DOCSLIB.ORG

Baseflow and Water Use Assessment – Report on Current Conditions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Baseflow and Water Use Assessment – Report on Current Conditions Don River Watershed Plan Baseflow and Water Use Assessment – Report on Current Conditions 2009 Prepared by: Toronto and Region Conservation Don River Watershed Plan: Baseflow and Water Use Assessment – Report on Current Conditions Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ 2 List of Tables................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures.................................................................................................................................. 3 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Understanding Groundwater Recharge and Discharge .......................................................... 4 2.1 Don River Watershed Water Budget Modeling .................................................................... 5 2.2 Regional Groundwater Modeling.......................................................................................... 5 2.3 TRCA Role/Interest in Low Flow ........................................................................................... 5 3.0 Data Sources and Methods...................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Baseflow Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Baseflow Spatial Analysis............................................................................................. 10 3.2 Water Use Data Collection.................................................................................................. 10 3.2.1 York Region Water Use Assessment ........................................................................... 11 3.2.2 Surface Water Vulnerability Assessment ..................................................................... 11 3.2.3 Study Limitations.......................................................................................................... 12 3.2.4 Groundwater Data Sources.......................................................................................... 12 4.0 Existing Conditions in the Don River Watershed ................................................................... 13 4.1 Baseflow Conditions ........................................................................................................... 13 4.1.1 Baseflow Findings ........................................................................................................ 16 4.1.2 Baseflow Issues in the Don.......................................................................................... 29 4.2 Water Use and Allocation Conditions................................................................................. 30 4.2.1 Surface Water Use Assessment................................................................................... 33 4.2.2 Vulnerability Assessment ............................................................................................. 35 4.2.3 Water Use and Allocation Issues in the Don ............................................................... 37 4.3 Ratings for the Baseflow and Water Demand Indicators ................................................... 37 4.3.1 Rating for the Baseflow Indicator ................................................................................. 38 4.3.2 Rating for Water Demand Indicator ............................................................................. 40 5.0 Low Flow Management Strategies......................................................................................... 42 5.1 Climate Change .................................................................................................................. 42 5.2 Drought Management......................................................................................................... 43 5.3 Integrated Water Management ........................................................................................... 43 6.0 Conclusions and Management Considerations..................................................................... 44 6.1 Surface Water Use .............................................................................................................. 44 6.2 Baseflow .............................................................................................................................. 45 7.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 47 Appendix A – TRCA Low Flow Monitoring Protocol..................................................................... 49 Appendix B – TRCA Water Use Assessment User Surveys......................................................... 53 Appendix C – Methodology for the Merging of Three Water Use Databases ............................. 58 Toronto and Region Conservation CFN: 37590 2 2009 Don River Watershed Plan: Baseflow and Water Use Assessment – Report on Current Conditions List of Tables Table 1: Ratings for the potential impact of water users on baseflow......................................... 12 Table 2: Flow characteristics for Don River stream gauges. ....................................................... 14 Table 3: Percentage of baseflow to total flow. ............................................................................. 14 Table 4: Measured and recommended flow for Don River gauges (cubic meters per second). 15 Table 5: Measured baseflow discharge as compared to preliminary environmental flows........ 16 Table 6: Percent contribution to baseflow/groundwater discharge by subwatershed. .............. 18 Table 7: Water Withdrawals by Subwatershed – Don River Watershed, 2003............................ 31 Table 8: Percent change in median daily baseflow discharges (May - August) from 1995 - 2005 in the Lower West Don River and Lower Don River..................................................................... 38 Table 9: Surface water users, high impact water users, and baseflow allocated in Don River watershed subwatersheds............................................................................................................ 41 List of Figures Figure 1: Baseflow monitoring sites in the Don River watershed.................................................. 8 Figure 2: Typical sampling stream cross-section. ......................................................................... 9 Figure 3: Physiographic regions in the Don River watershed. .................................................... 17 Figure 4: Don River subwatersheds – 2005 subwatershed percent contribution to baseflow. .. 19 Figure 5: Don River subwatersheds – 2006 subwatershed percent contribution to baseflow. .. 20 Figure 6: Normalized baseflow as calculated from 2003 and 2006 summer measurements. ... 21 Figure 7: Upper Don River subwatersheds – 2003 percent change to baseflow discharge. ..... 25 Figure 8: Percent of water users by sector. ................................................................................. 32 Figure 9: Percent of total withdrawal by sector............................................................................ 33 Figure 10: Don River surface water use reach vulnerability assessment.................................... 36 Figure 11: Percent change in median daily baseflow discharges (May – August) from 1995 – 2005 in the Lower West Don River and the Lower Don River...................................................... 39 Figure 12: Total numbers of surface water users and high impact surface water users in Don River watershed subwatersheds. ................................................................................................. 41 Toronto and Region Conservation CFN: 37590 3 2009 Don River Watershed Plan: Baseflow and Water Use Assessment – Report on Current Conditions 1.0 Introduction The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), in consultation with the multi- stakeholder Don Watershed Regeneration Council and watershed municipalities, is developing a watershed plan for the Don River. This watershed planning process has been initiated in response to a number of recent policy and planning developments, including the need to fulfill York Region’s watershed planning requirements under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP, Ontario Regulation 140/02) and to update the original management strategy outlined in Forty Steps to a New Don (Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority [MTRCA], 1994). The goal of the watershed planning study is to recommend updated management strategies that will guide land and water use decisions, such that the overall ecological health of the Don River watershed is protected and improved. The aim is to build on the Forty Steps’ principles to protect what is healthy, regenerate what is degraded, and take responsibility for the Don. Recognizing the significant watershed planning work that has already been completed, and given that there are limited undeveloped lands remaining on the Oak Ridges Moraine within the watershed boundary, this study will focus mainly on filling information gaps, guiding land use planning and approval decisions and providing direction to advance implementation of regeneration priorities. This report has been prepared as part of the scoping and characterization
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From the Past to the Future of Landfill Engineering Through Case Histories
    Missouri University of Science and Technology Scholars' Mine International Conference on Case Histories in (1998) - Fourth International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering 08 Mar 1998 - 15 Mar 1998 From the Past to the Future of Landfill Engineering Through Case Histories R. Kerry Rowe University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Rowe, R. Kerry, "From the Past to the Future of Landfill Engineering Through Case Histories" (1998). International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. 4. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/4icchge/4icchge-session00/4 This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 145 Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering~ St. Louis, Missouri, March 9-12, 1998. FROM THE PAST TO THE FUTURE OF LANDFILL ENGINEERING THROUGH CASE HISTORIES R. Kerry Rowe Paper No. SOA-9 Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B9 AIISTRACT The advances in landfill engineering are outlined based on a number of case histories illustrating past problems, hydraulic performance of clay liners, diffusive transport through liners, hydraulic containment and clogging of leachate collection systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Escribe Agenda Package
    Board of Directors Meeting #7/19 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, July 26, 2019. The Chair, Jennifer Innis, called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. PRESENT Jennifer Innis Chair Paul Ainslie Member Kevin Ashe Member Shelley Carroll Member Ronald Chopowick Member Joanne Dies Member Jennifer Drake Member Paula Fletcher Member Jack Heath Vice-Chair Gord Highet Member Linda Jackson Member Heidi Karst Member Maria Kelleher Member Cynthia Lai Member Mike Layton Member Basudeb Mukherjee Member Michael Palleschi Member Steve Pellegrini Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member Connie Tang Member ABSENT David Barrow Member Dipika Damerla Member Chris Fonseca Member James Pasternak Member Jason Runtas Member Rowena Santos Member Estair Van Wagner Member The Chair recited the Acknowledgement of Indigenous Territory. RES.#A140/19 - MINUTES OF MEETING #6/19, HELD ON JUNE 21, 2019 Moved by: Michael Palleschi Seconded by: Paula Fletcher THAT the Board of Directors approves the Minutes of Meeting #7/19, held on Friday, June 21, 2019. CARRIED Section I – Items for Board of Directors Action RES.#A141/19 - REQUEST TO DELEGATE PERMIT APPROVAL AND CANCELLATION OF AUGUST 9, 2019 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING The August 9, 2019 Executive Committee is proposed to be cancelled. Staff request the Board of Directors to delegate approval authority of all permits in the entire jurisdiction originally scheduled for the August 9, 2019 meeting to staff. Moved by: Linda Jackson Seconded by: Steve Pellegrini WHEREAS as a matter of new business at the July
    [Show full text]
  • Trailside Esterbrooke Kingslake Harringay
    MILLIKEN COMMUNITY TRAIL CONTINUES TRAIL CONTINUES CENTRE INTO VAUGHAN INTO MARKHAM Roxanne Enchanted Hills Codlin Anthia Scoville P Codlin Minglehaze THACKERAY PARK Cabana English Song Meadoway Glencoyne Frank Rivers Captains Way Goldhawk Wilderness MILLIKEN PARK - CEDARBRAE Murray Ross Festival Tanjoe Ashcott Cascaden Cathy Jean Flax Gardenway Gossamer Grove Kelvin Covewood Flatwoods Holmbush Redlea Duxbury Nipigon Holmbush Provence Nipigon Forest New GOLF & COUNTRY Anthia Huntsmill New Forest Shockley Carnival Greenwin Village Ivyway Inniscross Raynes Enchanted Hills CONCESSION Goodmark Alabast Beulah Alness Inniscross Hullmar Townsend Goldenwood Saddletree Franca Rockland Janus Hollyberry Manilow Port Royal Green Bush Aspenwood Chapel Park Founders Magnetic Sandyhook Irondale Klondike Roxanne Harrington Edgar Woods Fisherville Abitibi Goldwood Mintwood Hollyberry Canongate CLUB Cabernet Turbine 400 Crispin MILLIKENMILLIKEN Breanna Eagleview Pennmarric BLACK CREEK Carpenter Grove River BLACK CREEK West North Albany Tarbert Select Lillian Signal Hill Hill Signal Highbridge Arran Markbrook Barmac Wheelwright Cherrystone Birchway Yellow Strawberry Hills Strawberry Select Steinway Rossdean Bestview Freshmeadow Belinda Eagledance BordeauxBrunello Primula Garyray G. ROSS Fontainbleau Cherrystone Ockwell Manor Chianti Cabernet Laureleaf Shenstone Torresdale Athabaska Limestone Regis Robinter Lambeth Wintermute WOODLANDS PIONEER Russfax Creekside Michigan . Husband EAST Reesor Plowshare Ian MacDonald Nevada Grenbeck ROWNTREE MILLS PARK Blacksmith
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Landfill Leachate Treatment by Microalgae: Current
    processes Review A Review of Landfill Leachate Treatment by Microalgae: Current Status and Future Directions Tabish Nawaz 1,2, Ashiqur Rahman 3,4 , Shanglei Pan 1,5, Kyleigh Dixon 5, Burgandy Petri 5 and Thinesh Selvaratnam 1,3,5,* 1 Center for Advances in Water & Air Quality, Lamar University, 4400 S M L King Jr Pkwy, Beaumont, TX 77705, USA; [email protected] (T.N.); [email protected] (S.P.) 2 Environmental Science and Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400076, India 3 Center for Midstream Management and Science, Lamar University, 4400 S M L King Jr Pkwy, Beaumont, TX 77705, USA; [email protected] 4 Department of Chemical Engineering, Lamar University, 4400 S M L King Jr Pkwy, Beaumont, TX 77705, USA 5 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Lamar University, 4400 S M L King Jr Pkwy, Beaumont, TX 77705, USA; [email protected] (K.D.); [email protected] (B.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-409-880-8712 Received: 28 February 2020; Accepted: 19 March 2020; Published: 26 March 2020 Abstract: Solid waste generation has been projected to increase worldwide. Presently, the most applied methodology to dispose of solid waste is landfilling. However, these landfill sites, over time release a significant quantity of leachate, which can pose serious environmental issues, including contamination of water resources. There exist many physicochemical and biological landfill leachate treatment schemes with varying degrees of success. With an increasing focus on sustainability, there has been a demand for developing eco-friendly, green treatment schemes for landfill leachates with viable resource recovery and minimum environmental footprints.
    [Show full text]
  • Compliance Boundary at the Keele Valley Landfill Site
    Compliance Boundary at the Keele Valley Landfill Site (City Council on August 1, 2, 3 and 4, 2000, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The Policy and Finance Committee and the Works Committee jointly recommend the adoption of the following report (June 27, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services: Purpose: To obtain the approval of City Council to request the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to move the compliance boundary of the Keele Valley Landfill Site from the edge of the secondary buffer lands south of the City-owned lands northwards to the south end of a modified primary buffer, to take place upon the completion of landfilling operations at Keele Valley. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: If the recommendation is approved, subject to the conditions suggested, there are no financial implications to the City of Toronto. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the City of Toronto request the Ministry of the Environment to amend the Certificate of Approval applicable to the Keele Valley Landfill Site to move the compliance boundary of the landfill from the south end of the secondary buffer lands at Major Mackenzie Drive to the south of the primary buffer lands as redefined as set out in this report; (2) Recommendation No. (1) be subject to the following conditions: (a) York Major Holdings, the owner of the lands comprising the secondary buffer, enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto incorporating the following provisions: (i) any new land use on the lands that are currently part of
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 1 Summary of Procurements.Pdf
    1 Attachment 1 ‐ Summary of Procurements Highest Ranked Goods/Services Contingency Total Cost (Before Total TRCA Division Project Name Awarded Bidder Contract Cost Responded Procured Cost Revisions) Vendors (Responsible) Engineering services for slope stability, erosion Eldorado Court, risk assessment, and Grandravine Drive and AECOM CANADA Restoration and alternative conceptual $225,489.00 $22,548.90 $248,037.90 11 5 Ladyshot Crescent, in the LTD. Infrastructure design for forty‐five (45) City of Toronto properties in the City of Toronto. Fill Quality Control, Site Decommissioning and 2019 laboratory Restoration and ALS Canada Ltd $49,300.00 $4,930.00 $54,230.00 4 3 Environmental Monitoring analytical services. Infrastructure Programs Professional engineering services for preliminary AMTEC Engineering Wiley Bridge design, detailed design $36,325.00 $5,448.75 $41,773.75 17 3 Corporate Services Ltd. and contract administration services. Pre‐construction and Upper Highland Creek Pan post‐construction CCTV Restoration and Andrews Engineer $33,274.00 $12,000.00 $45,274.00 12 1 Am Path Connection inspection services of Infrastructure sanitary infrastructure. Newtonbrook Creek Engineering services for AQUAFOR BEECH Restoration and Bridge Replacement Slope detailed designs for $35,800.00 $3,580.00 $39,380.00 7 2 LIMITED Infrastructure Stabilization Project slope stabilization. 2 Attachment 1 ‐ Summary of Procurements Highest Ranked Goods/Services Contingency Total Cost (Before Total TRCA Division Project Name Awarded Bidder Contract Cost Responded Procured Cost Revisions) Vendors (Responsible) Engineering services for Grey Abbey Ravine Slope AQUAFOR BEECH Restoration and development of detailed $59,160.00 $5,916.00 $65,076.00 5 1 Stabilization Project LIMITED Infrastructure designs.
    [Show full text]
  • (I) CITY of VAUGHAN COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 23, 2003 Table Of
    CITY OF VAUGHAN COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 23, 2003 Table of Contents Minute No. Page No. 138. PRESENTATION..........................................................................................................................118 139. VERBAL REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE SMOG SUMMIT .................................................118 140. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA....................................................................................................119 141. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST .....................................................................................................120 142. ADOPTION OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES............................................................................120 143. DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION.....................................120 144. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION ....................................121 145. WILLIAM GRANGER GREENWAY – BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY (Supplementary Report No. 3)......................................................................................................123 146. ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT FILE Z.01.008 DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION FILE 19T-01V02 MATTHEW GABRIELE & MICHELA TONIETTO REPORT #P.2001.20 (Supplementary Report No. 4) .................................................................................125 147. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION ....................................130 148. KEELE VALLEY SMALL VEHICLE TRANSFER STATION AND HHW DEPOT (Addendum No. 3) ........................................................................................................................130
    [Show full text]
  • Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment
    Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Appendix H – Design and Operations Report August 2007 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Appendix H – Design and Operations Report - August 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. H-1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................... H-1 1.2 Regulatory Requirements ...................................................................... H-1 1.3 Background.......................................................................................... H-10 1.4 Description of the Undertaking............................................................. H-11 2.0 LANDFILL EXPANSION SITE DESCRIPTION.............................................. H-13 2.1 Site Location ........................................................................................ H-13 2.2 Site Boundaries ................................................................................... H-13 2.3 Land Use ............................................................................................. H-13 2.4 Topography.......................................................................................... H-13 2.5 Hydrology............................................................................................. H-14 2.6 Hydrogeology....................................................................................... H-14 2.7 Archaeology........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 1
    Attachment 1 City of Vaughan 2019 City-Wide Development Charges Reserve Fund Statement As at December 31, 2019 (in '000s) Community Engineering Fire & Rescue General Library Services Public Works Total Services Services Services Government Balance as of January 1, 2019 $ 162,825 $ 290,454 $ 7,253 $ 1,499 $ 12,365 $ 9,888 $ 484,284 Revenues Development Charge Revenues $ 772 $ 3,297 $ 161 $ 167 $ 81 $ 169 4,646 Development Charge Credits - - - - - - - Transfer from Capital - - - - - - - Interest Earned $ 3,676 $ 6,538 $ 122 $ 26 $ 280 $ 222 10,864 Other - - - - - - - Total Revenues $ 4,448 $ 9,835 $ 283 $ 193 $ 360 $ 390 $ 15,510 Expenditures Transfer to Capital $ (5,114) $ (14,695) $ (4,413) $ (1,092) $ (226) $ (932) (26,473) Development Charge Refunds - - - - - - - Interest Expense - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - Total Expenditures $ (5,114) $ (14,695) $ (4,413) $ (1,092) $ (226) $ (932) $ (26,473) Balance as of December 31, 2019 $ 162,158 $ 285,595 $ 3,123 $ 600 $ 12,499 $ 9,346 $ 473,321 City of Vaughan 2019 Area Specific Development Charges Reserve Fund Statement As at December 31, 2019 D8 - Rainbow D15 - West D18 - West D19 - East PD D20 - D23 - Dufferin D24 - Ansley Creek Woodbridge Major Mack Rutherford Watermain W. Teston Grove Balance as of January 1, 2019 $ 3,788 $ (244) $ (249) $ 802 $ 2,618 $ 89 $ 224 Revenues Development Charge Revenues 13 37 - - - - - Transfer from Capital - - - - - - - Interest Earned 86 10 (1) 4 59 2 5 Other - - - - - - - Total Revenues $ 99 $ 47 $ (1) $ 4 $ 59 $ 2 $ 5 Expenditures Transfer to Capital - 757 258 (756) - - - Development Charge Refunds - - - - - - - Interest Expense - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - Total Expenditures $ - $ 757 $ 258 $ (756) $ - $ - $ - Balance as of December 31, 2019 $ 3,887 $ 559 $ 8 $ 50 $ 2,677 $ 91 $ 229 D33 - D25 - Zenway D27 - Black Creek Black Creek Woodbridge Total Fogel Huntington Map 2 Map 3 Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Highland Creek Geomorphic Systems Master Plan
    StreamStream RestorationRestoration DesignDesign andand ManagementManagement inin CityCity ofof TorontoToronto (Highland Creek Watershed Case Study): Reactive,Reactive, ProactiveProactive && AdaptiveAdaptive ManagementManagement Presentation to the Latornel Conference: Session Climate Change etc November 18, 2015 William J Snodgrass, & Don Sorel Stream Restoration Specialists , Water Infrastructure Management, City of Toronto WWFMPWWFMPWWFMP PhilosophyPhilosophyPhilosophy • Wet weather flow issues to be managed on a watershed basis • Stormwater Management using a hierarchical approach: - Source Controls – lot level - Conveyance System – road right of way - End-of-pipe – before stormwater is discharged • Consider Source control measures first and balance them with the other measures in regards to effects on Environmental // Social // Economic Factors StrategiesStrategies && CostCost EstimatesEstimates Strat Description Cost No. [billion] 1 Status Quo accom., upstream growth and 1 + intensification in Toronto (1 million) 2 Opportunistic 3 3 Achieve moderate targets with aggressive 5 E O P 4 Achieve moderate targets – aggressive 6 source and conveyance controls 5 Achieve significant targets 11 GeomorphicGeomorphic && AquaticAquatic habitathabitat ResponseResponse (Don R trib.) TargetTarget ModerateModerate –– 8.58.5 SignificantSignificant -- 66 Peakiness [Qp/ Qb] 20 15 10 Series1 Peakiness 5 0 0123456 Strategy Numbber THETHE MASTERMASTER PLANPLAN (2003)(2003) • Master Plan defines the next steps needed to improve water quality and protect
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Erosion Risk Management Program Update Toronto And
    June 2, 2020 Sent via email SEE DISTRIBUTION LIST RE: 2020 Erosion Risk Management Program Update Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Board of Directors, at its meeting #3/20, held on April 24, 2020, adopted Resolution #A41/20 as follows: WHEREAS TRCA staff were requested by the Executive Committee at meeting #3/19 to provide more information regarding the positive impact that the Federal Disaster Mitigation & Adaptation Fund will have on TRCA’s plans for erosion mitigation work; IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT this staff report on TRCA’s Erosion Risk Management Program and the positive impacts of Federal Disaster Mitigation & Adaptation Fund and partner contributions be received; AND FURTHER THAT this report be circulated to TRCA’s municipal partners. The report and referenced resolution are attached to this letter and can also be accessed at the TRCA Board of Directors webpage. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Matthew Johnston at 416-661-6600 ext. 5525, [email protected]. Sincerely, Alisa Mahrova Clerk and Manager, Policy c: John MacKenzie, Chief Executive Officer, TRCA Moranne McDonnel, Director, Restoration and Infrastructure, TRCA Matthew Johnston, Senior Manager, Erosion Risk Management, TRCA Ashour Rehana, Manager, Capital and Special Projects, TRCA DISTRIBUTION LIST Alexander Harras, Manager, Legislative and Information Services /Deputy Clerk, Town of Ajax Amanda Fusco, Acting Town Clerk, Town of Caledon Christopher Raynor, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of York Debbie
    [Show full text]
  • Erosion Risk Management Program
    Item 8.6 Section III – Items for the Information of the Board TO: Chair and Members of the Board of Directors Meeting #3/20, Friday, April 24, 2020 FROM: Moranne McDonnell, Director, Restoration and Infrastructure RE: 2020 EROSION RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE ____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUE An information report regarding the Erosion Risk Management Program and related services and strategic updates from the Engineering Projects business unit of Restoration & Infrastructure. RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS TRCA staff were requested by the Executive Committee at meeting #3/19 to provide more information regarding the positive impact that the Federal Disaster Mitigation & Adaptation Fund will have on TRCA’s plans for erosion mitigation work; IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT this staff report on TRCA’s Erosion Risk Management Program and the positive impacts of Federal Disaster Mitigation & Adaptation Fund and partner contributions be received; AND FURTHER THAT this report be circulated to TRCA’s municipal partners. BACKGROUND Managing the risk associated with the natural hazards of flooding and erosion is one of the primary roles of conservation authorities under the Conservation Authorities Act. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) fulfills this role through the delivery of multiple natural resource management programs and services, including the Erosion Risk Management Program (ERMP). The ERMP focuses on the identification and remediation of shoreline and valley land erosion hazards throughout TRCA’s jurisdiction and encourages proactive prevention, protection, and management of erosion issues on private and public property. While many business units in TRCA work to prevent and address erosion impacts, the main business unit that manages erosion hazards is Engineering Projects (EP) which is organized under the Restoration and Infrastructure Division (R&I).
    [Show full text]