etobicoke-mimico watersheds coalition meeting #4/12 6:30 9 ...trca.on.ca/dotasset/149275.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition
Meeting #4/12
Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:30 – 9:00 p.m.
Black Creek Pioneer Village
1000 Murray Ross Boulevard, Toronto, ON M3J 2P3
*Dinner for coalition members and staff liaisons will be served at 6:00 p.m.*
AGENDA
Page 1. Call to Order
2. Service Recognition Awards
3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
4. Approval of Etobicoke-Mimico Coalition Meeting Minutes #3/12, held on September 20, 2012
5. Business Arising from the Minutes
6. Presentations (30 minutes)
6.1. Peel Spills Response System
6.2 Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition 2010 - 2012 Accomplishments
7. Items for Coalition Action (20 minutes)
7.1 Etobicoke-Mimico Watershed Report Card 3
Attachment 7.1.1 Watershed Report Card Template 6
Attachment 7.1.2 Etobicoke Watershed Report Card 8
Attachment 7.1.3 Mimico Watershed Report Card 13
7.2 Partners in Project Green – People Power Challenge 18
Attachment 7.2.1 People Power Challenge Poster 21
8. Project Teams and Sub-committee Verbal Updates (20 minutes)
8.1 Chair’s Committee
8.2 Planning and Policy Team
8.3 Communications and Marketing Team
8.4 Brampton Etobicoke Creek
8.5 Green Site Team
8.6 Lower Etobicoke Team
1
8.7 Lower Mimico Team
8.8 Dragon Boat Festival
9. Items for Coalition Information (10 minutes)
9.1 Letter to Regional Councillor Sandra Hames regarding Kennedy Valley Trail
22
9.2 Letter from The Honourable Peter Kent, Minister of the Environment, Government of Canada in response to Coalition Letter regarding Bill C- 38, received October 22, 2012.
24
9.3 Provincial Policy Statement Review 2012: Etobicoke-Mimico Coalition Comments.
29
9.4 TRCA Comments on Provincial Policy Statement Review 2012 36
9.5 Conservation Ontario Whitepaper: Watershed Management Futures for Ontario
42
9.6 MTO Update on “Permission to Use” Sherway Trail 47
10. Concluding Remarks and Next Steps – Appointment of Members for the Fourth Term of the Coalition (2013 – 2015)
11. New Business and Good News Stories
12. Adjournment
2
TO: Chair and Members of the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition Meeting
#4/12, December 13, 2012 FROM: Chandra Sharma, Etobicoke-Mimico Creeks Watershed Specialist, Watershed
Management Division RE: DRAFT ETOBICOKE-MIMICO WATERSHEDS REPORT CARDS KEY ISSUE: To provide comments on the draft Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Report
Cards. RECOMMENDATION THAT the draft Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Report Card be received for information and input; AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition provide comments to staff regarding the draft Humber Watershed Report Card by December 21, 2012. BACKGROUND In 2009, Conservation Ontario led a review of Ontario watershed report cards in consultation with all thirty six conservation authorities. The findings of this review revealed inconsistencies in the way that conservation authorities were collecting, analyzing and reporting local technical data; thus, preventing a broader application of this important information. At the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition Meeting #4/11 it was presented that Conservation Ontario had finalized a standardized set of indicators and an evaluation framework for watershed report cards. These were to be used by all conservation authorities to improve consistency and broader use of information. Conservation authorities were provided with a design template (attached) to present the report cards which reinforces many of the important messaging and visuals that are common and unique to all conservation authorities. The new guidelines by Conservation Ontario prescribe:
timing, frequency and release of report card;
indicators;
grading; and
communication products and branding. Moving forward, the next round of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) watershed report cards will follow the guidelines prescribed by Conservation Ontario. Report Cards will be prepared for all nine watersheds (Etobicoke, Mimico, Humber, Don, Rouge, Highland, Petticoat, Duffins and Carruthers), including the waterfront, and are scheduled to be completed along with all of the other conservation authority report cards. TRCA will continue to produce watershed report cards every five years with possible watershed updates produced in the interim.
Item 7.1
3
REPORT CARD RESULTS
Table 1: Surface Water Quality
Watershed
Benthic Score (FBI)
Phosphorus (mg/l)
Bacteria (E.coli/100ml)
TOTAL GRADE
Value Score Value Score Value Score
Etobicoke Creek 6.42 D 0.07 D 305 D D
Mimico Creek 7.15 F 0.09 D 1116 F F
Provincial Guideline
None 0.03 mg/l 100 E.coli/100ml
Table 2: Forest Conditions
Grade D - with indicators
Forest Cover % Interior Forest % Riparian Forest % TOTAL GRADE
Value Score Value Score Value Score
Etobicoke Creek 4.71 F 0.10 F 18.21 D F
Mimico Creek 1.97 F 0.00 F 14.49 D F
Table 3: Groundwater Quality
Watershed
Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/l)
Chloride (mg/l) TOTAL GRADE
Value Score Value Score Etobicoke Creek 0.06 A 62.78 B A
*Mimico Creek - - - - B
* Note: There are no groundwater wells in the Mimico watershed that are currently being monitored for water quality so because Mimico Creek is located between Etobicoke Creek and Humber River and shares the same aquifers it is assumed that the groundwater quality would be similar and can be assigned a “B” Grade.
Table 4: Stormwater Management
Watershed
Watershed Controlled Area (%) TOTAL GRADE
Value Score
Etobicoke Creek 25% F F
Mimico Creek 36% F F
Item 7.1
4
Table 5: Stream flow
Watershed
Watershed Mean Annual Stream flow Trend (2006-
2010) TOTAL GRADE
Value
Etobicoke Creek -0.6% C
Mimico Creek -1.2% B
Description of the Grades: A – Excellent B – Good C – Fair
D – Poor F – Very Poor
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
June 2012 - Consolidation of indicator data
August 2012 – final drafts prepared
September - December 2012 - Design and final editing
January - February 2013 - Printing
March 2013 – Launch of report cards in sync with other conservation authorities
Report prepared by: Vince D’Elia, [email protected]
416.661.6600 extension 5667 For more information contact: Vince D’Elia Date: November 15, 2012
Attachment: Report Card Design Template
Item 7.1
5
WATERSHEDReport Card 2013
Where We Are
What Does This Report Card Measure?
Surface Water Quality Forest Conditions Groundwater Quality
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
has prepared this report card as a summary
on the state of our forests, wetlands, surface
water, and ground water resources.
What You Can Do
• Participate in the Black Creek or Lake Wilcox SNAP program which
offer many opportunities to get engaged—from tree planting to
rainwater harvesting and growing food to improve forest conditions
and stormwater management and water quality.
• Participate in TRCA’s Peel or York Region Private Land Stewardship
programs to protect water quality and improve forest conditions.
• Retrofit older developments in the City of Toronto with the
implementation of LID practices where opportunities exist to improve
stormwater management.
• Donate to the Living City Foundation to support programs and
initiatives in the Humber watershed http://www.thelivingcity.org/.
• Subscribe to the Humber Advocate Online newsletter to learn about
the latest happenings in the Humber River watershed by visiting (link).
Humber River Watershed
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4
P: (416) 661-6600 F: (416) 667-6274
www.trca.on.ca/humber
What We Are Doing
TRCA Leadership
• TRCA planted approximately 981,000 trees and shrubs in the Humber River watershed
between 2008 – 2012.
• TRCA is leading modern stormwater control guidance and policy with the recently
completed Low Impact Development (LID) Stormwater Management Planning and Design
Guide and an updated TRCA’s Stormwater Management Criteria for new development.
• TRCA, through the development process is requiring all new development in the Humber
River watershed to complete a water budget and retain at least 5 mm of rainfall on site.
This target is achieved through the implementation of LID practices which encourages the
infi ltration, evapo-transpiration and re-use of rainwater.
Partnerships
• TRCA, in partnership with private landowners and the Regional Municipalities of Peel and
York implemented 58 projects from 2008 – 2012 with the assistance of Rural Clean Water
Quality Program. Water quality is being protected with best management practices such
as proper manure storage, decommissioning of wells and restricting livestock from rivers.
A total of $160,000 has been invested in these projects over the past fi ve years.
• TRCA, in partnership with many community groups and associations has launched two
Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofi t Action Plan (SNAP) projects in the Humber— Black
Creek in Toronto and Lake Wilcox in Richmond Hill. Residents are assisted with the adoption of
sustainable practices around energy use reduction, water conservation and food security.
• Regional and local municipalities and Conservation Authorities have developed Urban
Forestry Studies for the Cities of Toronto, Brampton, Mississauga, Vaughan, and the Towns
of Caledon and Richmond Hill.
• TRCA in partnership with Earth Rangers Centre for Sustainable Technology, BILD, Bullfrog
Power, among many others, is researching and demonstrating sustainable technologies
around water use, stormwater management and green building technologies at The Living
City Campus at Kortright.
• Ministry of the Environment, TRCA, Source Protection Authorities and Committees,
municipalities, other Conservation Authorities, and the community are developing a
Source Water Protection Plan which will help address the X identifi ed drinking water
threats in the Humber watershed.
Work of Others
• Through private development, there are currently 15 LID projects in the ground in the
Humber River watershed.
• Black Creek Conservation Project from 2008 to 2012, has planted over 20,000 trees and
shurbs and engaged approximately 24,000 people in the Black Creek subwatershed in
planting and stewardship activities.
The standards used in this report card were developed by Conservation
Authorities to ensure consistent reportings across the Province of Ontario
and are intended to provide watershed residents with information to
protect, enhance and improve the precious resources that surround us.
We are one of
36 Conservation
Authorities across
Ontario under
the umbrella
organization of
Conservation
Ontario.
Grading
A Excellent
B Good
C Fair
D Poor
F Very Poor
Why Measure?Measuring helps us better understand our watershed. It helps us to focus our efforts where they are needed
most and track progress. It also helps us to identify healthy and ecologically important areas that requir
protection or enhancement.
What is a Watershed?A watershed is an area of land drained by a river or stream.
Similar to the branch of a tree, creeks empty into streams, which then
empty into larger streams, eventually forming one main trunk.
Within this system, everything is connected to everything else. In
other words, actions which take place at the top of the system can
and do affect those downstream.
About the Watershed
Municipalities Regional Municipalities: City of Toronto, Peel
Region, York Region,
Local Municipalities: Adjala-Tosorontio,
Aurora, Brampton, Caledon, King,
Mississauga, Mono, Richmond Hill, Vaughan
Major Tributaries East Humber, Main Humber, West Humber,
Black Creek, Centreville Creek, Rainbow
Creek, Salt Creek
Significant Physiographic Regions Niagara Escarpment, Oak Ridges Moraine,
Peel Plain and South Slope
Area (km2) 903
Land use Rural 56%, Urbanizing 15%, Urban 29%
Population (2001 census) (tbd-waiting for latest census data)
Surficial Geology Glacial Till Deposits 56%, Glacial Lake
Deposits 17%, Glacial River Deposits 3%,
Ice-supported Stratified Deposits 16%,
Organic Deposits 1%, River Deposits 7%
Mean Annual Stream Flow (m3/sec) 6.8
Attachment 7.1.1
6
Forest ConditionsSurface Water Quality Groundwater Quality Stormwater ManagementIndicators
% Forest Cover
% Forest Interior
% Riparian Zone Forested
Indicators
Nitrate and Nitrite
Chloride
Indicators
Phosphorous
E.coli Bacteria Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Indicators
% Developed Area with Stormwater Controls
Mean Annual Streamflow
F
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has nine active groundwater
monitoring wells in the Humber watershed.
Based on this limited data the ground water quality of the watershed has been given a
“B” grade. Although the groundwater of the watershed has been assigned a “B,” grade it is
important to note that out of nine monitoring wells, six have excellent water quality (Grade
“A”) and the remaining three have Grade “C” water quality. It is believed that water quality of
at least two monitoring wells out of the three is impacted on a very limited scale due to local
reasons including road salting. (WORD COUNT: 100)
BDC
Indicator DescriptionsThe Humber River watershed is the largest watershed in Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA’s) jurisdiction and is home to 732,000 people. The Main branch of the river
flows more than 126 kilometres from its source on the Niagara Escarpment to Lake Ontario. The
East Humber (63 kilometres) originates in the kettle lakes region of Richmond Hill and King
Township. The West Humber begins in Caledon, in the rolling hills of the South Slope, and flows
45 kilometres over the Peel Plain in Brampton before joining the Main Humber in Toronto.
Today about 29 per cent of the watershed is developed. Rural lands account for 56 per cent of the
area. Natural cover is scattered across all land use types throughout the watershed.
Archaeological research reveals a long history of human settlement along the banks of the
Humber River. First Nations, followed by the French and then the English, have made their homes
here. The Toronto Carrying Place Trail, used by aboriginals and early Europeans to travel inland
and transport goods, is one of the oldest transportation routes in Canada. (WORD COUNT: 180)
Description on GradesThe Humber River watershed is the largest watershed in Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA’s) jurisdiction and is home to 732,000 people. The Main branch of the river
flows more than 126 kilometres from its source on the Niagara Escarpment to Lake Ontario. The
East Humber (63 kilometres) originates in the kettle lakes region of Richmond Hill and King
Township. The West Humber begins in Caledon, in the rolling hills of the South Slope, and flows
45 kilometres over the Peel Plain in Brampton before joining the Main Humber in Toronto.
Today about 29 per cent of the watershed is developed. Rural lands account for 56 per cent of the
area. Natural cover is scattered across all land use types throughout the watershed.
Archaeological research reveals a long history of human settlement
along the banks of the Humber River. First Nations, followed by
the French and then the English, have made their homes here.
The Toronto Carrying Place Trail, used by aboriginals and early
Europeans to travel inland and transport goods, is one of the oldest
transportation routes in Canada. (WORD COUNT: 180)
Much of the forest cover was originally lost due to agriculture but as urban areas
expand more stress has.
In spite of its size, the amount of forest cover in the Humber watershed is considered to be poor
earning it a ‘D” grade. Much of the forest cover was originally lost due to agriculture but as
urban areas expand more stress has been placed on the remaining forests. Today only 17% of
the Humber River watershed is forested. Almost one-third (31%) of the existing riparian cover
is forest. Surprisingly, only 1.5% of TRCA’s largest watershed has interior forest habitat at least
100 metres from the edge. The Main Humber subwatershed has the highest percentage of forest
earning it a “C” grade. (WORD COUNT: 120)
About the Indicators
Grading
A Excellent
B Good
C Fair
D Poor
F Very Poor
Only 29% of the urbanized area of the watershed has stormwater management controls.
The absence of modern stormwater management practices in older urban development contributes
signifi cantly to the poor water quality earning a “D” grade in the lower portions of the Humber
River watershed. The issue of very stormwater management is being addressed in the watershed
through the implementation of various Low Impact Development (LID) programs, plans and policies.
(WORD COUNT: 70)
Water quality values for individual sites throughout the watershed vary greatly.
For example, two sites in the Main Humber average E. coli counts of less than 100 CFU/100 mL (Total
Coliform) which is below the Provincial Water Quality Objectives. E. coli counts at a site in Black Creek
was 3687 CFU/100 mL. Phosphorus values were elevated in both urban and rural areas. Individual site
scores for BMI ranged from average “C” to failing “F”.
The rural areas of the Humber River watershed usually received “C” or lower grades. This is because
nutrients, bacteria, sediment and pesticides are the most common pollutants in runoff from.
(WORD COUNT: 100)
Attachment 7.1.1
7
DRAFT Etobicoke Creek Watershed Report Card, November 2012
Facts and Figures:
Municipalities Regional Municipalities: Region of Peel
Local Municipalities: City of Brampton, Town of Caledon, City of Mississauga and City of Toronto
Major Tributaries Etobicoke West Branch, Etobicoke Headwaters, Etobicoke Main Branch, Lower Etobicoke, Tributary 4, Spring Creek
Watercourse Length Main branch: 59.32 km
Significant Natural Features South Slope, Peel Plain and Lake Iroquois Sand Plain
Area 212 km2
Population (2011 census) 286361
Land use Rural 27%, Urbanizing 5%, Urban 68%
Stream Flow 2.3 m3/sec
Landscape Natural Cover Types (Based on 2007/2008 imagery)
% of Watershed
Area
Beach/Bluff 0
Forest 4.7
Meadow 7.7
Successional 0.5
Wetland 0.9
Total Natural Area 13.8
Greenspace 1782 ha
Plants and Animals Plants – 375, Fish – 23, Birds – 93, Amphibians – 8, Mammals-17, Reptiles – 7 Of these, 165 are Species of Regional Conservation Concern
About the Watershed
Etobicoke Creek is home to 286, 361 people and is about 59 km long, draining an area of 211 km2
(through the cities of Brampton, Mississauga and the City of Toronto, and the Town of Caledon.
The Creek consists of four main branches: Main Etobicoke Creek, Little Etobicoke Creek,
Etobicoke Creek West Branch and Spring Creek. Land use in the watershed has been dramatically
altered over the past 200 years and rapid changes have continued in recent decades. The
Etobicoke Creek watershed currently consists of three major land uses, including: 27 percent rural,
68 percent urban and 5 percent urbanizing.
The watershed is home to 503 species of plants and animals. The vast majority of the natural
cover is located within river valleys or stream corridors and represents approximately 13.8 percent
of the watershed. Although habitat may not be continuous in some areas, the habitat patches help
to provide a stepping stone effect allowing species to move north and south. These valley corridors
play an important role in facilitating both resident and migrant species movement.
Attachment 7.1.2
8
A significant surficial geologic feature of the Etobicoke Creek watershed is the Brampton Esker.
The esker was an 8 km long, sinuous, sand and gravel ridge that stretches from Heart Lake
southeastward to south of Queen Street in the Etobicoke Creek watershed. The only significant
parts of the esker that remain are preserved in White Spruce Park and the Heart Lake
Conservation Area, both within the Etobicoke Creek watershed.
About 20 km2 (2000 ha) the watershed comprises of parks, conservation areas and trails that
provide opportunities for recreation, wildlife and habitat restoration.
Surface Water:
Grade: D
Arrow: Downwards
Indicators
Phosphorous
E.coli Bacteria
Benthic Macroinvertebrates (BMI)
The Etobicoke Creek watershed received an overall water quality grade of “D,” based on results
from three water chemistry sites and twelve Benthic Macroinvertebrate (BMI) sites. The Upper
Etobicoke Creek subwatershed had a slightly better E. coli grade (“C”) than the two other
chemistry stations in other reaches but the BMI scores were poor across the watershed with seven
stations receiving a “D” grade and five stations received a grade of “F.” Phosphorus
concentrations (75th percentile) at all three water chemistry stations were above 0.06 mg/L which
corresponds to a “D” grade.
The poor water quality score is a reflection of the fact that this watershed is almost completely
urbanized with fragments of the headwaters remaining in a rural state. Poor water quality effects
aesthetics, the health of the fishing community and the ability to use the creek for swimming and
other body-contact recreation.
Forest Conditions
Grade: F
Arrow: tbd
Indicators
% Forest Cover
% Forest Interior (100m away from the edge of the forest)
% Riparian Zone Forested
Attachment 7.1.2
9
Due to the extent of urbanization, the Etobicoke Creek watershed supports a limited proportion of
forest cover and received an overall grade of “F.”
Currently, less than 5 percent of the overall watershed is forested which includes both interior
forest cover and riparian forest cover. Only 20 percent of the existing riparian cover is forest and
less than one tenth of a percent interior forest habitat.
The higher proportions of forest cover are found in the headwaters where some sensitive species
still occur, however these areas are not well connected and the remaining forest cover is highly
fragmented. However, in the lower heavily urbanized sections of the watershed where there is
limited forest cover, only habitat generalist species that have adapted to urban conditions can be
found
Significant action is required for improvement with emphasis on protecting existing forest cover,
securing opportunities for restoration and additional investment in the Terrestrial Natural Heritage
System Strategy Target.
Groundwater Quality
Grade: A
Arrow: none
Indicators
Nitrate and Nitrite
Chloride
Based on the limited data, the ground water quality of the watershed has been given an overall
grade of “A,” which indicates excellent groundwater quality.
TRCA has two Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network (PGMN) wells in the watershed and
due to the lack of available long term groundwater quality data from these wells, only a statement
of current conditions can be made. Both of the PGMN wells are installed in upper aquifer of the
Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM). The entire watershed groundwater quality cannot be judged alone on
the two closely spaced monitoring wells.
After several more years of data collection at these sites, groundwater quality trends can be
interpreted and discussed in detail.
Attachment 7.1.2
10
Storm water Management
Grade: F
Arrow:
Indicators
% Developed Area with Storm water Controls
Mean Annual Stream flow
The Etobicoke Creek watershed received an overall grade of “F” for Storm water Management.
Only 25 percent of the urbanized area of the watershed has storm water management controls,
with the Upper Etobicoke Creek having the highest level of storm water controls.
In terms of stream flow, the Etobicoke Creek watershed received an overall grade of “C.” A
decreasing trend was observed over a five year period from 2006 to 2010, at 0.6 percent per year.
What Are We Doing?
TRCA, through the Partners in Project Green Program - an initiative to develop North
America's largest eco-business zone on the industrial lands surrounding Toronto Pearson
International Airport, is working closely with local business to promote and assist with the
implementation of stormwater management on their properties to help reduce and improve
surface water runoff from their properties.
From 2008 – 2012, TRCA planted approximately 105,491 trees and shrubs in the Etobicoke
Creek watershed, actively restoring and enhancing the priority Natural heritage management
areas identified in the 2011 Watershed Plan Technical update.
TRCA launched the County Court Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP)
pilot. This project has engaged over 900 single family homes in identifying and promoting lot
level storm water management strategies as well as larger innovative storm water
management opportunities for the neighbourhood.
Local municipalities are working with researchers, snow and ice contractors and to reduce the
amount of salt applied on parking lots and exploring alternatives to traditional road salts to help
improve water quality.
Local municipalities have created Urban Forest Strategies. These Strategies provide the
framework and strategic direction for the protection and enhancement of the urban forest, as
natural infrastructure.
Attachment 7.1.2
11
What You Can Do
Reduce or eliminate the use of salt as a de-icing mechanism in winter.
Install a rain barrel to catch the rain that lands on your property and replace hard surfaces with
natural groundcovers and porous pavement to allow rainfall to soak into the ground.
Retrofit older stormwater infrastructure in the City of Toronto with the implementation
stormwater management practices (i.e., green roofs, rain gardens and permeable pavements)
improve the quality of water entering natural watercourses.
Donate to the Living City Foundation to support programs and initiatives in the Etobicoke
watershed. For more information go to http://www.thelivingcity.org/.
Register and participate in an event or workshop to help restore and learn about the Etobicoke
Creek watershed. For more information go to www.trcastewardshipevents.ca.
Subscribe to the CreekTime newsletter to learn more about the Etobicoke watershed and stay
up to date with the latest happenings in the watershed (link).
Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition
The Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition is a volunteer, watershed-wide advisory committee
created by Toronto and Region Conservation to protect and regenerate the Etobicoke Creek and
Mimico Creek watersheds.
Attachment 7.1.2
12
DRAFT Mimico Creek Watershed Report Card, November 2012
Facts and Figures:
Municipalities Regional Municipalities: Region of Peel
Local Municipalities: City of Brampton, City of Mississauga and City of Toronto
Major Tributaries Mimico Creek
Watercourse Length – Longest Reach
34 km
Significant Natural Features South Slope, Peel Plain and Lake Iroquois Sand Plain
Area 77 km2
Population (2011 census) 155,797
Land use Urban 94%, Urbanizing 6%
Mean Annual Stream Flow 0.8 m3/sec
Landscape Natural Cover Types (Based on 2007/2008 imagery)
% of
Watershed
Area
Beach/Bluff 0
Forest 1.9
Meadow 8.0
Successional 0.6
Wetland 0.2
Total Natural Area 10.7
Greenspace 432 ha
Plants and Animals Plants – 235, Fish -10, Birds – 50, Amphibians – 3, Mammals – 12, Reptiles – 3. Of these, 56 are Species of Regional Conservation Concern.
About the Watershed
Mimico Creek is home to approximately 155,797 people and is 34 km long, draining an area of 77
km² through the cities of Brampton, Mississauga and Toronto. The watershed is almost completely
urbanized with 94 percent of its area urbanized and 6 percent in the process of urbanizing.
The headwaters of the Creek are located in the City of Brampton south of Bovaird Drive on the
south slope of the Oak Ridges Moraine. This means that when rain falls on the ground, it travels
Attachment 7.1.3
13
overland and reaches the watercourse quickly. As a result, there is too little water (or base flow) in
dry weather, and too much water (or peak flow) when it rains.
Approximately 10 percent of the watershed is vegetated and consists of some form of natural
cover (a combination of forest, wetland, successional and meadow habitat features). Although
habitat may not be continuous in some areas, the habitat patches help to provide a stepping stone
effect allowing species to move north and south. These valley corridors play an important role in
facilitating both resident and migrant species movement. The watershed is home to several
species of 313 species of plants and animals.
About 5 km2 (500 ha) of the watershed comprise parks, conservation areas and trails that provide
important opportunities for recreation, wildlife and habitat restoration.
Surface Water:
Grade: F
Arrow: tbd
Indicators
Phosphorous
E.coli Bacteria
Benthic Macroinvertebrates (BMI)
The Mimico Creek watershed received an overall water quality grade of “F,” based on results from
two water chemistry sites and five benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) sites.
The water quality conditions in Mimico Creek can largely be attributed to the fact that the majority
of the watershed is urbanized. The absence of modern stormwater management practices in
areas of older urban development contributes significantly to poor water quality in the watershed.
Furthermore, over 60 percent of the stream length within the Mimico Creek watershed is artificially
channelized. The absence of stream bank vegetation and the lack of permeable soils contribute
to the poor water conditions because it limits the amount of water that can be retained and
absorbed during storm events resulting in over-land flow and frequent flash flooding which
transports sediment, bacteria, pollutants and contaminants into the watercourse.
Water quality conditions are very poor in Mimico Creek and the long-term benthic
macroinvertebrate community data indicate that water quality has declined since 2001. Significant
action is required for improvement with emphasis on storm water management and further
reduction in contaminants entering into the watercourse from runoff and through industrial,
commercial and residential activities.
Attachment 7.1.3
14
Forest Conditions
Grade: F
Arrow: tbd
Indicators
% Forest Cover
% Forest Interior
% Riparian Zone Forested
The forest condition in the Mimico Creek watershed is generally considered to be very poor
received an overall grade of “F.” Much of the forest cover was originally lost due to agriculture but
as urban areas expanded, the remaining forest cover was removed. Less than 2 percent of the
watershed is forested and there is no interior forest present.
The vast majority of the natural cover is located within river valleys or stream corridors. Due to the
limited forest cover present in the watershed there are no opportunities for sensitive forest species.
Rather, this watershed is dominated by more habitat generalist species such as Baltimore Oriole
and Chipping Sparrow that are able to withstand these urban conditions.
Significant action required to improve condition with emphasis on protecting existing forest cover,
securing opportunities for restoration and additional investment in the Natural Heritage System
Strategy Targets.
Groundwater Quality
Grade: B
Arrow: tbd
Indicators
Nitrate and Nitrite
Chloride
There are no groundwater wells in the Mimico watershed that are currently being monitored for
water quality so the grade is based on data collected as part of the Provincial Groundwater
Monitoring Network (PGMN) from neighboring monitoring wells. Mimico Creek is located between
Etobicoke Creek and Humber River and shares the same aquifers it is assumed that the
groundwater quality would be similar and can be assigned a “B” grade. TRCA staff is not aware of
any ground water quality concerns for the watershed.
Attachment 7.1.3
15
Storm water Management
Grade: F
Arrow:
Indicators
% Developed Area with Storm water Controls
Mean Annual Stream flow
The Mimico Creek watershed received an overall grade of “F” for Stormwater Management. Only
36 percent of the urbanized area of the watershed has stormwater management controls.
In terms of stream flow, the Mimico Creek watershed received an overall grade of “B.” A
decreasing trend was observed over a five year period from 2006 to 2010, at 1.2 percent per year.
What Are We Doing?
TRCA is working with business within the Pearson Eco-Business Zone and other employment
lands to implement storm water management practices such as permeable pavement, rain
gardens and green roofs.
Between 2008 and 2012, TRCA planted approximately 46,000 trees and shrubs in the Mimico
Creek watershed between.
Region of Peel is working closely with TRCA to develop a web based tool to track and manage
spills response.
Local municipalities are working with researchers, snow and ice contractors and to reduce the
amount of salt applied on parking lots and exploring alternatives to traditional road salts to help
improve water quality.
Region of Peel has made significant investment to evaluate extreme weather risk and
vulnerabilities to natural heritage and infrastructure within the Region of Peel Watersheds
Attachment 7.1.3
16
What You Can Do
Call the Ministry of the Environment 24-hour hotline to report spills so that they can be properly
managed to reduce impacts on water quality.
Plant native trees and shrubs in your backyard or volunteer for community tree planting events
to help improve natural cover and forest conditions.
Install a rain barrel to capture and reuse the water in your yard to reduce water use and help
reduce stormwater runoff.
Retrofit older storm water infrastructure in the City of Toronto with the implementation
stormwater management practices (i.e., green roofs, rain gardens and permeable pavements)
improve the quality of water entering natural watercourses.
Donate to the Living City Foundation to support programs and initiatives in the Mimico
watershed http://www.thelivingcity.org/
Subscribe to the CreekTime newsletter to learn more about the Humber watershed and stay up
to date with the latest happenings in the watershed (link).
Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition
The Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition is a volunteer, watershed-wide advisory committee
created by Toronto and Region Conservation to protect and regenerate the Etobicoke Creek and
Mimico Creek watersheds.
Contact Info:
Attachment 7.1.3
17
Item 7.2 TO: Members of the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition
Meeting #4/12 – December 13, 2012 FROM: Chandra Sharma, Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Specialist RE: Partners in Project Green People Power Challenge
KEY ISSUE To promote Partners in Project Green’s People Power Challenge program. RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the Partners in Project Green People Power Challenge program details be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition members promote the People Power Challenge among their networks. BACKGROUND Building on the success of the 2011/2012 People Power Challenge, TRCA staff have re-launched the program for the 2012/2013 year. This year long competition is designed to engage employees in organizational sustainability by encouraging them to submit suggestions, make pledges for environmental action, and get involved in environmental campaigns. To register, please visit: www.partnersinprojectgreen.com/ppc2013 PROGRAM STRUCTURE The Partners in Project Green People Power Challenge is designed to engage employees in sustainability opportunities in their workplaces. By providing companies with a framework for action, tools to encourage engagement and a friendly competition and learning environment to motivate action, the People Power Challenge will assist companies in driving sustainability into their organizations by leveraging their greatest asset – their people. Overview The People Power Challenge will have three distinct challenges and winners throughout the year-long program, with an overall winner being announced once all three challenges have been completed. Competitors can choose to compete in one, two, or all three Challenges. The challenges are as follows:
Challenge 1 – Green Procurement (November 1, 2012 – February 1, 2013) Challenge 2 – Green Building (March 1 – June 1, 2013) Challenge 3 – Transportation (July 1 – October 1, 2013)
18
Companies will be awarded points for achieving criteria in three categories –Communications, Capacity and Conservation. In each challenge, the company that achieves the most points will win. The company that achieves the most points overall will win the People Power Challenge. Participating companies will be provided a number of tools and suggestions for engaging their employees, including template promotional materials, a challenge calendar with suggested actions, along with an online reporting system gathering and sharing employee suggestions and results. Criteria for Participation
The People Power Challenge is open to any company in the Greater Toronto Area regardless of whether they are located in the Pearson Eco-Business Zone.
Companies do not have to be members of Partners in Project Green to participate.
Participation is based on facilities, not organizations. For example, if two Canadian Tire locations want to compete, each facility would compete on their own.
The People Power Challenge is a cross-sector challenge, including offices, manufacturers, hotels, logistics organizations and others.
There are two size-categories for participation – Large Enterprise (500 employees or more) and Small-to-Medium Enterprise (SME) (499 employees or less).
Rules of Participation
Companies can employ whatever means they like to increase employee participation. In addition to the tools provided and suggested through the challenge, organizations can provide incentives, host events, and send emails, and use any other methods at their disposal, in order to increase employee participation.
Registration deadlines are listed below:
Challenge Sign Up Deadline
All People Power Challenges December 31, 2012
Challenge 1 - Green Procurement December 31, 2012
Challenge 2 - Green Building February 28, 2013
Challenge 3 - Transportation June 30, 2013
Companies are required to complete an online registration form and submit
Scorecards at the end of each Challenge. Reporting Requirements
Reports o Baseline Information: When a company registers for the People Power
Challenge, basic information will be collected. This includes number of employees, contact information, and which Challenges the company is competing in.
19
o Challenge Scorecards: Following each Challenge, companies will be required to submit a Scorecard along with all supporting documentation. These reports are online.
Point System Companies will earn points in the categories of Communications, Capacity, and Conservation for completing certain tasks. Companies can choose which points to go after as well as how they obtain those points.
Rewards and Recognition
Throughout the year, participating companies and their efforts will be highlighted in the Partners in Project Green newsletter and other media outlets.
People Power Challenge Winner – 1 Large Enterprise, 1 Small-to-Medium Enterprise
o Announced at a Partners in Project Green Event in the fall of 2013 o The People Power Challenge winners will receive $2,500.00 towards the
implementation of one of the environmental ideas suggested by their employees, a plaque commemorating their victory, media recognition, and bragging rights.
Challenge winner(s) – 1 Large Enterprise, 1 Small-to-Medium Enterprise per Challenge
o Announced at Eco-Business Breakfasts throughout the year. o Challenge winners will receive $1,000.00 towards the implementation of
one of the environmental ideas suggested by their employees, a plaque commemorating their victory, and media recognition.
Employee Most Valuable Professional (MVP) winner – 1 employee per participating company, per Challenge
o Announced at Eco-Business Breakfasts throughout the year. o MVP winners will receive gifts from People Power Challenge sponsors
and Certificates of Recognition.
Internal Company Awards o Each company is encouraged to engage their staff and provide prizes of
their own based on their own criteria.
RATIONALE The People Power Challenge provides an opportunity to increase uptake of existing Partners in Project Green programming while aiding in achievement of strategic goals. The People Power Challenge aids Partners in Project Green in achieving strategic goals by stimulating resource reductions in the areas of energy and water, and encouraging waste reduction and diversion from landfill. It also serves to engage companies and their employees on sustainability issues, increasing environmental performance both at work and at home. Report prepared by: Jennifer Taves For more information contact: Jennifer Taves, [email protected]
416-661-6600, extension 5570 Date: November 29, 2012 Attachment: 7.2.1 People Power Challenge poster
20
What do I have to do?
» Register your company for free for one, two or all three challenges at www.partnersinprojectgreen.com/ppc2013
» Download the People Power Challenge Program Guide and identify and utilize the People Power Challenge Tools that best fit your organization
» Use those tools to challenge your employees to generate ideas on reducing your environmental footprint
» Collect points for implementing employee ideas and by participating in environmental activities
» And, most importantly, have fun!
For more information or to get involved, contact Jennifer Taves at [email protected] or 416-661-6600 ext.5570
ShoW off your company’S SuStaInabIlIty chopS by competIng agaInSt peerS In the buSIneSS communIty!
IS your company up to the challenge?
do you Want to…
» Engage your employees in environmental sustainability
» Identify and implement ways to reduce your costs and improve your environmental performance
» Build your organization’s capacity to continuously improve your environmental performance
play for fun...
» Excited and engaged employees
» Innovative ideas for sustainability projects
» Increased sustainability profile
» Reduced operational costs
» Brand recognition
» Great prizes and a whole lof of fun
...and get all thIS!
www.partnersinprojectgreen.com/ppc2013
The Partners in Project Green People Power Challenge is designed to engage you and your employees in generating ways to improve your company’s environmental performance and reduce your costs.
Throughout the year long challenge participating companies will compete in three challenge areas:
challenge 1 – green procurement (November 1, 2012 – February 1, 2013)
challenge 2 – green buIldIng (March 1 – June 1, 2013)
challenge 3 – tranSportatIon (July 1 – October 1, 2013)
Each challenge will have one winner per size category based on the points they’ve earned. At the end of the year, all the points will be added up and one company will be declared the Partners in Project Green People Power Challenge Champion.
people poWer challenge!JoIn the partnerS In proJect green
…and have a good tIme WhIle doIng It? JoIn the partnerS In proJect green people poWer challenge!
Attachment 7.2.1
21
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 416-661-6600, extension 5569
November 7, 2012 Regional Councillor Sandra Hames City of Brampton 2 Wellington Street West Brampton, ON L6Y 4R2 Dear Councillor Hames: Re: Kennedy Valley Trail and Restoration Project
I am writing on behalf of the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition (Coalition) about the Kennedy Valley Trail project in Brampton. The Coalition is a watershed stakeholder group that works with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to achieve the vision of revitalized creeks and watersheds. Our work is guided by a watershed strategy Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks 2002 and Turning Over a New Leaf: The Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watersheds Report Card 2006. Our vision and objectives for Greater Toronto Area’s most urbanized watersheds is to improve the health of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds and to provide public access to these valuable public assets. At meeting # 3/2012 of the Etobicoke-Mimico Coalition the following resolution was approved: THAT the staff report on the Kennedy Valley Trail and Restoration Project be received; THAT the City of Brampton be thanked for their partnership to address the all-terrain vehicle issues in the Etobicoke Creek valley at Kennedy Park and for the commitment to financially contribute towards the development of the West Etobicoke Creek Trail link from the Brampton – Mississauga boundary to Kennedy Valley Park; AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition chair request the City of Brampton to expedite the approvals for the trail and transfer of funds to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to ensure timely implementation of the trail and restoration work. For a number of years now, the Coalition along with the City of Brampton and the TRCA have been working on a habitat restoration and trail project near to Kennedy Valley. Funding has been secured by the City of Brampton staff to support the Kennedy Valley Trail to implement the project.
Item 9.1
22
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 416-661-6600, extension 5569
We thank the City of Brampton for this partnership and investment in our river valleys and seek your assistance to secure the necessary approvals to expedite project implementation and to ensure timely mobilization of matching funds. As you know, we do not want to miss this opportunity to improve the health of the watershed and allow for public access to much needed green space. Your kind assistance would be greatly appreciated. Yours sincerely,
Suzanne Barrett Chair, Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition
cc. Chandra Sharma, Watershed Specialist, TRCA Vince D’Elia, Project Manager, TRCA Susan Jorgenson, Manager of Environmental Planning, City of Brampton Shawn Chevalier, Manager of Open Space Design and Construction, City of Brampton
Jake Mete, Landscape Architect, Project Manager, City of Brampton Attachment sb/cb
Item 9.1
23
Item 9.2
24
Item 9.2
25
Item 9.2
26
Item 9.2
27
Item 9.2
28
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1S4
416-661-6600, Ext. 5283
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL ETOBICOKE-MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION
November 23, 2012 BY E-MAIL ONLY: [email protected] Provincial Policy Statement Review Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Provincial Planning Policy Branch 777 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto, ON M5G 2E5.
Re: Comments from the Don Watershed Regeneration Council and the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition on the Provincial Policy Statement Review – Draft Policies
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council (DWRC) and the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition (EMWC) have been involved in the PPS reviews since 1997 and appreciate the continuing stakeholder and public involvement in the process. The DWRC and EMWC submitted comments following the first set of workshops in 2010 on the 2005 Policy review and commend the Province for addressing some of our concerns by including new policies on:
Sustainability
Climate change
Active transportation
Green infrastructure
Reduction, re-use and recycling
Stormwater management
Identification of natural heritage systems Our primary interests are the protection and regeneration of ecosystems and the management of natural resources as the framework for all planning decisions. The PPS has an important role to play by recognizing the values of a healthy, natural environment in building strong, healthy, sustainable communities and by establishing standards and decision making processes that can facilitate the achievement of this goal. Although some progress has been made in the draft document, the DWRC and EMWC submit the following comments and recommendations pertaining to the specific consultation questions.
Item 9.3
29
DWRC & EMC Comment on the PPS Review – Draft Policies - 2 - November 23, 2012
Responses to Specific Consultation Questions:
1) Do the draft policies provide sufficient direction to effectively protect provincial interests in land use planning?
Energy Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change (Section 1.8) Climate change policies have been introduced with reference to the design and orientation of land uses and development. Vegetation either at ground level or above in roof gardens or vertical gardens (ex. Bosco Verticale, Milan) would have significant climate mitigation value and therefore should be strongly encouraged in the policies (as opposed to the draft which simply requires that the design and orientation “consider the mitigating effects of vegetation”). To address climate change and extreme weather impacts thorough land use planning, policies must focus on reducing risk and increasing resilience of built infrastructure and land base – this may include roadways (to ensure movement of people and goods in extreme weather conditions) water supply, wastewater utilities, and public spaces. It is widely acknowledged that infrastructure across Ontario is aging and in need of serious upgrades. There is an opportunity to ensure that resiliency is built within these systems as opportunities emerge through intensification and redevelopment. The policy on renewable energy has been significantly weakened. Instead of “design and orientation which maximizes the use of alternative or renewable energy” the draft simply maximizes opportunities for the use of renewable energy. Regardless of the availability (or not) of financial support for such programs, the Province should still be strongly supporting these initiatives for their long term energy and climate benefits. Therefore, the DWRC and EMWC recommend that the original wording of the policy be used rather than the proposed change in wording. Natural Heritage (Section 2.1) The DWRC, EMWC, and other environmental groups are very concerned about the ramifications of Policy 2.1.7, which removes the total prohibition of development in or adjacent to the habitat of endangered and threatened species. Policy 2.1.7 replaces this with discretionary powers in the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the federal Species at Risk Act. The ESA provides permitting to allow development if an “overall benefit” to the species can be achieved. “Benefit” has taken the form of compensation funding by a development applicant for habitat replacement /restoration on another site. In a recent case, a Brampton developer was granted a permit for protection and restoration of Bobolink habitat 20 km away in Georgetown. In effect, protection of endangered species is pre-empted by the exigencies of urban expansion, whereas good planning must require an ‘Environment First” framework, which determines whether development is approved or denied. Replacement of habitat to a rural area is theoretically no net loss but seriously impoverishes the communities which replace it. Further,
Item 9.3
30
DWRC & EMC Comment on the PPS Review – Draft Policies - 3 - November 23, 2012
it is not yet possible to know if these alternative habitats can attract the displaced species and provide the necessary protection in the long term. Therefore, the DWRC and EMWC strongly recommend that the principle of total prohibition of development in or adjacent to endangered and threatened species habitat be retained. We also recommend that locally significant features, which are in or adjacent to larger systems or have the potential for regeneration to provide linkages or greater sustainability of the provincial features, should be given the same protection as provincially significant features and systems. In the Water Section (2.2), the draft policies require a watershed approach as indicated by the text that identifies the importance of “the ecologically meaningful scale for integrated and long term planning, which can be a foundation for considering cumulative impacts of development.” A similar policy is required in the Natural Heritage section as a necessary condition for achieving the Provincial Vision of managing resources and to “to protect essential ecological processes.” Mineral Aggregate Resources (Section 2.5) The primacy of mineral aggregate resources over all other land uses has been reinforced in the draft policies. Although natural features “shall be protected for the long term,” the draft policies would allow extraction in, and adjacent to, “significant natural features” as long as there are no negative impacts. Further, the draft policies have introduced the concept of rehabilitation as a sufficient criterion for no negative impacts. In doing so, mineral extraction could thereby be permitted in mature forests, in wetlands and in wildlife habitats, all of which are irreplaceable. The planting of an arboreal monoculture (the preferred solution of the aggregate industry) cannot compensate for removal of a mature, diverse forest or a human-made wetland for a natural wetland. In all cases the integrity of ecosystems and biodiversity may be at risk. Further, extraction often continues for decades, leaving an inhospitable, barren, landscape with ever diminishing potential for restoring the quality and diversity of the original features and systems. In order to address the provincial commitment to protect our natural heritage, extraction of aggregates should not be permitted in, or adjacent to, significant natural features and ecosystems, regardless of the rehabilitation plans. Mineral Extraction in Agricultural Areas (Section 2.5.4) In the draft policies, extraction is permitted in specialty crop areas provided that the site is rehabilitated to the “same range and productivity of specialty crops in the area.” The DWRC and EMWC’s concern is the continuing loss of agricultural land (although slowing due to the Province’s intensification policies) and the potential for interruption of food imports due to cross border issues, extreme weather, or an international political crises. All could put the Province’s food supply in jeopardy in the long term, which, in our opinion, is sufficient to warrant much stronger protection of high quality agricultural land and the specialty crop areas
Item 9.3
31
DWRC & EMC Comment on the PPS Review – Draft Policies - 4 - November 23, 2012
in particular. The specialty crop areas (tender fruit and muck soils) are unique assets, providing fruit and vegetables to a very large population. The possibility of successful rehabilitation of their special soils and microclimatic conditions is certainly questionable and the prospect of no rehabilitation if extraction proceeds below the water table (proposed in the draft) raises a serious concern. The Holland Marsh alone produces $50 million annually in crops. Such resources should not be subjected to the additional uncertainty (beyond climate) of being targeted by the aggregate industry. Ontario would lose not only high quality farm land for generations, but also farm families with invaluable knowledge and experience in sustainable practices. Specialty crop areas should be protected from aggregate extraction and licenses for extraction in high quality farmland should be subjected to higher standards of “community benefit” in addition to environmental assessments. Implementation and Interpretation (Section 4.0) The 2005 PPS states that Provincial Plans take precedence over policies in the PPS. The proposed draft now provides that Provincial Plans “shall be read in conjunction with the PPS and generally take precedence over the PPS.” This new wording is ambiguous and, in practice, could seriously weaken the Province’s ability to protect its most valuable resources – the Niagara Escarpment, the Greenbelt and the Oak Ridges Moraine. The DWRC and EMWC recommend that the original wording be retained. Definitions (Section 6.0) The definition of Natural Heritage Systems has been expanded to allow “municipal approaches” for identifying systems, as long as they meet or exceed the Provincial objective. This seems to provide some flexibility in technical terms; however, it still does not address the DWRC and EMWC’s long-standing concern that locally significant features should be given the same protection as provincially significant features. Locally significant features are often critical components of larger systems and provide potential linkages within, and between, systems. Yet, if they do not meet the criteria for “provincial significance,” there is continuing loss of features and fragmentation of units. Experience shows that even small changes in natural systems leave natural features vulnerable to degradation – regardless of mitigation measures.
2) Are there additional land use planning matters that require provincial policy direction and which are not included?
There is no mention of the value of trees and the urban canopy which are essential for health and well-being.
Item 9.3
32
DWRC & EMC Comment on the PPS Review – Draft Policies - 5 - November 23, 2012
The PPS should be promoting and encouraging, not just energy conservation, but energy self-sufficiency in the form of district heating and cooling, individual solar and wind power, co-generation, etc.
The PPS needs to address major demographic changes such as the impending deluge of seniors and a declining child population. These changes will have an impact on policies dealing with everything from public safety, health and accessibility (e.g., design of trails, green spaces, and recreation) to repurposing of school buildings and multi-use of existing facilities.
The potential loss of prime agricultural land should be subjected to the test of “net benefit to the community” in addition to an environmental assessment, before approvals are given for settlement expansion, aggregate extraction or any other use.
The Province should promote the recovery and recycling of aggregates over extraction to be consistent with its goals in other sectors (e.g. waste management, energy).
3) Do you foresee any implementation challenges with the draft policies?
Section 4.8 acknowledges that the PPS provides minimum standards and that the individual authorities may adopt higher standards. However this creates ambiguity in determining how much flexibility is acceptable without conflicting with the PPS.
The responsibility for determining if there are other lands available before prime agricultural land is used for development must be made by the lower tier municipality, but these municipalities must accept the growth allocation from the upper tier municipality. Other options (e.g., brownfields and intensification) are extremely limited in many newer municipalities, so development is forced onto agricultural land. When the population allocation is made, the test for determining if other alternatives are possible should be made at the regional rather than the local municipal level.
Although policies are intended to provide outcomes, there are no targets or requirements for monitoring and therefore it will not be possible to measure the success/failure of the policies.
Inter – jurisdictional issues (e.g., stormwater management and its impact on the river systems) need to be addressed, particularly the manner in which coordination of practices is to be achieved.
4) Is additional support material needed to implement the PPS?
A monitoring framework is needed to identify problems with implementation and individual policies to assist and provide a focus for each review.
Item 9.3
33
DWRC & EMC Comment on the PPS Review – Draft Policies - 6 - November 23, 2012
Technical guidelines must be provided and kept up to date. New Guidelines for Public Health are needed which will include current challenges relating to the impacts of climate change on individual and community health.
Provide criteria for identification and mapping of specialty crop areas, so that these can be designated in regional and local municipal Official Plans.
5) Do you think that the PPS review should be extended from the current 5 year period?
Legislation requires that reviews begin 5 years after the revised PPS comes into force. In practice the review will last 2-3 years resulting in a total review period of 8 years. The DWRC and EMC recommends that a completion date (say 10 years) rather than a commencement date be adopted. This would allow municipalities a better opportunity to bring their planning documents into conformity instead of being one PPS behind, which is the current situation. In the interim, major social, economic or environmental issues can be addressed by amendments to the PPS. Yours truly,
Phil Goodwin Suzanne Barrett Chair, Don Watershed Regeneration Council Chair, Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition
MB:JP:al * Don Watershed Regeneration Council The Don Watershed Regeneration Council (DWRC) is a formal community-based committee established by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in 1994 to help restore the Don River watershed to a healthy, sustainable natural environment. The DWRC reports to the Authority on a regular basis and is composed of community members, elected officials and representatives from businesses, agencies, environmental groups and academic institutions located within or concerned about the future of the Don River watershed.
A new, updated regeneration Plan “Beyond Forty Steps” was endorsed by the DWRC and approved by TRCA in 2009 and guides the DWRC in commenting to other government agencies (federal, provincial and municipal) on matters pertaining to the future of the watershed. The new Plan addresses the broad watershed issues of sustainability including water and energy efficiency and emerging challenges such as climate change. * Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition The Etobicoke –Mimico Watersheds Coalition ( EMWC) is a watershed stakeholder group that works with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to achieve the vision of revitalized creeks and watersheds. Our work is guided by a watershed strategy “Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks 2002”, “Turning over a new leaf: The Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watersheds Report Card
Item 9.3
34
DWRC & EMC Comment on the PPS Review – Draft Policies - 7 - November 23, 2012
2006”and “Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watersheds Technical Update 2010”. Our vision and objectives for Greater Toronto Area’s (GTA) most urbanized watersheds include strong emphasis on improving hydrological functions and stormwater management. The opinions, comments, and views presented by the DWRC and EMC do not represent those held by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
Item 9.3
35
Item 9.4
36
Item 9.4
37
Item 9.4
38
Item 9.4
39
Item 9.4
40
Item 9.4
41
49
Item AUTH7.5TO: Chair and Members of the Authority
Meeting #9/12, November 30, 2012
FROM: Adele Freeman, Director, Watershed Management
RE: CONSERVATION ONTARIO WHITEPAPER: WATERSHED MANAGEMENT FUTURES FOR ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUEConservation Ontario has issued a whitepaper to initiate discussions with the Ontario Government about the roles and responsibilities for managing Ontario's watersheds, and to redefine the relationship between conservation authorities and provincial ministries. The paper acknowledges that the dialogue must include municipalities and other stakeholders. Individual conservation authorities are requested to provide the Whitepaper to their watershed municipalities and MPPs, and to collaborate with adjacent conservation authorities in providing this information.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) forward copies of the Conservation Ontario Whitepaper: Watershed Management Futures for Ontario to its regional and local watershed municipalities;
THAT copies of the Whitepaper be forwarded to all Members of Provincial Parliament in the TRCA jurisdiction;
AND FURTHER THAT provision of this information, requests for meetings and any subsequent follow-up be coordinated with adjacent conservation authorities.
BACKGROUNDWorking with Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities (CA’s), Conservation Ontario has produced a Whitepaper entitled “Watershed Management Futures for Ontario” (copies available upon request). The purpose of this paper is to spur discussion between CA's and the Province of Ontario about how to more effectively manage Ontario’s watersheds by leveraging local and provincial resources in order to create efficiencies in Ontario’s watershed management services and programs. The following is a brief summary of the report, its findings and call to action.
Drivers For Change – Fewer Resources to Address Growing Environmental IssuesOntario’s economic realities are creating budget constraints at all levels of government and there is a need to streamline operations, share resources and leverage expertise. New working relationships at provincial and local levels are needed in order to address increasingly complex watershed conditions created by climate change and growing populations. Maintaining the status quo and continuing on the current path will result in expensive and serious consequences.
Item 9.5
42
52
Conservation Authorities Offer Significant Local ResourcesThere is a lot of good work going on in Ontario that protects water, land and wildlife; reduces climate change impacts, and promotes awareness about the issues with Ontario residents. What CAs bring to the table is their demonstrated ability to leverage local watershed management expertise, knowledge, and resources. The CAs’ work in watershed science, stewardship, monitoring and reporting is critical to informing strategic local and provincial decision-making.
Conservation authorities deliver practical, cost effective programs and services totalling approximately $300 million per year. They often work in partnership with all levels of government, landowners and other agencies.
The types of programs that most CA's offer include:
Watershed Strategies & Management
Flood & Erosion Protection
Reforestation & Sustainable Woodlot
ManagementStormwater Management
Natural Heritage Protection
Information Management, GIS
Outdoor Recreation
Sensitive Wetlands, flood plains, valley
lands protection
Watershed Monitoring & Reporting
Rural Water Quality and Quantity
Environmental Regulations and Land Use
PlanningAgriculture & Rural Landowner
Stewardship AssistanceLand Management
Soil Conservation
Environmental Education & Outreach
Conservation authorities are the second largest landowner group next to the provincial government with landholdings totalling 146,000 sq km. These natural areas provide important ecological features and systems that contribute to the overall health of Ontario’s watersheds.
In 2011, CAs:planted over three million trees with 2,000 landowners;
implemented over 600 water quality improvement projects;
implemented $5.4 million in habitat restoration projects around wetlands, shoreline
habitats, stream and fish habitat;operate 422 sites in the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network; and 404 sites in
the Provincial Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program;monitored benthic invertebrates at 1,117 sites (tiny organisms that live in or on the
bottom sediments of rivers, streams and lakes and serve as an indicator of the overall aquatic environment);offered 2,500 kms hiking trails and 8, 400 campsites in their many conservation areas;
delivered environmental education programs to 485,000 Ontario students with 4,000
schools;Over 6.8 million Ontarians visited a conservation area in 2011.
Status Quo Is Not An OptionOpportunities exist and it is a time to be bold, to think strategically and to consider the range of possibilities that could be implemented through new or renewed partnerships that leverage resources and expertise for a healthier economic, environmental and societal future.
Item 9.5
43
51
Framework for Watershed Management in OntarioConservation Authorities believe an integrated watershed management approach is the best way to manage issues around water and related resources. Integrated watershed management is the process of managing human activities and natural resources on a watershed basis, taking into account social, economic and environmental issues, as well as community interests in order to manage water resources sustainably. This approach allows us to address multiple issues and objectives, and enables us to plan within a very complex and uncertain environment. Conservation authorities call for the Province to confirm their support for using the integrated watershed management approach to build resilient watersheds and protect the health of Ontario residents.
Focus for DiscussionsThe whitepaper recommends discussion around five key inter-related items:
1. Confirmation of the Conservation Authority mandate and the importance of the CA model that promotes an integrated watershed management approach to protect Ontario’s watersheds
2. Enhancements to Conservation Authority/Ministry RelationshipsRenewed conservation authority/Ministry of Natural Resources relationship
focusing on restructuring of local delivery models, hazard management responsibilities, CA support for a role in the implementation of the provincial climate change strategy, governance and accountability.Formalized CA/Ministry of the Environment (MOE) relationships focusing on
source protection and Great Lakes program implementation, formalization of important environmental monitoring and reporting roles, implementation of the provincial climate change strategy as it pertains to MOE.New formalized relationships with other ministries such as Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and Ministry of Infrastructure around common activities such as planning and development, infrastructure and stewardship.
3. Revamped Conservation Authority Governance Model: Evaluate and assess the broader and localized governance structures of CAs in order to be more inclusive of wider stakeholder involvement.
4. Development of a Sustainable Funding Model: Discussions should take place on developing a cost sharing model that takes local ability to pay into account, and this should be permanent, rather than project-based. Also need to address conservation authority flood hazard infrastructure by including CA assets in the pool of municipally owned infrastructure or another appropriate asset management framework.
5. Improved Accountability Framework: Governance, finance, mandate and accountability are all closely linked and need to be considered in an integrated fashion.
It is recognized that such a sweeping review of watershed management in Ontario has implications for the conservation authority model itself, the refinement of which must certainly be on the table. Conservation authorities are already pursuing internal discussions on ways to address current deficiencies to provide a more consistent level of service.
Item 9.5
44
50
Ontario’s water and land resources and natural systems provide important ecological, economic and societal benefits and should be protected. Forests, water resources, wetlands, soils, plants and animals are all necessary to produce goods and services such as clean sustainable water supplies, clean air, food, fuel, energy and healthy green spaces.
Threats to Ontario’s water and land resources such as urbanization and climate change are significant and growing larger. Managing impacts on natural ecosystems is the key to ensuring sustainable resources for drinking water, agricultural production, municipal needs and industrial uses. Keeping water clean and sustainable also requires ensuring healthy land resources needed to protect water quality and quantity.
There is an opportunity for changes in the way we practice watershed management in Ontario. The call for greater government efficiency and effectiveness from the Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services (2012) is spurring a modernization and transformational change across the Ontario provincial government, creating an opportunity for the Province and CAs to re-assess our traditional approaches to watershed management in Ontario.
In addition, the provincial government itself, is currently targeting issues around the Great Lakes and climate change impacts (Climate Ready: Ontario’s Adaptation Plan and Strategy; Great Lakes Protection Strategy). With some strategic investments in CA programs, the CAs offer a unique opportunity for the Province to leverage CA resources in order to continue to meet provincial environmental agendas despite a more restrained fiscal base.
Challenges to Ontario’s Current Watershed Management Framework The whitepaper identifies a number of specific challenges with the existing watershed management policy and governance framework in Ontario that compromise the CAs’ ability to effectively and efficiently manage the impacts on water and other natural resources. These include:
legislative mandate of CAs;
declining provincial funding for provincial priorities;
inconsistent provincial policy support and interpretation; and
variability in CA capacity to plan and implement watershed programs and services.
The current fiscal reality further exacerbates these challenges.
Item 9.5
45
53
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEStaff will coordinate with adjacent CAs to provide copies of the Whitepaper to regional and local municipalities and attend meetings to discuss the content of the Whitepaper with municipal councillors and senior staff. Copies have already been forwarded to Peel, Caledon, Brampton and Mississauga by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority and there has been some distribution in Durham.
Staff will forward copies of the Whitepaper to MPPs and offer to meet with them. This will be coordinated with adjacent CAs where there are shared ridings.
Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 5238Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238Emails: [email protected]: November 14, 2012
Item 9.5
46
Item 9.6
47
Item 9.6
48