our Obligations ", The ECO recommends that the MOE ensure
transparency and a mechanism of public involvement and accountability in the new
COA agreement.
• On December 4, 2006, the Ministry of the Environment is hosting a "Great Lakes
Municipalities Workshop: Great Lakes Drinking Water, Clean Water Act, and COA
Renewal ". Representatives from ERCA and CO will be attending the workshop to
participate in two breakout groups after a day of presentations. The COA Group will
be examining options and priorities for COA renewal /renegotiation while a Source
Protection Group will be discussing issues and ideas with regard to the Great Lakes
elements of source protection.
• There will be a brief presentation on the Great Lakes & St. Lawrence Cities Initiative.
196
• This event is "by invitation only" and represents a significant opportunity to liaise
with the key municipal Great Lakes leaders and the key provincial staff responsible
for renegotiating COA and, as appropriate, to test the proposed positioning for the
GLWQA (see above).
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario & Pollution Probe Roundtables and Public
Meetings re: Future of the Great Lakes
• Roundtable discussions and public meetings on the Future of the Great Lakes will be
occurring across the Province from Nov 28`h — Dec 7`h; as well as, the week of
January 7th in Toronto.
• All Conservation Authorities have received notice and CA staff as well as CO staff
will be participating at various locations.
• This is an additional opportunity to promote the fact that Healthy Great Lakes rely
upon Healthy Watersheds and the importance of watershed - based, partnered actions
by CAs.
Conclusion:
Great Lakes positioning will evolve through ongoing involvement in the Review of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Renewal of the Canada - Ontario
Agreement. The Review and Renewal initiatives present significant opportunities for
Conservation Ontario to champion and further develop the understanding of an integrated
watershed management approach and of the Great Lakes as a source of drinking water.
The Review and Renewal also present an opportunity to formally establish our collective
abilities and roles in the furtherance of the health, protection and restoration of the Great
Lakes.
Strategic Plan link
• Strategic Direction #1: Influence Policy Development
Strategic Action #1. Develop and promote a model comprehensive policy
framework for integrated watershed management in Ontario.
Strategic Action #2. Capitalize on new legislation/regulations and
funding opportunities & program support for Source Water Protection and
water
Strategic Action #5. Manage opportunities to promote CA collective
policy priorities.
Recommendations:
THAT the Conservation Ontario proposed positioning for the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement Review be utilized in a submission to the Parties responsible for the
Review and shared with the Great Lakes Cities Initiative,
AND THAT the associated "Conservation Ontario Position on Great Lakes
Sustainability" be endorsed for use by staff attending consultations on Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement Review and the renewal of the Canada Ontario Agreement,
197
AND THAT the governments of Ontario and Canada be informed that Conservation
Ontario is concerned with, the approaching expiry of the Great Lakes Canada Ontario
Agreement in March 2007 and, the associated loss of funding support for actions to
protect and restore Healthy Great Lakes,
AND FINALLY THAT involvement with the Great Lakes Cities Initiative be pursuer.
198
VISION:
MISSION:
Attachment 1
CONSERVATION ONTARIO
POSITION ON GREAT LAKES SUSTAINABILITY
The Great Lakes Basin is a global treasure and the Great
Lakes and St. Lawrence region is one where people, the
environment and the economy are healthy and thrive for
generations to come.
Conservation Ontario will work with all orders of
government and basin residents as stewards to protect and
improve the unique, shared Great Lakes and St Lawrence
ecosystem for present and future generations.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR THE GREAT LAKES:
Apply an integrated watershed management approach to planning
and implementation in order to protect and improve the Great Lakes
and St. Lawrence Ecosystem :.
PRINCIPLES FOR HEALTHY GREAT LAKES
Behaviors and actions implemented through an integrated watershed management
approach should ensure a sustainable and resilient Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
ecosystem that encompasses environmental, social, and economic health.
Environmental
The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence ecosystem must provide ecological functions and
natural heritage systems, to support a diverse, healthy, balanced, self - sustaining
biological community. The ecological balance of the resource has been damaged by a
wide range of invasive species, unsustainable land use, ongoing and emerging
contamination, and other threats, and Conservation Ontario must focus policies and
programs to help reduce and ultimately eliminate these threats.
Working with municipal, provincial, federal agencies and partners for the sustainability
of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence ecosystem, Conservation Ontario will:
• contribute to management of water and other physical elements to ensure the
natural hydrologic cycle is able to sustain a balanced variety of uses
199
• advance programs so that sustainable natural processes, pathways and
landscapes are maintained and improved so that water quality and quantity
support natural biodiversity and ecosystem functions.
• engage Great Lakes stakeholders in policies and programs such that the built
environment and urban fabric are compatible with and enhances the natural
environment.
Social
An overarching social principle necessary for Great Lakes protection is that the citizens
understand and take responsibility for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River ecosystem
to provide present and future generations opportunities for enhanced quality of life.
Conservation Ontario must focus policies and programs to advance stewardship and
human health.
Working with municipal, provincial, federal agencies and partners for the sustainability
of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence ecosystem, Conservation Ontario will:
• develop and implement watershed plans that foster good health by addressing
threats to the quality and quantity of source water, noting that the Great Lakes
is a source of drinking water to 8 million people in Ontario.
• work with stakeholders to educate citizens about the links between the
environment and human health, and promote respect for and stewardship of
the ecosystem in which they live.
Economic
The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Region should have a healthy economy and business
climate that delivers quality goods and services, making use of natural resources in a
manner that protects those natural assets for future generations. Conservation Ontario
must focus policies and programs to encourage application of full -cost accounting to
emphasize the value of natural capital and therefore encourage sustainable use.
Working with municipal, provincial, federal agencies and partners for the sustainability
of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence ecosystem, Conservation Ontario will:
• advance innovative technologies and programs to support the development of
new and existing public and private sector businesses that can operate in
harmony with the vision for the Basin and add wealth to the region.
• work with all orders of government and other stakeholders to advance
sustainable infrastructure and necessary improvements to infrastructure.
• support initiatives that increase the Region's attractiveness to new and
existing industry and business for capital investment.
200
RES. #D71/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DUFFINS CARRUTHERS WATERSHED RESOURCE GROUP
Appointment of Members. The formal appointment of watershed
residents, regional and local municipal members and community council
representatives, public agency representatives, representatives from
community groups, businesses and business organizations, academic
institutions and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's member to
the Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group. •
Richard Whitehead
Grant Gibson
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the appointments, as set out in
the staff report, be approved, effective immediately, until December 31, 2007;
AND FURTHER THAT Regional Councillor Colleen Jordan and Gary Bowen, Duffins
Carruthers Watershed Specialist, remain as Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
(TRCA) appointed members to the Duffins Carruthers Watershed Resource Group
(DCWRG).
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Members of the DCWRG had requested that the term of their committee be extended in order
to fulfill the mandate of the committee and to ensure that sufficient progress was made with
respect to implementing A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. Approval
for this extension was granted at Authority Meeting #3/06, held on April 28, 2006 (Resolution
#A91/06). The term of the Duffins and Carruthers Watershed Resource Group was extended
for one year and will end on December 31, 2007.
In the interest of maintaining consistency and momentum through to the end of 2007, it is
preferred that current members continue theircommitment to the DCWRG for the duration of
the extension. Consideration will also be given to new appointments of citizen and non-
governmental organizations interested in working on implementation of the watershed plan,
and it is requested that municipal partners suggest appropriate candidates.
Due to the municipal elections held in November, 2006, it is appropriate that watershed
municipalities confirm their appointments. Letters were sent to regional and local
municipalities and community council representatives, requesting that they appoint delegates
to the DCWRG. Letters were also sent out to former members (watershed residents,
representatives from community groups, businesses, business organizations and public
agency representatives) to inquire whether they wished to continue. Both Fisheries and
Oceans Canada and Transport Canada have confirmed their continued participation on
DCWRG. We expect to hear back from the Ministry of Natural Resources on their appointment
and anticipate that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs and the
Ontario Ministry of Environment will no longer be participating.
It is also recommended that the previous TRCA appointments of Regional Councillor Colleen
Jordan and Gary Bowen, Duffins Carruthers Watershed Specialist, continue to serve as TRCA's
representatives.
201
The following table summarizes the DCWRG for 2007.
TRCA APPOINTMENTS
Member
Representing
To be Determined
Chair of the Authority
Gary Bowen
Watershed Specialist
Colleen Jordan
Town of Ajax
REGIONAL AND LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND
COMMUNITY COUNCILS
Member
Representing
Joe Dickson
Town of Ajax
Scott Crawford (alternate)
Town of Ajax
Jack Heath
Town of Markham
LiIli Duoba (alternate)
Town of Markham
David Pickles
City of Pickering
Rick Johnson (alternate)
City of Pickering
David Ryan
Regional Municipality of Durham
Alex Georgieff (alternate)
Regional Municipality of Durham
Jack Heath
Regional Municipality of York
Laura Atkins -Paul (alternate)
Regional Municipality of York
Susan Self
Township of Uxbridge
Wayne Emmerson
Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville
Clyde Smith (alternate)
Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville
WATERSHED RESIDENTS
Name
Representing
Dr. Doug Dodge
Town of Ajax
Dr. Neil Burnett
Town of Ajax
Alan Wells
Township of Uxbridge
PUBLIC AGENCIES
Name
Representing
Steve Woolfenden
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Patricia Short-Gallo
Transport Canada
202
BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
Name
Representing
Mr. Neil Acton
Deer Creek Golf Course
Report prepared by: Joanna Parsons, extension 5575
For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385
Date: January 26, 2007
RES. #D72/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
SNELGROVE HABITAT REGENERATION
To update the Authority on the completion of the 2003 -2006 Snelgrove
Reach Habitat Regeneration Project.
Richard Whitehead
Gay Cowbourne
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to work with the
Region of Peel, City of Brampton and community partners to implement and monitor
restoration activities upstream and downstream of the Snelgrove Reach to increase
ecosystem connectivity and strengthen community participation within this portion of the
Etobicoke Creek watershed.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #7/03, held on September 26, 2003, Resolution #A201/03 was approved,
as follows:
THAT the 2003 - 2006 Snelgrove Reach Habitat Regeneration Plan be approved;
THAT staff be directed to develop partnerships, seek funding and initiate implementation
of the Snelgrove Reach Habitat Regeneration Plan in concert with the development and
implementation of the Snelgrove Community Action Area Plan;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the progress of the implementation of the 2003
- 2006 Snelgrove Reach Habitat Regeneration Plan
In 1994, the Valley and Stream Corridor Reach Plan for Snelgrove was developed to guide
future terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancements in this area. The Snelgrove reach plan was
updated in 1999 to be consistent with new water quality, aquatic habitat, flora and fauna
surveys and land use information, and incorporated information about regeneration efforts in
the area that were undertaken during this time. This plan recommended further site specific
management activities to be undertaken over time as opportunities were presented. Based on
this, as well as updated flora and fauna surveys (2001), a habitat regeneration plan, titled "2003
- 2006 Snelgrove Reach Habitat Regeneration Plan ", was developed for implementation.
203
RATIONALE
Within the Etobicoke and Mimico creeks watersheds, the Habitat Implementation Plan (HIP)
defines a strategic framework for comprehensive and meaningful watershed strategy
implementation at the site level. Initially identified as a high priority HIP site, the 2003 — 2006
Snelgrove Reach Habitat Regeneration Plan was further developed and identified a range of
in- stream, reforestation and wetland restoration opportunities. The implementation of this plan
focused on achieving the 2006 targets for Terrestrial Habitat Quantity, Riparian Zone and
Biodiversity indicators of the Etobicoke and Mimico creeks watersheds revitalization strategy,
Greening Our Watersheds (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), 2002). The
plan also helped to achieve the following Remedial Action Plan (RAP) goals: Rehabilitation of
Fish and Wildlife Habitat and, Watersheds and Ecosystem Observation. Project deliverables
included approximately 5 hectares of forest, floodplain and riparian restoration, the installation
of nearly 40 habitat features including nest boxes, hibernacula, bank stabilization and a series
of in- stream pool and riffle structures.
PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
To date, implemented components and achievements of the 2003 -2006 Snelgrove Reach
Habitat Regeneration Plan include:
• 655 volunteers;
• 1,300+ volunteer hours;
• 6,000+ plants in the ground through community and staff planting events;
• 6.5 hectares of wetland, woodlot and riparian restoration;
• 57 migratory song bird nest boxes;
• 2 critical habitat features including 1 snake hibernaculum.
Key project activities include:
Annual Community Planting Events (2003 - 2006)
A key component of the plan, annual community planting events focused on increasing native
flora and fauna habitat in the Etobicoke Creek floodplain and raising community awareness
about watershed issues. Events emphasized education and action through hands -on tree
planting and informative displays including birds, wildlife, habitat, organic lawn care and native
plants. Community partnerships were developed with organizations such as Scouts Canada
and the Girl Guides of Canada.
Snake Hibernaculum (2004)
The number of natural snake hibernation sites is limited within the Snelgrove Reach. The
primary role of this habitat feature within the regeneration plan is to prevent further unnatural
losses in the snake population. A secondary function of placing the hibernaculum within the
Snelgrove Reach is to increase public awareness and tolerance for snakes. Building artificial
hibernacula may benefit humans and the overall ecology of an area by helping to maintain a
healthy snake population, which play a vital role in the food chain, as well as a biological pest
control agent.
204
Wetland Construction (2005)
In 2005, TRCA completed the construction of a wetland in the north end of the Snelgrove tract.
The site is situated on an area that was historically farmed. Two agricultural ditches which
captured upstream flows and drained surface run -off from an adjacent old farm field was
negatively impacting the creek by increasing sediment load and causing downstream erosion.
The project focused on reversing these hydrologic impacts caused by the past farming
practices. Through subtle re- contouring of the site, the agricultural ditches were removed, and
a swamp /marsh wetland complex was constructed that reflected similar conditions adjacent to
the area. The site was planted with wet tolerant tree and shrub species. In addition wood
duck, owl and songbird boxes have been installed on and surrounding the site and will be
monitored on a regular basis. Natural regeneration of native aquatic herbaceous material
established very quickly. Also, a variety of amphibians and songbirds have begun to use the
site.
Brampton Communities In Bloom (2006)
In 2006, TRCA worked closely with staff from the City of Brampton in their successful bid for
Communities In Bloom. This national competition focuses on civic pride, environmental
responsibility and beautification through community participation. A key component of this
project was environmental awareness through the recognition and protection of local natural
heritage. During the preparation for the Communities In Bloom competition, staff from TRCA
and the City of Brampton collaborated on ways to effectively highlight the partnerships and
projects that have been implemented within the city's valley lands. In doing so, partnerships
amongst partner organizations were strengthened, future collaborative project planning was
initiated and Brampton captured first place in the Over 100,000 Category and received the Best
Blooming Community in Canada Award.
MNR Ontario Stewardship Ranger Program (2006)
In 2006, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Ontario Stewardship Rangers assisted TRCA
staff with the naturalization of the newly constructed wetland in the Snelgrove Reach. This
collaborative educational and work experience program enabled youth to learn about local
natural heritage, the roles of conservation authorities and their relationships with municipal and
provincial agencies and to gain hands on experience with stewardship activities within the
Etobicoke watershed. In addition to assisting and participating in the City of Brampton's
successful bid for Communities In Bloom, the Rangers helped transplant native aquatic plants,
build and erect nest boxes for migratory s ong birds and remove encroaching invasive species
within the newly constructed wetland.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Future Projects
In 2007 several culminating projects will be undertaken that will reflect upon the previous four
years of work. The annual autumn community planting, which has received tremendous
support from Scouts Canada and the Girl Guides of Canada, will include a survey of previous
planting sites and will provide an opportunity for interested volunteers to become involved in
longer term monitoring of the Snelgrove Reach. Providing valuable information on the success
and impact of habitat enhancement projects, a community -based monitoring program will also
continue to foster the vital connection of individuals and groups to the natural heritage within
their watersheds.
205
The Snelgrove Reach Habitat Regeneration Plan will play a pivotal role in connecting these
upstream and downstream ecosystems. Beginning in 2007 restoration efforts within this area
of the Etobicoke watershed will move downstream to Wexford Park and the Valleybrook
corridor (City of Brampton) and upstream into the community of Valleywood (Town of Caledon)
where wetland and community planting initiatives are currently underway. From an ecological
perspective, future habitat enhancement projects will factor the work undertaken at Snelgrove
into their design in order to optimize ecosystem structure and function. Additionally, the
momentum of community involvement that Snelgrove has gathered will inspire further support
in these surrounding areas and will provide a linkage between these and other individuals and
groups throughout the watershed.
Educational Signage
In an effort to continually inform and educate citizens about our valley lands and watersheds, a
series of interpretive signs will be developed and installed at key features throughout the
Snelgrove Reach. Highlighting the tremendous work that has been accomplished through the
2003 -2006 Snelgrove Reach Habitat Regeneration Plan, topics for the signs will include
Restoration and Stewardship, Riparian Corridors and Migratory Song Birds, Woodlot
Management and Community Watershed Management.
Loafers Lake Shoreline Restoration
Two deliverables from the 2003 -2006 Snelgrove Reach Habitat Regeneration Plan which have
yet to be completed include shoreline restoration at Loafers Lake and several sites that require
bioengineering erosion control. These aspects of the original regeneration plan are currently
being pursued through partnerships with the City of Brampton and will be integrated within
future work plans.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
In addition to other funding sources and regeneration funding from the Region of Peel, a
substantial contribution from in -kind sources was made to this project. Of particular note are
those contributions of volunteers from partnerships with Brampton Area Scouts and Girl
Guides, as well as staff and resources from the City of Brampton and Region of Peel.
In -Kind TRCA & Partner Contributions
TD Friends of the Environment Foundation
MNR Community Wildlife Involvement Pro ject
Region of Peel
Total Project Cost
$36,200.00
$9,500.00
$1,000.00
$148,000.00
$194,700.00
Report prepared by: Dushan Jojkic, extension 5667
For Information contact: John Stille, extension 5396 or Dushan Jojkic, extension 5667
Date: January 19, 2007
206
RES. #D73/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR OF THE PROPOSED CTC SOURCE
PROTECTION COMMITTEE UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT, 2006
Approval to start public search for nominees for the position of the CTC
Source Protection Chair.
Richard Whitehead
Grant Gibson
WHEREAS at Authority Meeting #11/06, held January 26, 2007, Resolution #A307/06 was
approved authorizing staff to send comments in response to the Ministry of the
Environment's posting on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry of the
"Discussion Paper on Source Protection Committees Under the Clean Water Act, 2006";
WHEREAS the ministry's discussion paper sets out proposed qualifications and selection
process for three nominees and recommendation for the position of Chair of the Source
Protection Committee (SPC);
WHEREAS it is anticipated that the Clean Water Act, 2006 will be proclaimed in mid -2007
coincident with the regulations establishing the source protection regions, lead source
protection authorities, and requirement to establish source protection committees;
WHEREAS the province will be establishing mandatory timelines for establishment of the
SPC and submission by the SPC of Terms of Reference for preparation of the required
assessment report;
AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is the proposed lead
conservation authority for the proposed Credit Valley - Toronto and Region - Central Lake
Ontario conservation authorities (CTC) Watershed Region which will make TRCA
responsible for ensuring certain legislative and proposed regulatory responsibilities and
timelines are complied with;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
AUTHORITY THAT staff be authorized to commence the public process for selecting
nominees for the position of CTC Source Protection Region Chair;
THAT staff be authorized and directed to place advertisements in local and regional
newspapers, to place notices on the websites of TRCA and the other partner
conservation authorities in the CTC, to advise all local and regional municipalities within
the CTC, and to make direct contact with key individuals who may be interested in
applying for or nominating a person to serve as the chair;
THAT the closing date for expressions of interest from individuals be April 16, 2007 at
4:30 pm;
207
AND FURTHER THAT the Chief Administrative Officers of TRCA, Credit Valley
Conservation (CVC) and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA), review
the applications received in concert with the proposed qualifications for the position of
chair as set out in the ministry's discussion paper, and report back to the Authority on the
recommended next steps as soon as possible following proclamation of the Clean Water
Act, 2006 and regulations.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Ministry of the Environment posted for comment on the Environmental Bill of Rights
registry their "Discussion Paper on Source Water Protection Committees under the Clean Water
Act, 2006" (EBR Registry Number PAO6E0013). Comments were submitted on behalf of the
Authority pursuant to Resolution #A307/06, approved at Authority Meeting #11/06, held on
January 26, 2007.
The Clean Water Act, 2006 gives the Minister of the Environment the authority to make
regulations governing the size of a SPC, the appointment of chair and members to the SPC,
the qualifications for chair and members and the committee operations.
The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has proposed that source protection authorities use an
open and transparent process to seek out potential committee chair candidates. It is
suggested that:
1. The source protection authority could advertise and /or invite interested parties through
advertisements in local newspapers that have wide circulation across the communities in
the source protection region or source protection area.
2. The source protection authority could also use other forms of communication such as
placing advertisements /flyers in libraries, municipal offices, community centres, universities,
etc., specifying minimum qualifications as well as the application process.
3. Coupled with the other methods for solicitation, the source protection authority could also
approach key watershed stakeholders directly and ask them to submit a potential
candidate.
MOE further proposes in their discussion document that after submissions have been received,
the source protection authority would be advised to review the candidates against the
qualifications set out in section 2.2.1 and generate a short list of names of persons with whom
they would hold interviews. MOE's guidance documents are expected to strongly recommend
that the source protection authority make provisions to ensure that the other source protection
authorities within the source protection region participate in the review and the interview
process.
MOE intends to post a draft regulation and guidance document following consideration of
comments received. It is anticipated that the draft regulation will be posted in March 2007, with
the final regulation being posted in June -July 2007. Proclamation of the Act is expected to
coincide with the promulgation of this and other necessary regulations. At this point the
Minister is empowered to consider the submissions by the source protection authority of
nominees and appoint the chair of the SPC.
208
It is recommended to have nominations for the SPC chair before the Minister as early as
possible so that the chair can be appointed and in place to assist the source protection
authority in selecting the members of the SPC, and to prepare for the work that the SPC is
required to undertake. MOE has discussed setting time limits on the establishment of the SPC
(within six months of the Act coming into force) and for submission of the Terms of Reference
to the Minister for approval (within nine months of the Act coming into force).
Other proposed source protection regions have already begun to publicly identify nominees for
the position of chair of their SPC. The proposed Ausable Bayfield- Maitland source protection
region has completed their public advertisements, selection of candidates to be interviewed
and interviews with selected candidates. MOE continues to encourage early action by the
source protection authorities in advance of the regulations being in place. The release of the
discussion document by the ministry provides sufficient guidance to begin the public process
within the CTC watershed region.
The stipend for this position has not been established by the province and further discussion
will be required. Advertisements will identify that the position will require approximately 2 days
per week and the stipend is under review. The incumbent will be compensated for
out -of- pocket expenses in accordance with TRCA policies and practices.
It is recommended that the Chief Administrative Officers of the three conservation authorities
review the applications and report back to Authority on next steps to finalize the selection of
three nominees and the recommended candidate for submission to the Minister of the
Environment. Under the Clean Water Act, 2006, the Minister may appoint any one of the
nominated candidates or may appoint another individual.
Report prepared by: Beverley Thorpe, extension 5577
For Information contact: Beverley Thorpe, extension 5577
Date: February 06, 2007
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #D74/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
FLOOD FORECASTING AND WARNING PROGRAM
Annual update on the status of Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority's Flood Forecasting and Warning Program.
Gay Cowbourne
Frank Dale
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
Flood Forecasting and Warning Program 2006 status report and 2007 work plan as they
relate to the Greater Toronto Conservation Authorities (GTCA) Flood Forecasting and
Warning Standards be received.
CARRIED
209
BACKGROUND
TRCA staff has continued to work throughout 2006 to achieve the objectives outlined in the
2006 work plan. The work plan was created to allow the program to continue to be developed
and updated toward meeting and exceeding our obligations under the adopted GTCA Flood
Forecasting and Warning Standards.
Highlights of the 2006/2007 Work Plan
In 2006, a number of significant goals were realized and are highlighted below:
1. A pilot project was initiated in the Don River watershed for a real -time, web -based gauging
system that will greatly improve the flood warning system's response time and reliability.
Additional gauges will be installed to provide coverage over the entire jurisdiction once the
pilot project is assessed.
2. A maintenance database was developed for TRCA -owned flood control structures that will
facilitate the inspection process and establish priorities for maintenance works.
3. Documentation for the August 19, 2005 storm was completed.
4. Safety improvements and maintenance were undertaken for G. Ross Lord Dam, Claireville
Dam and Stouffville Dam. Dam Operations Manual updates were initiated.
5. An Emergency Operations Centre was constructed at Head Office.
The GTCA Flood Forecasting and Warning Standards identify four program delivery areas: i)
Program Delivery /Administration, ii) Forecasting, iii) Communications and iv) Flood Operations.
A status report detailing the works completed in 2006 under each delivery area and a work
plan for 2007 is attached to this report.
The main elements of the 2007 work plan as they relate to the four program delivery areas are
listed below:
i) Program Delivery /Administration
The Flood Forecasting and Warning Program has been identified as one of the key
services provided by TRCA to our municipal partners. As such, one significant change
has been added to the Flood Operations component of the work plan for 2007. To
date, Flood Duty Officers ( FDO's) have relied on the technical guidance and experience
of a limited number of trained staff during a flood event. In an effort to make the
program more robust, it was identified that the number of staff involved be increased
and additional senior water management staff be trained in the technical aspects of the
flood warning program. To ensure that more senior staff are involved on a daily basis, a
Chief Flood Duty Officer role has been created (effective January 1, 2007).
Operationally, a Chief Flood Duty Officer (CFDO) will now be on call along with a Flood
Duty Officer (FDO) 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. The CFDO will be responsible for
major decision making during a flood event and will provide additional technical
support to the FDO's.
A comprehensive training program was developed in 2006 and implementation will
continue through 2007. In addition, a number of studies will be initiated in 2007 to
improve TRCA's operation and maintenance of flood control structures. The real -time
gauging network will be expanded and hydrometrics operations will continue.
210
ii) Forecasting
TRCA staff will continue flood forecasting and warning operations. The Greater Toronto
flood group is currently working on updates to the Flood Forecasting Model with input
from TRCA staff.
iii) Communications
Flood Warning staff is currently working with TRCA's Marketing and Communications
department to create a flood warning page on the website that will assist the public and
media in accessing information on flood events in a timely manner. A media
communications protocol has been developed.
iv) Flood Operations
The Emergency Operations Centre is now open and equipment upgrades will be made
as required. The River Watch Program is a key component to the program during
significant events and as part of the 2007 work plan staff will receive annual training to
ensure program delivery standards are achieved.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds have been identified in the 2007 capital budget request to undertake the activities
identified in the 2007 work plan.
Report prepared by: Laurian Farrell, extension 5601
For Information contact: Laurian Farrell, extension 5601 or Don Haley, extension 5226
Date: January 26, 2007
Attachments: 1
211
Attachment 1
TRCA Flood Forecasting and Warning Program 2006/2007
Section 1: Program Delivery /Administration
To develop and maintain an administrative framework to facilitate and support flood
forecasting and warning.
GTCA Flood Forecasting
and Warning Standards
Component
Work Completed in 2006
Work Proposed for 2007
Develop Baseline Knowledge of
Watershed
• development of a maintenance
database for flood control structures
completed
• flood control channel inspections
carried out, sites prioritized for
maintenance works
• field visits carried out to flood forecast
locations to familiarize staff
• tours and training conducted for G
Ross Lord Dam and Claireville Dam
• Flood Protection and Prioritization of
Remedial Capital works project
initiated
• annual field inventory, assessment and
prioritization for all flood control
facilities to be carried out
• flood protection and remedial works
study to be completed (to include filed
inventory, development of database
and location map, flood risk
assessment and cost - benefit analysis)
• develop and implement program to
review rainfall /runoff events to
determine better understanding of
watershed response
• update thresholds
Establish Monitoring Network
• installation of 4 Real -time web based
gauging stations (pilot project in the
Don River watershed) and staff training
• installation of new stream gauge at
Wilket Creek
• continued operation and maintenance
of 17 existing stream gauges
• continued monitoring at 10 snow
course locations, one location
relocated at Claireville
• completed annual report for City of
Mississauga Monitoring Program
• installed, maintained, monitored and
retrieved rainfall data from 31
precipitation stations
• installed GEONOR snow gauge at
Cold Creek in Bolton
• installation of 8 new real -time web
based gauging stations
• upgrades to 5 -10 existing precipitation
stations to allow for remote access
• installation of approximately ten new
stream gauge stations
• continue operation and maintenance
of 21 existing stream gauges
• continue operation and maintenance
of 22 existing precipitation gauges
• continue monitoring at 10 snow course
locations
• review need for ice monitoring
program and prepare documentation
• annual report to be completed for
Mississauga Monitoring Program
• installation of conductivity sensors in 5
(estimated) watercourses for a study
on road salt contamination in
partnership with the City of Toronto
Undertake Yearly Training of Staff
• 4 training modules completed by staff
including-
• Flood Warning Program Overview
• Daily Planning Cycle
• Major Event Operations
• Dam Operating Procedures
• Completion of 4 remaining training
modules including:
• Watershed Response
• Hydrometrics
• Meteorology
• Safety
• Additional external training to include.
• First Aid Training
• Media Training
• Emergency Response Training (City
of Toronto OEM)
Document Historical Flow Events
• completion of the August 19, 2005
flood documentation (reported to the
Board at Meeting #2106 on June 16,
2006)
• analysis of historical events in TRCA
jurisdiction to be conducted by staff
212
Maintain Liaison wrth Municipalities and
Local Emergency Response Groups
•
ongoing as needed
•
•
•
ongoing as needed
continue to work with the GTA Flood
Forecasting and Warning Group and
the Provincial Flood Warning Group to
advance the program
Partnership between GTA Flood Group
and Environment Canada to examine
IDF curve updates to be developed
Maintain Adequate Flood Plain Mapping
•
Don River mapping south of Steeles
•
Mimico Creek Hydrology Update to be
and Hydraulic Model in Accordance with
completed
completed in March 2007 (80%
FDRP Technical Standards
•
West Don mapping completed
complete at start of 2007)
•
Rouge River mapping completed
•
Mimico Creek Hydraulic Update to be
•
Petticoat Creek mapping competed
completed in July 2007 (60% complete
at start of 2007)
•
Etobicoke Creek Hydrology Update to
be completed in February 2007
(pending final review by staff)
•
Etobicoke Creek Hydraulic Update to
be completed in May 2007 (60%
complete start of 2007)
•
Humber River Mapping projects to be
completed in February 2007 pending
final review by staff (including 2
mapsheets for Albion Creek and 2
mapsheets for thbutanes H4 and H5) -
both were 90% complete at start of
2007
•
East Don River mapping to be
completed in February 2007 (pending
final review by staff)
•
Highland Creek mapping to be
completed in February 2007 (pending
final review by staff)
•
Carruthers Creek mapping to be
completed in April 2007
•
Millers Creek (Duffins Watershed) to
be completed in April 2007
•
Pine & Dunbarton Creek mapping to
be completed in February 2007
Develop and Maintain the Flood
Forecasting (FFOR) Model
•
working with GTA Flood Forecasting
and Warning Group to develop the
•
complete and implement use of FFOR
FFOR model
Develop and Maintain a Flood Site
Database
•
Data input completed for Don,
Petticoat Creek and Frenchman's Bay
•
data input ongoing as hydraulic
updates completed, total jurisdiction
will be complete in 2007
Conduct Yearly Update of Flood
•
update completed and distributed to
•
annual update to be completed
Contingency Manual
partners
(Spring 2007)
Develop and Maintain Operations Manual
•
ongoing updates to Flood Warning
•
complete G Ross Lord Dam
Manual
Maintenance and Surveillance Manual
•
G. Ross Lord Dam Manual Update
initialed by consultant
•
•
complete Claireville Dam Operation
Maintenance and Surveillance Manual
ongoing updates to the Flood Warning
Manual
213
Prepare for Emergency Operations
•
•
All flood warning personnel have been
equipped with 24/7 access to Head
Office under the new security system
Probable Maximum Flood modelling
refinement for G. Ross Lord Dam
•
•
develop a business continuity strategy
for the flood warning program to be
added to the Operations Manual
improved new Flood Warning stream
gauges will be programmed to call out
• ongoing on a daily basis with
improvements /modifications as
needed
•
borehole drilling and piezometer
installation at Claireville Dam as per
recommendations from Dam Safety
Establish Internal and External
to FDO's rf high rainfall or water levels
are present allowing for improved
response times during flood events
• create Flood Warning page on TRCA's
Communications Protocol
Review
•
risk assessment and emergency plan
Department
•
•
water level loggers were installed in
eight wells
implementation of safety booms and
public safety signage at Claireville and
• provided on -going information and
update to be completed for G Ross
Lord and Claireville Dams
•
G. Ross Lord Dams
electrical upgrades completed at G
•
Ross Lord Dam
maintenance of spillway valve at
•
Stouffville Dam completed
testing and maintenance of spillway
valve to be carried out at Stouffville
Dam
Section 2: Forecasting
To understand and quantify the response and potential impacts within watersheds to
specific events
GTCA Flood Forecasting
and Warning Standards
Component
Work Completed in 2006
Work Proposed for 2007
Follow Daily Planning Cycle
• ongoing on a daily basis with
improvements /modifications as
needed
• ongoing on a daily basis with
improvements /modifications as
needed
Section 3: Communications
To inform clients of the potential or actual impact of flood events in a concise and
timely manner.
GTCA Flood Forecasting
and Warning Standards
Work Completed in 2006
Work Proposed for 2007
Component
Establish Internal and External
• established media communications
• create Flood Warning page on TRCA's
Communications Protocol
protocol with TRCA Marketing
website in cooperation with the
Department
Marketing Department
• provided on -going information and
• continue to provide information and
. advice to municipal clients and CA staff
advice to municipal clients and CA staff
214
Section 4: Flood Operations
To provide on -going information and advice to municipal clients and CA staff.
GTCA Flood Forecasting
and Warning Standards
Component
Work Completed in 2006
Work Proposed for 2007
Maintain an Emergency Operations
Centre
•
Flood Forecasting and Warning
Program Emergency Operations
Centre constructed at Head Office
•
continue to operate EOC at Head
Office and upgrade equipment as
required
Monitor Flood Events
•
ongoing as needed
•
ongoing as needed
Follow Reasonable Safety Procedures
•
ongoing as needed
•
ongoing as needed, staff will be
provided with targeted Safety Training
in Spring 2007
Document Flood Events
•
completion of the August 19, 2005
flood documentation (reported to the
Board at Meeting #2/06 on June 16,
2006)
•
ongoing as needed
Document Communications with Internal
and External Clients
•
communications documented on daily
planning cycle spreadsheet and in log
book - all documents on file
•
ongoing as needed
Support Internal and External Clients
•
ongoing as needed
•
ongoing as needed
Debrief Authority Staff
•
ongoing as needed
•
ongoing as needed
Debrief River Watch Personnel
•
no formal program in place during
2006
•
Enforcement staff will be rejoining the
River Watch Program in 2007.
Program development followed by
training of appropriate personnel will
be conducted
215
RES. #D75/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED PHOTO BOOK
Receipt of staff report on the photo book on the Humber River
watershed.
Gay Cowbourne
Grant Gibson
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report regarding the publication of the Humber
River Watershed Photo Book, showcasing its rich natural and human heritage in
celebration of the Humber River's 10th anniversary as a Canadian Heritage River, subject
to available funding, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1999, the Humber River was designated as a Canadian Heritage River based on its unique
examples of human heritage. Rivers designated under the Canadian Heritage Rivers System
(CHRS), Canada's national river conservation program, have outstanding natural and /or
cultural values and showcase the benefits and enjoyment of healthy river environments. Every
river under the CHRS system has been designated because it strengthens Canadian identity
and enables citizens to better understand, appreciate and celebrate the country's rich river
heritage. The Humber River is the only designated heritage river in the Greater Toronto Area.
There are approximately 31 designated rivers in Canada including the Fraser (British
Columbia), Athabasca (Alberta), Thelon (Nunavut), South Nahanni (North West Territories) and
Grand (Ontario).
A photo book will be produced in mid -2008 in celebration of the upcoming 10th anniversary of
the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River and the 50th anniversary of Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) which will reflect the diversity and range of appreciation
for this beautiful Canadian landscape. The book will consist of pages of colourful photographs,
short stories and quotes from people familiar with the river, anecdotal information and facts
and figures.
The general content of the book includes:
• TRCA and The Living City.
• Human and cultural heritage significance of the Humber River.
• The Humber River's CHRS heritage designation.
• Conservation Foundation.
A "Capture the Humber" photo contest has been initiated to invite the public to share their
memories and experiences of this historical Canadian landscape. Organizers are looking for
images from all seasons that represent the beauty of the Humber River and its watershed. The
themes include: plants and animals, culture and heritage, recreation, people, places, events,
landscapes and communities. Awards will be given for best overall photograph and for best
photograph in each of the theme categories. Selected photographs will be compiled into a
book that will honour this historical river.
216
The Humber River watershed photo book will be sold at TRCA parks and facilities, online at
www.trca.on.ca and hopefully at other book stores including Chapters and at the McMichael
Art Gallery to name a few.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Finalize text.
• Obtain quotes to print the document.
• Develop a marketing strategy.
• Promote and advertise the book and photo contest (i.e. through website, flyers, media
release, etc.).
• Select photographs from TRCA photo collections and public submissions.
• Seek sponsorships to help cover the costs.
• Form a committee to comment on book content.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
• Existing funding is available from account 118 -61. Additional funding of $35,000 has been
identified in the 2007 capital budget.
• The cost to research and write the text is approximately $10,000.
• The approximate printing cost is $59,380 for 5,000 copies (11.5" x 9 ",160 pages,
hardcover).
• Design, layout concept and editing to be done in- house.
• Advertising costs approximately $2,000.
Report prepared by: Sonia Dhir, extension 5291
For Information contact: Sonia Dhir, extension 5291
Date: January 25, 2007
RES. #D76/06 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Frank Dale
THAT Section IV items 9.3.1 - 9.2.1, inclusive, in regards to watershed committee minutes,
be received.
CARRIED
Section IV Items - 9.3.1 - 9.2.1, Inclusive
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #6/06, held on September 22, 2006
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meeting #7/06, held on September 14, 2006
Minutes of Meeting #8/06, held on October 5, 2006
Minutes of Meeting #9/06, held on October 19, 2006.
217
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:40 a.m., on Friday, February 9, 2007.
Dick O'Brien
Chair
/ks
218
Brian Denney
Secretary- Treasurer