Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAuthority 2010c. OrTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY Annual #1/10 February 26, 2010 The Authority Meeting Annual #1/10, was held in the Theatres, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, February 26, 2010. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 10:40 a.m. PRESENT Eve Adams Member Maria Augimeri Vice Chair David Barrow Member Bryan Bertie Member Laurie Bruce Member Gay Cowbourne Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Mike Del Grande Member Bill Fisch Member Pamela Gough Member Lois Griffin Member Suzan Hall Member Jack Heath Member Colleen Jordan Member Peter Milczyn Member Ron Moeser Member Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair John Parker Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member Richard Whitehead Member ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member Grant Gibson Member Bonnie Littley Member Glenn Mason Member Linda Pabst Member Maja Prentice Member 1 RES. #A1 /10 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Colleen Jordan THAT the Minutes of Meeting #11/09, held on January 29, 2010, be approved. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (A) A letter dated February 3, 2010 from Jerry Ouellette, Official Opposition Critic, Natural Resources, and response letter dated February 17, 2010 from Dick Hibma, Chair, Conservation Ontario. (B) An email dated February 24, 2010 from Mayor David Miller, City of Toronto, in regard to Greenbelt Expansion Lands. RES. #A2 /10 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Seconded by: Pamela Gough Maria Augimeri THAT above -noted correspondence (a) and (b) be received. CARRIED 2 CORRESPONDENCE (A) JERRY J. OUELLETTE, M.P.F. ostawa February 8, 2010 Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview ON M3N 1S4 RECEIVED FEB 1 0 2010 GAO'S OFFICE TRCA . Clueerrs Park Office: km 428 Legislative Building Toronto, Ontario M7A 148 Tel. (416) 325 -2147 Fax (416) 325 -2169 Constduency Office: 170 Athol SL E. ositexrd, Ontario L S1K1 Tel. (905) 723 -2411 Fax (905) 723 -1054 Riot]: Jerryouetlette@pc.Ula.org Wlebslte: wives o$trawampptom Dear Gerri Lynn I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and all the Conservation Authorities in Ontario for your valuable work and dedication to ensuring the successful management of watershed -based ecosystem resources, services and land -use. I understand the importance of consulting with the public and gathering expertise from various organizations and professionals to achieve a balance of the ecological and social impacts that reflect the concerns of all resource users. As former Minister of Natural Resources, I also recognize the challenges of balancing resource user groups in a fair and transparent manner and utilizing the best available science to develop effective land -use policies. In order to move forward with the most effective land use strategies, we need to ensure that the legislation and regulations governing conservation authorities is the most up-to -date, streamlined and practical as possible. In addition, there needs to be a clear, transparent and decisive protocol to follow. In an effort to continuously improve and uphold the best practices of our Conservation Authorities, I would appreciate your informed feedback and comments concerning legislation, regulations and the organizational responsibilities of the Conservation Authorities, including the good aspects of the organizations as well as what needs to be changed and how these changes need to implemented. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration and valuable input Yours Sincerely, try 7�ii flee, G1PP Oshawa Official Opposition Critic, Natural Resources 3 Conservation ©NTARI0 Natural Champions February 17, 2010 Jerry J. Ouellette. IMP Oshawa Official Opposition Critic, Natural Resources Room 428. Queen's Park Legislative Building Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A8 Dear Mr. Ouellette: As you know, Conservation Ontario works on behalf of Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities. Our CA member's have shared your recent letter to them with us and we are responding on their behalf: although we note that some may choose to provide additional conwnents. We know that you have written to municipal officials as well and expect that those who choose to will respond directly to your inquiry. Let me begin by thanking you for acknowledging the valuable work done by Conservation Authorities in ensuring the successful management of watershed -based ecosystem resources, services and land -use. Conservation Authorities play a critical role in developing the science which underpins our understanding of the complex interactions of the physical components of the watershed — the land, the water and the living organisms. Conservation Authorities play a singular role in flood protection and the Province relies heavily CAs to ensure public safety in relation to natural hazards. making them a critical part of land use planning and development. Our study on the Business Case for Investing in Flood Prevention and Control shows that through the public investment of S2.7 billion in infrastructure and through ongoing regulation of flood prone and hazardous areas, Conservation Authority flood plain management programs. including regulation, save the taxpayers in excess of $100 million annually. i tl,1F.0 +ice2 4 L'i The expertise that CAs bring to the table is a vital component in the development of source protection plans across the Province. Adapting to Climate Change in Ontario, a recent report by the Expert Panel on Climate Change, outlines in clear detail the threats to water quality and supply, the potential for increased flooding and erosion due to more frequent extreme weather events, as well as increased drought, and degraded biodiversity. These findings make very clear that Conservation Authorities are - and will continue to be -- essential to the protection of Ontario's water and land resource& As Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act states: The objects of an authority are to establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals." Conservation Authorities take this mandate very seriously. Most importantly. it allows a Conservation Authority to develop a program that responds to the unique conditions and pressures within a particular watershed. This is critical to the successful management that you noted. Conservation Authonties use a variety of tools to meet their mandate. These include education, stewardship, the provision of science-based advice to municipalities as part of the land use planning process, and the regulation of flood plains, hazardous areas, and wetlands that are key to the function of watershed hydrology. More than 144.000 hectares of forests, wetlands, flood plains and other environmentally significant lands have been acquired by CAs, providing protection and public access for education and recreation. currently serving more than 5 million visitors annually, contributing greatly to Ontarian's quality of life and economic well being. As we enter the second decade of this millennium with greater awareness than ever of the linkages between a healthy environment, a healthy economy and a healthy society, it is ironic yet not surprising that the art of balancing the public interest with individual interests continues to be a focus of discussion and in some cases, outright conflict. How best to manage these apparently competing interests is a challenge for all of society. There should be no debate about the value of this process to our quality of life. But who pays for a healthy environment and how environmental programs should be funded, remains at issue., There is tension from user and permit fees, municipal levies, and provincial funding sources. Despite realizing the benefit;, no party wishes to bear more of the costs, particularly in difficult economic times. Your questions are relevant and timely concerning legislation, regulations and organizational responsibilities of Conservation Authorities. As you know, the Ministry of Natural Resources recently posted on the EBR, a draft of the proposed "'Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities- (Posted Nov25/09 EBR 4010-8243) This proposed policy resulted from a two year multi-stakeholder consultation involving representatives of the Province, municipahties. the development industry, ENCiOs and Conservation Authonties. The consultation was a response to criticism by the development industry that Conservation Authorities were extending their influence beyond their mandate. The 5 expectation of the participants is that this policy, if approved will provide necessary guidance, rationale and timelines to improve the parties understanding of roles and the process and provide improved transparency and accountability. It should be noted that the ENGO conummity position in the review was that Conservation Authonties needed a stronger mandate to protect the environment this was ultimately reflected in passage of the Lake S'inacoe Protection Act. Indeed, this position is shared by a number of mnnictpahties. Conservation Authorities are established under the Conservation Authorities Act by a resolution of the majority of municipalities within a watershed_ The Act has been changed only slightly over its 60 year history, and is still considered a visionary piece of legislation. Conservation Ontario has identified a number of amendments to the Act which would bring certain aspects into better alignment with, for example, the municipal election cycle; the ability of staff to issue permits; and a consistent limitation for laying charges under the Section 28 regulations_ As you know. the .Act was amended in 1996 to eliminate the appointment of Provincial representatives on CA Boards, a move that was seen as being consistent with the diminished level of Provincial financial support which took place at that time. As noted above, tensions continue and stakeholders' positions range from wholesale "dissolution- of Authorities to severely curtailing the role and mandate, to broadening their scope and jurisdiction_ I want to be clear that Conservation Authorities are quite open to any dialogue with the Province, municipalities and other stakeholders which would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of watershed and natural resources management; indeed, we have consistently pursued such discussions over the years. We submit that improvements to the current system can, and should be made in the interest of increasing efficient, effective, transparent and accountable management of our water and natural heritage. We would be happy to speak in more detail about any specific issues which you may wish to discuss. Yours truly, Dick Hibma, Chair, Conservation Ontario 6 CORRESPONDENCE (B) »> Mayor Miller 2/24/2010 11:16 AM »> Dear Members of Council: I wish to express my gratitude to you and particularly to Councillor Fletcher and members of the Parks and Environment committee for the unanimous support shown to our call for the inclusion of the Don and Humber River systems in Ontario's Greenbelt. As I often say and as you all know, Torontonians are great environmentalists and we cherish our natural resources and parks systems like few other cities in the world. I have been invited to attend a media event with Provincial Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Bradley this Friday, Feb. 25 to celebrate the Greenbelt's fifth anniversary and to celebrate City Council's unanimous decision to have the Don and Humber Systems added to it. If accepted by the provincial government after a review process, this would mean all three of our major systems would be protected for generations to come. (the Rouge Valley being the third and already part of the Greenbelt) I would like to invite all of you to be part of this event with me. Specific details regarding location are to come in the next day but the event will be in an area of the Lower Don River at 10 a.m. I will forward those details when they are confirmed. Once again, thanks for your support on this issue and I look forward to seeing you Friday morning. Yours truly, Mayor David Miller 7 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #A3/10 - APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO WATERSHED COMMITTEES, 2010 -2012 Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition and Humber Watershed Alliance. The formal appointment of watershed residents, and representatives form municipal and public agencies, community groups, businesses, business organizations and academic institutions. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Laurie Bruce THAT the appointment of members to the Don Regeneration Council, as set out in Attachment 1, be approved; THAT the appointment of members to the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, as set out in Attachment 2, be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the appointment of members to the Humber Watershed Alliance, as set out in Attachment 3, be approved. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #9/09, held on November 27, 2009, Resolution #A207/09 was approved, in part, as follows: ...AND FURTHER THAT a report be submitted to the Authority identifying the proposed membership for each of the watershed subcommittees for approval. The Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition and the Humber Watershed Alliance dated November 2009 were approved at Authority Meeting #9/09. Section 5 of the Terms of Reference states that: "These Terms of Reference are valid for three years (2010 - 2012). At the end of the second year, membership may be renewed for one year, as approved by the Authority. The membership will be reviewed on an annual basis. Members, excluding ex- officio members, unable to fulfill their commitments will be replaced after missing three consecutive meetings (without notice) by the Authority based on the nominees recommended by TRCA staff. Notice of resignations and recommendations for new members will be presented to the Authority on an 'as required' basis for approval." 8 The opportunity for membership on the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition and Humber Watershed Alliance was widely advertised in newspapers and posted on various websites, volunteer networks and through press releases. As well, letters were sent to regional and local municipalities, public agencies, community groups, businesses, business organizations and academic organizations, requesting that they appoint a delegate to each of the watershed groups. Public information sessions were also held in mid - January. The Terms of Reference make provision to have 15 watershed residents on the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, 15 watershed residents on the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition, and 20 residents on the Humber Watershed Alliance. The selection committee, consisting of each of the watershed specialists, the Director, Watershed Management and former members of each of the watershed groups, held interviews in early February, 2010 to consider possible candidates. To date, the individuals outlined in Attachments 1 -3 are recommended for appointment to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition and Humber Watershed Alliance for the 2010 -2012 term. Some agencies were unable to make appointments in time for preparation of the staff report. As a result, additional appointments will be brought to the attention of the Authority for approval once they are confirmed by their respective councils, agencies or groups. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • confirm the remaining members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition and Humber Watershed Alliance; • schedule and host the inaugural meetings of Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition and Humber Watershed Alliance in March, 2010. Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292 Emails: Ilappano @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Emails: afreeman @trca.on.ca Date: February 18, 2010 Attachments: 3 Attachment 1 Don Watershed Regeneration Council 2010 -2012 Membership TRCA REPRESENTATIVE Authority Member 1 Bryan Bertie GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES GOVERNMENT NAME Member of Parliament To be determined Member of Provincial Parliament To be determined REGIONAL AND LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND COMMUNITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES MUNICIPALITY NAME Town of Markham • Deputy Mayor Jack Heath Town of Richmond Hill Councillor Nick Papa City of Toronto - East Councillor Norm Kelly City of Toronto - North Councillor John Parker City of Toronto - South Councillor Janet Davis • City of Vaughan Councillor Alan Shefman Regional Municipality of York Deputy Mayor Brenda Hogg PUBLIC AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES ORGANIZATION NAME Environment Canada, Restoration Programs Laud Matos Ministry of the Environment To be determined Ministry of Natural Resources To be determined COMMUNITY GROUP /NGO REPRESENTATIVES GROUP NAME Friends of the Don East John Routh Local Enhancement & Appreciation of Forests (LEAF) Janet McKay Richmond Hill Naturalists Joe Agg Society for the Preservation of Historic Thornhill To be determined Task Force to Bring Back the Don Janice Palmer Taylor Massey Project - To be determined Toronto Field Naturalists Margaret McCrae Toronto Green Community Annie MacLeod York Region Environmental Alliance Gloria Marsh BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES BUSINESS NAME Tom Hopkins & Associates Tom Hopkins Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy Jana Levison Quiller and Blake Whelena Sainsbury 10 ACADEMIC INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVES SCHOOL NAME Seneca College - Student Robert Emerson York University - Student Reiko Obokata WATERSHED RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTING MUNICIPALITY NAME City of Toronto M.L. Bream City of Toronto Margaret Buchinger City of Toronto Nadia Fetisova City of Toronto Phil Goodwin City of Toronto Mike Halferty City of Vaughan Tim Hayward City of Toronto Peter Heinz City of Vaughan Jae hong Kim City of Toronto John Hough City of Toronto Mandy Karch Town of Markham Wessel Lammers City of Toronto .Celeste Longhurst City of Toronto Dianne Ness City of Toronto Jonathan Veale City of Toronto Andy Wickens 11 Attachment 2 Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition 2010 -2012 Membership HRCA Chair TRCA REPRESENTATIVE To be determined GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES GOVERNMENT NAME Member of Parliament To be determined Member of Provincial Parliament Laurel Broten Member of Provincial Parliament To be determined REGIONAL AND LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND COMMUNITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES MUNICIPALITY NAME City of Brampton To be determined Town of Caledon Allan Thompson City of Mississauga Michael Gusche Regional Municipality of Peel Allan Thompson City of Toronto - Etobicoke York Community Council Peter Milczyn PUBLIC AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES ORGANIZATION NAME Environment Canada Jon Gee Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs • To be determined Ministry of Environment To be determined Ministry of Natural Resources To be determined COMMUNITY GROUP /NGO REPRESENTATIVES GROUP NAME Brampton Scouts To be determined Caledon Environmental Advisory Committee To be determined Citizens Concerned About the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront Brian Bailey Friends of Heart Lake Leo O'Brien Humber Bay Shores Angela Brooks' - Peel Aboriginal Network To be determined Toronto Food Policy Council Janice Etter Trees Ontario John Cary Sierra Club - Peel Region Bruce Haines West Humber Naturalists Bob Noble 12 BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES BUSINESS NAME Greater Toronto Airports Authority Randy McGill Markland Wood Golf Club Owen Russell SHARP Canada Eddie Colacchio ACADEMIC INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVES SCHOOL NAME Peel/Toronto/York District School Board To be determined York University - Undergraduate Student Adam De Souza York University - Recent Graduate Korice Moir WATERSHED RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTING MUNICIPALITY NAME City of Brampton Jim Laird City of Brampton Jaipual Massey -Singh City of Brampton Chris McGlynn Town of Caledon To be determined City of Mississauga To be determined City of Toronto Suzanne Barrett City of Toronto Debora Bielecki City of Toronto Dennis Bradley City of Toronto Marilyn Campbell City of Toronto Marilyn Hagerman City of Toronto Irene Jones City of Toronto Doug McRonney City of Toronto Natalie Salkauskis City of Toronto Mark Taylor City of Toronto Rudolph Wiens 13 Attachment 3 Humber Watershed Alliance 2010 -2012 Membership Authority Member Richard Whitehead GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES GOVERNMENT NAME Member of Parliament To be determined Member of Provincial Parliament To be determined REGIONAL AND LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND COMMUNITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES MUNICIPALITY NAME Township of Adjala - Tosorontio Joy Webster Town of Aurora To be determined City of Brampton To be determined Town of Caledon Nick deBoer Township of King Jane Underhill City of Mississauga Dianne Douglas Town of Mono To be determined Regional Municipality of Peel Emil Kolb Town of Richmond Hill Greg Beros City of Toronto - North Community Council John Parker City of Toronto - South Community Council Gord Perks City of Toronto - West Community Council Suzan Hall City of Vaughan Tony Carella Regional Municipality of York Gino Rosati PUBLIC AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES ORGANIZATION NAME Environment Canada Mark Chambers Ministry of Environment To be determined Ministry of Culture Bert Duclos Ministry of Natural Resources To be determined Ministry of Agriculture and Food To be determined 14 COMMUNITY GROUP /NGO REPRESENTATIVES GROUP NAME Bolton Community Action Site Jerry Gorman Black Creek Conservation Project Gaspar Horvath Friends of Boyd lain Craig Humber Arboretum & Centre for Urban Ecology Lynn Short Humber Heritage Committee Mary Louise Ashbourne Humber Valley Heritage Trail Assoc. Bill Wilson Kleinburg Area Ratepayers Association Sid Preece La Societe d'histoire de Toronto Lisette Mallet Mount Dennis Community Association Mike Mattos Oak Ridges Corridor Park Lisa Turnbull Palgrave Environment Committee Barb Imrie Palgrave Rotary Club Peter Swain Richmond Hill Naturalists Sharon Bradley Toronto Food Policy Council Peter Mitchell ACADEMIC INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVES SCHOOL NAME Seneca College Bill Humber WATERSHED RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTING MUNICIPALITY NAME City of Brampton Arshad Ali City of Brampton Bob Hulley Town of Caledon Heather Broadbent City of Vaughan Joanne Nonnekes City of Vaughan Deb Schulte City of Vaughan Barry Westhead Township of King Ron Hingston Township of King Lynda Rogers Town of Richmond Hill Jim Bradley City of Toronto Robert Glover City of Toronto Alyson Hazlett City of Toronto David Hutcheon City of Toronto Jonathan Kowba City of Toronto Victoria Kramkowski -Epner City of Toronto Peter Lazarakis City of Toronto Madeleine McDowell City of Toronto Mary Serniak City of Toronto Jason Stabler City of Toronto • Peter Telford City of Toronto Jessica Wright 15 RES. #A4 /10 - APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS, 2010 The Conservation Authorities Act requires each conservation authority to undergo an external audit of its accounts and transactions each year. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Laurie Bruce THAT Grant Thornton LLP be appointed auditors of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for the year 2010, in accordance with section 38 of the Conservation Authorities Act; AND FURTHER THAT the appointment of Grant Thornton LLP be subject to performance satisfactory to TRCA staff and the result of any request for proposal process that TRCA may deem necessary. CARRIED BACKGROUND Section 38 of the Conservation Authorities Act reads as follows: 38. (1) Every authority shall cause its accounts and transactions to be audited annually by a person licensed under the Public Accountancy Act . R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (1). (2) No person shall be appointed as auditor of an authority who is or during the preceding year was a member of the authority or who has or during the preceding year had any direct or indirect interest in any contract or any employment with the authority other than for services within his or her professional capacity. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (2). (3) An authority shall, upon receipt of the auditors report of the examination of its accounts and transactions, forthwith forward a copy of the report to each participating municipality and to the Minister. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (3). RATIONALE Grant Thornton LLP was appointed TRCA's auditor for the years 2004 to 2009, following a competition for audit services conducted in the summer of 2004. Although the contract period is for five years starting with 2004, the annual reappointment is subject to performance satisfactory to TRCA. Staff is pleased to report that in each year the audit was completed to its satisfaction and it anticipates similar performance in future. Staff recommends the reappointment of Grant Thornton LLP for the 2010 audit year, as always, subject to performance satisfactory to TRCA staff. Also, staff is considering the process for selection of auditors for a further five year term and will bring forward a report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board. Report prepared by: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 For Information contact: Jim Dillane, 416- 667 -6292, Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: jdillane @trca.on.ca, rsgambelluri@trca.on.ca Date: February 18, 2010 16 RES. #A5 /10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Sisters of St. Joseph for the Diocese of Toronto, CFN 43607. Acquisition of valleylands located at 2 O'Connor, City of Toronto. (Executive Res. #B203/09) Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Mike Del Grande THAT 0.875 hectares (2.162 acres), more or less, being Part of Lots 14 and 15, Concession 2, From the Bay, formerly Borough of East York and now City of Toronto and labelled 'Lands to be Conveyed Below Top of Bank' and 'Proposed Easement Below Top of Bank' on sketch prepared by Sutcliffe Architects Inc., City of Toronto at 2 O'Connor Drive, be purchased from the Sisters of St. Joseph for the Diocese of Toronto; THAT the purchase price for the land and conservation easement be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easement and subject to the Sisters of St. Joseph for the Diocese of Toronto reserving an easement for the purposes of the installation, construction, repair, maintenance and replacement of a fence, and the carrying out or implementation of the Ravine Stewardship Plan which is subject to the approval of TRCA, together with right of access for such purposes; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect hereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED RES. #A6 /10 - CITY OF TORONTO Conveyance of Land for Street "C ", City of Toronto, CFN 38910. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto for conveyance of land for Street "C" located between Lakeshore Boulevard West and Marine Parade Drive, in the Humber Bay Shores area of the City of Toronto, Lake Ontario waterfront. (Executive Res. #8204/09) Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Mike Del Grande 17 WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to convey certain lands for Street "C" located between Lakeshore Boulevard West and Marine Parade Drive, in the Humber Bay Shores area of the City of Toronto; AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a parcel of TRCA -owned land being -the ownership rights above 1.5 metres below grade containing 0.023 hectares (0.056 acres), more or less, required for Street "C ", said land being Part of the Bed of Lake Ontario in front of Lot 29, Registered Plan 1176, City of Toronto, be conveyed to the City of Toronto; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00 and TRCA's expenses and costs are to be paid by either the City of Toronto or South Beach (Lakeshore) Developments Limited; THAT South Beach provide a release of any obligations of TRCA under any agreement between TRCA and South Beach with respect to the land to be conveyed to the City; THAT said conveyance be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended and the release by South Beach of any obligations of TRCA under any agreement with it with respect to the land to be conveyed to the City; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect hereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED RES. #A7/10 - REGION OF PEEL SPILLS RESPONSE DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM Award of sole source contract to Angus GeoSolutions Inc. (AGSI) for the completion of the Region of Peel Spill Decision Support System. (Executive Res. #8205/09) Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Mike Del Grande THAT a contract for the development of the Region of Peel's Spill Decision Support System (SDSS) be awarded to the firm of Angus GeoSolutions (AGSI) at a cost not to exceed $208,000 plus applicable taxes; THAT award of the contract be subject to a partnership agreement between AGSI, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Region of Peel detailing AGSI's in -kind technical and professional services towards the development of the SDSS and a cash contribution of $340,000; 18 AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to execute all necessary documentation required including signing of documents. CARRIED SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION RES. #A8 /10 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Seconded by: Maria Augimeri David .Barrow THAT Section II item EX8.1 - Partners in Project Green Renewable Energy Marketing Partnership, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #12/09, held on February 12, 2010, be received. CARRIED SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES. #A9 /10 - IN THE NEWS Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities and news stories from November and December, 2009 and January, 2010. Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Glenn De Baeremaeker IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the summary of media coverage and Good News Stories from November and December, 2009 and January, 2010 be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Since 2006, the Authority has received a staff report on Good News Stories which summarized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) key accomplishments for the preceding few months. Further, at Business Excellence Advisory Board Meeting #1/06, held on March 3, 2006, it was requested that an overview of media coverage for TRCA be provided twice yearly. The new format is to provide one report providing highlights of TRCA's activities and news coverage, as outlined in this staff report. The consolidated "In the News" report will be brought to the Authority for receipt every couple of months in place of the Good News Stories and Media Summary reports. Healthy Rivers and Shorelines • Watershed Management - Successful Launch of the Lake Ontario Evenings Program to promote discussion on areas of general interest, Remedial Action and local initiatives linked to healthy great lakes. Water Canada Magazine and Torontoist.com provided advance coverage of the event. 19 • TRCA watershed water quality modelling work in Duffins Creek adopted by United Nations as part of their Waterbase Project which is project of United Nations University to advance water resources in developing countries. • Received the go ahead from the City of Toronto for continuation of wet weather flow monitoring. • In Pickering News Advertiser article "Pickering residents question Mayor ", TRCA is mentioned regarding questions on ashes being released at the Duffins Creek. • Education and Stewardship - MOE provided grant to TRCA for $500,000 to continue Stewardship Outreach and grants for landowners near municipal drinking water sources. • Restoration - Toronto asked TRCA to do approximately $750,000 in restoration work. Restoration Services staff have held preliminary discussions with City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation staff with regard to TRCA implementing various natural environment and stand alone projects at a projected 2010 aggregated budget of $750,000. Once details are finalized, a staff report will be brought forward to TRCA's Executive Committee seeking approval to proceed with implementation. • Facilities, Equipment and Property - Brampton Guardian writes how TRCA is in the process of updating Claireville Conservation Area's management plan in article "City wants input in Claireville Management Plan" Regional Biodiversity • Land Acquisition - Purchase of 39 acres of land from Shirley Klees in the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York. The property is located in the headwaters of the Rouge River, in the provincially significant Wilcox Lake and Uplands Area of Natural and Scientific Interest, within the Jefferson Forest Environmentally Significant Area and is designated as Natural Core Area under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The purchase was funded by the City of Toronto, Regional Municipality of York and the Town of Richmond Hill. • Purchased 67 acres in Toronto as an addition to Rouge Park. • The Liberal published a story called "Conservation authority shows interest in Observatory land acquisition ". • Planning and Development - TRCA has been working with the Town of Ajax to incorporate a refined Terrestrial Natural Heritage system into the Town Official Plan update. The proposed Official Plan Amendment includes a shift to a single -tier Environmental Protection designation and strong supporting goals and policies. The inclusion of key natural heritage features, key hydrologic features, certain areas of potential natural cover, and the Lake Ontario waterfront are key improvements to the policy framework. Staff is also encouraged by new directions with respect to climate change protection, air quality and urban heat island, urban tree canopy, renewable energy, and energy and water conservation. • Facilities, Equipment and Property - Caledon Citizen published a story on the Palgrave Forest and Wildlife Area and TRCA's work in the area. • Education and Stewardship - Developed framework to assess risk to key components of natural heritage as it pertains to climate change. Hosted workshop to present the framework. The workshop was very well received and the work applauded for tackling a difficult and important issue. • Wildlife - Atlantic Salmon is caught in the lower Humber River. This indigenous species disappeared 150 years ago but has been introduced again to local rivers. 20 • The bird, Phainopepla, normally native to the Arizona desert, was found in Brampton. Only the second time it has been recorded in Canada. • Restoration - Toronto Port Authority investing $1 million for the creation of protective islands and fish habitat wetlands at Tommy Thompson Park. • A Greener Toronto aired a segment on the Leslie Street Spit, and how this man made peninsula was created and why it has become one of the most important ecological restoration projects in the city. • Research and Innovation - GIS completed air photo interpretation exercise to update the natural cover data layer using 2007/2008 orthophotography. Sustainable Communities • Cultural Heritage - Archaeology unit completed study of archaeological predictive modelling for King Township Heritage Board. Characterization of known cultural heritage landscapes, identifying zones of high potential, and recommendations for strengthening heritage policies. Received favourably by King Council. • Facilities, Equipment and Property - FleetChallenge Ontario rates TRCA vehicle fleet "Greenest Municipal Fleet in Ontario" for fuel efficiency and emission levels. • Education and Stewardship - The Ground Source Heating and Cooling Symposium was attended by over 60 professionals at the Kortright Centre for Conservation. Attendees included representatives of industry, government, and academia, with speakers from across Ontario, Nova Scotia, and the Netherlands. The output will help guide conservation authorities and the province in reviewing applications for this rapidly expanding technology. • TRCA's historic involvement in agriculture and its more recent contributions to the local food movement has been recognized in a recently published book titled Edible City: Toronto's Food from Field to Fork by Coach House Books. • 110 people attended the Understanding Erosion and Sediment Control Workshop. • McCutcheon Foundation committed $20,000 per year for 3 years to Durham education programs at Claremont. This grant will allow the education staff to take lessons learned at the Lake St. George program funded by the Weston Foundation and apply them at the Claremont Field Centre. The emphasis will be on creating young, passionate environmental leaders. • Received $20,000 from the Weston Foundation to deliver Monarch Teaching Network professional development programs to teachers this summer. • Brampton Guardian publishes information about the annual fall tree planting at Claireville Conservation Area. • Greening Retail: Canadian Consulting Engineer published a story called "Retailers Go Green" featuring TRCA's Greening Retail report. The Calgary Herald also included Greening Retail's website as a source for information in the article "From Green to Black: How the retail industry benefits from adopting eco- initiatives ". • Planning and Development - Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville nearing completion of a new Comprehensive Zoning By -law. The new By -law will incorporate TRCA's floodplain mapping and identify most key environmental features in the Town. • TRCA's role with new off -leash parks was mentioned in articles in the Etobicoke Guardian. • Developer Box Grove Developments discusses how they work with TRCA in article "Box Grove Walmart clears hurdle at town committee" to achieve a low- impact development site. 21 • TRCA's recommendation regarding Jaffrey Creek development proposal in article "Bolton residents dig in against development ". • Certification - The Kortright Archetype Sustainable Houses just received their LEED Platinum certificates in the mail. Both houses achieved LEED Platinum. • Trails - First Nation's Trail- Western Gateway ($1 million) in the City of Pickering at the mouth of the Rouge River is now completed. This critical link between the City's of Toronto /Pickering as part of the 730 km Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail was achieved through a financial partnership with Waterfront Toronto contributing $500,000 from TRCA's Port Union waterfront project (3.8 km - Highland Creek to Rouge River). • Celebrations and Events - Black Creek Pioneer Village: The Village's A Christmas Remembered event details were included in several media outlets: CTV, City News, Toronto Star, Taste T.O. and the North York Liberal. • Snap Brampton publishes photos from the McVean Farm Grand Opening in their November issue. Business Excellence • Facilities, Equipment and Property - Successful in partnering with Caledon Cycling Club to obtain $15,000 from Ontario Trillium Foundation for trail maintenance equipment that will be used at Albion Hills Conservation Area and Palgrave Resource Management Tract. • Education and Stewardship - 11 TRCA staff presented on our work at the Latornell Symposium - a 50% increase over 2008. • Celebrations and Events - About 900 people attended the Sauriol dinner. Lake Ontario Waterkeepers website has podcast of some of what happened at the dinner. Expect to exceed fundraising expectations. • Media attending the Sauriol event included: Columnists from the Toronto Star and National Post, A Greener York, ETalk, Green Heroes (documentary), Corporate Knights Magazine and Snap Brampton. A podcast of the event ran on Waterkeeper.ca. George Stroumboulopoulis, honorary event chair, mentioned the event in his blog. • Partnerships - Asked by APGO to present a paper on the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement (PAIE) Program at the GeoCanada 2010 conference. This conference is only held every ten years, and is a chance to highlight our success in a national forum. • Financial Capacity - TRCA's budget process moved two giant steps forward in December when major funding partners Peel Region and York Region approved TRCA's 2010 budget requests including significant increases in capital funding. • TRCA's request for budget increases is included in articles "Region looking for 3.6 per cent hike " - Mississauga News and "Peel moves ahead with 2010 budget process" - Brampton Guardian. • Human Interest - Craig Mather, former TRCA Chief Administrative Officer, received Conservation,Pioneer Award at A.D. Latornell Symposium. 22 • TRCA produced a news story on Eco- friendly gift ideas (Included the Humber Book, gifts of clean air and conservation passes). The story was picked up by several online media outlets including CanadianBusiness.com. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264, Rowena Calpito, extension 5632 Emails: kstranks @trca.on.ca, rcalpito @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264, Rowena Calpito, extension 5632 Emails: kstranks @trca.on.ca, rcalpito @trca.on.ca Date: February 16, 2010 RES. #A10 /10 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Section IV item AUTH8.2.1 in regard to Rouge Park Alliance Minutes of Meeting #7/09, held on December 4, 2009, be received. ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 RES. #A11 /10 - APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Moved by: Seconded by: "Suzan Hall John Parker . CARRIED THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.1 - EX10.69, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes 12/09, held on February 12, 2010, be received. CARRIED 23 ANNUAL /INAUGURAL MEETING The Chief Administrative Officer /Secretary- Treasurer, Brian Denney, assumed the Chair for the Annual Meeting and conducted the 2010 Election of Officers. APPOINTMENTS TO TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FOR 2010 -2011 The Secretary- Treasurer can advise that all the persons listed below have been duly appointed and are entitled to sit as Members of this Authority for the 2010 -2011 year, or until their successors are appointed. ADJALA - TOSORONTIO /MONO Glenn Mason DURHAM TORONTO PEEL YORK Colleen Jordan Bonnie Littley Gerri Lynn O'Connor Paul Ainslie Maria Augimeri Bryan Bertie Laurie Bruce Gay Cowbourne Glenn De Baeremaeker Mike Del Grande Pamela Gough Lois Griffin Suzan Hall Peter Milczyn Ron Moeser John Parker Anthony Perruzza Eve Adams Grant Gibson Maja Prentice John Sprovieri • Richard Whitehead David Barrow Bill Fisch Jack Heath Linda Pabst Gino Rosati 24 RES. #Al2 /10 - APPOINTMENT OF SCRUTINEERS Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Ron Moeser THAT Mr. Robert Rossow, Partner, Gartner Roberts LLP and Mr. Paul Speck, Vice President, AON Reed Stenhouse, be appointed as scrutineers for the election of officers, if required. CHAIR OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Gerri Lynn O'Connor was nominated by David Barrow. RES. #A13 /10 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Bill Fisch Lois Griffin THAT nominations for the office of Chair of the Authority be closed. CARRIED CARRIED Gerri Lynn O'Connor was declared elected by acclamation as Chair of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. VICE CHAIR OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Maria Augimeri was nominated by Gerri Lynn O'Connor. RES. #A14 /10 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Laurie Bruce Gay Cowbourne THAT nominations for the office of Vice Chair of the Authority be closed. CARRIED Maria Augimeri was declared elected by acclamation as Vice Chair of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 25 RES. #A15 /10 - ELECTION OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Moved by: Bill Fisch Seconded by: Mike Del Grande THAT the term of appointment of the remaining representatives on the Executive Committee be extended until Annual Meeting #1 /11, scheduled to be held on January 28, 2011. CITY OF TORONTO REPRESENTATIVES ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Gay Cowbourne was nominated by Suzan Hall. RES. #A16 /10 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: David Barrow Colleen Jordan CARRIED THAT nominations for the remaining City of Toronto representative on the Executive Committee be closed. CARRIED Gay Cowbourne was declared elected by acclamation as a City of Toronto representative on the Executive Committee, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/11, scheduled to be held on January 28, 2011. RES. #A17 /10 - ELECTION OF BUDGET /AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD Moved by: Mike Del Grande Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne THAT the term of appointment for the remaining representatives on the Budget/Audit Advisory Board be extended until Annual Meeting #1/11, scheduled to be held on January 28, 2011. CARRIED 26 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:05 p.m., on Friday, February 26, 2010. Gerri Lynn O'Connor Brian Denney Chair Secretary- Treasurer /ks 27 ts, THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #2/10 March 26, 2010 The Authority Meeting #2/10, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, March 26, 2010. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. PRESENT Eve Adams Member David Barrow Member Bryan Bertie Member Laurie Bruce Member Gay Cowbourne Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Mike Del Grande Member Grant Gibson Member Pamela Gough Member Lois Griffin Member Suzan Hall Member Jack Heath Member Colleen Jordan Member Bonnie Litt ley Member Glenn Mason Member Ron Moeser Member Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair John Sprovieri Member Richard Whitehead Member ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member Maria Augimeri Vice Chair Bill Fisch Member Peter Milczyn Member Linda Pabst Member John Parker Member Anthony Perruzza Member Maja Prentice Member Gino Rosati Member 28 RES. #A18 /10 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Suzan Hall THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/10, held on February 26, 2010, be approved. DELEGATIONS (a) CARRIED A delegation by Liz White, spokesperson, Cormorant Defenders International and Animal Alliance /Environment Voters, in regard to item AUTH7.4 - Double- crested Cormorants. RES. #A19 /10 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Lois Griffin Bonnie Littley THAT above -noted delegation (a) be heard and received. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #A20 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED THE LIVING CITY REPORT CARD To outline the framework and indicator themes for The Living City Report Card. Mike Del Grande Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) adopt the framework and indicator themes for The Living City Report Card; THAT staff provide in the report card: • What actions should come from the report; • What actions have been or not been undertaken; THAT staff report back on how the health of individual watersheds will be tracked, either through individual report cards and in the living city report card; THAT source water protection and riparian habitat be included within the Indicator Themes in the living city report card. 29 AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to consult with external stakeholders, staff from the Rouge Park, representatives from the Duffins and Carruthers watersheds and waterfront, and members of the Humber Watershed Alliance, Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition and Don Watershed Regeneration Council, in the development of The Living City Report Card. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA, in collaboration with its municipal partners and stakeholders is preparing The Living City Report Card on the state of environmental health within its jurisdiction, which includes nine watersheds and the Lake Ontario waterfront. TRCA is mandated to do such work under the auspices of the Conservation Authorities Act 1946 to ensure the conservation, restoration and responsible management of Ontario's water, land and natural habitats. The intent is to effectively communicate conditions in accordance with The Living City objectives for TRCA's jurisdiction which includes the City of Toronto and part of the regions of Peel, York and Durham, Town of Mono and Township of Adjala- Tosorontio. In the recent past, TRCA developed individual report cards for the Etobicoke, Mimico, Humber, Don, Rouge, Duffins and Carruthers watersheds in order to provide an assessment of the health of these watersheds. Periodically, brief watershed report cards will continue to be produced by TRCA to communicate regional monitoring data and other relevant information on watershed conditions. With these report cards well established, a consolidated jurisdictional scale report card was requested by the Authority. At Authority Meeting #4/04, held on April 30, 2004, Resolution #A117/04 was approved which authorized TRCA to advance The Living City program through projects such as The Living City Report Card. In 2004, TRCA recognized the need for a jurisdictional wide report card and initiated some consultations on its scope and content. Further work was delayed while staff concentrated on collecting and consolidating sufficient data, refined and standardized measures and targets during the development of the Rouge, Humber, Don and most recently Etobicoke - Mimico watershed plans, and made provision for funding in the budgeting process. Project Overview The Living City Report Card will provide a high level snapshot of how TRCA leads, partners and influences work aimed at achieving a sustainable city region. It will communicate jurisdictional conditions and efforts using indicators, measures and targets established by watershed plans and supporting technical documents.. The results will not only be of value as a self assessment of TRCA's work, but will also complement municipal State of the Environment reports and objectives. There will be approximately 13 indicator themes, which will be organized according to The Living City objectives: Healthy Rivers and Shorelines, Regional Biodiversity, Sustainable Communities and Business Excellence. The final indicator themes will represent the watersheds and waterfront. Each indicator theme will also discuss climate change impacts, mitigation and adaptation, and human health implications. The indicator themes will specifically present: • measures for gauging progress or conditions; • trends showing an improvement or decline in conditions; • action(s) that TRCA leads; • action(s) that TRCA is influencing but led by others; 30 • highlights of good news and bad news; • targets; and • key next steps on how to reach the target. The project will deliver a short, crisp report (approximately 20 -30 pages) that will be easy to understand, focus attention on key issues, provide solutions to problems and stimulate action. In addition, background technical materials will be available through TRCA and partner organizations to support the report card and provide more detailed information. The target audience for The Living City Report Card will be: • provincial and federal agencies; • regional and local municipalities; • community groups; • businesses; and • general public. Partnerships and Collaboration In developing the The Living City Report Card, consultations will be held with a wide range of stakeholders to assist in scoping the project, identifying and evaluating indicators, data collection and promoting the final product. Staff will consult with various provincial and federal government agencies, municipal partners, academics, non - governmental organizations (NGOs), TRCA watershed task forces, staff from the Rouge Park, and representatives from the Duffins and Carruthers watersheds and waterfront. A working committee comprised of TRCA technical staff will also be established to guide the project. Indicator Themes Based on a review of indicator reports and sustainability strategies, The Living City Report Card indicator themes have been selected and are presented in Attachment 1. A list of potential measures for each of the 13 indicators themes has also been developed for discussion and is presented on the table below. A sample of the report framework is illustrated in Attachment 2. 31 Indicator Themes Potential Measures Healthy Rivers and Shorelines Surface Water Quality Levels of phosphorus, chloride, bacteria Surface Water Quantity Change in flood risk over time; ratio of base flow to average annual flow; erosion Lake Ontario Shoreline Aquatic habitat, shoreline remediation Regional Biodiversity Natural Cover Percent natural cover Fish, Birds, Plants Number of species Urban Forest Percent tree canopy in urban boundary Greenspace Hectares of public land versus other regions; hectares per 100,000 people Sustainable Communities Green Buildings /Technology Green building construction; energy star homes; LEED [new developments vs. retrofits] Energy . Energy use per capita; carbon foot print; green energy sources (biogas) Local Food /Urban Agriculture Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at TRCA facilities due to local food procurement; amount of LFP certified food; food literacy Cultural Heritage Heritage resources Education Percent of students participating in outdoor education programs Business Excellence Conservation Goods and Services Dollar value of forests, wetland, other natural features per jurisdiction; investment in watershed management DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE: 1. Project Scoping : December, 2009 - April, 2010 • Identify and meet with agencies /stakeholders. • Establish internal working group committee. • Finalize list of indicators and measures. • Identify data sources. 2. Data Collection and Analysis: April 2010- September 2010 • Compile data on each indicator. • Define indicator trends. • Prepare technical support documents. 3. Report Preparation: June 2010- December 2010 • Hire a writer /editor. • Report writing and editing. • Select printer /distribution method (i.e., newspaper, print, online). • Prepare report card design and layout options. 32 4. Marketing and Promotion: June 2010 - November 2010 • Report design and layout (internal). • Develop engagement, communications and media plan. • Prepare and launch social media (Facebook/Twitter page). • Prepare contents for TRCA website. • Organize report card launch. • Send report card to print /develop online web -based tool. 5. Authority Approval: January, 2011 • Present The Living City Report Card to the Authority for approval on January 7, 2010. 6. Report Card Launch: February 2011 • Prepare media release. • Launch TRCA website contents on the report card. • Launch report card. Staff will provide regular updates to TRCA's Directors Committee throughout the preparation of the report card. FINANCIAL DETAILS Approximately $84,900 has been allocated for the development of The Living City Report Card from capital accounts 416 -40 and 129 -92. Funding will cover staff time, writing, printing, social marketing tools and promotion. Report prepared by: Sonia Dhir, extension 5291 Emails: sdhir @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Emails: gwilkins @trca.on.ca Date: March 15, 2010 Attachments: 2 33 r: > < ,-0 — so THE LIVING CITY M 0 VISION 0 3 7.: CD `.‹ = Healthy Rivers and Regional Sustainable Business Excellence CD 13 Shorelines Biodiversity Communities 0 Shrtgca Mawr Surace.Wetter AkC$ °Meng Netural Cover 51achr, rrth and Green Eithlhatgra Local t gehr ,Chilucht I t GDOO, Guakly Qum) laty Shoreline Rants Technology uman Apcouf arK1 StrOCet 6 Uthari Ecreal Greertspixe L Eguchhon Energy 0 0 o_ ID 3 CD 1n SAMPLE - THE LIVING CITY REPORT CARD INDICATOR 1: LOCAL FOOD 2016 TARCF TRCA ncn f000 1.Aocurenient per cent to 60 per MEASURE: FEDUCT1ON OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AS A RESULT OF LOCAL FOOD PROCUREMENT AT TRCA FACILITIES TRCA Leadership Reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) ErniWons of Food Transportation at TRCA Facilities • in 2009, MCA introckiced a 40 WI' cent local food procoternalt rx)x:ty for TRCA tarafities • Approxinateiy156D00 rrEals in 2009 were locally prowled for TRCA facilities TRCA Partnerships • TRCA partnered with Local Food Plus (LW) for the development of a local fooi proairement policy • TRCA works with www.foodkm.wm to source local food within a 100 kilometre ros for its facilities TRCA FaciEty Black Creek Pioneer Village Kortright Education Centres Food km 21:X}5 Total GHG Emissions 200 Food km 2010 x Total GHG Total Reduction of GHQ Emissions Emissions Related to 2010 Food Transportation What are others doing? • LFP has segued agreements with the Urvversity of Toronlo 11 Fon db rer_tatyants and Resta Famns to serve sustainable local food using the LEP brand • Sponsored by a ocaition of aganizations, wwwfoodkm.com plows consurrm-s to find loc food suppers within a 100 kiornetre radus of the hme, • Ontario Federation of Agialture is working with Agricutture Canada to revise and update food labiAng laws so that conswiers who want to buy Canadian products can be beta' irlformed aoout the aaurce of their food What needs to be done? • Introduce more procutement agreements and poticies • Introduce more local food certification programs Ike Local Food Pus • Make pubic land more avaitable for trban agricUtitra • Iran more tamers who want to grow loo food NEXT STEPS • TRCA work with staff from the Toronto Urban Farm to source 10f.d 4)0,1 for TRCA food sashes • TRCA establish a partnerd-lip with and constrwi the recei'y intra,Inicture at The Living City Farris at Kortright to support a viable urban farm which IA mcet the local food requirements of the Konright Gentle for Conservation and othe- TRCA • MunicipaRies and institutions adopt local food mourement policies Ti • e pt.blic demand more local food at stores • Industries inot the avalablity of local food -„ 1%1 RES. #A21 /10 - REGIONAL WATERSHED MONITORING PROGRAM Annual Report of Activity. Update on the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program and 2009 Progress Report. Moved by: Seconded by: Mike Del Grande Colleen Jordan THAT the 2009 Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (RWMP) progress report be received; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to circulate the progress report to the program's funding and network partners; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue with the implementation of monitoring activities associated with the ongoing Regional Watershed Monitoring Program, as well as to continue to pursue and foster partnerships under the Regional Watershed Monitoring Network. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA's Regional Watershed Monitoring Program focuses on long -term monitoring of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems at the subwatershed and watershed scale and across the region as a whole. The program was launched in 2001 as a mechanism to bring all of TRCA's ecological monitoring work under a single program. This helped to provide better planning and coordination, protocol standardization, filling of data gaps, effective data management, and consistency and cost effectiveness. It also facilitates the communication of data availability and data sharing both internally and with external agencies. The RWMP, with its established sets of protocols, also provides the ability to implement short -term or special project data collection /monitoring in a timely manner in response to needs identified by TRCA or its partners. The long -term annual data provides baseline data in support of "before and after" analysis related to ecosystem and infrastructure impacting events. The data collected is shared with partner municipalities and other agencies, and is used for planning, implementation and reporting activities. Project partnerships with academic institutions facilitate achievement of common research objectives as well as data sharing in support of academic study. All elements of the program are designed to provide data sets that allow for interpretation at the site, watershed and regional scales. Data collected to date illustrate the effects of urbanization on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, specifically showing a trend towards declining water quality, fish community composition /diversity, the quality and quantity of terrestrial habitat, and representation of species in areas of increasing urban land use. Where restoration and recovery plans are implemented, future monitoring will track the progress of such enhancement initiatives. All program elements are strongly focused on the collection of scientific data, however when possible, community outreach and education are incorporated. This is accomplished through the involvement of trained volunteers (e.g. Terrestrial Volunteer Monitoring Program), through partnerships with community groups and other non - governmental organizations, and through special events that demonstrate to or involve the community. 36 The RWMP program provides the underlying scientific data that informs the key planning and reporting mechanisms of TRCA. The following are monitored as part of this program: • aquatic habitat and fish community; • terrestrial habitats, communities and species; • surface water quality and quantity; • fluvial geomorphology; • groundwater; • West Nile virus mosquito vector monitoring. The 2009 progress report provides an overview of each component of the monitoring program, highlights from the 2009 season, types of data available, and how the data is used. It also highlights-the "network approach" to data collection and how data can be shared among partner agencies. Copies of the report will be available at the Authority meeting. The following table outlines the various monitoring components included in the program and the agencies involved in the network: Table 1 - Regional Watershed Monitoring Network Monitoring Component # of Sites 2009 Agency /Partner, Aquatic Habitat and Species Benthos - 149 TRCA/MOE Fish /Habitat 56 TRCA/MNR Fluvial Geomorphology 51 TRCA Stream Temperature 51 TRCA West Nile Virus Monitoring 45 TRCA/MOE/Municipality Water Quality Surface Water 38 TRCA/MOE/City of Toronto Tributary Toxics 10 MOE Fish Biomonitoring - MOE Lake Partner Program - MOE Groundwater 21 TRCA/MOE Water Quantity Stream Flow Gauges 22 TRCA/Env. Canada Base Flow /Low Flow 64 TRCA Precipitation 32 TRCA/Municipalities Snow Course 10 TRCA/MNR Groundwater 22 TRCA/MOE Terrestrial Natural Heritage Terrestrial Fixed Plots 50 TRCA Systematic Inventories 1047 ha TRCA Terrestrial Volunteer Network 56 TRCANolunteers 37 Monitoring Activities and Highlights The following highlights some of the monitoring activities carried out during 2009: • Fish community and in- stream habitat was characterized at 56 sites including 46 RWMP sites in the Rouge River, Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds and 10 special project locations. Data has been used to establish baseline aquatic conditions at project sites, provide ongoing status of aquatic communities for watershed planning and reporting, and to report distribution data on fish species of interest such as redside dace, brook trout, central stoneroller and invasive species such as the round gobie. • Seasonal water temperature was recorded at 51 locations in the Rouge River, Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds. Analysis indicated that there was an overall decline in "thermal stability" in the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds from 2003, while there was a slight improvement in the Rouge River. • Surface water quality was measured monthly at a total of 38 sites in partnership with the City of Toronto and the Ministry of Environment (MOE). In 2009 TRCA added 2 additional water quality monitoring sites - one in Petticoat Creek and one in Pine Creek (Frenchman's Bay tributary). TRCA also extended the monitoring partnership to include monthly collection of water quality samples at sites in the lower Don River and lower Humber River watersheds. • The report Source Water Protection: Surface Water Quality Update (TRCA 2009) analyzed the current water quality (2003 -2007) across the TRCA jurisdiction. The general conclusion was that water quality issues are correlated to the amount of urbanization within a watershed. The Duffins Creek watershed along with the upper Humber River and Rouge River continue to exhibit the best water quality within TRCA's jurisdiction. Lower levels of urbanization, larger riparian buffers and groundwater contributions may play a role in the water quality in these areas.' In addition, temporal trends in water quality were analyzed where there was sufficient data. Total suspended solids and total phosphorus were found to decrease over time while chloride showed an increasing trend. • Benthic invertebrates were assessed at 149 RWMP stations and 3 special project sites. Through comparison of Hilsenhoff scores calculated for 2008 -2009, the benthic macroinvertebrates collected across the TRCA watersheds indicated declines in benthos communities. These declines may be attributed to a combination of water quality and habitat influences. • Twenty -one groundwater wells throughout the jurisdiction were sampled in partnership with MOE under the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network. Data collection includes continuous water levels at all wells along with seasonal groundwater quality at select sites. • Water quantity was measured through a network of stream gauges, precipitation gauges and snow course sites in 2009. Equipment replacement and upgrades were undertaken at a number of sites. 38 • Baseflow was assessed at 57 indicator stations throughout the region in 2009. The most interesting trend identified from the 2009 low flow measurements, was that total discharges at most of the indicators sites were higher than 2008 measurements. About 78% of sites measured in both 2008 and 2009 were recorded as having higher discharge flows in 2009. The timing and intensity of annual precipitation plays a large role in the variability and magnitude of baseflows. The summer of 2009 was cool and wet which likely resulted in increased low flows. Additional analysis 'of precipitation and flow will be undertaken as part of the 10 year roll up of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program results. • In the 2009 field season, summer precipitation was not as high as in 2008, but was still 31% above normal precipitation amounts for the months of June, July and August. Further analysis of precipitation distribution will be undertaken as part of the 10 year roll up of the RWMP. • The most snowfall recorded in 2009 was observed at Glen Major Forest with a total accumulation of 202.1 cm. The average snow depth across the TRCA jurisdiction was 10.1 cm. It was observed that snowfall within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) decreased slightly by 4% when compared with 2008 observations. • West Nile virus monitoring activities focused on a total of 36 natural wetlands and 9 stormwater management ponds in Peel, Durham and York regions, and the City of Toronto. Results from 2009 indicated that there was an overall increase in the density and the number of species of mosquitoes in the wetlands. Wet weather conditions were attributed to the increased number of larvae collected. As in previous years the data indicates that wetlands generally support few numbers and species of West Nile virus vector mosquito larvae, whereas stormwater management ponds tend to have higher numbers of vector.species present. Overall the majority of both wetlands and stormwater ponds do not pose a significant threat due to the presence of vector mosquito larvae, however the occurrence of a few "hot spots" emphasizes the need for continued surveillance. Data Management One of the key elements of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program is the data that is collected on an annual basis. As such, the storage, security and retrieval of the data is extremely important. Water quality data is stored in the Water database which is part of the Envirobase database, TRCA's corporate database which houses monitoring data. In 2009, the Water database was converted from a Microsoft Access database to a structured query language (SQL) database. This database includes laboratory results and metadata (e.g. laboratory analysis methods, sampling equipment). In November 2009, the SQL database was made available to all TRCA staff to access internally via the intranet. Improvements to the database are ongoing. 39 Products To date there have been a number of reports that have been produced that describe components of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program, along with applications of the data and information generated by the network. Specifically, data from the program has been used as basis for the development of TRCA watershed report cards and plans, fisheries management plans, Remedial Action Plan progress reports and updates, water quality reports and project summaries. Data has also been contributed to several regional "State of the Environment" reporting exercises. Several additional report products were completed or contributed to in 2009, as follows: • Source Water Protection: Surface Water Quality Update. TRCA. December 2009. • Etobicoke - Mimico Technical Update: Surface Water Quality. TRCA. December 2009. • Evaporation from a Fallow Field and Urbanized Surface within the Humber River Watershed. • Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watersheds Technical Update Report: Baseflow and Water Use (Section 4.0(draft)). • 2008 Surface Water Quality Summary Report. • Reports completed in 2009 resulting from terrestrial biological inventories include: Albion Hills, Maple Nature Reserve and Milliken Park. Terrestrial breeding bird reports were completed for Don Valley Brick Works, Chester Springs Marsh and the Sun Valley and Snow Dump site. • Historic data collected through the RWMP was contributed to the report Mixed -wood Plains Ecozone Status and Trends Report: Benthic Invertebrates. This report led by the Ministry of Natural Resources documented various conditions of the Mixed -wood Plains Ecozone in Ontario. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The planning, field work and data collection for the 2010 Regional Watershed Monitoring Program will commence in the spring, and will include additional fish, habitat and water quality monitoring to be done in Don River and Highland, Mimico and Petticoat creeks watersheds. Ongoing monthly data collection including surface water quality monitoring started in January. Further updates to TRCA's relational database will be forthcoming in the next few months as well as staff development and training on its use. A full roll -up of the data collected since 2001 is currently underway and will continue through 2010. This analysis will present the data collected in a regional context as well as benchmark each watershed in terms of performance within the regional picture. Results from this analysis will support the development of TRCA's The Living City Report Card scheduled for Authority approval in January, 2011. In addition, staff will continue to foster partnerships with community groups and other agencies involved in monitoring activities through the watershed monitoring network. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the 2009 Regional Watershed Monitoring Program was made available from the following partners /sources: 40 Source 2009 City of Toronto $284,000 Region of Peel $300,000 Region of York $300,000 Region of Durham $60,000 RAP MOU 2009/10 $63,400 TOTAL $1,007,400 Report prepared by: Scott Jarvie, extension 5312 Emails: sjarvie @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Scott Jarvie, extension 5312 Emails: sjarvie @trca.on.ca Date: March 3, 2010 RES. #A22/10 - WEST NILE VIRUS PROGRAM Annual Report: West Nile Virus Vector Monitoring and Surveillance - 2009. Summary of the 2009 West Nile Virus Monitoring and Surveillance program. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne THAT the Annual Report on West Nile Virus Vector Mmonitoring and Surveillance in Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) wetlands and stormwater management ponds in 2009 be received; THAT staff be directed to circulate the Annual Report: West Nile Virus Vector Monitoring and Surveillance - 2009 to the public health units for the regional municipalities of Peel, Durham, York and the City of Toronto; THAT staff be directed to continue to participate in the Regional West Nile Virus Advisory Committees for Peel, Durham, York and the City of Toronto; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue West Nile virus (WNV) vector larval mosquito monitoring in wetlands and stormwater management ponds on TRCA -owned land during the 2010 summer season. CARRIED 41 BACKGROUND West Nile virus is a seasonal disease known in Canada since 2001. Two key mosquito species, Culex pipiens and Culex restuans, are the primary vectors responsible for spreading the disease to humans in Ontario. The level of WNV activity and risk of exposure depends on the number of WNV bird hosts and WNV positive pools of vector mosquitoes in a given year. It is difficult to predict the vector activity for a given year since their population dynamics change from year to year, vary across jurisdictions and are influenced by numerous abiotic and biotic factors. WNV management is focused on prevention and control measures and is collectively undertaken by the provincial, regional and municipal health agencies in Ontario. As a measure of due diligence and at the request of regional health units, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been monitoring larval mosquito populations in TRCA's natural wetlands and selected stormwater management ponds (SWMPs) since 2003. The objective of the monitoring is to identify preferred breeding sites of the two key enzootic vectors, estimate the level of risk and prevent the risk of contracting WNV by taking appropriate measures like housekeeping activities (grading small depressions, garbage removal) and larviciding, if necessary. TRCA's WNV program activities include public education and outreach activities, collaborating with the regional health units and conducting mosquito larval surveillance on TRCA -owned lands. At Authority Meeting #1/09, held on February 27, 2009, Resolution #A2/09 was approved as follows: THAT the updated procedure to address public complaints about standing water and West Nile virus (WNV) related inquiries on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) property be approved; THAT the Annual Report on West Nile Virus Vector Monitoring and Surveillance at TRCA wetlands and stormwater management ponds in 2008 be received; THAT the Annual Report on West Nile Virus Vector Monitoring and Surveillance on TRCA wetlands and stormwater management ponds in 2008 be circulated to the public health units for the regional municipalities of Durham, Peel, York and the City of Toronto; THAT staff be directed to continue to, participate in the West Nile Virus Advisory Committee for the regions of Durham, Peel, York and the City of Toronto, and continue to monitor mosquito larval densities on TRCA properties; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue WNV vector larval mosquito monitoring in wetlands and stormwater management ponds on TRCA property during the 2009 summer season. 42 Summary of WNV Program Activities for 2009 Public education and outreach activities for 2009 focused on the continued update and distribution of WNV related information as well as addressing public and staff enquires on WNV, and standing water complaints. A major highlight of 2009 was updating TRCA's Standing Water Complaint Procedure. In 2009 TRCA received 10 standing water complaints, of which nine were associated with TRCA properties. Follow -up of the complaints was undertaken by TRCA staff or staff from other agencies if the property in question was under management agreement. As a result of one complaint regarding a wetland behind a private property near Kleinburg, TRCA determined the most appropriate action was the application of a larvicide. TRCA also received a Health Order from the Medical Officer of Peel Regional Health under the Ontario Regulation 199/03 on May 21, 2009 to assist with the implementation of vector mosquito larvae control measures in the Heart Lake Wetland Complex in Brampton, when necessary. Follow up communications with Peel Regional Health staff indicated that no larviciding at this site was carried out during the summer months in 2009. Collaborations with regional heath units required TRCA staff attending various Regional Health WNV committee meetings, providing information on sensitive areas and training Regional Health staff in identifying vector larvae. Mosquito larvae were routinely sampled at 45 sites (36 wetlands and 9 SWMPs) during the summer of 2009 to identify breeding habitats for WNV vector mosquitoes Larval sampling yielded a record number of larvae with a total of 7,904 being sampled. Similar to findings in previous years, the non - vector mosquito, Culex territans, continued to be the predominant species collected from 94% of the wetland sites and represented about 72.6% of the total larvae identified. The two key vector species, Culex pipiens and Culex pipiens represented only 10% and 5.4% of the total larvae identified and were present in only 22% and 14% of the wetland sites, respectively. Risk ranking for the 36 wetland sites resulted in one TRCA property near the Village of Kleinburg being the only "hot spot" (ranked as a high risk site) for Culex restuans and Culex pipiens during the 2nd and 3rd sampling periods in August. This site was subsequently larvicided by a private contractor. Conversely the predominant mosquito larvae found in SWMP sites were the vector species Culex pipiens which represented 76.8% of the total number of larvae identified and Culex restuans which totalled 5.2 %. Culex pipiens and Culex restuans were collected from 55.6% and 11% of the SWMP sites respectively. Culex territans was the most common non - vector mosquito which accounted for 13.9% of the identified species and was collected from 77.8% of SWMP sites, clearly indicating that the vector and non - vector composition in the SWMP sites was opposite to that of the wetlands. These results are similar to findings in previous years. Risk ranking of the SWMP sites resulted in only one being considered "high risk ", L'Amaroux Park North Pond, where Culex pipiens were collected in large numbers during the month of August. This pond is under management agreement with the City of Toronto and upon the monitoring results being forwarded to the public health staff, the pond was treated with larvicide. The remainder of the pond sites were considered low to moderate risk. The presence of occasional "hot spots" stresses the importance of regular monitoring of wetlands and stormwater ponds in determining the vector activity, WNV risk levels and high risk spots. 43 A copy of the Annual Report: West Nile Virus Vector Mosquito Larval Monitoring and Surveillance - 2009 will be available on the corporate website (www.trca.on.ca; key word: West Nile Virus) for reference and copies will be made available at the Authority meeting. The Executive Summary of the report is outlined in Attachment 1. RATIONALE Staff anticipate continued requests from the public for actions to be taken to address perceived mosquito breeding in standing water on TRCA -owned lands that are close to their property, and from the regional health departments to help determine the sensitivity of natural areas for the purpose of larviciding. TRCA's WNV program also helps to identify vector numbers and high risk sites. The previous identification of isolated hotspots in wetlands and stormwater ponds during the summer months warrant continuous larval monitoring and surveillance. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue surveillance activities at 36 sites on TRCA -owned lands and will continue to liaise with regional health units and participate in WNV advisory committees throughout the 2010 field season. Staff will continue to respond to public inquiries on WNV and reports of standing water on TRCA property, in addition to providing general information for both the public and staff on WNV. Standing water complaints will be reviewed following the revised Standing Water Complaint Procedure. Staff will continue to identify sites of concern for WNV on TRCA property in the upcoming 2010 field season through larval monitoring and advise other TRCA sections on maintenance or management duties required to reduce the number of potential breeding sites of major WNV vectors on TRCA -owned lands. Additional data analysis of habitat conditions in wetlands and SWMPs is currently being undertaken. This data collected by TRCA over the past five years will be examined to determine any significant linkages between water quality and vegetation conditions within wetlands and stormwater management ponds and their influence on vector and non - vector mosquito communities and numbers. TRCA is also currently partnering with the Ministry of the Environment on a specific project to assess a broader range of habitat, water quality and design characteristics within SWMPs and their relationship, if any, to WNV vector mosquitos. The results of this.study are expected by the summer of 2010. 44 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the 2010 WNV surveillance and monitoring activities is available under the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program with capital funding support from the regions of York, Peel and Durham and the City of Toronto. This funding will be sufficient to support the 2010 surveillance field work and staff support to liaise with the regional health units and to respond to complaints. However, the funding is not expected to cover costs associated with any control measures if deemed necessary. If larviciding or site remediation is required as a control measure, the associated costs will be covered through TRCA Land Management Funding. Report prepared by: Thilaka Krishnaraj, extension 5665 Emails: tkrishnaraj @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Thilaka Krishnaraj, extension 5665; Scott Jarvie, extension 5312 Emails: tkrishnaraj @trca.on.ca; sjarvie @trca.on.ca Date: March 3, 2010 Attachments: 1 45 Attachment 1 Annual Report: West Nile Virus Vector Mosquito Larval Monitoring and Surveillance - 2009 Executive Summary West Nile virus (WNV) is a seasonal disease in Canada and mosquitoes are the carriers of the virus. Humans and other animals are incidental or dead end hosts. Evidences suggest that two key vector mosquito species namely Culex pipiens and Culex restuans are primarily responsible for spreading the disease to humans in Ontario. The level of WNV activity and risk of exposure depends on the number of WNV bird hosts and WNV positive pools of vector mosquitoes in a given year. The vector population dynamics change from year to year, jurisdiction to jurisdiction and are influenced by abiotic factors such as temperature, precipitation, presence of stagnant water and biotic factors like absence of natural enemies. WNV management is focused on prevention and control measures and is collectively undertaken by the provincial, regional and municipal health agencies in Ontario. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been implementing WNV vector mosquito larval surveillance and monitoring since 2003 as a measure of due diligence and at the request of its Regional partners. A variety of wetland habitats on TRCA property such as marshes, woodland pools and ponds have been considered as potential breeding habitats for mosquitoes because of the permanent availability of water. However, monitoring data collected since 2003 shows that healthy, functioning wetlands pose little or no threats to human health. Occasionally a few isolated pockets of water with high mosquito populations have been found which indicate that it is essential to monitor these habitats and take appropriate control measures to prevent the risk of transmitting WNV. TRCA's WNV program has a three pronged approach including public education and outreach, collaboration with public health units, and larval monitoring and surveillance on TRCA properties. Public education and outreach activities for 2009 focused on continued update and distribution of WNV related information and addressing public and staff enquires on WNV and standing water complaints. A major highlight of 2009 was updating TRCA's Standing Water Complaint Procedure. In 2009 TRCA received 10 standing water complaints, of which nine (9) were involved with TRCA properties. Of the nine (9) complaints, seven (7) were directly managed properties, of which one site, behind a private property near Kleinburg in York Region required larvicide applications as the weekly monitoring of this site yielded high number of vector larvae in the samples. The remaining two (2) were under management agreement with Regional municipalities. Collaboration with regional heath units requires TRCA staff to attend various Regional Health WNV committee meetings, provide information on sensitive areas and train Regional Health staff in identifying vector larvae. WNV vector larval surveillance and monitoring was undertaken in 36 wetlands and 9 stormwater management ponds (SWMPs) across the GTA from May 29th to September 10, 2009. Larval sampling yielded a record number of larvae (7904) in total, of which 6826 alone were collected from the wetland sites. Of the larvae identified in the wetland sites 73.5% were non - vectors and 26.5% were vector larvae. Culex territans was the most commonly collected (72.6 %) non - vector mosquito species from the wetland sites. Culex pipiens and Culex restuans two key vectors represented 10% and 5.4% of the larvae identified respectively. This result concurs with the previous records of low occurrences of vectors in wetland habitats. WNV risk ranking was undertaken for the six (6) vector species found in the wetland sites to determine vector "hotspots" in 2009. One wetland pool behind a private property near Kleinburg was designated as a "hotspot" which required the application of larvicide (Vectobac 200G) by a licensed private contractor in August. 46 A total of 1078 larvae were collected in SWMP sites representing 13.6% of all larvae collected during 2009. Among the identified larvae, vector species comprised 86.2% while the non - vectors made up the remaining 13.8 %. Culex pipiens was the predominant vector species found in the SWMP sites, representing 76.8% of the total number of larvae identified while Culex restuans totaled only 5.2 %. Culex territans was the most common non - vector and accounted for 13.9% of the identified species in the SWMP sites, clearly indicating that the vector and non - vector composition at these sites was opposite to that of the wetlands. Risk ranking for the larvae collected from stormwater management ponds showed "Low" to "Moderate" risks for four vector species (Aedes vexans, Anopheles punctipennis, Culex pipiens, and Culex restuans), except for one occasion where Culex pipiens were collected from L'Amaroux Park North Pond in large numbers declaring this site as a "hotspot" in August. This pond is under Management Agreement with the City of Toronto and after the monitoring results were forwarded to the public health staff that pond was treated with larvicide. Localized "hotspots" for WNV virus continue to be identified through monitoring which allows TRCA and others to take action to eliminate or reduce the risks to residents. Managing WNV means to maintain regionally appropriate surveillance and capacity to intervene. 47 RES. #A23/10 - DOUBLE - CRESTED CORMORANTS Management Strategy for 2010. Management'of Double- crested Cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park. Moved by: Seconded by: Lois Griffin Bonnie Litt ley THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to continue to work with the cormorant advisory group in addressing management concerns regarding colonial waterbirds at Tommy Thompson Park (TTP); THAT staff be directed to work with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Canadian Wildlife Service and any other required regulatory agency to seek approval for the 2010 management strategy for colonial waterbirds at TTP; THAT staff be directed to implement the proposed management strategy for 2010; THAT staff be directed to continue to actively participate in local, regional and binational committees /working groups addressing the management and protection of colonial waterbirds; THAT staff be directed to present and promote the 2010 cormorant management strategy to local, regional and binational committees and working groups that are addressing the management and protection of colonial waterbirds, as an alternative to lethal management; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority annually regarding the management of Double- crested Cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park. BACKGROUND Double- crested Cormorants (DCCO) have been nesting at Tommy Thompson Park (TTP) since 1990. The colony started with six nests in trees on the tip of Peninsula B, and has since expanded to 7,564 nests, as recorded in 2009, on three of the four peninsulas at TTP. In 1990, the four peninsulas were cottonwood forest habitat, however due to DCCO colonization on Peninsulas A, B and C, the forest canopy has been significantly reduced: no forest is left on Peninsula A; only a portion of forest remains on Peninsulas B and is in poor health; and the forest on Peninsula C in declining health. In addition to the largest DCCO colony in the lower Great Lakes basin, TTP supports diverse communities of bird, fish, reptile, amphibian, mammal and vegetation species. It has been formally designated as a Globally Significant Important Bird Area (IBA) and an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA #120). The master plan that guides the development of TTP includes the goal of conserving and managing the natural resources and environmentally significant areas of the park. While the DCCO colony adds to the diversity of the park and is environmentally significant, there are concerns about the impacts of DCCO on tree health and biodiversity in other areas at TTP. 48 Monitoring of DCCO colony growth and expansion, impacts on vegetation cover, and the dynamic interactions with other colonial bird nesting species has occurred since 1990. Conclusions drawn from the data include: • DCCO nesting has resulted in the loss or degradation of approximately 24 per cent of the forest habitat available at TTP. • Peninsula A is now devoid of forest. Only three standing trees remained in 2009, two of which are dead and the third in very poor health. • Peninsula B has lost all the trees at the tip and most of the remaining trees inland are in poor health and expected to die within the next few years. • Tree health is rapidly declining on Peninsula C. • Average annual population increase was 15.5 per cent between 1998 and 2009. • DCCO have expanded into the traditional Black- crowned Night -Heron (BCNH) nesting area and in 2009 it is estimated that fewer than 50 BCNH nests persisted to the end of the season. The expansion of DCCOs has displaced BCNH from their primary nesting areas into marginal areas which are prone to disturbance. • Based on the rapid growth of the DCCO colony since 1990, it is expected that if no management measures are undertaken, the population will continue to expand their nesting areas into new areas such as Peninsula D. To ensure the TTP Master Plan goals and objectives are maintained and the concerns are addressed, TRCA initiated the involvement of stakeholders and the public, including an advisory group, to create a management strategy for DCCO at TTP. The process guiding the management strategy started in November 2007 with the establishment of the Cormorant Advisory Group. This group is comprised of various stakeholders and experts from across the spectrum whose mandate is to provide input and advice, to ensure that all perspectives are considered, and to provide linkages with other stakeholders. Since establishment in early 2008 the advisory group has met eight times, including a public meeting'in April 2008. 2010 is the third consecutive year of cormorant management at TTP, however little management occurred in spring 2008 due to timing. The Cormorant Strategy Chronology (Attachment 1) summarizes the consultation process, including the development of the strategic approach of the management strategy undertaken in 2008 as per Authority Resolution #A110 /08 and in 2009 as per Authority Resolution #A22/09. The goal of the 2009 management strategy did not change from 2008. It was to achieve a balance between the continued existence of a healthy, thriving DCCO colony and the other ecological, educational, scientific and recreational values of TTP. The specific objectives of the strategy were to: a) increase public knowledge, awareness and appreciation of colonial waterbirds; b) deter DCCO from nesting on Peninsula D; c) limit further Toss of tree canopy on the peninsulas beyond the existing DCCO colonies; d) continue research on colonial waterbirds in an urban wilderness context. The 2009 Strategic Approach (Attachment 2) was formulated based upon the 2008 Strategic Approach and the comments and views expressed at the advisory group meetings. It was adopted at Authority Meeting #2/09, held on March 27, 2009, as part of Resolution #A22/09. 49 In order to solicit additional input from the public about the DCCO colonies at TTP, staff prepared fact and comment sheets for participants at the Spring Bird Festival, held on May 23, 2009. Park users had the opportunity to view the DCCO colonies and learn more about DCCO at TTP from TRCA staff. Visitors then had the opportunity to express their views via a survey and comment sheet. The survey was given to 25 people who had just taken a tour of the Peninsula C colony or who had listened to staff interpret the TTP colony. Every person surveyed supported the overall goal of the strategy and supported management of the DCCO colony at TTP. Four participants indicated that they are in favour of the management plan because it strives for a behavioural change, not lethal population management. 84% of participants agreed that they are concerned about the amount of tree canopy at TTP. The overall DCCO population at TTP continues to rise. In 2009 the increase in nest numbers was due to a 94 per cent increase in ground nesting on Peninsula B. The overall tree nesting population experienced a decrease for the first time since colonization. The decrease in the number of tree nests and the significant increase in ground nesting is in line with the 2009 strategy where cormorants were deterred from nesting at the tip of Peninsula C and encouraged to nest on the ground on Peninsulas A and B. In summary: • overall DCCO nests increased from 6,717 nests in 2008 to 7,564 nests; • ground nests on Peninsula B increased from 948 in 2008 to 1957 nests in 2009, a 94 per cent increase; • tree nests on Peninsula A and B decreased by 27 nests and 133 nests respectively; and tree nests on Peninsula C increased from 4,609 nests in 2008 to 4,668 in 2009; • the number of trees cormorants occupied decreased by 16 trees in 2009 for a total of 1,045 nest trees; • cormorants occupied 51 per cent of all surveyed trees at the site including trees that were surveyed in the past, but not used for nesting in 2009; • at peak nest count Black- crowned Night -Heron nests were recorded as 617, however most of the night -heron colony abandoned breeding attempts by mid -June. It is estimated that less than 50 nests persisted until the end of the season. The cause for the abandonment is unclear and staff will continue to monitor night -heron nesting activities in 2010. Human presence (researchers and the public) on Peninsula D was successful at deterring DCCO from nesting and escalating the level of deterrence beyond human presence was not required. DCCO were documented on Peninsula D a total of nine times during spring 2008, but no nesting attempts were witnessed. DCCO were only documented roosting once on Peninsula D during the fall, and again human presence was adequate to deter the birds. York University completed the egg oiling study to examine nest desertion, behavioural effects, and disturbance effects on ground nesting cormorants. The monitoring portion of this project was concluded in the 2009 breeding season to determine if there is any difference in nest occupancy of the 2008 treatment nests. Initial data analysis indicates there is no significant difference in nest occupancy. This study has also produced a variety of valuable biological data including productivity, fledging success, nest attendance, hatching dates and social behaviours on the TTP DCCO colony. This data will enable TRCA staff to better manage and ' understand the TTP DCCO colony and provides a better understanding of the effects of disturbance on nesting attempts and success. York University researchers have already presented the research at one conference and are currently in the process of completing the report for peer reviewed scientific publication. 50 RATIONALE An extremely high level of concern has been expressed regarding DCCO populations and their management. Concerns have been raised from both extremes, on the one hand calling for management and the preservation of forest canopy, and on the other hand for protection of the birds and their nesting colonies. TRCA has an obligation to manage Tommy Thompson Park as directed by the Master Plan for Tommy Thompson Park as approved under the Environmental Assessment Act. To meet the intent of the master plan, TRCA staff feel that there is a strong rationale for undertaking a strategic approach to the management of Double- crested Cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park. Since November 2007, TRCA has involved stakeholders and the public in assessing the need for management and developing a strategy for cormorants at TTP. Generally, throughout the process there has been agreement that some form of management is appropriate, providing that the methods are humane to cormorants and do not affect other wildlife. Based on the success of the 2009 strategy, ground nest enhancements and pre and post nesting deterrents will continue. While cormorants did not ground nest on Peninsula A, birds frequented the enhancement area loafing and gathering nesting material. Peninsula C is the traditional nesting area to the majority of the BCNH colony and is part of the park's largest forest block. This area continues to see a further reduction in forest health. TRCA has therefore developed the following strategic approach to the management of cormorants at TTP for the 2010 season. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Goal and Objectives The goal of the 2010 management strategy has not changed from 2009. It is to achieve a balance between the continued existence of a healthy, thriving cormorant colony and the other ecological, educational, scientific and recreational values of Tommy Thompson Park. The specific objectives of the strategy are to: a) increase public knowledge, awareness and appreciation of colonial waterbirds; b) deter cormorants from nesting on Peninsula D; c) limit further loss of tree canopy on the peninsulas beyond the existing cormorant colonies; d) continue research on colonial waterbirds in an urban wilderness context. Increasing Public Knowledge, Awareness and Appreciation TRCA will seek all opportunities to increase public awareness and appreciation of Double- crested Cormorants and other colonial waterbirds at TTP. A varied approach will be used including, but not limited to: • public meetings; • TRCA website; • annual Spring Bird Festival (May 8, 2010); • development of interpretive signage; • improving opportunities to view colonial waterbirds, including cormorants using viewing blinds and platforms; • conducting tours with schools and interest groups; • presenting information at conferences and forums; • participation in working groups on colonial waterbirds. 51 Informational signs at strategic locations that request people to refrain from entering the colonial waterbird colonies during the nesting season are already in place to discourage the public from disturbing the bird colonies. Additional interpretive signs will be installed to educate park visitors on colonial waterbirds and their habitats. Researcher disturbance associated with TRCA and partner research programs will be controlled to reduce overall disruption. In order to solicit more input from the public about the cormorant colonies at TTP, staff will prepare a fact sheet and comment sheet targeting park users at the Spring' Bird Festival on May 8, 2010. Park users will have the opportunity to view the cormorant colonies and learn more about cormorants at TTP from TRCA staff. Anyone interested will be given the opportunity to express their views via the comment sheet and the results of the survey will be summarized for inclusion into the summary report for the 2010 season. Proposed 2010 Strategic Approach As with the 2009 strategy, TRCA proposes to utilize a variety of techniques in an integrated adaptive management approach to achieve the goals and objectives for the 2010 strategy. The 2010 Strategic Approach matrix (Attachment 3) outlines the techniques and strategies at specific locations of the site, and will help provide insight regarding the interactions of the different techniques. Management techniques do not include lethal culling. The TTP cormorant colony currently occupies three of the four peninsulas of the park comprising three cormorant sub - colonies (Attachment 4). Peninsula A and the current nesting area of Peninsula B are considered Cormorant Conservation Zones where cormorant nesting and roosting is encouraged and enhanced. Within the Cormorant Conservation Zones efforts will be made to minimize disturbances so that cormorants will continue to use the areas and nesting remains productive. Peninsula C is the most recently colonized area containing the largest cormorant sub - colony and the largest Black- crowned Night- Herons population at the site. Peninsula D is the only forested peninsula not occupied by colonial waterbird species. The 2010 Strategic Approach will focus on pre- nesting deterrents in the unoccupied forested areas of Peninsulas B, C and D to reduce stress on the trees and encourage ground nesting on Peninsulas A and B. Post - breeding deterrents in the forested areas of Peninsulas C and D will be used to reduce stress on living trees; and ground nest enhancements on Peninsulas A and B will encourage cormorants to nest on the ground instead of in trees. Habitat restoration efforts will continue to delineate and buffer the colonies from other park uses as well as provide habitat for other bird and wildlife species. Finally, continued research will be encouraged and will focus on raccoon predation on cormorant and night -heron nests; and the use of social attraction techniques to persuade cormorants to nest on the ground. Cormorant Conservation Zones Peninsula A and the current nest area of Peninsula B are considered Cormorant Conservation Zones where cormorants will be encouraged to nest, loaf and roost. Efforts will be made to minimize disturbances so that cormorants will continue to use these areas and nesting remains productive. 52 Pre - Nesting Deterrents Cormorants will be discouraged from expanding their tree colonies onto Peninsula D, further onto the tip and base of Peninsula C and the base of Peninsula B. Cormorant pre- nesting deterrents will be used in these specific locations as depicted in Attachment 4, and will only be implemented if necessary and in response to cormorant nesting attempts in 2010. Cormorant deterrence at the base of Peninsula B and C may be conducted where the Black - crowned, Night- Herons have nested in recent years. Deterrents will only be used in these areas given that they do not adversely impact night -heron nesting. By discouraging cormorants from nesting in trees in these areas, staff anticipate that forest health and tree canopy will be preserved, further expansion into new trees will be limited, and the enhanced ground nesting areas at the tips of Peninsulas A and B will be more attractive to breeding cormorants. A potential secondary benefit is reduced competition for nest sites and nest material with night- herons and Great Egrets. Deterrents will not occur on Peninsula A or on the majority of Peninsula B. Displaced tree nesting cormorants will be encouraged to ground nest on Peninsulas A and B. Pre - Nesting Deterrent Methodology Methods that achieve the goal of deterring cormorants while minimizing disturbance to other species will be utilized. Staff will use targeted techniques that are humane for cormorants and minimize disturbance,to other wildlife. The techniques used will be employed on an increasing scale of activity, with preference given to the least intrusive means needed (Attachment 5). Detailed colony observations will take place prior to implementing any deterrent technique, as well as during and post deterrent implementation. These will be conducted to document behavior, locations and densities of cormorants, night- herons, egrets, or other bird and wildlife species. These observations, combined with nesting locations data from recent years, will provide a baseline to help quantify targeted cormorant movement and non - targeted species activity. Staff presence, and increasing human activity in appropriate areas is favoured over the other techniques, however, human activity and presence alone has not proven to be completely effective in preventing nesting expansion in all deterrent areas. It is therefore expected that deterrent techniques -will escalate in 2010 as they did in 2008 and 2009. These techniques are depicted in the 2010 Deterrent Escalation diagram (Attachment 5). Effective cormorant deterrence requires the use of a suite of techniques. Deterrence at TTP has proven to require escalation beyond simple human presence and would first progress to active techniques including whistling, arm waving, followed by running and shouting. Activity would be further increased to carrying 3 metre poles and waving the poles without tree contact, progressing to moving low tree branches and tapping on trees. Poles would not contact cormorants. If nesting attempts persist, then artificial predators including owls, raccoons, hawks and scarecrows will be placed in the trees in and near the nesting locations. If nesting attempts still persist, additional sections may be added to the poles, increasing their length and used to remove newly placed nesting material. 53 Inactive nest removal will also be implemented for the 2010 season, and will be completed in winter and early spring of 2010, prior to the return of the nesting cormorants. Inactive nest removal will only take place in the Primary Deterrent Areas as indicated in Attachment 4. These areas represent newly colonized trees in 2009 and /or trees in fair health, and were the sites targeted for pre and post deterrent strategies in 2009. Since all old nests will be removed from the Primary Deterrent Area prior to the 2010 breeding season, any new nests started in 2010 will be obvious and newly placed material will be promptly removed before it becomes an active nest. Poles will not be used on nests where chicks may be present or where nesting status is not completely documented, and poles will not be used to make direct contact with cormorants. In a situation where cormorants continue to utilize trees within the deterrence area, deterrents will again escalate to utilize noise bangers, in conjunction with the previously described techniques. Noise bangers are not a preferred option and will only be used when non - target species are not present, or will not be affected. • Deterrent techniques will begin with human presence and will progress as indicated in Attachment 5. Deterrent activity will only progress to the next level when staff determine that cormorants are no longer responding to that given technique. Progression to the next level will occur based on documentation that at least two attempts in one day when a given technique fails to flush cormorants. In the event that nesting deterrents progress through the methodology depicted in Attachment 5, and escalate to the use of noise makers (Level 7), and cormorants still refuse to leave newly created nests, deterrents will escalate to the final level, active nest removal. Active nest removal is not a preferred option and will only be used in the Primary Deterrence Areas on recently created nests (i.e., less than 10 days old). Active nest removal will not be utilized as a population control technique, and it is not the intent to disturb active nests containing eggs or nestlings. Active nest removal will not be utilized in the following situations: 1. nestlings (chicks) are present or adult behavior suggests nestlings are present; 2. there is a possibility of nestlings being present or the age of the active nest is not documented; 3. there are eggs present that could be greater than 10 days old; 4. there is a possibility that eggs are present or adult behavior suggests the presence of eggs, and the nest age is unknown or is greater than 10 days old; • 5. nests are outside the Primary Deterrent Areas. The Active Nest Removal Situation and Action Flow Chart (Attachment 6) indicates the typical situations and actions that are anticipated at the site. In all situations, it is the intent that nests without eggs are removed. Monitoring will include behaviour observations, timeline establishment, spatial nest mapping and tree tagging to provide the highest level of confidence that eggs are not present in a nest, and that nest age is documented. The 10 day incubation used is a conservative estimate based on current scientific literature on embryo development for altricial (i.e., born helpless and requiring parental care) waterbirds (Humane Society of the United States, 2009). 54 Active nest removal is being used as a deterrence tactic and is complimented with ground nesting enhancements and the other deterrent techniques. This is will be conducted to prevent the expansion of tree nesting into new areas, and to protect recently colonized trees in the specific Primary Deterrent Areas. In the event that eggs older than 10 days in age or nestlings are discovered, deterrent activities will stop in that area. Pre - Nesting Deterrent Monitoring During deterrent activities observers will be stationed near the night -heron colonies, within view of the ground nesting areas on Peninsulas A and B and on Peninsula D to determine where the disturbed cormorants go and to monitor behaviours of non - target species, specifically night- herons and egrets. Should staff determine that deterrent activities cause an increase of cormorants moving into night -heron nesting locations or,causes non - target species disturbance, deterrent activities will stop. Pre - nesting deterrent activities will commence as soon as cormorants are observed in the deterrent areas in early spring 2010. Post - Breeding Deterrents Cormorants will be deterred from roosting in trees on Peninsulas C and D using the least intrusive methods. By discouraging roosting activity the impact of guano on trees is reduced and prospecting for future nest sites in these areas by younger birds is decreased. After the nesting season has ended and fledgling cormorants are feeding independently, post- breeding deterrents will be employed on the tip of Peninsula C and on Peninsula D to reduce the effects of cormorant loafing, or resting, on trees. Deterrents will not be used on Peninsulas A and B, displaced cormorants will be encouraged to loaf in the Conservation Zones of Peninsulas A and B. To help achieve this, disturbance to Peninsulas A and B will be minimized and closely monitored by staff. Since these areas already support cormorant colonies, and field data indicates large loafing areas are currently available, staff anticipate that cormorants will readily use these peninsulas for post- breeding loafing. A variety of deterrent methods will be utilized that are humane for cormorants and minimize disturbance to other wildlife. The techniques utilized will be employed on an increasing scale of activity, with preference given to the least intrusive means needed. The scale will follow the following order: • human presence for recreation, research and education purposes; • active harassment of birds by people; • predator decoys and scarecrows; • noise bangers and other auditory techniques. Human presence is the most favoured technique, however, if presence alone does not deter loafing activities, deterrence would progress to active techniques as stated above in the techniques for pre- nesting deterrents. In all cases deterrents would be humane and minimize the impact to other wildlife. If loafing still persists, deterrent methods will progress to the use of auditory techniques. Noise bangers are the least preferred technique for post- breeding deterrence and if needed will be used sparingly and with caution in a consistent manner. Staff will monitor the effectiveness of the auditory techniques, as well as their effects on other species and may discontinue use if undesirable effects are documented. 55 Enhanced Ground Nesting In addition to encouraging post- breeding loafing on Peninsulas A and B, these areas will also be targeted for enhanced ground nesting for the 2010 breeding season. The strategic approach includes enhancement of ground nesting opportunities through the placement of woody nest material, as well as the use of non - traditional nest materials to simulate established natural nests. Further ground nest enhancements may also include the use of cormorant decoys and auditory breeding calls to attract cormorants to the ground nesting area. Predator exclosures may also be created to ensure ground nesting success in certain areas until the establishment of the ground nesting colony. Work will be completed during the winter of 2010 to increase the ground nesting cormorant population in 2010. Restoration Habitat restoration activities will occur in areas of the peninsulas that are not currently occupied by colonial nesting waterbirds. The base of the peninsulas, and areas within the peninsulas that are not occupied by colonial birds, will be restored using site appropriate vegetation and soil amendments where necessary. Habitat restoration and enhancement activities will also help delineate the extent of the current cormorant colonies and buffer the colonies from disturbance. Targeted improvements also include the addition of native shrubs along the Embayment B back shoreline area to encourage Black- crowned Night -Heron nesting. Plantings of willow fascines and appropriate shrubs will occur along portions of the shoreline provide additional shoreline stability. Habitat restoration activities occurred in fall 2009 and will continue in early spring 2010, so the bird colonies are not disturbed. Monitoring, Research, and Reporting Annual nest census data for cormorants, night- herons and other colonial waterbirds will be undertaken in late May using a combination of staff and volunteers. As in past years, the census will identify the nesting populations of cormorants and other waterbirds, as well as their spatial nesting distribution within the peninsulas at Tommy Thompson Park. Nest counts of the ground nest areas will occur at night in late May; nest counts of tree nest areas will occur during the day in late May. Only the minimum number of staff required to complete nest counts will be present in the colonies in order to minimize disturbance. Staff will also enter the colonies via water or along the shoreline to minimize disturbance when feasible. Annual tree health surveys will be undertaken in late August/early September to document changes in the health and condition of nest trees within the three peninsulas at TTP. An annual summary report of all components of the strategic approach will be completed and circulated to all regulatory agencies and the advisory group, and will be posted for public review upon completion of the 2010 season. This report will outline all approaches employed in the 2010 season including the methods used, their relative effectiveness and the results of the annual monitoring program. This information will provide a basis for the development of the 2011 strategy using an integrated adaptive management approach. The next meeting of the cormorant advisory group will be held in fall 2010, after the completion of the 2010 summary report. This meeting will provide an opportunity to review the results of the 2010 season and discuss whether any changes are needed for 2011. The public will also be informed and consulted before the 2011 season. 56 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds are available in the Tommy Thompson Park Interim Management account 210 -19 in the approved 2010 budget. Report prepared by: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366; Karen McDonald, extension 5248 Email: rtoninger @trca.on.ca; kmcdonald @trca.on.ca For information contact: Ralph Toninger extension 5366 Email: rtoninger @trca.on.ca Date: March 4, 2009 Attachments: 6 57 Attachment 1 Cormorant Strategy Chronology Advisory Group Meeting #1 January 24, 2008 Values and interests of TTP Conditions and concerns of DCCO colony Need for management Strategies to address concerns Advisory Group Meeting #2 February 19, 2008 Evaluate management options Propose alternative approaches Cormorant Webpage Launched March 3, 2008 Includes background materials, Advisory Group meeting notes and presentations, Public Meeting workbook and meeting notes, relevant links Public Meeting April 3, 2008 Advertised in Toronto Star, The Mirror, TRCA website, TTP information board, TRCA distribution lists, some Advisory Group member websites Canada Newswire press release, Global TV coverage Presentations, facilitated round table discussion, individual workbooks for commenting Advisory Group . Meeting #3 April 23, 2008 Review public response Discuss 2008 strategy TTP Spring Bird Festival May 10, 2008 Guided tours of cormorant colony Public survey on TTP cormorants Authority Board May 23, 2008 Present 2008 strategy for Authority action Advisory Group Meeting #4 December 10, 2008 Review the 2008 population data, and monitoring program Review 2008 strategy and preliminary research results Review the completion of the 2008 Cormorant Management Strategy Begin discussions on a strategic approach for 2009 Advisory Group Meeting #5 February 4, 2009 Develop the 2009 strategy Authority Board March 27, 2009 Present the 2009 strategy for TRCA Authority action TTP Spring Bird Festival May 23, 2009 Guided tours of cormorant colony Public survey on TTP cormorants Advisory Group Meeting #6 December 15, 2009 Review the 2009 population data and monitoring program Review 2009 strategy and preliminary research results Begin discussions on a strategic approach for 2010 Advisory Group Meeting #7 February 11, 2010 Develop the 2010 strategy 58 Attachment 2 2009 Strategic Approach Method Peninsula A I Peninsula B Peninsula C Peninsula D Pre - nesting Deterrents * * * Post - Breeding Deterrents * (base) * * Enhanced Ground Nesting * * * (tip) * Egg Oiling Research (follow -up on nest attendance) * * Habitat Restoration * * * * Attachment 3 2010 Strategic Approach Method Peninsula A Peninsula B Peninsula C Peninsula D Inactive Nest Removal (prior to 2010 breeding season) * Pre - nesting Deterrents * (base) * (base & tip) * Post - Breeding Deterrents * (tip) * Enhanced Ground Nesting * * Habitat Restoration * * * I * 59 Attachment 4 Cormorant Conservation Zones and 2010 Pre- Nesting Deterrent Locations Legend Primary Deterrent Area Secondary Deterrent Area Cormorant Conservation Zone Multi -Use Trail Secondary Pedestrian Trail Nature Trail 60 Attachment 5 2010 Deterrent Escalation 1. Human Presence 2a. Human Presence waving arms, clapping, whistling 1 2b. Human Presence running, shouting 1 3. Human Presence Carrying poles & waving poles without tree contact 1 4. Human Presence Carrying poles & moving low branches, tapping on trees 1 5. Artificial Predators Raptors, scarecrows, raccoons, coyotes 6. Removal of Nest Material Removal of new nest materials 1 7. Noise Makers Artificial sounds from raptors, scarecrows, raccoons, coyotes, bangers 1 8. Active Nest Removal Will not be conducted if chicks are present. Eggs are assumed not to be present. Active nests greater then 10 days old will not be removed. 61 Attachment 6 2010 Active nest removal situation and action flow chart SITUATION 1 Behavior indicates nest not active adults not paired, or actively copulating and nest building Nest Removal 14 SITUATION 2 Adult behavior indicates possible incubation Nest Tess than 10 days old No eggs Nest greater than 10 days old or age unknown Less than 10 days old Check nest with mirror or pole camera Eggs present 1 Float Eggs /Age eggs SITUATION 3, Nestlings visible or adult behavior indicates nestlings present 62 4 Greater than 10 days old or unable to determine age _I RES. #A24/10 - THE LIVING CITY FARM AT KORTRIGHT Establishing The Living City Farm at Kortright. Moved by: Seconded by: Mike Del Grande Ron Moeser THAT the concept for The Living City Farm at Kortright be approved; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to investigate partnerships and funding opportunities to establish The Living City Farm at Kortright; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA officials be authorized to take whatever action may be required to enter into an agreement with a farm operator, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Since its inception in 1957, TRCA has been involved in agriculture, from reducing rural water pollution to conserving agricultural land. Today, TRCA continues to play an active role in building a strong local food system through the implementation of its Sustainable Near -Urban Agriculture Policy (2008) and efforts at the Toronto Urban Farm, McVean Farm in the City of Brampton and the Albion Hills Community Farm in the Town of Caledon. Looking forward, TRCA's goal is to purchase 40 per cent of its food requirements from local sources by 2012. TRCA now requires local food procurement for its education centres and other facilities. The Living City Farm at Kortright could be one of many local food and agricultural projects led by TRCA to meet its own agriculture land use and procurement policies. The Living City Campus at Kortright The Living City Campus at Kortright is a vision for the Kortright Centre. Its goal is to expand the educational programming to be more holistic by providing more sustainable community messaging. It grows out of TRCA's vision for healthy urban environments and The Living City - a vision for a new kind of community, where human settlement can flourish forever as part of nature's beauty and diversity. The Living City Campus at Kortright will inspire people from all over the world to live more sustainably. From renewable energy to green buildings to new technologies and sustainable transportation, visitors will experience the latest in green living, inspiring change in how people live, work and play today for a healthier tomorrow. In The Living City Campus at Kortright concept plan, a major section of the northern region of Kortright is devoted to sustainable near -urban agriculture practices so visitors can learn about farming practices and connect with the sources of their food. The Living City Farm is proposed to be a key component. According to the City of Vaughan, The Living City Campus at Kortright (including the farm site) is zoned 0S2 -Open Space Conservation Zone. Section 3.10 of zoning bylaw 1 -88 "permits any conservation authority established by the Government of Ontario to use the land or erect or use any building or structure for the purpose of public service." This means that a rezoning application will not be required to proceed with The Living City Farm Project. However, structures such as a greenhouse will require a building permit from the City of Vaughan. 63 The Living City Farm Concept At Authority Meeting #2/08, held on March 28, 2008, Resolution #A46/08 was approved which authorized TRCA to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Everdale Organic Farm and Environmental Learning Centre (Everdale) for the development of a feasibility study for a near urban farm at The Living City Campus at Kortright. A feasibility study, which included a three year farm plan was completed in partnership with Everdale in December, 2009. Due to budget constraints and lack of staff resources at Everdale, a partnership with Everdale for the development of The Living City Farm has not been possible to date. In order to move this project forward, it is necessary for TRCA to establish a partnership with a farmer who will farm and manage The Living City Farm through a lease arrangement, and work with TRCA in developing educational programming to complement the farm. The feasibility study suggests that The Living City Farm will be a compact three acre, bio- intensive working farm based on the successful Small Plot Intensive (SPIN) farming model. Community -based food education will also be integral to the design and operation of the farm. A new generation of ecological farmers will be trained on the site. Visitors will learn about sustainable farming practices and connect with the sources of their food. Large numbers of children will tour the farm in supervised school visits and participate in planting, harvesting, seed saving and curriculum - linked growing projects in their classrooms and at school gardens. Crops will be organically grown in fields and in three high tunnel greenhouses which are relatively inexpensive to construct, bio intensive and yield high revenues per square foot. The produce from the farm will be used to prepare meals for on -site consumption (approximately 33,000 meals are served at the Kortright Centre each year), for the community through Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) and a farmers' market. Strategically located at The Living City Campus at Kortright, The Living City Farm will be a key component of an ever - evolving cluster of facilities and programs which strive to become an international centre of excellence and innovation in sustainable community design. The unique potential of the farm, and ultimately, its success, is tied to the landscape. With Class 1 agricultural soils, as well as electricity, road and water infrastructure, the site is ideal for long term food production. Its accessibility and visibility to surrounding communities, and its proximity to onsite food services and local markets, such as the Woodbridge Farmers' Market, create the foundation for a viable market for the farm's produce. There is also more TRCA -owned farm land located in close proximity to The Living City Farm should demand for more land arise in the future. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Enter into a lease agreement with a farmer to help establish and operate The Living City Farm. • Seek private sponsorships and foundation grants to help finance the cost of greenhouses, materials, equipment and infrastructure upgrades. • Obtain a building permit from the City of Vaughan to construct greenhouses. • Construct greenhouses and upgrade infrastructure to support the development of The Living City Farm. • Develop complementary educational programming around local food and sustainable near -urban agriculture. 64 FINANCIAL DETAILS The estimated cost to start The Living City Farm in year 1 is $83,000 to cover the cost of greenhouses, materials, equipment and infrastructure upgrades. Funding support for year 1 of this project needs to be secured from external sponsorships and grants. A three year funding proposal has been submitted to Loblaw for consideration. Other potential sources for funding include Heifer International and the Trillium Foundation. Report prepared by: Sonia Dhir, extension 5291 Emails: sdhir @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Emails: gwilkins @trca.on.ca Date: March 11, 2010 RES. #A25/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD RETROFIT ACTION PLAN PROJECTS Progress on three pilot sustainable neighbourhood retrofit action plan projects. Suzan Hall Laurie Bruce THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to continue to work with municipal and community partners in the development of the three pilot sustainable neighbourhood retrofit action plan (SNAP) projects as outlined in this report; THAT staff continue to pursue innovative partnerships and funding opportunities to secure resources and financial support for plan development and implementation; THAT members of the Authority consider potential opportunities for future SNAP project sites for staff to explore and report back on; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority in January 2011 on progress of the pilot SNAP projects, potential new sites and preliminary lessons learned for increased neighbourhood sustainability. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #6/09, held on July 24, 2009, Resolution #A115/09 was approved, in part, as follows: ...AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority in March 2010 on progress of the pilot SNAP projects, potential new sites and preliminary lessons learned for increased neighbourhood sustainability. 65 The SNAP projects, led by TRCA and its municipal partners, engage a diverse range of stakeholders in the development of action - oriented plans for improving environmental sustainability in established neighbourhoods. The SNAPs will identify actions on private and public property to address environmental objectives in the context of social and economic considerations for each neighbourhood. Emphasis will be on finding integrated solutions that achieve multiple benefits. The SNAPs fulfill the recommendations of broader strategic plans, such as watershed plans, climate change strategies and municipal sustainability strategies, by applying them at a catchment - based, neighbourhood scale. The focus of work since the initial Authority report in July 2009 has been on finalizing all workplans, advancing the initial phase of work and developing stakeholder partnerships for each of the three SNAP pilot sites. On behalf of all three SNAP projects, staff has also worked actively on the development of a broader partnership network in order to secure access to expertise, resources and innovative funding sources. Partner involvement, both external and internal, is a very significant and critical aspect of the SNAPs. These projects have engaged the water /works, planning and parks departments of partner municipalities, but through these liaison staff, a much broader range of municipal departments has been consulted and will be involved at key stages. These projects have drawn upon the expertise and services of many TRCA divisions, including: • Watershed Management - Stewardship and Outreach Education (delivery of educational workshops) and Watershed Specialists (community leader engagement); • Restoration Services - habitat restoration advice; • Parks and Culture - Kortright Centre (sustainable house tours), Black Creek Pioneer Village (local community contacts, meeting venue, sustainable demonstrations), golf course Audubon certification advice; • Marketing and Communications - graphic design; • Ecology - integrated planning and project management, technical conditions characterization, baseline monitoring. Community partners are further identified in this report, in association with each of three pilot sites. Creative retrofit options and innovative partnerships are expected to emerge from this collaborative approach, while staff is also making effort to ensure effective and efficient communications. The following sections present milestones since July 2009, partners and immediate next steps for each of the three pilot SNAPs. This progress report concludes with information about the broader partner network and a summary of preliminary lessons learned. County Court SNAP, Brampton This SNAP aims to improve the water management functions of the Upper Nine stormwater management pond and its catchment, a facility identified as a top retrofit priority for the City of Brampton. The project is engaging businesses, residents and institutions in finding the optimum combination of lot level stormwater management and naturalized landscaping practices to achieve water management and biodiversity targets, while achieving other sustainable community objectives. 66 This SNAP is the first of the three pilots and therefore is further along in its planning process. The Project Management Team, comprised of TRCA, City of Brampton and Region of Peel staff, established a workplan for the project in spring 2009. Major milestones since July 2009: • Conducted competitive request for Expressions of Interest (EOI) and Request for Proposal (RFP) process and hired consulting team of Planning Alliance, ARUP and LURA Consulting. • Documented existing conditions in the neighbourhood and captured actual baseline data for hydro usage, water consumption, stormwater and runoff and natural heritage: • e.g. average single family household water consumption is 344 1/day and makes up over 75% of overall neighbourhood demand - largest savings to be achieved by local residents through increased participation in water conservation practices; • e.g. average single family household energy consumption is 76 MBtu/ft2/yr and makes up over 39% of overall neighbourhood demand - with home improvements an estimated 20% reduction over 5 years is possible. • Reviewed existing strategic policy context and developed local goals for sustainable change. • Engaged residents, major landowners and businesses in on- the - street interviews, focus groups and advisory meetings: • e.g. person on the street interviews revealed that residents are already participating in energy conservation and waste reduction actions, but would like to explore solar technologies and other low impact gardening techniques if given more information. • Launched series of environmental education workshops at Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Centre. • Identified a number of potential demonstration projects for early implementation (e.g. residential front yard naturalization, sustainable home retrofits and improved parking lot stormwater management, among others). Partners to date: • Municipalities - Region of Peel, City of Brampton. • Utilities - Hydro One Brampton, Enbridge. • Community stakeholders - LINC Centre, Peel Village Golf Course, Brampton Golf Club, 407 -ETR, Ontario Realty Corporation (County Court House property), private businesses and property management companies, and a condominium association. Immediate Next Steps: • Confirm framework of local targets and develop integrated retrofit scenarios for neighbourhood change. • Confirm evaluation criteria and evaluate integrated retrofit scenarios. • Continue to engage residents, major landowners and businesses through a variety of venues, e.g.: • SNAP Community Event, County Court Park - Sat. April 24, 2010; • series of planned educational workshops and nature walks throughout year; • Focus groups and stakeholder workshops. • Pursue feasibility of implementing demonstration projects to showcase innovation and garner excitement. Initial focus includes: front yard makeover contest in partnership with landscaping industry and a sustainable house makeover contest in partnership with home renovation industry. 67 Lake Wilcox SNAP, Richmond Hill This SNAP project is building on the Town of Richmond Hill's Lake Wilcox remediation studies, by investigating additional community -based measures that could further reduce phosphorus loads to the lake. The SNAP will address water quantity and quality of the lake and its catchment, as well as protection and restoration of natural heritage within a broader sustainable community context. Major milestones since July 2009: • Conducted scoping sessions with municipal partners and community leaders and finalized a workplan. • Established Project Management Team comprised of TRCA, Town of Richmond Hill and Region of York staff. Partners to date: • Municipalities - Region of York, Town of Richmond Hill. • Utilities - Powerstream, Enbridge. • Community stakeholders - Friends of the Oak Ridges Moraine, Oak Ridges Trail Association, Oak Ridges Lion's Club, York Region Environmental Alliance and local businesses. Immediate next steps: • Town of Richmond Hill staff to report to their Council regarding the SNAP project. o Conduct competitive RFP process and hire consultants to characterize baseline conditions, identify and evaluate retrofit options, and undertake community -based social market research to identify barriers and motivating factors for change. • Develop a broader plan of community events to engage residents, businesses and community groups in the SNAP project Black Creek SNAP, Toronto This SNAP will evaluate retrofit options for stormwater management, natural heritage enhancement and other sustainable actions to complement the City of Toronto's plans to alleviate basement flooding and address TRCA's objectives for improving conditions in the Black Creek subwatershed. The actions will be considered in the broader context of economic and social conditions that are prominent in the minds of residents and businesses in the area. This SNAP will build on a local "greening" partnership between TRCA and the Jane Finch Community Family Centre (JFCFC) and existing outreach efforts by local community groups. The project also offers an opportunity for TRCA and Black Creek Pioneer Village to become more actively involved in the neighbourhood of which their offices are a part. TRCA is proud to partner with the JFCFC on their Green Change Project. This project is a unique outreach effort to engage local residents in activities to reduce their ecological footprint. JFCFC and its partners developed a 45 hour training program on a variety of aspects of sustainable living. Local volunteers were recruited to become Green Change agents by completing the training and performing home audits in the Jane Finch area. TRCA's role in the project was to provide training on energy efficiency at the Archetype Sustainable House at Kortright. Black Creek Pioneer Village, in partnership with JFCFC, hosted the Green Change Project launch event, which engaged 300 local residents in a day of environmental presentations, games and displays. TRCA staff has also been actively involved on the project's advisory committee, helping to direct the project and secure funding for 2010 and beyond. 68 TRCA's partnerships with JFCFC and their Green Change Project offers community insights and connections with other local community leaders upon which to further the implementation of TRCA's other watershed management objectives. Major milestones since July 2009: • Developed a partnership with the Jane Finch Community Family Centre (as described above) and gained valuable community insights and connections. • Conducted scoping sessions with six City of Toronto departments and several community stakeholder groups, and finalized a workplan. • Formed a Project Management Team, comprised of TRCA, Toronto Water, Toronto Environment Office, Jane Finch Community Family Centre, Black Creek Conservation Project and Live Green animators. Partners to date: • Municipality - City of Toronto. • Utilities - Enbridge. • Community stakeholders - Jane Finch Community Family Centre, Black Creek Conservation Project, Live Green Community Animators (ACORN, Toronto Environmental Alliance, Citizens Environment Watch, Conservation Council of Ontario) and Black Creek Pioneer Village. Immediate next steps: • Conduct competitive RFP process and hire consultants to assemble available information regarding baseline conditions, facilitate multi - stakeholder workshop to seek community input to options development, and identify and evaluate retrofit options. • Multi- stakeholder workshop planned for June 2010 to seek input on objectives, retrofit options and to understand barriers and motivating factors for change. • On -going work with the Jane Finch Community Family Centre to build neighbourhood. capacity and interest in the SNAP and develop early demonstration projects for the summer /fall 2010. Broader SNAP Partnership Network On behalf of the three pilot SNAPs, TRCA is building a broader partnership network in order to secure access to expertise, resources and innovative sources of funding or materials. These partnerships take different forms, depending on the organization, from simple information - sharing to greater levels of contribution or involvement. The following is a list of groups who have been contacted and who have expressed an interest in being kept involved in some way. Provincial and Federal Governments • Ministry of the Environment's Water Efficiency Office; • Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). Research Groups • Sustainable Development Commission UK; • The Natural Step Canada; • Ontario Centres of Excellence ; • Polis Project; • Centre for Urban Health Initiatives; • Seneca College. 69 Associations • Canada Green Building Council - GTA Chapter; • Landscape Ontario; • Ontario Water and Wastewater Association; • Canadian Water Resources Association. Private Sector • Royal Bank of Canada (pending); • Water technology and landscaping sector companies. Preliminary Lessons Learned The SNAP pilot projects are testing several "ideas" about how urban retrofits could be accelerated and effectively coordinated, while at the same time advancing in- the - ground achievements and demonstrations. These "ideas" formed the basis for the planning study design (i.e. neighbourhood scale, integrated approach, role of TRCA as facilitator, collaborative multi - stakeholder involvement, etc.). TRCA is actively seeking a research partnership to assist in an evaluation of these pilot projects. In the interim, the following is a summary of preliminary observations: • All prospective partners have expressed significant enthusiasm and interest in this innovative approach. • - Municipal departments are seeing this project as an avenue to facilitate integration of interdepartmental actions and targets. • Lessons learned on Brampton SNAP pilot are streamlining the process in other SNAPs; effective and efficient communications will be key to ensure project success and avoid partner burnout. • Staff is learning about how to communicate and relate complex processes /natural systems to residents and businesses. • Stakeholder contact and partnership development work has taken some time, due to the diversity and numbers of stakeholders and the need for meaningful, tailored one -on -one initial meetings - this is a valuable step in ensuring buy -in and longer term project success. • Corporate /business landowners and stakeholders are keen to profile their corporate sustainability efforts and appear open to consider new approaches; often they lack access to information about incentive programs or experience - SNAPs are playing a role in information sharing. • Private sector entrepreneurs have numerous innovative technologies, but lack the connections to local markets and sites to demonstrate and test their products - the SNAPs can play an important role in this regard. Finally, it appears that the SNAPs are somewhat unique. The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) of the United Kingdom identified the SNAPs as the only comprehensive, neighbourhood scale retrofit action planning project they are aware of (most other groups do single focus retrofits, such as energy or water, or broader strategic sustainability plans). SDC is interested in learning from TRCA's experience as part of a research project they have underway on delivering neighbourhood retrofit. One of their early findings is the need for a local organization with holistic ability to act as a project facilitator and the need for tailored approaches. TRCA's mandate, skills and partner- centred model are ideally suited to lead the program. 70 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding has been provided in the Climate Change and capital budgets from the Region of Peel (129 -94; 416 -10), and from the capital budgets of the Region of York (122 -85) and City of Toronto (113 -95). Additional fundraising, incentives and partner development for these SNAP projects is actively being pursued in an effort to enhance planning, implementation and expand the demonstration opportunities. To date, funding applications have been submitted to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Funds, Metcalf Foundation and Provincial Go Green program. The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto is assisting in fundraising efforts. TRCA staff believe there is rationale for application of this retrofit planning approach at other sites and is pursuing discussions with municipalities about potential future SNAP sites for 2011. Budgets for such projects were included in TRCA's 2011 municipal capital budget projections. Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253 Email: smeek @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253; Shannon Logan, extension 5708; or Julie Hordowick, extension 5780 Emails: smeek @trca.on.ca; slogan @trca.on.ca; jhordowick@trca.on.ca Date: March 9, 2010 RES. #A26/10 - YORK - PEEL - DURHAM - TORONTO GROUNDWATER Update on 2009 accomplishments and 2010 work program. Moved by: Seconded by: Mike Del Grande Gay Cowbourne WHEREAS the York -Peel- Durham - Toronto Groundwater Management Study continues to provide an example of a successful partnership initiative between the Federal Government, the Province of Ontario, municipalities and conservation authorities; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT York -Peel- Durham - Toronto (YPDT) staff be directed to implement the components of the 2010 work plan of the YPDT Groundwater Management Study. CARRIED 71 BACKGROUND The York -Peel- Durham - Toronto (YPDT) Groundwater Management Study was initiated in 2000 as a partnership between the regions of York, Peel and Durham, and the City of Toronto and the associated six conservation authorities (Credit Valley, Toronto and Region, Lake Simcoe Region, Kawartha, Ganaraska Region, and Central Lake Ontario) with a view to arriving at consistency in groundwater management both from a technical and analytical perspective as well as from a policy and management perspective. With similar goals and objectives, staff, acting on behalf of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition, (CAMC) are also directing groundwater work across the entire Oak Ridges Moraine. YPDT staff is formally staff of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, headquartered at TRCA's Downsview Office, supported by core funding from TRCA and special projects. YPDT staff administer purchases in accordance with Toronto and Region Conservation Authorities (TRCA) Purchasing Policy. The YPDT /CAMC groundwater initiative continues to contribute insightful, practical deliverables to the partner agencies. The key focus areas of the groundwater program continue to be data management, geological and hydrogeological understanding, numerical groundwater modeling and policy development. A large part of the program's success has been the delivery of data and tools at a practical level to partner agency staff and their consultants who need an understanding of the regional groundwater resources to ensure that these resources are protected for future generations. This report outlines the 2009 accomplishments of the groundwater program as well as the planned 2010 initiatives that the YPDT Technical Steering Committee recommended at its past meeting. The technical committee comprises hydrogeological and planning staff from the City of Toronto, Peel, Durham and York regions as well as the six associated conservation authorities. The project is overseen by an executive steering committee that comprises commissioners from the three regions and the City of Toronto as well as the Chief Administrative Officers of the six conservation authorities. Recent Accomplishments An annotated list of the 2009 accomplishments is presented below. Field Based Investigations The YPDT /CAMC program either contributed to, or led in the acquisition of key hydrogeological and hydrogeological data for the partner agencies, including: • A field trip to the Barrie - Minesing Swamp area of the Nottawasaga River watershed to visit gravel pits and examine the sedimentology associated with tunnel channel activity in the area. The sediments exposed in this area have direct relevance to those underlying many parts of York, Peel and Durham Regions as well as the City of Toronto. • Drilling of a borehole in the Petticoat Creek watershed in south Durham Region as part of the southeast collector sewer environmental assessment (EA) project. The borehole was positioned to better delineate a bedrock valley system that extends from the vicinity of the York /Durham/Toronto boundary southwards towards Lake Ontario. The bedrock valley extends into the Rouge watershed and might direct groundwater flow across the watershed boundary in this area. 72 • Two seismic lines in the Queensville area were interpreted with the assistance of the Geological Survey of Canada. The seismic line showed a channelized aquifer in the glaciolacustrine sediments beneath the Newmarket Till. In partnership with York Region, a key monitoring borehole was drilled into the channel along one of the seismic lines. The borehole confirmed a thin till unit near surface, underlain by extensive glaciolacustrine sediments. • Installation of a flow meter and additional loggers in the three shallow monitoring wells at High Park to better understand the hydraulics of the lower part of the Laurentian Valley. • Continuation of the water level monitoring network (manual monthly and hourly water and barometric pressure measurements) at High Park, Earl Bales Park, Boston Mills Road, Duffins 2/94, Duffins 1/94, Port Perry 4 th Line and Frenchman's Bay monitoring sites. Groundwater Flow Modeling YPDT staff, along with the YPDT Technical Steering Committee, is in the midst of reviewing a draft report on the Region of Durham groundwater flow modeling. The necessary changes to the model, as well as the final Durham modeling report are expected to be completed in 2010. The Durham region modeling work has already been used as a base for the hydrogeological work on the Southeast Collector sewer that runs through parts of York and Durham regions. It also forms the base for source water protection modeling work in the Uxbridge and Wilmot Creek watershed areas. Two consulting companies have been retained to assist in the testing of the YPDT -CAMC groundwater flow model (the Core model). The studies have been commissioned with the aims of: i) providing additional information to partner agencies on important projects; ii) determining the ease of transferability from the model developers to other consultants; and iii) continuing with a peer review of the model. Staff is also working to ensure that any appropriate local geological and hydrogeological interpretations made in the course of undertaking source water protection led investigations are incorporated back into the YPDT -CAMC model. Database The YPDT -CAMC database has proven to be an essential tool for ongoing projects conducted by partner agency staff as well as source water protection (SWP) work at each of the three SWP regions (CTC, South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe (SGBLS) and Trent Conservation Coalition (TCC)). All partners have received training for their staff on use of the database, and the content is updated periodically. The YPDT -CAMC database is in the process of being converted from Microsoft Access to SQL. The conversion was necessary as a result of the increasing size of the database, largely as a result of additional temporal data. This conversion will make such data (e.g. water levels, pumping rates, precipitation, etc.) more readily accessible to partner agencies. Over the past year there have been significant database updates, including: • the addition of approximately 26,000 new Ministry of the Environment (MOE) water well records to the database; • the addition of approximately 5,000 Ministry of Transportation boreholes; • an update of the Environment Canada Climate and HYDAT streamflow databases to include all recently available data; • an increase in the digital report library to approximately 2,750 reports and scientific papers with about 1,500 of these being assigned geographical UTM coordinates. 73 Communication /Reporting As necessary, and agreed upon by the executive or technical steering committees, YPDT -CAMC staff undertake a number of additional reports or communications in support of the overall groundwater management program. In the recent past the following reports have been completed or worked upon: • Recharge Study - Final Report - YPDT staff prepared a report for the Trent Conservation Coalition Source Water Protection program to delineate their Significant Recharge areas. • Council of Canadian Academies - "Sustainable Management of Groundwater in Canada" - YPDT staff was appointed to a panel to assist in the preparation of a report prepared for Natural Resources Canada. • Aquitard Hydrogeology Symposium - YPDT staff was invited to present at the Aquitard Hydrogeology Symposium in Saskatoon - a high level technical symposium that attracted some of the best researchers from Canadian, American and European institutes (e.g. United States Geological Survey (USGS), Geological Survey of Denmark, University of Guelph, National Water Research Institute (NWRI)). • Memorandum of Understanding - The MOU between the 13 partnered agencies in the YPDT -CAMC groundwater program was signed and finalized. • PGMN Data - A consulting company, WESA, was retained to assist in assembling a more complete and•correct dataset of water levels from the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network (PGMN) wells that are located within the jurisdiction of the partner agencies. A final report, along with the corrected digital data was submitted in 2009. WESA has since been contracted by the Ministry of the Environment to undertake similar work for the remaining wells in the provincial monitoring network. • American Geophysical Union Conference - two professional papers were presented at this Toronto conference. • International Association of Hydrogeologists Conference - one professional paper was presented at this Halifax conference. • SWP Technical support - YPDT staff provided continued technical support, review and advice to the CTC SWP Region and Peer Review support to the SGBLS SWP Region. 2010 PROGRAM The YPDT -CAMC groundwater management team continues to seek ways of improving the understanding of the groundwater flow system and incorporating this understanding into the decision making process at the partner agencies. Several important initiatives are proposed for 2010: • In 2009 the YPDT Technical steering committee agreed that YPDT program staff should investigate the possibility of "fingerprinting" the different till units across the program area. The till stratigraphy is,fairly complex in the GTA area, thus methodologies that could assist in the interpretation of the depositional extent of the various till units would be especially helpful in better understanding and confirming the role of the till units in impeding groundwater movement between shallow and deeper aquifers. An ongoing study, in consultation with the University of Toronto, will involve the analysis of organic carbon from various till samples to see if there is a way to fingerprint different till units. $30,000 has been reserved to cover the costs of laboratory costs and student stipends as required for the project. 74 • The YPDT Technical steering committee also recommended that the program extend an ongoing University of Waterloo led isotope investigation to obtain field data that can be used to support the interpretations and calibration of the various groundwater flow models in the area. For example, by tracing the movement of tritium -rich water in the vicinity of the Pickering generating station, the age of groundwater at various depths can be estimated. $30,000 has been reserved for sampling and analyses costs. • In 2009, a study to investigate groundwater recharge was initiated in collaboration with the University of Guelph, the University of Waterloo and Trent University. The study is funded by MOE and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and will look at various aspects of recharge to the groundwater flow system. YPDT staff will be leading many aspects of this project through 2010 and 2011. • Staff has met with the consulting community to determine the level of interest that consultants might have in using the program's vast resources of data and interpretations. Consultants have expressed a strong interest and in 2010 staff will continue to develop a means of having consultants access the program's files. • Aqua Resource will continue to utilize the program's groundwater flow model to assist York Region with understanding groundwater flow in the Yonge Street aquifer. $50,000 has been reserved for continuing this work. • Once the Durham report and model is finalized and approved by the YPDT Technical steering committee, the Durham groundwater model will be peer reviewed by S.S. Papadopulous. This firm has already reviewed the YPDT -CAMC Core model, and currently serves as peer reviewer on several SWP initiatives. $30,000 has been reserved for this task. • The Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) has performed detailed analyses on a number of the cored YPDT -CAMC boreholes that have been sent to the national geological archives in Ottawa. This analysis provides needed information on the depositional setting of the various glacial age sediments in the study area. $20,000 has been reserved to have the GSC log an additional borehole in 2010. FINANCIAL DETAILS The initiatives described above are identified in the 2010 preliminary budget for YPDT -CAMC study supported by capital from the City of Toronto and York, Peel, and Durham regions, as well as other sources of funding. Consultant assignments will be implemented according to TRCA's Purchasing Policy. Report prepared by: Donald Ford, extension 5369 Emails: dford @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Donald Ford, extension 5369 Emails: dford @trca.on.ca Date: March 10, 2010 RES. #A27/10 - PETTICOAT CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Pool Demolition Project. Award of contract for Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool demolition project. 75 Moved by: Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Jack Heath THAT the contract for Petticoat Creek Conservation Area swimming pool demolition project be awarded to Amlap Corporation, at a total cost not to exceed $93,700.00, plus 10% contingency allowance, plus applicable taxes, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT award of the contract be subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and legal advisors, including but not limited to determination of the final contract cost not to exceed the approved amount; THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the above - mentioned contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder; THAT the fee structure ensure that the project pay back the $1 million within approximately 5 years of opening; THAT staff report back on the fee structure in 2011; AND FURTHER THAT authorized staff be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Petticoat Creek Conservation Area (PCCA) is approximately 70 hectares of land located at the mouth of Petticoat Creek on the north shore of Lake Ontario. It is located in the City of Pickering, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, at the south end of Whites Road. PCCA is an active conservation park consisting of picnic areas, numerous trails and public washrooms and other various amenities, providing a variety of recreational opportunities to local and regional residents, and tourists. The primary feature of the park is a 1,300 person capacity swimming pool, the largest outdoor swimming pool of its kind in Ontario. Constructed in 1974 as a component of TRCA's Waterfront Plan, Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool is a 0.6 ha Class B Modified dish - shaped swimming pool. Since its opening in 1975, Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool has experienced numerous problems related to compaction, density and porosity qualities resulting in air voids in the asphaltic surface that creates a high permeability factor. This permeability has resulted in saturation of the substrate, which has caused significant heaving and breaking of return pipes due to frost damage. Though some deficiencies have been remedied through the installation of a liner, persistent problems remain with heaving and cracking of the asphalt apron /deck around the perimeter of the pool. Damage has also been encountered in localized areas around the water return jets, which has contributed to breaks of water return lines. As a remedy, the broken return lines were simply capped, reducing the number of jets from the original 80 to the current configuration of 66. The result of this maintenance work has reduced the rate of water flow and turnover times in the process. 76 The mechanical infrastructure of the pool systems has continued to function effectively throughout the duration of the operating period, though signs of age and wear have become evident on the filter tank, localized rusting and cracking of the filter elements. In 2003, the filter bags were replaced, which improved the filter capacity of the system by eliminating voids large enough to undermine the filtration integrity. The vinyl liner that was installed in 1994 has exceeded its 10 year life expectancy and the subsequent deterioration of the liner has increased over the last number of years. It is anticipated that the liner will experience complete failure over the short term. Currently, the PCCA pool requires significant annual capital investment to achieve minimum operating standards. Staff continues to monitor considerable deterioration of vital pool components. As a result of such significant repairs and investment required for ongoing PCCA pool operations, TRCA staff applied for both provincial and federal funding in order to replace the existing pool with a new aquatic facility. - In May of 2009, the Canada RInC (Recreational Infrastructure Canada) and Ontario REC (Recreation) programs announced that government funding was available for various recreational infrastructure projects. Through the Canada RInC and Ontario REC programs, the governments of Canada and Ontario were willing to support Ontario's communities and create jobs through upgrades and improvements to recreational infrastructure. The governments of Canada and Ontario would fund up to one third each of a projects total eligible cost up to a maximum of $1 million per project from each government agency. TRCA staff prepared and submitted funding proposal applications for the following work to be completed at Petticoat Creek Conservation Area: • demolition of existing pool, plumbing and selected components of the mechanical infrastructure; • re- grading and earth work; • design and installation of a new aquatic facility, plumbing and mechanical infrastructure; • concrete works, including pool shell, splash pad and decking; • utilization of green technologies; • renovations to existing washroom, change room and staff facilities; and • various soft and hard landscaping. The application requested $3 million, two thirds of the cost provided by Canada RInC and Ontario REC funding, with TRCA required to secure the remaining $1 million. On July 7, 2009 the Canada RInC and Ontario REC Program released an official list of all projects approved for funding. Redevelopment of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool was approved for the total amount of funding requested. The funding arrangement include aggressive deadlines as grant conditions require the project to be completed by March 31, 2011. Subsequently, Resolution #A121/09 for the redevelopment of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool was approved at Authority Meeting #6/09, held on July 24, 2009, as follows: 77 THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to undertake the redevelopment of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool through the federal Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) Program in Ontario and Ontario Recreation (REC) Program; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report to the Authority for additional approvals as required. Following the funding announcement by Canada RInC and Ontario REC, TRCA staff explored the opportunity of obtaining private funding for the project. However, the grant conditions stipulate that should the facility be sold, leased and /or encumbered within ten years of its completion, the recipient must repay a proportionate amount of the grant money. Staff, therefore, began to focus on exploring public funding opportunities. Although TRCA staff explored the possibility of obtaining the required funding from Durham Region, the Region's policies for funding of conservation authorities do not include recreation or parks infrastructure and facilities. Also, approved Regional Council 2010 funding guidelines for capital funding of conservation authorities provided that there be no increase over the 2009 budget. In August of 2009, staff commenced funding negotiations with the City of Pickering for the remaining required project funds of $1 million. City of Pickering senior staff was very receptive to providing the required funds for project implementation. Such funds would be provided in exchange for a land lease agreement within the footprint of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area for an indoor soccer facility and an adjacent playing field. Following negotiations and several delays in bringing the partnership funding proposal before City of Pickering Council, it was brought to TRCA's attention that the City of Pickering has not allocated any financial resources towards the project in their 2010 budget. However, funding may become available in 2011. According to the funding agreements with Canada RInC and Ontario REC, the project start date is September 1, 2009, with a maximum two month grace period making the latest start date November 1, 2009. In addition, the agreement stressed 50% project completion by March 31, 2010. Although TRCA staff has received approval to complete the majority of the project between March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2011, any further time delay will compromise the funding agreement and jeopardized the available $2 million grant. Due to the lack of financial commitment by the City of Pickering in regard to providing the remaining $1 million for the project and the tight timeliness at hand, staff proposes to implement internal funding methods to cover the required remaining 33% of the project costs. TRCA has sufficient cash flow to mitigate the need for borrowing the required $1 million. It is proposed that the following payback methods be implemented to recover the capital costs of this project. Commencing the 1st full operating season, 50% of the net sales with a minimum of $100.000.00 will be paid back to the reserves annually over a maximum of 10 years. In addition to the aforementioned payback schedule, monies raised from the following fund sourcing methods will be applied directly to the project costs: 78 • Community fundraising championed by Councillor Bonnie Littley. • Seeking of corporate sponsorships. • Conservation Foundation fundraising. • Seeking of grants and other funding opportunities. In the event that the City of Pickering is able to finance in whole or part the required $1 million, this money will be used in lieu of TRCA reserve funds. The remaining $2 million in funding is secured through the Canada RInC and Ontario REC Program. The proposed internal project funding model is similar to the one implemented in financing the Restoration Services Centre in 2006. This has proven to be an extremely successful way to acquire a LEED Platinum sustainable facility that has become a key asset for TRCA. In addition, the Restoration Services Centre has stayed well ahead of its pay back schedule, demonstrating that this method of internal financing is advantageous. Projected Revenue Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Income Statement Comparison REVENUE Current Budget (3 Year Average) Projected Budget with New Facility Variance Explanation Swimming $199,225 $259,147 • • Increase swimming revenue by 10% due to increased number of operating days resulting from heated pool and splash pad • Increase pool fee by $1 (30,000 people x $1 = $30,000) Day Use $207,376 $247,871 • Increase gate fees by $1.50 Filming $5,883 $12,000 • Maintain 2009 filming revenues through increased web site presence Snack Bar $30,638.66 $5,000 • Lease space to Vendor • Eliminate ($30,000) in expenditures EXPENDITURES Wages, Salaries and Benefits ($224,145) ($184,204) • Decrease pool staff by 35% Utilities ($55,760) ($52,254) • Decrease utility costs by 10% Contract Services ($55,108) ($20,108) • Eliminate contract services required for pool repair annually Supplies and Materials ($99,609) (99,609) Total Revenue $443,124 $514,018 Total Expenditures ($434,622) ($356,175) NET $8,501 $157,843 79 This income statement proposes a $1 pool entrance fee increase and $1.50 park gate fee increase. This money will be put directly towards debt repayment to TRCA's reserves. Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Projected 5 Year Income Statement Following Construction of New Aquatic Facility Note: Calculations based on annual 7% revenue and 5% expenditure growth It is important to note that should Petticoat Creek Conservation Area continue to operate following closure of the current swimming pool, the conservation area will have an annual net deficit of $44,000. As a result of the aforementioned financial details, at Authority Meeting #10/09, held on January 8, 2010, Resolution #A233/09 was approved, in part, as follows: THAT the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Aquatic Facility Redevelopment project be approved subject to the following terms and conditions: • project description as set out in the communication dated December 16, 2009; • project funding not to exceed $3 million as set out in the communication dated December 16, 2009; • staff continue to seek outside sources of funds, including the City of Pickering, for the portion of costs not covered by federal /provincial funding; • staff to report to the Executive Committee on progress of the project at appropriate intervals; THAT in accordance with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Purchasing Policy, staff be directed to: • complete final design and specifications based on proposals from selected, qualified consultants; • subject to completion of final design and specifications, proceed with construction; THAT any changes in front gate fees for 2011 be referred back to staff ;... A Request for Quotation (RFQ) for pool demolition was publically advertized on February 9 , 2010. Tenders closed on Friday, February 19, 2010 at 4:00 pm and were opened on Monday February 19, 2010 by the following TRCA staff: • Doug Miller - Manager, Conservation Parks; • David Boccia - Superintendent, Bruce's Mill and Petticoat Creek Conservation Areas; • Kate Pankov - Project Technician; • Brad Clubine - Project Manager. The following is a summary of the quotations received: 80 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Gross Revenue $514,018 $550,000 $588,500 $629,694 $673,773 Gross Expenditure ($356,175) ($373,983) ($392,683) ($412,317) ($432,93.3) Net Income $157,843 $176,017 $195,817 $217,377 $240,840 Note: Calculations based on annual 7% revenue and 5% expenditure growth It is important to note that should Petticoat Creek Conservation Area continue to operate following closure of the current swimming pool, the conservation area will have an annual net deficit of $44,000. As a result of the aforementioned financial details, at Authority Meeting #10/09, held on January 8, 2010, Resolution #A233/09 was approved, in part, as follows: THAT the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Aquatic Facility Redevelopment project be approved subject to the following terms and conditions: • project description as set out in the communication dated December 16, 2009; • project funding not to exceed $3 million as set out in the communication dated December 16, 2009; • staff continue to seek outside sources of funds, including the City of Pickering, for the portion of costs not covered by federal /provincial funding; • staff to report to the Executive Committee on progress of the project at appropriate intervals; THAT in accordance with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Purchasing Policy, staff be directed to: • complete final design and specifications based on proposals from selected, qualified consultants; • subject to completion of final design and specifications, proceed with construction; THAT any changes in front gate fees for 2011 be referred back to staff ;... A Request for Quotation (RFQ) for pool demolition was publically advertized on February 9 , 2010. Tenders closed on Friday, February 19, 2010 at 4:00 pm and were opened on Monday February 19, 2010 by the following TRCA staff: • Doug Miller - Manager, Conservation Parks; • David Boccia - Superintendent, Bruce's Mill and Petticoat Creek Conservation Areas; • Kate Pankov - Project Technician; • Brad Clubine - Project Manager. The following is a summary of the quotations received: 80 Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Pool Demolition Project Firm Cost (Plus GST) Quantum Murray Bid withdrawn by Contractor Amlap Corp. $93,700.00 Rafat General Contractor Inc. $97,000.00 JMX Contracting $98,000.00 Elirpa Construction & Materials Ltd $101,000.00 Tri -Phase Environmental Inc $105,625.00 Salandria Ltd $108,711.34 One Stop General Contracting $111,000.00 Lombardi Construction $136,200.00 Marrex Construction and Excavating $160,590.00 Varcon Construction Corporation $171,194.00 Staff therefore recommends that the contact for Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Pool Demolition Project be awarded to Amlap Corp. for a cost not to exceed $93,700.00, plus a 10% contingency allowance, plus GST, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority requirements. Staff is confident that Amlap Corp. will conduct the required tasks in a timely and cost effective manner. Timing for completion of the project is critical to meet the federal /provincial stimulus funding requirements. However, if staff is unable to come to a mutually agreeable contract, then staff is requesting authorization to enter into contact negotiations with the next lowest bidder to complete the project within the tight timeliness and budget. FINANCIAL DETAILS One third of the funds required is available from TRCA reserves, the remaining required funds are available through the Canada RInC and Ontario REC programs. Status of Progress Staff carried out the following work between September 2009 and March 2010: Research and Design Development: 1. Preliminary facility design and operation and capital budget development including drawings and preliminary construction tender documentation. Geotechnical Investigation 1. Substrate examination through 13 boreholes 3.4 m - 5 m deep and 30 cm in diameter, compromising existing pool liner and substrate. Survey and Base Plan Preparation 1. Carry out topographical survey of the site to obtain accurate base information required for the design. 2. Investigate and survey all existing site services, both above and below grade. 3. Investigate, obtain and verify information concerning all utility services necessary for the design, both public and private, above and below grade. 4. Facilitate a detailed site inspection. 81 Demolition Preparation 1. Obtained demolition permit from City of Pickering DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Work to be completed includes: Contract Drawings and Documents 1. Prepare working drawings, specifications and contract /construction documents (tender documentation) for issuance. Budget Development 1. Develop a detailed operating budget, including appropriate overhead costs, staffing levels, materials and supplies, utilities and programming for the approved design. 2. Develop a detailed capital budget, including appropriate contingencies and design fees, for the construction of the approved design. 3. Annualize major maintenance that is likely to occur over the first 20 years of operation. Bidding and Tender Review Phase 1. Review bid submissions and award contract. Building Permit Phase 1. Liaise with agencies and departments to apply for and obtain approvals for all required permits from appropriate City of Pickering departments and other authorities with jurisdiction. Construction Phase 1. Complete demolition of existing Petticoat pool. 2. Complete excavation, grading and earth work. 3. Installation of plumbing and mechanical infrastructure. Construction Phase 1. Installation of aquatic playground and swimming pool. 2. Upgrades to existing washroom, change room, snack bar and other infrastructure. 3. Concrete works including pool shell and decking. 4. Integrated soft and hard landscaping. 5. Interactive signage. Report prepared by: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Brad Clubine, extension 5252 Emails: bclubine @trca.on.ca Date: March 03, 2010 82 RES. #A28/10 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR FRENCHMAN'S BAY Support for the Stormwater Management Master Plan for Frenchman's Bay prepared by the City of Pickering to improve water quality and habitat conditions. Moved by: Seconded by: Bonnie Litt ley Gay Cowbourne THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) support the recommendations of the Stormwater Management Master Plan for Frenchman's Bay; THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue to work with City of Pickering staff through the next steps of the Environmental Assessment process; THAT TRCA staff work with City of Pickering to develop and identify funding for a stewardship outreach plan to target actions that homeowners and businesses in the Frenchman's Bay watershed can take to reduce contaminants; THAT TRCA staff work with the City of Pickering, Ministry of Natural Resources and other stakeholders to develop a scope and obtain funding for a restoration plan for Frenchman's Bay; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to work with City of Pickering to seek senior government funding for implementation of the recommendations in the Master Plan. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Executive Committee Meeting #1/10, held on March 5, 2010, staff was directed to bring back a report on water quality issues in Frenchman's Bay following issues raised in a Toronto Star article 401 salt ruins lakefront 'jewel' dated March 4, 2010 which identified concerns for the water quality of the Bay from urban drainage. The watershed of Frenchman's Bay is heavily urbanized with more than 75% of the area occupied by residential and non - residential development and by utility and transportation land uses. Tributary streams that arise from cedar swamps and from groundwater springs at the base of the shoreline of glacial Lake Iroquois converge to form Pine, Amberlea, Dunbarton and Krosno creeks which flow southward and discharge into the Bay. The majority of urban development in the Frenchman's Bay watershed within the City of Pickering was undertaken prior to the advent of the stormwater management systems to control the quality and quantity of storm runoff. More recently, there has been a new understanding of the important role that stormwater management can play from a healthy Great Lakes perspective and communities throughout the Greater Toronto Area have recognized that the retrofit of stormwater management systems in older built areas is an important step to minimizing flood risk and erosion damage as well as meeting healthy watershed objectives for Lake Ontario. 83 The natural ecosystems of Frenchman's Bay and its contributing watersheds have been in decline for decades. Extensive studies completed on Frenchman's Bay and its contributing watersheds over the past ten years have confirmed that the wetlands in the Bay have reduced in area and quality, that water quality in the Bay and the tributary creeks has declined, and that local fauna and flora have changed and reduced in diversity. Uncontrolled and untreated urban drainage is considered a major contributor to this decline, although other factors such as recreational uses, Great Lakes water levels and invasive species may also be important. Many of these studies have identified the need for a comprehensive stormwater management strategy as one component of an overall plan for environmental sustainability for Frenchman's Bay. Under the direction of the Mayor of Pickering, a task force was formed in the late 1990's to examine how the Pickering waterfront could be enhanced in an environmentally sustainable manner. A stakeholder workshop was held in May 2005, with the guidance of TRCA, to identify actions which could be taken to enhance environmental conditions whilst addressing the objectives of the Mayor's task force. A Five -Year Implementation Plan was developed, which identified the need for a Stormwater Management Master Plan as a priority project. For the past three years, TRCA has been studying water quality across the western section of the Durham waterfront. This study included Frenchman's Bay. Data from this study will provide additional insights on how the Bay currently responds to untreated stormwater and how water quality could be improved with proposed treatment. Initial results support the results of other studies undertaken in the Bay that urban development in the upstream watershed is the primary source of pollutant loads to the bay. Chloride contamination in the Bay is the result of road salt application, which occurs in virtually all urban areas of Canada. Road salts enter the environment through losses at salt storage and snow disposal sites and through runoff and splash from roadways in the winter and spring. Conventional stormwater management facilities such as oil /grit separators and detention ponds cannot capture these chlorides and prevent them from reaching rivers, streams and lakes. RATIONALE The Stormwater Management Master Plan for Frenchman's Bay was prepared within the framework of the Class Environmental Assessment according to the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) by the City of Pickering with assistance from TRCA. The overall goal of the Master Plan was to address long- standing concerns regarding the ongoing decline in the quality of the Frenchman's Bay ecosystem by seeking means to control the quantity and quality of storm runoff entering the local creeks and the Bay itself through lot, conveyance and end of system measures. The Master Plan identifies a group of projects, programs and policies that the City of Pickering can implement to address issues related to flooding, erosion and poor water quality in Frenchman's Bay and its tributary watersheds. Some of the projects identified involve the construction of new stormwater management infrastructure and will require completion of the final steps of the Environmental Assessment process before being implemented, while others can be undertaken through programs that promote good practices on the part of watershed residents. 84 Environment Canada published an assessment report in December 1, 2001 which concluded that high releases of road salts were having an adverse effect on freshwater ecosystems, soil, vegetation and wildlife. These concerns led Environment Canada to prepare a Code of Practice for the protection of the environment while maintaining roadway safety. The Code recommends the development of salt management plans as well as the implementation of best practices for salt application, salt storage and snow disposal. The Code however, does not apply to road salts used for domestic purposes, or for private or institutional uses. While municipalities are required to prepare salt management plans, individuals and businesses also can play a role in reducing concentrations of chlorides and other contaminants to the bay through best management practices on their properties. Education of watershed residents can assist in meeting water quality objectives. One of the major projects identified in the Master Plan is the construction of large detention facilities at the top of Frenchman's Bay to capture some of the contaminants that are being conveyed into the Bay from Pine, Amberlea, Dunbarton and Krosno creeks. While these facilities have great potential to significantly improve the water quality, their design and construction will need to be considered very carefully to minimize their impact to the sensitive wetland habitats of the upper Bay. The reasons for changes to the habitats in Frenchman's Bay need further exploration to ensure that all the measures to protect the Bay have been identified and to meet the concerns expressed by the Ministry of Natural Resources for potential effects of some of the proposed remedial actions on the wetlands in the north end of the bay. A Frenchman's Bay Restoration plan should be undertaken to analyze current conditions, change over time and response of the Bay with proposed measures. In light of the identified contribution to the Great Lakes water quality and emerging interest in the nearshore areas, there is a need for federal and provincial governments to support local municipalities in the planning and implementation of modern stormwater systems. Unfortunately, the City of Pickering is outside the Toronto Area of Concern and therefore not eligible for current federal Great Lakes funding programs. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • The Stormwater Management Master Plan for Frenchman's Bay will be taken to the City of Pickering Executive Committee on April 12, 2010, then to the City of Pickering Council on April 19, 2010. • TRCA will continue to work with the City of Pickering as they move forward with the implementation of the Master Plan projects. • TRCA staff will work with the City of Pickering to develop and identify funding for a stewardship outreach plan to target actions that homeowners and businesses in the Frenchman's Bay watershed can take to reduce contaminant loads to the Bay. • TRCA staff will work with stakeholders to scope and obtain funding for a Frenchman's Bay restoration plan to identify causes of decline of habitats and species in the Bay and develop actions to remediate them. 85 FINANCIAL DETAILS No budget has been identified through TRCA's capital program in the Region of Durham budget for 2010. Staff will seek funds to undertake stewardship activities and the Frenchman's Bay Restoration Plan through Durham Region capital and other grant programs. Report prepared by: Connie Pinto, extension 5387 Emails: cpinto @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Connie Pinto, extension 5387 Emails: cpinto @trca.on.ca Date: March 17, 2010 RES. #A29/10 - ROUGE DAYS The organization of community events for Rouge Days from May 26th to May 29th, 2010. Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath David Barrow THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) members support and encourage participation in the planned events across the Rouge River watershed; AND FURTHER THAT the staff of York Region, Town of Richmond Hill, Town of Markham, City of Toronto and Rouge Park be thanked for their inkind contribution in planning and coordinating the Rouge Days events. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #2/08, held on March 28, 2008, Resolution #A42/8 in regard to the Rouge Watershed Integrated Management Plan was approved, in part, as follows: ...THAT staff be directed to host an annual multi - stakeholder forum, beginning in 2009, to report on progress in implementation of the Rouge River Watershed Plan, and report back to the Authority on the results of the forum;... In late 2009, initial plans were made to host an agency forum to in part fulfill the direction from the Authority and to begin the planning of a larger event. This was cancelled due to the unavailability of key participants. The initial planning for Rouge Days in 2010 was initiated by TRCA with an invitation to Rouge Park Alliance Chair and staff. Initial ideas were shared and the discussion led towards the idea to broaden out to multiple existing events that would attract a larger audience than a forum. Reflecting on the model of "Watershed Week" in the early 1990's it was agreed that all Rouge watershed municipalities and perhaps other sectors and community groups would be interested in hosting a number of events across the entire watershed with various activities to attract different audiences. 86 A multi- agency organizing committee co- chaired by Alan Wells, Chair, Rouge Park Alliance and Adele Freeman, Director, Watershed Management, TRCA, held their first meeting on January 25, 2009. Committee members represent York Region, the towns of Markham and Richmond Hill, the City of Toronto, Rouge Park and TRCA. The Rouge Days Committee agreed to the following: "From Wednesday May 26 th to Saturday May 29 th we will work together to plan and host a number of educational and entertaining events that will invite those who work, live and play in the Rouge Watershed to participate! The intent of our first annual Rouge Days event is to help people make a personal connection with the watershed and enjoy its cultural, recreational and natural heritage features ". Final details are currently being confirmed, including all events, times and location, by a number of the committee members to implement the following Rouge Days events: Wednesday May 2e - History Dav Historic Building Tour in the Town of Markham, 6:00 -8:00 p.m. • Native Child will host an Aboriginal Program at the Glen Rouge Campground in Toronto, 6:00 -8:00 p.m. • Rouge Park staff will host two nature hikes at 9:30 a.m. and at 12:30 p.m. Thursday May 27th - Critter Div • A Fishing Derby at Toogood Pond in Unionville, 6:00 p.m. -8:00 p.m. • A Toronto Zoo Frogwatch 7:30 p.m. -9:30 p.m. leaving from the Pearse House. • Ontario Nature Salamander Hike, 1:00 p.m. -4:00 p.m. leaving from the Pearse House. Friday May 28th - Arts and Culture Day • Rouge Park staff lead an early morning bird hike 9:00 a.m. -11:00 a.m. • Mennonite Church activity to be confirmed • Rouge Arts Mixer, Wine & Entertainment at the Markham Museum 5:30 p.m. -9:00 p.m. th Saturday May 2e - Nature's Day • Phyllis Rawlinson Park Tree Planting and Nature Walk hosted by Evergreen and Richmond Hill. 10 a.m. -12:30 p.m. • Newberry Park Wetland Walk hosted by Ontario Streams and Richmond Hill 10:00 a.m. • Rouge Park staff will host two nature hikes at 9:30 a.m. and at 12:30 p.m. • Fishing Derby where the Rouge River meets the Toronto waterfront, 10:00 a.m. -1:00 p.m. • Shadow Hawk Presentation during the Fishing Derby; • Bird Banding Demonstration during the Fishing Derby. • Deputy Mayor Heath's walk in the Rouge River Valley in Markham. FINANCIAL DETAILS The majority of events are financially supported through existing program budgets. York Region is pursuing inkind and cash sponsorship for the evening "Arts Mixer" in Markham. Grant funding will be pursued to offset the cost of the Native Child aboriginal program and the printing costs for promotional materials for the overall events listing. 87 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE As part of the communications for this event, a Rouge watershed identifier is being developed. Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5638 Emails: jjeffery @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5638 Emails: afreeman @trca.on.ca Date: March 10, 2010 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES. #A30 /10 Moved by: Seconded by: Bonnie Litt ley Pamela Gough THAT the committee move into closed session to discuss items AUTH7.11, AUTH8.3 and EX8.3. CARRIED RES. #A31 /10 - ARISE AND REPORT Moved by: ' Seconded by: Pamela Gough Bonnie Litt ley THAT the committee arise and report from closed session. RES. #A32 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Mimico Creek Watershed Purchase of Land - Toronto District School Board, CFN 43339. Acquisition of land locally referred to as Heathercrest Park, located on the southeast corner of Storey Crescent and Antioch Drive, City of Toronto, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 - 2010," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River watershed. Glenn De Baeremaeker Jack Heath THAT confidential item AUTH7.11 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 -2010 be approved; 88 AND FURTHER THAT staff report back when the item is completed and can be made public. CARRIED RES. #A33/10 - ROUGE PARK GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE REVIEW Decision to proceed with efforts to establish a Rouge Federal Park. Moved by: Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Bonnie Litt ley THAT the Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance be advised that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) supports the following in response to the recommendations of the "Governance, Organization and Finance Review of Rouge Park Alliance, February 2010 ": • the creation of a Rouge Federal Park on the lands shown as areas 1, 2 and 3 on Schedule A attached; • the development of the terms of a "Founding Deal ", including, but not limited to the elements of such a deal as shown in Schedule B attached; • discussions wtih the Alliance to engage the federal and provincial governments in the creation of the proposed federal park governance structure and creation of a joint interpretive /educational centre for Rouge Park; THAT TRCA advise the Rouge Park Alliance that TRCA is prepared to serve as the "Interim Transition Entity ", as proposed in the Elements of a Founding Deal; THAT staff, in conjunction with the Chair of the Rouge Park Alliance, continue to pursue an appropriate form of tenure in the remaining provincial lands that have been identified as part of the Rouge Park; THAT, if requested by the City of Toronto, staff be directed to explore the feasibility of TRCA assuming the operation of the Glen Rouge Campground; THAT staff be directed to pursue funding for the capital development of elements of the Park, as approved by the Rouge Park Alliance and the respective municipalities, through TRCA's budget process and other funding opportunities; THAT staff be directed to update the existing Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Rouge Park Alliance and TRCA to provide for the continued land assembly, planning, development and operation of the Park, while the negotiations with the governments continue; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to participate in discussions with the Chair of the Rouge Park Alliance and representatives of the Town of Markham to respond to the report of the Rouge Park Implementation Task Force, and in particular to develop a strategy for the protection and restoration of heritage structures within the Park. 89 BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #6/09, held on July 24, 2009, Resolution #A112/09 was approved as follows: THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) believes that the Rouge Park is of national significance and therefore supports consideration of a National Park model for the Rouge Park governance and financing; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA requests and encourages the Government of Canada and Province of Ontario to immediately commence a dialogue about their mutual long -term commitments to the Rouge Park and that they consider establishing a Rouge Valley National Park as proposed by the Rouge River Valley National Park Now Committee. At Authority Meeting #11/06, held on January 26, 2007, Resolution #A314/06 was approved, in part, as follows: THAT approval be granted for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among TRCA, the Rouge Park Alliance and the Province of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) respecting the Rouge Park Alliance operations, administration and management of Rouge Park and the Rouge Park watershed;... Section 9.2 of the Terms of Agreement states that the agreement shall be reviewed at least one time every three years, at which time revisions may be made by mutual agreement of the parties. Throughout 2009, the Rouge Park Alliance undertook a review of the governance and financing needs of the Park.for the future. The assessment was undertaken by the consulting firm of StrategyCorp Inc. and Hemson Consulting. The report to the Alliance meeting held on February 5,2010, from the Chair of the Rouge Park Alliance, Mr. Alan Wells, summarizes the need for the study, the process that was followed and the steps necessary to move forward on the recommendations of the study. Mr. Wells' report is attached as Attachment 1 and the Executive Summary of the consultants' report is attached as Attachment 2. The Rouge Park Alliance authorized the Chair of the Alliance to request each of the member organizations to consider the following: a) the recommendations of the Rouge Park Governance Review Report; b) the concept of a Founding Deal and elements as they relate to their specific organization; c) participation with the Alliance to engage the federal and provincial governments in the creation of the proposed federal park governance structure and creation of a joint interpretive /educational centre for Rouge Park. The recommendations in the consultants' report are as follows: 6. Recommendations Based upon the review and analysis conducted through this study, it is recommended that the Rouge Park Alliance adopt the following: 90 1. Secure the agreement of the existing Alliance Members • support for a National Park • agree to the terms of a Founding Deal as set out below in table ES 2. 2. CaII upon the Governments of Canada and Ontario to: • commence negotiations on a memorandum of Understanding to establish the Rouge National Park which would address the requirements of a Founding Deal, as set out below in table ES 2; • address the opportunity to create a shared interpretive centre to anchor the Rouge Park and act as a gateway to the larger provincial and national park experience. 3. The Rouge Park Alliance prepare a public and stakeholder communications and branding strategy, to capitalize on the current political interest in the environment and the window of opportunity afforded by the international focus on the GTA that will arise from the Pan -Am Games and G20 meetings. 4. In the event that there is no progress on a new Founding Deal by December 30, 2010, it is recommended that the Rouge Park Alliance seek an initiative from the Government of Ontario that it be reconstituted as a not - for - profit armslength agency with updated board and governance structures, and natural person powers, in order to address the governance weaknesses inherent in the existing Alliance model. The following analysis is presented based on TRCA's perspective on the history, geography, administration, financing and governance of the Rouge Park. RATIONALE Historical Perspective There are many different perspectives on how the Rouge Park has come to be. All of them are valid and in fact, it is a result of the many perspectives on the Rouge Park that the great asset now under consideration is possible. From TRCA's perspective, the Rouge Park began with the formation of the Rouge, Duffin, Highland and Petticoat (RDHP) Conservation Authority on April 1, 1954, in Markham. In the conservation report undertaken by the Department of Lands and Forests in 1956, on behalf of the Province of Ontario, to direct the early work of the conservation authority, a number of significant land parcels and heritage features were identified for public acquisition throughout the Rouge watershed. Following the creation of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and the events of Hurricane Hazel in 1954, the RDHP authority was amalgamated with the other three conservation authorities in the Toronto region (Etobicoke /Mimico, Humber and Don) in 1957 to create what is now TRCA. The first land acquisition by TRCA as part of what is now the Rouge Park was undertaken in 1960. By the time the first Rouge Park Plan was completed for the area south of Steeles Avenue in 1994, TRCA had already assembled 2,710 acres of conservation lands throughout the watershed. Fortunately, many individuals, groups and governments at all levels have continued to develop the concept and scale of Rouge Park. The prospect for a very significant, publically managed, ecological corridor with important public recreational, food production and educational facilities extending from Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine is now very achievable. 91 Geographic Perspective From TRCA's perspective, Rouge Park is an important component of the regional greenspace system that is defined by TRCA's approved targeted natural heritage system. For example, the highly desired goal of the Rouge Park to have a continuous green corridor from Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine, is shared by the Humber, Don and the Duffins /Carruthers watershed plans. These "big picture ", regional goals can only be achieved through the strategic alignment of all levels of government and the hard work of individuals to maintain the focus on the long term goal, while guiding the stewardship efforts of the diverse communities across the watersheds. In the case of the Rouge, a dedicated group of individuals has maintained the focus on what is uniquely possible on the Rouge because of the massive.assembly of public lands (in the 1970's) by both the provincial and federal governments, originally for purposes other than park creation. Earlier attempts to answer the question of , "how big is Rouge Park ", concluded that the boundaries of the Park should be defined as all of the publically -owned greenspace lands within the Rouge watershed. More recent efforts, particularly those of the coalition to create the Rouge National Park, have argued that the boundaries of the Park should include important greenspace well outside of the Rouge watershed, including other Greenbelt lands, the greenspace system in the Duffins watershed within the proposed Seaton community, and large portions of the federal lands assembled as part of a future possible airport. The efforts of Markham Council to create the Rouge Park Implementation Task Force Report, concluded that the Rouge Park label should be reserved for the large swath of contiguous, publically -owned lands on the east side of Markham, including Bob Hunter Memorial Park, the Little Rouge Corridor lands and the Eastern Markham lands. This definition would provide a logical extension, into Markham, of the lands known as Rouge Park in Toronto. Under the umbrella of Rouge Park, there are, and will likely be more portions of the Park that have other names associated with cultural and community history of local significance. The consultants are recommending a boundary for the federal park as set out in Schedule A, attached, that could be achieved in stages, over a period of years. As noted above, from TRCA's perspective, there is nothing critical about this boundary, as the Rouge Park will always be seen by TRCA as a very important subset of the regional greenspace system we are attempting to secure over time. The extent of the geography to which a Rouge Park label is applied comes down to questions of political relevance and ability to attract investment in park acquisition, development, programming and operations. 92 Administrative Perspective TRCA has done a number of things to support the Rouge Park Alliance. Many of the services TRCA provides are as a result of the fact that the Rouge Park Alliance is a coalition of partners rather than a legal entity. As a result, the staff of Rouge Park are TRCA employees. The funding for Rouge Park is administered by TRCA under the direction of the Alliance. Some of the funding is obtained through TRCA's municipal budget process. Some of the lands within the Park are in the title of TRCA, some are in the title of TRCA specifically for Rouge Park purposes and other lands are still to come from the Province of Ontario, under some form of tenure to TRCA, from Ontario Realty Corporation, for Rouge Park purposes. TRCA administers leases for rental homes, farms and other businesses within the Park, under direction of the Alliance. TRCA, through its role in the municipal plan input and review process, seeks to achieve the objectives of the various Park plans, in cooperation with the respective municipalities. TRCA implements some of the Park elements including habitat features and trails. TRCA has a Memorandum of Understanding with th'e Rouge Park and the Ministry of Natural Resources setting out the various roles of the parties. The MOU is up for review and needs to be amended to deal with the results of the governance and financing review and other procedures to allow the Park to move forward while negotiations continue to define its future. Funding Perspective From TRCA's perspective, the main issue that limits the Park at this time is funding. It is highly desirable to have sufficient funding to enable steady progress in several aspects of the Park; public use infrastructure, more habitat enhancement, better enforcement of illegal activities, more front doors or destination locations to make the Park more well known and accessible to Greater Toronto Area (GTA) residents and to provide for better protection and restoration of the numerous heritage structures in the Park. The consultants attempted to capture some of the existing investments that are being made by the Alliance members. Given the diverse nature of investments among the partners in the Park it is difficult to come to a realistic assessment of the existing level of effort. The consultants concluded that the operating budget is about $1,400,000 and the capital budget about $500,000 annually. In fact, the investments of all of the partners is probably considerably higher. As an example, the largest capital project underway in the Park at this time is the new front door to the Park at Lake Ontario. TRCA's Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project in combination with the City of Pickering's Western Gateway Project is a municipal, provincial and federal investment of over $26 million. While the Rouge Park is a very large area, with tremendous potential investment requirements, an annual operating budget in the range of $4,000,000 and an annual capital investment of $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 would provide for steady progress on Park infrastructure and programming. These investments might be supplemented occasionally by one time improvement projects such as a visitors centre which is seen to be a high priority. The operational costs for such a centre would need to be carefully considered, particularly in a large park like the Rouge where user fees would be difficult to collect. TRCA's experience with the Kortright Centre suggests that the traditional core business of serving school groups is more difficult to attract in the face of transportation and other cost pressures at the school boards. As a point of reference, the operating budget for the Kortright Centre is about $ 1.7 million for 2010 and of that, $1.5 million comes from admission and program revenue. 93 TRCA needs to remember that while a federal Rouge Park might accelerate the development of the Park, increase its public awareness, and distinguish it from other parks in the GTA, the programming of such a Park could put serious competitive pressure on other TRCA park operations that are increasingly supported by user fees. Governance Perspective TRCA's perspective on the governance question for Rouge Park needs to start with recognition of the facts surrounding the creation of the Rouge Park Alliance in 1995. One of the main reasons that the Alliance was created "under the umbrella of TRCA ", but not as a direct extension of TRCA, was that some groups believed that TRCA was not strong enough, or separated sufficiently from development pressures, to do the right things for the Park. Observation and assessment of the process to create the Rouge Park Alliance was a major influence on TRCA's rediscovery of its community roots and subsequent revitalization of the watershed based community groups that are so effective today across TRCA's jurisdiction. At the same time, no government was prepared to take responsibility to create and fund a separate entity to oversee the development and operation of the Rouge Park. The Rouge Park Alliance needed to formally connect to government process somewhere and TRCA was the best available option. As the consultants' report correctly states, governance mechanisms for the Park are really an outcome of the funding decisions. Once we know where the funding will come from, a governance model can be developed to protect the funders' interests. From the recent review of governance options, it appears that there is a window of opportunity to create a national /federal park. There may also be an opportunity to revisit possible initiatives by the Province of Ontario if the federal option does not proceed. Given the financial needs of the Park, it is exciting to think that a senior level of government might be interested in direct participation in the development and operation of the Park. If that proves not to be feasible, then a further endowment in the Park by the senior governments, and /or a commitment to annual contributions to the development and operation of the Park, are opportunities that must be explored. While it is promising to think that the federal government might be interested in administering Rouge Park in some type of single funder model, particularly in a period of economic difficulties for municipalities, it should not be forgotten that a great deal of progress has been made on Rouge Park over the past 50 years, through a partnership model, that celebrated contributions from all levels of government and the community. Report prepared by: Brian Denney, 416 - 667 -6290 Emails: bdenney @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Brian Denney, 416 - 667 -6290 Emails: bdenney @trca.on.ca Date: March 23, 2010 Attachments: 2 94 Attachment 1 Excerpt from Draft Rouge Park.Alliance Minutes, Meeting #1/10, February 5, 2010 1R. Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review Report KEY ISSUE Receipt and Circulation of the Governance Review Report. MOTION: Res. #3110 Moved by: Pauline Browes Seconded by: Clyde Smith 1. THAT the Rouge Park Governance Review Final Report, under separate cover, be received. 2. THAT.the recommendations of the Rouge Park Governance Review Steering Committee be received as follows: a. The Steering Committee advises the Rouge Park Alliance that the Governance Review Report, prepared by the consulting team of StrategyCorp and Hemson Consulting, is a competent and professional report on the options for governance and financing for Rouge Park b. That the Rouge Park Governance Review Final Report be forwarded to the Rouge Park Alliance for consideration c. That the Steering Committee recommends to the Alliance the Rouge Park Governance Review Final Report be circulated to the constituent member organizations of the Alliance for comments within 60 days AMENDMENT Moved: Chin Lee Seconded by: Michael Chong That the following point (d) be added: d. That the Rouge Park Governance Review Final Report be forwarded to the Federal and Provincial political party leaders for their information. 3. THAT the Chairman formally request the heads of the constituent member organizations to consider the following: a. The recommendations of the Rouge Park Governance Review Report b. The concept of a Founding Deal and elements as they relate to their specific organization c. Participation with the Alliance to engage the Federal and Provincial governments in the creation of the proposed Federal Park governance structure and creation of a joint interpretive /educational centre for Rouge Park. 4. THAT the Chairman of the Rouge Park Alliance appear before the constituent member organizations to answer questions and receive comments pertaining to the Governance Review Report. 5. THAT the Chairman provides briefings to the appropriate Federal and Provincial officials and elected representatives on the recommendations of the Governance Review Report and the process underway to receive input and comments from the constituent members of the Alliance. 95 THAT the Chairman be authorized to undertake briefings of key stakeholders on the recommendations of the Governance Review Report and the process underway to receive input and comments. 7. THAT the Chairman report back to the Alliance regarding the following matters: a. Response of the Rouge Park Alliance constituent member organizations to the Governance Review Report recommendations and any related matter b. The results of the briefings with Federal and Provincial officials, elected representative and key stakeholders c. Recommended Alliance Governance Model and advocacy position d. A strategy and work program necessary to engage the Federal and Provincial Governments in the implementation. 8. THAT the Chair upon receipt of the responses from the member organizations (Recommendation 7) organize and host a workshop with the constituent members of the Alliance to develop a draft "Founding Deal" as recommended by the Governance Review Report. AMENDMENT CARRIED MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BACKGROUND in August 2009, the Rouge Park Alliance issued a call for proposals from qualified consultants to undertake a review, develop and recommend an appropriate governance model for the Rouge Park. In September 2009, the consultant consortium of StrategyCorp and Hem son Consulting were retained for the purposes of this study. The purpose and objectives of the study as set out in the Terms of Reference consisted of five specific tasks summarized below: Governance Options: - Identify, develop and evaluate potential governance models which could be implemented for the Rouge Park. The scope of this review would include existing park governance models within Canada as well as internationally and related type organizations. Funding Strategy: Document and assess the adequacy of existing operating and capital funding for the Park. Park Operation, Management and Organization Structure: Develop a management and organization structure with help from the Steering Committee to manage the Park. As part of this plan, a five -year budget forecast would be developed which would link the discussions between funding and governance, Rouge Park Land Reconciliation: Research /document the impact of the addition of these lands and recommend a balance of uses for the lands. 96 Engaging Rouge Park Alliance Membership: Develop and implement an engagement strategy for the project. Workshops developed on the subject of governance and funding are expected to be efficient and comprehensive, STUDY PROCESS As the Alliance is aware, a Steering Committee consisting of senior staff representatives from each of the constituent member organizations was established to work directly with the consulting team. The overall direction and management of the study was the responsibility of the Alliance Chairman. The existing funding of the Alliance is provided through multiple sources for both operating and capital expenditures. The complexity of the existing funding framework and the need to identify future operating and capital needs required the creation of a separate Financial Working Group to work with the consulting team. The study process consisted of four main phases as follows: 1. Data and information collection 2. Identification of the Governance Interest, Issues and Opportunities 3. identification of Governance Principles, Concepts, Areas of Agreement and Disagreement, Evaluation Criteria and Assessment 4. Evaluation and Recommendation of a Preferred Model and Implementation Platform The Terms of Reference provided a clear direction on the overall objectives of the review. Public administration never occurs in a vacuum; it is always embedded in the overarching political context of the time. This study and the Rouge Park are no exception. The consulting team approached this study with a keen awareness that the Park is not in need of an academic study about what 'might be "; much more important, is a model that could be implemented. Thus, in addition to the objective realities of the Park, the study process also sought to understand, as fully as possible, the subjective political dimensions of the Park, with a view to defining the key political enablers and the barriers to success. Accordingly, the study had to change to reflect the underlying conditions. The two greatest considerations were the presence of existing advocacy positions among Alliance members and the backdrop of the current economic downturn and its impact on the ability to secure funding from all levels of government. The Governance Review study has provided an excellent opportunity for abroad -based dialogue between the constituent members of the Rouge Park Alliance (staff and representatives levels), its needs, limitations and opportunities. Between late August (2009) and the end of January there were 3 Steering Committee Workshops, 2 working sessions for the Finance Working Group and one Alliance Workshop. In addition, the consulting team held over 12 individual meetings with representatives (Alliance and Steering Committee) of the constituent member organizations and a large number of conference calls, A draft of the consultant's report was presented to the Steering Committee on January 13, 2010 at which time they were asked to undertake their own internal review and provide comments by January 22, 2010. Detailed submissions were received from the MNR, Parks Canada, City of Toronto; TRCA, 97 York Region, Durham Region and the Town of Markham. The consultants undertook a detailed review of comrnents (in the order of 150 individual corrections and darifications or elaborations), which have been incorporated into the final version. THE NEED FOR CHANGE The work undertaken by the consulting team found, regardless of a recommended or preferred governance model, the Alliance is facing a number of serious challenges and limitations. The overarching conclusion reached by the consultant team is that the Park and Alliance have reached a criticaljuncture in their evolution. Based upon the SWOT analysis, the opportunities, tensions and issues are indicative of the Alliance and entity (Park) transitioning from the conceptual stage to the reality of a functioning park and organization. The Rouge Park was borne out of activism and a political response to a compelling concept and opportunity. Since its creation, the efforts of the Alliance have further defined and consolidated the oppouunity. This study process has confirmed that even today, the basic discussion about what the Rouge Park could or should be, remains unresolved. There is still no universal shared definition of the 'Rouge Park" - even among Alliance Members. Because of its legal limitations, the Alliance is not a true decision-making board. Rather it is an advisory body. In practice, decisions of the Alliance (which does not have a legal status) are treated as binding decisions, and irnplemented. In fact, however, they are merety stakeholder advice which is then mplemented hy one of the parties. One of the attributes of a board of directors is that board members have a duty to act in the best interests of the organization. If a board member is in a conflict of interest between the interests of the organization, and some other organization to which he or she belongs, then it is necessary to deal with the conflict. Depending on the norms and by-lai,vs of the board, this might require disclosure of the conflict, recusal or abstention form the decision, as may be appropriate in the case, The Rouge Park Attiance is not a board in this sense. Altiance members are there to represent the organization that appointed them. Accordingty. it does not function as a board. tt is more of a structured meetlng ofthe Park stakeholders. Alliance members are are'therefore in the ambiguous siwation oftrying to govern the Rouge Park n the ' best interests of the Rouge Park, while trying to protect the interests of the organizations they represent. Further, the consultants have recommended, even if a new governance structure and funding relationship is not secured for the Park, the Alliance should not be left in its current state, The current Rouge Park should be replaced with an incorporated entity, capable of carrying on business in its own name, ancl af owning land. 98 The redesign should replace the current stakeholder Alliance with a Board of Directors for the Rouge Park. Board member shoutd be mandated to: provide Ieadership to the Park be accountable for ensuring that the Rouge Park fuIfitIs its rnandate oversee the Park's managernent act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances Attached to this report as Schedule A is the Executive Summary from the main study report. WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY As ment;oned earlier in this report, there has been a renewed dialogue and engagement, partkularly at the senior staff levels (Steering Comrnittee) among the Atliance member organizations. This positive energy has created a sense of ofcornmon purpose, opportunity and momenturn to move forward with securing a new governance structure and funding model for the Rouge Park. It 15 also very unique to have secured political support from a cross-section of elected representatives from all three levels of government who are championing Rouge Park. Further, both the Federal and Provincial members have indicated interest in receiving the report from the Governance Review. PubIic and political interest continues to focus on environmental issues, the most recent example being the climate change conference in Copenhagen. At the same time, Canada and Ontario will continue to be a focus of international attention with the GB and G20 conferences this June followed by the Pam American Games, which will be hosted in the GTA in 2015. Lastly, there is the reality of elections for the municipal, provincial and federal governments over the next 2 years. The Rouge Park has always been defined as a landscape of National and Provincial significance and an opportunity to protect a unique and important natural and cultural heritage resource. There is a very real opportunity for the Alliance, working with its constituent members, to harness the momentum that has resulted from the Governance Review. and the emergence of the political champions and to capitalize on the public, institutional, media and political attention that will materialize over the 12-18 months. CHAIRMAN'S RECOMMENDATIONS - MOVING FORWARD It is important to engage the senior levels of government, the public„ and media with a single voice and a very clear set of recommendations that need to he implemented to secure the opportunity that is the Rouge Park. With that in mind, the recommendations contained in this report are intended to put into motion the necessary actions to obtain support from the constituent members of the Alliance to move forward with the implernentation ofthe consultants report. First, and most important, a draft of the report has undergone an extensive review by members of the Steering Cornniittee, who have concluded it has successfully identified, considered, and evaluated a fuJi range of governance opnons for the Rouge Park. Second, they are recomrnending that the consultants report be circulated to the respective agencies/boards and ministries for formal consideration. They have further recommended that this review be completed in 60 days, having regard for the window of opportunity outlined eariier, 99 In keeping with the advice of the Steering Committee, k)o recommended zhasechofthe organizarions be requested to address the consultants recommendations, the cletails and concept of a 'founding deal", and to work jointly with the Alliance in approaching the federal and provincial governments. It is important to continue with the dialogue that has been initiated through the Governance Review. Therefore it is recommended that the Chairman of the Alliance appear before each of the constituent member organizations, at the time they consider the consultant's report, to make a presentation and respond to questions. In a paraltel manner, briefings 5houId be sought wkh the respective Ministers and senior staff. Lastly, it is recommended that given the importance of a "Founding Dear to the creation of a new governance model and financing structure for the Rouge Park, a workshop be held to begin the process ofdeveloping a detailed MOU and the process for its acceptance. Report pr.pared by: For information contoct Date: February 3^zo/w Aan Welk, Chair, Rouge Park Alliance Alan Wells, 9905-713-7426, email: awells@rougepark.corn 1 0 0 Attachment 2 Governance Review Draft Final Report Executive Summary. Rouge Park Submitted to the Rouge Park Alliance February 2010 Strategy Corp — Hemson Consulting 101 Executive Summary The Rouge Park is as rernarkable environrnental asset. YeLit/Veven/no/e remarkable for what it could be: a gateway to wilderness park experiences within an hours drive of a/most 7 million Canadian.s - and accessible by public transit. To realize (his vision. change is required. The Rouge Park needs new funding commitrnents aiid a new structure to give it a proper Jeadersbip and accountability structure. iti our view the best means of resolving the need for land: funding and better governance wou!d be to designate fhe Rouge Park as Canada s first near tirban National Park. 1. Background in August 2009, the Rouge Park Alhance retained StrategyCorp Inc. in coIIaboraton with Hemson Consulting Ltd. 10 undertake this review of the Rouge Vailey Park. The purpose was to make recornrnendations on options for its future Ieadership, financing and organization with a view to futfilling the Vision of the Park. This study is the product of five months of focused effort involving the Rouge Park Alliance and its team of professionals. This study considers how a redesign of park governance and funding arrangements coulcl help make Park Vision come to reality. The consulting team approached this study with a keen awareness that the Park is not in neecl of an acadernic study about what might be". It is much more important 10 provide a model that could be implemented. The participants recognized ths wtien they rated "ability to create (or get agreement on) a new "Founding Deal" among Alliance rnembers" as the most important attribute of a reform package. Thus, in addition to the objective realities of the Park, we also sought to understand as fully as possible the subjective political dimensions of the Park, with a view to defining the key political enablers and the barriers to success. The Rouge Park was borne out of activism and a poIitcaI response to a compelling concept arid opportunity Since its creation, the efforts of the Alliance have further defined and consolidated the opportunity. Even today however. the basic discussion about what the Rouge Park could or should be remains unresolved_ There is still no universal shared definition of the "Rouge Park - even among Alliance Members. Perhaps because of this, the Rouge Park is still without many of the fundamentat features or benchmarks of a successful park. It does not have. 102 • a consolidated, well defned land base • a comprehensive master plan • a funded implementation strategy • a functional governance model • an articulated park brand (what t s, what t does, nd who it is attracting). A map of the lands covered in this study is attactied as Figure ESI. Collectively, these lands are described as the Rouge Park Governance Report Study Area". A detailed description of the Study Area is provided in Chapter 2 of this report. 2. Funding The Study Process assessed the current level of operating and capital funding, with a view to deterrninin the adequacy of current funding Ievels In terms of the operating budget, it is clear that the existing level of funding is inadequate. Lising conservative approximations of costs per hectare, it s estimated that an annual operating budget of approximately $4 rniflion is required to ensure the sustainabdity of Blocks 1 and 2 of the Park. The arrnual cost would be higher were a portion of Little Rouge East area to be allocated to non-agricultural uses. In regard to the capital budget, depending on the specifics of the Master Plan, it is reasonable to project that bringing the facihties in the Park up to a leveF that is more in keeping with the scale and significance of the Park could easily require a capital investment of more than S40 million over a period of 10 years. No detailed plans have been prepared for the lands in Biock 3 Accordingly, it is very difficult to projec either a capita or operating budget for the area Were t to remain in agricultural uses, additional capital requirements would likely be modest and operating costs minirnal. Ff, however, paris of the area were to be reforested and/or converted to more substantial park-type uses, capital cost at a minimum of$|0.UO0 and likely $13.00U per hectare would be required. Annual net operating costs would also increase at between S300 and $650 per hectare oppmmximmbe|y. The Report recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance seek a commitment to adequate, secure funding to allow it better meet its needs. 3. Limitations of the Existing Governance Model The Rouge Park Alliance was originafly created to pravide ternporary leadership duhn0#hecraadonnfthenewpoNk.|nKsstructuoe'itdehvernUbmmodsbokeholdsx representation to the Park while it was in its infancy, and, under its leadership, many irnportant milestones have been reached. Nevertheless. the Report concludes that the existing structure of the AUiance faces several key Iirnitations. • It is an unincorporated "Alliance and does not have legal "natural person powers". Accordingly, it is unable to own land or contract in its own name. This is a severe limitation to its ability to directly manage and be accountable for the Park • Secondly, with the exception of the Chair, appointees to the Rouge Park Alliance sit in a representational capacity, whereby they represent the organization that appointed them. The Alliance is an Advisory Body, and not a true decision-making board of directors for the Rouge Valley Park. The Report recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance seek a new governance model, to improve its ability to manage and be accountable for the Park.. This is true, whether or not the Park achieves a new funding arrangement. It is axiomatic that in the design of governance, "form follows function. Accordingly, the specifics of the new arrangements should wait for a resolution of the funding question. There are many different ways of achieving this basic structure, and it can be customized to meet the mix of funders, donors of land, and their mix of accountability expectations and requirements. Both of these goals require a new 'Founding Deal," whereby: • one or more government entity undertakes to be the funder, and • the accountability needs of the funder are built into the new governance model. 4. Towards a New Founding Deal The enthusiasm of the champions of the Park has created significant political momentum for a new Founding Deal and an enhanced Rouge Valley Park. The Founding Deal must set out in clear terms how the Park can co-exist and be managed within the adjacent urban landscape. Further, it must also provide a framework by which to manage the diversity of uses within the Park area. Thus, the Founding Deal must address both: • The core deliverables needed to improve the park. • The needs of the partners, ranging from corporate goals to political imperatives. To address the strengths and weaknesses identified through the process, the Founding Deal would have to address the following: I. Vision: what is the role of the Park? 2. Land: what will the boundaries be? 3. Funding: what entities will fund and to what level? 4. Governance and transitional arrangements. 104 There are four main barriers to achieving a new Founding Deal: 1. Finding a funder(s) 2. Resolving ambiguities 3. Resolving issues 4. Resolving Boundaries_ Firstly, there was widespread recognition and agreement among Study participants that the biggest challenge will be to secure a willing funder (or funders) in the current economic climate. Secondly. in discussions with study participants, it became apparent that there are many details about these four components that are insufficiently defined, and that need to be fleshed out in order to reach a new Founding Deal. It should not be assumed that these details constitute areas of disagreement, so much as areas where further elaboration is required. Thirdly, there are three major unresolved issues which, if left unresolved, could be a barrier to concluding a new Founding Deal. They all relate to the diversity of the land, and the need of the park to accommodate diverse interests within or near its boundaries. 1. Municipalities are concerned that the Rouge Park could have a negative impact on: • The ability to plan regional infrastructure corridors passing through the Rouge Park lands • Municipal ability to plan and deliver on the requirements of such provincial legislation as the Places to Grow Act 2. Many stakeholders could not support the Park if it were not implemented in a way that was compatible with sustainable agricultural practices 3. Members of the Alliance do not have a common understanding of what the boundaries of the Rouge Park can or should be. Fourthly, in regard to boundaries, an expanded Rouge Park could provide a connecting Zink between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine. The consulting team believes that this is a very compelling vision. To achieve it, it would be necessary to include the area described as Blocks 1, 2 and 3 in the Rouge Park. As noted above, there is as of yet no well defined plan for how the lands in Block 3 could be integrated into the Park. In Tight of the significant work that remains to be done with respect to planning for Block 3, in our view, the most pragmatic course at present would be a phased approach: • The Founding Deal for a new Rouge Park should address the existing Park Boundaries (described herein as Blocks 1 and 2), exclusive of City of Toronto lands in operation as the Toronto Zoo and closed Beare Sanitary Landfill site • A determination to include some or all on the Federal lands in Block 3 should be the subject of discussions during the Founding Deal process, including consideration of the lands to be set aside for park purposes in Markham and final decisions regarding the preservation of agricultural land. All participants in the study process were in favour of achieving an enhanced park of some description. In the opinion of the consulting team, there is a general agreement that the Park must coexist and be viable with its diverse neighbours_ While there remains considerable work to be done to reach a full agreement, the consulting team believes that the areas of difference should not be overestimated. We believe that through the proper process of fleshing out implementation details, there could be an agreement reached on these issues_ 5. Considering Park Models The Report evaluates eight park models against the following three criteria: • Funding: Ability to secure sufficient fiscal resources • Control of Land: Ability to concentrate land ownership • Authority and expertise: Gives operating agency sufficient authority and expertise over the Park. The Report concludes that no model is perfect, and no matter what model is chosen, some legislative "hybridization" is likely to be required. This terminology has been used to describe the modifications to an existing governance model that might be required to allow it to meet the unique governance needs of the Rouge Park. In some cases, such hybridizations could require legislative change. In other case, they might only require regulatory change. In either case, it is the assumption of this study that to be a plausible hybrid, the changes would be limited in nature, and preserve the overall integrity of the model and legislative framework. The National Park and Provincial Park models appear to best meet the three criteria of ability to deliver funding, control of the land and authority and expertise_ Indeed, both would be very strong models which could meet all the requirements at a high level. The consultant team then applied a final criterion relating to the likelihood of the model to deliver a Founding Deal. This is not a function of the Formal Evaluation process, but rather a subjective judgment having regard to the ability to achieve a Founding Deal. In the view of the consultant team, the National Park modelis the most promising model insofar as we are aware that Parks Canada is interested in opportunities to better connect its mandate and programs to the Greater Toronto Area. In this context, a near urban park would be a good opportunity to reach this audience with close-to-market nature and park experiences. It is important to stress that each of the other models could be made to work for the Rouge Park. Properly executed, each would still deliver better governance characteristics than the Rouge Park Alliance currently has with its limited model. To be made to work, however, they would appear to require the expenditure of 106 significant political will and effort to work around financial and technical challenges. Given the analysis, we recommend the creation of a Rouge Nationat Park. Such 8 park would be the first near-urban nationat park of its kind, and would reflect the Vision and unique opportunity offered by these significant lands. 6. Recommendations Based upon the review and analysis conducted through this study, it is recommended that the Rouge Park Alliance adopt the following: 1. Secure the agreernent of the existng Alliance Members • support for a National Park • agree tolhe terms of a Founding Deal as set out below in table ES 2. 2. CalI upon the Governrnents of Canada and Ontario to: ^ commence negotiations 8n8 memorandum of Understanding to estabksh the Rouge National Park which would address the requirements of a Founding Deal, as set out below in table ES 2 • address the opportunity to create a shared interpretive centre to anchor the Rouge Park and act as a gateway to the Iarger provincial and notionat park experience. 3. The Rouge Park AHiance prepare a public and stakeholder communications and branding strategy, to capitalize on the current political interest in the environment and the window of opportunity afforded by the international focus on the GTA that will arise frorn the PanArn Games and G20 meetings. 4. In the event that there is no progress on a new Founding Deal by Decernber 3D'201O.di8 recommended that the Rouge Park Alliance seek 8Dinitiative from the Government of Ontario that it be reconstituted as a not-for-profit arms- length agency with updated board and governance structures, and natural person powers. in order to address the govemance weakriesses inherent in the existing Alliance model. 107 Rouge Pout ?oronto U!!I r Rouge condor Hunter Pai Uttle Rouge East Praposej Feral Lands Total Current 1 5502 ha Markham Pickering Du/fins Creek Petlicoa t Creek Twonic�l„ PiOrifi..KeY, 108 °meter Table ES2 Elements of a Founding Deal Required to Improve the Park Funding • Park funding and number of funders • Previous contributions of operating and capital funding • Previous contributions in kind) • Presentlfuture contributions of on-going operating funding • Present/future contributions of capital funding • Presentlfuture contributions (in kind) Boundaries and land commitments • Park Boundaries • Previous contributions of land • Present/future contributions of and Vision • The level of environmental protection the Rouge Park should deliver Governance and transitional arrangements • Governance conditions/requirements • Appointment of a transition park manager • Conversion of the Alliance to an advisory board • Creation of an interim transition entity with natural person powers and decision making authority • Transfer assets held by other entities on behalf of Rouge Park to new transition entity The Needs of Existing Alliance Members Municipal Agriculture TRCA Stakeholders and Vo lunteers • Define how the Park Master and Operating Plans will be used to accommodate the following issues in such a way as to allow for their co-exiStence, without diminishing the realization of the vision of the Park: 1. allow municipalities to meet legislated requirements under applicable provincial legislation and plans existing land uses, both inside and near its border 2. there is a need to develop an agricultural business strategy which becomes an integral component of the Park Master Plan and Operational Plan. This business strategy must address the issue of long term leases (50 years), investments in farm infrastructure, viable crop and business models, marketing, signage and land use compatibility issues such as the use of fertilizers, noise, dust, etc. 3. provincial, inter-regional and municipal infrastructure 4. active recreational uses • Define an access plan, revenue generation plan, activity plan • Define the effect of the new governance model on existing Alliance Member organizations • Provide-for the on-going role of the TRCA in Watershed Planning and Management • Address the need of municipal partners which require lands for active recreation and other uses • Provide a means to link local green infrastructure to the park • Ongoing stakeholder and volunteer advice and participatory involvement through a 'Friends of the Park'. model 109 RES. #A34/10 - GREATER TORONTO AREA AGRICULTURAL ACTION COMMITTEE Consultant Selection Agriculture and Agri -Food Strategy and Action Plan. Award of contract for consultant to develop an Agriculture and Agri -food Strategy and Action Plan for the Golden Horseshoe. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Laurie Bruce THAT the contract for consulting services to develop an Agriculture and Agri -food Strategy and Action Plan for the Golden Horseshoe for the Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee (GTA AAC) be awarded to Planscape at a cost not to exceed $209,260 plus applicable taxes, it being the proposal that best meets the GTA AAC selection criteria; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining needed approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND The GTA AAC was established several years ago to promote agricultural interests throughout the GTA. TRCA was asked to assist the GTA AAC by acting as trustee of funds held for GTA AAC purposes and to provide accounting and other support services. The GTA AAC is not a legal entity and TRCA acts for the GTA AAC in signing contracts and agreements. TRCA's purchasing policies are followed by the GTA AAC. The contract for consultant services will be signed by TRCA. A facilitated session was hosted in August, 2009, by the Vineland Research and Innovation Centre and the GTA AAC to discuss agricultural sustainability issues in the Golden Horseshoe. During the session, representatives from around the Golden Horseshoe discussed the various gaps and potential solutions for agricultural sustainability. The group identified the GTA AAC as the most appropriate group to manage a project that would develop an Agricultural and Agri -food strategy for the Golden Horseshoe and the Holland Marsh. Partners in the development of the strategy would include the Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee (regions of Durham, York, Peel, Halton and Niagara, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada, GTA Federations of Agriculture, City of Toronto, City of Hamilton and TRCA). RATIONALE The Request for Proposal (RFP) for development of the Agriculture and Agri -food Strategy and Action Plan for the Golden Horseshoe followed TRCA policies and procedures. It was placed on the Merx system which allowed Canadian wide distribution of the RFP. The following seven proponents submitted bids, each achieving the mandatory requirements for the bid: • Harry Cummings and Associates - Ontario; • Grant Thornton - Nova Scotia; • Ag2 Networks - Alberta; • - Mallot Creek Consultants- Ontario; • Planscape- Ontario; 110 • HB Lanarc - British Columbia; • Synthesis- Ontario. An evaluation committee was created with a representative group of GTA AAC members and the Executive Director. An evaluation matrix was devised and proponents were rated on approach to the project, references and experience, prior strategy and action experience in agriculture, and pricing. After consideration and follow -up interviews, the firm of Planscape is being recommended for the work, their proposal being the proposal that best meets the evaluation criteria. The GTA AAC has approved award of the contract and requested TRCA to take the steps necessary to enter into the contract on behalf of GTA AAC. Because TRCA will enter into the contract with Planscape on behalf of GTA AAC, Authority approval is necessary under TRCA's Purchasing Policy. GTA AAC expects to complete the work by the end of 2010. FINANCIAL DETAILS The contract to be awarded is in an amount up to $209,260. plus applicable taxes. The total value of the project is estimated at $300,000 including the consultants fee, implementation and applicable taxes. The project will be completed in phases as funding is secured and the successful proponent is aware that the full value of the work is dependent on successful funding applications. Twenty percent or $60,000 will be raised by the GTA AAC and their partners for phase one and eighty percent will be sought from outside sources such as CanAdapt Program or Trillium Foundation. GTA AAC is committed to phase one of the work which includes funding applications for the balance of the cost of the project. There are no cost implications for TRCA. GTA AAC has funding available for the project and the contract. Report prepared by: Jim Dillane, extension 6292 Emails: jdillane @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Jim Dillane, extension 6292; Brian Denney, extension 6290 Emails: jdillane @trca.on.ca; bdenney @trca.on.ca Date: March 22, 2010 RES. #A35/10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek Watershed Diversicare Canada Management Services Inc., CFN 41398. Donation of a parcel of land at the rear of 40 Freel Lane, Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville, Duffins Creek watershed. (Executive Res. #B2/ 10) Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall David Barrow 111 THAT 0.389 hectares (0.962 acres), more or less, being Part of Blocks A, B and C, Registered Plan 61, and designated as Parts 1 and 3 on Registered Plan 65R- 30392, be purchased from Diversicare Canada Management Services Inc.; THAT the purchase price for the land be $2.00; THAT an income tax receipt is to be made available to Diversicare Canada Management Services Inc. in the amount of $21,000.00; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect hereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED RES. #A36/10 - THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK Request for a Permanent Easement for the Enlargement of a Roadside Drainage Ditch for the Widening of Gamble Road, Don River Watershed, CFN 43702. Receipt of a request from the Regional Municipality of York to provide a permanent easement for the enlargement of a roadside drainage ditch for the widening of Gamble Road, north side of Gamble Road, east of Bathurst Street, in the Town of Richmond Hill. (Executive Res. #83/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall David Barrow WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the Regional Municipality of York to provide a permanent easement for the enlargement of a roadside drainage ditch for the widening of Gamble Road, north side of Gamble Road, east of Bathurst Street, in the Town of Richmond Hill; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the Regional Municipality of York in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 0.10 hectares (0.25 acres), more or less, be granted to the Regional Municipality of York for the enlargement of a roadside drainage ditch for the widening of Gamble Road, said land being Part of Blocks 184 and 189, Registered Plan 65M -3829, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, designated as Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 65R- 32178; 112 THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, plus all legal, survey and other costs to be paid by the Regional Municipality of York; THAT the Regional Municipality of York is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the Regional Municipality of York; THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated /stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06 be obtained prior to commencement of construction; THAT said easement be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. RES. #A37/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN Public- Private Marketing Collaboration Criteria. Recommend approval of Public- Private Marketing Collaboration Criteria for Partners in Project Green. (Executive Res. #B4/1 0) Suzan Hall David Barrow THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Partners in Project Green Public- Private Marketing Collaboration Criteria be approved; AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the Executive Committee on Public- Private Marketing Collaborations negotiated as a result of this criteria. CARRIED 113 SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION RES. #A38 /10 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Bonnie Littley THAT Section II item EX8.1 - Heart Lake Conservation Area Outdoor Swimming Pool, contained in Section II of Executive Committee Minutes #1/10, held on March 5, 2010, be received. CARRIED RES. #A39 /10 - SECTION I1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Suzan Hall THAT Section II item EX8.2 - Regional Watershed Monitoring Network, contained in Section 11 of Executive Committee Minutes #1/10, held on March 5, 2010, be received. CARRIED RES. #A40 /10 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Bonnie Litt ley THAT Section II confidential item EX8.3 - Rouge Park Alliance, contained in Section II of Executive Committee Minutes #1/10, held on March 5, 2010, be received. CARRIED SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD .RES. #A41I10 - SUNNY DAYS FOR CONSERVATION FUNDRAISER A fundraiser is being held with proceeds directed to the operations of the Claremont Field Centre, the Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program, and Outreach and Stewardship in west Durham. Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Bonnie Litt ley 114 IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the report on the Sunny Days for Conservation Fundraiser be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is partnering with Deer Creek Golf and Banquet Facility, the local business community, and Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters to host a fundraiser on April 22, 2010 to celebrate Earth Day and support conservation initiatives in western Durham Region. The event will include live music by Lighthouse, dinner, a silent auction and displays showcasing local municipal environmental initiatives and TRCA programs in western Durham Region. Proceeds from the event will go to The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto to support hands -on projects undertaken by TRCA in Durham Region. The theme of this event is " Conservation in your Community" and will showcase the following three programs. Claremont Field Centre Located along Duffins Creek, the Claremont Field Centre is a residential, outdoor education centre that offers a wide range of environmental programs designed to provide elementary and high school students with hands -on learning experiences. Proceeds from this event will be used to ensure that students, regardless of family economic status, will be able to experience outdoor education at the Claremont Field Centre. Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program Duffins Creek is one of three creeks in Ontario selected for the Atlantic salmon restoration program. This initiative strives to re- establish a sustainable Atlantic salmon population to Lake Ontario by producing young salmon, releasing them into the creek and restoring their habitat. Proceeds from this event will be used to purchase classroom hatcheries and continue the restoration of in- stream habitat. Stewardship and Outreach Education Engaging students, homeowners and communities in environmental activities and behaviours is the foundation of a sustainable society. Programs available in western Durham Region include private land tree planting and habitat creation, classroom programs, educational workshops and public events such as interpretive hikes. Proceeds from this event will be used to support stewardship programs for rural and urban residents. The local business community has been invited to sponsor this event. Sponsorship is available at two levels: gold ($10,000) and silver ($5,000). Sponsors will receive special recognition at the event and in the local media, an engraved plaque, a reserved table for ten guests and an income tax receipt. Full tables (10 people) can be purchased for $2,000 and individual tickets can be purchased for $200. 500 tickets are available for purchase. Local and regional municipalities have been invited to participate by showcasing their environmental initiatives. Authority members from Durham Region are assisting with the organization and promotion of this event. 115 The Master of Ceremonies for the event will be John G. Smith, the current Chairperson for the Ajax- Pickering Board of Trade. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Members of the Authority are requested to promote this fundraiser through their local contacts. Report prepared by: Andrea Dube -Goss, extension 5633 Emails: adube- goss @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385, David Love, extension 6291 Emails: gbowen @trca.on.ca, dlove @trca.on.ca Date: March 11, 2010 RES. #A42/10 - CTC SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE 2nd Quarterly Report from the Chair of the CTC Source Protection Committee. Update on source protection committee activities. Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Moeser Colleen Jordan IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the 2nd Quarterly Report from the CTC Source Protection Committee (SPC) Chair be received by the Authority and formally received by the Toronto and Region Source Protection Authority at its next meeting. CARRIED BACKGROUND As required under the Clean Water Act, 2006 the CTC Source Protection Committee must provide a quarterly report to each of the source protection authorities within the CTC Source Protection Region until the source protection plan is submitted in August, 2012. It is the preference of the three Chief Administrative Officers (CAO) of the three CTC source protection authorities that these quarterly reports be received by the conservation authority board and then accepted as correspondence by the respective source protection authority when a meeting is convened. Source protection authority meetings will be convened on an as needed basis to receive key items (such as the draft Assessment Report) or to deal with other key source water protection matters. The attached report from Susan Self, Chair, CTC Source Protection Committee is the 2nd Quarterly Report to the Toronto and Region Source Protection Authority and provides an update on the progress of the Assessment Report for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The next Chair's Quarterly Report will be sent to the Authority in June, 2010. 116 A meeting of the Toronto and Region Source Protection Authority will likely be scheduled to be held immediately preceding Authority Meeting #4/10, scheduled to be held on May 21, 2010 so that members can be briefed on the major findings of the Toronto and Region Source Protection Authority (TRSPA) Draft Assessment Report and proposed public consultations before these begin in June 2010 (current estimate). The TRSPA Draft Assessment Report is scheduled to be under review by the CTC Source Protection Committee at this time. Report prepared by: Nicholas Schulz, extension 5392 Emails: nschulz @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Nicholas Schulz, extension 5392 Emails: nschulz @trca.on.ca Date: March 17, 2010 Attachments:1 117 Attachment 1 TO: Chair and Members of the Toronto and Region Source Protection Authority FROM: Susan Self, Chair, CTC Source Protection Committee RE: CTC CHAIR'S QUARTERLY REPORT TO TORONTO AND REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AUTHORITY KEY ISSUE Receipt of the Second CTC Chair's Quarterly Report RECOMMENDATION THAT Toronto and Region Source Protection Authority (TRSPA) receive this report as the 2nd Chair's Quarterly Report from the CTC Source Protection Committee Chair. BACKGROUND As required by Section 21 of the C lean Water Act, 2006 the CTC Source Protection Committee must provide a quarterly report to each of the Source Protection Authorities within the CTC Source Protection Region. The CTC Chair, in agreement with the CAO of Toronto and Region Source Protection Authority, will provide written quarterly reports in the months of December, March, June and September until the Source Protection Plan is submitted in August, 2012. It is the preference of all three Source Protection Authorities within the CTC Source Protection Region that these quarterly reports be received by the Conservation Authority board and accepted as correspondence by the Source Protection Authority at the subsequent convened Source Protection Authority meeting. Draft Assessment Report: TRSPA Technical studies within the TRSPA have been delayed with significant impact to the development of the 'Draft Assessment Report: TRSPA'. CTC technical staff anticipate sending a request to the Ministry of the Environment which will extend the deadline for'submission of the `Proposed Assessment Report: TRSPA' until October 2010. The following table provides an update on the current status of technical studies within the TRSPA to be included in the initial Assessment Report (Future amendments to the Assessment Report will be required for Tier 3 Water Budget and Intake Protection Zone 3 delineation and drinking water threats modelling). The majority of these studies are being prepared by consultants under the supervision of the municipality responsible for the water system. 118 Status of Technical Studies in TRSPA - February 2010 Public Consultation At SPC Meeting #1/10 on January 18, 2010 the CTC SPC approved and authorized the Communications & Outreach Working Group to plan public consultation for the development of the Assessment Reports which meets the requirements of the Clean Water Act, 2006. The CTC SPC directed staff to hold three public consultation meetings within TRSPA to exceed the minimum formal meeting requirements. Meeting locations have been identified but detailed planning is delayed along with completion of the technical studies. Further details regarding public consultation within the TRSPA will be made available as soon as possible. In addition to the minimum required consultation, the SPC also authorized Stage 1 consultation sending letters and maps to owners of properties located wholly or partially within well head protection areas ( WHPAs). The letter addressed to the specific property owner will advise them of the implications of being in a WHPA, general information on source water protection and how to get further information or participate in public consultation. These property owners will receive individual notification of all public meetings and comment opportunities. These Stage 1 consultation letters will go out as the mapping and scoring of the vulnerability of the WHPAs is complete, in that municipality - in advance of the formal Stage 2 consultations. 119 Toronto Peel Region York Region Durham Region Well Head Protection Area delineation N/A Complete In Peer Review In Peer Review Vulnerability Analysis N/A Complete In Peer Review In Peer Review Transport Pathways N/A Additional refinement required Additional refinement required In Peer Review Threats Assessment N/A Not yet received Not yet received Not yet received Highly Vulnerable Aquifer delineation In Peer Review In Peer Review In Peer Review In Peer Review Significant Groundwater Recharge Area delineation Complete Complete Complete Complete Significant Groundwater Recharge Area Vulnerability Assessment In Peer Review with HVA work In Peer Review with HVA work In Peer Review with HVA work In Peer Review with HVA work Intake Protection Zone 1 & 2 delineation Modifications underway to refine Complete Complete Complete , Public Consultation At SPC Meeting #1/10 on January 18, 2010 the CTC SPC approved and authorized the Communications & Outreach Working Group to plan public consultation for the development of the Assessment Reports which meets the requirements of the Clean Water Act, 2006. The CTC SPC directed staff to hold three public consultation meetings within TRSPA to exceed the minimum formal meeting requirements. Meeting locations have been identified but detailed planning is delayed along with completion of the technical studies. Further details regarding public consultation within the TRSPA will be made available as soon as possible. In addition to the minimum required consultation, the SPC also authorized Stage 1 consultation sending letters and maps to owners of properties located wholly or partially within well head protection areas ( WHPAs). The letter addressed to the specific property owner will advise them of the implications of being in a WHPA, general information on source water protection and how to get further information or participate in public consultation. These property owners will receive individual notification of all public meetings and comment opportunities. These Stage 1 consultation letters will go out as the mapping and scoring of the vulnerability of the WHPAs is complete, in that municipality - in advance of the formal Stage 2 consultations. 119 Source Protection Plans On January 25, 2010 the Ministry of the Environment posted notice of the Draft Source Protection Planning Regulation on the Environmental Registry (EBR Registry Number 010 - 8766). To coincide with the posting of this Draft regulation CTC planning staff hosted a meeting of municipal and operational planning staff at Black Creek Pioneer Village on February 8, 2010. This successful meeting was attended by over 30 municipal planning /operational staff from most of the upper, lower and single tier municipalities in the CTC Source Protection Region. At this meeting CTC staff presented a "Proposed Work Plan for the Development of Source Protection Plan Policies for the CTC Region" and received input for revisions from the attendees through a facilitated breakout period (the SPP workplan is available upon request). Work on starting the identification of candidate policies for inclusion in the source protection plans to be developed for TRSPA and the other two source protection areas are planned to start in the spring of 2010 in parallel with the work to complete the assessment report. Municipal staffs have been asked to advise us if and how they want to participate in this municipally co -lead activity. Depending upon their response, amendments may be required to the approved CTC Terms of Reference (TOR) documents. Input received from the municipalities regarding their desired involvement in the Source Protection Planning work will allow staff to clarify source protection planning tasks within the TOR. NEXT STEPS The next CTC SPC Chair's quarterly report will be delivered in June 2010 and will provide an update on the Draft Assessment Report work, public consultation planning for the `Draft Assessment Report: TRSPA' and Source Protection Planning. CTC staff anticipate that a draft version of the `Draft Assessment Report: TRSPA' will be made available to the Source Protection Authority for review in May. 120 RES. #A43 /10 - MCALLISTERENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH REPORT Summary of Findings. Summary of findings of McAllister Environmental Monitor Public Opinion Research Report. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Colleen Jordan IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the summary of findings of the McAllister Environmental Monitor Public Opinion research report dated March 5, 2010 be received. ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 RES. #A44 /10 - APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Moved by: Seconded by: David Barrow Ron Moeser CARRIED THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.1 - EX10.43, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1/10, held on March 5, 2010, be received. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1:42 p.m., on Friday, March 26, 2010. CARRIED Gerri Lynn O'Connor Brian Denney Chair Secretary- Treasurer /ks 121 c. e'THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #3/10 April 30, 2010 The Authority Meeting #3/10, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, April 30, 2010. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:43 a.m. PRESENT Eve Adams Member Paul Ainslie Member David Barrow Member Bryan Bertie Member Laurie Bruce Member Gay Cowbourne Member Mike Del Grande Member Pamela Gough Member Lois Griffin Member Suzan Hall Member Jack Heath Member Colleen Jordan Member Peter Milczyn Member Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair Linda Pabst Member John Parker Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member Richard Whitehead Member ABSENT Maria Augimeri Vice Chair Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Bill Fisch Member Grant Gibson Member Bonnie Litt ley Member Glenn Mason Member Ron Moeser Member Maja Prentice Member 122 RES. #A45 /10 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: David Barrow Suzan Hall THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/10, held on March 26, 2010, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Susan Fennell, Mayor, City of Brampton, in regard to the Claireville Management Plan. (b) A presentation by Jim Dillane, Director, Finance and Business Services, in regard to item BAAB7.1 - 2010 Operating and Capital Budget. RES. #A46 /10 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Eve Adams John Sprovieri THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) approve, in principle, the following motion, subject to staff reviewing and reporting back to the Authority on its implementation and how it will be incorporated into the management plan: THAT TRCA identify the Claireville Conservation Area as an Urban Forest; THAT TRCA support the integration of Claireville into the environmental, social and cultural fabric of the City of Brampton; THAT TRCA prepare a strategic vision, in partnership with the City of Brampton and other interested municipalities, to define a long term, environmental framework to guide the future planning of Claireville; THAT TRCA consult and engage municipal and community partners to protect and restore Claireville; THAT TRCA manage and program Claireville with a nature first philosophy to restore and enhance the environmental sustainability of the local and regional ecosystem; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA ban future development and land use activities in Claireville Conservation Area that will affect the ecological health and diversity of Claireville's natural heritage system. CARRIED 123 RES. #A47 /10 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: David Barrow Linda Pabst THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received; CORRESPONDENCE (a) CARRIED A letter dated April 19, 2010 from Virginia M. West, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Natural Resources, in regard to the Public Sector Compensation Restraint to Protect Public Services Act, 2010. RES. #A48 /10 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Seconded by: Paul Ainslie Bryan Bertie THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received. CARRIED 124 CORRESPONDENCE (A) Ministry of Natural Resources Office of the Deputy Minister Room 6843, Whitey Block 99 Wellesley Street West Toronto ON M7A 1W3 Tot 415- 514 -215© Fax: 416-314-2159 APR 19 2010 Ministers des Richeases • naturalise Bureau du sous- ministre Edifice Whitney, bureau 6643 99, rue Weaestey Onset Toronto (Ontario) MIA 1W3 TM: 416- 3142150 "Wm: 416-314-2159 Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer Toronto Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview ON M3N 1S4 Dear Mr. Brian Denney Ontario MNR114DC- 2010 -430 RECEIVED APR 2 1 2O LAO'S OFFICE TRCA On March 25, 2010, the Ontario government introduced the Public Sector Compensation Restraint to Protect Public Services Act, 2010. The legislation, if passed, would freeze compensation plans for all non - bargaining employees. The objective of the legislation is to control costs in one of the government's largest spending lines — compensation of public sector employees. This will help redirect up to $750 million toward sustaining schools, hospitals and other public services. For employees represented by a bargaining agent, the government will respect all current collective agreements. When these agreements expire and new ones are negotiated, the government will work with transfer payment partners and bargaining agents to seek agreements of at least two years duration that do not include net compensation increases. The government's fiscal plan provides no funding for compensation increases for future collective agreements. Ontarians value and appreciate those who deliver their public services, and they also expect those who are paid by tax dollars to do their part to help protect public services. As .a recipient of public funds, your organization has an obligation to ensure that the public funds provide value for money and are spent prudently, in a manner that is consistent with the program mandate and funding agreement with the Province. 2 125 - 2 - To ensure your organization is prepared, I ask you to please share this letter with the appropriate staff in your organization. More information on the government's compensation restraint can be found at Ontario,ca /compensation in English or Ontario.c a/remuneration for French. Your leadership is essential to assist the province in demonstrating a prudent and balanced approach in the management of public funds. Should you have any questions please contact Hayley Berlin, Policy Liaison Officer at 410141831, Since Vi is M. West Deputy Minister c. Larry Davis, Director, MNR Hayley Berlin, Policy Liaison Officer, MNR pan Marinigh, Director, MNR Gerri Lynn O'Connor, Chair, TRCA 126. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #A49/10 - YORK REGION SOUTHEAST COLLECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Approval of the Southeast Collector Environmental Enhancement Projects at the Bob Hunter Memorial Park, and funding agreement with York Region. Moved by: Seconded by: Richard Whitehead David Barrow THAT the Southeast Collector Environmental Enhancement Projects at the Bob Hunter Memorial Park be approved; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to enter into a funding agreement with the Region of York to implement the Southeast Collector Environmental Enhancement Projects at Bob Hunter Memorial Park on TRCA lands within Rouge Park; THAT staff assist York Region with the various Environmental Assessment conditions that pertain to Bob Hunter Memorial Park; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Authority on the completion of the Southeast Collector Environmental Enhancements Projects at Bob Hunter Memorial Park. CARRIED BACKGROUND Since 2005, TRCA staff has been working on various aspects of the planning, approval and implementation of the York Durham Sanitary Sewer System (YDSS). One product of this working relationship is a service delivery partnership to facilitate review of the Environmental Assessment and permits of the various YDSS projects. In addition, staff has been actively assisting the regions of York and Durham with the planning and implementation of the Ecological Enhancement associated with the 16 th Avenue Sewer, Southeast Collector and the expansion of the Duffins Water Pollution Control Plant. At Authority Meeting #9/07, held on November 30, 2007, Resolution #A268/07, was approved, in part, as follows: ...THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to report to the Authority once the final 16th Avenue Environmental Improvements Initiative, Southeast Collector Environmental Enhancement Plan and Duffins Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) Greening and Biodiversity Plan, have been developed;... The plan for the 16th Avenue Environmental Improvement Initiatives is still being finalized. The Duffins Water Pollution Control Plant Greening and Biodiversity Plan was approved at Authority Meeting #3/08, held on April 25, 2008, and the associated habitat enhancement work is currently under way. 127 A portion of the overall Southeast Collector Environmental Enhancement Plan is the implementation of various aspects of the Bob Hunter Memorial Park Plan. This implementation will focus on a five year phased plan that invests in natural heritage and the recreational trails components of the Bob Hunter Memorial Park. The natural heritage features include the restoration of wetlands, rehabilitation of riparian zones, establishing natural cover including meadow habitats and forests. The recreation plan includes the development of multi -use trails, a nature trail, bridge crossings, parking and interpretive signage. All of the proposed projects in phases one to three are on TRCA properties within Rouge Park while phases four and five are on lands currently held by the Province of Ontario which have been dedicated for Rouge Park purposes. The Southeast Collector Environmental Enhancement Plan portion of the Bob Hunter Memorial Park has been developed in close cooperation with the Rouge Park, municipalities and a. number of different agencies. All of the restoration works and multi -use trails are consistent with Rouge Park planning, including the Bob Hunter Memorial Park Plan, the Rouge Park Natural Heritage Action Plan, the Rouge watershed plan, as well as, municipal and provincial planning. There is a strong commitment amongst the project partners to build functional habitats, trails that will enhance the public use of the area, and engage the community in establishing the Bob Hunter Memorial Park within Rouge Park. On March 31, 2010, the Ministry of the Environment granted approval of the overall Environmental Assessment of the Southeast Collector Project. This approval was subject to a number of conditions, including the following conditions that are specific to the Bob Hunter Memorial Park: • specific conditions relate to the tunnel boring operation and alignment within Bob Hunter Memorial Park; • a requirement to work with interested stakeholders including TRCA, Rouge Park Alliance, Town of Markham, and the family of Bob Hunter on any refinements to the proposed environmental plan; • within six months of the approval, prepare for approval to the satisfaction of the Regional Director, Ministry of Environment, a Bob Hunter Memorial Park Enhancement Plan that includes details of the proposed restoration and trails, project implementation timelines, and annual compliance reports on the Bob Hunter Memorial Park Enhancement Plan; and • ensure that the Bob Hunter Memorial Park Enhancement Plan is posted on the proponent website. On Authority approval, staff will enter into a funding agreement with York Region to implement the Southeast Collector Environmental Enhancements at Bob Hunter Memorial Park. Prior to implementation and working closely with Rouge Park, and the Region, staff will secure all approvals and notify all parties interested with the Bob Hunter Memorial Park. Work is scheduled to commence in 2010 and end in 2014. 128 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Southeast Collector Environmental Enhancements at Bob Hunter Memorial Park consist of natural heritage restoration and the recreational multi -use trail. The natural heritage projects are focused on habitat restoration including restoring wetlands, forest and riparian cover and creating meadows. The following table outlines a summary of the natural heritage and recreational components of each phase of the Southeast Collector Environmental Initiatives at Bob Hunter Memorial Park: Phase (2010) 1 Approximately 0.9 km of 3m paved multi -use trail; 0.9 km of 1.8 m (limestone) secondary trail; 50 car parking area with paved entrance; gateway and visitor signs and kiosks; 13.7 ha of meadow areas; approx. 4.0 ha of wetlands, riparian areas Phase (2011) 2 A total of 1.95 km of 3m (limestone) multi use trail; 2.9 km of looped hiking trail; two pedestrian bridge crossings of Little Rouge River, directional and interpretive signs; 6.6 ha of wetland and riparian areas; 11.1 ha of meadow areas Phase (2012) 3 A total of 30.6 ha of natural forest cover; 8.5 ha of wetland and riparian Phase (2013) 4 A total of 2.6 km of 3m paved multi use trail; 30 car parking area with paved entrance Phase (2014) 5 A total of 3.2 km of 3m paved multi use trail; pedestrian crossing at York /Durham Line and 14th Ave. TRCA has created a process that utilizes GIS and field techniques to identify and prioritize restoration opportunities on a hydrologic basis. The GIS approach is rooted in an understanding of topography and drainage to delineate and prioritize restoration opportunities (wetland, riparian and forest) which are then verified in the field. In cooperation with Rouge Park, this technique was used as a foundation for the Rouge Park Natural Heritage Action Plan and the habitat restoration opportunities associated with the Bob Hunter Memorial Park. The habitat restoration work will fulfill our natural heritage objective for this area, provide ecologically appropriate natural cover, and restore altered hydrology. In total, there will be four hectares of wetlands, 26 hectares of riparian cover and 27 hectares of forest cover created within Bob Hunter Memorial Park. A unique component of the plan is the establishment of 24 hectares of meadow and grassland habitat. To create this meadow feature, staff is working with the Rural Lambton Stewardship Network. The Stewardship Network is a cooperative venture between the Ministry of Natural Resources and the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority and this group is recognized as the provincial experts in grassland restoration. The meadows will establish a parkland landscape that is comprised of regionally and ecologically appropriate plant species and allows for the quick establishment of a park amenity. The meadows can either be managed for the long term or allowed natural succession to establish forest cover over time. 129 The multi -use recreational trails are focused on the establishment of primary trails, secondary and natural trail systems, bridge crossings, trail head areas, and parking. This extensive new trail network will provide community access in an orderly way to the environmental features of the Bob Hunter Memorial Park and Rouge Park while at the same time ensure the integrity of the parks are maintained as a natural habitat. The trail systems will be aligned and maximize the public's enjoyment of the parks, including an educational opportunity of the parks natural features including signage and an interpretation of park history from the early First Nations to present day. Cooperatively with Rouge Park, we have detailed a project funding agreement with the Region of York. A detailed implementation description and schedule of restoration and recreational activities has also been developed with Rouge Park, and to ensure con8istency with current planning, the project will be reviewed by the other project partners including the Town of Markham. The implementation of this project will be supported by the direct guidance and assistance of Rouge Park staff. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Southeast Collector Environmental Enhancements at Bob Hunter Memorial Park is a substantial investment in Rouge Park of $6.00 million. The habitat restoration components of Phase One to Phase Three are a total of $1.20 million. The recreational components of Phase One to Phase Three are a total of $3.60, and $1.20 million in Phase Four and Phase Five. Funding is provided by the Region of York as a special project independent of regular TRCA funding and will be administered under account codes 117 - 89,117- 90,117 -91. Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 Emails: gmacpherson @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gord MacPherson; extension 5246 Emails: gmacpherson @trca.on.ca Date: April 15, 2010 RES. #A50/10 - ONTARIO WATER CONSERVATION ALLIANCE Approval to participate in the Ontario Water Conservation Alliance to engage the Province of Ontario in modifications to the proposed Water Opportunities Act. Moved by: Seconded by: David Barrow Pamela Gough THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to participate on the Ontario Water Conservation Alliance to engage the Province of-Ontario in discussions to expand the proposed Water Opportunities Act to include green infrastructure and watershed planning; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority with progress on this initiative. CARRIED 130 BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #8/09 held on October 23, 2009 Resolution #A177/09 was approved, in part, as follows: ...THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be authorized to participate on the Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition Steering Committee to explore the issues of legislative and policy protection for green infrastructure in Ontario;... TRCA staff has been engaging in a variety of activities to promote Green Infrastructure and as a result of these activities were approached by a number of NGOs to participate in a meeting to discuss the potential for inclusion of additional elements to the proposed Water Opportunities Act. As part of its Open Ontario plan, the Ontario government intends to introduce legislation that will build on Ontario's expertise in clean water technology. The Water Opportunities Act would lay the foundation for new jobs and is intended to assist Ontario to become the North American leader in the development and sale of new technologies and services for water conservation and treatment. The Province contends it will strengthen protections for water - including the Great Lakes. RATIONALE The Ontario Water Conservation Alliance is a coalition of environmental, industry, labour and community organizations who believe an environmentally sustainable and economically secure province requires a comprehensive water conservation and efficiency strategy. Conservation Ontario is also a participant. The provincial government has opened a dialogue on water issues and is planning new legislation. In response, the Alliance is advocating for a water conservation and opportunities act for Ontario. The coalition has launched a public campaign to ensure the provincial government includes a strong conservation and efficiency theme in the proposed Water Opportunities Act. As part of this potentially landmark legislation, the Alliance is seeking meaningful commitments around the following key themes that are integral to an effective water conservation strategy: 1) Set Targets and Measure Performance • Conservation Targets - create and promote conservation targets for individuals, businesses, communities, and watersheds that are ambitious, achievable and based on meeting human and ecological needs. • Continuous Improvement - establish good mechanisms for measuring and reporting on performance, and for continuous improvement including evaluating and re- visiting key elements of the strategy at regular and prescribed intervals. • Water Conservation Officer - appoint an independent Water Conservation Officer, reporting directly to the Legislature, with responsibility for monitoring and advising on Ontario's water conservation efforts. • Advisory Committee - create an expert advisory committee to advise the Water Conservation Officer and key ministries on the implementation and performance of the Act. • Inter - Ministerial Coordination - designate shared responsibility amongst all relevant ministries and ensure inter - ministerial coordination. 131 2) Require Conservation Plans, Establish Standards, and Support Green Infrastructure • Permit Conditions — require applicants to submit demonstrable water conservation plans in order to obtain permits to take water from ground or surface water sources. Establish criteria for plans and identify sector- best management practices for water conservation. • Infrastructure Grant Conditions — link water conservation requirements explicitly to infrastructure grants by requiring demonstrable water conservation plans in order to receive a grant. • Water Efficiency Standards - implement standards for various sectors, including point -of -sale, and all new infrastructure, building development, and retrofits. • Green Infrastructure Incentives — define conservation and efficiency and green infrastructure as infrastructure. Provide infrastructure funding for implementing water conservation plans and support at different levels based on the quality of the plan (ie. platinum, gold, silver). Require audits to verify implementation of plans as a condition of funding support. • Land Use Planning and Development - require land use planning, landscape design and building decisions to incorporate innovative water conservation, leafy green infrastructure and low impact development approaches. 3) Foster Market Transformation and a Culture of Conservation • Green Procurement - ensure that public sector buildings, operations, and facilities (provincial and municipal) lead by example with conservation plans and water efficient procurement policies to establish test markets for innovative Ontario - developed conservation methods, technology, services and expertise. • Social Marketing and WaterSense - Implement a social marketing strategy with the goal of instilling an "ethic of water stewardship" in Ontario's citizens and businesses. As an essential element of this strategy, collaborate with industry and other government stakeholders to be the stewards of EPA's WaterSense. • Financial Instruments - in order to ensure appropriate water pricing, implement water charges for major water takers not already subject to Ontario's water charge regulations and finish implementing the new financial plan requirements for municipal drinking water systems; expand these to explicitly include sewer water systems, storm water systems and water conservation and efficiency plans. • Pilot Projects and Streamlining - support early adopters and demonstration projects to foster learning and encourage market acceptance of innovative technologies and approaches. Expedite approvals for green infrastructure and low impact development. • Training and Expertise — support development of new water professional accreditation, certification and training programs as new water technologies, expertise, and service opportunities are developed. TRCA staff will be contributing specialized knowledge about green infrastructure and watershed management to the Alliance. 132 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff will participate on the steering committee for the Alliance and coordinate with Conservation Ontario. Staff will contribute to technical support materials prepared by the Alliance as requested. Staff may be requested to attend meetings with government officials. Report prepared by: Deborah Martin - Downs, extension 5706 Emails: dmartin- downs @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Deborah Martin- Downs, extension 5706 Emails: dmartin- downs @trca.on.ca Date: April 13, 2010 RES. #A51/10 - SOUTHERN ONTARIO STREAM MONITORING AND RESEARCH TEAM Participation on the Southern Ontario Stream Monitoring and Research Team. Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Linda Pabst THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to continue to participate in the Southern Ontario Stream Monitoring and Research Team (SOSMART) as active members and as part of the leadership committee; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA continue to support this group through hosting and maintaining a web page outlining the group's activities and through holding and managing the funds for the group. CARRIED BACKGROUND SOSMART, formerly known as the Lake Ontario Modelling Team (LOMT), is a coalition of partners from along the north shore of Lake Ontario, that currently includes Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment, Environment Canada, conservation authorities (Toronto and Region, Central Lake Ontario, Credit Valley, Lake Simcoe and Region, Nottawasaga Valley, Otonabee, Ganaraska Region and Conservation Halton), along with several non - government agencies. The network recognizes the inherent linkages between research and monitoring along with the interpretation of the data that leads to knowledge. Specific objectives of the group include: • providing a forum for communication concerning stream monitoring and research; • facilitating more efficient and effective monitoring of streams and data management; • helping to coordinate studies; • sharing information, data and resources ; • strengthening the application of knowledge; • building collaborative opportunities on monitoring /research projects; 133 • connecting monitoring programs in a nested study design; • maintaining network of experts to arrange or provide for technical 'advice that is accessible to all members of the network; • providing a voice to increase awareness of the need for generating and sharing information about streams and their management; • providing a forum to help address and coordinate responses to emerging issues and adaptive responses to the results of monitoring studies and new science; and • providing an inclusive environment for stream practitioners to meet. To date, the principle outcome of this team has been to further the science and understanding of watershed processes through the development of models that predict the effect of landscape change on aquatic habitat and communities (baseflow, fish and benthos), the development and refinement of monitoring protocols, and to facilitate training and science transfer. An example of the latter was a workshop on study design that was offered as a means of facilitating multiple benefit from planned monitoring activities in southern Ontario. The true benefit of the network approach is that the results of collaborating have been invariably greater than expected and are better than any one agency could provide on their own. One partner in the SOSMART group said it well when looking at the more than 2,000 data points collected by the group: "None of us could have afforded to collect this data alone, but collectively our data and the science generated from it is irrefutable." Information related to the SOSMART including minutes from meetings, copies of presentation materials and publications resulting from the groups activities have been posted on the web at www.trca.on.ca/sosmart. There is growing interest in the idea of collaborative networks to collect and share flowing waters data. To date, in addition to the Southern Ontario group, similar networks are starting up in eastern Ontario (SMARTER), along the Niagara Escarpment (NetSMART) and in south - western Ontario (WESMART). Further there has been preliminary interest expressed in northern and central Ontario. RATIONALE There are many factors that influence the condition of a watershed from the regional scale right down to the local or site specific scale. Decision makers need access to the best information and science possible. Further, management decisions often require a broader landscape perspective to ensure appropriate actions are taken. Fortunately many agencies, researchers and private citizens are engaged in conducting or mandating the collection of data on flowing waters, and to a large extent the various components of the watershed being evaluated are similar (e.g. fish /benthos, water quality /quantity and habitat). Unfortunately, the data tends to be collected in ways that limit their value in developing new science and management support tools, and there is no universal mechanism to manage this information to ensure widespread access. To address these challenges a network approach is being applied in many parts of the world and several networks have emerged in Southern Ontario. 134 The primary benefit that TRCA has received from involvement in SOSMART has been the opportunity to better access additional data collected by partners in southern Ontario. This also involves understanding who is doing what and trying to make connections where possible between TRCA programs and policy interests and other agencies in southern Ontario with similar interests. Access to these larger datasets and collaboration with.others involved in their use will assist TRCA with the application of new reporting methods that can be used in watershed reporting. For example, a proposal has been developed to identify biocriteria for fish and benthos communities in south central Ontario which would be directly applicable to TRCA watersheds. Over the last decade TRCA has been trying to move the yardstick on standardization of monitoring protocols, particularly with our regional partners and the various consulting organizations working on their behalf. Having a broader group with a large dataset behind us helps build the case for standardizing data collection and management methods. One of key objectives of TRCA's long -term Regional Watershed Monitoring Program is data sharing to facilitate additional research and the development of tools /knowledge that can be returned and applied within TRCA's watersheds. Collaborations with other agencies and groups (including SOSMART) adds to the "value" of the data collected by TRCA. This in turn provides additional justification for the funding needed to support and maintain this long -term monitoring program. Through this data sharing and collaboration there have been several research papers produced that have taken data from network partners in order to examine techniques and tools. TRCA has used this group and its (previous) workplan in order to leverage funding for additional field data collection and the purchase of monitoring equipment. This equipment, including a flow meter, digital temperature recorders and crest -stage gauges is now available as a shared resource to the group. The spring meeting of SOSMART was recently held, and included the election of the current leadership committee for the group. Scott Jarvie from TRCA's Ecology Division was elected as Chair of the group. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Ongoing activities of SOSMART this year will include the completion and approval of the Governance Document for group and the development of a three year workplan. The group is also working on a list of key research topics to collaboratively pursue. The Ministry of Natural Resources has been acting as a coordinating body for the development of the various Stream Monitoring and Research Networks (SMARTs) in Ontario. They will be developing a briefing note for presentation to Conservation Ontario in the near future. It is anticipated that following this presentation, there will be the development of clearer communication linkages between these various SMART networks and broader coordinating agencies such as Conservation Ontario. The next meeting for the group is scheduled for November, 2010. 135 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds used to support activities undertaken by SOSMART have been obtained through partnership grants, revenues from training activities and in certain circumstances have been provided by various agencies participating in the network. Partners in SOSMART are asked to periodically support the group through hosting one of the biannual meetings. TRCA has for several years held the funds for the group and have administered the funding on the group's behalf. Funds are currently held in account 122 -50. Report prepared by: Scott Jarvie, extension 5312 Emails: sjarvie @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Scott Jarvie, extension 5312 Emails: sjarvie @trca.on.ca Date: April 8, 2010 Attachments: 1 136 Southern Ontario Stream Monitoring and Research Team Networks f reySaOle Saugeen valley— Maitland''laliev N ie trai L Onto anara7ka g, uirte F�t�rr,�ta ua Upper Tham- e Feder Haraft 1��tgg St. t1 Gong Pciot 0 Kilometers , NETSMART 125 250 375 500 SOSMART SMARTER Lakes I Tentative Southwestern Network Created by Lorna Murison, B.A., GIS Intern, Dorset Environmental Science Center September 24th, 2009 Geographic Coordinate System North American 1983 S L luewgoelly RES. #A52/10 - PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN: PEARSON ECO- BUSINESS ZONE 2009 ANNUAL REPORT Overview of Partners in Project Green's year one accomplishments. Moved by: Seconded by: Richard Whitehead David Barrow THAT the Pearson Eco- Business Zone 2009 Annual Report be received; AND FURTHER THAT the Pearson Eco- Business Zone 2009 Annual Report be circulated to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) partner municipalities involved in Partners in Project Green. CARRIED "BACKGROUND The first year of the implementation of Partners in Project Green has seen a number of successful initiatives that would not have been possible without the contributions of our dedicated partners. These successes are communicated via the first annual report of Partners in Project Green. The annual report captures the achievements of our partners, including impressive reductions in energy and water use, innovative sustainability projects and protection of natural heritage within the Pearson Eco- Business Zone. The Pearson Eco- Business Zone encompasses over 12,000 hectares of industrial and commercial land surrounding Toronto Pearson International Airport. The area falls under four municipal jurisdictions, including the Region of Peel, City of Toronto, City of Mississauga and the City of Brampton. The area consists primarily of employment areas bisected by a CN rail line and five major highways (401, 407, 409 and 427) with Toronto Pearson lying at the heart of the study area. The area contains over 12,500 businesses and 350,000 employees. Annual Report Highlights The following are highlights from the annual report. A copy of the Annual Report is included in the agenda package. • The Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) was honoured by the Airports Council International - North America (ACI -NA) with an award for its work in developing and implementing Partners in Project Green. Toronto Pearson was the first airport to win in the new Special /Innovation Projects category of the ACI -NA Environmental Achievement Awards. • The Pearson Eco- Business Zone was showcased at 12 conference sessions and in seven national media articles. • Partners in Project Green engaged 212 businesses and 738 employees in programs and networking activities in 2009. • Throughout 2009, over 2,525 businesses in the Pearson Eco- Business Zone engaged in energy efficiency projects, conserving 5.4 MW of electricity and 3,626,443 m3 of natural gas. • Throughout 2009, 51 businesses were engaged in water reduction measures conserving 1,103 m 3 per day. • 738 employees from the Pearson Eco- Business Zone were engaged in networking and training events that aided them in reducing their costs and identifying new business opportunities. 138 • There are 17 organizations in the Pearson Eco- Business Zone utilizing Smart Commute, representing a 43% increase in member companies participating in Smart Commute over 2008 levels. • There were six restoration sites undertaken, 17 companies engaged in community restoration activities, with 4,245 shrubs, 2,845 trees and 1,000 aquatic plants restoring 2.32 hectares of greenspace. • In 2009, Partners in Project Green initiated a number of programs to increase the competitiveness of the region, including green job programming, green land -use policy innovation and turning waste into revenue opportunities. Report prepared by: Jennifer Taves, extension 5570 Emails: jtaves @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Chris Rickett, extension 5316 Emails: crickett @trca.on.ca Date: April 15, 2010 RES. #A53/10 - PALGRAVE MILL POND FOREST AND WILDLIFE AREA Naming of a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority property in the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, as the Palgrave Mill Pond Forest and Wildlife Area. Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Gay Cowbourne THAT twenty -three hectares of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owned land in the Town of Caledon, as illustrated in Attachment 1, be officially named the "Palgrave Mill Pond Forest and Wildlife Area "; THAT the Town of Caledon be so advised; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to erect a sign designating the property as the Palgrave Mill Pond Forest and Wildlife Area. CARRIED BACKGROUND The property in question is 23 hectares of TRCA -owned land in the Town of Caledon, which includes the Palgrave Mills Park (5.3 hectares) to the west of Regional Road 50 and the smaller Palgrave Rotary Park (0.3 hectares) to its east. 139 The construction of a saw mill and a mill pond on the Humber River during the 1850s marked the start of a successful local milling industry. Shingle, flour and grist mills later occupied the property until the final closure in 1968. TRCA incrementally acquired the assemblage of properties around Palgrave Mill Pond in 1972, 1982 and 1999. In 2000, TRCA undertook the Palgrave Mill Pond Community Action Site project in collaboration with local community groups. The property was revitalized with a natural stone fishway, enhanced parkland and trails, interpretive signage, a historical display and substantial riverbank plantings. As part of the project, five hectares of TRCA -owned land were commemorated as the Palgrave Mills Park in 2006, in recognition of the site's recreational values and the historic relevancy of the local milling industry. More recently, the Rotary Club of Palgrave, with the assistance of the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, TRCA and the Humber Valley Heritage Trail Association, initiated work on the second commemorative park on the property, Palgrave Rotary Park. A gazebo and landscaping have been completed. At present, there is no official name for the entire complex of the existing wetlands, fishway, trail system, two commemorative parks, Palgrave Mill Pond and the Humber River. The naming of the Palgrave Mill Pond Forest and Wildlife Area would formalize these elements, while serving to recognize the individual and collective efforts of residents to enhance the property. Through the signage for the Palgrave Mill Pond Forest and Wildlife Area, TRCA would acknowledge the significant financial and in -kind contributions from the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, Rotary Club of Palgrave and Palgrave Community Action Site group to recent projects. An interpretive kiosk would also present an opportunity to contribute to community awareness of the local human heritage on an ongoing basis. At Authority Meeting #9/03, held on November 28, 2003, Resolution #A255/03 was approved, which set the protocol for the naming of TRCA assets. According to the protocol, a naming may contain any or all of the following: • the name of a major individual or corporate /public sector organization, possibly a donor; • the name of an individual prominent in the environmental or conservation community; • a relevant historical name associated with the geographic area or community; • the name of a strategic initiative, a citizen's group or other partnership of TRCA; and /or • other names that may have significance for a specific site and area. Further, the naming of TRCA assets requires the approval of the Authority. The Palgrave Mill Pond Forest and Wildlife Area name reflects the historic Palgrave Mill Pond property and past milling operations, in addition to the living legacy of the site's regeneration. It thereby satisfies the criteria of "a relevant historical name associated with the geographic area or community ". The recognition of the local human heritage is also consistent with the objectives of the Canadian Heritage Rivers System. Regional Councillor Richard Whitehead with the Town of Caledon was consulted in the naming process and agrees with the proposed name. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will produce and install an interpretive kiosk on the property to identify the property's name, boundaries and history. 140 FINANCIAL DETAILS The estimated cost of constructing and installing the kiosk is $5,000. This expense will be covered by TRCA's regular capital budget with funding from Peel Region. Report prepared by: Clara Stewart- Robertson, extension 5325 Emails: cstewart- robertson @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Emails: gwilkins @trca.on.ca Date: April 12, 2010 Attachments: 1 Attachment 1 142 RES. #A54/10 - CANADA GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL Memorandum of Understanding. Authorization to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding between Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Canada Green Building Council. Moved by: Seconded by: Richard Whitehead David Barrow THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC); AND FURTHER THAT authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to take the action necessary to implement the MOU. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Canada Green Building Council has a mission to "Lead and accelerate the transformation to high - performing, healthy green buildings, homes and communities throughout Canada." TRCA has been working with CaGBC on a number of projects over the last several years, including TRCA's successful proposal to host the Secretariat for the World Green Building Council. While considerable progress has been made over the last 10 years or so in the Greater Toronto Area to advance the cause of greener buildings, much remains to be done, particularly on the performance improvement of existing buildings. TRCA has done many things to assist the important work of the CaGBC in the Toronto region, including support to the Greater Toronto Chapter of CaGBC which coordinates much of the training work with the design community. An MOU has been drafted and agreed to by the Board of CaGBC at its meeting in Toronto on March 30, 2010. The purpose of the MOU is to formalize our working relationship and to establish priorities for the near term which will be reviewed and updated regularly. The major elements of the proposed Agreement are as follows: WHEREAS based on the mutual goals of market transformation to a sustainable society, the Canada Green Building Council and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority wish to work together to: • Provide leadership and resources to the building industry and local governments in their efforts to build sustainable communities. • Support the education and awareness of municipal staff, community developers and builders in their efforts to incorporate the elements of green building design and building performance into their business operations. • Promote the initiatives and resources of the CAGBC and the TRCA to public & private sector leaders where appropriate. 143 • Promote building and community assessment programs, including LEED ', GREEN UP, as guidelines for new and renovation construction for all of the municipalities located within TRCA jurisdiction and throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe area. • Develop selected projects and programs that will increase market awareness of green buildings and sustainable communities. NOW THEREFORE the TRCA and CAGBC agree as follows: ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES The roles and responsibilities outlined below are designed to complement each organization's active initiatives. 1.1 TRCA • Introduce municipal leaders, community developers and builders to the CAGBC to help increase awareness and membership. • Support and advocate for CAGBC local funding opportunities through federal, provincial, regional and local municipal governments and the building industry. • Explore opportunities to market and expand CAGBC programs and initiatives into existing and new initiatives e.g. Partners in Project Green etc. o Promote to TRCA stakeholders the primary benefits of the CAGBC including (but not limited to) networking opportunities and events including national conference in Toronto, green building expertise and education, green building information and research publications. 1.2 CAGBC • Support and promote the development of The Living City Campus and new building projects initiated by TRCA as leading examples of green building in Canada . • Support the development and public awareness of TRCA programs and initiatives that align with CaGBC direction and programs, e.g. the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program, etc. • Participate in presentations and workshops conducted by TRCA and municipal Stakeholders in support of sustainable development and green building design. • Participate in developer /builder engagement as requested by TRCA. An appendix to the agreement lists the following activities as a starting point to the evolving range of programs: • Participate in developer /builder engagement including the efforts of the Toronto City Summit Alliance through its Greening Greater Toronto program to develop and deliver the Commercial Building Energy Initiative. • Market and expand GREEN UP into existing and new initiatives by continuing to support programming that evaluates and benchmarks building performance. • Support the development and delivery of the Greening Retail Program. • Support the development and public awareness of the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program and secure support for the Sustainable Technologies Research Facility. • Secure continued support for the World Green Building Council Secretariat incl. support for the development and delivery of the common Carbon Metric Initiative • Develop, coordinate and deliver green building education and training. 144 • Support the development and implementation of Partners in Project Green (the Pearson Eco- Industrial Park) as well as TRCA's Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plans. • Support the development and delivery of Green Jobs in the Greater Toronto Area. • Support the development of LEED ND for Canada. • Cooperate with the Ontario Realty Corporation on the retrofit and performance management of provincial office buildings and the new planned community of Seaton in the City of Pickering. • Identify any appropriate roles in helping USGBC to host GreenBuild in Nov. 2011, in Toronto. • Work with the GTA Chapter to: • Develop a Green Building Road Map to clarify who is doing what and identify the next major steps. • Develop a regional addendum to the municipal toolkit e.g. Municipal Green Building Policy Best Practices Manual. • Host Green Building tours. • Evaluate the need for an annual Green Building Conference in the GTA, evaluate potential partners and determine respective roles, if any, in hosting such conferences. Report prepared by: Brian Denney, 416 - 667 -6290 Emails: bdenney @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Brian Denney, 416 - 667 -6290 Emails: bdenney @trca.on.ca Date: April 22, 2010 RES. #A55/10 - ARSENAL LANDS /MARIE CURTIS PARK WEST MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM Status Report and Approval of Modified Approach to Implementation. Provides a status report and recommends approval of a modified approach to implement the Arsenal Lands /Marie Curtis Park West Master Plan Addendum, while adding Marie Curtis Park East in collaboration with the City of Mississauga and the City of Toronto. Moved by: Seconded by: Richard Whitehead David Barrow THAT the Authority approve the modified approach to implement the Arsenal Lands /Marie Curtis Park West Master Plan Addendum by adding Marie Curtis Park East to the Master Plan Addendum and undertaking the implementation as two separate but integrated plans in collaboration with the cities of Mississauga and Toronto, as described in the status report dated April 30, 2010; THAT staff report to the Authority when the revised concept design for the Arsenal Lands Master Plan and Marie Curtis Park (East and West) Master Plan are completed; 145 AND FURTHER THAT the cities of Mississauga and Toronto be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Arsenal Lands is a 15.7 hectare property located on the waterfront south of Lakeshore Road East at the eastern border of the City of Mississauga. The Arsenal Lands were long used for a variety of manufacturing activities, including small arms and munitions production during the Second World War. In October 1992, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) purchased the property with the intent of expanding Marie Curtis Park West to form a 41 hectare waterfront park. The land purchase was made possible through a joint collaboration involving the City of Toronto, Regional Municipality of Peel, City of Mississauga, Province of Ontario and TRCA. As part of the purchase, TRCA and the former landowner (Canada Post) each contributed $2.5 million to remediate the site. The Arsenal Lands Park and Site Remediation Master Plan was released in 1998 after extensive input from a partner steering committee and through many public meetings /newsletters. The plan included recommendations for site remediation to achieve the park use guidelines established by the Province, a long -term monitoring plan and a park concept based on a conservative landscape rehabilitation approach. The focus of the plan was the rehabilitation of the Arsenal Lands property and the provision of minimal park facilities. The plan also made recommendations to integrate the Arsenal Lands with the Waterfront Trail and Marie Curtis Park. Arsenal Lands /Marie Curtis Park West Master Plan Addendum A subsequent review of the 1998 Master Plan identified several issues that required further assessment and resolution before park development could proceed. In 2005, TRCA led a master plan review process with the partners including additional consultation with the community which resulted in the completion of the Arsenal Lands /Marie Curtis West Master Plan Addendum (2006). At Authority Meeting #5/07, held on June 22, 2007, Resolution #A150/07 was approved as follows: THAT the Arsenal Lands /Marie Curtis Park West Master Plan Addendum, dated November 2006, be approved; THAT the Arsenal Lands /Marie Curtis Park West Master Plan Addendum be submitted to the City of Mississauga and the City of Toronto for approval; THAT staff be directed to prepare agreements for park development and long -term management and operation of the Arsenal Lands /Marie Curtis Park West in consultation with the City of Mississauga and the City of Toronto; THAT TRCA's contribution to the partnership funding for the implementation of the Arsenal Lands /Marie Curtis Park West Master Plan Addendum be included in Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) 5 year capital budget plan (2008- 2012); AND FURTHER THAT the City of Mississauga, the City of Toronto and the Region of Peel be so advised. 146 The Addendum (2006) was consistent with the goals and objectives of the original master plan. It reinforces the original intent of the partners to form a regional waterfront.park, which was accomplished by integrating the Arsenal Lands with the west side of Marie Curtis Park and enhancing the proposed park amenities to suit the park's regional scale. Given the park's proximity to the border of the cities of Mississauga and Toronto, the park would function as a 'Gateway Park' servicing residents from both municipalities. The Addendum provided information about the current site conditions, planning recommendations, demographics, community needs and public interests. The information was used to update the overall concept for the park and to develop recommendations for future park operations. The revised park concept built on the original master plan by offering not only trails and picnicking venues, but also complimentary park facilities to make the park experience more enjoyable and attractive to regional users. These complimentary facilities had been selected to meet public demand and has been sited to help deter inappropriate park use in underused areas. The development and site management strategy for the Arsenal Lands /Marie Curtis Park was envisaged as a unified approach, that the parks are to be managed as one integrated park. To implement this approach, agreements would be developed for the management and operation for these lands between TRCA, City of Mississauga and City of Toronto. A future park planning process for Marie Curtis Park East was also contemplated to ensure that recreational uses and activities were coordinated with the plans for the Arsenal Lands /Marie Curtis Park West. RATIONALE At this time, TRCA staff is recommending a number of refinements to the original Arsenal Lands /Marie Curtis Park Addendum undertaking as identified below. Since completion of the Addendum in 2007, there have been ongoing discussions between the cities of Mississauga and Toronto and TRCA on how to implement the Arsenal Lands /Marie Curtis Park given the budget constraints. The preliminary cost estimate for implementation of the Master Plan Addendum was $4 million in 2005 dollars. However, due to increasing costs, the updated estimate is now $8.5 million (2009). The original budget outlined in 2005 by the City of Mississauga and the City of Toronto will not realize the Master Plan vision in 2010 as there is a substantial shortfall for detailed design and master plan implementation. In addition to insufficient funding, there were other considerations related to timing in that Toronto has to spend approved design funds in 2010; the need to avoid different procurement processes; and the requirement to include Marie Curtis Park East as part of the scope of work. In response to these issues, TRCA, and the cities or Mississauga and Toronto, have continued to meet to develop a strategy that would see the Master Plan implemented. In an effort to provide park , implementation despite the funding shortfall, a new approach to implementation and management has been developed to ensure that the goal of an integrated waterfront park is achieved. 147 The cities of Mississauga and Toronto continue to support the direction of the Master Plan Addendum but have determined a need to implement the parks separately. The intent is that Marie Curtis Park West and the Arsenal Lands site will be developed as a regional destination park, while Marie Curtis Park East will continue to serve as a local park. TRCA and the City of Toronto will initiate a design process for Marie Curtis Park (East and West). It is anticipated that the design can be completed by the end of 2010 with construction starting in early 2011. Marie Curtis Park will be maintained and operated by City of Toronto further to the existing 1972 Waterfront Agreement and will have programming that is customary in waterfront parks. TRCA and the City of Mississauga will partner to undertake a review and re- evaluation of the Arsenal Lands Master Plan. The City of Mississauga will provide project management for the concept review and implementation of the Arsenal Lands plan. It is anticipated that the design may be completed by the end of 2010 with construction starting in spring of 2011. Staff of Mississauga and Toronto will be participating on the Steering Committee for both design processes to ensure coordination and consistency. Opportunities for public and stakeholder consultation will be provided through both design processes, coordinated wherever possible to represent the integrated approach to implementation of the Master Plan. Further, a set of maintenance guidelines will be developed to ensure that common maintenance standards are implemented at both Marie Curtis Park and the Arsenal Lands park site. The overall layout of Marie Curtis and the Arsenal Lands will be approached as an design exercise to bring together a variety of park features into a unified whole; blending the three parks. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Marie Curtis Park (East and West) Master Plan TRCA and the City of Toronto's Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division (PF &R) released a Request for Proposals on April 15, 2010, soliciting proposals from landscape architectural firms to undertake conceptual design refinement, detailed design, construction drawing preparation, approvals /permits, contract documents, specifications, tender documents and construction administration for Marie Curtis Park. Together with TRCA and City of Toronto PF &R, the selected proponent will work collaboratively with all partners to ensure a functional and aesthetic continuity between the two parkland sites. A report selecting a preferred consultant will come to the Executive Committee meeting in May, 2010. Arsenal Lands Park Master Plan The City of Mississauga and TRCA will develop a new park on the former Arsenal Lands. The City of Mississauga, along with TRCA and City of Toronto, will review the existing Arsenal Lands /Marie Curtis Park West Master Plan Addendum to determine potential programme and infrastructure changes that help to meet the current fiscal constraints and public needs for the park. Mississauga staff will be the project lead for the existing concept review, detailed design, development and operation of the Arsenal Lands. A Request for Proposals will be initiated for a consulting firm to undertake conceptual design refinement, detailed design, construction drawing preparation, approvals /permits, contract documents, specifications, tender documents and construction administration for the Arsenal Lands. It is anticipated that implementation of the Arsenal Lands Master Plan could begin in early 2011. 148 Site Management Strategy It is proposed that the Arsenal Lands Park and Marie Curtis Park be managed as one fully integrated park, available to the residents of the cities of Mississauga and Toronto. The ongoing operations and management of the Arsenal Lands will be governed by all applicable City of Mississauga by -laws, policies and standards. The City of Mississauga will lead the concept refinement process and implementation of -the Master Plan. TRCA will retain responsibility for the management of the former Ontario Power Generation leased area; ongoing environmental monitoring of the site; implementation of any habitat restoration; and improvements to the shoreline. An Operations and Management Agreement will be developed and will be subject to the approval of TRCA and the City of Mississauga. The City of Toronto would be the project lead for the ongoing operations and management of Marie Curtis Park (East and West). The long term operations and management responsibilities for the Park has been established within the existing 1972 Waterfront Agreement. FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA's remaining budget for ongoing monitoring is approximately $80,000 of the original $240,000. Funds are available in 2010, through the cities of Mississauga and Toronto to initiate the Master Plan review, concept development and detailed design for the Arsenal Lands Park and Marie Curtis Park. The capital costs for park development will be further refined through the Master Plan review and subsequent detailed design. Programming and infrastructure will be reviewed to reflect current budget constraints. As per the TRCA /Canada Post Agreement, park development of the Arsenal Lands will be partially funded through savings from the initial site remediation ($645,000). TRCA, City of Toronto and City of Mississauga approved capital budgets will be directed at other elements of the Master Plans. Additional funds will also be pursued by all agencies to offset outstanding park development costs. Some elements of the Master Plan may be phased over a longer term but it is anticipated that the Arsenal lands Park could be open to the public on a regular basis by 2013. Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney @trca.on.ca Date: April 21, 2010 Attachments: 2 149 Arsenal Lands!Marie Curtis Park West Conceptual Park Plan 1,,,Z,CL k ,414,47-A „tv 311 GESIZEI .66 =Ig .66.....666666.661666666. airs Sa........a.afaeSa waorn • 011,111■SOmfeYss. WW1 ttea ww CsYSY, V.ata..ssaa AA's, 6.66,6rnornws Woons. 66.6 6.666.6.6.6wwwww r.; I- ;uauayaelltl Attachment 2 undaries, jurisdiction and tan 151 RES. #A56/10 - 2010 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET 2010 Operating and Capital Budget is recommended for approval. (Budget /Audit Res. #C3/10) Moved by: Seconded by: David Barrow Linda Pabst WHEREAS the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) provides that a conservation authority, in establishing its annual levy, shall have the power to determine the proportion of total benefit of any project afforded to all participating municipalities that is afforded to each of them; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, subject to such regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act as may be approved by the Lieutenant - Governor -in- Council: (i) all participating municipalities be designated as benefiting for all projects included in the 2010 Operating Budget; (ii) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) share of the cost of the programs included in the 2010 Operating Budget shall be raised from all participating municipalities as part of the General Levy; (iii) the 2010 General Levy be apportioned to the participating municipalities in the proportion that the modified current value assessment of the whole is under the jurisdiction of TRCA, unless otherwise provided in the levy or a project; (iv) the appropriate TRCA officials be directed to advise the participating municipalities, pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act and the regulations made thereunder, and to levy the said municipalities the amount of the General Levy set forth in the 2010 Operating Budget, and to levy the said municipalities the amount of the Capital Levy set forth in the 2010 Capital Budget and in the approved projects of TRCA; THAT, subject to finalization of the participating municipalities' apportioned levy amounts, the 2010 Operating and Capital Budget, and all projects therein, be adopted; THAT staff be authorized to amend the 2010 Operating and Capital Budget to reflect actual 2010 provincial grant allocations in order to determine the amount of matching levy governed by regulation; THAT, except where statutory or regulatory requirements provide otherwise, staff be authorized to enter into agreements with private sector organizations or government agencies for the undertaking of projects which are of benefit to TRCA and funded by the sponsoring organization or agency; THAT, as required by Ontario Regulations 139/96 and 231/97, this recommendation and the accompanying budget document, including the schedule of matching and non - matching levies, be approved by recorded vote; 152 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as may be necessary to implement the foregoing, including obtaining needed approvals and the signing and execution of documents. RECORDED VOTE David Barrow Yea Bryan Bertie Yea Laurie Bruce Yea Gay Cowbourne Yea Mike Del Grande Yea Pamela Gough Yea Lois Griffin Yea Suzan Hall Yea Jack Heath Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Gerri Lynn O'Connor Yea Linda Pabst Yea John Parker Yea John Sprovieri Yea Richard Whitehead Yea THE MOTION WAS CARRIED 153 SECTION 3 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET 154 N � aj m 70 m v n 0 0 a U .�0 ° L o a Y F y o m Y 70 fcmmi tao L c - mmN a Oo a o iY m 0E E O __oo-p z -° mo o ` .0 0oo om - m o m O ° ° o 4 0 U E O N U Lo E E s > 6 °o m a mo °o o. � YEo m o o' R E to ° m h o m o U o a o `m ° o o 3 = m a-o -o `m oo U c rn o m c U m m C U to N a m EO U d F i O Ui a U o m m �' z U o o moo cmi ooh .Q p o ° c oo -° o `° m o-o m o m m m m ° m m m m o -°m m ° o N o m i m ° tp ¢(0 m U �— C i -O o) o o)< m o I to Q N to c o 4 (h m m y6 to ° ° m C U O¢ m Q m> m o O O >` N U O C 3 C >.O O > U m R a) Y y ° (E6 m ON m O) i6 to C o O Q i O Q W O .O O IL > m °- O °�- 2 to to N C m O w m m N -O o. 2 LO O m Ol 3 ° O ° C (raj 4 m Q _° m N m m O1 W C O E c O N C N C O m m w YO i E °' m O -O-p N N N � E ° O cN6 N .� N N O d m Q o�d C O Z m J to N_ i -O O -6 Q U y R O.y C O U) O1 E °-tail O O m m -° ° O -6 d C m m E m E c . p E c > o U N n o a m m O o a c c c c Y m to p o o a) o m w o > a w c °' c E w � 8 (6 m -p ._ = U U > N O p O m O) ..o O i6 to 4 o C O m c6 m m ;-6 d) > E o C U W Ol w m N O ° m.c -o w m m a m -o O Y a a>i a m °1 o m U >. o� oho9 .ama o NO o ° oo Eo ° a a 'E � a`m E� a m m m m m o m - om ni a o w ° c c m m to U m o z o to m (N6 O m f i i trail ON m-p C E N o w O y 5 o m N O E O Q 3 N o m o ra m m2 > � ap6 E n Y a o o� p of > m U m m i6 O m y ° N d o 'U Lu oU °'(Ym6 >� O) -o N j N o-O Q>. N cE to = 3 v o a O 3 O of o- t 4 m api ra t aa'i m m m o o aa'i ° aa'i � aa'i > ° °-`o ° o m O m o o .� o o o o_t m °-o .o o o a3i of o E o m ° Z J i) Q U N U U N N N J J d U m (n Q W a d U Z (n Q Q Q d Y cc O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 o (h Lo Lo Lo LoW 7 t� r a) a) o 7 (D (h 1 Lo o o Lo Loo W L O m n (o r Lo O O (O 7 7 (1) (1) N 7 (O O W n (1)r V r 7 r Lo 7 m W n O) (`') (`') O Q QZ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mu to to W m O N N r N O r O N m L,) 't O n to L Q t I (O (O 7 r 7 N W Q) O O c0 (`') Q) Q) O c0 (O (O (O O r V o N L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �/WN W O 7 Lo7 O 7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V/ W W W O W W N N 7 r O) O n Lo (h a) 7o t� O O W W O 0 (O Lo n O W n 7 N Lo (O N N (O W O) W O W (1) O) O Z o Q (h N N 7 7 O (h 1 O n N O n O O N n N W r T N 7 W N :3 (O N O o m r Z m J O Lo (D O N O O O) O) (1) (O (O (O L W Lo n W 7 T) n N O O O t� m O (1) t� O n W O Lo 7I 7 (1) Lo (1) (O (O Lo O Q 7 O 7 W N O (`7 (`') O N m N Lo N 7 t� n N O (1) 7 I O) r r O F !� N O W O n n N (h W Lo N (h 7 Lo O) 7 O O (O N N O> R L W (`') 1W N O to O) W O (1) t� 7 t� (`') 7 Lo7 7 W O 7 (� N N (`') r N to m N Lo 7 7 O) O 7 r 7 N 7 m N a) (1) Q) W V Q O U r N (`� N r (`� r Lo W U NQ cc a 0 LL o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Qo o o o o o o o O o o o o o_ o o o o O o o o o o o o W 7 m 0 tp (h (h 1 n (D n O O) nn O O) O N O) O LoW O O (fr N W to m O n O n O) N Lo O) N m r (1) 1 Lo 7o (`') W O O (`') ON oo o fA� T (`') 7 N (`') 7 (O (`') N Lo N T r N O)_ N O O W N O_ Q) L N :3 (`� T (h (O r [L Z OM _ cca) N (1) 7 7 to to (D n W O) O N N (1) 7 Lo (D n W O) O) O m O R m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a s a a a a a m a o U E Q m m o -O O E U m m W cE m y 1 N U 0 C m m d N o m O o Z Q Z F 3 U d U d L U ~ ° o o v o 12 o o- 0 E to Q c O O O d N 6 n m d C W m O 7 r W r E C7 m I'i v o a) v o c a o F o �— a CS m o °) `° o m a m m a m m a o O Z a U c z E >. .� °) c °) c ° o m o c `� U m Y U aa'i w o m m m c E o o �° o a a c m a o m o � L o z m Qz aEi aEi to a o) F = Q o) U o .� o O E to ° ¢ o m z m m m = _ o m E N o U E m U N a E o a o a m v U o L W o o) ° w m Lu U api g m Q E _ o (o o Q �. m 9- a ~ Q �— p z aC m _ o m m y 0 N m p d o W cE 15 15 z .� -6 o o p C m z N o Z W 2i 2i m U U U -6 d in W z z m c �, W o o `� F m m m J E p a � Y m o Y w o � � E o) a m E N 3 w E 3 a i o a n i > 2 ° a > o cE > I o)o 0 c = u=i (o w (o a cps 155 O 6 0 N 3 0 3 rn y 2 E03 m w ° y m Z >O fA fA m O O o N h y J 0 O O m 6 d R (O m 0 s m m U U m d d Oo oO E 3�+ .m. y 0- N 0 do0 yoZ 0.¢.Oo0 xs o o yo m Cc C 61 0 mmN N 10 d O O0 > mE O o °-a o o m m ° 0 > sZ O E E 0 o E p m m O o o o 0 E 2 o¢ m a aa o o E d E �m >. O�i T.> y y a_6 m -, YO E N N m N C y. >i N W._ m U U > > O N d N .� . o °1 a� m m . 'E a t ° .� s E E o o = a' T¢ o� N ori N 3¢ C7 O o o-o'3- y-6 m 0 v o y 2 (n o o-o -o 7 U o 0 o a o ED o o ° - o >.E 3 m m o o' 'o o .o 0.4 F w IS d m E m C N N N U y Wi y 0 O O M O O N 6 0 U °w U U N d U d N .`- 6 y m o T o o o a� " ° o o � '� � ° 16 v 0 y m � � 5.°- m °1�d.r a�0 0 ° � m a m=� `° .o E m �� '� 0 0 0 0 m N m m N m m 0 N Q m'6-6 .0 °- (o ° CO'U--6 a 61'T m N T T T T C ° m U U ° °-L N N N j O N O N.0 U N m m m m r a te.- O U N N N 2 O.0 O N a a ° N O O O N > j'� O 0 M M M O) LL (j y N C J d Z d U W(�Z W W N Z co d �d W J F W U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o 0 0 O O O O O O O o0 h N O O W o o d'N O O = O O 0000000000 O O 00 000000 O O N(h o0 O N (O M 0 ( Or d O r r N O O O O O d O d O O O O O O 00 N N h o0 O N O O N N N (O h h N i m r N 0 L OI d' O d' O 00 O O N C7 (h N h O M(h d'O (O (O (O (h(h h N O N O O O O O O L N (h (h N O h N d' h O h (O h o0 O o0(h N d' O O O O W r 0 (O d' N h 0) d'O N N r N O N r N N NO W o0 h (h o0 O N N W O d'00 N N C7 (h (h d'O a 00 ' 0000000 o o 0 0 0 o ' 000000 0 00000000000000 ' o o o0 0 r (O N d' O(h O(`') r(`')N O O O N O (`') O -0 ( N V d' O o0 (h O N V O N r O m 0 O ( (O 00 O () O N 0 L� C7 O m(h m(h O N 0-0 O O o0 N O m m O O V O N O O ON N N N N W O cg N N r N O I r r r N(h cC o r C O O 00 000 0 0 0 0 O O O O 00 00000 0 00 O 0 0 h 0 (h O o0 h(h O O O N o0 O 0 = O O 00 000 0000 O O O O 00 00000 O 00 O O h W O O (O O o0 d' d'(O d O FI O O 00 O 00 O 000 O O O O O O 00 000 O O O O O O (h O (h h d' M N r r N 0 N p r O W ' p W O O C F fA N N O O N O O O'OWd'NN W M WO O O V V0dONVm0W OO OrNN W W 0 L N O N O N co O(h (p Nr m N Co 0N0 h p r N(0(S mR O N rO N M O N N M O Cl) O O N N N OO O O N O O NONCO(0 m dhOV O 7 OOO (O N O ONO(h O O (O N m N O o0 O Ohd N N N O m N N OO o N M N M O O OhN� N0 F Np O1 R h m h o0 N d' N O C7 O(h (O h W V O)(h N r N C7 h (O N N Ln (O M h (O O h N�N C7 h N p r V (h r r r N N (h d'N N (`� O r O M d'd'r (O N N r(h o0 N h(O N of of LL O G r r N r W Co N 0- (O N (O W U N Q Cl) N aD C Q Z O O 00 0000000 O O O 0 00 00000 O 00 ' ' 0 O NV 0 o0 N(h 0 o0 ON NW 0 0 LL O O OO OOOOOOO O O O OO O N (h nOr OVN Op(p hr N N O O O O ONNC0 iOO OO N 0 O O O O O O V O O O O 0 N ONO o0 N O hoON O O N Oo OW O M O O O O O O O O O N C N h 0 (n O V0 O O O 0 L. N 00A 0 O O N O N TN m O 0 NO Nh0 N N O dh 0 n N M N m N 0 O N Cl) O N O O N N 0 r Nr r F- � O O N (h (h (h (h N N 00 0000000 0 O O O O N N N N N N d m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m w w wwwwwwwwww wwww 0 E w a a m y y N T U d-° Cc o d0 m m O .m. m > � y m -2.0 o o E d 0 .4LU A U m o � a F O W O O 0 6 N C¢ 0 2 N a m m m R lL N N d m 'V (� m j °� 0 a.--6 s Cc w m d m p m m m o°�i > 3 E .. 0 U m d m 0 m d m d v °1�.a�m O m m 0 O U -'� xS m 0 i ._F O 0-O J w '� 0 � -m E 0 m c - c U o J O m 0 3.E> E d 0 m 0 d 0 O y U y CC¢ Ol N.OU Q C 60 Y :a N 7 `N LL 6 0 O N > N G. R R NO U 3 p U m N LL Z p p W N =LL JU �.m�m mii Z O "¢ 0 E m �diLo omm X '0 d E 0 C m 0 E 0Cm o ? o� p y.°1¢ E O t .N m> N m F C7 m U W c m E m 0 m m 0 >i L LL 4 N.0 Y d 0.0 0 N 6".6-N Q. C 61 O N N N N -6 N > C S'L O m OJ O 6 N > 0 p m U N W m O m O X o N N LL L L L L O m C > O O 4 4 LL J O d0 =_5zYo Om=� OC ¢zw W LL wm=000OO Z��� Z a` 2d>oF ¢ (°n U>oF¢ 156 0- 0- 0- 0. 0- 0. 0- 0. 0- 0- 0. 0- 0- 0 . 0 - 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0- 0 0- 0- 0- 0. 0- 0. 0- 0. 0- 0- 0. 0- 0- 0 . 0 - 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0- 0 C� C� C� C�. C�- C�. C�- C�. C�- C� C�. C�- C�- C�. C� C�. C� C�. C� C�. C�- C� M€ 04 N': 0 c) cO �2 c4 0 0 cO �2 Lf) Lf) Cl) cli- w w- m. - w oo o oo (D .1 o. cl) o a)- cl) L6 CV (q a�- M- q (D ot. Lq (D. cc�- (D 0 Cl) c� c! ot q. - a�. . . c,t C-4 4a cl) z co- cl) cl) -1 (D. (D cl). Lf) ca (L LL (D Lf) o- o- o- o. o- o. o- o. o- o- o. o- o o o o o 0 0 o- o- o- o. o- o. o- o. o- o- o. o- o o o o o cc 0 o o o o. o- o. o. o- o- o. o- o o. o o o _: _: _: . - . . q 0 Lu Om 0 'T 0. 0. CD 0. c\j (3) (3). T o 0 OD - N -- I-- N. o. N- m. c\j 0 4a m m- m. . co OD T. (O[ m. m c\j O [ N Mco l)- Ni Ni r- co F- z co c\J- C 0 LL co c\j cl) cl) 0= 0= o- o. o- o o- o- o. o- o- o o o o o o o- o o. O- O- o. o- o o- o- o. o- o- o o o. o o. o o. o- o O_ O_ o- o. o- o o- o- o. O_ O_ O - o. o o. o o. o- c� F- >. LU 04- 04 00 c�) 1Lf) Lf) (D Lf) 00 �2 00 Lf) c�) G)- t2- G)- CO. 00- G) CV- Cj- (D. o a�- Lq. Lq- Rt c�. RM cl) c�. �1. cl) cl. F-I > 0 -1 (D -1 � Lf) o Lu a 4a 04 04- - - - (D. 04 O O CM CM o- o- o- o o- o o- o- o o- o- o o o o. o r)s o OD o- 0 0 o- o. o- o. o- o- o o- o- o o o m o Cl) o 0 O'. o o o o. o- O'. O'. o- o- o o o (3). o c\]. c\j- o c\j 0 U) c\j 0 co T (D M. 0 rl:. rl: Lo Lo co c\J (D. Cl) CD Lu m- c\j 'T o m- o 'T CD OD 'T T. T o. O[ m co LO CD m c\j OD c\j (3) - z z 4a m- c\j- c\j c\j co cl) Lu 0 LQ .0 LO LU ( o- o o- o o- o- o o- o- o o o cl) 1� o o- o- o o o LU 04 o- o o- o o- o- o. o- o- o o o. o Lf) o 04. (D o O€o- o- c�. c�- c� o- c�- c�. c�- c�- O . c� c� c� o. o pl�, plc� LU aN L6 ci- Lf). 1�- Lf) co- (D- o. co- Lf)- Lf) o o o (D o cl) 04 Lf) 04. c) co r� -1- a). o- a) cl) o (D. o Lf). o o. a)- Lf) N€ OD a) 2 P. co. a) a) -1 c,4 (D c�. Lf) .1. cl) (D .1. co- cl) OD LU 0 04 Cl) P, a) LU Z CM 0 o€ - - - o- o- o o- o- o o- o- o o o o o (D vs 0 C\j O'- o- o- o. o- o- o. o- o- o o o. o o. m- r- cl) (D o- o- o o- o- o o- o- o o o o o I- OD m m OD m o m m (3) o CL 0 co cc m m. cl)- co �2 cT\] ccD) m �2 (D 0 F) Z 0 4a cl) cli 0 cl) C\j o€ - - - o- o o- o o- o- o o- o- o o - o o o o o- 0 0 o o- o o- o o- o- o o- o- o o o o o o o- 0 co o_ - - - o- o- o o- o- o o- o- o o o ID o o o- 0 r- LLI o m (3) -m (D m m m m o o o(D. OD co c\j c\j oo- O[ N[ (D m N (3). T o T OD co MU) r LU (D (3) c\j cl). c\j cl) Z LU 4a (D r- co 0 IL 0 (D (D m c\j 0 LO c\j c\j cl) (D (.0 cl) 0 Z 4a LU cc CM o o o o- o- o. o- o- o- o- o o o. o o. o. o- o 0 LO o- o- o- o- o. o- o- o. o o o o o. o o 0 0 o- o- o a LL o- o- o- o- o. o- o- o. o- o- o o - o. o o. o o o Z 0 o-- T-- o. OD- q cli co 0 r-: Lo 0 0 0 . Lo T. c\j o (D (D m z 4a OD m- OD- c\j- OD. m- OD- cl). (D: m- o c\j o. (3) o cl) cl) 0 (.0 LQ C\! 0F- cc co co o- o- o- o- o o€ - - o- o- o o o o (D r� 0 0 Z LU o o o o o o o o o o o m co 0 (D o o- o- o. o- o- o- o o o. M (3) OD O OD co c\J co c\J. Lo co 0 Lo m- cli cq cc 4a o- cc (D. T- T c\j (D c\j m. c\j- (.0 co 0 z 0', co co M- Lo cl) co 6 �0- U) z 0 4a 0 a cc z o U) O - - - - cc - - - - LU U) z€ LU CC LU z cc LU Lu. LU - - - U) LU z u- 0 z Z€ I I LU 1 (11 LU 1 1 LU I I U) U) I cc cc cc gs os LU I I kl .1 ol i i i C�i coc i cc o- LU cc 1 LU I n i i i cc cc I I LU I CC I I E I LU E Z CC E : Lu i n i 0 i 0 i Z LU z 1 1 z 1 1 z 1 i g i CC cc 01 LU I I Lu LU Fr : I D U) LU. >- Z Z I CC 21 cc LU U) 01 U)I LU i Lcuc i i <i 0 cc LU: : : : <: - . - I I LU 1 0.1 1 101 z€ ,1 z cc z u- Z Lu Lu LU U) cc 2:i €w i �i -i o 01 :11 0 0 z LU EE: z I U)I Z I M I I z <- O: CC n i Z i i i < < EE i U) LU 0. cc a-- 2 i<i I > 10 I n u- LU LU cc co Lu. >- cc 0-1 z 1 z 1 U)1 0 0 0 z cc- U. cc- cc a] a o I Lu cc LU- LU 1 0 LU- cc 0- Lu 0 i o- LU o W. LU U) o 0 i 0 1 <. CC I cc < 0 i Lu i LU o U) F- IL Z€ 0 0 04 04 -j. Z o Lu 7 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 31 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Regional Monitoring Program 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. $CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Project Management 143,000 120,180 248,000 73% 105,000 Aquatic 413,000 399,265 414,000 0% 1,000 Terrestrial 125,000 124,375 137,000 10% 12,000 Water Quality 173,000 152,138 175,000 1% 2,000 Flow&Precipitation 139,000 130,849 143,000 3% 4,000 GIS&Database 15,000 20,706 20,000 33% 5,000 West Nile Virus Monitoring 70,000 43,673 58,000 -17% (12,000) New:Fixed Plot Monitoring 40,000 40,000 Other related Special Projects - - SEATON MONITORING(OLD 118-41) - - Groundwater/Well Installations 35,000 34,458 39,000 11% 4,000 SP:NETWORK PLANNING WORKSHOP - RAP MOU:SHOREBIRDS HABITAT 723 - Moe West Nile Virus Monitoring 59,008 8,000 8,000 SP:VOLUNTEER AQUATIC MONITORNG 9,102 - SP:MNR-Stream Training 15,124 - SP:MOE Bethic Algal Assessment 61,000 71,869 69,000 13% 8,000 SP:Duffins Heights Monitoring - SP:Nobleton Phosphorous Offset 15,607 29,000 29,000 SP:CALEDON EAST WATER TAKING 12,457 1,174,000 1,252,430 - - FUNDING SOURCES: - - Program/User fees 3,000 51,218 2,500 -17% (500) Reserves - Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 500 3,200 - -100% (500) Other-Municipal 2,500 9,000 260% 6,500 Other-Provincial 134,800 233,188 164,500 22% 29,700 Other-Federal 78,700 59,414 53,000 -33% (25,700) Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 10,500 (3,089) 61,000 481% 50,500 230,000 343,931 290,000 26% 60,000 Capital levy - - Peel 300,000 300,000 355,000 18% 55,000 York 300,000 300,000 315,000 5% 15,000 Durham 60,000 60,000 65,000 8% 5,000 Toronto 284,000 284,000 300,000 6% 16,000 Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel (8,875) 15,000 15,000 York (8,875) 15,000 15,000 Durham (8,875) 4,000 4,000 Toronto (8,875) 9,000 9,000 Adjala/Mono - - Deficit/(Surplus) - - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 10.1 8.4 (0.2) (1.7) Non-F/7 4.8 6.4 0.4 1.7 #of Sites Monitored 625 627 645 0 20 Completion #o Acres/Ha Inventoried 1,000 1,047 1,000 Completion #of WNV Sites Monitored 45 45 45 Completion - NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Update and maintenance of monitoring equipment and to facilitate additional monitoring sites. Cost Increases for lab analysis,materials and equipment and contract services 2010 Regional Monitoring&Living City Report Cards require more services/staff re:database development,data roll-up/analysis,reporting. Some changes to staff wages(reclassifications and incremental increases)will be addressed in 2010. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Addition of new projects/partnerships with MOE(WNV and Sportfish Contaminant Research) Some CF to support work extension into 2010(data analysis,sam legparation and reporting activiites) Some changes to staff wages(reclassifications and incremental in e II be addressed in 2010. TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 32 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Peel Water Mana emi 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Planning/Integration: Project Management-Subwatersheds 186,000 157,034 81,000 -56% (105,000) Surface Flow: Fluvial Geomorphology (24,000) - (24,000) Aquatic:Aquatic Systems Priority Planning 48,000 34,000 51,000 6% 3,000 Clmate Change (3,000) -100% 3,000 Regulation Line mapping Update Funding(120-12,14,19) 95,000 89,591 148,000 56% 53,000 326,000 280,625 256,000 -21% (70,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants Internal Capital lew Peel 255,000 255,000 175,000 -31% (80,000) York - Durham Toronto - Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel 71,000 29,625 81,000 14% 10,000 York Durham Toronto - Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (4,000) - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time Non-F/T #of Reg Maps under review 132 132 132 NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Less subwatershed planning. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 159 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 33 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: York Water Management 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. $CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Clmate Change Adaptation/Research 25,000 19,976 52,000 Planning/Integration: Project Management 76,000 67,943 39,000 -49% (37,000) Groundwater Flow Model Deveolpment 13,000 13,806 -100% (13,000) Surface Flow: Regulation Lines 110,000 101,554 144,000 31% 34,000 Headwaters Drainage Study 10,000 10,000 40,000 Sustainable Neighbourhood. Retrofit 135,000 71,651 194,000 44% 59,000 Sustainable Greenfields Development 50,000 -100% (50,000) Surface Water Q: Rural Water Q 13,000 113 13,000 Aquatic:All 53,000 53,363 36,000 -32% (17,000) 485,000 338,406 518,000 7% 33,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants Capital levy Peel - York 295,000 295,000 368,000 25% 73,000 Durham - Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York 190,000 43,406 150,000 -21% (40,000) Durham - Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) - IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.1 Non-F/T 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 #of maps under revision TBD TBD NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) More Headwaters funding from other sources for additional research and monitoring. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS The majority of the major over expenditures is offset by additional funding received during the year. Anticipated net expenditures will balance,with some CF's into 2010 for continuing deliverables. TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 34 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Durham Water Management 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Surface Water Q: SW Retrofit Opprtunites 15,000 95 15,000 Report Cards&other projects 54,000 24,362 30,000 -44% (24,000) Surface Flow:Stream Gauges 51,000 52,934 40,000 -22% (11,000) Aquatic: Durham Fish Plan 10,000 9,034 12,000 20% 2,000 Flood Warning Systems&Flood Control C< 7,000 7,000 Regulation Line Mapping Update 103,000 76,993 86,000 -17% (17,000) Durham Waterfront&Watershed Water Qu 15,000 7,398 30,000 100% 15,000 Clmate Change 50,000 - 50,000 255,000 170,816 270,000 6% 15,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 27,243 - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal 15,000 10,155 -100% (15,000) Other-Provincial - Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants - 15,000 37,398 -100% (15,000) Capital levy Peel - York - Durham 170,000 170,000 162,000 -5% (8,000) Toronto - Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York - Durham 70,000 (36,581) 108,000 54% 38,000 Toronto - Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 Non-F/T - #of Reg Maps under review 132 132 NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Funding will be CF to pay for consultant for Surface Water Funding to be spent on contracts for Surface Flow 161 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 34b GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Water Management only portion of Toronto Remedial Action Plan Project 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: WMan.: Planning&Integration 60,000 51,011 14,000 -77% (46,000) Water Balance 22,000 - 22,000 Sust. Neighbourhoods Retrofit Plan 95,000 37,803 139,000 46% 44,000 WMan.:Water Budgets 3,000 -100% (3,000) Highland Creek Valley&Stream Greening Program 89,000 7,491 105,000 18% 16,000 Reg Line Mapping,Growth Management 87,000 67,247 112,000 29% 25,000 WMan.: Riparian Zone Survey/Aquatic Priorities 34,000 34,000 26,000 -24% (8,000) WMan.:Climate Change 25,000 19,650 30,000 20% 5,000 393,000 217,202 448,000 14% 55,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants Capital levy Peel York Durham - Toronto 315,000 315,000 280,000 -11% (35,000) Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham - Toronto 78,000 (97,798) 168,000 115% 90,000 Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) - (0) IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.5 - 0.5 Non-F/T - #of Projects Initiated-SNAP 2 3 3 1 1 %Completion - #of Projects Complete-SNAP 2 - 2 %Completion - %Completion - NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Less watershed planning&more implementation like Sustainable Neighbourhoods retrofits. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS The majority of the major over expenditures is offset by additional funding received during the year. Anticipated net expenditures will balance. 162 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 35 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Water Cost Centres 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Planning/Integration: Humber Project Management 21,000 21,149 (500) -102% -21,500 Humber Water Budget - Planning/Integration:Watershed Plan Followup Studies/Implement 97,000 115,494 37,000 -62% (60,000) Water Management Guidelines 145,000 93,108 165,000 14% 20,000 Planning/Integration: Don Project Management 57,000 117,548 2,000 -96% (55,000) Planning/Integration: Duffins Carruthers Project Management 8,000 -100% (8,000) Planning/Integration: Etob-Mimico Project Management 214,000 139,197 75,000 -65% (139,000) Planning &Regulation Policy Updates 111,000 76,607 128,000 15% 17,000 Regulation Line Mapping Technical Updates 226,000 154,073 165,000 -27% (61,000) Don Watershed Policy 2,882 - Growth Management&Specialized Planning Studies 110,000 104,706 108,000 -2% (2,000) Groundwater: Watershed Plans 74,000 31,236 10,000 -86% (64,000) Low Flow Management 2,000 2,485 -100% (2,000) Surface Flow-Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment 6,180 13,000 - 13,000 Toronto Wet Weather: Sampling 51,000 152,351 129,000 153% 78,000 SP:T.O.WET WEATHER#2-REPAIRS 127,419 45,000 - 45,000 Petticoat Creek Watershed Plan 19,000 7,985 10,000 Assessment&Analysis For Permits to Take Water Erosion&Sediment(is 115-46 26,000 105,399 53,000 104% 27,000 Predictive Models of Land Use Impacts of Aquatic Resources 2,000 3,000 50% 1,000 Aq:Thermal Conditions 13,000 4,436 -100% (13,000) Aq:Don Fish Plan 13,000 42,638 11,000 -15% (2,000) Aq:Humber Fish Plan 2,000 15,218 -100% (2,000) Aq:GLSF Headwaters Drainage 6,000 -100% (6,000) Aquatic Systems Priority Planning 112,000 114,707 118,000 5% 6,000 Aq-ASPP:Fish Database Mgt. 6,833 - SP: Etobicoke Fish Plan Implementation 8,000 1,289 18,000 125% 10,000 Rouge Fish Plan 6,000 56,864 5,000 -17% (1,000) Terr:04 Don Natural cover - Climate Change Research&Adaptation 50,000 45,457 50,000 SP: Climate Change-IDF Curve Pilot Study 19,000 1,240 19,000 Flood Risk Assessment&Emergency Planning 90,000 90,000 Other:Trail Plans(from 12883,12214 (10,000) (10,000) Other-Archaelogical Investigation(From 128-84,122-15) 16,000 -100% (16,000) Other: Cultural Heritage Master Plan 39,000 40,963 52,000 33% 13,000 -40852 587,001 408,000 1% 5,000 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2009 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 35a GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Water Cost Centres 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 66,000 272,002 209,500 217% 143,500 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 6,000 (1,250) 4,000 -33% (2,000) Other-Municipal 91,000 50,694 36,000 -60% (55,000) Other-Provincial 64,500 63,043 65,500 2% 1,000 Other-Federal 162,500 141,646 75,000 -54% (87,500) Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 13,000 71,101 18,000 38% 5,000 403,000 597,236 408,000 1% 5,000 Capital levy Peel - York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York - Durham - Toronto (10,032) - Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (203) IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 8.2 6.2 (0.2) (2.0) Non-F/T 3.8 2.0 (0.5) (1.8) #of Watershed Plans Complete •Completion #of Water Management Guidelines/Studies in Progress 4 4 •Completion #of Water Management Guidelines/Studies Complete 3 %Completion NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Less Watershed Plan Intergration work because nearing completion. 2010 revenues/service level same as 2009 plus 2009 carryforwards to complete projects in 2010. Aquatics-less non-levy funding so scope reduced NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 120-07 Expect to be overspent, but will offset deficit with revenue from other watershed accounts The majority of the major over expenditures is offset by additional funding received during the year. Anticipated net expenditures will balance. 120-17-There are$13K projected actual expenditures offset by internal billing 164 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 35b GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: CTC Source Water Protection PI; 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: SOURCE PROT:MNR/CO BASE FUNDS 140,863 112,000 - 112,000 SOURCE PP:MNR/CO CONTINGENCY - CTC-GISMapping 24,000 44,224 17,000 -29% (7,000) CTC TERMS OF REFERENCE - CTC Assessment Report 75,000 76,496 18,000 -76% (57,000) CTC:SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN 122,000 - 122,000 CTC:TIER 3 HALTON WATER BUDGET 900,000 - CTC;CVC Transfer 517,655 212,000 - 212,000 CTC:CLOCA Transfer 275,466 289,000 - 289,000 CTC Communications(Was 121-70 changed May 11/07) 334,000 42% 99,000 Water Budget Peer Review(Was 121-52 changed May 11/07) 250,000 44,455 -100% (250,000) Source Protection Committee(Was 121-28 changed May11/07) 67,000 69,226 111,000 66% 44,000 SPP:L.Ontario Collaboration(Was 121-63 changed May 11/07) 129,000 111,856 18,000 -86% (111,000) CTC Project Management 203,000 129,550 165,000 -19% (38,000) SPP TRCA PROJ.MANGMENT(C121-91 55 - CTC Technical Support 91,000 77,692 123,000 35% 32,000 CTC Admin.Support 75,000 64,384 65,000 -13% (10,000) SPP:TRCA ADMIN.SUPPORT 21,025 - SPP:TRCA ADMIN SUPPORT 424 - Work Directly carried out by TRCA: - TRCA Project Management 393,000 134,625 121,000 -69% (272,000) SP:WATER Q-SWAMP.TO 115-39 - SPP:PRELIM.WATERSH.CHARACTERZN - Durham Integrated Plan 27,000 27,035 27,000 Durham Integrated Plan 35,000 39,334 46,000 31% 11,000 SPP:Preliminary Water Budget 78,048 150,000 - 150,000 SPP:CTC COMMUNICATIONS C12114 SPP TRCA PROJ.MANGMENT(C121-91 55 - CTC Technical Support 91,000 77,692 123,000 35% 32,000 CTC Admin.Support 75,000 64,384 65,000 -13% (10,000) SPP:TRCA ADMIN.SUPPORT 21,025 - SPP:TRCA ADMIN SUPPORT 424 - Work Directly carried out by TRCA: - TRCA Project Management 393,000 134,625 121,000 -69% (272,000) SP:WATER Q-SWAMP.TO 115-39 - SPP:PRELIM.WATERSH.CHARACTERZN - Durham Integrated Plan 27,000 27,035 27,000 Durham Integrated Plan 35,000 39,334 46,000 31% 11,000 SPP:Preliminary Water Budget 78,048 150,000 - 150,000 SPP:CTC COMMUNICATIONS C12114 - TRCA Technical Support(121-23) 48,000 39,367 23,000 -52% (25,000) GIS Mapping 60,000 - 60,000 TRCA Admin.Support 25,000 69,000 176% 44,000 SPP:WATER BUDGET FIELDWORK - FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings 26,678 - CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal - Other-Provincial 1,677,000 2,891,692 2,082,000 24% 405,000 Other-Federal - Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Private - 1,677,000 2,918,370 2,082,000 24% 405,000 Capital levy Peel - York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel - York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono - Deficit/(Surplus) 0 IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 6.1 2.0 5.8 Non-F/T 4.0 0.2 #of SPC meetings 10 10 10 Completion 1 1 1 #of Public Consulting Meetings 10 10 10 Completion 1 1 1 #of Assessment Reports 3 3 3 Com letion 1 0 1 NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Up due to anticipated completion of the 3 Assessment Reports and the corresponding public consultation. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Surplus in budget due to outstanding obligations in Q4(to be completed in 2010). $ 0 0 or alton Tier 3 Water Budget work not included in original budget/revenue estimates. Surchar TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 36 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Floodplain Mapping Program 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Project Management - Etobicoke-Mimico Flood Plain Mapping 15,000 15,377 -100% (15,000) Mimico:Hydraulics/Floodline Update 24,000 25,000 4% 1,000 Frenchmans B:Hydrology Update - Core Flood Plain Mapping Program 268,000 208,014 350,000 31% 82,000 307,000 223,391 375,000 22% 68,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants Capital levy Peel 60,000 60,000 165,000 175% 105,000 York 60,000 60,000 60,000 Durham 20,000 20,000 20,000 Toronto 60,000 60,000 50,000 -17% (10,000) Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel 62,000 23,750 40,000 -35% (22,000) York 20,000 4,637 18,000 -10% (2,000) Durham 9,000 (6,022) 7,000 -22% (2,000) Toronto 16,000 1,028 15,000 -6% -1,000 Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (2) IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.3 0.25 Non-F/T #of Flood Plain Maps Maintained 679 754 754 %Completion #of Flood Plain Map Updates Complete 2 75 75 %Completion NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) 2010 revenues and level of service same as 2009.Carry over from 2009 to complete mapping in 2010. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS CF needed for projects that have deliverables carrying into 2010,Updated hydrologic/hydraulic models and flood line mapping,including all supporting documentation for site specific areas within all TRCA watersheds. 166 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 37 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: York/Peel/Durham/Toronto Groundwater 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Groundwater Studies 776,000 564,061 712,000 -8% (64,000) 776,000 564,061 712,000 -8% (64,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants Capital lew Peel 125,000 125,000 125,000 York 125,000 125,000 125,000 Durham 125,000 125,000 125,000 Toronto 125,000 125,000 125,000 Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel 69,000 16,015 53,000 -23% (16,000) York 69,000 16,015 53,000 -23% (16,000) Durham 69,000 16,015 53,000 -23% (16,000) Toronto 69,000 16,015 53,000 -23% (16,000) Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (0) IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time Non-F/T #of Water Resource Management Reports 4 4 %Completion - #of Technical Papers at Conferences 1 2 1 1 NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Caryforward to 2010 for deliverables attached to model applications and peer review NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Consultant contracts will not be complete in 2009-232k to CF to 2010 for deliverables attached to model applications and peer review 167 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 38 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Terrestrial Natural Heritage 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET Dec.YTD Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program 484,000 451,838 582,000 20% 98,000 Pickering Terrestrial Natural Heritage - Sp:Research Aqua/Terr.Study 13,000 391 12,000 -8% (1,000) New: Roads&Wildlife Analysis 50,000 - 50,000 497,000 452,230 644,000 30% 147,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 60,000 30,000 60,000 Other-Municipal 40,000 - 40,000 Other-Provincial 16,000 18,895 28,000 75% 12,000 Other-Federal 16,000 10,944 28,000 75% 12,000 Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 13,000 391 21,000 62% 8,000 105,000 60,230 177,000 69% 72,000 Capital levy Peel 121,000 121,000 190,000 57% 69,000 York 121,000 121,000 127,000 5% 6,000 Durham 50,000 50,000 50,000 Toronto 100,000 100,000 100,000 Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) 0 - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 Non-F/T 1.8 3.0 0.7 1.2 Facilities:#Buildings/Sq.footage n/a n/a n/a - #of Reports Completed 8 %Completion #of Reports in Progress 7 1,000 1,000 %Completion %Completion NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) 2010 funding is at the same level as 2009,service levels will also remain the same as in 2010. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Money to cover carry over into 2010 to cover cost of deliverables(Recovery Planning )to be finished in March 168 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 39 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Toronto Remedial Action Plan Project-Regeneration items 2009 2009 2,010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Etobicoke:Etobicoke Mimico HIP 28,000 28,000 29,000 4% 1,000 All Toronto Plant Projs 6,000 35,000 25,000 317% 19,000 Don:Don HIP Funds 55,000 76,791 66,000 20% 11,000 Etobicoke:Reid Manor's Woodland Park 4,409 89,000 - 89,000 Humber:Eglinton Flats Pond 7,000 3,116 4,000 -43% (3,000) Humber:Community Env.Projects 28,000 26,711 36,000 29% 8,000 Etobicoke:South Mimico Barrier Mitigation 68,000 3,056 75,000 10% 7,000 WF:Toronto Islands Beach Restoration Projects 15,000 8,151 7,000 -53% (8,000) Humber:Marshes Pike Habitat 6,000 6,426 -100% (6,000) Rouge Watershed Plan Implementation 49,000 84,372 43,000 -12% (6,000) Project Management 112,000 21,000 -81% (91,000) Canada Goose Management 25,000 24,790 30,000 20% 5,000 WF:Waterfront ORM Migratory Bird/Waterfowl 30,000 23,226 20,000 -33% (10,000) Waterfront:Habitat Implementation 75,000 78,213 82,000 9% 7,000 Humber:Habitat Implementation Plan 46,000 46,000 48,000 4% 2,000 Etobicoke:South Mimico Community Action Site 10,000 3,543 17,000 70% 7,000 Etobicoke:Toronto Golf Club Barrier Mitigation 30,000 1,152 29,000 -3% (1,000) Humber:ILC/Claireville Reservoir 13,000 4,463 9,000 -31% (4,000) Etobicoke:Etobicoke Mimico Community Env.Projects 20,000 20,000 20,000 Etobicoke:Riparian Zone Restoration Strategy 23,000 10,322 23,000 Humber:Lower Humber Weir Mitigation 54,000 6,232 48,000 -11% (6,000) T.O.WATER:SUST.NE IGHBOUR(12805 Moved to 126-56,Don:Community Environmental Proj. 20,000 -100% (20,000) 720,000 493,971 721,000 0% 1,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 15,000 8,226 -100% (15,000) Other-Municipal 21,000 22,577 7,000 -67% (14,000) Other-Provincial - Other-Federal 1,283 Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 20,704 36,000 52,790 7,000 -81% (29,000) Capital levy Peel - York Durham - Toronto 486,000 476,000 423,000 -13% (63,000) Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham - Toronto 198,000 (34,819) 291,000 47% 93,000 Adjala/Mono - (0) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 Non-F!f 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 Facilities:#Buildings/Sq.footage n/a n/a n/a - #of trees/shrubs planted #of metres of riparian habitat restored #of clients served NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excludina inflation/COLA) Lower Toronto Capital funds for projects NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Don HIP,Toronto Golf Club&Lower Humber Barrier Mitigation will have carry foldE6egpproval delays TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 40 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Peel Natural Heritage Pro'ect 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Regeneration: Project Management Humber:West Humber Valley&Stream Regeneration 56,000 33,060 123,000 120% 67,000 Humber:Peel Community Enviro.Enhancement Proj. 26,000 25,232 42,000 62% 16,000 Humber:Claireville Restoration 59,000 32,584 63,000 7% 4,000 Humber:Indian Line Claireville Reservoir Naturalization 27,000 18,119 9,000 -67% (18,000) Humber:Bolton Action Site 10,000 14,647 -100% (10,000) Humber: Caledon East Community Action Site 50,000 40,531 9,000 -82% (41,000) Humber:HIP Funds 76,000 76,000 79,000 4% 3,000 Etobicoke:Pratt&Whitney Renaturalization 4,000 7,778 -100% (4,000) Etobicoke:Heart Lake Naturalization 23,000 22,701 10,000 -57% (13,000) Etobicoke:Habitat Implementation Funds 54,000 23,185 86,000 59% 32,000 Etobicoke Mimico Conservation Forests 30,000 33,090 34,000 13% 4,000 Etobicoke Mimico Riparian Zone Restoration Strategy Funds 23,000 10,331 20,000 -13% (3,000) Etobicoke:Snelgrove master Plan 15,000 6,253 8,000 -47% (7,000) Arsenal Lands Park Development 132,000 38,394 95,000 -28% (37,000) Etobicoke:West Etobicoke Creek Regeneration 94,000 22,202 132,000 40% 38,000 Etobicoke:Valleywood Restoration 3,000 3,452 -100% (3,000) Etobicoke:Etob./Mimico Commun.Env.Proj. 20,000 20,000 20,000 Etobicoke:Peel Village GC Riparian Restoration 21,000 16,101 25,000 19% 4,000 Etobicoke:Malton ESP 40,000 52,307 26,000 -35% (14,000) Mimico:Upper Mimico Crk Habitat Restoration 47,000 46,331 70,000 49% 23,000 Humber:Oak Ridges Moraine CPA2 237,000 238,685 156,000 -34% (81,000) Multi W:Canada Goose Mngt. 19,000 18,200 39,000 105% 20,000 Multi W:Managing Hazard Trees-Peel 20,000 2,145 28,000 40% 8,000 Regen.Projects Database Mngt 5,000 5,000 -100% (5,000) Peel All Plant Projs Funding 168,000 181,879 185,000 10% 17,000 1,259,000 988,209 1,259,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 784 1,000 - 1,000 Reserves Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 4,000 15,819 10,000 150% 6,000 Other-Municipal - Other-Provincial - Other-Federal 2,000 (1,000) 3,000 50% 1,000 Other-Donations/Fundraising 500 - Other-Non-Government Grants 22,000 19,507 (1,000) -105% (23,000) 28,000 35,609 13,000 -54% (15,000) Capital levy Peel 985,000 985,000 929,000 -6% (56,000) York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel 246,000 (32,087) 317,000 29% 71,000 York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (313) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 1.2 0.8 -0.3 -0.4 Non-FFF 1.2 1.3 0.1 0.1 #of trees/shrubs planted n/a n/a - #of metres of riparian habitat restored #of clients served NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Lower Peel funding NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Sept.22/09 West Etob Creek generously providing a large surplus Chandra Sep22/09:For account 112-54,wqe are partnering with the City of Missisuaga on this project. TRCA is designing and constructing a trail near Courtney Park,the city is supplying the funds in 2010(approx$170,000)for trail construction and TRCA is contributing funds towards restoration work as TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 41 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: York Natural Heritage Project 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Regeneration: Project Management - Obsolete See 126-52,York:All Education Projs Funding 4,000 -100% (4,000) Canada Goose Management Funding 7,000 7,000 14,000 100% 7,000 Humber:Granger Greenway 10,000 175,372 15,000 50% 5,000 Humber: Lake Wilcox CAS 77,000 94,883 17,000 -78% (60,000) Humber:York Community Environmental Enhancement Projects 25,000 20,581 59,000 136% 34,000 Humber:Humber HIP 38,000 38,000 40,000 5% 2,000 Humber: Eaton Hall Wetland 11,000 6,563 10,000 -9% (1,000) Humber:Woodbridge Expansion Area 25,000 6,566 18,000 -28% (7,000) Don:B.Smith Greenway Outreach TRCA 16,000 6,848 24,000 50% 8,000 Don:Richmond Hill Riparian 11,000 16,480 22,000 100% 11,000 Don:Don HIP 27,000 27,000 28,000 4% 1,000 SP:Rouge Park/Bob Clay Support 70,000 - 70,000 Rouge:Milne Park Restoration 10,000 -100% (10,000) Rouge:Rouge Watershed Plan Implementation 50,000 72,349 42,000 -16% (8,000) Rouge:R.Hill Riparian Planting 11,000 11,577 26,000 136% 15,000 Duffins:Stouffville Greenways 121,000 1,965 103,000 -15% (18,000) Reforestation/Plant Propagation 113,000 85,862 87,000 -23% (26,000) Managing Hazard Trees-York 8,000 3,608 33,000 313% 25,000 Rouge:York Children's Water Festival 33,000 30,924 38,000 15% 5,000 597,000 605,579 646,000 8% 49,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 141,162 5,000 - 5,000 Reserves Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 6,000 1,563 5,000 -17% (1,000) Other-Municipal 75,000 3,153 97,000 29% 22,000 Other-Provincial 2,125 - Other-Federal 2,125 Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 10,000 4,232 70,000 600% 60,000 91,000 154,360 177,000 95% 86,000 Capital levy Peel - York 458,000 458,000 427,000 -7% (31,000) Durham - Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York 48,000 (6,671) 42,000 -13% (6,000) Durham - Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/( urplus) (110) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.3 1.0 2.6 0.7 Non-F/T 0.3 -1.0 -0.3 #of trees/shrubs planted - #of metres of riparian habitat restored #of clients served NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLAI Maintained 2009 level of York funding NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Higher revenues for Granger Greenway due to funding by City of Vaughan for trail work Stouffville Greenway on hold due to Whitchurch Stouffville staff turnover and proposed wetland now a lower priority with the Towr York Capital for Stouffville Greenway moved to partner with City of Vaughan funding at Granger Greenwa). 171 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 42 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Durham Natural Heritage Project 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Watershed Trail Planning - Watershed Trail Implementation 60,000 78,089 55,000 -8% (5,000) Duffins: Fish Plan Implementation 51,000 67,032 36,000 -29% (15,000) TNH Implementation 46,000 47,112 42,000 -9% (4,000) Durham-Managing Hazard Trees 58,000 18,678 20,000 -66% (38,000) Durham Goose Management 6,000 6,000 7,000 17% 1,000 SP:SPECIES@RISK-GLEN MAJOR/WLK 30,497 - Seaton Trail#1:Planning 53,812 22,000 22,000 Seaton-Green River Trailhead 34,043 6,000 6,000 Seaton Trail-Forestream Rd Trailhead 52,972 7,000 7,000 Seaton Trail-Whitevale Trailhead 4,000 4,000 Seaton Trail#5:lmprovements 32,864 159,000 159,000 Seaton Trail#6:Site Securement 3,585 30,000 30,000 Seaton Trail#7:Nat.Heritage Regeneration 225,000 225,000 Seaton Trail-Signage 79 17,000 17,000 Seaton Trail-Community Outreach 28,000 28,000 Seaton Trail#10:Proj.Management 7,520 102,000 102,000 221,000 432,283 760,000 244% 539,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/Userfees 1,126 2,000 - 2,000 Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 24,089 Other-Municipal Other-Provincial 204,717 600,000 600,000 Other-Federal 4,000 Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 14,000 28,922 -100% (14,000) 14,000 262,854 602,000 4200% 588,000 Capital levy Peel York Durham 165,000 165,000 158,000 4% (7,000) Toronto - Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York Durham 42,000 3,796 -100% (42,000) Toronto - Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) 632 - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.9 1.3 0.4 0.4 Non-F/T 1.9 2.6 0.4 0.7 Facilities:#Buildings/Sq.footage n/a n/a n/a - #of trees/shrubs planted #of metres of riparian habitat restored #of clients served NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA Provincial funds approved for the Seaton Trails Project NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS All Durham capital projects were completed as planned Received provincial funds for the Seaton Trails Project Received MNR and CFGT funds for Species at Risk Glen Major Projecl TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 42b GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Regeneration Cost Centres 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Geese Management 70,000 78,760 91,000 30% 21,000 Habitat For Wildlife 15,000 16,048 18,000 20% 3,000 Etobicoke Mimico HIP 82,000 51,185 115,000 40% 33,000 Don River Watershed HIP 116,000 103,791 94,000 -19% (22,000) Etob Mimico Riparian Zone Restoration Strategy 52,000 25,900 56,000 8% 4,000 Etobicoke Mimico Community Environmental Project: 35,000 63,134 46,000 31% 11,000 Humber River HIP 178,000 183,297 168,000 -6% (10,000) Indian Line Campground Claireville Reservoir Naturalizatioi 40,000 22,193 18,000 -55% (22,000) Private#2:Planting Projects Recoveries to 116/126-65 Cost Centre: 54,000 82,668 91,000 69% 37,000 Reforestation-TRCALands 34,000 34,469 38,000 12% 4,000 Plant Propagation to 125s Cost Centre 112,000 86,922 77,000 -31% (35,000) Planting#3:Private Land Tree/Shrub: 44,000 -100% (44,000) Peel Forest Management 23,000 22,979 24,000 4% 1,000 Private Land#1 Stewardship 45,000 45,515 50,000 11% 5,000 Project Database Mngt 52,000 21,228 (6,000) -112% (58,000) CPWSM Grants Program 114,251 296,000 - 296,000 RAP MOU Grants Program 736,775 533,000 533,000 Capital Staff Capital Staff Pool 2 Eastville Equipment Recoveries Habitat Monitoring Equipment Recoveries 0 Habitat Monitoring Cell Phone Recoveries TTP-Filming/Special Revenues 9,000 12,777 3,000 -67% (6,000) Density Bonus Program 43,763 79,000 - 79,000 Density Bonus Program 279,000 43,763 79,000 - 79,000 Environmental Services-Municipa 279,000 46,882 210,000 -25% (69,000) Environmental Services-Other 755,000 1,798,346 1,571,000 108% 816,000 Asian Longhorn Beetle Program 542,000 359,032 333,000 -39% (209,000) 1c)Internal Municipa (776,508) Covered by other Capital projects (940,000) (878,000) -7% 62,000 1,597,000 3,173,406 3,027,000 90% 1,430,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 658,000 1,565,825 1,443,000 119% 785,000 Reserves 2,228 - Interest Earnings 277 - CFGT-Flowthrough 137,000 163,268 143,000 4% 6,000 Other-Municipal 222,000 186,696 247,000 11% 25,000 Other-Provincial 12,000 455,949 273,000 2175% 261,000 Other-Federal 568,000 770,940 858,000 51% 290,000 Other-Donations/Fundraisinc - Other-Non-Government Grants 161,355 63,000 63,000 1,597,000 3,306,540 3,027,000 90% 1,430,000 Capital levy Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (133,134) - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 14.9 17.0 0.1 2.1 Non-F/T 8.2 6.3 -0.2 -1.8 #of trees/shrubs planted TBD TBD - #of metres of riparian habitat restored TBD TBD #of clients served TBD TBD NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) More Environmental Special Projects(non capital levy funding):$400 Chingacousy park NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS W.Etobicoke Crk will have carry forward funds to match City of Missisauga funds in 201 f Lower Humber Mitigation to carry forwards due to project delays in design&approval; More revenues from C of Vaughan for Granger Greenway Trai Stouffville Greenway Trail did not proceed,new project to be developed with T of Mitch-Stouffvilk 173 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 43 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Projects 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Erosion:Planning&Design 103,000 98,283 115,000 12% 12,000 Eastville Office 30,000 38,030 30,000 Erosion Control Planning 33,000 26,405 40,000 21% 7,000 Guildwood Parkway 110,000 122,086 -100% (110,000) Monitoring&Maintenance:WF 337,000 303,095 266,000 -21% (71,000) Don Mills York Mills Channel Repairs 471 - Wilket Creek Restoration 81,299 288,000 - 288,000 Guild Morningside Shoreline Protection 402,000 242,652 -100% (402,000) Chas Sauriol-Concrete Repair 120,000 278,385 -100% (120,000) 1900 Bayview Ave Slope Stabilization 1,000 1,776 -100% (1,000) Leslie&Steeles Retaining Wall Replacement 23,207 - Meadowcliffe Drive 370,000 154,417 508,000 37% 138,000 Springbank Ave_ 4,000 2,118 2,000 -50% (2,000) Toronto Islands-Gilbraltor Point 7,000 52,233 380,000 5329% 373,000 Birkdale Ravine 9,000 9,000 Toronto Parks Sites 190,000 93,549 180,000 -5% (10,000) 4-8 Atwood Place 37,348 - TORONTO PARKS:MORNINGSIDE PARK 25,041 - Mud Creek Erosion 13,496 - Toronto Parks Sites - Toronto Emergency-345 Riverview 10,000 484 8,000 -20% (2,000) T.O.Emergncy:Morningside Bridge 989 - Guild Inn Shoreline 215,000 249,991 -100% (215,000) Highland CN Bridge Revetment 24,000 24,000 Colonel Danforth 121-129 32,000 -100% (32,000) 16-18 Hardwood Gate 2,000 -100% (2,000) Military Trail 21,000 21,000 Toronto Parks Storm Damage Program 441,000 21,573 263,000 -40% (178,000) T.O.Parks:Edwards Garden 105,000 18,206 -100% (105,000) T.O.Storm City-Wide Bridges 211,093 - T.O.Storm:North City Trails 12,076 T.O.Storm South City Trails 6,177 T.O.Storm:East City Trails 7,093 T.O.Storm:9-11 Copeland Ave. 25,562 42,000 - 42,000 Toronto Islands Marina Seawall Repairs 7,864 593,000 - 593,000 Toronto Nursery Relocation 300,000 - 300,000 Chesteron Shores Outfall 122,000 - 122,000 Toronto Parks-Additional Sites 347,000 18,824 238,000 -31% (109,000) TO.PRKS EC#2:WOODSWORTH RAVINE 72,979 - T.O.Parks EC#2:Brooks Park 24,540 - T.O.PARKS EC#2:WIGMORE PARK 2,492 SP TORONTO EC-VYNER ROAD 34,605 - Bluffer's Park Dredging 625 - SPECIAL T.O.EC-21 SUNNYBRAE CR 13,706 T.O.Parks - 195 Hudson Drive Slope Repair 1,000 1,000 8 Lakeside Ave Slope Failure 2,000 4,036 -100% (2,000) 30-48 Royal Rouge Trail 190,000 79,449 300,000 58% 110,000 Toronto Emergency-Taylor Creek 4,000 4,362 -100% (4,000) Erosion Control Major Maintenance 294,000 - 294,000 3,110,000 2,414,751 4,024,000 29% 914,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 750,000 890,403 2,227,000 197% 1,477,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal 576,000 4,378 19,000 -97% (557,000) Other-Provincial 152,000 187,771 -100% (152,000) Other-Federal - Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 47,000 45,000 4% (2,000) 1,525,000 1,082,552 2,291,000 50% 766,000 Capital levy Peel - York Durham - Toronto 1,446,000 1,446,000 1,480,000 2% 34,000 Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York Durham Toronto 139,000 (113,891) 253,000 82% 114,000 Adjala/Mono - Deficit/(Surplus) 90 - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 12.8 12.8 0.0 0.0 Non-F/T 52 52 Facilities:#Buildings/Sq.footage ma ma ma - #of metres of erosion work under way TBD TBD - NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA More special non-levy funded erosion work for Toronto Works&Parks anticipated. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS There have been additional special projects funded by the City of Toronto eg 21 Sunnybrae Meadowcliffe,Royal Rouge and Guild Inn projects had scheduling delays whIS4 re T ronto Capital funds to be carry forward to 201C Valley and Shoreline Monitoring&Maintenance budget was over spent to com tete mergency erosion control sites TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 44 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Other Erosion Control Projects 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: York Region Erosion Monitoring &Maintenance 106,000 103,834 131,000 24% 25,000 Peel Region Erosion Monitoring&Maintenance 120,000 128,929 122,000 2% 2,000 SP: Ladies Golf Club(Markham) - Durham Region Erosion Monitoring&Maintenance 13,000 12,993 12,000 -8% (1,000) 239,000 245,756 265,000 11% 26,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants Capital levy Peel 120,000 120,000 130,000 8% 10,000 York 130,000 130,000 130,000 Durham 10,000 10,000 12,000 20% 2,000 Toronto - Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel 8,929 (8,000) - (8,000) York (24,000) (26,166) 1,000 -104% 25,000 Durham 3,000 2,993 -100% (3,000) Toronto - Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time Under T.O. Erosion Under T.O. Erosion Non-F/T Under T.O. Erosion Under T.O. Erosion #of metres of erosion work under way TBD TBD NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Slightly more funding in 2010. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS $1,700 carry forward in York Region allocated for plantings in spring of 2010 $8,900 receivable setup in Peel Region 175 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 45 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: City of Toronto Waterfront Pro'ect 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Waterfront Administration 65,000 62,770 95,000 46% 30,000 Eastville Office 20,000 26,483 16,000 -20% (4,000) Ashbridge's Bay Dredging 228,000 27,846 363,000 59% 135,000 Scarborough Shoreline Protection&Public Access 51,000 - 51,000 Long Range Waterfront Planning 150,000 167,623 174,000 16% 24,000 Keating Channel Dredging 291,000 308,764 270,000 -7% (21,000) Keating Channel#1 Env.Monitoring 43,000 45,518 36,000 -16% (7,000) Keating Channel#2 Auditing 2,283 5,000 - 5,000 TTP-Cell 1 Capping 60,000 34,771 200,000 233% 140,000 Tommy Thompson-Int.Mgt. 183,000 197,211 218,000 19% 35,000 TTP-Cormorant Mngt 8,335 - Arsenal Lands Park Development 674,000 3,656 1,078,000 60% 404,000 Arsenal Long Term Monitoring 30,000 11,099 20,000 -33% (10,000) Environmental Monitoring 180,000 208,639 207,000 15% 27,000 MNR-Fish Community Toronto AOC 7,000 -100% (7,000) Waterfront G.I.S. 25,000 25,000 25,000 SP:HABT.ALTERATION ASSESS.TOOL 6,674 - SP:INTEGRITY INDEX/TO.TRAWLING 15,000 SP:SHORELINE LAND USE SURVEY 13,226 - SP:Electro-fish Subcontracts 5,000 4,176 -100% (5,000) SP:DFO Sea Lamprey Control Proj. 9,000 11,386 25,000 178% 16,000 Covered from other Projects (1,215) 1,970,000 1,179,246 2,783,000 41% 813,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/Userfees 12,000 135,892 25,000 108% 13,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings 1,633 CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal (85,000) - Other-Provincial 7,000 24,786 -100% (7,000) Other-Federal 9,000 19,709 25,000 178% 16,000 Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 458,000 125,145 752,000 64% 294,000 486,000 222,166 802,000 65% 316,000 Capital lev Peel - York Durham - Toronto 1,283,000 1,283,000 1,454,000 13% 171,000 Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York Durham Toronto 201,000 (325,919) 527,000 162% 326,000 Adjala/Tos - Deficit/(Surplus) (1) - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 6.6 6.8 0.0 0.3 Non-F/T 3.7 3.8 0.0 0.1 Facilities:#Buildings/Sq.footage 1 (1) (1) Keating Channel Dredging cubic metres 39,500 39,400 35,000 0 (4,500) Ashbridges Bay Dredging cubic metres tbd - TTP Event attendance 2,400 2,400 2,400 TTP Cleanup cubic metres 500 500 500 #of active projects 14 18 18 #of completed projects 3 NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Ashbriges'Bay Dredging and Arsenal lands work carried into 2010. Pursuing more non levy funding eg DFO NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Decision not to dredge at Ashbridge's Bay Coatsworth Cut in 2009-carry forward funds to 2010 Environmental Monitoring was over spent;less funds in 2010 Tommy Thompson Park Cell 1&2 underspent but used in 2010 for continued planA,monitoring and implementation There were several non levy special projects in 2010 eg Sea Lamprey wort wit TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 46 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Region Of Durham Waterfront Project 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: OPG Naturalization 50,000 17,819 30,000 (0) (20,000) Frenchman's Bay Restoration Management Plan 10,000 3,451 10,000 SP:AJAX ROTARY PRK:DRAINAGE 18,389 - 252,000 434,675 299,000 0 47,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 224,197 48,000 - 48,000 Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal 50,000 35,315 40,000 (0) (10,000) Other-Provincial - Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 60,000 61,756 40,000 (0) (20,000) 110,000 321,268 128,000 0 18,000 Capital lew Peel - York Durham 145,000 145,000 171,000 0 26,000 Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel York - Durham (3,000) (2,558) (1) 3,000 Toronto - Adjala/Tos Deficit/(Surplus) (29,035) - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION: Staff FTEs-Full-time Under T.O.Waterfront T.O.Waterfront Non-F/T Under T.O.Waterfront T.O.Waterfront #of Waterfront monitoring sites #of active projects 12 12 12 #of completed projects 1 1 4 3 3 NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Expenditures up re:more Durham funding and non-levy sources work in Pickering. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Additional funding received from the City of Pickering for Shoreline Improvements and EA/Consultants for the Pickering Harbor Entrance OPG Naturalization,an OPG funded project will have carry forward funds due to shortfall in overall funding to commence the proposed project. 177 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 47 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Waterfront Revitilization Corporation Projects 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project 4,182,000 2,420,101 3,111,000 -25.6% (1,071,000) Mimico Waterfront Linear Park 4,343,000 138,913 4,773,000 9.9% 430,000 Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Implementation 3,863,000 1,345,520 3,748,000 -3.0% (115,000) Western Beaches Watercourse Facility 161,000 35,814 96,000 -40.4% (65,000) T.O.Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration(WAS 251-22) 100,000 90,000 -10.0% (10,000) Covered from other Capital Projects 12,649,000 3,940,348 11,884,000 -6.0% (765,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal 1,870 Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 12,649,000 3,940,947 11,884,000 -6.0% (765,000) 12,649,000 3,942,817 11,884,000 -6.0% (765,000) Capital levy Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Tos Deficit/(Surplus) (2,469) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 12.8 12.1 (0.1) (0.8) Non-F/T 3.6 3.9 0.1 0.4 #of metres of shoreline stregthened TBD TBD - #hectares of land created TBD TBD NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Projects proceeding on schedule NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Western Beaches-Project substantially complete,only monitoring and fish compensation activities remain-Complete Mar 31,2010 Tommy Thompson Park-Project schedule delayed-project completion now March 2011 Mimico Park-Phase 1 -Phase 2 construction is expected to begin in July 2010(acquisition already underway) Port Union-Phase 2 in progress TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 48 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Humber Bay Shores Waterfront Park 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Humber Bay Shores 3,000,000 -100% (3,000,000) ETOB.MOTEL:EXPROP./MEDIATION 1,250,435 - Etobicoke Motel Strip Expropriation/Mediation 100,000 100,000 3,000,000 1,250,435 100,000 -97% (2,900,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal 1,500,000 625,217 50,000 -97% (1,450,000) Other-Provincial 1,500,000 625,217 50,000 -97% (1,450,000) Other-Federal - Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 3,000,000 1,250,435 100,000 -97% (2,900,000) Capital levy Peel - York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Tos Deficit/(Surplus) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time Non-F/T #of Expropriations still pending 2 partial 2 NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Continued mediation and expropriation costs NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Expropraiations not completed 179 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 49 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Stewardship Community Programs 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Regeneration: Project Management 5,000 8,086 6,000 20% 1,000 Family Nature Events 44,000 44,820 37,000 -16% (7,000) Waterfront Community Outreach 17,000 10,521 29,000 71% 12,000 Stew:Highland Community OutreacV 56,000 63,022 52,000 -7% (4,000) Community Outreach Stewardship Program(Formerly Multicultural Environ.StE 105,000 111,757 74,000 -30% (31,000) Don Watershed Community Stewardship Projects 10,000 17,033 13,000 30% 3,000 Port Union Stewardship 17,000 16,153 15,000 -12% (2,000) Port Union Eco Action 29,000 27,652 -100% (29,000) STEW:WETLANDS FOR WILDLIFE Stewardship Forum 2,000 5,330 -100% (2,000) Stew:SP-Ecoaction:Don R Waterwise 4,197 14,000 - 14,000 ORM Community Development:Ecologisl 1,000 2,657 7,000 600% 6,000 ORM#7-CPA 2&11 Land Ownership 22,000 13,763 -100% (22,000) Rural Clean Water Program 126,000 183,485 145,000 15% 19,000 CURB 8,000 8,180 -100% (8,000) Stew/Rural:Healthy Farm/Horses 7,616 6,000 - 6,000 Source Protection-Early Action 244,000 155,936 587,000 141% 343,000 Agricultural Non Point SourcE - Stew:Petticoat HW-Eco Action 3,000 23,180 (5,000) -267% (8,000) Stew:Petticoat Headwaters 1,000 10,289 -100% (1,000) Healthy Yards 88,000 90,549 85,000 -3% (3,000) Duff ins Stewardship 53,000 38,480 57,000 8% 4,000 EcoAction:Ajax Community Greeninc 2,000 2,000 STEWARDSHIP:MANAGEMENT COSTS 1,251 - ORM Foundation Tool Kit(GW) 5,000 6,000 20% 1,000 Peel Children's Water Festival(VD) 48,000 47,161 43,000 -10% (5,000) Source Protection Outreach 8,000 55,640 4,000 -50% (4,000) Obsolete:Peel Stewardship fundinc 154,000 -100% (154,000) Obsolete:Toronto Stewardship Fundinc 137,000 -100% (137,000) Obsolete:Stewardship:York Fundinc 66,000 -100% (66,000) Obsolete:Durham Stewardship fundinc 45,000 40,000 -11% (5,000) Portion covered by transfers from funding sources (465,000) -100% 465,000 831,000 946,757 1,217,000 46% 386,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/Userfees 4,000 21,312 -100% (4,000) Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 75,000 86,283 36,000 -52% (39,000) Other-Municipal 9,000 9,205 -100% (9,000) Other-Provincial 284,000 244,161 141,500 -50% (142,500) Other-Federal 52,000 68,018 508,500 878% 456,500 Other-Donations/Fundraisinc 2,514 - Non-Government Grants 5,000 47,079 6,000 20% 1,000 429,000 478,571 692,000 61% 263,000 Capital lew Peel 154,000 195,377 201,000 31% 47,000 York 66,000 66,000 75,000 14% 9,000 Durham 45,000 45,000 45,000 Toronto 137,000 147,000 157,000 15% 20,000 Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel 4,105 (5,000) - (5,000) York Durham (4,191) 45,000 45,000 Toronto 14,852 7,000 7,000 Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) 43 NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 5.7 4.9 (0.1) (0.8) Non-F/T 7.0 7.4 0.1 0.4 #workshops hosted 23 23 23 #volunteers involved 2,500 2,500 2,500 #restoration sites 9 9 9 #brochures and advertisements 23 23 23 NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLAI New in 2010 is Peel Climate Change program of$90K for Humber Stewardship New MOE funding for Early Actions Projects of$580K New OTF4 year project($260K)is$66K in 2010 NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS In 2009 we finished two Eco Action funded projects and the Oak Ridges Moraine funded projects 180 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION Watershed Management Page 49b GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Education Programs for Schools 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: See Stewardship,Project Management - Now directly to Cost Centres-Peel Education funding 139,000 No activity -100% (139,000) Now directly toCost Centres-Toronto Education Outreach funding 81,000 -100% (81,000) Yellow Fish Road Program(JJ) 49,000 60,776 62,000 27% 13,000 CFC PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT misposts (625) CFC:VOLUNTEER NETW.COSTS misposts 40 EcoSchool Water Conservation Guide(DG) 20,000 16,974 8,000 -60% (12,000) Knowing Nature,Staying Safer(DG) 29,000 32,587 -100% (29,000) Educational Exploration of the Living City(DG) 10,000 8,240 2,000 -80% (8,000) Watershed on Wheels Program(JJ) 135,783 154,000 11% 15,000 Aquatic Plants Program(JJ) 55,000 89,163 54,000 -2% (1,000) Now directly to Cost Centres-York Education Funding 52,000 -100% (52,000) Portion covered by transfers from funding sources (289,000) -100% 289,000 285,000 342,938 280,000 -2% (5,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 1,429 - Reserves Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 9,000 19,927 -100% (9,000) Other-Municipal - Other-Provincial 2,000 16,809 6,500 225% 4,500 Other-Federal 2,000 16,809 8,500 325% 6,500 Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 4,000 4,000 13,000 54,973 19,000 46% 6,000 Capital levy Peel 139,000 97,000 106,000 -24% (33,000) York 52,000 52,000 55,000 6% 3,000 Durham - Toronto 81,000 81,000 85,000 5% 4,000 Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel 39,556 1,000 1,000 York 10,911 5,000 5,000 Durham Toronto 8,084 9,000 9,000 Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (585) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time see stewarship see stewardship Non-F/T see stewarship see stewardship - #workshops hosted 18 18 22 20% 4 #students involved 27,000 27,000 32,400 20% 5,400 #restoration sites 17 17 20 20% 3 #brochures and advertisements 10,000 10,000 12,000 20% 2,000 #Citizenship ceremonies hosted 2 2 2 20% 0 #people involved in ceremonies 1,200 1,200 1,440 20% 240 NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Slightly lower funding requested in 2009 and no carryforward. We are in the process of submitting grant funding proposals to increase 2010 revenue for education NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Waterfront Community Outreach-this is the renamed TWNI account 181 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 49c GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Community Transformation Partnerships 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET Dec.YTD Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG. Expenditures: Energy Projects Sustainable Prod.Commercialization 5,000 5,000 MMC Union Gas Funds 15,000 - 15,000 TRCA ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLAN 5,000 Development,Management&Communications 90,000 62,028 100,000 11% 10,000 Mayors'Megawatt Challenge 91,000 72,646 68,000 -25% (23,000) GREENING RETAIL GUIDELINES AND CERTIFICATION 157,000 - 157,000 Greening Health Care 249,000 223,741 193,000 -22% (56,000) Greening Retail 77,000 15,777 144,000 87% 67,000 CSR 5,000 Renewables Bus Case(Formerly Enerlife) 3,000 - 3,000 Geothermal Energy Storage 10,000 4 15,000 50% 5,000 Sustainable Schools 1,000 952 -100% (1,000) RENEWABLE ENERGY ROADMAP 5,000 - 5,000 BLACK CREEK SOLAR AND LEED EB 10,000 TRCA Facilities Energy Management Plans 24,000 - 24,000 sub-total Energy Projects 523,000 375,148 749,000 0% 206,000 CTP/BM:Sust.Comm.Design Tool 11,000 -100% (11,000) OCETA 14,000 9,896 4,000 -71% (10,000) World Green Building Congress 14,000 14,000 Can.Green Building Council-GT Chapter 30,000 36,872 32,000 7% 2,000 Sustainable House Demonstration 35,014 68,000 - 68,000 sub-total Misc.Sust.Communities Projects 69,000 81,782 118,000 -165% 49,000 Project Green-Grants/Donations 314,000 -100% (314,000) Partners Project Green:Administration 185,000 153,051 249,000 35% 64,000 Project Green:Marketing/Networking 13,000 57,945 74,000 469% 61,000 PPG:)WINDOW ECO-EFFICIENCY PR 11,279 178,000 - 178,000 PRJ GRN:RESOURCE REUTILIZATION 11,914 17,000 - 17,000 PARTNER:GREEN PARKING LOT FROG (818) 88,000 - 88,000 PROJ.G BEEN:RESTORATION FROGS. 19,199 19,000 - 19,000 Project Green:Green Job Corp Team 13,000 29,026 242,000 1762% 229,000 PARTNERS:GREEN PURCHASING TEAM 3,130 17,000 - 17,000 Project Green:Policy Harmonization 13,000 13,023 31,000 138% 18,000 PARTNERS:ALFRED KUEHNE CHANNEL 5,656 - PPG:SME/GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY 36,924 38,000 - 38,000 PARTNERS IN PROJ.GREEN:EVENTS 12,095 64,000 - 64,000 PP.GREEN:LEASIDE BUSINESS PARK 370 - PPG:PEARSON AREA ENERGY SYSTEM 2,334 125,000 - 125,000 Consortium Program 70,000 - 70,000 Building Performance Team 50,000 - 50,000 CARBON COMPETITIVE CITIES 24,000 - 24,000 U OF T PARTNERSHIP 15,000 - 15,000 sub-total Partners in Project Green 538,000 355,127 1,301,000 142% 763,000 Expenditure Total 1,130,000 812,057 2,168,000 92% 1,038,000 Funding Sources: Program/User fees 124,641 54,000 - 54,000 Reserves Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 129,000 100,574 14,000 -89% (115,000) Other-Municipal 167,000 38,432 100,000 -40% (67,000) Other-Provincial 4,389 39,000 - 39,000 Other-Federal 136,237 - Other-Donations/Fundraising 40,000 16,000 -100% (40,000) Other-Non-Government Grants 677,000 259,940 1,800,000 166% 1,123,000 Revenue Total 1,013,000 680,214 2,007,000 98% 994,000 Capital levy - Peel 30,000 10,000 12,000 -60% (18,000) York 33,000 27,000 41,000 24% 8,000 Durham - Toronto 40,000 75,000 108,000 170% 68,000 Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel 14,000 14,896 -100% (14,000) Carryforward levy-York - Carryforward levy-Durham - Carryforward levy-T.O. 5,000 - Adjala/Mono - Deficit/(Surplus) (52) IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 4.9 5.1 4% 0.2 Non-F/T 0.1 0.5 400% 0.4 #of Projects in Progress 21 - 21 %Completion - #of Projects Complete 10 - 10 Major 2010 over 2009 Changes lin addition to economic factors): More research projects planned for 2010.More Greening Retail and Health Care. Large growth of Partners in Projects Green initiatives NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Lower than anticipated funding for the Mayor's Megawatt Challenge and Greening Health Care Staff time has been reallocated to other projects. Mayor's Megawatt-expenses reduced to better reflect available revenues. ///'''��� Greening Healthcare expenses increased to reflect expected increase in revenues,Greeni g 1t liminary budget was overlooked. TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: itershed Management Page 50 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Sustainable Technologies 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET Dec.YTD Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit in Peel Region 200,000 81,601 218,000 9% 18,000 Living City Report Card 50,000 175,000 250% 125,000 Natural Channel Design 41,000 34,044 96,000 134% 55,000 Black Creek Urban Farm 20,000 6,119 17,000 -15% (3,000) Urban Agriculture-Growing Local Food 68,000 71,063 50,000 -26% (18,000) Spills Database Program 25,000 701 47,000 88% 22,000 Can.River System Publications 35,000 34,969 -100% (35,000) Humber 10th Anniversary 5,000 4,616 -100% (5,000) SP:INFILTRATION LITERATURE REV 19,920 Terraview Filtration 3,000 -100% (3,000) STEP:Roof Infiltration Tank 44,000 77,849 70,000 59% 26,000 S.T.E.P.Air Quality Items 124,000 141,963 163,000 31% 39,000 CSO Workshop - SUSTAINABLE COMM COSTS(120-94) 19 Permeable Pavement 23,000 160,364 90,000 291% 67,000 Sustainable Technology Evaluation Program 318,000 67,576 351,000 10% 33,000 S.T.E.P.:Rain Water Harvesting 53,000 20,321 60,000 13% 7,000 GREENROOF COSTS(120-98) 18,381 10,000 - 10,000 Education:Web Based Learning (15,000) (15,000) -100% 15,000 SUSTNBLE COMMUNITS ECH.SERIES Peel Sustainable Comm Funding 285,000 -100% (285,000) York Sust Tech/Community Funds 149,000 3,726 6,000 -96% (143,000) Toronto Sustainable Community/Technology Funds 249,000 72,228 83,000 -67% (166,000) Peel Funding for Sustainable Tech and extra Monitoring items - 1c)Internal Municipal (616,000) (13,296) -100% 616,000 1,061,000 787,164 1,436,000 35% 375,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/Userfees 19,000 84,894 15,000 -21% (4,000) Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal 3,000 20,000 567% 17,000 Other-Provincial 11,000 81,170 42,000 282% 31,000 Other-Federal 147,000 78,039 116,000 -21% (31,000) Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 198,000 92,626 349,000 76% 151,000 378,000 336,730 542,000 43% 164,000 Capital levy Peel 285,000 275,000 289,000 1% 4,000 York 134,000 107,000 117,000 -13% (17,000) Durham - Toronto 249,000 174,000 223,000 -10% (26,000) Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel (26,171) 173,000 - 173,000 York 15,000 (38,402) 38,000 153% 23,000 Durham - Toronto (41,631) 54,000 - 54,000 Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) 638.17 IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 4.5 3.7 -18% (0.8) Non-F/T 2.2 3.8 71% 1.6 Facilities:#Buildings/Sq.footage n/a n/a n/a - #of Projects in Progress 20 19 - 19 %Completion - #of Projects Complete 6 8 - 8 %Completion NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Additional non-levy funding for 2010 Evaluation of Soak Aways and Soil Ammendments and Bioretention.Also carryforward work from 2009. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Sust.Neighbourhoods:140-160k will be committed to two consulting contracts but possibly only 20-30k may be invoiced by year end. More York,Toronto and special funding in 2009 for new Technologies and Living City Report Card. Green Roofs-not budget funding from RAP and UofWaterloo project engineered media for phosphourus removal New project for 2009 completed-Infiltration Literature review-one year only 183 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2009 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 51 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Peel Climate Change Mitigation 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Peel Climate Change Mitigation(Overall) - Ecology Division items: WM:Water Response Plan(ECOL) 60,000 46,258 14,000 -77% (46,000) WM:Water Balance Guidelines(ECOL) 39,000 23,596 15,000 -62% (24,000) WM:Headwaters/Small Tributary Guidelines(ECOL) 87,000 93,668 75,000 -14% (12,000) Flood Remedial Works(ECOL) 75,000 275,000 267% 200,000 WM:Hydrometrics/Gauges(ECOL) 13,000 12,761 -100% (13,000) WM:Claireville Wingwall(ECOL) 25,000 10,393 15,000 -40% (10,000) WM:Brampton SWM Pond (ECOL) 58,000 11,482 23,000 -60% (35,000) Stormwater Management Pond Retrofits(ECOL) 675,000 11,697 663,000 -2% (12,000) WM:Claireville Reservoir Mtce.Study(ECOL) 8,000 6,341 2,000 -75% (6,000) PCCM-TNH:TERR.RECOVERY PLANS 1,922 - Nat Her:Urban Canopy(ECOL) 101,000 86,796 191,000 89% 90,000 WM:Flood Channel Restoration&Remedial Works(ECOL) 289,000 94,512 195,000 -33% (94,000) CTP#3:Geothermal Energy(ECOL) 4,127 30,000 - 30,000 CTP#3:Geothermal Energy(ECOL) see 129-87 9,736 15,000 - 15,000 CTP#5:Renewable Energy Roadmap(ECOL) see 129-87 49,573 44,000 - 44,000 CTP#6:Greening Retail(ECOL) see 129-87 118,336 64,000 - 64,000 Green Buildings#1:GB Councils/Secretariat(ECOL) 55,000 34,337 26,000 -53% (29,000) CTP#7:PC/BM:Mun.Carbon Neutral Guide(ECOL) 32,496 36,000 - 36,000 Green Buildings#3:World Green Building Secretariat(ECOL) 25,400 30,000 - 30,000 CTP#8:Green Retail Guidelines see 129-87 16,149 175,000 - 175,000 CTP#9:Solar Roof at Black Creek see 129-87 25,401 10,000 - 10,000 CTP#1:Community Transformation(ECOL) 301,000 74,000 -75% (227,000) Climate Change Science,Application&Training(ECOL) 203,000 188,930 193,000 -5% (10,000) Sust.Neightbourhood Retrofits(ECOL) 159,000 158,705 200,000 26% 41,000 Sust.Comm:Sustainable Tech.Evaluation Projects-Air(ECOL) 110,000 71,519 149,000 35% 39,000 Sust.Comm: Sustainable Tech.Evaluation Projects-Water(ECOL) 50,000 39,198 60,000 20% 10,000 CTP#2:Design Tool(ECOL) 30,000 - 30,000 TRCA Energy Management Plan 45,000 - 45,000 Nat Her:Natural Channel Habitat Restoration Projects PCC Erosion-Malton Greenway Stream Restoration 45,617 - PCC Erosion-Wexford Park Structure Replacement 107,948 - PCC Erosion-Wexford Trail 26,517 - Nat Her:Natural Channel Habitat Restoration Projects 220,000 - 220,000 PCC:A.Kuehne Natural Channel Restoration 5,000 - 5,000 PCC Erosion-Dixie/Britannia Rd 2,753 - PCC Erosion-Fleetwodd Park 30,870 - PCC Erosion-Meadowland Park 4,442 - PCC Erosion-180 Mill St.Geotech. 2,039 - Willowbank Trail Channel Renaturalization - PCC Erosion-Conservation Park 161,415 - PCC Erosion-CNR/Lakeshore Pipe Repair(RS) - PCC Erosion-Centennial Park 144 PCC Erosion-Wrenwood Bank 1,015 - PCC Erosion-Malton Greenway Park 124 - PCC Erosion-138 King St Structure 899 - PCC-Erosion&Remedial Capital Works(RS) 129-35 556,000 158,851 513,000 -8% (43,000) Nat Her:Wetland Management(RS) 129-36 99,000 95,072 105,000 6% 6,000 Nat Her:Riparian Planting(RS) 129-37 103,000 101,326 102,000 _1% (1,000) Nat Her:Enhancements Existing Habitat Improvement Plans(RS) 129-38 99,000 91,054 208,000 110% 109,000 Nat Her:Enhancement Existing ORM(RS) 129-39 114,000 105,735 109,000 -4% (5,000) Nat Her:Indigenous Plant Propagation(RS) 129-50 68,000 162,355 75,000 10% 7,000 Nat Her:Reforestation(Private Land)(RS) 129-51 115,000 100,530 100,000 -13% (15,000) Nat Her:Forest Management-TRCA Lands(RS) 129-52 75,000 91,634 90,000 20% 15,000 Nat Her:Forest Management-Private Lands(RS) 129-53 78,000 97,301 83,000 6% 5,000 Nat Her:Centreville Creek HIP(RS) 129-56 126,000 102,338 124,000 -2% (2,000) Nat Her:Upper Mimico Aquatic Restoration(RS) 129-57 100,000 255,695 -100% (100,000) Nat Her:Claireville Eco-system Improvements(RS) 129-58 238,000 238,094 175,000 -26% (63,000) Watershed Management Division items: West Humber Stewardship 128-74 90,000 - 90,000 Kennedy Valley Restoration 128-85 20,000 - 20,000 WM:Spills Prevention&Response(WM) 129-12 85,000 15,079 167,000 96% 82,000 Channel Naturalization-Etobicoke Mimico(WM) 129-08 50,000 42,795 57,000 14% 7,000 Nat Her:Watershed Communication for Transformation-Changing Behaviours(WM)129-27 30,000 3,303 27,000 -10% (3,000) Nat Her:Stewardship Partnership Services(WM) 129-54 147,000 156,426 147,000 Nat Her: Etobicoke-Mimico Stewardship(WM) 93,000 93,245 158,000 70% 65,000 Nat Her:Etobicoke Headwaters Subwatershed Regeneration(WM) 45,000 44,483 10,000 -78% (35,000) Education:Albion CFC Renovations(IMM) 843,000 1,229,428 (111,000) -113% (954,000) Education:Albion Hills Environmental Weeks(WM) 66,000 77,087 89,000 35% 23,000 Education:EcoSchools Water Guide(IMM) 10,000 7,077 3,000 -70% (7,000) Education: Knowing Nature,Staying Safer Ed Program(IMM) (5,000) 7,634 12,000 -340% 17,000 Sust.Comm:EcoSchools Program Expansion(WM) 129-80 325,000 141,718 483,000 49% 158,000 Web Based Learning,Carbon Calculator(WM) 1,000 2,238 (4,000) -500% (5,000) 6,908,000 5,963,165 6,898,000 0% (10,000) 184 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2009 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 51a GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Peel Climate Change Mitigation 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET CHANGE CHANGET FUNDING SOURCES: Program/Userfees 74,358 64,000 - 64,000 Reserves 60,000 - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 66,000 - 66,000 Other-Municipal 34,692 43,000 65% 17,000 Other-Provincial 1,000 11,000 - 11,000 Other-Federal 20,000 20,180 11,000 -45% (9,000) Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants TBD 1 TBD 2 299,186 365,000 693% 319,000 Capital levy Peel 5,430,000 5,325,000 -2% (106,000) York - Durham To ro nto Adjala/Tos - Carryforward levy-Peel 230,097 1,208,000 -16% (223,000) York - Durham To ro nto Adjala/Tos Deficit/(Surplus) 3,883 NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 13.4 16.6 0.2 3.2 Non-F/T 10.7 13.0 0.2 2.2 #of trees planted #of Flood worksunderway TBD TBD - #of Erosion sites underway TBD TBD - Hectares of Forest managed TBD TBD - #of public engaged TBD TBD - #metres of riparian habitat restored TBD TBD - NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Peel approves more 2010$ New projects are West Humber Stewardship and Kennedy Valley Restoration See note below re:carryforwards Albion Hills Environmental Weeks:Growth of program(75K to 100k) Albion Hills Retrofit:Smaller works projected. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 129-90/91 Web Site/Social marketing both seem to expect same revenue Flood Remedial Works-Transfer 100k for project deliverables,funding is in account 129-30 was ok'd by Directors ALBION HILLS RETROFIT VARIANCE:The expense variance is due to asbestos abatement costs that were unanticipated.0 Upon commencement of work additional abatement was necessary.Additionally,major elects Centreville HIP,Erosion Control,Enhanced HIP,Enhanced HIP all have carry forward funds for continued work on sites in 2010 185 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 52 GROUP: Flood Control ACTIVITY: Lower Don 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Don Mouth:TRCA Proj.Man.-E.A. 192,000 169,361 173,000 -10% (19,000) Don Mouth:External/Public Cons. 1,000 21,000 2000% 20,000 Don Mouth:Facilitator 30,000 9,600 18,000 -40% (12,000) Don Mouth Gartner Lee 959,000 534,965 842,000 -12% (117,000) Don Mouth Gardiner Roberts 8,000 2,047 4,000 -50% (4,000) Don Mouth:IDC-GILL - DonMouth:DCSTechnicalOversight 23,000 27,390 -100% (23,000) Don Mouth:Subsurface Investigations 110,000 55,195 -100% (110,000) DON MOUTH RESTOR:VAC/HOLIDAYS 18,313 - Lower Don Imp:Detail Design 50,000 - 50,000 LDRW Phase 2:TRCA Internal 40,000 36,799 63,000 58% 23,000 Lower Don Imp:ORC/FPL Coordination 40,000 18,650 41,000 3% 1,000 LDRW PH 2:Peer Review of Flood Landform 15,000 20,049 15,000 Lower Don Imp:TWRC/Park Coordination 16,000 15,607 20,000 25% 4,000 LDRW PH 2:Gardiner Roberts 40,000 47,735 12,000 -70% (28,000) LDRW PH 2:Hydro One 30,000 31,000 3% 1,000 LDRW PH 2:UMA Engineering 10,000 LDRW PH 2:Acquisition/Agreement 200,000 32,533 200,000 TWRC:ASHBRIDGES EA-ARCHAEOLOGY 2,500 LOWER DON:VAC/HOLIDAY TIME 10,191 - LDRW Enbridge Detail Design - Ashbridge's Bay TRCA PM 82,976 - Ashbridge's Bay Coastal Engineering 90,277 - Ashbridhe's Bay Vac/Holiday Time 1,044 - Covered from other Capital Projects 1,714,000 1,175,233 1,490,000 -13% (224,000) Program/User fees Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal - Other-Provincial - Other-Federal - Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 1,714,000 1,172,765 1,490,000 -13% (224,000) 1,714,000 1,172,765 1,490,000 -13% (224,000) Capital levy Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) 2,469 NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 2.8 1.6 -44% (1.2) Non-F/T 0.2 0.3 b3% 0.1 #public meetings hosted 1 1 2 100% 1 #stakeholder/advisory meetings 61 61 50 -18% (11) #technical studies 4 4 9 125% 5 #plans implemented 4 - 4 #advisory members engaged >200 >200 >200 - #of projects underway 4 4 3 -25% (1) #of Projects Involved with Project Partners 15 15 15 #participants at public events 153 153 150 -2% (3) #on distribution lists(including WT distributions) 11,000 11,000 11,000 NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA For 191-04-Dropped 2010 budget to$21,000 from$24,000 due to remaining funds in account following submission of invoice#62772 for Year End Expenses For 191-07-Again these values should be shown under 191-08 which is the real account for Gardiner Roberts. For 195-21-Moved 20,000 back to 2010 unspent in 2009-to resolve outstanding easement issues For 195-25-Dropped expenses to$0 from$10,000.00-do not expect their involvement in 2010 now For 195-26-Expenses moved back to 2010 for GO Transit and HONI land transfer/easements For 195x-xx-Enbridge project cancelled so$0 instead of$890K NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Don Mouth EA- For 191-06 For 191-04- For 191-09 For 191-02-1 year delay in approvals of final Delivery Agreement Amendment(submitted in Nov.2008)-work was slowed down as a result. For 191-04-consultation costs were entirely covered by WT for the 1 event in 2009 For 191-06-delays in Delivery Agreement sign-off slowed down progress on EA For 191-08-budget had anticipated increased involvement of lawyers towards completion of EA process which was delayed with prolonged sign-off on Delivery Agreement For 191-15-(DCS was asked to do much more than originally budgeted throughout their involvement) For 191-20-(SLR completed the assignment with cash remaining on the table in the contingency,and due to some action items incompleted) For 195-10-(reduced TRCA involvement on FPL oversight than anticipated For 195-12-Peer review$5,000 higher due to continuing costs beyond the anticipated construction date for the FPL. These additional costs Unbudgeted Ashbridges Bay projects commenced For 195-20-(legal fees on FPL easements with ORC/City/TRCA/WT much lreRfihan anticipated TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 53 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Other Flood Control Projects 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Flood Warning Equipment&Models 226,000 88,844 317,000 40% 91,000 Flood Protection&Remedial Capital Works 507,000 138,299 593,000 17% 86,000 Small Dams&Flood Control Facilities Capital Works 134,000 44,125 168,000 25% 34,000 Large Dams Capital Works 169,000 48,615 181,000 7% 12,000 Black Creek Channel Maintenance 243,000 44,109 394,000 151,000 York Stormwater Management Program 100,000 - 100,000 Claireville Dam-OMS Review 15,000 1,326 14,000 -7% (1,000) WEC109:ALBION DAM SAFETY BOOMS 4,641 - G.Ross Lord Dam-Safety Boom&Signage 5,000 5,761 -100% (5,000) G.Ross Lord Dam-Electrical Repairs 3,000 2,981 -100% (3,000) WECI 08-Milne Dam OMS Manual 15,000 365 14,000 -7% (1,000) WECI 08-Claireville Dam Wingwall Repair-Phase 2 15,000 15,000 WECI 08- Pickering Ajax Flood Control Dyke Repair 65,000 9,397 40,000 -38% (25,000) WECI 08-Secord Dam Culvert Repair 8,000 5,205 4,000 -50% (4,000) WECI 08-Stouffville Dam OMS Manual 15,000 15,000 1,450,000 418,384 1,980,000 37% 530,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 7,177 195,000 - 195,000 Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal - Other-Provincial 275,000 83,862 309,000 12% 34,000 Other-Federal 17,297 - Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants - 275,000 108,336 504,000 83% 229,000 Capital levy Peel 190,000 190,000 225,000 18% 35,000 York 125,000 125,000 175,000 40% 50,000 Durham 35,000 35,000 43,000 23% 8,000 Toronto 214,000 214,000 160,000 -25% (54,000) Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel 108,000 (106,707) 217,000 101% 109,000 York 148,000 (49,314) 199,000 34% 51,000 Durham 62,000 (2,757) 66,000 6% 4,000 Toronto 293,000 (95,171) 391,000 33% 98,000 Adjala/Mono - Deficit/(Surplus) (3) - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 2.3 3.3 0.4 1.0 Non-F/T 0.3 2.2 6.3 1.9 Facilities:#Buildings/Sq.footage n/a #of Sudies in Progress n/a 4 7 - 7 %Completion #of Sutdies Complete 1 5 5 %Completion #New Stream and Precipitation Gauges 2 1 1 %Completion #Snow Course sites monitored and maintained %Completion #Low Flood Indicator sites monitored Completion #Flood Infrastructure sites repaired/maintained %Completion NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) 2009 carry over due to lack of staff to complete works.Level of service will increase in 2010 due to new technician position. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS CF to cover deliverables into 2010 including monitoring and maintaining stream gauges and gauging networkPlanned CF for 2010 building project s 2009 will have completed studies and implementation of works will begin CF to cover deliverables into 2010 and new contract staff hire 187 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 54 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Public Use Infrastructure 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET Dec.YTD Actuals BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Retrofits/Construction 226,000 10,582 246,000 9% 20,000 KORTRIGHT:POWER TRIP REPAIRS - BM:CHALET REPAIR/SUGAR SHACK 20,531 BM:WORKSHOP ROOF 19,714 AH WATERPLAY&BEACH CENTRE 99,702 PETTICOAT: POOL 84,951 LK.ST.GEORGE GEOTHERMAL INSTAL 52,000 - CA Planning 123,000 55,267 62,000 -50% (61,000) SP:RICHMOND H.LAND MNGMNT.PLAN 7,416 - CA PLANNING-ALTONA PLAN IMPLE. 10,000 10,000 CA PLAN:BRUCE'S MILL MAN PLAN 506 CA PLAN:GLEN MAJOR MNGMNT PLAN 29,153 NURSERY RELOCATION PROJECT 39,954 Move to Other Buildings Page (39,954) CA Planning-Altona Forest 19,893 Humber Arboretum 100,000 -100% (100,000) Covered from Other Programs (11400) - 449,000 398,315 318,000 -29% (131,000) FUNDING SOURCE: Program/User fees 833 - Reserves 100,000 -100% (100000) Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 54,000 36,589 -100% -54,000 Other-Municipal 1,000 - 1,000 Other-Provincial Other-Federal 6,403 Other-Donations/Fui 2,980 - Other-Non-Government Grants 10,000 65,723 9,000 -10% -1,000 164,000 112,528 10,000 -94% -154,000 Capital levy Peel 34,634 34,634 41,000 18% 6,366 York 58,688 58,688 59,000 1% 312 Durham 9,458 9,450 8,950 -5% -508 Toronto 197,170 198,000 198,000 0% 830 Adjala/Mono 50 50 50 Carryforward levy-Peel - York - Durham -15,000 (14,137) -100% 15,000 Toronto (865) 1,000 - 1,000 Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (33) - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.8 1.1 0.4 0.3 Non-F/T - Facilities:#Buildings n/a n/a n/a #of Roof&Other repairs 2 2 #of Pool Projects 2 2 #of Mnagement Plan 5 5 %Completion TBD TBD NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excludinci inflation/COLA Less carryforward work in 2010. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 188 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 55 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Other Facilities Retrofits 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Peel Campgrounds 555,000 353,427 63,000 -89% (492,000) PEEL CAMPGR:ALBION HILL(40863) 359,894 Peel Washroom Upgrades 109,000 102,140 100,000 -8% (9,000) PEEL WASHROOM:HEART L(4083) 5,920 Peel Conservation Land Planning (3) - Archaeology Portion of Peel Conservation Plani Just Get Active 53,350 - Peel Energy Efficiency Retrofitting 100,000 99,910 100,000 Peel KCC Campus/Energy Trail 217,000 197,081 194,000 -11% (23,000) 981,000 1,171,719 457,000 -53% (524,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees (1,056) Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants (1,056) Capital lew Peel 593,000 593,000 600,000 1% 7,000 York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel 388,000 580,138 (143,000) -137% (531,000) York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (364) IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.1 (1.0) (0.1) Non-F/T Facilities:#Buildings/Sq.footage n/a n/a n/a NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Peel Campground Budget&Carryforward-AH Aquatic Facility No 2009 budget for Just Get Active&Heart Lake Water Play-completed in 2008. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 2009 budget over spent to complete Albion Hills Aquatic Facility. Over expenditures to be covered in 2010 capital budget. 2009 budget over spent to construct barrier-free washroom to meet Building Code. Over expenditures to be covered by 2010 capital budget Next Page ......57 189 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 57 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Other Building Projects 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Kortright Retrofit 933,600 214,595 1,204,000 29% 270,400 KCC RETRO#2:URBAN AGRICULTURE 9,619 - KCC Sustainable House Construction 39,500 162,668 -100% (39,500) KCC Sustainable House Landscaping 6,900 56,473 -100% (6,900) KORTRIGHT ENTRANCE LANDSCAPING 35,121 - Petticoat Pool 29,758 3,000,000 3,000,000 Heart Lake Pool 56,229 1,600,000 1,600,000 Nursery Relocation RSC Construction 39,954 25,000 25,000 Boyd Centre Workshop/Storage Construction 150,000 108,090 -100% (150,000) BOYD WRKSHP:NON-CONSTRN.COSTS 850 - Covered from Other Programs (97,848) - 1,130,000 615,509 5,829,000 416% 4,699,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 17,300 - Reserves 150,000 1,559,000 939% 1,409,000 Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 6 Other- Municipal - Other-Provincial 1,533,000 - 1,533,000 Other-Federal 85,987 1,533,000 - 1,533,000 Other-Donations/Fundraising 6,022 - Other-Non-Government Grants 234,169 - Lease revenue - 150,000 343,484 4,625,000 2983% 4,475,000 Capital levy Peel - York 250,000 250,000 250,000 Durham 9,347 9,347 -100% (9,347) Toronto 207,604 207,000 207,000 0% (604) Adjala/Mono 49 49 50 2% 1 Carryforward levy-Peel 40,899 9,691 31,000 -24% (9,899) York 247,302 (132,156) 379,000 53% 131,698 Durham 19,105 (2,605) 21,950 15% 2,845 Toronto 205,643 (109,223) 315,000 53% 109,357 Adjala/Mono 51 (25) -100% (51) Deficit/(Surplus) 39,948 - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 1.5 0.7 -0.5 -0.8 Non-F/T - Facilities:#Buildings/Sq.footage TBD TBD Sq.Footage under construction TBD TBD #of Pool projects under construction 2.0 2.0 NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Sustainable House essentially complete. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Carryforward to 2010 to continue on Kortright Retofit projects. Next Page ......59 190 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 59 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Oak Ridges Moraine Corridor Park 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET Dec.YTD Actuals BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Park Management Plan(GW) 16,000 12,819 3,000 -81% (13,000) Terrestrial Field Inventories(SH) 21,000 20,530 -100% (21,000) Trail Construction(ML) 20,000 60,122 -100% (20,000) Park Legal Fees(MF) 2,013 - Habitat Restoration(ML) 266,000 5,666 20,000 -92% (246,000) Park Reforestation(TH) 104,924 - Developers Contribution Agreement(JD 325,000 301,000 -7% (24,000) Park Restoration ORMF(GW) 21,000 56,961 129,000 514% 108,000 669,000 263,035 453,000 -32% (216,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 8,000 - 8,000 Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 68,000 - 68,000 Other-Municipal 16,000 12,819 18,000 13% 2,000 Other-Provincial - Other-Federal 20,000 20,000 Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 653,000 250,216 339,000 -48% -314,000 669,000 263,035 453,000 -32% -216,000 Capital lew Peel - York Durham Toronto Adjala/Tos Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Tos Deficit/(Surplus) - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.4 xxx 0.1 -0.9 -0.4 Non-F/T xxx - #of trees and shrubs planted tbd tbd NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Some portions of work delayed pending agreements&approvals. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Carry forward any unused funds from developer's agreement for future works Restoration funds in 406-06 to be deferred until agreed plans are developed,approvals granted and schedule determined Additional revenues from Environment Canada in 406-70 to augment the ORMF funds Higher expenditures for trail construction than original budget TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 60 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: BCPV Retrofit and Attraction 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET Dec.YTD Actuals BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: BCPV RETROF.CAP:VISITOR CENTRE 13,782 BCPV Attrac 2,015 BCPV North OPA 6210 MP 225,000 - 225,000 BCPV Retrofit 361,000 117,168 407,000 12.74% 46,000 BCPV:DALZIEL BARN WORK 25,311 BCPV:JAMES DALZIEL(AGNEW)WORK 141 FALL FROLIC FUNDED PROJECTS 3,125 BC RETRO: ROOF PROJECTS 35,540 CHURCH DRIVESHED 44,011 09:BREWERY RETROFIT 30,785 09:RESTAURANT RETROFIT 48,264 BURWICK#2:CONSTRUCTION 193 361,000 331,179 632,000 75% 271,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 13,140 Other-Municipal 14,355 225,000 225,000 Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 27,495 225,000 - 225,000 Capital levy Peel York Durham Toronto 350,000 350,000 350,000 Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto 11,000 (46,316) 57,000 Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 1.0 0.4 0.4 Non-F/T NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) New Vaughan funded initiative on North property. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 192 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Finance and Business Development Page 61 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Information Technology Project 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET Dec.YTD Actuals BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: IT Project 400,000 409,601 605,000 51% 205,000 400,000 409,601 605,000 51% 205,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants Capital levy Peel 46,179 46,971 46,000 0% (179) York 78,250 78,250 78,716 1% 466 Durham 12,611 12,611 11,941 -5% (670) Toronto 262,894 264,000 264,000 0% 1,106 Adjala/Mono 66 66 66 Carryforward levy-Peel 495 23,722 - 23,722 York 1,077 39,645 39,645 Durham 225 6,415 6,415 Toronto 5,892 134,495 134,495 Adjala/Mono 14 Deficit/(Surplus) (0) - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time Non-F/T 0.5 0.5 #of Desktop Computers 380 383 380 #of Laptop Computers 270 268 270 #of Landline phones 340 349 340 #of Cellphones 310 307 310 #of Lotus Notes Users 440 443 450 0 10 NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Expenditure increase reflects potential usage of carryforward$for new accounting system. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Some funds held for replacing Accounting System in 2009+ 193 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Finance and Business Development Page 62 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Major Facilities Retrofits 2009 2009 2010 BUDGET Dec.YTD Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Administrative Office Retrofits 600,000 70,117 700,767 17% 100,767 Funds caried forward for New building 505,000 996,233 97% 491,233 Relocation To Boyd CFC 70,887 Downsview Office 93,351 RES.SERVICE:FURNITURE/FIXTURES New Administrative Office Design/Build 115,000 522 196,000 70% 81,000 Swan Lake Management Costs No activity Asbestos Assessments No activity 1,220,000 234,878 1,893,000 55% 673,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal 8,825 Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 8,825 Capital levy Peel 184,268 184,268 80,000 -57% (104,268) York 117,375 117,375 333,754 184% 216,379 Durham 18,916 18,916 20,896 10% 1,980 Toronto 394,341 396,000 462,000 17% 67,659 Adjala/Mono 100 99 117 17% 17 Carryforward levy-Peel 57,300 (56,565) 113,899 99% 56,599 Carryforward levy-York 96,400 (95,924) 192,343 100% 95,943 Carryforward levy-Durham 15,700 (15,439) 31,176 99% 15,476 Carryforward levy-Toronto 335,600 (322,596) 658,652 96% 323,052 Carryforward levy-Adjala/Mono (81) 163 163 Deficit/(Surplus) - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time Non-F/T Facilities:#Buildings 4 Sq.Footage 54,000 $Retrofit/Sq.Footage 13 0 2 NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Expenditure increase reflects potential usage of carryforward$depending on resolution of new office building. NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Only York approves 10 funding for new Administrative Office Design/Build. Accumulating funds for new administration office 194 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERCATION AUTHORITY 2010 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Finance and Business Development Page 63 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Land Acquisition 2009 2009 2010 Budget Dec.YTD Actuals Budget % Chg. Chg. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Waterfront Open Space 500,000 5,917 500,000 Acquisition-Greenspace Strategy 4,750,000 2,565,361 4,750,000 Natural Areas Protection ORC Repairs 307,000 290,772 16,000 -95% (291,000) Peel Land Care 1,182,000 1,083,898 1,788,000 51% 606,000 York Land Care 548,000 548,000 6,739,000 3,945,948 7,602,000 13% 863,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees Reserves 128,451 Interest Earnings 2,063 CFGT-Flowthrough 156,554 Other-Municipal 3,890,000 2,002,282 3,878,000 0% (12,000) Other-Provincial 807,000 290,772 549,000 -32% (258,000) Other-Federal 33,000 33,000 Other-Donations/Fundraising 500,000 145,000 500,000 Other-Non-Government Grants Other-Internal Land Sales proceeds 850,000 25,000 850,000 6,047,000 2,750,121 5,810,000 4% (237,000) Capital lew Peel 1,161,699 1,146,915 1,684,000 45% 522,301 York 21,519 21,513 571,600 2556% 550,081 Durham 3,468 3,482 3,600 4% 132 Toronto 72,296 73,000 80,000 11% 7,704 Adjala/Mono 18 18 20 11% 2 Carryforward levy-Peel 33,000 (49,102) 52,780 60% 19,780 York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (600,000) 0 (600,000) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 3.9 4.7 0.2 0.8 Non-F/T 5.1 5.7 0.1 0.6 #Hecatares Land in ownership 41,000 41,079 41,300 0 300 #Hecatares estimated to be acquired 79 221 2 142 #Hecatares of Land for Peel Land Care project TBD TBD #Hecatares of Land for York Land Care project TBD TBD NOTES: 2010 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) NOTES: 2009 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS No note RES. #A57 /10 - MEMBERS REMUNERATION Proposed Cost of Living Adjustment. Changes to the member's per diem and chair's honorarium for members of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority require approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. (Budget /Audit Res. #C5 /10) Moved by: Seconded by: David Barrow Paul Ainslie THAT the member's per diem and chair's honorarium be not increased in 2010. CARRIED RES. #A58 /10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed Belcomo Investments Ltd., CFN 43823. Acquisition of valleylands located north of Main Street and west of Highway 48 (Markham Road) from Belcomo Investments Ltd., Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York. (Executive Res. #815/ 10) Moved by: Seconded by: Paul Ainslie Pamela Gough THAT 0.267 hectares, (0.66 acres), more or Tess, being Part of Lot 1, Concession 8, and designated Block 4 on draft plan of subdivision prepared by Bennett Young Limited, Professional Land Surveyors, #2007146M1, north of Main Street and west of Highway 48 (Markham Road), Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville, be purchased from Belcomo Investments Ltd.; THAT the purchase price for the land be $2.00; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect hereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED 196 RES. #A59/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: HYDRO ONE BRAMPTON Request for a Permanent Easement for an Underground Hydro Duct Structure Humber River Watershed, City of Brampton, Region of Peel, CFN 40834. Receipt of a request from Hydro One Brampton to provide a permanent easement for an underground hydro duct structure, east of Goreway Drive, north of Regional Road No. 7 (formerly Highway No. 7), Humber River watershed, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel. (Executive Res. #B 16/ 10) Paul Ainslie Pamela Gough WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Hydro One Brampton to provide a permanent easement for an underground hydro duct structure, east of Goreway Drive, north of Regional Road No. 7 (formerly Highway No. 7), Humber River watershed, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with Hydro One Brampton in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 0.37 hectares (0.92 acres), more or less, be granted to Hydro One Brampton for an underground hydro duct structure, said land being Part of Lot 8, Concession 8 ND, designated as Part 1 on Plan 43R- 17277; THAT TRCA grant the easement across the subject land on the following terms and conditions: (a) The easement price is to be the sum of $134,550.00; (b) Hydro One Brampton is to pay all TRCA's legal, appraisal, survey and other costs incurred to complete the transaction; (c) Hydro One Brampton is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims for injuries, damages or costs of any nature, resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or carrying out construction; (d) Any additional conditions as deemed appropriate by TRCA's solicitor. THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06 be obtained for the construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of Hydro One Brampton; THAT said easement be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27 as amended; 197 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED RES. #A60/10 - REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL Request for Permanent Easement for the Replacement and Relocation of a 500 metre section of the Etobicoke Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer, Etobicoke Creek Watershed, City of Mississauga, CFN 42949. Receipt of a request from the Regional Municipality of Peel to provide a permanent easement for the replacement and relocation of a 500 metre section of the Etobicoke Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer, south of Dundas Street East, west of Southcreek Road, Etobicoke Creek watershed, City of Mississauga. (Executive Res. #B 17/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Paul Ainslie Pamela Gough WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the Regional Municipality of Peel to provide a permanent easement for the replacement and relocation of a 500 metre section of the Etobicoke Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer, south of Dundas Street East, west of Southcreek Road, Etobicoke Creek watershed, City of Mississauga; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the Regional Municipality of Peel in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing 0.72 hectares (1.79 acres), more or less, be granted to the Regional Municipality of Peel for the replacement and relocation of a 500 metre section of the Etobicoke Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer, said land being Part of Lot 1, Concession 1, South of Dundas Street, City of Mississauga, designated as Parts 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15 on a Plan of Survey prepared by Young & Young Surveying Inc., under their Project No. 10- B6041; THAT consideration is to be the nominal sum of $2.00, plus all legal, survey and other costs to be paid by the Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT the Regional Municipality of Peel is to fully indemnify and save harmless TRCA from any and all claims for injuries, damages or loss of any nature resulting in any way either directly or indirectly from this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06 be obtained for the construction; 198 THAT an archaeological investigation be conducted by TRCA Archaeology staff with any mitigative measures required being carried out at the expense of the Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT the granting of this easement is subject to written approval from the City of Mississauga Parks and Recreation Department who manage these lands on behalf of TRCA; THAT the granting of this easement is subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27 as amended; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES. #A61 /10 - ENERLIFE CONSULTING CONTRACT Status of the business relationship. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough CARRIED THAT the staff report on the status of the business relationship and programs with Enerlife Consulting Inc. be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/07, held on June 22, 2007, Resolution #A145/07 was approved, in part, as follows: ...AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Authority on an annual basis, with an update on the status of the business relationship. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) began working with Enerlife Consulting Inc. in 2002 when they were contracted to assist in the development of programs for The Living City Centre, including the Kortright building assessment. In 2007 TRCA entered into a formal business relationship with Enerlife Consulting to develop and deliver sector based energy programs. Five programs are identified in the original agreement and include: Mayors' Megawatt Challenge; Greening Health Care; Sustainable Schools; Home Energy Clinic and Community Scorecard. 199 The original agreement expired on March 31, 2010 but allowed for renewal, for an additional 12 months, an unlimited number of times. Following discussions with Enerlife, the agreement was amended to remove currently inactive programs such as Sustainable Schools, Home Energy Clinic and Community Scorecard and a new program was added that will be initiated in 2010, Cities Benchmarking Initiative. The modified agreement was then renewed for 12 months. Annual renewal of the agreement provides an important flexibility to the partnership allowing changes in program focus where necessary. The program that has been added to the agreement, the Cities' Benchmarking Initiative, aims to enable cities to work together on assessing, improving and reporting on the energy and emissions performance of different types of municipal facilities. The initiative will demonstrate cities' commitments to greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and provide a positive example to other building sectors and the public -at -large within their communities. The Cities' Benchmarking Initiative will provide a common benchmarking, auditing and performance verification process to support identification and validation of high - performing buildings, estimation of conservation potential in all buildings, sharing of performance standards and best practices. The work is expected to expand upon the building performance intelligence developed through recent projects in the United States and Canada, leading to more comprehensive conservation strategies and deeper energy and emissions reductions. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The agreement was renewed for an additional year based on the results of discussions with Enerlife and TRCA senior management. The Cities' Benchmarking Initiative is under discussion with the City of Toronto and New York City and is expected to be initiated in 2010. FINANCIAL DETAILS The program development and implementation under this agreement is fully funded with revenue from membership fees and sponsorships. Report prepared by: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: bmcintyre @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: bmcintyre @trca.on.ca Date: April 19, 2010 RES. #A62/10 - ONTARIO'S GREEN ENERGY AND GREEN ECONOMY ACT, 2009 Update on implementation of the Green Energy and Economy Act. Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Pamela Gough THAT the staff report on the status of implementation of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 be received. CARRIED 200 BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #6/09, held on July 24, 2009, amended Resolution #A124/09 was approved, in part, as follows: ...AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to report back to the Authority on the results of the meeting with the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, and on the implications of additional regulations that will be released under the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009. After introduction in February 2009, Ontario's Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 (GEA) and related amendments to other legislation received Royal Assent on May 14, 2009. Renewable Energy The Minister introduced regulations and other tools needed to implement the legislation's feed in tariff program in September 2009. Specifically, the government has: • Created a Feed -in Tariff (FIT) program guaranteeing rates for electricity from renewable sources. • For Micro FIT, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) has received nearly 1,200 applications mostly for residential roof -top solar power systems with a combined capacity of about 8.6 MWs. In December 2009, 700 Ontarians from Ottawa to Windsor to Thunder Bay were the first to receive offers to generate renewable electricity under the new program. • For FIT, the OPA received 956 applications for the first round. It estimates that these projects will generate in excess of $5 billion in investments in manufacturing, design, construction and engineering and lead to the creation of thousands of new jobs. In March 2010, 510 renewable "capacity exempt" projects got the go ahead in 120 communities by farmers, municipalities, local distribution companies, commercial businesses, industrial customers, public institutions and including rooftop solar installations for 136 Loblaw stores. The projects range from 10 kilowatts to 500 kilowatts and have a total generating capacity of 112 MWs. About 95% of the projects are for solar generation. The remaining projects are 20 biogas, four waterpower, three onshore wind and one biomass. • Established the "right to connect" to the electricity grid for renewable energy projects that meet technical, economic and other regulatory requirements: • All local distribution utilities must provide a Pre -FIT Consultation at no cost to applicants on the details of connecting projects to the grid such as: station capacity; station names; feeder designation; voltage and potential point of connection. • OPA has created four on -line tools to assist applicants: Local Distribution Company Locator; Ontario Transmission System Map; Transmission Availability Tables and Transmission System Expansion Plan. • Hydro One Networks Inc. has released design requirements for distributed generation development within the Hydro One Networks distribution system. • OPA clarified rules for multiple projects on one property to provide flexibility to applicants that wish to install their projects in phases. • The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) approved a province -wide fixed monthly charge for all electricity distributors related to the Micro FIT Generator rate class at $5.25 per month. 201 • Provided more clarity in the approvals process for renewable energy projects and established a one -stop approvals process with service guarantees: • Created and staffed the Renewable Energy Facilitation Office (REFO). • The Ministry of the Environment clarified that landowners who are shareholders in wind projects are exempt from the 550 -metre setback for non - participating "receptors." • Conservation Ontario has been consulting with REFO to ensure that renewable energy proponents are aware of the need to consult conservation authorities (CA) regarding Section 28 Regulation requirements and to obtain any necessary CA permits. • • Established domestic content requirements for renewable energy projects: • For solar photovoltaic projects, the requirement is 50% today, increasing to 60% on Jan. 1, 2011. For wind projects larger than 10 kilowatts, the requirement is 25% today increasing to 50% on Jan. 1, 2012 • OPA is creating a website to list vendors of renewable energy technologies that have met eligibility criteria for use by school boards and social housing providers to invest $120 million to reduce their energy costs by installing renewable energy technologies for heating, cooling or generating electricity. • Planned programs to help communities develop and own renewable energy facilities: • Through the Community Energy Partnerships Program, the Province of Ontario will provide one -time funding support to community groups to.assist them with the developmental costs associated with renewable energy projects. The program will be managed through the OPA, which will retain a third -party agent to operate it. The agent will oversee applications, determine selection criteria and, finally, provide funding to qualified applicants. • Through the Municipal Renewable Energy Program, the Province will provide support to municipalities for extra costs associated with new renewable energy projects. While many of these costs are charged to the developers, it is expected some additional costs may arise. • Began the process of helping local communities and First Nation and Metis communities to build, own and operate their own renewable energy projects: • OPA has created the Aboriginal Renewable Energy Fund to pay for project costs, such as environmental studies, resource assessments, business plans and engineering designs associated with developing a renewable energy project. OPA is also gathering information about First Nations and Metis community renewable energy projects. Conservation The GEA promised to continue to make energy conservation a priority but so far less progress has taken place on conservation than on renewable energy. • Making energy efficiency a key purpose of Ontario's building code: • Work has begun on the development of the new edition of the Building Code, which is anticipated for release at the end of 2011. • The new Building Code Energy Advisory Council, established under the Green Energy Act, 2009 will provide strategic advice on how the Building Code might be enhanced further to increase energy efficiency and promote green technologies 202 • Establishing North American leading en ergy efficiency standards for household appliances, making energy efficient products more available to more consumers: • No recent activity. • Setting electricity conservation targets for local utilities and helping them to deliver effective programs to households and businesses: • Regulations expected in April, 2010. • Requiring targeted conservation measures to protect low income Ontarians from increases in energy prices: • OEB process put on hold in September, 2009. Smart and Renewable Grids Ontario's Smart Metering Initiative is a ground- breaking effort, particularly in terms of the number of consumers impacted, the range of local distribution companies (LDC's) involved and the technologies that are being deployed. The information system went live in early 2008 and is operating reliably with the functions required to support rollout of time of use (TOU) rates. It is ready for increased LDC, activity and is actively processing smart meter data while also producing TOU billing quantities for customer bills. In addition, increasing numbers of LDC smart meters are delivering data on a daily basis, with eight LDCs actively connected to the system. In March 2010, OEB provided guidelines for distribution system plans relating to the connection of renewable generation and the development of a smart grid. Distributors were directed to file distribution system plans pertaining to the connection of renewable generation facilities but not to the development of a smart grid at this time, given OEB's understanding that the government will be providing further direction regarding smart grid development. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA has a long history in renewable energy education and training. In more recent years TRCA has become involved in the testing and evaluation of sustainable technologies including renewable energy technologies. Furthermore, TRCA has worked with universities to develop a renewable energy roadmap for Ontario and to outline the business case for renewable energy. The Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 presents a significant opportunity for TRCA to play an even more important role in transforming the market for renewable energy in Ontario. In 2010, TRCA staff will undertake a strategic planning exercise to identify the areas where TRCA can play an expanded role, and through consultation with internal and external , stakeholders develop a strategic plan for future renewable energy programming. Some of the areas that will be considered in this strategy development process include, expanded education and training for technology installers, expanded role and partnerships in technology assessment and evaluation, new out reach programs to schools and the public, among others. Report prepared by: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: bmcintyre @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: bmcintyre @trca.on.ca Date: April 19, 2010 203 RES. #A63/10 - TRCA ECOOFFICES PROGRAM Annual internal certification of four Toronto and Region Conservation Authority offices. Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Pamela Gough THAT the staff report on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Boyd and Restoration Services centres (jointly), Head Office and Downsview Office being awarded "TRCA EcoOffices" certification for the year 2009, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #8/06, held on October 27, 2006, Resolution #A255/06 was approved as follows: THAT the EcoSchools model (5 Step Process) for managing environmental sustainability be adapted for use, under the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Sustainability Management System (SMS), at TRCA's administrative offices; THAT the adapted program be called EcoOffices, and be initiated as a pilot project at the Boyd Office, Restoration Services Centre, Head Office and Downsview Office beginning in the fall of 2006; THAT EcoTeams be convened at each site; THAT the Coordinator, SMS lead the pilot project, with support from TRCA education staff, to facilitate its integration with the SMS and corporate EcoSchools program; THAT the EcoSchools Steering Committee be advised and consulted throughout the TRCA pilot project for consideration of its possible application at their school board offices; THAT staff develop an internal certification process to recognize office efforts; AND FURTHER THAT staff report in 2007 on results of the EcoOffice pilot project. In 2007, Ontario EcoSchools program materials were modified by TRCA staff to develop an EcoOffices program (with permission of Ontario EcoSchools and the Toronto and District School Board). EcoTeams were established for Boyd Centre and Restoration Services Centre (a joint team for these two closely located offices), Head Office and Downsview Office. Team member training was conducted and the annual EcoOffice process began. At the direction of the Authority, staff advised TRCA's municipal partners of the EcoOffices program in March, 2009. 204 Program Description At the conclusion of the first year of TRCA's involvement with Ontario EcoSchools, it was determined that the EcoSchools protocols and processes would be helpful in furthering TRCA efforts to operate more sustainably at its various office facilities. In particular, the EcoSchools model excelled at involving and empowering the 'grassroots' element of an organization in facilitating change. EcoSchools processes, protocols and areas of focus tend to mesh more closely with typical office operations than environmental management systems, such as International Standards Organization (ISO) 14000, which were designed primarily for industrial operations. EcoOffices is a TRCA created program (based on Ontario EcoSchools) that administers the "greening" of our offices through coordination of specific office EcoTeams. As a TRCA developed program, EcoOffices "certification" is, at this point, a "self- certification" process. Responsibility for certifying offices as EcoOffices rests with TRCA's Coordinator, SMS. RATIONALE The EcoOffices annual administrative process (based on that of EcoSchools) is as follows: • beginning of year - set up office EcoTeam; • establish current conditions in various areas of operational sustainability; • develop a workplan to advance sustainability in functions and areas needing improvement (including targeted actions); • reassess progress on workplan and overall sustainability conditions; • submit documentation to Coordinator, SMS; • year end - certification (or re- certification) by designated TRCA staff. Certification of an office as a "TRCA EcoOffice" is based on the submission (by office EcoTeam chairs) of suitable documentation attesting to the completion of each of these stages. If the documentation is complete and demonstrates the completion of proper EcoOffice processes and progress toward workplan objectives, the Coordinator, SMS will grant the certification. The simple, annual process demands accountability and helps establish a culture of continual improvement in operational sustainability. EcoOffices, along with EcoSchools and the emerging Audubon Certification Program for TRCA parks, are three programs that engage staff in TRCA's overall Sustainability Management System. 2009 Accomplishments Approximately 30 staff members participated on TRCA's three EcoOffices EcoTeams. Highlights of what was accomplished are outlined below: Boyd Centre /Restoration Services Centre (RSC) (Joint EcoTeam for these two offices). • promoted energy, water, paper and resource conservation to staff; • planned for efficient biomass heating system in new workshop (yet to be constructed); • investigated designated carpooling parking spots at both offices; • improved vehicle operational efficiencies by assigning one person per work department to ensure vehicles are properly maintained; • changed to an environmentally friendly pest company; • changed to eco friendly dishwasher drying agent; • carried out office recycling of batteries and small electronics; 205 • installed low flow toilets at Boyd Centre; • reduced number of garbage containers in offices; • two new composters installed at RSC (promoted use of); • participated in City of Toronto 20 Minute Makeover challenge. - Head Office • held staff consultation for removal of garbage cans from offices; • held lunch and learn on TRCA sustainability generally, and EcoOffices specifically; • held SmartCommute event promoting carpooling and transit use; • promoted energy, water, paper and resource conservation to staff; • initiated design of system for recycling paper towels in washrooms and lunch room; • conducted baseline analysis of staff transit use for business; • carried out office recycling of batteries and small electronics; • participated in City of Toronto 20 Minute Makeover challenge. Downsview Office • Park Downsview Park completed major retrofit of cooling and HVAC system at office - moving from inefficient steam to "green" geothermal; • energy efficient windows were installed as part of retrofit; • initiated an addition to the Downsview building retrofit - Parc Downsview Park replaced all T -12 lighting as part of retrofit as a result of lobbying from EcoTeam; • promoted energy, water, paper and resource conservation to staff; • expanded promotion of double -sided photocopying and printing with additional instructional signs posted at all copiers and printers; • became a "hybrids only" (or better technology) office; • held SmartCommute event promoting carpooling and transit use; • promoted use of TRCA supplied office bicycle; • established indoor bike storage space for bicycle commuters; • conducted baseline analysis of staff transit use for business; • carried out office recycling of batteries and small electronics; • established You - Send -It account to reduce copying and couriering of large documents; • established widespread use of USB sticks in place of non - reusable CD's; • outreached to Parc Downsview Park to reduce amount of salt used for ice melting in winter time; • installed natural scents in washrooms; • carried out an office plant propagation program; • participated in City of Toronto 20 Minute Makeover challenge. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Head Office, Downsview Office and Boyd Centre /RSC EcoOffice EcoTeams are beginning the annual process for 2010, reassessing existing conditions, drafting and enacting action plans to become more sustainable. Updated EcoOffice certification plaques (with 2009 certification noted) will be displayed prominently at all four offices. 206 FINANCIAL DETAILS EcoOffices is part of the TRCA Sustainability Management System and is supported by operating funds for the SMS program. Report prepared by: Brian Dundas, extension 5262 Emails: bdundas @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Brian Dundas, extension 5262 Emails: bdundas @trca.on.ca Date: February 05, 2010 RES. #A64/10 - AGRICULTURAL POLICY FOR ROUGE PARK Sustainable near urban agricultural policy for lands within Rouge Park. Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Paul Ainslie THAT the Agricultural Policy for Rouge Park as outlined in Attachment 1, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #7/08, held on September 19, 2008, Resolution #A200/08, was approved, in part, as follows: ...THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the TRCA Sustainable Near -Urban Agriculture Policy for lands owned and directly managed by TRCA, dated September 2008, as appended in Attachment 1, be approved;... ...AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to develop a sustainable near -urban agricultural policy in conjunction with the Rouge Park Alliance for lands within the Rouge Park and report back. At the December 5, 2008 Rouge Park Alliance meeting, a draft staff discussion paper relating to guiding principles for agriculture in Rouge Park was presented and recommended to the Alliance for further review and discussion. Some Alliance members had concerns regarding the recommendations and felt staff needed to prepare a more detailed report and bring it back to the Alliance. The motion to accept the recommendations as presented was deferred. Since that time, an Agriculture Working Group has been established in which the membership includes York Region Federation of Agriculture as well as Rouge Park tenant farmers. This group has reviewed the Agricultural Policy for Rouge Park. 207 An update on the status of the agricultural land within Rouge Park is provided in Attachment 2. In summary, agriculture currently comprises 1,582 hectares of the total Rouge Park area of 3,482 hectares excluding infrastructure. Of the total existing agricultural area, 456 hectares are being farmed in the City of Toronto portion of Rouge Park. The remaining agricultural acreage is in the Little Rouge Corridor (399 hectares), Bob Hunter Park(139 hectares) and the Markham East (588 hectares) portions of Rouge Park. It is recognized that some of the existing agricultural land will be retired to help meet terrestrial natural heritage objectives. For example, Bob Hunter Park was created for the purpose of creating an ecological park. Habitat restoration will be the priority for most of the lands within a 600 metre corridor along the Little Rouge Corridor but land north of Regional Road 7 in the Little Rouge Corridor will be re- examined to determine the potential to maintain farmland. The agricultural land within the Markham East component of Rouge Park is in the Markham /Pickering Agricultural Preserve. Planning for the Markham East land is being done with the intent of maintaining agriculture as a primary function as well as the ecological integrity of the existing habitats and streams that run through the area. At Rouge Park Alliance Meeting #2/10, held on March 12, 2010, Resolution #17/10 and Resolution #17A/10, were approved as follows: RES. #17/10 THAT the Rouge Park Alliance receive the attached Agriculture Policy report; AND THAT the Rouge Park Alliance accept the new Agriculture Objective, Agriculture Policy, Agriculture Guiding Principles, and Implementation as presented in the attached report; AND THAT the Rouge Park Alliance direct staff to insert the operative section of the amended report into both the Rouge Park Management Plan and Rouge North Management Plan; AND THAT the Rouge Park Alliance direct staff to commence with the advancement of the Guiding Principles and Implementation recommendations; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this amended report be circulated to the Province of Ontario, York Region, City of Toronto, Town of Markham, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and York Region Federation of Agriculture. AMENDMENT RES. #17A /10 THAT the attached report, "Draft Agricultural Policy for Rouge Park ", be amended under the heading "Guiding Principles ", to add point #7, to read: "Ensure that farmers be required to have Environmental Farm Plans as a condition of leases, and that Rouge Park staff work with farmers to set standards approved and monitored by the Rouge Park General Manager." 208 FINANCIAL DETAILS The cost of the Rouge Park planning studies which will determine the acreage that will be dedicated to agriculture for the long term, and the cost of administration of the farmland leases, are included in the regular operating budgets of the Rouge Park and the leases with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Staff to insert the agricultural objective of the amended report into both the Rouge Park Management Plan and Rouge North Management Plan. • Staff to commence with the advancement of the Guiding Principles and Implementation recommendations. • A copy of this amended report be circulated to the Province of Ontario, York Region, City of Toronto, Town of Markham, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and York Region Federation of Agriculture. Report prepared by: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Email: gwilkins @trca.on.ca For more information contact: Alan Wells, 905 - 713 -6038 Email: alan_wells@rougepark.com Date: April 21, 2010 Attachments: 2 209 Attachment 1 AGRICULTURAL POLICY FOR ROUGE PARK February 19, 2010 Background Park Plans "Rouge Park will be a special place of outstanding natural features and diverse cultural heritage in an urban -rural setting, protected and flourishing as an ecosystem in perpetuity. Human activities will exist in harmony with the natural values of the Park. The Park will be a "sanctuary for nature and the human spirit ". That is the Vision statement as stated in both the Rouge Park Management Plan, 1994 and the Rouge North Plan Management Plan, 2001. Although there is no specific agriculture objective in either plan, agriculture is considered within the cultural heritage objective of the Park. The Cultural Heritage objective reads as follows: " To identify, protect and conserve the cultural heritage features of the Park for their inherent value and depiction of the long term human use and occupancy of the area ". Additionally, both plans contain the zone designation: Agriculture Heritage Reserve (AHR), in which the following policy specific to agricultural practices applies - "maintain agricultural operations and promote land management techniques which conserve soil, water, and ecological functions over the long term, (i.e. adequate set backs /buffers from streams, wetlands, and significant natural areas, and reduction in the use of chemicals)." It is now time to refine and expand on this policy, and create an Agricultural Objective for Rouge Park. The significant role and presence of agriculture as a Rouge Park objective makes it important that there be a clear policy with guiding principles regarding agriculture in the Park. Park Design Rouge Park lands in Markham are different from those in Toronto. In Toronto, the Park Agriculture Heritage Reserves are clearly separate from the valley lands and Nature Reserves. Whereas, in Markham, Rouge Park lands have been brought together in three phases: the Little Rouge Corridor lands, primarily preserved for a natural linkage; the Bob Hunter Memorial Park lands, as nature preserve; and the East Lands, in which the lands will primarily be agriculture. It is therefore appropriate to develop a more specific policy framework for the agriculture lands in Rouge Park, Markham. Management The Rouge Park Alliance (RPA) maintains a strong commitment to and support for a diverse agricultural community on Park lands designated for farming and those designated for ecological restoration which are currently active farmland. The RPA encourages farm practices that provide a diverse visual landscape, direct interactions with non -farm residents and wildlife habitats. The RPA is committed to the development of a set of guiding principles for the management of agricultural lands in Rouge Park. 210 Each of our plans designates ecological restoration on a portion of the lands that are recently farmed. Implementation of the ecological restoration component from these plans will occur over several years. In the mean time, the lands will continue to be farmed. A comprehensive set of guiding principles will help manage these lands during the transition period. Planning Rouge Park is subject to provincial and municipal land use policies and regulations. Decisions on how the Park lands are managed will be consistent with Ontario's Provincial Policy Statement and Greenbelt Plan, York's Regional Official Plan and Markham's and Toronto's Official Plans. In addition, York's Land Evaluation Area Review (LEAR) process and Markham's Agricultural Assessment Study and Environmental Policy Review and Consolidation Study should inform land use decisions in Rouge Park. On September 19, 2008, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) passed Resolution A200/08 which approved a policy for agriculture on TRCA -owned lands and gave direction to TRCA staff to implement the policy. The resolution included an amendment that directed TRCA staff to develop a sustainable near -urban agriculture policy in conjunction with the Rouge Park Alliance. The RPA should have an agricultural policy and implementation framework that is consistent with TRCA policy. Rouge Park agricultural policy should also complement the agriculture policies of the Alliance Members and neighbouring communities. Philosophical Basis The 1994 Rouge Park Management Plan is clear in that the main priority for Rouge Park is the conservation and establishment of a natural ecosystem. Agriculture in Rouge Park will be undertaken within the priorities of both people and wildlife firmly in view and it must be recognized that farming activities in Rouge Park will maintain high standards. Farmers of Rouge Park lands and the RPA must interact in partnership to manage the Park so that all can achieve the simultaneous goals of a healthy Park ecology and economically viable agriculture. The reality of a local food base has become forefront in the minds of the local community and all levels of government. Rouge Park is in an ideal situation both geographically and from a planning perspective to support the concept of local food in the GTA. Certain wildlife species coexist and, in some cases, thrive near an agricultural landscape. This cultivated field /forest edge habitat is currently found throughout Rouge Park lands. This suggests that with the use of innovative approaches (sensitive to crop production) agriculture may assist in maintaining the current levels of biodiversity in the Park. In summary, the agricultural landscape of Rouge Park should be one that is diverse. The diversity should include not only a visually appealing landscape that contains various crops and natural lands, but also a diversity of opportunities for the farm community and Park visitors to interact. Agriculture Objective Protect agriculture as a land use that is consistent with all other Park objectives. 211 Policy Statement The Rouge Park Alliance will encourage and promote agriculture uses in the Park that complement the natural heritage objectives, cultural heritage objectives, interpretation and recreation objectives as stated in its management plans. Agriculture in Rouge Park will be a vibrant activity that helps promote and address the needs of the neighbouring municipalities. Guiding Principles The Rouge Park Alliance has developed a set of guiding principles that will help the farming community manage agricultural land use. These principles are a set of statements that encapsulate the values of the RPA as they relate to agriculture in Rouge Park. They are intended to create a context in which management of farmlands can be carried out in partnership between the farmers who have the agricultural knowledge and the RPA who are interested in good stewardship of the Park lands. -The Rouge Park Alliance will support viable agriculture in Rouge Park through the following guiding principles: 1. Proactively collaborate with local farmers, local farm groups and municipalities. 2. Support heritage farms and landscapes that contribute to the Rouge Park character and offer a diverse agricultural landscape that provides a rural landscape, diverse land uses and a diverse economic base. 3. Support local municipal and provincial policies on local food and therefore contribute directly to local food supplies for people in the urban communities adjacent to the Park. This will contribute to local economies as well as provide recreational or social benefits for Park visitors, including such uses as agro- tourism, farm markets and community gardens. 4. Ensure that: Park design and management allow for beneficial interactions between the farm community, Park visitors and wildlife; and, farm operations and residences are not inconvenienced by Park visitors. 5. Work with farmers to enable a fair transition from agriculture to natural habitats on lands that are designated for ecological restoration in approved Park plans. 6. Ensure that farmers will be able to operate the farm business, including such things as crop choice and other agricultural practices, within the context of good agricultural practice, while protecting the natural features, such as trees, hedgerows, wetlands and woodlots. Amendment - Point #7 (added): 7. Ensure that farmers be required to have Environmental Farm Plans as a condition of leases, and that Rouge Park staff work with farmers to set standards approved and monitored by the Rouge Park General Manager. 212 Implementation Implementation of this policy will require a strong partnership between farmers and the RPA. A strong partnership is developed through a shared vision, good communication, capitalizing on partner strengths and early dispute resolution. This will be accomplished with the following actions: The Agricultural Working Group (AWG) that was established in early 2009 will continue to meet at least annually and more often as they arise. Meetings with the Rouge Park's farm community will be held as frequently as the AWG feels appropriate. In addition, Rouge Park staff will remain in at least annual contact with each farmer that leases and in the Park. Communication between the individual farmer and the Park will be enhanced through the mutual development and review of Environmental Farm Plans for each farm in the Park. Farm plans should include encouragement of: (a) long -term best agricultural management practices, (b) soil, water, and ecological conservation. 3. The RPA will encourage viability of farms in the Park by providing: a. Long -term leases that will provide stability and create reasonable conditions for farm crop and investment decisions, b. Assistance with maintenance of agricultural infrastructure on agricultural lands in Rouge Park, c. Continued communication and cooperation with farmers and the Park's farm community, and d. Contribution to innovation in agriculture consistent with the RPA priorities and by provision of long -term land leases, as well as financial and policy support 213 Attachment 2 February 26, 2010 Background: The purpose of this report is to update the members of the Rouge Park Alliance on the many discussions that have occurred over the past two years as a result of our review of the Rouge Park plans, including ongoing discussions with the agricultural community and with Markham Council and staff as we develop Rouge Park in Markham. Issues related to energy and food supply have been a subject of great discussion in the Greater Toronto Area. The importance of local food supply has become more prominent. Rouge Park staff has also recognized that farmland fulfills ecological functions and serves as habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Our review of the Rouge Park plans has resulted in a staff recommendation to include an agriculture objective as a fundamental component of the Rouge Park plans and to develop a policy framework jointly with stakeholders. That report has been presented to the Rouge Park Alliance for consideration. The agriculture community has also stressed the need for a better understanding of their economic'needs, including Tong -term leases. We have worked with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to develop a new lease strategy that will provide longer leases and assist the farm community. Mandate: The stated goals of the 1994 Rouge Park Management Plan are to conserve and restore natural heritage, to conserve cultural heritage; and to provide passive recreational opportunities. In the past, agriculture has been included as part of the cultural heritage features of Rouge Park, but has not been explicitly presented as an objective of the Park. In Markham, the agriculture community dominates Rouge Park and needs to be recognized as part of the primary mandate. Our plans should show agriculture as a mandated objective. This is now included in the Agricultural Policy Report. Plans: Agricultural land is an important component of Rouge Park (Rouge Park Management Plan 1994). Agriculture currently comprises 1582 ha of the total Park area of 3482 ha excluding infrastructure (see Table 1 and Map 1). Of the total existing agriculture area, the Agricultural Heritage Reserve in the Toronto portion of Rouge Park represents 276 ha of the total lands of 456 ha that are currently farmed in Toronto, see Map 1. 214 Table 1: Approximate Areas of Existing Land Use in Rouge Park (shown in ha) 215 LRC -N LRC -M LRC -S BHMP MEL Markham Toronto Total Agri- culture 236 35 128 139 588 1126 456 1582 Natural Heritage 118 28 126 53 31 356 1544 1900 Infra- structure 9 1 22 10 34 76 383 459 Total 363 64 276 202 653 1558 2383 3941 215 , k' Legend Rouge Park yr Restoration Deferred Restoration \HR nhn - trneturr: gin, rra! C cover ui;,aru,,x 0 0 43 tR1iOf j e r s Map 1: Location of the 276 ha of Agricultural Heritage Reserve Lands (shown in brown) located just south of Steeles Avenue in the Toronto portion of Rouge Park 216 It is equally important to recognize agriculture in the Markham area of Rouge Park. Currently, there are three separate planning areas in Markham - the Little Rouge Corridor (LRC), the Bob Hunter Memorial Park (BHMP), and the Markham East Lands (MEL). Each of these areas has a primary purpose. The BHMP was created as an ecological park. In order to facilitate park programming, it is proposed that the part of BHMP west of Reesor Road be joined with that part of the LRC west of Reesor Road and north of Steeles Avenue to form a 500 acre combined Nature Park, called the BHMP, as illustrated by Map 2. 217 ou e Part Legend Rib Hunter Park Rouge Park yr Restoration (_ Deferred Restoration .HR Infrastructure Natural Cover Ayticullurc Map 2: Proposed area of Bob Hunter Memorial Park programming, west of Reesor Road, outlined in black. Note that areas shown as white will be planned as part of the Little Rouge Corridor plan. 218 The part of BHMP east of Reesor Road, both north and south of 14th Avenue, should be included in the planning process for the LRC (see areas shown as white in map 2). This combined area includes the Hamlet of Cedar Grove. It includes several significant heritage buildings, such as a community centre and the famous Cedarena. Further discussions with the community, Markham Planning staff and the folks on the Markham East Lands Planning Steering Committee need to occur to determine how to include cultural protection and recreational opportunities in these lands, including community vegetable gardens or allotments. The Little Rouge Corridor needs to be planned in several phases (see map 3). South of Highway 407, restoration of the 600 -metre wide protection corridor is well underway, although there are two parcels where restoration has been delayed to accommodate the current farmers. The rest of the area is in the process of being restored. Between Highways 407 and 7, the agricultural lands will be restored as other plans in Markham develop. The corridor will be widened and protected. Areas north of Highway 7 comprise active farm land, including the largest homestead farm in Rouge Park that is a concession wide, almost a square block and makes up the majority of the LRC north of Highway 7. It is also part of both the LRC and MEL planning areas and therefore, further study should be carried out on these lands to ascertain how this farm could function in an ecologically compatible manner for Rouge Park, with a high level of natural heritage protection along with a trail route to achieve our vision of a continuous trail from Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine. During this period of review, farming should continue. The Markham East Lands are presently included in the Markham /Pickering Agriculture Preserve. The area is roughly 70% agriculture and 30% natural features, as shown in map 3. Planning for the MEL is being done with the intent of maintaining agriculture as a primary function in this area as well as the ecological integrity of existing habitats and streams that run through the area. In addition to the MEL, plans for the LRC will be re- examined in order to evaluate the potential to maintain farmland in the area north of Highway 7. The standard of planning will demand a high and robust level of protection for the natural heritage features of the Little Rouge, Duffins and Petticoat Creek watersheds. A trail system will also wind through th East Markham to connect to trails near 14 Avenue. About two thirds of this area will remain in agriculture. 219 Legend °Bab Hunter Park Rd.rgr Park 5 yr RcSt {err thn J Dafrrrrd RrYlw alias Id IR Infrastructure Mittrrml t;rver Agncrtlturn r� Map 3: Location of the North, Middle and South Sections of the Little Rouge Corridor, as well as the Markham East Lands. Markham East Lands agriculture shown in yellow and existing natural habitats in dark green. 220 Summary It is proposed that the Markham East Lands planning process be expanded in order to create a consolidated plan for all of the lands in Markham, including the Little Rouge Corridor and Bob Hunter Memorial Park. The plan will include an agriculture preserve in the east, a forested protected corridor for the Little Rouge Creek and a nature park with a visitor experience area in Bob Hunter Memorial Park. A multi -use trail system is currently being planned for this entire area to connect with the trails in Toronto to the south and eventually north to the Oak Ridges Moraine. Table 2 shows the land use mix that would be in place when planned natural heritage restorations have been completed. An additional of approximately 701 ha of Agricultural Heritage Reserve in Markham will be added to the 276 ha in Toronto for a total of approximately 1000 ha. In the Rouge Park areas of Markham, close to 50% of the total land use will remain agriculture (see table 2). Table 2: Approximate land use mix in Rouge Park once planned habitat restorations have been completed (shown in ha). Note that the areas that will be used for recreation and visitor experience (trails, parking Tots, visitor centres, etc.) have not yet been decided on and so areas of natural heritage or agriculture may change. 221 LRC -N LRC -M LRC -S BHMP MEL Markham Toronto Total Agri- culture 236 0 61 0 404 701 276 977 Natural Heritage 118 63 193 192 215 781 1724 2505 Infra- structure 9 1 22 10 34 76 383 459 Total 363 64 276 202 653 1558. 2383 3941 221 RES. #A65 /10 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough THAT Section IV item AUTH8.5.1 - AUTH8.5.3, in regard to watershed committee minutes, be received. CARRIED Section IV Items AUTH 8.5.1 - AUTH 8.5.3 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting #1/10, held on March 1.1, 2010 ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE Minutes of Meeting #1 /10, held on February 5, 2010 PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN Minutes of Meeting #1/10, held on January 14, 2010 RES. #A66 /10 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Linda Pabst THAT Section IV item BAAB8.1 - 2009 Year End Financial Progress Report, contained in Budget /Audit Advisory Board Minutes #1/10, held on April 9, 2010, be received. CARRIED RES. #A67 /10 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Gay Cowbourne THAT Section IV item EX9.1 - Black Creek Historic Brewery, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #2/10, held on April 9, 2010, be received. ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 RES. #A68 /10 - APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Moved by: Seconded by: Linda Pabst David Barrow 222 CARRIED THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.1 - EX10.93, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #2/10, held on April 9, 2010, be received. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:20 p.m., on Friday, April 30, 2010. CARRIED Gerri Lynn O'Connor Brian Denney Chair Secretary- Treasurer /ks 223 eTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #4/10 May 21, 2010 The Authority Meeting #4/10, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, May 21, 2010. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. PRESENT Eve Adams Member Paul Ainslie Member Maria Augimeri Vice Chair Bryan Bertie Member Laurie Bruce Member Gay Cowbourne Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Mike Del Grande Member Bill Fisch Member Grant Gibson Member Pamela Gough Member Suzan Hall Member Jack Heath Member Colleen Jordan Member Glenn Mason Member Ron Moeser Member Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair Linda Pabst Member John Parker Member Anthony Perruzza Member John Sprovieri Member Richard Whitehead Member ABSENT David Barrow Member Lois Griffin Member Bonnie Litt ley Member Peter Milczyn Member Maja Prentice Member Gino Rosati Member 224 RES. #A69 /10 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Linda Pabst Bryan Bertie THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/10, held on April 30, 2010, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Anthony Templer, Elder with Peel Aboriginal Network, in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Peel Aboriginal Network Partnership. (b) A presentation by Lionel Normand, Terrestrial Biologist (Duffins/ Carruthers /Petticoat /Frenchman's Bay), TRCA, in regard to item EX8.4 - Urban Forest Studies. RES. #A70 /10 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by:, Seconded by: Linda Pabst Gay Cowbourne THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received. RES. #A71 /10 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Ron Moeser THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received. CORRESPONDENCE (a) CARRIED CARRIED A letter dated May 19, 2010 from Doug Hall, President, Camis Inc., in regard to item AUTH7.4 - Reservations, Bookings and Point of Sale Software. RES. #A72 /10 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Seconded by: Bill Fisch Jack Heath THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received. CARRIED 225 CORRESPONDENCE (A) ACCOMMODATING SOLUTIONS Camas Inc. 649 Scottsdale Dr. Suite 90 Guelph, ON NIG 4T7 Canada o (519) 766 -0901 Q (519) 824 -5681 www.canils.com GerriLynn O'Connor, Board Chair Brian Denny, Chief Administrative Officer /Secretary Treasurer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Via Fax to 416 -661 -6898 Wednesday, May 19, 2010 With this letter, Camas formally protests the recommendation to award a contract to MediaMix Interactive for the provision of a reservation and point of sale system for your facilities. Proponent evaluation would appear to be flawed in the following key ways. • The estimated total annual cost for the MediaMix solution is biased. The expected 9,2$0 annual new reservations mentioned in the RFP plus an additional 1,600 changes and cancellation transactions would result in an anr3Ual cost of at least $108,800. This would inevitably rise once customers are allowed to make site specific on -line reservations. Carnis provided a fixed annual cost of $49,990. • The evaluation stated that Camis has no call centre capabilities. This is incorrect. Our Guelph call centre has been in operation for eleven years and currently takes reservations for the Upper Thames River Conservation Authtdtity, Nova Scotia Provincial Parks, British Columbia Provincial Parks, and Washington State Parks. If, in fact, providing call centre services is a requirement — rather than a discretional item as stated in the RFP —Camis will happily provide a quote for this service. • Given that the TRCA has elected to contract with MediaMix whose pricing is higher than that of Camis, one would assume that the TRCA gave MediaMix a higher score on items such as software capability, qualifications, experience, personnel, and references. This can only be the result of a lack of due diligence in ascertaining MediaMix performance with its two main customers — Parks Canada and Ontario Provincial Parks. Of particular note is the failure of MediaMix to live up to many of its contractual commitments to Ontario Parks and demonstrated inadequacies in its Ontario Parks software solution — particularly its in -park point of sale solution. 226 • The recommended MediaMix solution appears to be contrary to several mandatory RFP requirements including the ability to provide functionality In the event of an Internet outage and the ability to operate over a dial -up Internet connection. The solution proposed by Camis meets both of these criteria. Camis requests that the TRCA postpone the award of 14 contract pending further evaluation of the proponents. in particular, Camis requests that TRCA staff consult in depth with Ontario Parks, Parks Canada, BC Parks, Washington State Parks, and Kleva Scotia Parks in order to further evaluate the relative merits of the MediaMix and Camis systems and to further evaluate each company's history in meeting performance standards and in meeting implementation timeline's, Cam's further requests that the TRCA spend much more time evaluatlhg each company's full software solution. Yours sincerely, Z1r4‘ Doug Hall President, Carols Inc. 227 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #A73/10 - ABORIGINAL MEDICINE WHEEL GARDEN AT HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA Update on the construction of an Aboriginal Medicine Wheel Garden at Heart Lake Conservation Area. Moved by: Seconded by: Linda Pabst Gay Cowbourne THAT the staff report and presentation by Anthony Templar of the Peel Aboriginal Network on the Aboriginal Medicine Wheel Garden at Heart Lake Conservation Area be received; THAT the Aboriginal Medicine Wheel Garden be integrated as an important cultural feature in future outdoor educational activities at the Heart Lake Conservation Area; THAT the Peel Aboriginal Network be thanked for their partnership; AND FURTHER THAT members of the Authority be invited to attend the official opening of the Aboriginal Medicine Wheel Garden on Saturday, May 29, 2010 from 11 am to 1 pm at Heart Lake Conservation Area. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/06, held on June 23, 2006, Resolution #A133/06 endorsed the Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan as follows: THAT the Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan, dated June 1, 2006, be approved; AND FURTHER THAT funding for the implementation of the plan be included in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) capital budget plan for Peel Region, 2007 -2011. The Heart Lake Conservation Area Master Plan was developed to protect, conserve and restore the valuable ecological features and functions of Heart Lake Conservation Area (HLCA), while guiding the current and potential future public uses of the area. The plan identifies specific management zones for the site, which delineate and guide the types and levels of appropriate activities. The plan also makes recommendations for future initiatives, including the protection of natural features and habitat regeneration based on an ecosystem approach to planning and management. In addition detailed plans for trails and public use were included. The following vision statement was developed, and should guide all current and future actions: The Heart Lake Conservation Area is regarded as a significant conservation park that forms a key environmental, cultural and social component of an established urban community in The Living City. The park, which will be used for nature -based recreation and as a living classroom, will be managed with a stewardship approach that allows natural communities to prosper. 228 One of the key recommendations of the HLCA Master Plan is the development of a Medicinal Wheel Garden in Partnership with the Peel Aboriginal Network. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, in partnership with the Heart Lake Community Action Area Group (HLCAG), the Peel Aboriginal Network (PAN), the City of Brampton and dedicated volunteers, have worked together to create a special and unique garden at Heart Lake Conservation Area. With guidance from the local aboriginal community, staff and volunteers worked together to build a garden by hand, creating a space for healing, celebration and peace for all. Medicine Wheel Garden A Medicine Wheel Garden is the creation of a Sacred space for Healing, Celebration and Peace. The Aboriginal Medicine Wheel Garden honours Mother Earth's seasonal cycles, sacred cardinal directions, four sacred medicines (sage, sweetgrass, tobacco and cedar), the four scared colours (yellow, red, black and white), the cycles of life, the Aboriginal people and their culture. The teachings associated with the Aboriginal Medicine Wheel Garden are linked to the four cardinal directions and their seven grandfather teachings of honesty, respect, humility, love, wisdom, truth and courage. Features of the garden include, four mulched pathways separating garden beds representing the four cardinal directions, north, south, east and west. At the end of each garden there are four hand - crafted wooden benches each carved with the following animal symbols: eagle, turtle, buffalo and bear. The centre of the garden has been planted with a beautiful Eastern White cedar and the garden beds have been planted through community efforts with various native medicinal plants. The official opening of the Aboriginal Medicine Wheel Garden will be celebrated on Saturday, May 29, 2010 from 11 am to 1 pm at Heart Lake Conservation Area and will include archeological activities, plantings and a traditional opening ceremony. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • continue to work with the Heart Lake Project Team and Peel Aboriginal Network to monitor, enhance and perform ongoing maintenance on the Garden; • plan and implement the official opening of the Aboriginal Medicine Wheel Garden scheduled to take place on May 29 th from 11 am to 1 pm at HLCA. FINANCIAL DETAILS This project is part of the Heart Lake Master Plan implementation funded partly ($10,000) by the Peel Natural Heritage Regeneration budget. Additional matching funding ($8,000) has been made available through the TD Friends of the Environment Foundation and this project has also received significant in -kind support from the Heart Lake Community Action Group, City of Brampton, Peel Aboriginal Network and local community members. Report prepared by: Vince D'Elia, extension 5667 Emails: vdelia @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Vince D'Elia, extension 5667 Emails: vdelia @trca.on.ca Date: May 3, 2010 Attachments: 1 229 Attachment 1 Article written by Jason Matthews, an area resident who as dedicated a tremendous amount of time towards the construction and maintenance of the Aboriginal Medicine Wheel Garden at Heart Lake Conservation Area Circle of Life Boozhoo Aaniin, (Greetings) as the Anishnaabek (Objiwe) would say, I feel very fortunate to be sharing with you a privileged and wonderful opportunity. A few months ago a I met a group of passionate people that were working along side the aboriginal community on a special project to give back to the earth and to help others. This was the start of a beautiful Aboriginal Medicine Wheel Garden located at Heart Lake Conservation Area in Brampton. This Medicine Wheel Garden has been made possible through a wonderful partnership between the Peel Aboriginal Network, Toronto and Region Conservation, the Heart Lake Community Action Group, the Region of Peel, the City of Brampton and tremendous volunteer support from the local community. What is a Medicine Wheel Garden? It is the creation of a Sacred space for Healing, Celebration and Peace. It Honors Mother Earth's seasonal cycles and as the garden changes the circle of life continues. The concept of the Medicine Wheel Garden originated with the Sacred Medicine Wheel. It honours the four sacred cardinal directions, four sacred medicines (sage, sweetgrass, tobacco and cedar), the four scared colours (yellow, red, black and white), the four seasons and the cycles of life. The teachings are vast and my descriptions humbly represent a small fragment of their wholeness.. The medicine circle shows respect to the four cardinal directions, Mother Earth, Father Sky, Grandmother Moon and the Star People. The four directions have teachings and sub teaching designed to guide and ease our life's struggles, to heal and direct us on how to tread lightly on Mother Earth and show respect for all that is living. By creating a wheel, you are symbolically creating a universe (microcosm) within the universe (macrocosm) and creating a sacred place of healing,. To quote an Ojibwe Elder, "Just bring in the presence of a wheel, people will heal:.. Of course healing can be interpreted in several different ways and it can simply be an epiphany that emancipates you from a state of suffering. The Anishnaabek (Objiwe) often referred to the medicine wheel as the circle of life symbolizing the natural cycles such as birth, growth, death, regeneration, times of day, seasons and sacred medicinal herbs. The architecture of the wheel is created using a numerical system featuring the numbers 7 and 4. The number 7 represents the seven sacred directions: they are Father Sky which is blue, Mother Earth which is green, purple which is the Creator and the 4 cardinal directions. There are also the seven grandfather teachings which are Honesty, Respect, Humility, Love, Wisdom, Truth and Courage. These teachings represent the characteristics that exist in all us and are most important for us to cultivate in order to find happiness in ourselves and to assist others. They are also needed in order to "connect" for guidance along the journey of life, and to help others heal. The number 4 represents the colors, Yellow, Red, Black, and White which are used to refer to the four colors of man as well as the animal archetypes Eagle, Turtle, Buffalo and Bear which are part of the teachings of the four sacred or cardinal directions. It also represents the four phases of life which are birth, adolescence, adulthood and elder. These are also part of and not separate from the 4 sacred directions, they are East Eagle (yellow), South Turtle (red), West Buffalo (black), North Bear (white). The center of the circle when the four colors come together is purple, which represents the Creator. This color represents prayer and reflection which is nurtured throughout our everyday lives. We can relate to this through our everyday experiences and decide whether we respond like a blazing inferno or reflect on what we have learned, so we do not harm others. 230 In the East, the directional color is yellow which represents new beginnings, new day, the beginning of the seasons (spring) and the beginning of life for humans. The animal for this direction is the Eagle which flies closest to the creator and is a messenger between the creator and people. There is a story of an eagle asking the Creator not to destroy the earth because the Anishnaabek had been straying from the old ways of living in harmony with the earth. The eagle promised to find the people who knew how to live this way. So eagle flew out each morning until he found a small group of Anishnaabek people living in the traditional way. This is why the Aboriginal people have a sunrise ceremony to show respect for a new day and for all of creation, they do this by offering Tobacco which is the sacred medicine of the east. The smoke from the tobacco carries the prayers to the spirit world, the great realm of those that give us guidance. The lessons of the east are, honesty, sharing, being kind, open minded, innocence, joy, fullness, hope, guidance and leadership. In the South the color is red. Red represents the middle of the day, the summer and the time of adolescence in our lives. This direction reminds us to look after our spirits and when you are in balance with yourself, the spirits will guide and tell you "don't go in that direction, go in this direction" - we sometimes refer to this a "gut feeling ". The animal of this direction is Grandmother Turtle which represents truth because it is one of the oldest animals on our planet, and deliberate in its approach to life. The turtle is courageous because it only progresses when it sticks it neck out. It moves forward patientently and steadily progresses in order to achieve the desired results. The medicinal herb that is Sacred in this direction is Cedar. In the story about the Grandmother Cedar, she is asked by the creator "to walk with the people and provide assistance and medicine when they are off balance or hurting ". Grandmother Cedar accepts this request and this is why she is considered sacred. The medical properties of cedar are vast. Cedar is high in Vitamin C and is often associated with the easing of arthritic pain and tissue healing, assisting with chest colds and allergies, and the creation of bile salts in order to help with proper digestion.. In the West the color is black, it represents sunset, autumn, a time of harvest, and it also represents adult hood. By this time we have experienced death and loss and we learn about impermanence and that everything is governed by time. The west is the door way to the spirit world. This door is guarded by the buffalo which is sacred because of all the wonderful things that the buffalo has done for humans to survive, providing a source of food, clothing, shelter and tools. The lessons that we learn from buffalo include: honor, sharing and being generous with others. The herb that is sacred in this direction is Sage, which is a medicine of the women. Sage can be used as a tea and the smoke can be used for cleansing ceremonies, used to cleanse our spirit. Sage is also used to help us hear, see, smell and taste things in a good way. At the top of the wheel is the North direction which represents the night time and the winter season. It also represents the period in life when you become an elder, a time of peace, a time to reflect on how you have helped great mother earth and all her children and how you have inspired others and all the wonderful experiences you have had. It is also a place where you disconnect form the physical body. 231 The elders are the pipe carriers (a sign of respect to be shown) and lodge keepers. They provide us with teachings of the medicine wheel, which help us make peace with ourselves. The elders are cared for, they are the first to feast and they are never made to line up or wait for anything. Even in passing, we give respect to the elders by way of thoughts, memories and physical offerings. Usually a sprit plate is offered with tobacco at the fire or the north direction and the following words spoken: "Grandfathers, Grandmothers, Ancient ones and all our relations, we are here now, have pity on us. We have forgotten to feed you. You have lived a long time without food, and now we are here to honor you. Please come feast with us." The sacred animal for this direction is the bear. Bear medicine teaches us how to face danger, fear, or changes with confidence, it also teaches courage and the importance of fasting because the bear hibernates and doesn't eat until spring. The lessons that we learn in the north include strength and truth, and how to speak from a voice of wisdom to help the younger generation who need guidance. The sacred herb of this direction is sweet grass, the hair of great mother earth because it was the first plant to grow on earth. The grass is braided as if it was mother's hair and the smoke of sweet grass is used for cleansing and offers protection, and is also used when fasting to help take away the hunger. Now we have gone full circle and you can see the elegance and beauty of this system. Looking at the world through my new eyes, I have a greater love for the earth and truly see the symbiotic relationship we share with her. I think that if we can broaden our perspectives, factor in these teachings into our consciousness, we can truly make a difference with environmental concerns and inspire our youth, for they are the ones that will help us through the time of great healing to come. Miigwech. (Thank you) The Aboriginal Medicine Wheel is located at the Pineview Picnic site in the Heart Lake Conservation Area (10818 Heart Lake Rd., Brampton, Ontario). The park is open from April 18`h to October 12`h and park admission is required during operational hours. Article written by Jason Matthews, an area resident who as dedicated a tremendous amount of time towards the construction and maintenance of the Aboriginal Medicine Wheel Garden at Heart Lake CA. 232 RES. #A74/10 - DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Authority to proceed with submission of draft Environmental Assessment for approval and to pursue opportunities to adopt the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project as a "Project" under the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Suzan Hall THAT the Authority supports the concept design for the preferred alternative as specified in the Individual Environmental Assessment for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project (DMNP EA), subject to endorsement by Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) and Toronto City Council; THAT the Technical Advisory Committee and Community Liaison Committee be thanked for their assistance throughout the DMNP EA process; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to complete and submit the DMNP EA to the Ontario Ministry of Environment for consideration upon endorsement of the DMNP EA from TWRC and the City of Toronto to proceed; THAT staff be directed to continue discussions with TWRC, City of Toronto and other applicable stakeholders regarding the required components for flood protection on privately owned lands identified in the DMNP EA; THAT staff be directed to explore mechanisms such as a Memorandum of Understanding with TWRC outlining TRCA's continued involvement and funding as the responsible authority for ensuring that the function, and terms and conditions of the DMNP EA, are maintained beyond the approvals stage for the DMNP EA; THAT staff be directed to develop targeted flood plain management policies for the Lower Don Lands which will continue to minimize flood risk while also supporting and facilitating meeting the vision for a new Don River mouth consistent with the City of _ Toronto's proposed Official Plan Amendment and /or Zoning Amendment; THAT staff be directed to seek input from the Province of Ontario in developing these policies and to keep the City of Toronto and TWRC appraised of the development of these policies, and to report back to the Authority; THAT staff be directed to pursue opportunities, in conjunction with TWRC, to adopt the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project, such as a "Project" under the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the obtaining of any needed approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED 233 BACKGROUND Context of DMNP EA within the Lower Don Lands The `Lower Don Lands' is a large area of brownfields located on the east side of the Inner Harbour, in the northwest section of the larger Port Lands area. It will be the next area of the Central Waterfront to be revitalized following the West Don Lands and East Bayfront. Although its revitalization will pose complex technical challenges, it has exceptional potential to create an exciting and beautiful new waterfront district with a unique identity. Revitalization of the Lower Don Lands is a long -term endeavour that will take at least 30 years. The plans prepared by TWRC for the Lower Don Lands, if implemented, will establish the City of Toronto as a world leader in developing sustainable urban communities and the restoration of degraded natural landscapes. Successful implementation of the Lower Don Lands is also critical to opening up the rest of the vast Port Lands to revitalization. The big move' that drives the re- design of the Lower Don Lands is the creation of a new river valley and mouth for the Don River to restore some of its historical form and function in the harbour. The new valley will extend south and west through the Port Lands with connections to both the Inner Harbour and Ship Channel. The new river valley will remove surrounding lands from flood risk (i.e. more than 230 hectares of land are currently at risk to flooding to the east and south of the existing Don River), create new naturalized habitats, establish much more greenery and parks, and shape the character of the new waterfront communities. A `framework plan' for the Lower Don Lands is being considered by City Council and sets out a new structure for the district based on the new river valley. It integrates vibrant new neighbourhood precincts, water's edge green space, and innovative infrastructure and services. These plans depend on building the new river, related infrastructure and parkland, early in its development to provide essential flood protection and establish basic municipal servicing. The next challenge facing the Lower Don Lands and the Don Mouth is to obtain the funding to start the detailed design phase so the lands can be flood protected and so redevelopment can commence. DMNP EA Milestones The following is a chronological summary of events and milestones leading to the completion of the draft DMNP EA. More comprehensive summaries can be found in select Authority reports referenced herein. At Authority Meeting #4/00, held on April 28, 2000, Resolution #A86/00 on the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force was approved, in part, as follows: THAT the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto be commended for cooperating to launch this critical initiative and that they be encouraged to pursue implementation as quickly as possible;... ...THAT the Authority also commends the recommendations concerning a revitalization of the mouth of the Don including resolution of the flood risk issue which would provide a safer framework for redevelopment of the West Don Lands and the Port Lands;... 234 ...THAT the three levels of government be advised that the Authority sees implementation of the Task Force Report as a major impetus towards achieving the Remedial Action Plan goal of "delisting" the Toronto Waterfront as an "Area of Concern" within the Great Lakes Basin; AND FURTHER THAT an environmental restoration of this scale is of international significance, represents outstanding business opportunities and constitutes a global imperative. On March 5, 2001, City of Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman, federal Transport Minister The Honourable David Collenette, and Ontario Deputy Premier and Finance Minister The Honourable Jim Flaherty, announced the commitment of the three governments to the creation of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and the funding for priority capital projects totalling $300 million. Included in the priority capital projects was a $2 million allocation for the Environmental Assessment and Functional Design for the Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower Don River, and the identification that the project will be managed by TRCA. The objectives established for the Lower Don project as outlined in a City of Toronto report from the office of the City of Toronto, Chief Administrative Officer, dated April 2, 2001, to the City Policy and Finance Committee, were identified and include: 1. To clean up a significant local source of soil and groundwater pollution; 2. To establish a corridor of land for the Don River that provides: (a) Natural, stable, river channel and river mouth; (b) Healthy lake, river and shoreline habitat; (c) Natural habitat link between Lake Ontario and Don River Valley; and (d) Pedestrian and bicycle trail links between Lake Ontario Trails and Don River Valley trails; 3. To provide a flood protection solution for the West Don Lands that enables removal of the Holding Symbol; 4. To remove all other developable lands from the Regulatory Flood Plain and remove the Special Policy Area designations in the Lower Don Lands; 5. To maintain existing road traffic capacity through or around the affected area; and 6. To maintain a rail connection to the Port Industrial Area and the East Bayfront. At Authority Meeting #3/01, held on April 27, 2001, Resolution #A58/01 in regard to the Lower Don River Environmental Assessment and Functional Design for the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Initiative, was approved, in part, as follows: THAT the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario, and the City of Toronto be advised that the TRCA will undertake the Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower Don River: Environmental Assessment and Functional Design component of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Initiative and will make every reasonable effort to complete the project through to the submission of the Environmental Assessment within the 18 month time frame established for the work; 235 THAT the staff be directed to expedite the necessary contracts or agreements with the Interim Waterfront Corporation necessary to enable the Environmental Assessment and Functional Design for the Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower Don River to proceed; THAT the staff be directed to work closely with all levels of Government, and in particular, the City of Toronto to ensure that the project is integrated into the other waterfront revitalization initiatives, the Olympic Bid, transportation plans, the Toronto Remedial Action Plan, and the new Central Waterfront Plan;... ...THAT the preliminary studies undertaken to date, be used whenever possible to expedite the process including the fulfillment of the public consultation requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act through the demonstration of a long history of public consultation and support;... At Authority Meeting #9/02, held on October 25, 2002, Resolution #A246/02 authorizing staff to execute a Delivery Agreement for the Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower Don River with the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation was approved, as follows: WHEREAS the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) has requested that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a delivery agreement with TWRC to undertake certain works for the Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower Don River; AND WHEREAS it is in the interest of TRCA under its authority and, mandate as set out in the Conservation Authorities Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. 27) to enter into such an agreement; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority agrees to enter into the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization - Naturalization and Flood Protection For The Lower Don Delivery Agreement, subject to all terms and conditions being finalized in a manner satisfactory to Authority staff and the Authority's solicitors, Gardiner Roberts LLP; AND FURTHER THAT Authority officials be authorized and directed to take all necessary actions as may be required, including the signing of documents, for the execution of the Delivery Agreement. The Delivery Agreement recognized that TRCA will be the proponent to conduct two mutually independent EAs to achieve the objectives. The first EA was to identify a preferred alternative to provide flood protection along the west bank of the Lower Don River for the downtown core of Toronto, which includes all of the West Don Lands. This EA was completed in 2005 with the approval of the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project Class EA. The second EA, the DMNP EA, was to identify a preferred alternative to provide flood protection to the Portlands and East Don Lands (i.e. South Riverdale area), while naturalizing the Lower Don River from the mouth to Riverdale Park. The naturalization components of the study were also to provide for an attractive, multi -use amenity for the public. 236 At Authority Meeting #2/04, held on February 27, 2004, Resolution #A47/04 which authorized staff to proceed with Phase One of the DMNP EA (undertake the Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference) which included the hiring of Gartner Lee Limited (now known as AECOM), was approved, in part, as follows: WHEREAS the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been identified as the recipient agency to undertake the naturalization and flood protection of the mouth of the Don;... ...THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be directed to proceed with the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Coordinated Federal and Environmental Assessment Project in two stages to enable work on the individual EA to begin, in anticipation of the federal funding being released shortly; THAT TRCA staff be directed to proceed with Project Stage One activities, which include conducting required baseline studies for the area, participating in consultation forums, establishing an individual environmental assessment terms of reference (EA ToR) as per the requirements of provincial EA regulations, and other project management activities; THAT the consultant team led by Gartner Lee Limited be the awarded the contract(s) for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project, subject to TWRC written approval to retain Gartner Lee Limited and TWRC confirmation of funding availability for both stages of the project, as follows:... On August 17, 2006, the Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference for the DMNP EA received approval from the Ontario Ministry of Environment, providing TRCA authority to proceed with the DMNP EA. Between January and April 2007, TWRC undertook an International Design Competition for the Lower Don Lands in order to provide fresh ideas for integrating the various potentially competing project objectives under a unifying vision for the area, whereby a naturalized mouth of the Don River would provide a key focus for the future communities within the East Bayfront and Port Lands areas. On May 8, 2007, the design submitted by Michael Van Valkenburg and Associates (MWA) was identified by TWRC as the winning design of the competition. Key elements of the winning design as it relates to the DMNP Project EA include: • the retention of most of the Keating Channel; • a new river channel that flows south and then west into the Inner Harbour with an approximate location halfway between the Ship Channel and Keating Channel; • a flood spillway into the Ship Channel; • the integration of park space and natural areas along the river corridor; • the retention and incorporation of the Gardiner Expressway into their design; • a project build -out, and soil remediation and management plan; and • a vision for the establishment of transportation infrastructure connecting Toronto with the Port Lands. 237 Following the announcement, TRCA and our consultant team led by AECOM worked closely with TWRC and MWA to refine the results of the design competition in order to develop a new alternative (defined as Alternative 4WS) to be considered as part of our evaluation of alternatives in the DMNP EA. On March 29, 2008, TRCA presented the results of the evaluation of alternatives for the DMNP EA to the public. The results of the evaluation indicated that Alternative 4WS best met the goal and objectives for the DMNP EA. At Authority Meeting #3/08, held on April 25, 2008, Resolution #A72/08, directing staff to proceed with the further development of Alternative 4WS through the EA process, was approved as follows: WHEREAS the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment (EA) Team (led by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority [TRCA] and the Gartner Lee Limited consultant team) and the Lower Don Lands Design Team (led by Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) and the Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates consultant team) have worked extensively to integrate the results of the Lower Don Lands International Design Competition with the Don Mouth EA; WHEREAS the EA Team conducted a detailed technical evaluation of alternatives resulting in the selection of a preliminary preferred alternative (Alternative 4WS); WHEREAS the EA Team conducted extensive stakeholder consultation, in conjunction with the Lower Don Lands Design Team, to obtain stakeholder input and agreement on the EA alternatives evaluation process and selection of the preliminary preferred alternative; WHEREAS the verbal and written comments. following from the March 29, 2008 public consultation indicate concurrence with the selection of Alternative 4WS as the preliminary preferred alternative; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the EA Team proceed with the further development and detailed impact analysis of Alternative 4WS in cooperation with the Toronto Waterfront, the Lower Don Lands Design Team, and the City of Toronto. The Individual EA for the DMNP Project is nearing completion, and it is anticipated to be released for consideration to the Ministry of Environment in late summer - early fall 2010. TRCA staff continue to work closely with TWRC, the City of Toronto, project consultants, stakeholders and the public to finalize all remaining elements in the draft EA document, with a final draft anticipated for review by the City on May 7, 2010, which would facilitate a pre- submission draft to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) by the end of June 2010. DMNP EA Project Description Project Objective and Components The DMNP project will transform the existing mouth of the Don River, including the Keating Channel, into a healthier, more naturalized river outlet to the Toronto Inner Harbour and Lake Ontario, while at the same time removing the risk of flooding to 230 hectares of urban land to the east and south of the river. The conceptual design for the river mouth includes the following components: 238 • flood protection features; • sediment, debris, and ice management; • naturalization; and • recreation and open space. Flood Protection Features The conceptual design is comprised of a number of flood protection features, which include: • river valley formation; • east bank flood protection landform; • Keating Channel weirs; • grading and setbacks of development areas; and • modifications to grades surrounding Eastern Avenue at the Kingston Subdivision grade separation (near the BMW site). Creation of a new river valley (through a combination of cut and fill) is the primary means of conveying storm events up to and including the Regulatory Flood event. The river channel associated with the new valley system trends south and then west into the Inner Harbour, approximately halfway between the Ship Channel and the Keating Channel (Attachment 1). The design includes two overflow spillways that provide additional conveyance during storm events: the Keating Channel (labelled as 2a on Attachment 1) and the Ship Channel spillway (labelled as 3a on Attachment 1). Stabilization-of the valley system and river channel will ensure that flood events and the associated shear stresses do not erode into the underlying contaminated soils, undermine adjacent development blocks, nor result in the destruction of the lake- connected wetlands. A flood protection landform immediately east of the Don Roadway will extend between the elevated CN Rail Embankment and the Keating Yard to permanently eliminate the risk of flooding to the east through the Unilever property. It is anticipated that the footprint of this feature will allow for some continued use and occupation of the existing operations on the property, though it will necessitate establishing a new roadway access from the Don Roadway or Lake Shore Boulevard, modifying the existing loading bays and parking area, and relocating infrastructure from the northwest corner of the property. Additional flood protection works include regrading of the Don Roadway north of Lake Shore Boulevard and grading of the area around the Eastern Avenue underpass of the CN embankment. To improve flood conveyance, the existing Lake Shore Boulevard and Harbour Lead bridges will be lengthened from the two bays that currently exist to include a total of five bays. The three eastern bays will provide conveyance for river flows continuing straight south into the new principal river outlet. A weir structure will be placed just north of the Lake Shore Boulevard / Harbour Lead crossing at the two western bays and will regulate water to allow the passage of flood events through the Keating channel. It is proposed that an adjustable weir will be installed to allow for flexibility in operation. A sideflow weir will be installed to the south of the Lake Shore Boulevard crossing to permit flows greater than the two -year event to pass into the Keating Channel from the east. 239 To permanently remove flood risk from future development areas, the lands on either side of the river will be elevated approximately one to two metres above existing elevations. The valley will be raised a minimum of 0.5m higher than the anticipated water levels under a Regulatory Flood Event to accommodate climate change and other uncertainties. Given existing land uses at the BMW site (north of Reach 1), and the inability to raise Lake Shore Boulevard crossing (at this time), it is not anticipated that this additional 0.5m of freeboard can be attained in these two areas . New development areas will be required to be set back 10 metres horizontally from the top of valley (including the 0.5m freeboard). New development includes new lots, access routes and landscaping, among others, and therefore new structures may be set back further than 10 metres from the top of valley bank. Sediment, Debris, and Ice Management Sediment entering the new low flow channel and river mouth will be managed at a single location in Reach 1 by means of a sediment trap (Attachment 1). The sediment trap will be located north of Lake Shore Boulevard and will collect the majority of bedload (sand and coarse silt). It is not anticipated that secondary sediment management downstream from the sediment trap within the low flow channel, wetlands or the Inner Harbour will be required. A hydraulic dredge will be used to remove the bedload from the sediment trap. The water /sediment scurry generated by hydraulic dredging requires operation of a conveyance piping system. A flexible floating pipe connected to the hydraulic dredge barge will transition to permanent fixed piping utilities -that run along the Don Roadway to the Basin Street causeway at the mouth of the Ship Channel. A flexible pipe will carry the slurry from the Ship Channel wetland to a barge- mounted hydrocyclone, which is a dewatering system that spins the slurry to separate the water and sediment and sort the sediment by grain size. As is done currently, dredged material from the river mouth will be either reused or disposed of at the Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) at Tommy Thompson Park using towed, bottom - dumping scows. Debris will be managed in Reach 1 of the river. Two debris management booms will be placed across the entire length of the channel to corral floating debris after storm events and at other times as needed. Corralled debris will be removed by a crane and then dewatered and sorted on a small yard on the west side of the river for either offsite disposal and /or reused for habitat purposes where suitable. Ice management features are designed to prevent a concurrent risk of a flood event that is exacerbated by ice accumulations, and to reduce the risk to bridge piers and other infrastructure within the floodplain environment. Within Reach 2, the armoured transition between the Lake Shore Boulevard crossing and the Commissioners Street crossing will provide a place for ice to collect and break up, with capacity for overflow into the Keating Channel if an ice jam should occur. Naturalization The naturalized areas shown in the conceptual design consist of the following habitat types: • terrestrial / open space habitat, including open space and valley slope transitions; • wetland habitat, including levee systems and Take- connected wetlands; and • aquatic habitat. 240 Regarding terrestrial and open space habitat, the area along the top of banks of the new valley system (within the 10 metre setback) will consist of approximately four hectares of Upland Forest communities largely benefitting migratory birds. The valley slope transition represents an additional three hectares of naturalized area between the open space on the tableland and the wetlands on the valley bottom, and will be comprised of Upland Forest and Treed Swamp communities. Seepage wetlands have been identified as an opportunity to create high - quality wetlands that are fed through "clean" stormwater, rather than by the lake or river. To function as designed, these wetlands require that development within the adjacent River Precinct collect and deliver clean roof runoff to the wetlands. Prior to development within the River Precinct, or should the development not be built to support the seepage wetlands, the area will contain one hectare of additional Upland Forest communities. Approximately 5 ha of wetland habitat, composed of Thicket Swamp and Meadow Marsh communities, will be created and separated from the low flow channel by levee. The principal wetlands within the floodplain are the lake- connected wetlands (i.e., the water levels are controlled by the hydrology of the lake and fluctuation in lake levels) and are composed of Emergent Marsh, Submergent Marsh and Meadow Marsh habitat types. A total of approximately eight hectares (including nearly 0.5 hectares of former aquatic habitat within the Inner Harbour) has been designed as lake- connected wetlands. To exclude carp to the extent possible and maintain the quality of water, the lake- connected wetlands will be separated from the river using passive controls. Within the project study area, aquatic habitat improvements have been identified for the Don Mouth, Keating Channel and the Don Narrows. Aquatic habitat comprises an area of approximately 25 hectares, which is an increase of over 16 hectares compared to existing conditions. This area includes the new low flow channel (approximately seven hectares), modifications to the Keating Channel (approximately five hectares), and the newly created wetlands described above. Within the Don Narrows, any habitat that is constructed must not increase the frequency or extent of flooding, and ideally would improve the current flooding conditions. Possible habitat improvements within the Don Narrows which will be considered further include artificial bed structures, long -term replacement of sheet -piled banks and continued riparian plantings. Recreation and Open Space Although not part of the EA for approval purposes, the conceptual design includes over 14 hectares of open space outside of the new valley system that are intended to accommodate passive and active recreational uses while providing some habitat value (e.g., migratory bird use). Such uses include sports fields, event spaces, lawns, playgrounds and public gardens. There will be a trail system adjacent to the river located within the river floodplain. It will be a major connecting link between the Don Valley trail system, the Don Greenway and the Martin Goodman Trail, as well as the various natural communities in the Lower Don Lands. Project Benefits The outcomes of the DMNP project are strongly beneficial for all aspects of the environment. Hydrological modeling shows that the new river mouth will convey up to 1,700 m 3 of flood water (the Regulatory Flood) into Lake Ontario. This will remove the risk of river flooding to 230 hectares of land and over 850 buildings, as well as release the Lower Don lands and eastern Port Lands for intensified mixed use development. The sediment, debris and ice management features will ensure safe navigation in the harbour and flood protection. 241 The DMNP will create 33 hectares of sustainable, higher functioning habitat where there is currently no functional habitat or only highly degraded habitat. This will include the creation of 13 hectares of higher functioning wetland habitat, over 12 hectares of new and enhanced permanent aquatic habitat, and seven hectares of upland forest and transitional forest for passive recreation. These natural areas will provide important connections to existing habitat in Environmentally Sensitive Area 130, Cherry Beach, Lake Ontario, Tommy Thompson Park and the Toronto Islands. In addition to flood protection and ecological benefits, the DMNP will also provide a number of services to the City and support future development, including: • improved opportunities for the use of more efficient sediment management technologies (hydraulic dredge); • possible reuse of dredgate for development and habitat purposes; • continued removal of debris from the river and offers effective management of ice jams; • greatly improved trail and small watercraft recreation uses; • a great public open space for Toronto's central waterfront, similar to High Park in the west; and • integrated planning to identify efficiencies in the design and implementation of infrastructure crossings, stormwater management, public access nodes to the open space areas, and comprehensive consideration of soils and groundwater management. These benefits contribute to the sustainable nature of the project, as outlined in TWRC's Sustainability Framework. The DMNP will reurbanize underused urban lands; reduce car dependency; improve air quality, stormwater management, terrestrial and aquatic habitat, and biodiversity; enhance opportunities for recreational activities and improve public transit; and allow for the creation of vibrant, mixed -use communities in the Port Lands area. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TWRC endorsed the DMNP EA at their Board of Directors meeting on May 5, 2010. City of Toronto staff will be seeking endorsement of the DMNP EA at their Executive Committee on June 14, 2010 and at their City Council Meeting on July 6, 2010. For our part, TRCA has been asked to seek Authority support for the DMNP EA at the May 21, 2010 Authority meeting. Obtaining TRCA, TWRC and City Council support for the draft DMNP EA is seen as an important component of the Ministry of Environment review, demonstrating strong local support for the initiative. The Lower Don Lands Framework Plan, Keating Channel Precinct Plan and the Lower Don Lands Master Servicing Plan Class EA will also be going to TWRC and the City for endorsement as part of a comprehensive package with the DMNP EA. Receiving local and provincial approvals of these various planning initiatives is deemed to be the first critical component for securing funding for the following implementation stages of the project. To further facilitate funding efforts, TRCA staff is seeking Authority endorsement to pursue opportunities, in conjunction with TWRC, to adopt the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project, such as a "Project" under the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended. 242 FINANCIAL DETAILS There are no extra costs anticipated with the completion of the DMNP EA process, as all costs are anticipated to be within the budget provided by TWRC through the existing series of 191 accounts for the DMNP EA. Costs to proceed with detailed design and to construct the preferred concept plan are in the order of $625 million. Currently, no funding is available to proceed with the stage beyond receipt of EA approvals. Report prepared by: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: kdion @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: kdion @trca.on.ca Date: April 07, 2010 Attachments: 1 243 Attachment 1 244 Easttm A114 Minor Grade Don River Park Increase (Flood Protection LandfortM Sediment 1-1 ° Trap Sedirnent .. , Management Protection Facility Alt Landform at . 1.- Possible Sor3q,,ant Trap Expansita .,, :.=.. ::,,: .--' ......,1 . ,-. - .„.„ ', Management .......- '"' .'"" ,,.. '..... o Villiers wee s - 4 ,,- i iS tet4 0 00105 ,e.' 13., . 7 , I ? . 59 0 WP,..... Part Lanth P4.43 Proeciwel Prui00 Legend - ,-- Future Floodplain --- Setback from Floodnlain ,ar..rtwravro 4s7"., mrt,.,.. N.- onservation 5), L100 Mile, 109.• 1, .... for The living City 244 RES. #A75/10 - MEADOWCLIFFE DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT Completion of planning and design process and direction to proceed with construction. Moved by:. Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to initiate construction of the Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project; THAT TRCA request and encourage the City of Toronto to complete the Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project as soon as possible; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND At the request of several homeowners who expressed concern over the loss of property and the potential long -term risk to their homes, TRCA began monitoring erosion rates on Meadowcliffe Drive in 1985. In the spring of 2005, slides occurred along several sections of the Scarborough Bluffs, including Meadowcliffe Drive. In response to residents' concerns, TRCA commissioned Terraprobe Limited in 2005 to assess the site and slope conditions and to provide recommendations on slope and erosion stabilization works. Terraprobe's findings identified that localized deepening of the lake bed topography (an ongoing coastal process influenced by historic removal of aggregate, lake levels, substrate type) in the order of 0.2 to 0.3 metres may be contributing to ongoing erosion of the slope toe, which receded at an average rate of about 1.1 to 1.3 metres per year between 1980 and 2005. As a general trend the potential for waves to uprush and erode the slope toe increases with the deepening of the lake bed. Based on the significant recession of the slope, Terraprobe strongly recommended that shoreline protection works be implemented. At Authority Meeting #5/06, held on June 23, 2006, Resolution #A141/06 directed staff to commence a Class Environmental Assessment for the Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project, Scarborough Bluffs, City of Toronto. On September 15, 2006, TRCA commenced the Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Class Environmental Assessment to provide Tong -term protection against erosion by protecting the shore from wave energy, stabilizing slopes and enhancing natural processes. RATIONALE As part of the Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process, TRCA retained Shoreplan Engineering and Terraprobe to complete a detailed review and analysis of the existing conditions along the designated project area and assist with the development of alternative long -term remedial solutions to address the risk to public safety. To assist with the evaluation of the alternative options and provide input into the planning and design process, a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) was formed. Composed of technical staff, stakeholders, provincial agency staff, community activists and interested members of the public, the CLC became an integral part of the Class EA process. 245 Through a series of CLC meetings, a range of alternative options were considered, including headland beach systems, groynes, and breakwaters. These alternatives were evaluated and a preferred alternative was selected based upon the ability of the design to achieve the project objectives. The preferred solution determined through the Class EA process is a shoreline treatment consisting of cobble beach anchored by a series of parallel headlands which will protect 600 metres of eroding bluff below Meadowcliffe Drive. The headlands will be constructed with large (3 -5 tonne) armourstones, measuring between 80 to 100 m in length and spaced 100 to 150 m apart. The area between the headlands will consist of rubble material covered with a layer of beach cobble. The beach cobbles will be dynamically stable, and the profile shape will adjust to different wave conditions and water levels over time. The preferred solution also considers the potential need for a buttress at the base of the bluffs at the east end of the shoreline sector to reduce slope recession. Upon identifying the preferred solution, TRCA completed a detailed environmental analysis to determine any required mitigation measures. TRCA identified five construction access options and evaluated these options to determine the preferred route. The preferred option is to access the site from the east via TRCA's existing service road which provides shoreline access from the Guild Inn. TRCA has taken measures to address public concerns related to this route to ensure that all impacts are mitigated. This includes investigating opportunities for a waterfront trail connection between the Guild Inn, Meadowcliffe, and Bluffers Park shorelines as part of TRCA's long -term strategic planning process, which could provide secondary shoreline access for ongoing emergency, construction, and maintenance vehicles. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE In addition to the Class EA process, TRCA recognizes that the project will require an environmental screening under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). CEAA will be triggered in response to the potential environmental impacts that the project will produce pursuant to subsection 35(2) under the federal Fisheries Act and section 5(1) of the federal Navigable Waters Protection Act. Working with representatives from City of Toronto, Ministry of Natural Resources, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Transport Canada, TRCA will prepare a screening report to fulfill the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This screening report will facilitate the necessary federal approvals that will be required to implement the project. Upon receipt of all approvals, initiation of construction will commence in 2010. Due to fiscal constraints, construction will be phased over numerous years. Each phase of in -water construction will take place outside of the warm water fisheries window, March 31 to July 1. Work will be initiated from east to west to ensure minimal disturbance to completed sections of the project. In July, 2010 TRCA proposes to commence construction on the most easterly portion of the required shoreline access road between the Sylvan Avenue shoreline and Bellamy Ravine. Commencing in 2011, works will proceed westward with construction of the rubble access road, 30 m south of the existing Meadowcliffe Drive shoreline to prevent further wave erosion at the toe of the bluffs. Following construction of the access road, TRCA will proceed with earth filling works and complete the construction of the proposed shoreline protection as funding becomes available. 246 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project has been identified in the 2010 - 2014 Toronto Capital Budget, with $400,000 in funding available in 2010 from the City of Toronto in TRCA's Valley and Erosion Control budget under account code 145 -01. The total project costs based on 2010 dollars is estimated at approximately $9 million. Based on the current level of funding it is anticipated that the work will take upwards of 20 years to complete. TRCA staff are seeking other potential funding sources to accelerate construction. Report prepared by: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Email: Istephenson @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Email: Istephenson @trca.on.ca Date: April 20, 2010 RES. #A76/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: RESERVATIONS, BOOKINGS AND POINT OF SALE SOFTWARE Award of Contract for Supply and Hosting. Award of five year contract for supply and hosting of Reservations, Bookings and Point of Sale Software. Bill Fisch Jack Heath THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a contract with Media Mix Interactive for supply and hosting of Reservations, Bookings and Point of Sale Software on the following terms and conditions: (i) the term of the contract will be five years with an option for a five year renewal, subject to performance satisfactory to TRCA; (ii) the fees paid by TRCA to Media Mix Interactive be on a per- transaction basis, not to exceed $10 per Reservation or Booking transaction, plus applicable taxes; (iii) Media Mix Interactive shall be solely responsible for all costs and approvals associated with Reservations, Bookings and Point of Sale Software implementation and web - server hosting, as well as all call centre expenditures; (iv) any other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by TRCA staff and solicitor; THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the above - mentioned proponent, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract , negotiations with other firms that submitted proposals, beginning with the next firm on the evaluation scale meeting TRCA specifications, on substantially the same terms and conditions as set out above; 247 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to implement the contract, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND It is the intention of TRCA to draw additional users to all of its public facilities and programs in order to expand and diversify the client base and in turn increase revenues. Following a comprehensive needs assessment, staff found a lack of on -line services available to TRCA clients. Furthermore, the following services were recognized as those requiring significant improvement in order to enhance customer experience: • Campground Reservation System: ability for clients to make campground reservations on -line. Currently all camping reservations are made via telephone and are tracked internally via Camis software. • Booking System: ability for clients to make facility and program bookings (education, picnics, special events, etc.) on -line. Currently all bookings are made via telephone and are tracked internally via Vision software. • Point of Sale System: ability for staff to track and manage inventory and sales reports on -line. Currently most TRCA facilities utilize cash registers and produce limited sales reports. As a result, staff found a need for a single comprehensive software package that will: • enable on -line campground reservations and facility and program bookings as well as an integrated point -of -sale system; • provide comprehensive reports that may be easily integrated with TRCA's internal systems (Lotus Notes and accounting system); • enhance customer experience and engage the public; • increase management around supply and demand of TRCA facilities and inventory; • streamline TRCA's business operations and improve communications; • be accessible to all staff and clients; and • increase revenue streams. Following the comprehensive needs assessment, staff issued Requests for Information (RFI) and invited all responding firms to make a presentation on available software products. Staff collected necessary information in regards to the available software market and pricing structures from the presentations. RATIONALE The information collected from the responses to the RFI documentation was used to create Request for Proposal (RFP) documentation. The RFP for Supply and Hosting of Reservations, Bookings and Point of Sale Software was publically advertized on February 24 , 2010 via the website www.biddingo.com. Proposals closed on Friday, March 19, 2010 at 4:00 pm and the six proposals received were opened on Monday March 22, 2010 by TRCA staff (Martha Wilson, Kate Pankov and Cindy Maw). 248 Proposals were received as follows: Firm Proposed Fee Structure (excluding applicable taxes) Proposed Services and Notes Camis • Estimated Year 1 total $75,000 (flat fee) • One integrated web - hosted Reservations, Bookings and Point of Sale Software • No call centre capabilities • Estimated Year 2 total $49,990 (flat fee) • Staff training • Full software development, hosting and maintenance Media Mix Interactive • $10 per Reservation and Booking Transaction • No fees for Point of Sale transactions • Estimated annual total of $90,000 • One integrated web - hosted Reservations, Bookings and Point of Sale Software • Call centre that will process all reservations and bookings including all transactions • Staff training • Full software development, hosting and maintenance Jonah Group • Estimated Year 1 total of $225,000 • One integrated web - hosted Reservations, Bookings and Point of Sale Software • No call centre capabilities • Estimated Year 2 total of $123,000 • Staff training • Full software development, hosting and maintenance Active Network • $38,200 fee in Year 1 in addition to regular annual fees • 2% transaction fee on all Reservations and Bookings transactions • additional 2.5% on all Credit Card transactions for Reservations and Bookings transactions • $72,000 per year flat fee for Point of Sale software, • Additional charges for consultant air -fare • Estimated Year 1 total $238,200 • One integrated web - hosted Reservations, Bookings and Point of Sale Software • No call centre capabilities • Staff Training • Full software development, hosting and maintenance • Limited campground reservations capabilities due to lack of interactive map features • Estimated Year 2 total $200,000 Micros • Estimated Year 1 total of $281,000 • Three separate integrated software programs • No call centre capabilities • Estimated Year 2 total of $176,223 • Staff training • Full software development, hosting and maintenance Tier One • Estimated annual total of $151,000 • Three separate integrated software programs • No call centre capabilities • Staff training • Full software development, hosting and maintenance 249 Staff evaluated the proposals based on criteria that included: • overall qualifications and relevant project experience; • qualifications and experience of its proposed key project personnel; • understanding of the project objectives and opportunities; • ability to approach and provide the required scope of services outlined in the RFP documentation; • references; • fee proposals; and • any other considerations deemed relevant by TRCA. Based on the evaluation, staff has concluded that the proposal submitted by Media Mix Interactive best meets all requirements set out in the Request for Proposal. More specifically, the proposal submitted by Media Mix Interactive exceeds all other proposals in the following criteria: • Project Experience and Understanding - Media Mix Interactive currently provides similar software solutions to: • Parks Canada; • Ontario Parks; • Grand River Conservation Authority; • Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority; • Essex Conservation Authority; • The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. • Fee Proposal - Media Mix Interactive proposes a per transaction only fee structure that minimizes expenditures during slow business periods. • Call Centre - Media Mix Interactive will provide a fully operational customer service call centre that will process clients reservations and bookings. Staff therefore recommends award of a five year contract for supply and hosting of Reservations, Bookings and Point of Sale Software to Media Mix Interactive based on it meeting all TRCA specifications. Staff is confident that Media Mix Interactive will execute the required project in a cost effective and timely manner. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE May 21 - June 11: Contract Administration • Finalization of project scope and details such as internet connectivity. June - November: Software Implementation • Creation of all on -line front counters including education, facility programs and camping. Development of interactive maps and integration with payment gateway and accounting modules. November - December: Staff Training and Software Finalization • Soft launch at facilities and final setup of point of sale items and staff review and training. December 2010: Go Live • Full launch of application. 250 Time is of the essence to implement the new system. If staff is unsuccessful in negotiating an agreement with Media Mix, there will be no time to bring a new recommendation to the Authority. Accordingly, staff is seeking authorization to negotiate with the company offering the next best proposal and to enter into a contract on substantially the same terms and conditions as the recommendation for Media Mix detailed above. FINANCIAL DETAILS Transaction fees of $10 per transaction (approximately $90,000 annually based on 9,000 transactions per year) will be passed directly onto the client at the time of the reservation or booking. Passing of transaction fees onto the client is standard practice in the camping and on -line ticket sales industry. All TRCA facilities require high speed internet connectivity in order to support the software. Staff is currently working on establishing internet connectivity at all locations through a combination of General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) routers, Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) and Satellite methods. Funds required for Internet connectivity (average cost of $55 /month, totalling approximately $7,920 /year across all TRCA facilities) are available within each facility's operating budget. Furthermore, in order for the system to work at the facility level, all existing cash register sites that will be using Media Mix Interactive Point of Sale program must be replaced with a computerized system. Currently, there are 40 Point of Sale units across TRCA, 26 of these require new hardware priced at approximately $2,000 per unit, totalling approximately $52,000. Funds to cover such hardware costs are available within capital funding through TRCA's municipal partners. Report prepared by: Kate Pankov, extension 6418 Emails: kpankov @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kate Pankov, extension 6418 Emails: kpankov @trca.on.ca Date: May 10, 2010 RES. #A77/10 - PETTICOAT CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Construction of Outdoor Aquatic Facility. Award of contract for construction of an outdoor aquatic facility at Petticoat Creek Conservation Area. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Pamela Gough THAT the contract for construction of an outdoor aquatic facility at Petticoat Creek Conservation Area be awarded to Beta and Associates Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $2,300,000.00, plus applicable taxes, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; 251 THAT award of the contract be subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and legal advisers, including but not limited to determination of the final contract cost not to exceed the approved amount; THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the above - mentioned contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the second lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT staff report back on the aquatic facility 2011 fee structure; AND FURTHER THAT authorized staff be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Petticoat Creek Conservation Area (PCCA) is an active conservation park consisting of picnic areas, numerous trails and public washrooms and other various amenities, providing a variety of recreational opportunities to local, regional residents and various tourists. The primary feature of the park is a 1,300 person capacity swimming pool, the largest outdoor swimming pool of its kind in Ontario. The PCCA pool requires significant annual capital investment to achieve minimum operating standards as staff continues to monitor considerable deterioration of vital pool components. As a result of such significant repairs and investment required for ongoing Petticoat pool operations, TRCA staff applied for both provincial and federal funding in order to replace the existing pool with a new aquatic facility. The application requested $3,000,000, two thirds of the cost provided by Canada RInC (Recreational Infrastructure Canada) and Ontario REC (Recreation) Program funding, with TRCA required to secure the remaining $1 million. On July 7, 2009 the Canada RInC and Ontario REC Program released an official list of all projects approved for funding. Redevelopment of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool was approved for funding requested. The funding arrangement includes aggressive deadlines as grant conditions which requires the work to be completed by March 31, 2011. In order to meet Canada RInC and Ontario REC Program timelines, TRCA staff identified the following three project phases: Phase 1- Demolition Phase Phase 2 - Subbase Preparation Phase Phase 3 - Aquatic Facility Construction Phase At Authority Meeting #6/09, held on July 24, 2009, Resolution #A121/09 for the redevelopment of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool was approved as follows: THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to undertake the redevelopment of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool through the federal Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) Program in Ontario and Ontario Recreation (REC) Program; 252 AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report to the Authority for additional approvals as required. Furthermore, at Authority Meeting #2/10, held on March 26, 2010, Resolution #A27/10 for the demolition of the existing Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool was approved, in part, as follows: THAT the contract for Petticoat Creek Conservation Area swimming pool demolition project be awarded to Amlap Corporation, at a total cost not to exceed $93,700.00, plus 10% contingency allowance, plus applicable taxes, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;... Following completion of pool demolition, staff identified Subbase Preparation as the next phase of the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Swimming Pool project. Staff worked closely with the project's design consultants, Harrington and McAvan Ltd., to prepare and refine detailed design and construction drawings required to move forward with the Subbase Preparation Phase of the project. The Subbase Preparation Project scope of work includes the following items and is set to be completed by early June, 2010. • tree protection and fencing; • erosion control measures; • grading and excavation (405m3); • Backfilling with Compacted Granular 'B'(1,100m3); • Utility / Service Locates. The work referenced above was approved, in part, by TRCA's Chief Administrative Officer, on May 20, 2010 as follows: THAT the contract for Petticoat Creek Conservation Area swimming pool subbase preparation project be awarded to BLT Construction Services, at a total cost not to exceed $75,200.00, plus 10% contingency allowance, plus applicable taxes, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;... Over the last few months staff worked closely with Harrington and McAvan Ltd. to prepare and refine detailed design and construction drawings required to move forward with the aquatic facility construction phases tendering and permit process. Key design features of the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area aquatic facility include: • fully accessible; • 6 feet deep, over 1600m 2 concrete pool with beach entry; • state of the art vacuum DE filtration system with skimmers and recycled backwash waters; • splash pool area over 1500m2 with interactive water play as well as hand manipulated water features; • large splash pad without standing water • both active and passive water play areas at varying heights and spray effects; • large seating, picnicking, and viewing areas; • barrier -free, 1,500 sq. ft. adjacent pool complex facility featuring low flow toilets, faucets, motion occupancy and T8 lighting; and • viewing deck. 253 RATIONALE Request for Tenders for the construction of the aquatic facility at Petticoat Creek Conservation Area was publically advertised on April 28, 2010 and the following 14 firms obtained tender documents and attended a mandatory site meeting: • Accent Building Sciences Inc.; • B.L.T: Construction Services; • Water and Ice North America Inc.; • Beta and Associates Inc.; • Acapulco Pools; • Empex Watertoys; • Amlap Corp.; • Alcam; • A Plus General Contractors; • Morosons General Contractor; • Cedar Springs Landscape Group Ltd.; • DeFaveri Group Inc.; • Ferdom Construction; • One Stop General Contractors. Tenders closed on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 4:00 pm and were opened at Tender Opening Committee Meeting #2/10, held on May 19, 2010 by the following TRCA staff and Authority member: • Maria Augimeri - Vice Chair, TRCA; • Derek Edwards - Director, Parks and Culture; • Jim Dillane - Director, Finance and Business Services; • Kathy Stranks - Manager, Chair and CAO's Office; • Brad Clubine - Project Manager, Parks and Culture; • Doug Miller, Manager, Conservation Parks; • Kate Pankov, Project Technician, Parks and Culture. The following is a summary of the tenders received: 254 Construction of Aquatic Facility at Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Firm Bid (Plus GST) Accent Building Sciences Inc. No Bid B.L.T. Construction Services $2,653,365.79 * Water and Ice North America Inc. No Bid Beta and Associates Inc. $2,836,000.00 Acapulco Pools No Bid Empex Watertoys No Bid Amlap Corp. No Bid Alcam No Bid A Plus General Contractors $2,886,000.00 Morosons General Contractor No Bid Cedar Springs Landscape Group Ltd. No Bid DeFaveri Group Inc. $3,433,023.00 Ferdom Construction No Bid One Stop General Contractors No Bid * The bid provided by B.L.T. Construction Services was disqualified as they failed to provide a bid bond as required in the specifications. Based on the evaluation criteria and recommendations from Harrington and McAvan Ltd., staff concluded that the tender submitted by Beta and Associates Inc. is the lowest bid received that meets all requirements set out in the tender documents. The lowest tendered bid is over the approved available budget of $2,300,000. plus applicable taxes. The tender specifications are segmented such that aspects of the work can be removed to achieve the budget for the project without impacting the core requirements of the project. In order to meet the budget requirements, staff will implement the following actions to achieve cost saving measures: 1) line item deletions or deferrals: the project's scope of work to be altered by directly deleting line items from the tender form; 2) revisions using submitted unit prices: the project's scope of work to be altered by revising the quantity of selected design elements (revised prices shall be calculated by applying the unit prices for addition and deletion of items submitted by the contractor on the tender form); and 3) negotiated reductions using submitted lump sum prices after redesign: reductions to be achieved through the redesign of selected project elements and subsequent negotiations with the contractor. As a result of the implementation of the cost saving measures, the integrity of the project will remain intact and will not be compromised. Staff recommends that the contact for construction of an aquatic facility at Petticoat Creek Conservation Area be awarded to Beta and Associates Inc. for a cost not to exceed $2,300,000.00, plus applicable taxes, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority requirements. 255 FINANCIAL DETAILS Two thirds of the cost of the project will be from Canada RInC and Ontario REC programs. The remaining one third of the funds will be secured from future revenues produced by the operation of the aquatic centre. A request has been made for funding participation from the City of Pickering which, if successful, would reduce the funds required from future revenues. Report prepared by: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards @trca.on.ca Date: May 19, 2010 RES. #A78 /10 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY -OWNED LAND Rear of 109 Autumn Grove Court Village of Kleinburg, City of Vaughan, CFN 43190. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is in receipt of a request from Mr. Piero Carbone to explore the possibility of a sale of a fragment of TRCA -owned land located north of Major Mackenzie Drive, east of Regional Road 27 (rear of 109 Autumn Grove Court), Village of Kleinburg, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #830/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Suzan Hall THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) land located directly behind 109 Autumn Grove Court, Village of Kleinburg, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be retained for conservation purposes; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to arrange for the removal of the existing encroachment on TRCA property at this location. CARRIED RES. #A79 /10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Nine -Ten West Limited, CFN 43941. Purchase of property located north of Rutherford Road, east of Dufferin Street, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 - 2010 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed. (Executive Res. #B31 / 10) 256 Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Suzan Hall THAT 0.77 hectares (1.90 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 17, Concession 2 and designated as Blocks 63 and 65 on a draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Schaeffer & Dzaldov Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No. 03- 517 -00, dated April 22, 2009, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located north of Rutherford Road, east of Dufferin Street, be purchased from Nine -Ten West Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including execution and signing of all necessary documentation. RES. #A80 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED MARIE CURTIS PARK Award of Contract. Award of contract for a landscape architect firm to provide full design services for Marie Curtis Park on the Toronto waterfront. (Executive Res. #B32/ 10) Gay Cowbourne Suzan Hall THAT the contract to provide full design services for Marie Curtis Park (East and West) be awarded to The MBTW Group at a total cost not to exceed $240,000, plus applicable taxes; THAT staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of ten percent (10 %) of the total cost of the contract for eligible disbursements and as a contingency allowance, if deemed necessary; THAT staff be authorized to proceed to initiate Phase 1 - Site Inventory, Assessment and Concept Design prior to Authority Meeting #4/10, scheduled to be held on May 21, 2010, to facilitate very restricted timelines for public consultation; 257 AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including obtaining the necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A81 /10 - URBAN FOREST STUDIES Award of Sole Source Contract. Award of sole source contract to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for iTree modeling and analysis services. (Executive Res. #833/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Ron Moeser THAT the contract for conducting the analysis of urban forest data from the cities of Pickering and Vaughan, and towns of Markham and Richmond Hill, be awarded to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, at a cost not exceeding $211,000.00 (CDN); AND FURTHER THAT authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including obtaining necessary approval, signing and executing the documents. CARRIED SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION RES. #A82 /10 - HEARING REPORT Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Lida Pabst THAT the Hearing Report contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/10, held on May 7, 2010, be received. RES. #A83 /10 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Seconded by: Richard Whitehead Suzan Hall CARRIED THAT Section II items EX9.1 - EX9.5, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/10, held on May 7, 2010, be received. CARRIED 258 Section II Items EX9.1 - EX9.5, Inclusive 119R GLEN ROAD, CITY OF TORONTO (Executive Res. #B36/ 10) ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (Executive Res. #B37/10) PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN (Executive Res. #B38 /10) PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN (Executive Res. #B39 /10) CITY OF VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 620 RES. #A84 /10 - SECTION 1I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Seconded by: Bill Fisch Jack Heath THAT Section II item EX9.6 - Long Term Office Accommodation Project, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/10, held on May 7, 2010, be received. RES. #A85 /10 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Moeser Linda Pabst CARRIED THAT Section II item EX9.7 - Bluffer's Park Entrance Channel Emergency Dredging, Tender RSD10 -12, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/10, held on May 7, 2010, be received. SECTION IV - RES. #A86 CARRIED ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD 10 - ONTARIO DRINKING WATER STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM UPDATE Update on the Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship program. Moved by: Seconded by: Paul Ainslie Bryan Bertie THAT the staff report on the Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program Update be received. CARRIED 259 BACKGROUND In February 2010, the CTC Stewardship staff secured $513,415 in funding through the Ministry of the Environment's Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program (ODWSP) to assist eligible landowners with projects that protect municipal drinking water sources in 2010. The funding received is comprised of two allocations, Early Actions Project Grants and funding for management and delivery of the ODWSP. A total of $86,415 is being shared by Credit Valley Conservation and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to promote and administer the grant program. There are no ODWSP funds allocated for the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority as 100% of the area's municipal drinking water comes from Lake Ontario and is not eligible for the program. The Ministry of the Environment has allocated $427,000 for grants that will go directly to landowners who complete approved projects on property located within a municipal council approved "two year time of travel" area near municipal drinking water wells. The CTC Source Protection Region works in partnership with the regions of Peel, York and Durham. Wellhead protection areas in the towns of Orangeville, Mono, Amaranth and Erin are still in the process of being delineated and outreach efforts will proceed in these areas once the "two year time of travel" is approved. Eligible aroiects in,the 2010 allocation include: Wells Upgrading or decommissioning 80% up to $4,000 Connection to municipal water supply 80% up to $4,000 Septic Systems Inspections /upgrading, replacement or decommissioning 80% up to $7,000 Connection to municipal sewer 80% up to $7,000 Pollution Prevention Reviews (P2) Pollution Prevention reviews for businesses with fewer than 500 employees 100% up to max of $12,000 Runoff and Erosion Control Riparian habitat management, manure storage /treatment, erosion control, cover crops • Equipment for Improved Manure Land Application • Riparian Area Management • Erosion Control Structures (Riparian) • Erosion Control Structures • Land Management for Soils at Risk • Cover Crops • NM Planning — Soil & Erosion Salinity Control Planning 25% - 70% up to max of $1,000 - $60,000 In order to qualify for funding, all projects must be completed and paid in full with documentation submitted to conservation authority staff no later than December 31, 2010. Retroactive funding is also considered for eligible projects completed after September 19, 2006 . All funding is allocated on a first come, first served basis. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Conservation authority staff, in partnership with their municipal partners, will be conducting meetings and targeted mail -outs to landowners within the eligible funding areas. Stewardship staff are sending a letter to update the local and regional councillors in the CTC Region of the funding available. 260 In addition, Stewardship staff has prepared a second letter outlining the funding available to all landowners within the "two year time of travel ". This letter will be sent with a joint mailing from CTC Communications staff. Early Actions Funding has been allocated for an information session that will be hosted in the Region of Halton. This information session will be similar to sessions held in York and Peel under the 2009 allocation. CVC staff is also designing custom postcards for a targeted mailing to the communities of Halton Hills, Erin, Orangeville and Mono. Information regarding stewardship projects in the CTC Source Protection Region is provided on the CTC website (www.ctcswp.ca) and has been recently updated. All landowners are encouraged to refer to the website for the maps outlining the eligible "2 year time of travel" areas, details regarding the funding categories and the application forms. FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA, on behalf of the CTC Source Protection Region, has received $513,415 in Early Actions funding for 2010. The CTC Early Actions Grant portion of that funding is $501,000. TRCA and CVC have spent $58,031 of that total on Septic Project applications and $1,839 on Well Project applications which equals $59,870 spent to date. In addition, TRCA has $145,297 in unpaid "active" Septic Project applications that we are currently processing. This will bring our total of allocated funds to $205,168. As of May 13, 2010 we have $295,832 remaining for new eligible CTC applications. A total of $86,415 as been assigned by the MOE as delivery dollars for staff to administer the program. To date, we have spent $26,864 of our delivery funds. The Early Actions Funding Program will not be extended beyond December 31, 2010. Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5638 Emails: jjeffery @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5638 Emails: jjeffery @trca.on.ca Date: May 07, 2010 RES. #A87/10 - IN THE NEWS Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities and news stories from February - April, 2010. Moved by: Seconded by: Paul Ainslie Bryan Bertie THAT the summary of media coverage and Good News Stories from February - April, 2010 be received. CARRIED 261 BACKGROUND Since 2006, the Authority has received a staff report on Good News Stories which summarized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) key accomplishments for the preceding few months. Further, at Business Excellence Advisory Board Meeting #1/06, held on March 3, 2006, it was requested that an overview of media coverage for TRCA be provided twice yearly. The new format is to provide one report providing highlights of TRCA's activities and news coverage, as outlined in this staff report. The consolidated "In the News" report will be brought to the Authority for receipt every couple of months in place of the Good News Stories and Media Summary reports. Healthy Rivers and Shorelines • Watershed Management - Beach - Riverdale Mirror article on the final meeting for Don Mouth Naturalization and Flood Protection project is published on February 10th. • Globe and Mail discusses low waters levels in Lake Ontario and the potential dredging work by TRCA in article "Low Water Keeps Boats in Dock" on April 22nd. • New watershed committees held their first meetings. • Education and Stewardship - The Ontario Trillium Foundation awarded $238,600 to TRCA Stewardship for The "Valleybrook Community Stewardship Initiative ", a four year project to engage local schools, community groups and residents in lot level stormwater management activities in and around the Etobicoke Creek. • TRCA hosted the first Greater Toronto Area Conservation Authorities Watershed Monitoring Forum with Credit Valley Conservation, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and Conservation Halton. Information was presented on conservation authority monitoring of watershed indicators of health, and the benefits of long -term monitoring results for use by municipal partners were highlighted. • Certification /Awards - Don Watershed Concept Sites project received a Regional Award from the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects in their Awards of Excellence program. • Facilities, Equipment and Property - Caledon Citizen reports on potential damage to Boyce's Creek from the failure of a Peel Well and mentions TRCA will be working with Peel and MNR in the article "Agencies assessing impacts from silt flowing into Boyce's Creek" on April 8th. • Installed piece of equipment that removes calcification from water at Kortright. • Planning and Development - The Ontario Municipal Board refused applications for zoning amendment /subdivision at 148 -156 Rowntree Mill Road, City of Toronto. • Research and Innovation - Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is beginning to recognize the significance and importance of TRCA's Headwater Study to their mandate to protect fish and fish habitat. This was evident at a full day discussion on Headwaters at a recent DFO training session. DFO has committed $10,000 to continue our important research, monitoring and policy development initiatives around Headwaters. Regional Biodiversity • Land Acquisition - Toronto Sun and Etobicoke Guardian did stories on Heathercrest Park and its potential acquisition. • Purchased the Pine Valley Link, an unopened road allowance backing on to Boyd Conservation Area. 262 • Planning and Development - Story about Uxbridge land purchase to improve trail appears in Uxbridge Times Journal on May 10th. • Richmond Hill Liberal article "Metrus' development plan for Observatory now public" mentions TRCA will be reviewing development plans for Dunlop Observatory. • Facilities, Equipment and Property - Rouge Park mentioned in Toronto Sun Story " Give Zoo to the Feds" on February 28th; Rouge Park also mentioned in February 11th story in Markham Sun Times called "Markham's leisure plan pegged at $325 million over 10 years ". • Tommy Thompson Park media coverage appeared in the Globe and Mail "Leslie Street Spit's fleeting beauties" and Toronto Star's "The magical lilliput of Leslie St. Spit ". • On February 4th, the first pedestrian footbridge on the East Don Trail was set in place creating a key pedestrian link between the Wynford Heights community and Milne Hollow, part of the Charles Sauriol Reserve. Further work planned for 2010/11 will see the completion of this trail segment and a connection established linking to Moccasin Trail Park on the west side of the Don Valley. • Education and Stewardship - TRCA was invited to participate in a panel presentation on "Building Green for a Sustainable Future" as part of the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) and Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) combined conference, held February 21st -24th in Toronto. TRCA's experience and decision process with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) construction principles as it relates to the Restoration Services Centre, TRCA's first LEED Platinum project, was presented to an audience of elected municipal politicians and senior public works officials from across the province. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and Enermodal Engineering staff were co- presenters. • Wildlife - TRCA mentioned in story "Dogs and cats at risk as epidemic kills raccoons" in the Toronto Star on February 18th. • Story "Coyote attack on dogs raises concerns in Scarborough" by Scarborough Mirror, discusses signage in Rouge Park on how to manage a coyote encounter. • Story "birds flocking back to Scarborough" mentions that bird counters spotted trumpeter swans in Rouge Park in January 21st article. • On April 22nd, CBC TV News, Rogers First Local and Toronto Sun cover the Duffins Creek Atlantic salmon stocking event. • Ivory Gull observed at Cherry Beach on February 15th. This rare bird is classified as "near threatened ", and few are seen south of the pack ice in the arctic. This bird appeared to have briefly used the habitat created by TRCA along the waterfront. • Fisher (the mammal) spotted in the Glen Major area, the first record and actual proof of this species within TRCA's jurisdiction. The presence of this species is a great indicator of the quality of the Glen Major Forest and the connectivity it provides to habitats to the north. • Mink spotted in Marigold Creek. • Caught an adult Atlantic salmon off the shore of Port Union Waterfront Park. The fish was not marked indicating that it was a hatchery release that has lived in the river and lake for the past few years. • Spring ephemerals are blooming 18 days early this year. • Restoration - National Post wrote a story called "Island Tunnel plan revived" which mentioned Tommy Thompson Park fish habitat restoration. 263 Sustainable Communities • Facilities, Equipment and Property - TRCA's stance on fencing in Humber Park West's Dog Park is mentioned in story "Dog park set to open" in the Etobicoke Guardian on February 3rd. • Initiated final land acquisition component for Mimico Linear Park - Phase 2, meaning we can start construction this year. • Bathurst Glen Golf Course received full Audubon accreditation. • Education and Stewardship - News of Life is Better in Peel, an education awareness campaign, is covered by CanadianBusiness.com. • Northumberland Today publishes story about EcoSchools and mentions TRCA in story "Percy Centennial becomes an Eco- school ". • Water.ca posts podcast interview with TRCA discussing building housing to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards. • Partners in Project Green held its first Carbon 101 workshop and trained 40 companies on how to do their carbon footprint and develop reduction strategies. • TRCA Archaeology staff involved as organizers /instructors with the first Aboriginal - Archaeological Liaison Program held .by the Association of Professional Archaeologists and trainees from six of the Williams Treaty Nations. • Launched personal carbon management calculator at Region of Peel Council. • Kortright Centre finished its first full week training course for photovoltaic installers, which was sold out. • Planning and Development - Northeast Pickering and Durham Official Plan Amendment (OPA) - province feels proposed new growth lands in Carruthers Creek headwaters are premature and do not meet intensification targets of Places to Grow Act and Plan, and they do not want to approve the OP yet. Gives TRCA time to carry out watershed studies for Carruthers Creek to assess the effects of growth. • Certification /Awards - TRCA and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority were jointly a finalist for the Green Toronto Award for the Partners in Project Green project. • Celebrations and Events - News of Partners in Project Green's Annual Meeting and Bullfrog Power Green Energy Challenge receives coverage in Brampton.ca, Nimonik.com, Natural Gas and Climate Change News, EnergyCentral.com, Energy Management Magazine, Voice of Toronto, Green Business Magazine and Hamilton Spectator. Partners in Project Green annual report was launched. • Professional Access and Integration Enhancement (PAIE) Program's recognition event received media coverage from ethnic media including: Fairchild TV, Omni News, China Canada News and Epoch Times. • Now Magazine, Snap Etobicoke and About.com mentioned the West Dean Earth Day event in their publications. • Research and Innovation - On February 22nd, TRCA and York University co- hosted a climate science workshop on the state of Ontario's regional climate modelling capacity that was attended 135 delegates including scientists, representatives from local conservation authorities, climate scientists working in the private sector, researchers from 11 universities, and policy makers from federal, provincial and municipal governments. The workshop concluded that Ontario needs to increase its capacity for regional climate modelling while developing effective climate change adaptation strategies for the Province and its municipalities. To achieve this, the workshop participants are advocating for a regional climate modelling group among Ontario's universities, government agencies and private sector. 264 • The final plot of the pemeable pavements demonstration at the Kortright Centre was completed in late April with Ultra Pervious Concrete donated by Lafarge. Performance of the permeable pavements will be monitored and evaluated over the next three years through a collaborative research partnership between TRCA's Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program and the University of Guelph. • 110 people attended the Designing for Effective Erosion and Sediment Control Workshop. • Over the past several months, TRCA staff has worked closely with Earth Rangers on the design and construction of a bioretention cell for runoff management in their new parking lot. The bioretention cell was completed in early April and will be evaluated over the next three years under TRCA's Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program. Business Excellence • Facilities, Equipment and Property - The Living City Campus at Kortright is mentioned in story "USGBC LEEDs the way in Green Build" in January 18th Renewable Energy Focus online. • The Toronto Star ran a 24 hours of Earth Hour series. It profiled TRCA in article "Help employees make smart commute choices" as well as a tip from Kortright Conservation's Archetype Sustainable House in article "The other 24 hours" . Five additional profiles of TRCA staffs conservation tips were spotlighted, as well as a tip from a business involved in Partners in Project Green. • On April 6th, the Globe and Mail did a story titled "Preparing for a plugged in future" that highlights TRCA's green fleet. • On April 14th, a byline by BILD (Building, Industry and Land Development) about the Archetype Sustainable House at The Living City Campus at Kortright appeared entitled "GTA's Greenest Homes open to public ". • TRCA has been asked to beta test a new soy based toner cartridge. Toners to date have been petroleum based and not green at all. Preliminary results show that the new toner works just as well as the petroleum based product. If testing continues in the positive realm, TRCA will start to purchase the soy based product. • Black Creek Pioneer Village was covered leading up to opening day in CTV News at noon and CP24 on April 30th. • Education and Stewardship - On March 13, TRCA education expert appeared on CBC's Fresh Air to discuss kids and education. • TRCA Education has seen a significant growth in pre - service teacher candidates requesting practicum or internship opportunities with our education centres and programs (WOW included). This is a result of our ongoing outreach to faculties of education and increased awareness of TRCA programs, as well as the new policy on environmental education. • As a result of the early spring and the new larger classification of pontoon boat, lake -based programs started one month early at Lake St. George Field Centre. • Celebrations and Events - Black Creek Pioneer Village launched its March Break Fun that garnered media coverage in the North York Mirror, Beach - Riverdale Mirror, Toronto Sun, Toronto Star and Torontoist.com • News about Alice in Wonderland weekend at Black Creek Pioneer Village was published in the North York Mirror, Muchmormagazine.com, WhateverMagazine.com, and Zoomer AM740. 265 • On February 26th, the North York Mirror wrote a story called "warm up this winter with the local arts scene" about Black Creek Pioneer Village's spinning class. • In the Toronto Sun's Go Out and Play, the events information lists Dog sled races at Kortright Centre. • Sugarbush Maple Syrup Festival garnered 21 pieces of media coverage from: Now Magazine, About.com, Canadianbusiness.com, Rogers Daytime York Region, CTV News, Toronto Sun, Toronto Star, Weather Network, YummyMummyClub.com, CP24, Newmarket Era Banner, KX96.FM; CFRB John Donabie, National Post, Globe and Mail, Newmarket Era Banner, Taste T.O. and Canoe.ca. The media coverage also included coverage from ethnic media: Fairchild TV, Oi Toronto, Echo Germanica and Korean TV KBV 1002 Global News and Radio Canada International (Spanish edition). • The Sugarbush Maple Syrup Festival exceeded revenue targets at all three locations. • Another successful Lake Ontario Evenings Speaker's Series was held, with over 150 people attending. The event highlighted work many agencies are doing around Lake Ontario. The event was profiled in Water Canada Magazine. • On Tuesday, March 23, 2010, TRCA hosted the PAIE Program graduation of 45 internationally trained environmental engineers who have successfully completed the program. This celebration also recognized program funder representatives from Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration as well as supporting partners and organizations, employers and individual champions of diversity who's support and dedication helped to make the program a success. • Paddle the Don booked up fully in under 12 hours. • West Deane Park event held on Earth Day with 100 people attending. • Partnerships - Media coverage for Partners in Project Green Cool Roof program include stories: "Roofs in Rexdale get Cool" in Etobicoke Guardian on February 18th; CanadianBusiness.com on February 8th; "Energy report hits Pearson's rooftops" in • Mississauga News on February 8th; and "Cool Rexdale is Cool" in Now Magazine on February 24th. • TRCA mentioned as a partner in Jane -Finch Communities Green Change Project in story "Golf club, Jane -Finch neighbours drive for the green" in Toronto Star, January 30th. • Partnering with LSRCA and Uxbridge to promote Trail Capital of Canada (Uxbridge) trails at the Exhibition. • Signing the CaGBC MOU approved by the Authority on April 30, 2010. TRCA is looking to work collaboratively with CaGBC on a variety of programs that have a common interest, including TRCA's Greening Retail and CaGBC's GREEN UP, to name two. • Financial Capacity - Ministry of the Environment provided an additional $70,000 toward Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship grants in the CTC Region for a total of $ 501,000 available in 2010. • Approved for $110,000 from Lake Simcoe Cleanup Fund to develop and test a headwater monitoring protocol. The protocol will eventually become the provincial standard (will be a module in Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol) for monitoring of headwater drainage features. 266 • Sunny Days benefit Earth Day is a story by Pickering News Advertiser about the fundraiser held at Deer Creek Golf and Banquet Facility. The story also discusses the TRCA projects in Durham Region that would benefit from the event. Spokespeople also appeared on Rogers Daytime Durham to promote the event. Over was $25,000 raised at the event. • TRCA approves $100 million annual budget. • Received $30,000 from Weston Foundation to offer Monarch teacher education courses in Halifax and Ottawa. Also includes capacity building funding for TRCA to expand this program nationally. • The City of Toronto provided $100,000 to TRCA to provide assistance to Toronto businesses in their reporting under the Community Right to Know by -law. • Human Interest - TRCA has established a volunteer training program for planners. New Canadians through the M2P and PAIE programs, internships for college and university students, and placements for graduate students are offered. The volunteer is given the opportunity to gain relevant work experience that they can use to assist them in their career search. After four months with TRCA, our M2P volunteer was hired by Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. • Ron Dewell appointed as Acting General Manager for Rouge Park. • For the first time all 56 of the TRCA's terrestrial volunteer monitoring sites are being monitored by volunteers. This is attributed both to the success of this program and increased interest in volunteering to gain environmental experience. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264, Rowena Calpito, extension 5632 Emails: kstranks @trca.on.ca, rcalpito @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264, Rowena Calpito, extension 5632 Emails: kstranks @trca.on.ca, rcalpito @trca.on.ca Date: May 4, 2010 RES. #A88/10 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Paul Ainslie Bryan Bertie THAT Section IV items AUTH8.3.1 - AUTH8.3.3, inclusive, in regard to watershed committee minutes, be received. CARRIED Section IV Items AUTH8.3.1 - AUTH8.3.3, Inclusive DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting #2/10, held on April 8, 2010 Minutes of Meeting #3/10, held on April 24, 2010 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Minutes of Meeting #1/10, held on March 9, 2010 ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE Minutes of Meeting #2/10, held on March 12, 2010. 267 ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 RES. #A89/10 - APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Moved by: Seconded by: Grant Gibson Paul Ainslie THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX11.1 - EX11.107, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/10, held on May 7, 2010, be received. CARRIED TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:25 p.m., on Friday, May 21, 2010. Gerri Lynn O'Connor Brian Denney Chair Secretary- Treasurer /ks 268 oz c. #'THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #5/10 June 25, 2010 The Authority Meeting #5/10, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, June 25, 2010. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m. PRESENT Eve Adams Member Maria Augimeri Vice Chair Bryan Bertie Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Bill Fisch Member Pamela Gough Member Lois Griffin Member Suzan Hall Member Colleen Jordan Member Bonnie Litt ley Member Glenn Mason Member Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair Linda Pabst Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member Richard Whitehead Member ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member David Barrow Member Laurie Bruce Member Gay Cowbourne Member Mike Del Grande Member Grant Gibson Member Jack Heath Member Peter Milczyn Member Ron Moeser Member John Parker Member Anthony Perruzza Member Maja Prentice Member 269 RES. #A90 /10 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Linda Pabst Pamela Gough THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/10, held on May 21, 2010, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) Presentation of the Banrock Cup to the Paddle the Don Corporate Canoe Challenge winner. (b) A presentation by a representative of Grant Thornton LLP and Janice Darnley, Manager, Financial Systems Projects, TRCA, in regard to item AUTH7.1. - Audited Financial Statements 2009. RES. #A91 /10 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Linda Pabst Maria Augimeri THAT above -noted presentations (a) and (b) be heard and received. CORRESPONDENCE (a) CARRIED A letter dated June 24, 2010 from Sean Gadon, Director, Affordable Housing Office, City of Toronto, in regard to item EX7.6 - Request for Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Land. RES. #A92 /10 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Seconded by: Maria Augimeri Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received. CARRIED 270 CORRESPONDENCE (A) MUM AffonkbI,IIouinq Mho Gat Lynn O'Connor, Chair Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4, Canada June 24, 2010 Sun 5alts, Viewer Aflordabie Hausirog fic.v 55 Jahn St. r flour, Metre liail iBrilflte, Ontario M5V 31:5 Tel,: 415,338-1143 Fax :416-392,4219 EiiI sgadonOteradio Re: Provision of Surplus Ciltspur Drive Site to Habitat for Humanity, via the City of Toront o Dear Ms. O'Connor and members of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority: 1 am writing in my capacity as the Director of Toronto's Affordable Housing Office to express suruort for the return to the City of Toronto of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority property o the south side of Giltspur Drive adjacent to (7 Giltspur Drive. Upon return to the City, the site will be provided to Habitat for Humanity Toronto for its affordable housing building program. 1 understand the Authority is considering the sale of this site at its Friday June 25, 2010 meeting as Executive Committee item EX7.6. My office has a strong, long-standing relationship with Habitat for Humanity and the City has contributed to the success and affordability of past Habitat developments whenever possible. In 2009, the City.provided a site immediately west oldie TRCA's site to Habitat. The surplus City lot was similar to the TRCA site and flahtat successfully constructed two homes there. These semi-dctachlxl, one-storey homes were built to be fully accessible and were provided to lower -income families with a disable4 family member Habitat is interested in duplicating this very successful housing development on the TRCA's Cilltspur site. New, hilly-accessible homes are a rarity in Toronto, and one which lower-income families oat .not typically afford. For that reason, 1 encourage the TRCA to provide this surplus lot to the City of Toronto, so that the City can provide it to Habitat. Yc uly, 'S'ean Union Director, Affordable Housing Office 271 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #A93/10 - AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2009 The 2009 audited financial statements are presented for Authority approval. Moved by: Seconded by: Bill Fisch Linda Pabst THAT the transfer of funds from reserves in the amount of $251,877 during 2009, as outlined in the schedule to the financial statements entitled "Continuity of Reserves ", be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the 2009 audited financial statements, as presented, be approved, signed by the Chair and Secretary- Treasurer of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and distributed to each member municipality and the Minister of Natural Resources, in accordance with subsection 38 (3) of the Conservation Authorities Act. CARRIED RATIONALE 2009 Financial Statements The financial statements of TRCA for 2009 are presented for approval. The accounting firm of Grant Thornton LLP, has completed its audit and has included with the financial statements an unqualified auditor's report, dated June 13, 2010. The audited financial statements are presented as Attachment 1 to the report. The 2009 audited financial statements incorporate for the first time the historical cost of tangible capital assets (TCA) as prescribed by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. These new standards, which also apply to Canadian municipalities for the first time, will ensure a more consistent reporting standard for public and private enterprises alike. Grant Thornton LLP has also provided a report to the board, entitled, "Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Committee - Communication of Audit Strategy and Results ", which is included as Attachment 2. This report addresses various matters, including overall audit strategy, auditor responsibilities during the audit, financial statement misstatements and other matters of interest to the Authority. As noted in Appendix B, Internal Control Letter, there were no new internal control findings for 2009. A representative from Grant Thornton LLP will be in attendance to present the auditor's report on the 2009 financial statements and to assist with the presentation and explanation of the new reporting requirements noted above. 272 Tangible Capital Assets Effective, January 1, 2009, financial statements incorporate a new approach to accounting for tangible capital assets, which are in essence non - financial assets that have a physical substance. (Excluded from the definition of TCA are a number of intangible assets such as trademarks, patents, goodwill, etc.) In the past, expenditures on the acquisition of TCA were expensed in the year that the costs were incurred. Starting in 2009, the costs are spread (amortized) across the years that the asset is considered to have a useful life. To incorporate this change, the financial statements disclose the net value of the assets and the cost that is attributed to the current year. The balance of the asset values which have yet to be amortized, will remain in on th'e Statement of Financial Position as non - financial assets and offset within the "Accumulated Surplus" section. As at December 31, 2009, the total book value of the tangible capital assets is $498.0 million of which $111.4 million has been amortized. The remainder is $386.6 million reported in the statements as the net book value of tangible capital assets. The exact offset value remains in the Accumulated Surplus. An analysis of the components of accumulated surplus appears in a schedule to the financial statements. Included is also a schedule for tangible capital assets itemizing the various categories of TCA reported by TRCA. Attachment 3 to this report is a copy of the Tangible Capital Asset Policy which was utilized for the valuation of the assets. The standards regarding the structure of the financial statements have changed, mainly in order to accommodate tangible capital asset accounting. The changes have moved the financial statements from a "modified accrual" basis to a "full accrual" basis. The previous standards created statements titled Statement of Financial Activities and Deficit, Statement of Financial Position, and Statement of Cash Flows. The new standards require a Statement of Operations, Statement of Financial Position, Statement of Changes in Net Debt and Statement of Cash Flows. The new Statement of Operations measures the revenues, expenses and surplus (deficit) for the period including the impact of the assets during the year. The new Statement of Financial Position discloses the financial assets less liabilities to create the Net Assets (Debt) and discloses non - financial assets and accumulated surplus. The new Statement of Changes in Net Debt reconciles the surplus (deficit) for the period to the change in net debt which appears in the Statement of Financial Position. Finally, the new Statement of Cash Flows discloses the cash inflows and outflows during the year which are classified by financial activities of operating, investing and capital. The TCA project of the TRCA has•been ongoing for over two years and has involved a substantial effort from both the Conservation Lands and Property Services and Financial Services sections of the Finance and Business Services Division, together with the cooperation and knowledge of all of TRCA's field staff. The identification of TCA should be seen as a first step in the management of TRCA's infrastructure and asset inventory. In time, it would be appropriate to assess the condition of these assets and to plan for eventual replacement or rehabilitation. 273 Cash -Basis Deficit position: The concept of a "cash- basis" matches available cash to actual expenditures, the basis upon which the annual budget is developed. With the introduction of TCA to the financial statements is fairly easy to lose sight of this very important concept, that expenditures must be matched by a source of funding. Below is an analysis of TRCA's "cash- basis" deficit, which is in fact an analysis which ignores the impacts on the accounts introduced by TCA. For the year ended December 31, 2009, expenditures exceeded revenues by an amount of $393,032, increasing the cumulative deficit from $2,466,424 to $2,859,456 as outlined in the table below and as reported on the Schedule of Accumulated Surplus within the audited financial statement package. (RSC refers to the Restoration Services Centre.) The chart below distinguishes the portion of the 2009 TRCA results attributable to the construction of the RSC from general operating results. This distinction is necessary since the Restoration Services Division of TRCA is committed to a "repayment" of funds borrowed to cover construction costs. Excluding activity relating to the RSC, TRCA incurred a cash -basis operating deficit of $503,399 for the year, which is explained below. A number of negative variances contributed to this final deficit position, most notable of which is the shortfall of general Living City funding from The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto in the amount of $500,000, equal to the budget for the year. Additional n egative variances occurred in TRCA revenue sources during 2009 as result of: • poor weather conditions, affecting parks and Black Creek Pioneer Village revenues; • the economic downturn, affecting infill revenues as construction projects were delayed; and • the cancellation of a school board contract, reducing revenues within the Conservation Field Centre program; Although significant cost curtailment did occur last year, it was not possible to completely offset the revenue shortfall, resulting in an overall deficit from operations in the amount of $503,399. The budgeted $600,000 surplus would have resulted if a planned sale of land in Brampton had not been delayed. The sale will occur in 2010 and the funds will be available to reduce the deficit in 2010. Within the Restoration Services Division, special tree planting and restoration projects produced a surplus of $150,287. The chart below provides the continuity in TRCA's deficit position as between the RSC project and general operating results: 274 Budget Actual Cash -basis Deficit, beginning of the year ($2,466,424) ($2,466,424) 2009 surplus (deficit) - general / capital 600,000 (503,399) 2009 operating surplus re: RSC - 150,287 Less: 2009 Construction Costs - (39,920) Cash -basis Deficit, end of year ($1,866,424) ($2,859,456) Excluding activity relating to the RSC, TRCA incurred a cash -basis operating deficit of $503,399 for the year, which is explained below. A number of negative variances contributed to this final deficit position, most notable of which is the shortfall of general Living City funding from The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto in the amount of $500,000, equal to the budget for the year. Additional n egative variances occurred in TRCA revenue sources during 2009 as result of: • poor weather conditions, affecting parks and Black Creek Pioneer Village revenues; • the economic downturn, affecting infill revenues as construction projects were delayed; and • the cancellation of a school board contract, reducing revenues within the Conservation Field Centre program; Although significant cost curtailment did occur last year, it was not possible to completely offset the revenue shortfall, resulting in an overall deficit from operations in the amount of $503,399. The budgeted $600,000 surplus would have resulted if a planned sale of land in Brampton had not been delayed. The sale will occur in 2010 and the funds will be available to reduce the deficit in 2010. Within the Restoration Services Division, special tree planting and restoration projects produced a surplus of $150,287. The chart below provides the continuity in TRCA's deficit position as between the RSC project and general operating results: 274 The portion of the TRCA deficit attributable to the RSC building, $543,094, will be paid off over the next several years, which is consistent with the approval by the Authority to undertake this project. The 2010 budget provides $600,000 to deal with the deficit attributable to general operations. As noted on the "Statement of Financial Position" TRCA cash flows are sufficient to ensure no borrowing is required to finance the deficit. Reserves: At Authority Meeting #9/03, held on November 28, 2003, Resolution #A254/03 approved a reserves policy including the establishment of the operating contingency reserve. Since then, the operating contingency reserve balance has grown from $871,667 to $1,418,817. Staff is of the opinion that this amount is insufficient to meet significant, unforeseen economic hardship which could negatively impact admission and retail revenues. Given the current economic climate and the task of wiping out the accumulated deficit, it not likely that much progress will be made in improving reserve balances sufficient to provide an adequate margin of safety over the next several years. The Authority may choose to use the existing "Operating Contingency" reserve to offset all or any part of the accumulated deficit. Staff is of the opinion that it is more prudent to fund repayment of the deficit as part of the annual budget cycle rather than apply limited reserve funds. "Funds Held Under Revenue Sharing Policy" reserve decreased by $128,450 to $21,173 with the application of lands sale proceeds raised in current and prior years. The provincial rules which govern the use of this reserve are explained in note 5 to the audited financial statements. The "Continuity of Reserves" schedule on page 21 of the financial statement package, provides a summary of reserves balances as of December 31, 2009. 275 RSC General Cumulative Deficit, January 1, 2006 - ($589,750) ($589,750) 2006 construction costs, net of reserve allocations (680,840) - 2006 operating surplus (deficit) 321,414 118,512 (830,664) 2007 construction costs (1,125,448) - 2007 operating surplus (deficit) 365,979 (934,589) (2,524,722) 2008 construction costs (80,753) - 2008 operating surplus (deficit) 546,187 (407,136) (2,466,424) 2009 operating surplus (deficit) 150,287 (503,399) 2009 construction costs (39,920) - Deficit, December 31, 2009 ($543,094) ($2,316,362) ($2,859,456) The portion of the TRCA deficit attributable to the RSC building, $543,094, will be paid off over the next several years, which is consistent with the approval by the Authority to undertake this project. The 2010 budget provides $600,000 to deal with the deficit attributable to general operations. As noted on the "Statement of Financial Position" TRCA cash flows are sufficient to ensure no borrowing is required to finance the deficit. Reserves: At Authority Meeting #9/03, held on November 28, 2003, Resolution #A254/03 approved a reserves policy including the establishment of the operating contingency reserve. Since then, the operating contingency reserve balance has grown from $871,667 to $1,418,817. Staff is of the opinion that this amount is insufficient to meet significant, unforeseen economic hardship which could negatively impact admission and retail revenues. Given the current economic climate and the task of wiping out the accumulated deficit, it not likely that much progress will be made in improving reserve balances sufficient to provide an adequate margin of safety over the next several years. The Authority may choose to use the existing "Operating Contingency" reserve to offset all or any part of the accumulated deficit. Staff is of the opinion that it is more prudent to fund repayment of the deficit as part of the annual budget cycle rather than apply limited reserve funds. "Funds Held Under Revenue Sharing Policy" reserve decreased by $128,450 to $21,173 with the application of lands sale proceeds raised in current and prior years. The provincial rules which govern the use of this reserve are explained in note 5 to the audited financial statements. The "Continuity of Reserves" schedule on page 21 of the financial statement package, provides a summary of reserves balances as of December 31, 2009. 275 Summary: The introduction of TCA accounting has been successfully implemented but more work needs to done. As noted, there are future implications arising from this new approach to the identification of TRCA infrastructure and assets. TRCA managed to weather substantial pressure on revenues and make necessary adjustments to expenditures to minimize the operating deficit for the year. TRCA continues to maintain a strong cash flow position and will pursue efforts to reduce its cash basis deficit position in 2010 and future years. Report prepared by: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232; Janice Darnley, extension 5768 Emails: rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca; jdarnley @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232; Janice Darnley, extension 5758; Jim Dillane, extension 6292 Emails: rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca; jdillane @trca.on.ca; jdarnley @trca.on.ca Date: June 15, 2010 Attachments: 3 276 0 Grant Thornton Financial Statements Toronto and Region Conservation Authority December 31, 2009 277 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Contents Page Auditors' Report 1 Statement of Financial Position 2 Statement of Operations 3 Statement of Changes in Net Debt 4 Statement of Cash Flows 5 Notes to the Financial Statements 6 —13 Schedule of Financial Activities - Watershed Managementand Health Monitoring 14 Schedule of Financial Activities-- Environmental Advisory Services 15 Schedule of Financial Activities — Watershed Stewardship 16 Schedule of Financial Activities. °= rGrervationLandManagement, Development andAcquisition Schedule of Financial Activities — Conservation and Education Programming Schedule of Financial Activities - Corporate Services Schedule of Financial Activities - Vehicle and Equipment Continuity of Reserves` , ,, Schedule of Accumulated Surplus Schedule of Tangible Capital Assets 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 GrantThornton Auditors' Report Grant Thornton UP Suite 200 15 AlkMate Parkway Markham, ON 13R584 T (416) 366-0100 F (005) 4758906 www.GrantThomtorkca To the Members of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority We have audited the statement of financial position of-theIoronto and Region Conservation Authority ("TRCA") as at December31:,:',2009 and theistatements of operations, net debt and cash flows for the year then enc1e4-?TheSe--'financial statements are the responsibility of -"RCA's management Our resptaisibili'.4„t6 express an opinion on , these financial statements based on our audit: WC conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generaily,acreptedauditing standards. "--3 . ,.-,C, Those standards require that we plan and perforni-anait to Cilitainreasonable assurance ,„..„ whether the financial statenientS are fiee'Zof matenaI iiiistatement. An audit includes , '...* examining, on a test basf4evidence supporting the nts and disclosures in the financial ....4A.'. amou‘tR4. statements. An audit 'alga :includes asseSSing„the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by managetrient,,as,Welt as-eialtia — ,,the'bverall financial statement 1 ' , presentationL, ' ....:-.!:" ,... In our opniton, these financial Statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position ofTRCA as at Decem oi ' 2009 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year their:ended in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. Budget tigiu-es are provided fOr-conparative purposes and have not been subject to audit procedures. i\cc rdingy,wetlo not express any opinion regarding budget figures. Markhain, Canada Chartered Accountants June 13, 2010 1.icensed Public Accountants Medd • Tax • Athisoxy kant Tisexrdm 1LP A C.a,t. Ltornb, ti,ta Mern4o ($.rtV110fiti Li 279 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Statement of Financial Position December 31 2009 Financial Assets Cash and cash equivalents Marketable securities Receivables (Note 3) Liabilities Payables and accruals Deferred revenue Municipal levies Capital, special projects and other Vacation pay and sick leave entitlements Net Debt (Page 4) Non »Financial Assets Inventory Prepaids Tangible capital assets (Page 23) Accumulated Surplus (Page 22) $ 4,219,064 14,199,489 12,450,884 30.869.437 - `9,881,713 7,381,179 15,390,256 1.935;736 34,588.884' (3,719,447) 479,649 209,714 386,558.964 387,248,327 $ 383,528,880 2008 (Restated Note 2) $ 10,814,384 6,577,733 12,723.334 30,115,451 11,329,386 6,294,975 13,745,384 1.746.068 33.115.813 (3,000,362) 518,757 286,098 379,492.160 380.297,015 $ 377,296,653 Contingent liabilities and comrri tmnents (Note' 7) On behalf Of TRCA Chair .Secretary Treasurer See accompanying notes to the financial statements. 280 2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Statement of Operations . Year Ended December 31 Revenue Municipal Levies - Operating - Capital Other Government grants MNR transfer payments Provincial - other Federal User fees, sales and admissions Investment income Proceeds from sale of properties The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto Donations and fundraising Facility and property rentals Canada Post Corporation agreement Waterfront Toronto Corporate and Community Groups Contract services Sales and property tax refunds Compensation agreements '414 Sale of milk quota license Sundry Less: proceeds on disposal of'capitaliassets included above Expenditures Watershed management -aid health monitoring Environmentatadvisory servleest;: Watershesclet‘vaidshlp„,. ConserVatten land maneternent, development and acq-uiSition `14 Coittervation and education pragrammint):,,5 Corporate services Vehicle and equipment, net of usage charged Less: expendituresm capital.aSsets included above Expenditures before nin' Ortization Amortization Net surplus for the year (Page 22) 2009 Budget (unaudited) $11,372,000 25,073,000 6,990,500 846,000 6.231,000 1,571,500 14,843,500 300,000 850,9,99 1 40000 s,000 P2126,000 2167,000 ; A po 00', 4,066:60 200,000. 653,000 -4-g- polo 9598o0 "93.519,800 130-25,000 4513,000 18,538,000 31,938,000 17.305,800 7,231,000 92,650,800 92,650,800 92.650,800 869.000 2009 Actual $11,382,338 19,097,021 3,880,867 - —6;276,121 1,599,741 13,725,756 283,385 1,360,668, 758,44144, 2,553,572 '11‘ 9,486 5,221,064 776,598 4,300,480 559,645 925,216 132,217 73,728,372 (134.981.) 73,593,391 12,197,995 4,539,058 16,163,407 18,223,117 17,331,878 6,065,781 41.713 74,562,949 (13.122.487) 61,440,462 5.920.702 67.361,164 6,232,227 2008 Actual (Restated Note 2) $10,927,581 19,486,033 7,461,733 845.753 5,928,347 1,465,028 13,767,194 470,879 462,528 2,150,095 999,544 2,598,943 9,872 5,962,436 672,911 6,163,195 220,316 751,359 434,162 7.603 80,785,512 (166.082) 80.619.430 11,299,061 4,506,400 16,079,672 26,733,780 16.408,482 5.788,972 (50.145) 80,766,222 (19 717,579) 61,048,643 5.850.284 66,898,927 13,720,503 See accompanying notes to the financial statements. 3 281 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Statement of Changes in Net Debt December 31 2009 2008 Net surplus for the year Acquisition of tangible capital assets Net proceeds on disposal of tangible capital assets Amortization Change in inventory of supplies Change in prepaids Increase in net debt in the year Net debt, beginning of year Net debt, end of year $ 6,232,227 (13,122,487) 134,981 5,920,702 39,108 76,384 (719,085) (3,000,362) $ (3/71:9,447) $ 13,720,503 (19,717,579) 166,082 5,850,284. 10,602 (92,630) (62,738) (2.937,624) (3,000,362) See accompanying notes to the financial statements. 4 282 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Statement of Cash Flows Year Ended December 31 2009 2008 Operating Net surplus for the year Non-cash charge to operations Amortization (Increase) decrease in receivables Decrease in supplies inventory (Increase) decrease prepaid expenditures increase (decrease) in accounts payable and accrued liabilities Increase in deferred revenue Increase in vacation pay and sick leave entitlements Investing Proceeds on maturities of marketable securities Decrease (increase) in interest receivable Purchase of marketable securities Capital Proceed on of disposal of tangible capitat;assets Purchase of tangible capital:assets Net increase (decrease) in cash and dash equivalents Cash and cash equivagiti; b irirung &Oar Cash and dish ectiliValents, endpf year 6,232,227 5,920,702 272,450 39,108 76,384 0,447,673) 189,668 14,013.942 9,998,513 (125,229) (17495,040) (7.621,756) 134,981 (13,122,487) (12,987,506) (6,595,320) 10,814,384 $ 4,219,064 $ 13,720,503 5,850,284 (912,754) 10,602 (92,630) 2,239,635 4,985,566 7,73 25,808,939 3,999,717 79,412 (6,999,581) (2,920,452) 166,082 (19,717,579) (19,551,497) 3,336,990 7,477,394 10,814,384 See accompanying notes to the financial statements. 5 283 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2009 1. Nature of operations Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ( "TRCA ") is established under the Conservation Authorities Act of Ontario to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources, other than gas, oil, coal and minerals for the nine watersheds within its area of jurisdiction. TRCA's area of jurisdiction includes areas in the City of Toronto, the Regions of Durham, Peel and York, and the Township of Adjala - Tosorontio and Town of Mono. 2. Summary of significant accounting policies The financial statements of TRCA are prepared by management in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles for organizations operating inthe local government sector as recommended by the Public Sector Accounting Board of The Canadian Institute of � ,q Chartered Accountants. Significant aspects of the'ac6ounting policies adopted by TRCA are as , follows: Basis of accounting Effective January 1, 2009, the Authority adopted the Public Sector Accounting Handbook (PSAB) Section 1200 - Financial Statement Presentation, which became applicable to local governments as of that date. This section requires the adoption of full accrual basis of accounting and the reporting44 the change in net - financial assets and accumulated surplus. The Authority's financial. sCatemerits are now presented on this new basis and the comparative figures have been restated to conform with the new basis of presentation. Also, effective on the same date, the tAuthority "'adopted the PSAB Section 3150 - Tangible Capital Assets, The Authority has recorded its,Tangible capital assets for 2009, as well as 2008 for comparative purposes. The effect of the adoption of Sections 1200 and 3150 to the previously reported financial statements is as follows: Accumulated surplus - 2009 2008 Authority's position as previously reported $ (3,030,084) $ (2,195,507) Recording of tangible capital assets 386,558,964 379,492,160 Balance as restated $ 383,528,880 $ 377,296,653 Accrual Accounting Revenue and expenditures are recorded on the accrual basis, whereby they are reflected in the accounts in the year in which they have been earned and incurred, respectively, whether or not such transactions have been settled by the receipt or payment of money. 6 284 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2009 2. Summary of significant accounting policies (continued) Tangible capital assets Tangible capital assets are recorded at cost which includes all amounts directly attributable to acquisition, construction development or betterment of the asset. Contributed tangible capital assets are recorded at fair market value at the date of contribution. Amortization is provided on a straight -line basis over the estimated useful fife for all. assets except Land which is not amortized. Work in progress assets are not amortized until the asset is put into service. One -half of the annual amortization is charged in the year of acquisition and in the year of disposal. Assets under construction are not amortized until the'asset is available for productive USE. TRCA has a collection of art and historical building capital asset balance." Service life of tangible capital assets is as toile-Ws: Land improvements Buildings and building Improvements Machinery and equipment Vehicles Infrastructure Cash and cash equfvalepts TRCA considers deposits in banks, certificates of deposit and short term investments with original maturities ot;9t7,days or less'a of included as' a art of the tangible 20 -40 years 10 -55 years 5 -12 years 6 -25 years 10 -50 years Reserves s cash and equivalents. Reserves for future` expenditures and contingencies are established as required at the discretion of the members ►f the Authority. Increases or decreases in these reserves are made by appropriations to or fromeoperations: Revenue recognition Government transfers are recognized in the financial statements as revenue in the period in which events giving riseto the transfer occur, providing the transfers are authorized, any eligibility criteria have been met and reasonable estimates of the amounts can be made. User charges and fees are recognized as revenue in the period in which the related services are performed. 285 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2009 2. Summary of significant accounting policies (continued) Deferred revenue TRCA receives certain amounts principally from other public sector bodies, the proceeds of which may only be used in the conduct of certain programs or completion of specific work. Further, certain user charges and fees are collected but for which the related services have yet to be performed. These amounts are recognized as revenue when the related expenditures are incurred or services performed. Inventory Inventories of goods for resale are valued at the lower of cost and netrealizable value. Nursery inventory is valued at the lower of cost and replacement yalue. Cost is determined on a first-in, first out basis. Use of estimates The preparation of financial statements requires ,:management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported- amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date„pf the finanCial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenditures during the year Actual results could differ from those estimates. Vacation Pay and sick leaVe'entitlementt Vacation credits earned but not taken and sick leave entitlements are accrued as earned. Donated capital assets, materials and services Donated capital assetspre recorded at fair value when fair value can be reasonably estimated. Donated materials and servicei'are not recorded. Contributed services Volunteers contribute significant time to the governance and delivery of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority prO4rams. Due to the difficulty in determining the fair value of these contributions, contributed services are not recognized in the financial statements. 8 286 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2009 3. Receivables Waterfront Toronto City of Toronto Regional Municipality of York Regional Municipality of Peel Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto Government of Canada Province of Ontario Interest receivable Municipal levies Trade and other 2009 $ 2,770,890 3,246,006 714,074 8,760 133,827 509,592 889,295 5,544 814,000 3.358,896 $ 12,450,884 2008 $ 2,480,823 2,210,755 524,001 39,601 38,106 375,869 1,611,150 32,689 702,715 4.707, 625 12,723, 334 4. Trust funds TRCA administers funds on behalf of the following organiza ions: Rouge Park Alliance Greater Toronto Area Agricufturaf,Action Ct mi 2009 804,624 350,761 1,155,385 2008 $ 1,255,183 419,079 $, 1,674,262 These funds are held.in trust by TRCA for the benefit of others and therefore are not presented as part of TRCA's financial position or financial activities. 5. Reserve funds'held under provincial revenue - sharing policy Revenue generated from -,the sale of, properties may be held in a reserve created under the Ministry oftNatural Resources' policy for the disposition of TRCA -owned properties. The Ministry reserves the right to ,direct the purpose to which the provincial share of funds may be applied or to request a refund. The proceeds on the sale of properties are attributed to the province and themember municipalities on the basis of their original contribution when the properties were acquired. The reserve balance must always be maintained in proportion to the original contribution by the province and TRCA, represented by the member municipalities. TRCA is permitted to withdraw the municipal share of the reserve provided that the corresponding provincial share is either matched by other sources of funding or returned to the province. Interest at prevailing market rates must be imputed on the unspent balance (if any) of the reserve. 9 287 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2009 5. Reserve funds held under provincial revenue - sharing policy (continued) The changes of the reserve. in 2009 and 2008 are based upon the following transactions recorded in operations: 2009 2008 Reserve balance, beginning of year $ 149,623 $ 223,780 Net proceeds from sale of properties 40,002 462,528 Interest 2,063 3,826 Applications: Greenspace acquisition project (170.515) (540,511) Reserve balance, end of year $ 21,173 $ 149,623 6. Pension agreements TRCA makes contributions to the Ontario Municipal `Employees Retirement System ( "OMERS "), which is a multi - employer, plan, on behalf of.full-time members of staff and eligible part-time staff. The plan is a defined benefit pension plan, which specifies the amount of the retirement benefit to be received by theVployees based on the length of service and rates of pay. Contributions made by TRCA to OMERS for2009 were $1,818,638 (2008 - $1,806,169). 7. Contingent liabilities and commitments (a) Legal actions and claims; TRCA has received statements of claim as defendant under various legal actions resulting from its involvement in land purchases, fatalities, personal injuries and flooding on or adjacent to its properties. TRCA maintains insurance coverage against such risks and has notified its insurers of the legal actions and claims. It is not possible at this time to determine the outcome of these claims and, therefore, no provision has been made in these financial,statements. (b). As part of some agreements entered into by TRCA, sites purchased are required to be remediated. Any unpaid costs associated with these activities have not been reflected in these financial statements as any costs would be reimbursed through contributions as required under the agreements. 10 288 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2009 7. Contingent liabilities and commitments (continued) (c) The TRCA has completed the acquisition of lands required to undertake various projects. One of the most significant of these projects is the Revised Project for the Etobicoke Motel Strip. Properties required for this project were obtained through expropriation from five owners. Funding was obtained from the City of Etobicoke and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (now collectively known as the City of Toronto) and the Province of Ontario. To date three of the expropriations have been settled. On October 4, 2004, a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board was delivered in one of the expropriations. The amount awarded was between $7.2 and $9.1 million plus interest and costs. The appeal to the Divisional Court was heard in December of 2005 and:the decision was received in April of 2006 which reduced the award by $4 million. Asraresult of this decision, TRCA has recorded an amount of $5,063,462 for marketIvalue, disturbance damages and interest. In June of 2008 the injurious affection claimfor this expropriation was heard by the OMB and the decision was issued awardingthe sum of $1,859,999 plus interest (6% per year simple interest from the date of possession). The appeal tothe Divisional Court was heard in December, 2008 and the Aeoision was received in February of 2009 dismissing the appeal by TRCA and thei.City of Toronto.* As a result of-this decision, TRCA has recorded an amount of $3,362;L193.90 fdi injurious affection, interest and Divisional Court costs. Still outstanding is <<tfie a_ mount of costs and one of the expropriations. (d) Lease commitments TRCA has entered into„ O:eements tgleas0 =p?eniiseaand equipment for various periods until 2012. Minimum leas tymentaVaggregate for each of the next five years are as follows: 2010 2011 2012 2013 <2014 (e) 'Loan Guarantee $ 326,928 340,141 327,829 298,957 179,459 TRCAand City of Toronto have jointly and severally agreed to provide a loan guarantee not to exceed $7.5 million to the Evergreen Foundation for the Don Valley Brick Works restorationkproject.The lease agreement for the Brick Works was signed in January, 2008. In December 2008, TRCA Executive Committee recommended to the Authority that TRCA approve a lease amending agreement with Evergreen and the City of Toronto that provided for extensions to some dates for completion of conditions under the lease, granted subsurface rights to Evergreen, reduce the maximum price of construction contracts and authorized TRCA staff to negotiate or settle terms of financing arrangements. This resolution was approved by the Authority on January 9, 2009. As of December 31st, 2009, Evergreen had received advances in the amount of $1.25 million from its financing institutional lender. 11 289 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2009 8. Segmented information Certain allocation methodologies are employed in the preparation of segmented financial information. Government grants, user charges, transfers from other funds, and other revenues are allocated to the specific program or service they relate to. Expense allocations are both internal and external. Activity based costing is used to allocate internal support costs to departments. These costs include the net expenditures for departments, such as human resources, information systems, finance and others, commonly referred to as overhead. TRCA segments its activities into six main program areas, which are reported in the accompanying supplementary schedules to the financial statements. Watershed management and health monitoring program Watershed management and health monitoring g g program costs and revenues,are those required to develop the framework and management strateeto provide a rational approach to natural systems protection, restoration and use Theriiain activitiesyincluded in thissegment are watershed and sub watershed plans, resource inventory acid nvironmentai monitoring, flood protection services and source water protection. Environmental advisory services Environmental advisory services includes costs and re venues-associated with the approval of development applications or rendering of opinions; ;on the impact- 'Of development applications on natural hazards, nat,l, heritage resources';and water --resources as provided under provincial legislation which includes the Planning Act, Conservation Authorities Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. Watershed stewardship program The watershed stewardship program costs and revenues are those associated with providing service :and assistance to private and public landowners on sound environmental practices that will enhance, restore or ,protect lands and natural features. This category includes activities such as fisheries rehabilitation, tree planting and reforestation, wildlife habitat improvements, management plans, agricultural best practices and erosion control services. Conservation =land management The conservation land management schedule includes all expenses and revenues associated with lands, improvements, buildings and structures owned or by TRCA. It does not include active programming on Authority lands. Conservation and education program The conservation and education program area includes costs and revenues associated with the delivery of recreational and educational programming. 12 290 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2009 8. Segmented information (continued) Corporate services Corporate services includes management and non - program specific costs and revenues. These include internal support service costs such as senior management costs, board costs, office services, financial services, human resources, information technology and corporate communications. 9. Budget figures The 2009 budget figures included in these financial statements are those adopted by TRCA on April 24, 2009. h . 10. Comparative figures Certain comparative figures have been reclassified to conform with the financial statement presentation adopted in the year. 13 291 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Financial Activities - Watershed Management and Health Monitoring Year Ended December 31 Revenue Municipal Levies - Operating - Capital Other Government grants MNR transfer payments Provincial - other Federal User fees, sales and admissions Contract services Interest The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto Waterfront Toronto Compensation agreements Donations and fundraising Corporate and community groups • $ Less: proceeds on disposal of capital assets included above Expenditures Watershed strategies Resource inventory and environmental monitoring Flood forecasting and warning Flood control structures; operations and maintenance Capital and other projects and studies. Source Water Protection Regionat°monitoring study and other monitoring projects Water management projects Lower Don flood control Terrestrial Natural Heritage study Floodplain mapping Groundwater strategies Other Good control projects Increase in vacation pay and, sick leave entitlements Less: expenditures on capital assets included above Expenditures before amortization Amortization 2009 Budget (unaudited) 2,314,000 $ 5,038.000 133,500 634,000 2,262,300 327,200 43,000 51,000 566,500, 1,714;004 475,000 66.500 13;625,000 2009 Actual 2,306,000 3,357,623 60,849 634,000 3,336,294 270,551 106,973 -291,127 26,678 x;193 1,172,765 64,945 425,027 70.245 12,208,270 2008 Actual $ 2,323,585 3,365,162 94,610 634,315 2,210,082 237,836 287,736 54,807 106,115 1,368,355 425,000 96.961 11,204,564 (9.008) 13 625.000 12.199.262 11.204,564 1,636,000 1,602,783 1,609,899 1,365,000 1,309,087 1,325,428 348,000 367,128 362,479 319.000 289,802 328,323 3,668,000 3,568,800 3,626,129 1 ;677,000 2,918,370 1,983,661 1,174,000 1,252,430 1,148,554 1,862,000 1,594,050 1,780,893 1,714.000 1,175,233 1,368,001 497,000 452,230 417,509 307,000 223,391 335,285 776,000 564,061 323,968 1,450,000 418,384 313,980 31,046 1,081 13,125,000 12,197,995 11, 299, 061 (126.9371 1198.5731 13,125,000 12,071,058 11,100,488 421,692 413.152 13.125.000 12.492,750 11.513.640 Net surplus for the year $ 500,000 $ (293,488) $ (309,076) 292 14 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Financial Activities — Environmental Advisory Services Year Ended December 31 Revenue Municipal Levies - Operating - Capital Other Government grants MNR transfer payments Federal Development services fees Sundry 2009 Budget (unaudited) $ 345,000 219,000 819,000 105,000 3,025,000 Expenditures Municipal/public plan input and review $ Development plan input and review Increase in vacation pay and sick leave entitlements Less: expenditures on capital assets included above Expenditures before,aMortization Amortization 4,513.000 2,051,,000 :$ 2,034,492 2.464000 2,493,013 11,553 4,513,000 - 4,539,058 2009 Actual 353,247 219,537 834,480 104,753 ,014,689 4,526106 4,513,000 —4,513,000 4,539,058 8,307 4.541.365 2008 Actual $ (98,185) 200,463 804,546 104,938 1,126 3,170,187 3,000 4.186,075 $ 2.000,396 2,505,573 431 4,506,400 (6.586) 4,499,814 8,703 4,508,517 = Net,(deficit) for the year $ (20,659) $ (322,442) 293 15 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Financial Activities - Watershed Stewardship Year Ended December 31 Revenue Municipal Levies - Operating Capital Other Government grants Provincial - other Federal Contract services User tees, sales and admissions Compensation Agreements Interest The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto Donations and fundraising Corporate and community groups Sundry Expenditures Watershed stewardship Capital and other projects and studies Erosion control and slope Stabilization projects in Toronto Erosion control - Peel and York Regions Toronto Remedial Action Plan Peel Natural Heritage project York Natural Heritage project Durham Natural Heritage'project Other regeneration costs Sustainable technology evaluation Nursery workshop 8 office Peel climate change mitigation . Increase In vacation.pay and "sick leave entitlements Less: expenditures on capli above Issets included Expenditure before amortization Amortization 2009 Bucfgel (unaudited) 101,000 11,997,000 401,000 633,000 1,149,000 4,015,000 101,000 178:000 317,000 181892.000 1,782;000_ 3,110,000 :239,000 720,000 1;259.000 597,000 221,000 2,491,000 1,061,000 150,000 6.908,000 18,538,000 18,538,000 18.538.000 2009 Actua( $ 101,000 9,705,977 293,896 943,843 881,919 ,3,637,173 "171,649 23,195 „_. 277 242,692 `500 240,935 5.618 16.248,674 2008 Actual 101,300 8,808,627 41,359 415,862 942,451 5,670,204 4,875 688 ' 153,130 10.360 175,731 16.324.587 1,160,173 1,016,380 2,414,751 4;209,384 245,756 250,248 493,971 499,232 988,209 1,078,775 605,579 695,156 432,283 163,037 3,088,285 2,894,890 787,164 666,027 51,055 5,855,042 4,605,414 41,139 1.129 16,163,407 16,079,672 (2.621,760) (1.513.337) 13,541,647 14,566,335 602.991 563,406 14.144,638 15,129.741 Net surplus for the year $ 354.000 $ 2,104,036 $ 1.194,846 294 16 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Financial Activities - Conservation Land Management, Development and Acquisition Year Ended December 31 2009 2009 2008 Budget Actual Actual (unaudited) Revenue Municipal Levies - Operating $ 1,095,000 $ 1,095,000 $ 1,178,800 - Capital 5,525,000 4,290,070 5,789,758 - Other 5,456,000 2,627,858 6,440,525 Government grants Provincial - other 2,314,000 940,928 2,486,005 Federal 9,000 112,100 9,376 Contracted services - 350,033 205,255 Rental properties 2,326,000 ' 2,526,591 2,598,943 Interest '' 3,696 7,417 Use fees, sates and admissions • 24,146 Proceeds trorn sale of properties 850,000 40,002 462,528 The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto 124,000 298,999 1.224,102 Waterfront Toronto 12,649,000 4,048,300 4.594,081 Donations and fundraising 500,0004 m° 302,340 582,120 Canada Post Corporation agreement 367.00,0 - b° . .-.9,486 9,872 Compensabon agreements 653 (700. 837,076 646.894 Sates and property tax refunds 65,000 334,Q43 56,170 Corporate and community groups ; € 181:600 77,818" , 29,398 Sundry > 89 000 ,, 3.95Q 094,000 18,007,434 26,305,194 Less: proceeds on disposal of capital assets Included above Expenditures Conservation land management Property services CA land management Rental properties Capital and other projects and studies' Greenspace acquisition Watertront development Port Union development Mimico Linear Park Tommy Thompson Part{ Western Beaches Watercourse Fealtly Etobicoke Motel Strip waterironl project Conservation areadcvelopMent - Waterfront Toronto Aquatic habitat Liv(ng,Fity C8nftc I'Kptttlghl- Inlras rruclure Peel oirrg,ground iniproveinenL Wasirom upgrades '',Peet land planning Petdcoat-Creek and Heart Lako'CA pools Bleck;Creek Pioneer Village retrofit 1 attractions project Greater Toronto Region trail Peel Land Careroject ORC housing st',, repairs ORM Corridor P development Increase in vaeatko % and sick4 eve entitlements '4, Less: expenditures on capital assets included above Expenditures before amortization Amortization 000 1,715,357 1.696,086 000 262,009 280.720 1)00 2,107,154 2022,916 4,074,520 4,001,724 ¢4,750,000 3,188,223 7,392,209 2,722,000 1,619,838 2098,852 4,182,000 2,420,101 2,272,217 4,343,000 138,913 1,571,490 ,3,963,000 1,345,520 547,059 161,000 35,814 91,731 !3,00},000 1,250,435 3,473,540 449,000 398,305 316,154 115,535 980,000 478,477 1,306,895 872,000 1,063,662 970,318 109,000 108,057 - 347,699 . 248,830 85,987 361,000 331,179 544,357 1,182,000 1,083,898 775,953 307,000 290,772 355,862 669,000 263,035 300,797 46,381 2,558 31,938,000 18,223,117 26,733,780 (8.895,5221 114,803,7281 31,938,000 9,327,595 11,930,054 3,561,760 3 725,244 31.938.000 12, 689, 355 15,655,298 Net surplus for the year $ 156,000 $ 5,108,739 $ 10,587,237 295 17 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Financial Activities - Conservation and Education Programming Year Ended December 31 2009 2009 2008 Budoet Actual Actual (unaudited) Revenue Municipal Levies • Operating $ 2,912,000 $ 2,922,091 c 3,023,500 - Capital 674,000 888,159 706,701 Other 181,000 54,959 75,725 Government grants Provincial - other 678,000 718,450 586,749 Federal 54,000 302,156 234,608 Contracted services - 20,307 - Conservation areas 3,599,800 3,120,634 3,169,554 Black Creek Pioneer Village 3283,700 2,924,739 2,999,819 Kortrighl Centre ' 1,436,300 1,479,252 1,497,301 ORM Park Operation 1,290,000 1,259,833 1,300,697 Conservation Field Centres 1,788,790 •s 1,442,061 1,526,386 Community Transtormalion Partnerships 206;,600 122,7,49 10,898 Corporate Educatr n Outreach ` :4(000 5;490,1 2,776 The Conservation Foundation of `" Greater Toronto = '518,000 708,835" `I'' 607,368 Donations and fundraising 48,000 30,575 2,064 Compensation agreements - 100,000 Sundry 300. 34,878 Corporate and community groups 491.000 387,597 370221 1 7.164,800. 16,422,765 16, 214.967 Less: proceeds on disposal of capital assess Included above 17,164;800 4109,951) 171.029) 16.312,814 16.143,938 Expenditures Conservation land programming, Conservation areas 3,211,800 3,221,157 3,020,115 ORM Park Operation ' 1,461,000 1,447,731 1.398,487 Conservation/Heritage education Black Creek Pioneer Village 5.323,000 5,378,229 5,304.094 Kortright Centre tor Conservation 1,585,300 1,707,952 1,725,610 Community-Transformation Partnership 1213,000 812,057 401,459 Conservation Field Centres 2,359,700 2,371,389 2,124,924 Education Outreach 1,1 16,000 1,289,266 1,204.948 _Conservation Education Managernent ' 397,000 326,564 279,048 World Green Building Council - • 188,997 Program support and marketing 839,000 733,420 759,230 increase In vacation pay and sick leave anfUements 44,113 1,570 17.305,800 17.331,878 16,408,482 less: expenditures on capital assets Included above (804283) (2,612.519) Expenditures before amorUzalion 17,305,800 16,527,595 13.795,963 Amortization 611.760 429,539 17.305,800 17.139.355 14225,$0 Net surplus(delicit),for the year $ (141,000) $ (826,541) $ 1,918,136 296 18 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Financial Activities - Corporate Services Year Ended December 31 Revenue Municipal: Levies - Operating Capital - 'Other Government grants MNR transfer payments Provincial - other Federal Interest Retail Sales Contracted Services Rentals Sale of milk quota license The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto Sales and property tax rebate Sundry Expenditures Corporate management Office services Financial services Human resources Information technology Corporate communications-2i, Professional Access gra Pn Increase in vacation p y'and sick leave Entitlements Recoveries from Programs. Capital and:atherproiects and studies Administrative office' In(arinationn Technology, ' -Acquisition project : -, Less: expenditures on capital assets included above Expenditures before amortization Amortization Net surplus for the year 2009 (unaudited) $ 4,605,000 1,620,000 107,000 343,700 32,300 300,000 66,000 1.147,000 , 1,335,000 1.1, 1,225,000 '1.316,000 366,000 (1 :446.000) 5,611,000 1,220.000 400.000 7,231,000 7,231,000 7,231.000 297 2009 Actual $ 4,605,000 635,653 8,825 107,000 336,609 33,016 352,734 53,542 1,840 26,981 25;0,00 -, 225,602, 2,721 6.314,523 1,218,243 1,323,602 1,135,792 529,213 1,166,382 1,224,582 337,197 15,438 (1,529,147) 5,421,302 234,878 409,601 6,065,781 (118.774) 5,947,007 272 224 6,219,231 2006 Agtual $ 4398,581 615.322 4.968 106,500 229,649 39,631 407,967 89,576 434,162 59,380 164,146 653 6.550.535 1,097,762 1,300,519 1,079,648 605,904 1,136,075 1,227,137 253,201 554 11.`5 _27Q) 5,173,650 269.409 345.913 5,788,972 1141.072) 5,647,900 275.339 5,923,239 95,292 $ 627,296 19 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Financial Activities — Vehicle and Equipment Year Ended December 31 2009 2009 2008 Budget Actual Actual (unaudited) Revenue Recovery of expenditures by charges Based on usage $ 1.200,000 $ 1,269,925 $ 1,247,731 Expenditures Operations Fuel, maintenance and repairs $ 682,800 $ 713,516 $ 694,869 Other overhead 45,200 50.934 56,913 728.000 764,450 751,782 Capital Purchase of equipment and machinery 220;000 268;822 59,513 Purchase of vehicles 270,000 286,881' 386,416 Proceeds on disposals or trade -in .3(.1'8,000) (8.515) (125) 1,200.000 1,311,638 1,197,586 (41,713) 50,145 Add: expenditures on capital assets included above 555,211 441,766 Less: proceeds on disposal of capital assets included above (6,682) (32,394) Less: amortization (441,968) (434.601) Net surplus for the year $ $ 64,848 $ 24,916 298 20 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Continuity of Reserves Year Ended December 31, 2009 Balance Beginning Appropriations Inter - reserve Balance of Year to (froml Transfers End of Year Vehicle and equipment $ 353,158 $ (41,713) $ $ 311,445 Tree donation program 15,901 (2,228) - 13,673 Operating contingency 1,498,303 (79,486) 1,418,817 Funds held under provincial revenue sharing policy 149,623 (128,450) 21.173 $ 2,016,985 $ (251,877) 299 $ 1,765,108 21 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Accumulated Surplus Year Ended December 31,, 2009 2009 2008 Actual Actual Accumulated surplus, beginning of year $ 377,296,653 $ 363,576,150 Net surplus for the year 6,232,227 13,720,503 Accumulated surplus, end of year $ 383,528,880 $ 377,296,653 Accumulated Surplus consists of: Tangible capital assets Reserves (Page 21) Operating deficit Amount to be funded in future periods 300 $ 386;558,964 $ 379,492,160 1,765,108 2,016,985 .,,(2,859,456) (2,466,424) (1,935,736) (1,746,068) $ 383,528,880 $ 377,296,653 22 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule 7— Schedule of Tangible Capital Assets Year Ended December 31 Building & „ ;›,' Land Building Machinery & Work in Total Total , - Land Improvements Improvements Equipment Vehicles, ;y,',Intiastructure Progress 2009 2008 Cost Beginning of year $305,807,322 $ 6,820,576 $ 40,585,205 Additions 4,337,344 333,073 927.500 Disposals 3,615 1.213,820 217,874 Transfer from 19,686 Work in Progress $ 5,210,290 S2,982,385 $ 123,081385 $ 2,644,627 798,365, 401,124 1,904.443':1 :';-, 4,420,638 665,879 l34,» 204,004 777,702 (1,001,392) $487,131,790 5468,275,199 13,122,487 19,717,579 2,245,175 " 860,988 End of year 310.160,737 5,939,829 41,498.835 5.342,776 3,249,480; 125.753,572 6,063,873 498,009,102 487.131.790 CA) Accumulated 0 Amortization Beginning of year 3.080,366 18,442.355 2,442,316 1,933,041 81,741,552 107,639,630 102,484,252 Amortization 262,145 - %:°::1 559.678, , , , „ 942,546 343,748 3,112,585 5,920,702 5,850,284 . ,..,. Disposals 1,106,910 214,835 '56,870 127,347 4,232 - 2,110,194 694,906 End of year 2236,801 f ;49,787,196 2427,992 2.149442 84.849,905 111,450,138 107,639,630 ..":. Net book value 3310.160.738 $ 3,70224 $ 21,711;637 $ 2,914,784 S 1,100,038 $ 40.903,667 $ 6.063,873 $ 386,558,964 6379,492,160 23 OGrantThornton Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board - Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 302 OGrantThornton June 25, 2010 Grant Thornton LLP Sulte 200 15 Allstate Parkway Markham, ON L3R 5B4 T (416) 366 -0100 F (905) 475 -8906 www,GrantThomton.ca To the members of the Budget /Audit Advisory Board of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority We are pleased to report that we have now substantially completed our audit of the financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the year ended December 31, 2009. We have attached our draft auditors' report. We will finalize this auditors' report once we have the opportunity to discuss the results of our audit with.you. The report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board has been prepared in accordance with the assurance recommendations issued by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) entitled "Communications with Those Having Oversight Responsibility for the Financial Reporting Process ". That standard recommends we communicate with the audit committee matters relating to the auditor's independence and consider communicating with the audit committee as otherwise required by the Section, using professional judgment in deciding the substance of those communications. We express our appreciation for the cooperation and assistance received from the management and staff of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority during the course of our audit. If you have any particular comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to raise there at our scheduled meeting. Yours sincerely Grant Thornton LLP Amme-71&-„, Allister Byrne, FCA Partner cc: Brian Denney, Chief Administration Officer Jim Dillane, Director Finance and Buiiness Services Rocco Sgambelluri, Controller Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LIP. A Canadian Member of Giant Thomson International Ltd 303 Contents Page Achieving effective governance 1 Quality assurance and independence 2 Our audit approach 3 Status of the audit 6 Audit results 7 Reportable matters 9 Technical updates 10 Appendix A — Draft auditors' report 11 Appendix B — Draft management representation letter 13 Appendix C — Accounting developments 19 Appendix D — Auditing developments 21 Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton tnternattonal. All rights resm ved. 304 The Budget /Audit Advisory Board helps set the tone for the organization by emphasizing honesty, ethical behaviour and fraud prevention Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Achieving effective governance There are several fundamental components of effective governance. The Budget /Audit Advisory Board plays a key role in achieving strong governance, particularly with respect to financial reporting. Roles in ensuring strong financial reporting information fti Communiratlon Role of the Budget /Audit Advisory Board Role of Management Role of Grant Thornton LLP • Help set the tone for the organization by emphasizing honesty, ethical behaviour and fraud prevention • Oversee management, including ensuring that management establishes and maintains internal controls to provide reasonable assurance regarding reliability of financial reportinn • Recommend the nomination and compensation of external auditors to the board • Directly oversee the work of the external auditors including reviewing, discussing and approving audit plan • Review quarterly and annual financial statements and recommend approval to the board • Prepare financial statements in accordance with Canadian GAAP • Design, implement and maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting processes • Exercise sound judgment in selecting and applying critical accounting principles • Safeguard assets • Prevent, detect and correct errors • Provide representalions to external auditors • Assess quantitative and qualitative impact of rnisstafements discovered during the audit on fair presentation of the financial statements • Provide an audit opinion that the financial statements are in accordance • Conduct ow ;.tud'+I in accordance with Canadian CAA • tvfanitain independence and obiectivily • Be a resource to the audit committee and management • Communicate matters of intorest to the audit coma-Oleo nadian GAAP Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights resorved. 305 Grant Thornton LLP has a robust quality control program Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Quality assurance and independence 2 Quality assurance Grant Thornton T,T.P has a robust quality control program that forms a core part of our dient service. We combine internationally developed audit methodology, advanced technology, rigorous review procedures, mandatory professional development requirements, and the use'of specialists to deliver high quality audit services to our clients. In addition to our internal processes, we are subject to inspection and oversight by standard setting and regulatory bodies. We are proud of our firm's approach to quality assurance and would be pleased to discuss any aspect with you at your convenience. Independence We have a rigorous process where we continually monitor and maintain our independence. The process of maintaining our independence includes, but is not limited to: • Identification of threats to our independence and putting into place safeguards to mitigate those threats. For example, we evaluate the independence threat of any non -audit services provided to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and • Confirming the independence of our engagement team members. We are required by Canadian professional standards to communicate this annually to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in writing and have provided this letter dated December 14, 2009 during audit planning. Audit • Tax • Advisory O GrantThornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. !frights reserved. Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board - Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Our audit approach An understanding of your organization and your business drives the Grant Thornton LLP audit approach. Tailoring is central to our approach and a key aspect in providing Toronto and Region Conservation; Authority with quality service. Understand Understand the Understand the business and internal entity industry control Assess financial reporting risks • Act.oimti ny system Fund risk tlistl)itrr)I)rtatiloti of F) ;SfitS Non- tuutlnetransact ous Accote)titrtr estimates Gem() concern 3 The objective of our audit is to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The responsibilities of the audit committee and management are broad and therefore the financial statement audit engagement is not designed to identify all matters which may be of interest to the audit committee or management in the discharge of these responsibilities. Audit • Tax • Advisory 0 Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. 307 ...In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of... Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board - Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 4 Internal control Our audit includes gaining an understanding of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's internal control over financial reporting. Our understanding focused on processes associated with the identified financial statement risk areas (see below). The audit team used this understanding to determine the nature, extent and timing of our audit procedures. See the Reportable matters section for our internal control findings. Risk assessment Our risk assessment process has identified the following areas where \VC focused our attention: Risk Area Planned Audit Procedures 1) Revenue generated from municipal levies, contracts, grants and special projects Obtain schedules prepared by management and test the various calculations and contracts through the sampling process. Subsequent collections will also be examined as part of the testing of the related receivables. Analytic review of revenue and various reconciliations as well as deferred revenue schedules will be tested and analytically reviewed. 2) Employee Compensation The T4 summary and general ledger reconciliation was reviewed for reasonableness with unusual items investigated further. Payroll accruals will be examined and both payables and compensation expenses will be analytically reviewed. 3) Tangible Capital Assets A thorough review of the processes and controls managements employed to develop the opening balance sheet and a detailed walkthrough of these processes and controls. Examined supporting documentation for significant capital asset additions. Ensured that assets are capitalized in the proper class and that those expenditures not capitalized have been properly considered 4) Operating Expenses Detailed analytical review between operating expense line items between actual, budget and prior years. Investigation of significant payables and accruals. Materiality The purpose of our audit is to provide an opinion as to whether your financial statements present fairly, in.all material respects, the financial position, results of operations and cash flows in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as of December 31, 2009. Therefore, materiality is a critical auditing concept and as such we apply it in all stages of the engagement. Applying the concept of materiality at the planning and execution stage of the engagement recognizes that the audit team cannot verify every balance, transaction or judgment made in the financial reporting process. During audit planning, we make a preliminary assessment of materiality for purposes of developing our audit strategy, including determining the extent of our audit procedures. During the completion stage, we consider not only the quantitative assessment of materiality, but also qualitative factors, in assessing the impact on the financial statements, our audit opinion and the matters reported to the audit committee. Audit • Tax • Advisory © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. 308 Fraud can occur in any organization, at any time, and can be perpetrated by anyone. Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board - Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Fraud considerations We are responsible for planning and performing the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the financial statements arc free of material misstatement caused by error or by fraud, Our audit procedures consider the requirements of C1CA Handbook Section 5135, The Auditor's Responsibility to Consider Fraud and Error, Section 5135 was issued to heighten the awareness of the potential for fraud when planning and executing audits and it emphasizes the need for professional skepticism during the audit. The following provides a summary of some of the fraud-related procedures performed during the audit. * Discussion amongst the engagement tcam where the financial statements may be susceptible to material misstatement due to fraud. • Gathering information to identify the risks of material misstatement due to fraud, including our understanding of internal control and making detailed inquires to both management and members of the audit committee. • Using the information gathered in our risk assessment process. Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. 309 Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board - Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Status of the audit We have substantially completed our audit of the financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the year ended December 31, 2009 and the results of that audit are included in this report. As noted in the coveting letter, we have attached our draft auditors' report as Appendix A. The following items need to be addressed/completed before that report is signed: • Receipt of signed management representation letter (draft has been attached as Appendix B); • Approval of the financial statements by the Budget/Audit Advisory Board • Receipt of signed legal letters Audit • Tax • Advisory © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thomton International. All rights reserved. 310 Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Audit results Our audit identi tied the adjusted and unadjusted nontrivial tnisstatements nored below. Summary of misstatements Non.irivial misstatements noted during the course ir audit but not Attilltited Ic tlancial statements were as follows: Unadjusted misstatements Assets Understatement of severance accrual Under accrual of payroll expense Provision for sicmificantly past due levy receivables frorn the Region of Durham Reclassify debit balances in accounts payable Reversal of prior year unadjusted misstaremrinls Allowance on receivable from Province of Ontario re: Oakridges Corridor Park 33,188 (31,8541 171,000 Over (Under) Statement of: Liabilities (145,139) (17,741) 31.894 Accumulated Surplus 7 Net Surplus 145,139 17,741 33,188 (25,183) 25,183 171,000 Total unadjusr ' '' 72291 tgtrffit kRU ,1 ' :. i , ...„, .. i-ik, f-,, m %,. \\ 'c have diSCusSed die unadjusted misstatements with management and they have concluded data intlividually and in aggregate, these unadjusted missta CM( 13 tS are not material to the financial statements or foronto and Region Conservation Authority Summary of disclosure matters Our audit did not identify anv misstatements. Audit • Tax • Advisory 1) Gant Thereto 1.1-11. A Canadian Member et Grant Thornton International, Ati rights reserved. 311 Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 8 Other adjustments N !al-law:molt made the following adjustments after receipt of the trial balance and 1 auk.i t work pTe s: Other Adjustments Reclassify operating reserve to contract services revenue Reclassify revenue from Canada Post to Business, Individuals & NPOs Record non-cash land exchanges RcotcJ land purchase Total other adjustments after estimated tax effect Assets Over (Under) Statement of Liabilities Accumulated Surplus Net Surplus 250 000 (250,000) • • ..",...,:,..••••••,•7•1•Pg.'..',11'.•"11"•1'.'••."".....S.- • • • • • ••: •••••• • • ••••••••••••••iiiiiittiiiiiiii Audit • Taii•i • Advisory 0Grarit Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved, 312 $250.000 88,452 (88,452) 15,002 (15,002) 756.198 (756,198) $1250 ()On) Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Reportable matters 9 Internal control Management is responsible for the design and operation of an effective system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the accounting system provides timely, accurate and reliable financial information, and safeguards the assets of the entity. A financial statement audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control. Professional standards do require us to communicate to the audit committee significant weaknesses in internal control that have come to our attention in the course of performing the audit. During the course of performing our audit, we did not identify any such reportable weaknesses in internal control. Significant new accounting policies The following significant new accounting policies were implemented by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in the year: New Policy Considerations and results PSAB Section 1200 — Financial Statement Presentation 4 , The presentation of the financial statement for the Authority has been modified to comply with this new section. PSAB Section 3150 - Tangible Capital Assets , Tangible capital assets are identified and recorded in Authority's books and are presented in the Authority's financial statement. Sensitive accounting estimates and disclosures During the course of our audit, we noted the following accounting estimates and disclosures: Cooperation during the audit We report that we received cooperation from management and the employees of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. To our knowledge, we were provided access to all necessary records and other documentation and any issues that arose as a result of our audit were discussed with management and have been resolved to our satisfaction. Consultations with other accountants To our knowledge, management did not seek the advice or opinion of other external accountants on financial reporting or accounting matters. Fraud and illegal acts Our inquiries of management did not reveal any fraud or illegal acts. Audit • Tax • Advisory @ Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. 313 Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Technical updates Canadian standards in transition 10 Accounting standards Canadian financial reporting standards (i.e. Canadian GAAP) are in a process of transition. A careful assessment of the type of organization is required to determine which accounting framework to apply. In addition, not- for -profit organizations and select public sector entities have a free choice of accounting frameworks. Therefore an assessment of user and stakeholder needs is required to determine the appropriate framework to apply. The application of a new financial reporting framework requires retrospective application to comparative periods. To achieve this objective, management is required to make decisions early in the process. These decisions include the appropriate framework, new accounting policies, first time adoption and other considerations. Recent changes in accounting and auditing standards have been summarized in Appendices D and E respectively. Audit • Tax • Advisory @GrantThornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. 314 Current Financial Reporting Framework Proposed Financial Reporting Framework Adoption timeline Publicly Accountable Enterprises Canadian GAAP IFRS Fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2011 (Early adoption is permitted in certain circumstances) Private Enterprises p PE GAAP Pension Plan HB 4100 with Canadian GAAP HB 4100 with IFRS Not- for - Profit Organizations HB 4400 with Canadian GAAP Free choice of 4400 (NFPO) series or IFRS or PSA Handbook Unknown at this point Public Sector Entities Governments PSA Handbook PSA Handbook Not applicable Government business enterprises Canadian GAAP IFRS Fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2011 Government not-for- profit organizations HB 4400 (NFPO) HB 4400 (NFPO) Unknown at this point Other government organizations (OGOs) Canadian GAAP PSA Handbook or IFRS IFRS Fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2011 PSA— no later than above The application of a new financial reporting framework requires retrospective application to comparative periods. To achieve this objective, management is required to make decisions early in the process. These decisions include the appropriate framework, new accounting policies, first time adoption and other considerations. Recent changes in accounting and auditing standards have been summarized in Appendices D and E respectively. Audit • Tax • Advisory @GrantThornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. 314 Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Appendix A — Draft auditors' report Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thomtan LLP, A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd 315 11 0 GrantThornton Auditors ° Report To the Members of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority TEn Grant Thomton LLP Suite 200 15 Allstate Parkway Markham, ON L3R 584 T (416) 366 -0100 F (905) 475 -6906 www.GrantThomton,ca We have audited the statement of financial position of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ( "TRCA ") as at December 31, 2009 and the statements of operations, net debt and cash flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of TRCA's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of TRCA as at December 31, 2009 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. Budget figures are provided for comparative purposes and have not been subject to audit procedures. Accordingly, we do not express any opinion regarding budget figures. Markham, Canada Chartered Accountants June 13, 2010 Licensed Public Accountants Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thomton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd 316 Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Hoard - Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Appendix B — Draft management representation letter Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton (LP, A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd 317 13 Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board - Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 June 15, 2010 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority" Letterhead Grant Thornton LLP 15 Allstate Parkway, Suite 200 Markham, Ontario L3R 5B4 Dear Sir /Madam: We are providing this letter in connection with your audit of the financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as of December 31, 2009, and for the year then ended, for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to whether the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position, results of operations, and cash flows of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. We acknowledge that we are responsible for the fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles and for the design and implementation of internal controls to prevent and detect fraud and error. We have assessed the risk that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a result of fraud, and have determined such risk to be low. Further, we acknowledge that your examination was planned and conducted in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards so as to enable you to express an opinion on the financial statements. We understand that while your work includes an examination of the accounting system, internal controls and related data to the extent you considered necessary in the circumstances, it is not designed to identify, nor can it necessarily be expected to disclose, fraud, shortages, errors and other irregularities, should any exist. Certain representations in this letter are described as being limited to matters that are material. An item is considered material, regardless of its monetary value, if it is probable that its omission from or misstatement in the financial statements would influence the decision of a reasonable person relying on the financial statements. We confirm, to the best of our knowledge and belief, as of June 13, 2010, the following representations made to you during your audit. Financial statements 1. The financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the entity as at December 31, 2009 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. Completeness of information 2. We have made available to you all financial records and related data and all minutes of the meetings of shareholders, directors, and committees of directors. Summaries of actions of recent meetings for which minutes have not yet been prepared have been provided to you. All significant board and committee actions are included in the summaries. 3. There are no material transactions that have not been properly recorded in the accounting records underlying the financial statements. The adjusting journal entries which have been proposed by you, are approved by us and will be recorded on the books of the entity. Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadhan Member of Grant Thornton irternatmnal Ltd 318 Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board - Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 15 4. We are unaware of any known or probable instances of non - compliance with the requirements of regulatory or governmental authorities, including their financial reporting requirements. 5. We are unaware of any violations or possible violations of laws or regulations the effects of which should be considered for disclosure in the financial statements or as the basis of recording a contingent loss. 6. We have identified to you all known related parties and related party transactions, including sales, purchases, loans, transfers of assets, liabilities and services, leasing arrangements guarantees, non - monetary transactions and transactions for no consideration. There are no related party transactions. 7. You provided a non - attest service by assisting us with drafting the financial statements and related notes. In connection with this non - attest service, we confirm that we have made all management decisions and performed all management functions, have the knowledge to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the financial statements, and accept responsibility for such financial statements. 8. You provided a non - attest service by assisting us with preparing the income tax accruals and related financial statement disclosures. In connection with this non- attest service, we confirm that we made all management decisions and performed all management functions, have the knowledge to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the income tax accruals and related disclosures, and accept responsibility for such accruals and disclosures. Fraud and error 9. We have no knowledge of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the entity involving management; employees who have significant roles in internal control; or others, where the fraud could have a non - trivial effect on the financial statements. 10. We have no knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the entity's financial statements communicated by employees, former employees, analysts, regulators or others. 11. We believe that the effects of the uncorrected financial statement misstatements summarized in the accompanying schedule are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. Recognition, measurement and disclosure 12. We believe that the significant assumptions used in arriving at the fair values of financial instruments as measured and disclosed in the financial statements are reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. 13. We have no plans or intentions that may materially affect the carrying value or classification of assets and liabilities, both financial and non - financial, reflected in the financial statements. 14. All related party transactions have been appropriately measured and disclosed in the financial statements. 15. The nature of all material measurement uncertainties has been appropriately disclosed in the financial statements, including all estimates where it is reasonably possible that the estimate will change in the near term and the effect of the change could be material to the financial statements. Audit • Tax • Adv sory Gra •ft Thorrton LIP A Canada, Member of Grart— oornton Inttonabanal Ltd 319 Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board - Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 TEE6 16. Any business combination that occurred during the year has been properly accounted for with appropriate consideration of amounts that should be allocated to goodwill and other intangible assets. 17. Any goodwill or intangibles on the books of the entity are evaluated annually to determine whether or not they have been impaired, and an appropriate Toss provision is provided in the accounts where there has been a permanent impairment. 18. All outstanding and possible claims, whether or not they have been discussed with legal counsel, have been disclosed to you and are appropriately reflected in the financial statements. Refer to Note 7 in the financial statements. 19. All liabilities and contingencies, including those associated with guarantees, whether written or oral, have been disclosed to you and are appropriately reflected in the financial statements. 20. All "off- balance sheet" financial instruments have been properly recorded or disclosed in the financial statements. 21. With respect to environmental matters: (a) at year end, there were no liabilities or contingencies that have not already been disclosed to you; (b) liabilities or contingencies have been recognized, measured and disclosed, as appropriate, in the financial statements; and (c) commitments have been measured and disclosed, as appropriate, in the financial statements. 22. The entity has satisfactory title to (or lease interest in) all assets, and there are no liens or encumbrances on the entity's assets nor has any been pledged as collateral except under the Evergreen Loan Guarantee. 23. We have disclosed to you, and the entity has complied with, all aspects of contractual agreements that could have a material effect on the financial statements in the event of non- compliance, including all covenants, conditions or other requirements of all outstanding debt. 24. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) transactions recorded by the entity are in accordance with the federal and provincial regulations. The GST and HST liability /receivable amounts recorded by the entity are considered complete. 25. Employee future benefit costs, assets, and obligations have been determined, accounted for and disclosed in accordance with the requirements of Section 3461 Employee Future Benefits of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Handbook — Accounting. 26. There have been no events subsequent to the balance sheet date up to the date hereof that would require recognition or disclosure in the financial statements. Further, there have been no events subsequent to the date of the comparative financial statements that would require adjustment of those financial statements and related notes. Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thomtan LLP. A Canadian Member of Gra -t Thornton International Ltd 320 Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board —Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Other j �, 27. We have considered whether or not events have occurred or conditions exist which may cast significant doubt on the Authority's ability to continue as a,going concern and have concluded that no such events or conditions are evident. Yours very truly, Brian Denney, Chief Administrative Officer. James W. D71ane, Director, Finance and Business Services A„ do • Tay = Advisory Grant aanito,1 U.P, A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton intarnattnnal Ltd 321 Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Summary of Uncorrected Misstatements 18 Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd 322 Over (Under) Statement of: Accumulated Surplus Net Surplus Unadjusted misstatements Assets Liabilities Understatement of severance accrual (145.139) 145,13'. Under accrual of payroll expense (17.741) 17.74 Provision for significantly past due levy receivables from the 33,188 33,181 Region of Durham Recfassily debit balances in accounts payable (31,894) 31,894 Reversal 01 prior year (25,183) 25,18: unadjusted misstatements AliowanCe on receivable from 171,000 171,001 Protiinr c of Ontario re: OaKridges Corridor Park _ _ Total unadjusted _. .. misstatements $172.204 $(130,98G) $(25,183) $392.25 Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd 322 Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board - Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Appendix G — Accounting developments Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP, A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd 323 19 Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Public Sector Accounting Board [updated September 30, 2009] 20 Introduction to Statements of Recommended Practice (SORPs) The introduction provides users with a background to Statements of Recommended Practice (SORPs). SORPs) that do not form part of GAAP and are meant to provide guidance to a government or government organization that choose to provide supplementary information beyond that contained in its financial statements. SORP 3 — Assessment of tangible capital assets This Statement of Recommended Practice provides guidance for governments or government organization that choose to report on the physical condition of their tangible capital assets. The guidance discusses the reporting options of tangible capital assets (individual, specific categories or group). SORP 4 — Indicators of financial condition This Statement of Recommended Practice provides guidance with respect to supplementary disclosure of financial condition. Financial condition is a government's financial health as assessed by its ability to meet its existing financial obligations both in respect of its service commitments to the public and financial commitments to creditors, employees and others. Such disclosure is narrative related to indicators, trend information and comparative information specific to governments. Financial reporting by public sector entities In March 2009, PSAB issued an invitation to comment (ITC) on the strategy for financial reporting by government organizations. The ITC proposes four alternatives for consideration for financial reporting including: 1) International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), 2) PSA Handbook, 3) NFPO accounting as determined by the joint AcSB and PSAB invitation to comment and 4) self - selection. SORPs provide guidance and are not authoritative. Therefore there is no effective date. SORPs provide guidance and are not authoritative. Therefore there is no effective date. Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member at Grant Thointon l ern ional Ltd Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Appendix D — Auditing developments Audit • Tax ' Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd 325 21 Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board - Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 22 Canadian Auditing Standards (CAS effective January 31, 2010] fried by the CICA [test updated Effective: CAS 210 - Agreeing the Terms of Audit Engagements This CAS will replace Section 5110, Terms of the Engagement. Changes from the current standard are as follows: • the auditor must establish whether the preconditions for an audit are present and if they are not present the auditor is required to discuss the matter with management • the auditor has to agree the terms of the engagement with management orthose charged with governance, not both parties • include in the engagement fetter the identification of the applicable financial reporting framework • include in the engagement letter the expected form and content of any to be issued and a statement that there may be circumstances in which the report may differ from its expected form and content • the requirement in section 5110 that the written agreement describe specific information that management is responsible to provide to the auditor is not in CAS 210 • When the financial reporting standards are supplemented • by law or regulation, the auditor is required to: - Discuss with management the nature of the additional requirements and agree whether: (a) the additional requirements can be met through additional disclosures in the financial statements; or (b) the description of the applicable financial reporting framework in the financial statements can be amended accordingly. Applies to audit of financial statements for periods commencing on or after December 15, 2009. CAS 250 - The Auditor's Responsibilities Relating to Laws and Regulations in an Audit of Financial Statements This CAS will replace Section 5136, Illegal Acts. Under the new requirements, the auditor would be required to: • Obtain an understanding of the legal and regulatory framework and how the entity complies with that framework; • Perform further audit procedures to identify non-compliance with other laws and regulations that may have a material effect on the financial statements • When the auditor becomes aware of a possible instance of non- compliance, obtain an understanding and evaluate the possible effect on the financial statements; also this must be discussed with management and where appropriate those charged with governance CAS 260 - Communication with Those Charged with Governance This CAS will replace Section 5751, Communications with Those Having Oversight Responsibility for the Financial Reporting Process. The significant changes from the existing standard are as follows: • only auditors of listed entitles have to confirm their independence and disclose relationships that bear on their independence • communications regarding fees for audit and non -audit services would be required only of auditors of listed entities • identify the appropriate persons with whom to communicate • establish a communication process (form, liming, and expected general communication) • communicate on a timely basis Applies to audit of financial stalemer for periods commencing on or after December 15, 2009. CAS 501 - Audit Evidence Regarding Specific Financial Statement Account Balances and Disclosures This CAS will replace Sections 6030, Inventories, and 6560, Communications with Law Firms. Under the new requirements, there are litigation related differences as follows: • Expands the auditor's requirement to send legal letters to where the auditor "believes a claim may exist" Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP, A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd 326 Applies to audits of financial statements for periods commencing on or after December 15, 2009 Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 23 Canadian Auditing Standards (CASs) issued by the CICA [last updated effective January 31, 20101 Effective date • Decreased guidance in respect to dispute resolution between an entity's legal counsel and the entity. • Explicit requirements when management refuses to give Reduced requirements relating to segment information include the need to obtain management representations on segments has been removed. CAS 505 — External Confirmations This CAS will replace Section 5303, Confirmations. External confirmations can now be obtained in electronic or "other" medium. CAS 540 — Auditing Accounting, Estimates, Including Fair Value Accounting Estimates, and Related Disclosures This CAS will replace Sections 5305, Audit of Accounting Estimates, and 5306, Auditing Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures. The significant changes from the existing standards are as follows: • the auditor is required to obtain an understanding of the processes, including relevant internal controls, used by management to make accounting estimates • the auditor muse understand the assumptions underlying the estimate and how management has assessed the effect of estimation uncertainty • management must adequately addressed the effects of estimation uncertainty on the accounting estimates that give rise to significant risk • if they do not, the auditor is required to consider whether it is practicable to develop a reasonable range of outcomes with which to evaluate the reasonableness of management's estimate • the auditor is required to review the outcome of accounting estimates made in prior year financial statements. Depending on the risks and complexity surrounding estimates, the use of a specialist may be required. Applies to audits of financial statements for periods commencing on or after December 15, 2009. Applies to audits of financial statements for periods commencing on or after December 15, 2009. CAS 560 — Subsequent Events This Canadian Auditing Standard (CAS) deals with the auditor's responsibilities relating to subsequent events in an audit of-financial statements. This CAS will replace Section 6550, Subsequent Events. The significant change from the existing standard is as follows: • Canadian standards previously described the audit report date as the date the auditor identified and sought all audit evidence. CAS 560 specifies that the date of the auditor's report is to be no earlier than the date on which the auditor has obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence on which to base the opinion on the financial statements. Sufficient appropriate audit evidence is defined differently by CAS 560. It includes evidence that the entity's complete set of financial statements has been prepared and that the directors or management have asserted that they have taken responsibility for them. The date of approval of the financial statements is defined as the date on which the directors or management state that they have prepared the entity's complete set of financial statements, including the related notes, and that they have taken responsibility for them. Therefore the date of the auditor's report will be no earlier than the date of approval of the financial statements In final form by the directors or management. • When a matter is noted after the audit report that may change the content of the disclosures, CAS 560 now requires an inquiry with management on how they intend to address the matter in the FS • If the FS are amended after release, the auditor is required to review the steps taken by management to inform anyone who received the previous statements. • Additional options for dual dating reports that are not available in the current standards. Applies to audits of financial statements for periods commencing on or after December 15, 2009. Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Not nton International Ltd 327 Report's the BudgetlAgdit Adstsory ,Elearct —Caremenication � audit strategy amtresults ToratIfivand Regfrall Conservation AuthOliW For the year ended December 31, 2009 24 Canadian Auditing Standards (CASs) issued by the CICA [fast updated Effective date effective January 31, 2010] CAS 570 — Going Concern No current exact standard has been replaced. but components of Section 5510. Reservation in the Auditor's Report have been replaced. New requirements include: • Detailed analysis of management's assessment of the entity's ability to continue as a going concern. • Performance of procedures to determine whether a material uncertainty exists regarding the going concern • Appropriately disclosures of uncertainties/events/ or conditions that place uncertainty to the ability In continue as a going concern Applies to audils of financial stalements for periods commencing on or after December 15, 2009, Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant ihututon i LP A CriltPtban thaninr Glaf , 328 Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 25 Canadian Auditing Standards (CASs) issued by the CICA [fast updated Effective date effective January 31, 2010] CAS 580 — Written Representations This Canadian Auditing Standard (CAS) deals with the auditor's responsibility to obtain written representations from management and, where appropriate, those charged with governance. This CAS will replace Section 5370, Management Representations. The significant changes from the existing standard are as follows: Subject Requirements of Revised CICA 5370 requirements of CAS 580 Application All representations provided by management (written or oral, explicit or implicit, solicited or unsolicited) Distinction N/A If a general written representati on is not obtained Who provides the written representati ons? Matters to obtain representati ons about Either: • issue a qualified opinion • disclaim an opinion Management • items material to the financial statements • items that are significant to the engagement • items relevant to management's judgments and estimates that are material to the financial statements Only written representations that have been provided in response to the auditor's request Written representations can be either "general" or "specific" based on their subject matter. Disclaim an opinion Determine who the relevant party is, i.e., chief executive officer, chief financial officer, other equivalent person Obtaining specific written representations is a matter of professional judgment*. Applies to audits of financial statements for periods commencing on or after December 15, 2009. 'Exception: CAS 540 requires written representation from management regarding the reasonableness of significant assumptions used in making estimates. Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Giant Thornton International Ltd 329 Report to the Budget /Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Canadian Auditing Standards (CASs) issued by the CICA (last upda effective January 31, 2010] ive date 26 CAS 700 - The Independent Auditor's Report on General Purpose Financial Statements This CAS will replace Section 5400, The Auditor's Standard Report, and Auditing Guidelines 21, 40 & 45. There are significant differences on content and structure of audit report. The main difference is that the framework is described in the report. There is a distinction made with respect to fair presentation framework and compliance framework and the auditor's responsibility in assessing appropriateness of each. Financial statements can be prepared in accordance with two financial reporting frameworks. Guidance is provided on the form of the report when this is the case. _ Guidance is also provided relating to audit reports when the audit is conducted in accordance with auditing standards of a specific jurisdiction and CAS. Also, the date should not be before evidence has been obtained info supporting financial statements and notes, and that management has accepted responsibility for them. Applies to audit for periods comment December 15, 2009. CAS 705 - Modifications to the Opinion in the Independent Auditor's Report This CAS wit replace Section 5510, Reservations in the Auditor's Report. There are now more rigorous requirements regarding resignation from the engagement if pervasive scope limitations or GAAP departures are present. The format of report when modifications of the opinion are present will change. Specific guidance is provided in the CAS with regard to this format. CAS now requires that circumstances leading to modification of opinion be communicated with those charged with governance. Applies to audits of financial statement. for periods commencing on or after December 15, 2009. Emphasis of matter concept is introduced in the CAS. This provides an outlet, for example, to include discussion around contingencies even through sufficient audit evidence has been obtained to conclude that presentation and disclosure is in accordance with the framework adopted. The concept of disclaimer of opinion is introduced when GAAP departures are considered material and pervasive and the auditor is not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence as to the effect on the financial statements. CAS 706 - Emphasis of Matter Paragraphs and Other Matter Paragraphs in the Independent Auditor's Report This CAS will replace Section 5701, Other Reporting Matters. The new concepts of art emphasis of matter" and "other matters" paragraph have been introduced to the audit report. Emphasis of matter when auditor considers it necessary to draw attention to a matter disclosed or presented in the financial statements, when it is fundamental to the users' understanding of the financial statements. Sufficient and appropriate audit evidence must have been obtained about the matter. Applies to audits of financial statements for periods commencing on or after December 15, 2009. Other matter — when auditor considers it necessary to communicate a matter other than those disclosed or presented in the financial statements, where it is relevant to the users' understanding of the audit,. If auditor expects to include either of these paragraphs in their report, it must be communicated with those charged with governance. CAS 710 - Comparative information - Corresponding Figures and Applies to audits of financial statements Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LL P. A Canadian t, enihei of Grant Thominn International Ltd 330 Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board — Communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2009 Canadian Auditing Standards (CASs) issued by the CtCA [last updated El effective January 31, 2010 Comparative Financial Statements This CAS will replace Section 5701, Other Reporting Matters and Auditing Guideline 8. Auditor's Report on Comparative Financial Statements, The auditor must determine whether the financial statements include comparative information required by the applicable reporting framework and whether the information has been classified appropriately. Audit •Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thomton thternatlonatLtd 331 for periods commencing on or alter December 15, 2009. Attachment 3 Tangible Capital Assets Accounting Policy 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this policy is to provide the accounting guidelines for consistent recording and reporting of tangible capital assets in all Departments at the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as required by the Public Sector Accounting Board Section PS 3150. It will guide the preparation of the financial statements that will comply with generally accepted accounting principles for tangible capital assets. 2.0 Background PSAB Section PS 3150 requires the cost and accumulated amortization of the costs of tangible capital assets to be reported as non - financial assets in the Statement of Financial Position and the annual amortization costs of tangible capital assets be reported as expenses in the Statement of Operations. PSAB Section PS 3150 is effective for the fiscal years beginning after January 1, 2009. The objective of Section PS 3150 is to require the accounting treatment of tangible capital assets so that users of the financial statements can familiarize themselves about the organization's investments in its tangible capital assets and the changes in those investments over time. The principal issues in accounting for tangible capital assets are the recognition of the assets, the determination of their carrying amounts and the recognition of any amortization charges and impairment losses. 3.0 Authority The TCAA Policy is approved by the Board and implemented by the CAO. The CAO has the authority to make administrative amendments. Future amendments that will significantly change the policy will be brought to the appropriate Board meeting. 4.0 Definitions and Terminology 4.1 Tangible Capital Assets: 4.1.1 Definition: Tangible Capital Assets are non - financial assets having a physical substance that: a) are used on a continuing basis in the operations; b) are used in the production or supply of goods and services, for rental to others, for administrative purposes or for the development, construction, maintenance or repair of other tangible capital assets; c) have useful lives extending beyond one year; and d) are not for resale in the ordinary course of operations. 332 4.1.2 Key Elements: The key elements for the TRCA's definition of tangible capital assets include: a) they are economic resources controlled by the TRCA; b) they result from past transactions or events: c) they embody future economic benefits that are expected to be realized; d) they are held for own use on a continuing basis and not for resale in the ordinary course of business; and e) they have economic lives beyond one accounting period. The concept of control of an asset's economic benefit is key in determining recognition in the financial statements. Ownership and control are not synonymous. Some indicators of control include, but not limited to: the organization that is the beneficiary of the future economic benefits from the asset, do terms of contracts transfer substantially all benefits and risks of ownership to the organization, is the organization responsible for the asset's performance, availability, maintenance, renewal, replacement, obsolescence, environmental liability etc. 4.1.3 Criteria: Before an item can be recognized as a tangible capital asset for financial reporting purpose, it must satisfy two criteria: a) it must satisfy the definition of a tangible capital asset; and b) it must have a cost or other value that can be reliably measured. Items whose value is not measurable or reasonably estimable cannot be recognized within the financial statements totals. Although they should be mentioned in the Notes to the financial statements. 4.2 Amortization The cost, less any residual value, of a tangible capital asset with a limited life should be amortized over its useful life in a rational and systematic manner appropriate to its nature and use. 4.3 Improvements /Betterments: Improvements or Betterments are subsequent expenditures on tangible capital assets that: a) increase previously assessed physical output or service capacity; b) lower associated operating costs; c) extend the useful life of the asset, or d) improve the quality of the output. 333 4.4 Pooled Assets: Pooled assets are assets that have individual unit value below the capitalization threshold but have a material value as a group. Normally recorded as a single asset with one combined value. Each unit may be recorded individually in the asset register for monitoring and control purposes. 4.5 Fair Value: The amount of consideration that would be agreed upon in an arm's length transaction between knowledgeable, willing parties who are under no compulsion to act. 5.0 Asset Categories/Types for TRCA 5.1 Tangible Capital Assets For the TRCA, tangible capital assets include: a) land, b) land improvements, c) buildings, d) machinery and equipment, e) infrastructure, f) vehicles and g) capital work in progress. 5.1.1 Land Real property in the form of a plot, lot or area. Includes all expenditures made to acquire land and to ready it for use where the improvements are considered permanent in nature and includes purchase price, closing costs, grading, filling, draining, and clearing, removal of old buildings (net of salvage), assumption of liens or mortgages, and any additional land improvements that have an indefinite life. The costs associated with improvements to land are added to the cost of the land if those improvements can be considered permanent (such as re- grading or filling of the land). Excludes: forests, water and other mineral resources and land held for resale. Includes land for administrative buildings, parks, playground fields and open space. 5.1.2 Land Improvements Land improvements consist of betterments, site preparation and site improvements (other than buildings) that ready land for its intended use, which generally decay or break down over time. Land improvements that are removable and can degrade or deplete over the course of time through use or due to the elements, should be separately capitalized and their value amortized over the useful life of the improvement. Examples include construction of driveways, landfill site development, bike paths in parks, drop off locations, patios, water fountains, outdoor swimming or wading pools, ball diamonds, soccer fields, irrigation systems, tennis courts etc. 5.1.3 Buildings and Building Improvements Buildings include all structures that provide shelter from the elements which function independent of an infrastructure network. This category includes capital and betterments to general capital buildings that are owned by the authority. Examples include sport and recreation facilities, office buildings, pavilions, change rooms, park washrooms, concession buildings, band shells, ticket kiosks etc. 334 5.1.4 Machinery and Equipment An apparatus, tool, device, implement or instrument that likely uses energy to facilitate a process, function or completion of a task. It may be installed within a building but is generally capable of being moved and reinstalled at a different location. It can include furniture, computers and office equipment. 5.1.5 Infrastructure Are linear assets that are generally constructed or arranged in a continuous and connected network. Examples are: surface systems such as roads, sidewalks, bridges, drainage ditches, and street lights, and underground systems. 5.1.6 Vehicles A means of transportation, usually having wheels for transporting persons 'or things or designed to be towed behind such an apparatus. Often require a license. Includes automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, boats etc. 5.1.7 Capital Work in Progress The cost of tangible capital assets under construction, constructed or in an uncompleted process of acquisition that are not yet in service. 5.2 Donated or Contributed Assets Donated or contributed assets meet the criteria for recognition as tangible capital assets as these assets embody an expected future economic benefit that the TRCA will control. The cost of donated or contributed assets that meet the criteria for recognition is equal to the fair value at the date of construction or contribution. Fair value may be determined using market or appraisal values. Cost may be determined by an estimate of replacement cost. Ancillary costs should be capitalized. In unusual circumstances, where it is impossible to estimate its fair value, the tangible capital asset would be recognized at nominal value. 5.3 Works of Art and Historical Treasures The cost of items of historical significance or works of art are not consumed in the normal operations nor is it possible to estimate the future economic benefit associate with these items. These items will not be recognized as tangible capital assets but the existence of these units should be disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. Buildings declared as heritage sites may be included in this asset classification. Therefore, the TRCA will specifically exclude all artifacts, antiques, works of art and buildings of historical significance such as those at Black Creek Pioneer Village and Bruce's Mills as part of Tangible Capital Assets. 335 5.4 Capital Lease: A lease with contractual terms that transfers substantially all the benefits and risks inherent in ownership of property to the TRCA. Substantially all of the benefits and risks of ownership are transferred to the lessee, and one or more of the following conditions must be met: a) There is reasonable assurance that the TRCA will obtain ownership of the leased property by the end of the lease term. b) The lease term is of such as duration that the TRCA will receive substantially all of the economic benefits expected to be derived from the use of the leased property over its life span. c) The lessor would be assured of recovering the investment in the leased property and of earning a return on the investment as a result of the lease agreement. 6.0 Policy Statements 6.1 Capitalization Thresholds Tangible capital assets should be capitalized according to the following thresholds: Asset Category Minimum Threshold Land. No threshold Buildings (excludes those deemed historically significant) No threshold Infrastructure $5,000 Machinery and Equipment $1,000 Vehicles $5,000 Improvements /Betterments of existing assets $5,000 6.2 Valuation Tangible capital assets should be recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if the actual historical cost is unknown. The historical cost of tangible assets includes all costs directly related to the acquisition, construction, development or improvement to the tangible asset. It includes all costs directly attributable to bringing the tangible capital asset to a condition ready for use. 6.2.1 Costs These costs may include, but are not limited to: a) direct material and labour costs incurred during construction of a tangible capital asset; . b) professional fees charged by an outside third party for services rendered such as appraisal, application, survey, inspection, design, engineering, architectural, environmental assessments and other similar types of activities; 336 c) an appropriate share of overhead and indirect costs such as salaries and wages that can be directly attributable to the acquisition, development and construction of a tangible capital.asset; d) the costs of an improvement that is incurred subsequent to the initial acquisition or construction of a tangible capital asset, such as an addition of a lane to an existing road; e) land acquisition costs, such as purchase price, appraisal fees, brokerage fees, survey fees and legal fees; f) interest costs incurred by borrowing during the acquisition, construction or production of the asset to get the asset ready for its intended use. Once the asset is operational, the interest costs are no longer to be capitalized; g) miscellaneous costs such as handling, freight and transportation insurance charges to the point of initial use, non - refundable taxes and duties; and i) net of any discounts or rebates. 6.2.2 Administration Costs The administrative costs to put an asset into operation are to be capitalized, but general administrative overhead not directly attributable to the asset is not to be capitalized. 6.2.3 Estimating When the historical cost cannot be accessed or identified, the following are methods that may be used to determine a reasonable estimate for the historical cost. a) discounted reproduction cost (measures the current cost of reproducing the same asset into the same physical form and discounted to the year of acquisition using an index); b) discounted replacement cost (measures the current cost of replacing the asset in a different physical form but with the same productive capacity and then discounted to the year of acquisition using an index); or c) professional appraisal (a professional assessment of what an asset is worth based on its current age and condition. This value is then discounted to the cost at the time of acquisition using an index). For audit purposes, a consistent method will be applied across an asset category when applying cost estimation. 6.2.3 Discounting The indices applied to discount to estimate value will be an index such as the Consumer Price Index or an industry specific index such as the Public Work Index and applied across the asset category. 6.3 Componentization Many tangible capital assets consist of a number of components. In complex assets, the TRCA can break the asset into unique components. 337 Tangible capital assets may be accounted for using either the single asset approach or component approach. Whether the component approach is to be used will be determined by the usefulness of the information versus the cost of collecting and maintaining information at the component level. Factors to be used to consider a component approach include: a) Major components have significantly different useful lives and consumption patterns than the related tangible capital asset. b) Value of components in relation to the related tangible capital asset. 6.4 Amortization The cost, less any residual value, of a tangible capital asset with a limited life should be amortized over its useful life in a rational and systematic manner appropriate to its nature and use. The amortization method and estimate of useful life of the remaining unamortized portion should be reviewed on a regular basis and revised when the appropriateness of a change can be clearly demonstrated. Generally, a straight -line method for calculating the annual amortization is applied. Under this method, the cost of the asset is written off and expensed evenly over the useful life of the asset. Annual amortization is equal to the cost of the tangible capital asset minus residual value, divided by useful life. Other methods allow more amortization in early years in the life of the asset than in later years. Some apply the same percentage each year while the basis declines, or apply different percentages each year while the basis remains the same. Amortization may be calculated for a category of assets, a pool of assets or individual assets. Once a method for a particular asset is chosen, it must generally be used for the life of the asset. Schedule of Amortization Methods: Asset Category Method of Amortization Asset Category Method of Amortization Land Not Applicable Machinery and Equipment Straight Line Land Improvements Straight Line Infrastructure Straight Line Buildings Straight Line Vehicles Declining Balance Capital Works in Progress Not Applicable 6.5 Disposal Disposals of tangible capital assets may occur by sale, trade -in, destruction, Toss or abandonment. They are a reduction in an existing tangible capital asset. 338 Disposals of tangible capital assets are to be made in accordance with the TRCA Purchasing Policy sections 1.18 and 1.19. Upon disposal of whole or part of a tangible capital asset, the asset register and accounting records must be adjusted to record the loss /gain on disposal. The date of the disposal, the method of disposal and selling price, if appropriate, must be recorded. 6.6 Impairment of Assets When conditions indicate that a tangible capital asset no longer contributes to the operations or the value of the future economic benefit is less than its net book value, the cost of the tangible capital asset should be reduced. The net write -downs associated with these impairments should be recorded as expenses. A write -down is an adjustment to the cost of an asset. A corresponding adjustment is made to the accumulated depreciation and the net adjustment is reported as an expense in the statement of operations. The revised cost of the asset should be amortized over the remaining useful life of the asset. 6.7 Estimated Useful Life A tangible capital asset must have an estimated useful life greater than one reporting period to be considered for capitalization and amortization. All tangible capital assets except land will be assigned a useful life appropriate to that asset. Land has an unlimited useful life and is not subject to amortization. Estimated useful life means the estimated number of months or years that an asset will be able to be used for the purpose for which it was purchased or constructed. The physical life of a tangible capital asset may extend beyond its useful life. Estimating useful life of tangible capital assets is a matter of judgment based upon experience and should be applied on a consistent basis. Factors to be considered in estimating the useful life of an asset include: a) expected future usage; b) technical obsolescence; c) expected wear and tear through the passage of time; d) maintenance program; e) geological conditions; f) capacity versus actual usage; g) changes in demand for services; and h) condition of existing comparable items. The service potential of a tangible capital asset is normally consumed through usage. However, factors such as obsolescence, excessive wear and tear, deferral of regular maintenance or other events could significantly diminish the service potential that was originally anticipated. 339 The estimated useful life of a tangible capital asset category and remaining useful life of individual tangible capital assets should be reviewed on a regular basis and revised when appropriate. 6.8 Repair or Maintenance Repair or Maintenance expenses are incurred to repair or maintain the pre- determined service potential of a tangible capital asset to the end of its current useful life. These expenses do not enhance the functionality, capacity, usability, quality or efficiency of the tangible capital asset. Such costs should be recorded as an expense in the fiscal year in which they were incurred. Repair and Maintenance expenses include: a) replacement of individual units or parts of a tangible capital asset due to age, wear and tear and damage in order to maintain the tangible capital asset in the operating condition without significantly enhancing the functionality, capacity, usability and efficiency of the tangible capital asset; b) costs incurred to service or maintain the tangible capital asset until the end of its estimated useful life, where the estimated useful life is expected not to extend beyond a fiscal year; c) repairs, to restore tangible capital assets to prior condition; d) routine cleaning and servicing of equipment; and e) costs that must be incurred in order to realize the benefits previously projected from the tangible capital asset. Costs that maintain the existing service level of an asset should be expensed in the fiscal year incurred and not recorded as a cost of the asset. 6.9 Improvements or Betterments The cost of an asset will also include subsequent improvements or betterments. These are costs incurred to enhance the service potential of an existing tangible capital asset when: a) there is an increase in the previously assessed physical output or service capacity; b) associated operating costs are lowered; c) the useful life of the property is extended; or d) the quality of the output is improved. Costs for improvements or betterments should be recorded as a capital asset. Recording of improvements or betterments as part of an existing asset will be added to the existing tangible capital asset. In some cases, a partial disposal of the existing asset that was improved will occur which needs to be removed from the asset base. All other expenditures beyond the description of improvements /betterments are considered a repair or maintenance and expensed in the current year. 6.10 Capital Work in Progress The cost of a tangible capital assets which meet the related threshold and are under construction or preparations that are not complete and not ready to be made operational should be recorded as Capital Work in Progress in the financial statements. 340 Amortization should not be recorded on any work in progress until it is transferred into the specific tangible asset category on the asset register indicating it is operational. 6.11 Acquisition Date The acquisition date of a tangible capital asset is the earliest of: a) the date on which the tangible capital asset being constructed is complete and ready for use; or, b) the date the legal ownership of the tangible capital asset is transferred to the TRCA. 7.0 Disclosure Requirements 7.1 Financial Statements The financial statements should disclose the following items for each major tangible capital asset category: a) cost at the beginning of the fiscal year; b) additions during the fiscal year; c) disposals during the fiscal year; d) the amount of any write -down in the fiscal year; e) the amount of amortization of the costs of tangible capital assets for the fiscal year; f) accumulated amortization at the beginning and end of the fiscal year; and g) net carrying amount at the beginning and end of the fiscal year. The financial statements should also disclose the following information: a) the amortization method used, including the amortization period or rate for each major category of tangible capital assets; b) the net book value of tangible capital assets not being amortized because they are Capital Work in Progress or have been removed from service; c) the nature and use of tangible capital assets recognized at nominal value; d) the nature of the works of art and historical treasures held by the TRCA; and e) the amount of interest capitalized in the fiscal year. 7.3 Leased Assets Leased assets that are capital leases and meet the definition of a tangible capital asset are accounted for as both a tangible capital asset and as a liability. The value of the leased tangible capital asset and the amount of the lease liability, recorded at the beginning of the lease term, would be the present value for the minimum lease payments, excluding the portion relating to executory costs. 7.4 Surplus Assets When assets have been deemed surplus, they are no longer matching the definition of tangible capital asset. The assets and its related amortization can be disclosed separately from tangible capital assets until disposal. When disposed, the reporting should follow the disposal guideline of 5.5 above. 341 8.0 Management of Assets 8.1 Inventory Records An inventory record of capital assets is required and will be recorded on an asset register. At a minimum, each inventory record should include: a) identification number; b) description; c) asset category; d) cost or estimated cost; e) estimated useful life; f) salvage value; g) year of acquisition; h) method of acquisition The record should also indicate the department which manages the asset. The inventory should be continuously updated for activity and implement an inventory count on a regular basis. 8.2 Asset Register The Asset Register will be maintained on an ongoing basis, starting in 2009 in order to maintain accurate records. Each Asset Type will have an associated staff responsible for the regular maintenance, documentation and disposal. 8.3 Inventory Count An inventory count of moveable assets should be undertaken on a regular basis and the corresponding asset count should be updated accordingly (recognition /write- downs). 9.0 Review Schedule Threshold and Amortization Methods are to be reviewed TRCA staff with the external auditors: Asset Category Frequency Land Not Applicable Land Improvements Every 5 Years Buildings Every 5 Years Machinery and Equipment Every 3 Years Infrastructure Every 3 Years Vehicles Every 3 Years The threshold may be increased annually by the level of the prior year's inflation. 342 RES. #A94/10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011 -2015 Approval of the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011 -2015. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Pamela Gough THAT the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011 -2015 be approved; THAT the Minister of Natural Resources be requested to approve the project pursuant to section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act; THAT the project be circulated to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) participating municipalities as the basis for funding and land securement opportunities; THAT the project be circulated to the Credit Valley, Central Lake Ontario and Lake Simcoe Region conservation authorities, Nature Conservancy of Canada and land trusts in TRCA's jurisdiction and other relevant organizations for their information and as the basis for any joint land securement opportunities which may arise; THAT staff be directed and authorized to seek funding for the project from the funding sources identified in the project; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any necessary action to implement the project, including obtaining needed approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 -2010 expires at the end of 2010. The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011 -2015 (document included with agenda package) is the latest in a long series of multi -year land acquisition and securement projects approved by TRCA. The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011 -2015, when approved by the Minister of Natural Resources under section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, will be the legal mechanism used by TRCA to secure greenspace lands. The project will be circulated to TRCA's participating municipalities and form the basis for securement of lands in partnership with the City of Toronto and the regions. The City of Toronto and the regions of Durham, Peel and York have established reserve funds to assist with the securement of greenspace. The project also serves as a vehicle to secure funding from other partners including the Province of Ontario, the federal government, local municipalities, foundations and private donors. RATIONALE The purpose of the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011 -2015 (GAP) is to create the legal framework and implementation tools for the acquisition of greenlands by TRCA. 343 TRCA acquired 880 hectares of greenlands between 2006 and 2009, exceeding the target of 600 hectares established in the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 -2010 by almost 300 hectares in just four years. This GAP builds on the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 -2010 and previous TRCA land acquisition projects. It continues on the course of those projects with new knowledge and refined direction provided by TRCA's integrated watershed plans and provincial plans for source water protection, greenbelt and land use. Acquisitions made under the GAP are based primarily on identifying and assessing land opportunities which may arise in the real estate market. Therefore, the project is limited by the unpredictable nature of this market. By making a projection based on experience in recent years, it is estimated that TRCA could acquire approximately 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres) over the five year duration of the GAP, at a projected purchase expense of $27.5 million. The GAP explains why TRCA acquires greenlands, including TRCA's legislated mandate and the benefits of public greenlands in Sections 1 through 4. GAP also discusses the need for securing greenlands and the role of acquisition in relation to other forms of securement. It relates the GAP to the broader context of TRCA's vision for The Living City and to the United Nations' Earth Charter. Support for greenlands acquisition is provided by recent plans and strategies. These include TRCA's integrated watershed and waterfront plans that combine the latest science including the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy, provincial plans for source water protection and provincial land use plans. TRCA's history of acquisition dates from the early purchases in the late 1940's and the projects that made these purchases possible. GAP reviews the types of ownership and the tools used by TRCA to acquire greenlands. The project sets out the criteria for determining if a property meets the criteria for acquisition. Finally, the project details the financial strategy including potential funding partners. The GAP identifies funding partners and estimated financial contributions over its five year duration. Based on recent rate projections from typical years, it is estimated that 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres) could be acquired during the period of this acquisition project. FINANCIAL DETAILS The project includes expenditure estimates 'of $5,000,000 in 2011 growing to $6,000,000 annually in 2015. All expenditures are subject to availability of funding from participating municipalities, local municipalities, land sale proceeds, provincial, NGO's and donations. Also included in the project is recognition of the need for annual maintenance funding based on the established formula of $309 per hectare for lands not otherwise management by agreement with municipalities or other organizations. Report prepared by: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: mfenning @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 or Ron Dewell, extension 5245 Emails: mfenning @trca.on.ca or rdewell @trca.on.ca Date: May 26, 2010 Attachments: 1 (Greenspace report available upon request) 344 RES. #A95/10 - FUTURE FORESTS Status Report on Toronto and. Region Conservation Authority Forest Health Activities. To report on the status of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's programs and activities to address forest health and recommend actions that may be implemented to maintain and enhance forest health. Moved by: Seconded by: Bryan Bertie Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities have resulted in a wealth of forest health monitoring and surveying data critical to protecting forest health; AND WHEREAS there is a need to develop a list of priority regional forest health threats; AND WHEREAS forests provide a variety of important societal and environmental benefits; AND WHEREAS there are ongoing opportunities to improve coordination and information sharing with our partner agencies related to forest health monitoring and management activities in TRCA's jurisdiction; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the TRCA Forest Health Working Group (FHWG) coordinate TRCA forest health related activities and facilitate the sharing of information regarding forest health initiatives both internally and externally including an annual TRCA Forest Health Report; THAT TRCA develop a list of priority forest health threats and that this list be shared with partner agencies; THAT TRCA continue to collaborate with municipal, regional, provincial and federal partners to ensure the effective and efficient sharing of monitoring and forest health information, to improve regional climate change models, and to strengthen the protection of the natural heritage system within the municipal and provincial policy framework; AND FURTHER THAT the Forest Health Working Group provide to the Authority an annual report by January of the following year, to identify any advances to policy, new partnerships established, and progress made toward achieving natural heritage system objectives during the previous year. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #10/08, held on January 9, 2009, staff brought forward an annual report outlining current forest heath issues and emerging threats identified by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and Canadian Forest Service (CFS). As a result of the ensuing discussion, the Authority approved amended Resolution #A286/08, in part, as follows: 345 ...AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report to the Authority by June 2009 on a comprehensive strategy for long term forest health in Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's jurisdiction, including appropriate actions that could be undertaken by all orders of government. Throughout 2009 staff from various TRCA divisions and disciplines met to initiate a review and evaluation of forest health related activities, guidelines and policies. Through this process and a resulting internal discussion paper and gap analysis, the TRCA Forest Health Working Group (FHWG) was established to increase the effectiveness, coordination and communication of our overall forest health response. Our Forest In southern Ontario, healthy forests and all the benefits they provide are integral components of a healthy natural heritage system. Forests covered almost all of southern Ontario at the time its first human inhabitants arrived some twelve thousand years ago. Although human inhabitation has transformed the region, healthy forests still provide many important ecological goods and services to urban and rural residents of the region. These important functions were recognized in the watershed plans recently completed for the Rouge, Humber and Don rivers, and continue to be identified through the Urban Forest Effects studies being undertaken by many Greater Toronto Area (GTA) municipalities. The health of the forest is measured in a variety of ways including diversity of species and habitats and connectivity with other gene pools. Hence the relationship with the urban forest is critical to future health of the regional forests. With an unprecedented set of current threats, ongoing vigilance and efforts to protect and enhance forests are required by public agencies and private landowners. In recognition of these issues, the General Assembly of the United Nations has declared 2011 to be the International Year of Forests, following on from the 2010 Year of Biodiversity. Through this initiative they are inviting governments, international organizations and civil society to join together to ensure that forests are protected and managed sustainably for current and future generations. Forest clearing for urban development, the impacts of exotic insects, diseases and plants, and the anticipated effects of global climate change are significant current threats to the forests of this region. These threats are not a new or recent phenomenon. Following European settlement, conversion of forest to agricultural use resulted in the Toss of much of the region's upland forest causing serious soil erosion, periodic flooding and degradation of cold water streams. Over the past century introduced diseases, such as chestnut blight and Dutch Elm disease, introduced insects such as Gypsy Moth, and environmental issues like acid rain, have all resulted in significant ecological changes to forests. However, the dynamic nature of forest ecosystems and efforts to restore and protect southern Ontario forests, have resulted in forests continuing to provide a wide diversity of benefits. 346 As one of the most significant forest landowners and managers in the GTA, TRCA has an integral role along with its partners in protecting and improving forest health. TRCA owns or manages over 16,500 hectares of land in the GTA including over 9,000 ha of forest. Prior to the TRCA submission of properties into the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program, over 5,500 ha were included in our Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program management plans. Of these managed forest lands, approximately 1,800 ha are coniferous plantations. TRCA actively manages these plantations to promote and accelerate their conversion to a more natural and diverse species mix. TRCA hardwood forests are only managed to increase biodiversity, improve forest health, respond to disease and insect threats, and to undo the results of past practices which may have degraded the natural health and function of the forest ecosystem. TRCA led forest management activities largely occur on lands outside the urban boundary while municipal partners typically lead the management of the urban forest. Forest Health In focusing on forest health one can look as narrowly as the current status of a variety of forest pests and diseases and as broadly as regional forest biodiversity, landscape planning, and the ability of our forests to provide a variety of ecological services. The term forest health both applies to individual woodlands and to forests as an integrated system. To maintain the function of the whole, the health of the majority of the component forests must be maintained. To provide general guidance to discussions and activities of the TRCA Forest Health Working Group, the following working definition of a healthy forest was accepted: Ecologically a healthy forest system can be described as one able to maintain a variety of native forest communities and ecological processes, while following a natural developmental progression. Socially a healthy forest is one that has the ability to supply the needs of current and future generations for values, services and products. A forest must be able to maintain its long term ecological health in order to continue to supply the perceived social values. The health of the forest system within TRCA's jurisdiction is dependent upon the ongoing activities of TRCA and its partners. Key activities in maintaining and enhancing the health of our forests include monitoring, restoration, management, protection and securement. The following review primarily focuses on TRCA activities, however due to the multiple partners and government organizations involved in forest health, some of the activities of other agencies are also included, but does not represent a comprehensive review. Forest Health Monitoring Forest health monitoring includes both short and long term monitoring. Short term regular monitoring, surveys and inventories are used to establish the current status of various forest health indicators and threats. Long term monitoring may also detect current threats but is designed to measure forest change over time. TRCA staff monitor short term changes and emerging forest health threats through TRCA forest inventory work, hazard tree inventories, annual biological field inventories, the Terrestrial Volunteer Monitoring Program, the nursery's Integrated Pest Management Program and through incidental monitoring by staff performing field work throughout our jurisdiction (see Attachment 1 for additional information on individual TRCA activities). 347 In 2008, fixed long term monitoring plots were established by TRCA to detect trends in flora and fauna communities over time. Although this program is still in its infancy and limited in extent, data collected annually has established important baseline information. In order to enhance our ability to detect trends over time and differences between our urban, urbanizing and rural areas TRCA staff is exploring opportunities to establish and maintain additional long term fixed plots. One of the roles of the FHWG is to ensure the effective use of the wide diversity of both short and long term survey and monitoring information we gather and to facilitate the sharing of this information with our partners. Municipal forestry departments at the municipal and regional levels monitor and manage forest health both through incidental and formalized programs. Many of TRCA's member municipalities are undertaking urban forest studies, some of which TRCA is conducting on their behalf. These studies provide valuable information on the existing condition of the urban forest, the ecosystem services provided, as well as direction and opportunities for enhancement. York Region coordinates quarterly meetings of city and regional foresters (MAUFS - Municipal Arborists and Urban Foresters). TRCA staff participate in these meetings which provide a valuable exchange of forest management and health information and serve to update partners on each others' activities. MNR, with support of CFS, monitors disease and pest outbreaks throughout Ontario through the Ontario Forest Health Monitoring Program. Ontario Forest Health Technicians report on these outbreaks through periodic regional updates and through the annual Ontario Forest Health Review. Direct monitoring of the GTA appears to be limited with a single technician responsible for a zone which stretches all the way from the tip of the Bruce Peninsula down to and including the GTA. This being said, the annual Forest Health Review continues to be an invaluable source of information for TRCA forestry staff and has formed the base for staff's annual Authority forest health reports. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) maintains a network of over one hundred long term monitoring plots called the Ontario Forest Biomonitoring Network. The plots were originally established in response to concerns related to sugar maple decline. Annual data has been gathered from these sites since the network was established in 1985. A wide variety of information is currently gathered in these plots including tree health parameters and meteorological data. Recently, partly motivated by tracking the potential effects of climate change, renewed attention is being paid to these plots. Over the past year TRCA staff has initiated discussions with MOE focused on establishing a permanent Biomonitoring Network plot(s) within TRCA forests. 348 The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) acts to prevent the introduction and the spread of non - native forest pests and diseases. They do this primarily through monitoring and regulation, however in the cases of Asian Long- horned Beetle (ALHB) and emerald ash borer (EAB), CFIA has also been directly involved in control efforts. The CFIA led effort to control ALHB in the GTA appears very promising however initial EAB control efforts in southwestern Ontario proved unsuccessful and CFIA is now primarily focused on monitoring and slowing the spread of this insect. CFS and MNR staff along with their U.S. counterparts continue their EAB research into potential control measures, however wide spread losses of ash within infested areas continues. Both the CFS National Tree Seed Centre and Ontario Forest Gene Conservation Association (FGCA) have initiatives to gather and store ash seed as a means to protect the genetic diversity of this species. Within the GTA, CFIA monitors the distribution of exotic insects and attempts to detect the introduction of new threats through its Invasive Alien Species Monitoring Program. This program involves the annual establishment of nine trapping sites within high risk zones in the GTA and the collection of material from potentially infested trees within these zones. Over the past year, TRCA staff has been in dialogue with CFIA to enhance our support of their efforts by providing both potential trapping sites on our lands and the collection of suspect material through TRCA's Hazard Tree Program. Forest Restoration TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS 2007) recommends that to meet regional natural cover quality and biodiversity goals, natural cover needs to increase from the current 17 to 30 %. Given that many of the ecosystem processes and species within our region are forest dependent this requires significant forest restoration. The TNHSS and natural heritage systems refined through watershed plans, has identified thousands of hectares for potential habitat restoration as part of its Ecosystem Recovery Planning. Restoration of these targeted areas would help to improve the function and overall health of our forests. TRCA reforestation and restoration efforts are integral to increasing forest cover levels in TRCA watersheds. Since its inception in 1957, TRCA has planted over five million seedlings. The TRCA nursery provides core support to our restoration efforts and promotion of biodiversity. The nursery provides a reliable supply of local native trees and shrubs to planting and restoration projects on TRCA, municipal and private lands. The nursery maintains a seed orchard of approximately 50 tree and shrub species. Almost all of these are from local, well- documented seed sources and provide,a valuable genetic bank. The nursery's propagation list was developed to mirror TNHSS targets and recommendations. TRCA actively partners with many of our member municipalities on forest restoration efforts. These activities includes the provision of plant materials, restoration prescriptions, planting services, landscape design and the coordination of volunteer planting events. Most of TRCA's municipal partners also have their own tree planting activities which include street and park tree planting as well as naturalization projects in parks, ravines and on other municipally -owned properties. 349 Provincially, Trees Ontario with the support of the MNR is promoting and funding reforestation and tree planting. Trees Ontario programs are delivered through agents such as conservation authorities. In response to climate change, the Ontario government announced a program in 2007 to fund the planting of 50 million trees by 2020. Trees Ontario and its partners are the principal vehicle through which the government is attempting to meet this ambitious goal. MNR's Forest Gene Conservation Association (FGCA) is promoting both the use of genetically appropriate seed stock in Ontario forest restoration efforts and the protection of genetic diversity within our native tree populations. Key to this effort is the work of the MNR Tree Seed plant in Angus which collects, stores and distributes tree seed within Ontario. Tree species recovery efforts of note in Ontario include the Chestnut , Butternut and Elm Recovery Programs. These programs are primarily focused on identifying and collecting naturally disease resistant stock for breeding programs, with the objective of developing disease resistant trees. Both Chestnut and Butternut are formally considered endangered species in Ontario, while elm populations although significantly affected by Dutch elm disease have not reached the endangered or at risk level. The Chestnut Recovery Program is led by the Canadian Chestnut Council and Grand River Conservation Authority, Elm Recovery by the Guelph Arboretum and Butternut Recovery by the FGCA and Ontario Butternut Recovery Team. Forest Management The management of TRCA forests aims to realize a variety of overall objectives. The first and most important is the health of our forests - conserving and improving the ecological services (e.g. natural watershed hydrology, air quality improvement, carbon sequestration) and important plant and wildlife habitat that forests provide. TRCA also manages its forests to provide opportunities for recreation, nature appreciation and occasionally the limited production of forest products. The management of forests in Ontario by Registered Professional Foresters must be in accordance with "Good Forestry Practices" as defined in the Forestry Act. MNR produces Forest Management Planning Manuals which provide guidance under regulations as defined in the Crown Forest SustainabilityAct. Forest Management Guides are available for different and varied management objectives. It is up to individual municipalities to impose there own tree cutting and management regulations, or to use "Good Forestry Practices" as there minimum standard. Many municipalities have tree cutting by -laws that regulate the Toss of trees. Until recently the majority of TRCA forest lands were enrolled in the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (MFTIP). Under this program our forests were taxed at the same rate as agricultural land. The primary commitments of MFTIP are that eligible areas remain as forest and that management follows "good forestry practices" as defined in the Forestry Act. The program requires the preparation of ten year management plans, including up -to -date forest inventories and mapping, an outline of the landowner's objectives, and a schedule of planned management activities. Updated ten year MFTIP management plans were prepared and submitted by TRCA in 2007. 350 In late 2004 changes to the Ontario Assessment Act resulted in the majority of TRCA forests becoming eligible for the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP). The CLTIP provides a tax exemption for eligible lands. Under the CLTIP, land must be maintained in a manner that contributes to the natural heritage and biodiversity objectives for conserving the land. Given the prior overarching objective of environmental protection in TRCA's MFTIP plans, the change in tax classification does not result in significant changes to TRCA's overall forest management. TRCA manages forest insects and diseases on its properties through general forest and natural heritage management and planning. Management, planning and program decisions are informed by specific insects and diseases but, in general, forest management has not included direct intervention. For example, in response to the EAB, TRCA tree planting programs limit the amount of ash being planted and proactive management is occurring in a few forest tracts to minimize future hazard tree issues. TRCA has, however, used active control measures in some cases when infestations reached a critical threshold. For example, an aerial spray program of bacterial insecticide was used in the early 1990's to control an outbreak of gypsy moth and protect red oak stands in the Uxbridge area. In response to the threat of alien invasive plant species, TRCA staff has developed a framework for the identification of priority management areas within our jurisdiction. This framework is based on the results of field survey work completed over the past several years. The framework matches high functioning natural areas with known locations of invasive species to identify priority areas for management. TRCA management of invasive terrestrial plants takes two forms. First, management and planning decisions are influenced and informed by the threat of invasive plants, such as where to locate trails. Second, active removal and control projects have been pursued both as part of ongoing property and forest management and during restoration projects on TRCA lands. Like TRCA, many of our local partners have been responding to insect, disease and invasive plant concerns. Exotic insects are one of the greatest current threats to forest health and greatest challenges for urban forestry departments. Municipal and TRCA staff are partners in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency led Asian Long- horned Beetle eradication effort and the cities of Toronto and Mississauga conduct annual gypsy moth counts and both have carried out control programs including aerial spray of bacterial insecticide. However, emerald ash borer presents perhaps the greatest current challenge and concern for municipalities, and in conversation with federal and provincial staff, many municipalities are formulating infested and dead tree removal and replacement programs in response to the anticipated effects of EAB. MNR is currently establishing an Invasive Species Centre & Research Institute in Sault St. Marie and is leading an interdepartmental initiative to develop an Invasive Species Action Plan for Ontario. They are also partnering with the Ontario Invasive Plant Council to develop a province wide web based invasive species tracking system. TRCA staff sit on one of the committees of the Ontario Invasive Plant Council. 351 Forest Protection and Securement To realize the TNHSS goals for the quality and distribution of natural cover, 30% of the lands in the TRCA jurisdiction will need to be conserved and enhanced. These lands include existing forests, as well as wetlands, meadows and areas that should be restored to natural cover. In part this can be accomplished through the inclusion of natural heritage system plans and policy in local and regional municipal official plans, as well as the promotion of stewardship on private lands. Public securement of forests is also required. One aspect of forest protection is the existing provincial and municipal policy regime including the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, municipal official plans and tree cutting bylaws, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation and Greenbelt plans, and the Endangered Species Act. For an in depth overview of this policy regime and the challenges related to protecting woodlands during the development and planning process, refer to the Protection of Woodlands report submitted to Authority Meeting #9/09, held on November 27, 2009. TRCA's land acquisition program is integral to meeting TRCA's regional biodiversity and natural heritage objectives. TRCA has been acquiring lands for conservation purposes for over fifty years and currently owns over 16,500 ha of greenlands. The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006- 2010 is the current guiding document regarding what lands should be acquired and the proposed updated acquisition plan is included with this agenda as a separate report. The main criterion for acquisition is the natural heritage system as defined in the TNHSS. For non - operational TRCA conservation lands, the Conservation Lands and Property Services Section of TRCA coordinates inventories and annual property audits through the Land Care Program. This program's objective is to protect TRCA property assets, including our forests, through management planning and activities and duty of care requirements. The program also incorporates an inventory and audit component, which documents and coordinates removal of trail and boundary associated hazard trees, and exotic invasive terrestrial plants. This program operates on a one year cycle to collect baseline information on the property conditions related to trails, structures, securement, encroachments, unauthorized activities and illegal dumping. Properties are then audited annually to monitor variations in conditions and to follow -up on prescribed work. Monitoring and management of acquired lands is under funded. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Forest Health Working Group has representation from across TRCA's divisions and areas of expertise with responsibilities for activities related to protection, management and enhancement of forest resources. The working group has the ability to draw in other staff and expertise, both internal and external, where required to address specific issues that transcend the limits of TRCA's mandate and jurisdiction. The FHWG is tasked with the responsibility of coordinating and monitoring forest health issues and TRCA activities targeted to protect, sustain and promote forest health within TRCA's jurisdiction. Initial work will be to prepare a workplan focused on improvements to our overall forest health activities and developing more detailed actions plans, including deliverables, timelines and resource requirements. 352 The FHWG will engage with other stakeholders, particularly those municipalities undertaking urban forest studies and developing natural heritage systems to determine their needs for additional support and to expand the understanding and importance of forests and forest health as a basis for a healthy and functioning natural heritage system. The FHWG will continue to report back annually to the Authority on current and emerging issues, immediate threats and their implications and recommended actions to be taken. FINANCIAL DETAILS The FHWG's primary role is to ensure coordination and efficient use of TRCA resources. As such, many of its recommendations may be accommodated through reallocation of resources and manpower within current budgets. However, additional funding and the exploration of new funding sources will be required to address some of the improvements to TRCA's forest health monitoring and management activities. Report prepared by: Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379 Emails: thildebrand @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ron Wu- Winter, extension 6416 Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379 Dena Lewis, extension 5225 Emails: rwu- winter @trca.on.ca, thildebrand @trca.on.ca, dlewis @trca.on.ca Date: June 1, 2010 Attachments: 1 353 Attachment 1 Summary of TRCA Forest Health Related Activities Various departments within TRCA have mandates or activities with links to forest health. The principal forest health related activities of each department are summarized below. The Restoration Services Division (Resource Management Projects) monitors and responds to forest health issues through ongoing forest inventory, management and restoration work: TRCA Forest Inventories (10 year cycle). Staff inventory individual TRCA forest stands to measure a variety of well recognized parameters for forest management. In anticipation of specific issues the 10 year period between individual inventories may be shortened — for example stands with a significant ash component have recently been re- inventoried to provide information on potential effects of the emerald ash borer. TRCA Forest Management Planning (10 year cycle) and Activities (ongoing). A significant component of TRCA forest land is currently enrolled in the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (MFTIP). MFTIP management plans are updated every 10 years. The plans and their proposed management activities are flexible enough to be amended and updated as required. TRCA Hazard Tree Inventory (two year cycle), Database and Tree Removal (ongoing). TRCA properties are inventoried for hazard trees on a two year cycle, with many areas checked annually. Inventory information is tracked in a hazard tree database This work provides an opportunity for early detection of forest health problems or potential health problems. Inspection crews are directed on forest health issues of concern based on updates from other agencies and past TRCA observations. Asian Long- horned Beetle (ALHB) Survey Crew. Staff is actively participating in a broad partnership to monitor and eradicate ALHB in the regulated area in Toronto and Vaughan. Reforestation and Restoration Project Planning and Implementation (TRCA, private and partner lands). The planning, implementation and monitoring of reforestation and restoration projects provides opportunities both to contribute to regional natural heritage and biodiversity goals and to detect and respond to forest health issues. TRCA Nursery, Seed Orchard and Indigenous Plant Propagation. A wide variety of native tree and shrubs are grown for restoration and reforestation projects on TRCA and private lands. The nursery has an active Integrated Pest Management system that both protects nursery and seed stock and acts as an indicator of potential regional forest health issues. 354 Incidental and Issue - specific Monitoring and Response. Through field work, management and restoration projects ongoing, incidental monitoring of forest health issues occurs. Links with Municipal, Provincial and Federal Forest Health Partners. Staff participate in a wide variety of regional and provincial forest health meetings, workshops and training. Regional municipal foresters meet twice annually to share information and discuss issues. TRCA staff participate in the MNR annual forest health review and stay abreast of forest health developments and research. The Ecology Division's activities provide opportunities both to monitor the current status of various forest health issues and for long term landscape level planning for healthy forest ecosystems: Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. TRCA has developed a targeted Terrestrial Natural Heritage System that helps to achieve the biodiversity objectives of The Living City. In order to protect and enhance a functional natural system the strategy identifies both existing natural features as well as potential habitats for restoration. Since TRCA's jurisdiction is located within a forest bioregion, forests make up a dominant portion of the natural heritage strategy. Ecosystem Recovery Planning. The Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology group is developing a strategic framework to help guide where restoration should be focused and what habitats and species should be targeted among the thousands of hectares identified within the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS) for habitat restoration. Many of the priority habitats and species are forest dependant. This work will not only help to improve the function of existing forests, it will also identify where new forests should be planted. Watershed Plans. Staff has completed watershed plans for most of TRCA's watersheds (Humber, Rouge, Don, Etobicoke /Mimico and previously for the Duffins and Carruthers). These plans characterize the existing conditions of the watershed for numerous disciplines including natural heritage (terrestrial and aquatic) and water management among other things. These plans identify current and anticipated stressors and evaluate the implications of various growth and natural heritage scenarios on watershed health. They provide recommendations and implementation actions geared to maintaining and enhancing ecological function and sustainability of the watershed. Fixed Long Term Monitoring Plots. As part of a long term terrestrial monitoring program initiated in 2008, staff annually monitor and collect data currently from 21 fixed plots located across the TRCA jurisdiction. This monitoring follows Ecological Monitoring and Assessment (EMAN) protocols for tree health, ground vegetation, and shrub and sapling regeneration. Expansion of this program is being pursued. 355 Forest Breeding Bird Long Term Monitoring Routes. To determine the status and trends of forest breeding birds, staff currently monitor 21 routes located across the TRCA jurisdiction using Ontario Forest Breeding Bird protocol. Plethodontid Salamander Monitoring Plots. Staff currently monitor 22 plethodontid (lungless) salamander plots located across the TRCA jurisdiction using a EMAN/ Parks Canada protocol. Annual Field Surveys in Response to Land Development or Management Requests. Ecology staff, by request, conduct vegetation surveys annually on approximately 1,500 ha across TRCA's jurisdiction. They determine and map vegetation community types following the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (ELC). Included in these surveys is the documentation of invasive plant species if they are found to be dominant within an individual polygon, the documentation of Butternut trees and the associated disease canker and the mapping of flora and fauna species of concern. Terrestrial Volunteer Monitoring Program. With the assistance of volunteers, 56 plots across the TRCA jurisdiction are monitored for 25 flora, 25 fauna and six lichen indicator species. Urban Forest Studies. A number of municipalities have partnered with TRCA to conduct urban forest studies. These studies assess the existing condition of the urban forest, summarize the ecosystem services the forest provides, and gives recommendations for management and enhancement. These studies include hundreds of survey plots throughout the TRCA jurisdiction. Terrestrial Invasive Plants Strategy. The Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology group has developed a draft strategy to help direct where invasive species management should be focused in order to have the greatest impact on protecting biodiversity. Many of the priority areas are focused on high quality forest habitat. Ecosystem Valuation and Compensation Protocol. TRCA is developing an ecosystem valuation and compensation protocol to better define the value of ecosystem services provided by natural areas, including forests. TRCA and our member municipalities are sometimes faced with the removal of existing natural features through the land development process. Development of the protocol will result in the function of forests being more fully recognized and compensated for when removal of existing features are contemplated as a last resort. Input into Planning and Permitting. The Ecology Division provides expertise to the planning and permitting processes to help ensure to the extent possible that forest protection policies are implemented and forests and their functions are protected. Staff provide input to local and regional official plans and provide or participate in technical and policy studies. 356 Input into Conservation Land Planning and Restoration Services. The Ecology Division provides expertise and input into TRCA activities including management plans, trail works and restoration activities. The Planning and Development Division's activities provide opportunities for the protection of woodlands and natural heritage systems through policy, development review and enforcement: Policy. Planning and Development staff internally provide direction in the development of policy and participate in internal program development such as watershed plans and the TNHSS. Externally, staff participate on technical committees and provide input to the preparation of local and regional official plans for woodland and natural heritage system protection and enhancement. TRCA has provided input to many provincial plans over the last few years and provides plan review input for regional issues under the Provincial Policy Statement, Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Plan and Growth Plan. Development Review - As a commenting agency under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act, Planning and Development staff provide comments and recommendations on development submissions where protecting existing woodlands and natural heritage is an important requirement. TRCA works within an integrated municipal plan review process to review and negotiate appropriate natural system protection through the Master Environmental Servicing, draft plans and site plan processes. Planning and Development policies under conservation authority Regulations also set direction to protect tableland woodlots that are contiguous with valley systems and corridors. TRCA works with our municipal partners on environmental studies that identify the impacts development will have on woodlands and what buffers and management considerations are needed for long term forest protection and health. Enforcement. TRCA's enforcement team works to monitor woodland protection as related to conservation authority hazard protection responsibilities. Staff also work with local municipal bylaw officers to ensure that woodlands are protected and that negative damages do not occur during construction within TRCA's regulated and permitted areas. The Finance and Business Services Division through the Conservation Lands and Property Services group takes on a number of activities that protect and enhance regional forest health including: TRCA Greenlands Acquisition Project. The Greenlands Acquisition project was initiated and developed to provide a foundation and mechanism for acquiring greenlands within the TRCA jurisdiction. Terrestrial natural heritage planning and the TRCA TNHSS provide direction to TRCA acquisition activities. 357 Land Securement Agreements. Staff negotiate and finalize securement agreements (leases and easements) with a focus on both protecting and enhancing TRCA property assets as well as natural heritage values. Conservation Land Care Program. This program's objective is to protect TRCA property assets, including our forests, through management planning, duty of care requirements and inventory work. The program includes the completion of integrated management and master plans for TRCA -owned lands which protect and improve property assets and public use. Within the program, staff coordinate and administer duty of care requirements to protect properties from encroachments, illegal use and dumping. The program also incorporates an inventory and audit component, which documents and coordinates removal of trail and boundary associated hazard trees, and exotic invasive terrestrial plant. 358 RES. #A96/10 - LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE Approval of the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide and immediate steps to facilitate its implementation. Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Pamela Gough THAT the final Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide prepared by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC) dated June 2010 be approved; THAT the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide be circulated to municipal staff, the development industry and other partner organizations and they be encouraged to use the document to inform and guide their ongoing work; THAT the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide be posted on the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program website, www.sustainabletechnologies.ca and hard copies be made available for purchase; THAT staff continue to work on and finalize the stormwater management criteria document, in consultation with municipal, provincial and other interested stakeholders, that presents an integrated set of stormwater management criteria (flood protection, water quality control, erosion control, water balance) which may be used to select and size stormwater management practices presented in the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority when the stormwater management criteria document has been finalized. CARRIED BACKGROUND On April 24 2009, TRCA staff received approval from the Authority to develop a Low Impact Development (LID) Stormwater Management Manual and Stormwater Management Criteria Document (Meeting #3/09). The LID Manual is now final and is titled Low Impact Development Stormwater Planning and Design Guide (LID Guide). Low impact development is a stormwater management strategy that seeks to maintain natural water balance and mitigate the impacts of increased runoff and stormwater pollution. LID comprises a set of site design approaches and small scale stormwater practices that promote the use of natural systems for infiltration, evapotranspiration and reuse of rainwater. These practices can effectively remove nutrients, pathogens and metals from stormwater, and they reduce the volume and intensity of stormwater flows. Examples of LID practices include permeable pavement, rainwater cisterns and greenroofs. 359 The Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide is the first of its kind in Ontario. It has been developed by TRCA and CVC as a tool to help developers, consultants, municipalities and landowners understand and implement sustainable stormwater practices in the TRCA and CVC watersheds. The LID Guide provides information and direction to assist engineers, ecologists, landscape architects and planners in landscape -based stormwater management planning and in the selection, design, construction and monitoring of sustainable stormwater management practices. RATIONALE Control of peak flows and water quality treatment are integral parts of the current practice of stormwater management. These practices are achieving significant benefits in some areas toward protection of property and public safety, and minimizing the contaminant levels reaching rivers and streams. However, future scenario modelling reported in TRCA's recently completed watershed plans (Rouge, Don and Humber rivers), the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan and recent research, have concluded that traditional end -of -pipe stormwater management is not achieving the level of control we now realize is necessary to protect the health of our streams, rivers, lakes, fisheries and adjacent terrestrial habitat. TRCA has been extensively involved in integrated watershed -wide environmental monitoring for many years. The results of this monitoring have shown that the environmental health of our watersheds continue to decline as urbanization increases. This environmental deterioration has taken place despite widespread compliance with provincial and municipal requirements for stormwater management planning and facility design. Conventional stormwater management, which focuses on controlling peak flow rate and the removal of total suspended solids, has failed to address the widespread and cumulative hydrologic modifications in watersheds that increase the volume of stormwater, increase the runoff rate, and cause excessive erosion and degradation of stream channels. Low Impact Development practices reduce runoff volume and pollutant loadings by managing the runoff as close to its source as possible. LID typically uses multiple practices on a site and can be used to reduce the impacts of both development and redevelopment on water resources. With new development, LID is used to achieve the goal of maintaining or closely replicating the pre - development hydrology of the site. In areas where development has already taken place, LID can be used as a retrofit practice to reduce runoff volumes, pollutant loadings and the overall impacts of existing developments on receiving waters. LID stormwater management strategies can have multiple positive environmental effects including: • protection of downstream resources; • abatement of pollution; • recharge of groundwater; • improvement of water quality; • improvement of habitat; • reduction of thermal impacts; • reduced downstream flooding and erosion; • improved site aesthetics, etc. 360 The LID Guide is intended to augment the Ministry of the Environment's (MOE's) Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003). The MOE's design manual provides design criteria for "conventional" end -of -pipe stormwater management practices, such as wet ponds and constructed wetlands but provides only limited information about lot level and conveyance controls. The MOE's design manual does however, emphasize the use of a "treatment train" approach to reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff. A treatment train approach — a combination of at- source, conveyance and end -of -pipe stormwater management practices — is usually required to meet the multiple objectives of stormwater management, which includes maintaining the hydrologic cycle, protecting water quality, and preventing increased erosion and flooding. The LID Guide recommends and supports the use of the treatment train approach for stormwater management. The LID Guide focuses on a number of innovative at- source and conveyance stormwater management practices that have been used extensively in Europe and the United States for a number of years and have recently been implemented sporadically in Canada as a result of various green building initiatives such as the Toronto Green Development Standard and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). Low impact development practices presented in the guide include greenroofs, bioretention, permeable pavement, infiltration facilities, enhanced grass channels, dry swales, roof downspout disconnection and rainwater harvesting. In addition to providing design guidance on innovative stormwater management practices, the LID Guide also provides planning and site design strategies aimed at reducing the quantity, rate and frequency of stormwater runoff. Some of these strategies include preserving existing trees, avoiding development on permeable soils and using innovative transportation designs to reduce impervious area. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff will take the following steps to disseminate the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide: • Circulate hard copies of the LID Guide to all funding partners. • Post the LID Guide on the TRCA and the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program websites (free download). • Make hard copies of the LID Guide available for purchase for $200. • Meet with municipal staff and other key partners to provide an overview of the LID Guide. • Present the LID Guide at key stormwater conferences. In order to translate LID into criteria for stormwater management, TRCA staff has already begun developing a stormwater management criteria document that presents an integrated set of updated stormwater management criteria (flood protection, water quality control, erosion control, water balance) which will be used to select and size stormwater management practices outlined in the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide. Staff will continue to consult with municipalities, the Province of Ontario, the development industry and interested stakeholders in the development of the criteria. It is important to note that many municipalities, engineering consultants and agencies, have already begun to use the LID Guide which was made available in draft in 2009 to inform their ongoing projects and new initiatives. 361 FINANCIAL DETAILS Financial contributions to develop and produce the LID Guide were provided by the Region of Peel, City of Toronto and Region of York as part of TRCA's capital budget. Funds were also provided by Credit Valley Conservation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Ministry of Environment through the Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Report prepared by: Sameer Dhalla, extension 5350 Emails: sdhalla @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Sameer Dhalla, extension 5350 Emails: sdhalla @trca.on.ca Date: June 4, 2010 Attachments: 1 (CD - Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide, June 2010) RES. #A97/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: OAK RIDGES CORRIDOR PARK Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, CFN 36330. Update on approval to enter into a ground lease with the Province of Ontario to manage the Oak Ridges Corridor Park. Colleen Jordan Pamela Gough THAT authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to finalize the lease agreement with the Province of Ontario to manage Oak Ridges Corridor Park, in accordance with Resolution #A86/08 and proceed with signing and execution of the lease agreement. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #2/08, held on April 25, 2008, Resolution #A86/08 was approved as fol lows: THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a ground lease for the management of the Oak Ridges Corridor Park with the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) as agent on behalf of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal; THAT the ground lease be subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA and its solicitors; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the ground lease including the execution and signing of documents. At Authority Meeting #1/05, held on February 25, 2005, Resolution #A6/05 was approved as follows: 362 THAT staff be directed to finalize a management agreement with the Province of Ontario and to facilitate the implementation of an environmental management plan for the Oak Ridges Moraine Corridor within the Town of Richmond Hill; THAT the management plan be developed in consultation with all stakeholders including the Town of Richmond Hill, Region of York, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, interested landowners and various public interest groups; THAT staff be directed to seek avenues for funding assistance to implement the completion and recommendations of the management plan, including making application to the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the status of the development of the management plan and its implementation. On September 23, 2004, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing announced that the Province of Ontario and certain landowners on the Oak Ridges Moraine in the Town of Richmond Hill had reached an agreement to exchange lands. The purpose of the land exchange was to protect the last remaining natural corridor link between the eastern and western parts of the Oak Ridges Moraine in Richmond Hill. Under the agreement, 1,057 acres (428 hectares) of land in Richmond Hill would come into public ownership (Attachment 1). In a letter dated February 9, 2005, the Province requested TRCA to act as the Province's agent in the creation of an environmental management plan, including the construction of a primary trail (spine trail) funded by the $3.5 million made available through the agreement with the landowners, and that TRCA enter into a management agreement with the Province. The Province did not complete the land exchange until August, 2007. Through various agreements with the Province, the landowners and TRCA, TRCA was able to proceed with the completion of the Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan, approved at Authority Meeting #8/06, held on October 27, 2006, and the construction of the spine trail. Furthermore, through agreements with Mattamy Homes, TRCA assumed the operation of the Bathurst Glen Golf Course. Since 2006, the Province has held discussions with TRCA staff about management of the lands. In November, 2007, Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) suggested that TRCA enter into a ground lease for the management of the Oak Ridges Corridor Park in accordance with the approved management plan. ORC is recommending a ground lease as opposed to a management agreement primarily as a mechanism to allow TRCA to retain the net revenues from the golf course operation and use those revenues for park operations. By way of a letter of intent from the Province and mutual, verbal agreements, TRCA has been providing a base level of maintenance of the lands since August, 2007. The cost of operations has been covered by golf course revenues supplemented by other funds from the Province. RATIONALE In 2009 and 2010, TRCA has had continuing negotiations with representatives of Ontario Realty Corporation regarding the terms and conditions of the proposed ground lease. In May, 2010, these negotiations concluded with a lease satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitor. 363 Terms and conditions of the ground lease will reflect resolution of the following key issues: 1. The operation of the park must be cost neutral to TRCA. TRCA will use net revenues from the Bathurst Glen Golf Course to operate the park and the Province will be responsible for covering any shortfall in revenues required to operate the park. 2. Two vacant historic buildings on the site will be excluded from the ground lease and the Province will be responsible for all costs associated with preservation, protection and restoration of these sites. 3. Two historic buildings currently under lease will continue to be administered by the Province until the end of their term, at which time they may be added to the lease subject to terms satisfactory to TRCA. 4. Property taxes for the Bathurst Glen Golf Course will be part of the costs of operating the golf course. Property taxes on the balance of the lands will be the responsibility of the Province. 5. Term of the lease will be 20 years commencing August 14, 2007. 6. TRCA will provide the Province with annual budgets, work plans and financial statements. 7. TRCA will provide insurance. 8. A termination clause enables either side to cancel on 12 months notice. TRCA and ORC continue to refer to the leased lands as the "Oak Ridges Corridor Park" although there is no formal agreement as to the name of the park. The leased lands including the Bathurst Glen Golf Course will continue to be managed by TRCA's Parks and Culture Division. TRCA has been working informally with staff of the Town of Richmond Hill in the operation of the park. With the formalizing of the lease, TRCA staff will meet with Town staff to consider how future operations of the park can be effectively coordinated. FINANCIAL DETAILS The ground lease is to have no direct cost to TRCA. It is in TRCA's interest to manage the ground lease and see the park developed successfully. Representatives of ORC have agreed to cover the costs of operation through the end of 2010. Negotiations for funding of any costs not covered by revenue from the golf course in 2011 and beyond will be subject to the annual budget process. There is a provision in the agreement that failure of the parties to agree on the annual budget and operating plan may result in termination. Capital funding for the restoration of the lands and trail development is available under the terms of the provincial contribution agreement. A total of $3.5 million is to be spent over the term of the contribution agreement to create the spine trail and to do restoration of the park in accordance with approved Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan. Report prepared by: Ron Dewell, extension 5245 Emails: rdewell @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ron Dewell, extension 5245; Jim Dillane, extension 6292 Emails: rdewell @trca.on.ca; jdillane @trca.on.ca Date: June 15, 2010 364 RES. #A98/10 - ONTARIO WATER OPPORTUNITY AND WATER CONSERVATION ACT Moved by: Seconded by: Providing comments to the Ministry of the Environment on the proposed Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, 2010. Colleen Jordan Pamela Gough WHEREAS the purposes of the proposed Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, 2010 are to: (a) . foster innovative water, wastewater and stormwater technologies and services in the private and public sectors; (b) create opportunities for economic development and clean - technology jobs in Ontario; and (c) conserve and sustain water resources for present and future generations; AND WHEREAS the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has expertise in watershed management, monitoring and storm water management and technology evaluation; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) advise the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) that TRCA supports the general directions of the proposed Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, 2010; THAT the Ministry of the Environment be asked to strengthen the Act to recognize: (a) the need for watershed management, particularly as it contributes to the establishment of water conservation targets; (b) the important role of rainwater harvesting and other stormwater management technologies in water conservation; (c) the role of natural heritage systems and other green infrastructure in sustaining water resources; (d) that water needs to be managed as a single resource such that storm, potable and wastewater becomes one supply stream for effective conservation; and (e) the need for a stormwater fee as one of the financial tools to achieve conservation objectives; THAT staff identify to the Ministry on behalf of TRCA and /or Conservation Ontario, interest in participation in the proposed Water Technology Acceleration Project, when the opportunity arises; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA's municipal partners, Conservation Ontario and MPPs within TRCA's jurisdiction be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #3/10, held on April 30, 2010, Resolution #A50/10 was approved, as follows: 365 THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to participate on the Ontario Water Conservation Alliance to engage the Province of Ontario in discussions to expand the proposed Water Opportunities Act to include green infrastructure and watershed planning; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority with progress on this initiative On May 18, 2010, the Province of Ontario released for public consultation The Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, 2010 (Bill 72). Comments must be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment by July 17, 2010. This report summarizes the proposed Act, TRCA staff comments on the Act and staff participation in the newly formed Ontario Water Conservation Alliance. Summary of the Proposed Act The proposed Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, 2010 contains a new stand -alone act, the Water Opportunities Act, 2010, as well as schedules containing amendments to existing legislation. The purposes of the Act are (a) to foster innovative .water, wastewater and stormwater technologies and services in the private and public sectors; (b) to create opportunities for economic development and clean - technology jobs in Ontario; and (c) to conserve and sustain water resources for present and future generations. The proposed Water Opportunities Act, 2010 provides that the Minister may set targets in relation to the conservation of water and other targets the Minister considers appropriate. The proposed Water Opportunities Act, 2010 would, if passed, establish a Water Technology Acceleration Project (TAP), a non -crown corporation to encourage collaboration and coordination between industry, governments and academia. The Water TAP would assist in facilitating the creation and growth of globally competitive companies and high value jobs in the water and wastewater sector. This includes increasing the capacity of these sectors to develop, test, demonstrate and commercialize innovative technologies for the treatment and management of water and wastewater and expand business opportunities in Canada and abroad. It is also proposed that the Water Technology Acceleration Project would provide advice to government on actions to foster the development of Ontario's water and wastewater sectors. Finally, this corporation would provide a forum for governments, the private sector, academia and others to exchange information and ideas on how to make Ontario a leader in the development and commercialization of innovative water and wastewater technologies. The proposed Water Opportunities Act, 2010 also includes a regulation- making authority to require municipal water sustainability plans and allows the Minister of the Environment to establish performance indicators and targets for municipal water, wastewater and stormwater services. It is proposed that through regulation, prescribed entities would prepare a municipal water sustainability plan which would include an asset management plan, a financial plan, a water conservation plan, strategies for maintaining and improving the service, a risk assessment and other prescribed information. A regulation- making authority is proposed to prescribe details of municipal water sustainability plans, set timing and reporting requirements and other actions as necessary. The regulation may phase the requirements for municipal water sustainability plans over time. 366 The proposed Water Opportunities Act, 2010 includes regulation- making authority for the Minister of the Environment to require prescribed information on or with municipal water bills to promote transparency. The proposed Water Opportunities Act, 2010 if passed would allow the Minister to communicate progress made on provisions in the Act and other matters by reporting at least every three years. The proposed Water Opportunities Act, 2010 would facilitate government leadership by providing regulation- making authority to require public agencies to consider water conservation and innovation in their procurement practices. The proposed Act also provides regulation- making authority to require prescribed public agencies to prepare water conservation plans. This includes proposed authority to require public agencies to achieve water conservation targets and consider technologies and services that promote the efficient use of water when making capital investments or purchasing goods and services. Finally, other schedules of the proposed Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, 2010 would amend existing legislation in order to help achieve the goals of innovation, creation of economic opportunities, sustainable infrastructure and water conservation. Amendments to the Building Code Act, 1992 are proposed to include consideration of water conservation in the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing's reviews of the Building Code and an enhanced mandate for the Building Code Energy Advisory Council to include water conservation. Also proposed are amendments to the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993 to expand the objects of the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA), to allow OCWA to finance and promote the development, testing, demonstration and commercialization of technologies for the treatment and management of water, wastewater and stormwater and to allow OCWA to conduct business outside of Ontario. The proposed legislation would also transfer regulation- making authority for water efficiency standards from the Green Energy Act, 2009 to the Ontario Water Resources Act, 1990. It is also proposed that the Green Energy Act, 2009 be amended to expand the guiding principles for the Government of Ontario to consider the efficient and wise use of water when constructing, acquiring, operating and managing government facilities. TRCA Staff Analysis and Comments on the Proposed Act TRCA staff strongly support the general directions of the proposed Act. Staff is especially encouraged by the Province of Ontario's direction to include the conservation and sustainability of water resources as well as innovative stormwater management technologies as purposes of the Act. Sustainable water supplies through the management of water on a watershed basis is the first plank in a water conservation strategy. Once water has been taken for supplies, the second plank, technologies and processes to conserve that water are necessary to ensure wise use - the quality of water suiting its purpose. Once used, treatment technologies are required as the third plank, to ensure it can be treated to meet quality targets for reuse or discharge to the environment. The details contained in the Act to date however, are silent on the sustainability of water supplies from ground and surface water sources. The Province should be articulating the larger vision for water management and a shift in the water management paradigm. Connections to the source water protection plans and the importance of watershed planning should also be referenced. There is a significant opportunity to incorporate green infrastructure including low impact development techniques into the 'innovative stormwater technologies' that are encouraged through the proposed act. Guidance from MOE is required to ensure that the technologies and opportunities for stormwater reuse are incorporated into development plans. 367 End of pipe measures remain dominant, although a shift to source and conveyance measures is emerging. Full adoption and implementation requires provincial direction. For each key direction, the analysis discusses the relationships with ongoing TRCA initiatives and identifies areas where the Act could be strengthened. Proposed Water Technology Acceleration Project - Establishment of a proposed non -crown corporation,the Water Technology Acceleration Project, to encourage collaboration between industry, government and academia regarding the development of innovative water and wastewater technologies, to encourage collaboration between industry, government and academia regarding the development of innovative water and wastewater technologies, would greatly improve coordination among industry, academia and government and build capacity within industry to invest in and accelerate the development of innovative technology for priority water management issues. TRCA has been working with local industry and groups such as Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement (OCETA) and Ontario Centres of Excellence (OCE) to promote research and development in urban sustainability and issues identified in need of urgent attention by TRCA's recent watershed plans (e.g. low impact development type stormwater management technology, rain harvesting technology, etc.). TRCA's Sustainable Technology Evaluation Program (STEP) is already serving as a valuable partnership mechanism for monitoring and evaluation of the performance of new water, energy and air technology. There may be an opportunity for an expanded role for STEP under the new Act. Recommendation: TRCA should seek representation, on behalf of TRCA and/or Conservation Ontario, on the proposed Water Technology Acceleration Project, to provide urban watershed management expertise and input on technology needs, when the opportunity arises. Municipal water sustainability plans - The indication that these plans would address water, wastewater and stormwater services marks the beginning of a paradigm shift in Ontario that recognizes there is only one source of water. The proposed Act does not specifically reference the watershed as the fundamental unit within which water management planning and management should take place. The Act also does not reference the need to understand the broader context of interactions among the watershed's natural systems and built systems, as a basis for water management decisions. TRCA's municipal partners, particularly those on the Oak Ridges Moraine, have already prepared water conservation plans and have worked with TRCA as part of the development of recent watershed plans to understand the watershed context for water and wastewater management. TRCA's watershed plans have developed water budgets for each watershed and made recommendations for improved management of those budgets. Implementation will need to pursue improved integration of water supply /conservation and stormwater management (SWM) target setting and decisions. For example, rainwater harvesting is emerging as a significant tool to address SWM objectives and can represent an alternate source of water supply; water conservation targets and strategies should consider SWM targets. Furthermore, TRCA's watershed plans have demonstrated the important water management role provided by the terrestrial natural heritage system and other green infrastructure (e.g. open spaces, tributaries, greenroofs, urban tree canopy) in reducing runoff and associated erosion, flooding and water quality impacts from land use change. Source water protection plans will be important to the protection of municipal water supplies but environmental and private water supplies lack a co- ordinated approach. 368 Recommendation: The Ministry of the Environment should strengthen the proposed Act to recognize: (a) the' need for watershed management, particularly as it contributes to the establishment of water conservation targets; (b) the important role of rainwater harvesting and other stormwater management technologies in water conservation; (c) recognition of natural heritage systems and their role in water supply management; and (d) that water needs to be managed as a single resource such that storm, potable and wastewater becomes one supply stream for effective conservation. Information on municipal water bills - the management of stormwater in a municipality is a significant cost that will only increase over time. Municipal water bills should include a stormwater fee in addition to water and wastewater to reflect the true cost of providing the service and encouraging the integration of stormwater in the water conservation activities of the municipality. Recommendation: The Ministry of the Environment should include regulations allowing for the application of a stormwater fee to be reduced upon improvements to site permeability and reflected in a reduction in water bills where stormwater or greywater reuse achieve conservation objectives. Water Conservation Considerations in Procurement - The proposed requirement for public agencies to achieve water conservation targets and consider water conservation technologies during procurement activities will set a model of practice and facilitate technology development and testing. This direction appears to be consistent with policies and practices already underway at TRCA, such as our Corporate Social Responsibility program. In summary, the proposed Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, 2010 has the potential to contribute stronger tools for TRCA and its partners to implement the recommendations of our watershed management plans and strategies. Furthermore, the Act could assist in strengthening an integrated approach for water - wastewater - stormwater management within a watershed context. Partnership projects, such as the Archetype Sustainable House, Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco- Business Zone and the Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plans, are already providing insights to the technical linkages among these various water management fields and serving as sites for demonstration and testing of innovative technology and water conservation practices. Presentations have been made to MOE and TRCA staff will continue to promote these projects as models for the new legislation. 369 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will submit comments to MOE through the Environmental Bill of Rights and provide a copy of this report to MOE staff by July 17, 2010. Staff will also share the comments contained in this report with Conservation Ontario staff in the preparation of their report to Conservation Ontario Council, member municipalities, members of Provincial Parliament within TRCA jurisdiction, and with members of the Ontario Water Conservation Alliance in the preparation of their response to the Act. Report prepared by: Deborah Martin - Downs, extension 5706 Emails: dmartin- downs @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Deborah Martin- Downs, extension 5706 Emails: dmartin- downs @trca.on.ca Date: June 16, 2010 RES. #A99/10 - GREENWOOD CONSERVATION AREA STREAM BANK RESTORATION 2010/11 Town of Ajax. A partnership project with Town of Ajax to restore 100 metres of stream bank at the Greenwood Conservation Area located in Ajax. Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), in partnership with the Town of Ajax, restore 100 metres of stream bank at the Greenwood Conservation area located within the Duffins watershed in Ajax; THAT TRCA develop an agreement with the Town of Ajax outlining construction responsibilities, financial responsibilities and project control; THAT TRCA continue to work with additional partners including the Atlantic Salmon Recovery Team, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the general public, to restore the Duffins Creek watershed; AND FURTHER THAT authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Greenwood Conservation Area is located in the Duffins Creek watershed within the Town of Ajax, in the Region of Durham. Duffins Creek watershed is one of the healthiest watersheds in the TRCA jurisdiction. However, within Greenwood Conservation Area, sections of the stream banks have been heavily degraded due to inappropriate public use and old failing pedestrian trails and crossings. Currently sections of Duffins Creek within Greenwood are experiencing vegetation dieback, bank erosion resulting in stream sedimentation and Toss of riparian habitat. 370 The Town of Ajax currently manages Greenwood Conservation Area under management agreement with TRCA. The Town's commitment implementing the Greenwood Conservation Area Management Plan and the Trail Plan has resulted in numerous improvement projects developed in partnership with TRCA over the last 10 years. Currently Ajax and TRCA have partnered to conduct site assessments to develop prioritized restoration strategies for various sections of Duffins Creek in Greenwood Conservation Area. The overall goal of the initiative is to improve riparian and in- stream habitat, improve habitat quality, control public access and improve public safety. The strategy has a number of key focus areas, the first of which is a badly degraded stream section downstream of a declining bridge and trail crossing. The site has failing gabion stone bridge abutments which are eroding and impacting both the upstream and downstream banks. The site is also impacted by excessive foot traffic and uncontrolled stream bank access that has damaged the riparian vegetation, degraded instream fish habitat and contributed to bank instability. TRCA and Ajax have assessed the site and made a series of recommendations to improve the natural function of the site, and address the sites sustainability for public use. These include: • removing the existing bridge and abutments replacing with a larger, clear span bridge that is ecologically appropriate for the area; • restoring natural riparian vegetation and stream bank stability; • improving in -water structure and habitat; • providing a proper trail system to control public access and reduce future impact; • educating park users and the public about the Duffins Creek and the value of stream habitat. TRCA will be partnering with Atlantic Salmon Recovery Team, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Ministry of Natural Resources on many other projects in the Duffins Creek, and have also expressed interest in the current project. The Town of Ajax will be undertaking the construction of a new ecologically appropriate span bridge and trail section at the site, and will further partner with TRCA to undertake the ecological restoration of the site. RATIONALE The Greenwood Conservation Area, is a unique natural feature, and it includes environmentally significant areas, spectacular vistas, healthy and diverse forests, regenerating areas and a vibrant fishery.' It is a model for municipal and TRCA partnership, and also provides great opportunity for public land stewardship and outreach. The Greenwood bridge and trail improvement project provides the perfect opportunity to partner and further restore the area to meet the watershed goals for the Duffins Creek. Significant cost savings will be achieved through the partnership. Coordination of the implementation schedules will result in equipment and material cost savings, improved logistic efficiencies and reduced overall construction duration. 371 The restoration opportunities meet the goals and objectives of TRCA and the Town of Ajax. The project is also supported by the Atlantic Salmon Recovery team. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, as well as the Ministry of Natural Resources have expressed an interest to partner in the implementation of the project and have committed additional financial support. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Implementation of the new bridge and trail by the Town of Ajax is anticipated to commence in the summer of 2010. Restoration of the stream and riparian area by TRCA and partners would occur this summer and fall in conjunction with the bridge installation. The project will be completed in the following phases: Planning and Development • Pre and post monitoring, survey and design, approvals, and development of an implementation agreement with Ajax. Site Preparation • Site preparation for construction and staging area. Implementation Old Bridge removal and Temporary Bridge Installation • The removal and disposal of existing wooden bridge. • Installation of temporary bridge crossing for restoration access. Stream Restoration • Decommissioning and reuse of existing gabion abutments. • Restoration of east and west stream banks and preparation for bioengineering and planting. • In- stream habitat improvements. • Planting /seeding riparian zone with native plant species. New Bridge Installation • Town Of Ajax installs new bridge. Site clean -up and demobilization • TRCA decommissions temporary bridge. • Final grading and planting. • Development and installation of project signage. Trail Construction • Town of Ajax to install improved trail section. 372 FINANCIAL DETAILS The total project value of the restoration component of the project is estimated to be $200,000. The funds for the construction will be provided by the Town of Ajax with contributions from TRCA through the Durham Capital Account 109 -10 to a total of $20,000. Additional funds and in -kind support to a total value of $40,000 will be provided from Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Ministry of Natural Resources and general public. Funding for the construction of the bridge and trail by Ajax is not part of the $200,000 restoration project, and will be independently covered by the Town of Ajax. Report prepared by: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366, John DiRocco extension 5231 Emails: rtoninger@trca.on.ca, jdirocco @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: rtoninger@trca.on.ca Date: June 04, 2010 RES. #A100 /10 - GARRISON NURSERY RELOCATION TO UNWIN AVENUE, CITY OF TORONTO Approval of Agreement. Approval to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto for the relocation of the Garrrison Nursery to 295 Unwin Avenue, City of Toronto. Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Pamela Gough THAT approval be granted to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto for the implementation of the project for Garrison Nursery relocation to Unwin Avenue; THAT the agreement be subject to availability of funding from the City of Toronto; AND FURTHER THAT authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND In the fall of 2009, TRCA staff was contacted by Urban Forestry staff at the City of Toronto requesting assistance in the relocation of the Garrison Nursery to 295 Unwin Avenue, located east of Cherry Street along the north shore of the Toronto Outer Harbour in the City of Toronto. (Attachment 1) 373 Located at 80 Garrison Road, adjacent to Fort York, the Garrison Nursery serves as a staging and maintenance area for purchased trees to be used in the Residential and Commercial Tree Planting Programs run by Urban Forestry. Presently, Garrison Nursery operates on an approximately one hectare property which includes woodchip and sand beds for storage and maintenance of trees; roadways allowing access and egress to the beds and the facility in general; an in- ground irrigation system; temporary concrete structures for equipment storage; and an office building. Due to pending construction of a new bridge at this location, as well as the growth of the Garrison Nursery's operations, relocation to a new yard is required. A site visit was conducted at 295 Unwin Avenue by TRCA staff on November 16, 2009 to assess the site conditions and to prepare a strategy to undertake the works on behalf of the City of Toronto. TRCA staff subsequently submitted a proposal to the City outlining a staged approach to the tasks that TRCA would undertake as part of the agreement. Scope of Work The scope of work to be undertaken for this project by TRCA will be separated into three stages: Survey and Planning, Detailed Design and Approvals, and Implementation of Works. Stage I: Survey and Planning • Undertake detailed site survey including the collection of topographic data, and property limits as required including locating of any underground utilities in the vicinity of the proposed works. • Review of existing topographic information, historical air photos and archived information to determine prior usages. • Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) as required to retain consulting engineers to undertake a geotechnical investigation and provide recommendations for construction of the proposed roadway base. • Obtain existing geotechnical, topographic information available for the study area from TRCA, and other relevant sources that will form the basis of an assessment of the existing conditions of the project area. • Identify data and information gaps based upon the review and consolidation of existing information. • Retain an Ontario Land Surveyor to establish /locate property limits including any easements if applicable. • Obtain utility locates as part of topographic survey. • Carry out additional site inspections as required to assess existing conditions. • Develop a minimum of two alternatives for site grading including preliminary cost estimate for the preferred alternative. • Issue an RFP to retain consulting engineers as required for the design of site servicing including irrigation and electrical services. Stage II: Detailed Design and Approvals • Coordinate with consulting engineers to finalize design drawings and specifications for tendering of site servicing based on City of Toronto requirements. Coordinate the review of permit application requirements and ensure the receipt of all necessary approvals for site servicing. • Produce detailed designs of the preferred option and construction drawings for site grading. 374 • Prepare design drawings for site landscaping. • Prepare a detailed cost estimate and schedule based on final detailed design. Stage III: Implementation of Works • Complete preliminary site grading and site preparation for servicing. • Prepare, issue and award tenders for site servicing. • Coordinate and provide inspection and contract administration for the installation of hydro and irrigation services. • Complete site grading and landscaping along Unwin Ave right -of way. • Implement the preferred design including perimeter fencing, preparation of sub - grade, berms, wetland drainage, installation of granular base and sub -grade drainage for planting beds. • Construct concrete block retaining walls. • Prepare, issue and award site paving contract. • Coordinate and provide inspection and contract administration for site paving. • RATIONALE The City of Toronto has requested TRCA's assistance in the development, planning and implementation of this project, based on a successful history of cooperative project management between the City of Toronto and TRCA, and TRCA's specialized expertise in works of this type. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project will be approved by the City of Toronto in stages as outlined in the scope of work, as the project progresses. TRCA staff will not proceed with any tasks prior to receipt of written approval of the associated stage from City of Toronto staff. The cost of the project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto under account 185 -32. The approved funding for Stage 1 is $25,300.00, plus HST. The total cost of the project is estimated at $1 million. Report prepared by: Aaron D'Souza, 416 - 363 -6336 Emails: ajdsouza @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mark Preston, 416 - 392 -9722 Emails: mpreston @trca.on.ca Date: June 14, 2010 Attachments: 1 375 Attachment 1 376 295 TN-A -IN AVEN TAE 377 RES. #A101/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: TORONTO ISLAND MARINA SEAWALL REPAIRS PROJECT Tender RSD10 -10. Award of Contract RSD10 -10 for Seawall Repairs at the Toronto Island Marina. . Colleen Jordan Pamela Gough THAT Contract RSD10 -10 for Toronto Island Marina Seawall Repairs be awarded to Somerville Construction at a cost not to exceed $545,000.00, plus applicable taxes, subject to receipt of all necessary approvals and funding, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2006, the City of Toronto retained the services of Engineered Management Systems Inc. (EMSi) to undertake the Due Diligence Assessment Inspections (SGR Audits, Ph.21) of all parks seawall and dockwall facilities, including boat launch ramps. The inspection noted asphalt cracking and settlement near the edge of the wall, and the wall was given a poor overall condition rating and a RSL (Remaining Service Life) of five years. Based on the assessment provided in the report it was anticipated that the wall would have to be replaced by 2011. In May of 2009 it was brought to the attention of City of Toronto staff that the landing area in front of the Toronto Island Marina main office /restaurant complex was about to collapse into the Toronto harbour. This is the area identified in the 2006 report as featuring settlement and cracking in the asphalt. The deficient area is part of the Marina Road system maintained by the City of Toronto. In reaction to the additional failure observed, City staff retained the services of Soderholm Maritime Services Inc. to undertake a diver's inspection of the failed sheet pile wall adjacent to the Toronto Island Marina. The inspection was completed in June 2009, and identified that a 34 metre section of the seawall would have to be replaced. The failure is reported to be the result of damage to the tie -rods that anchor the seawall into position. Halcrow Yolles was retained as the engineering consultant, and they developed detailed design plans for structural repairs that are consistent with both TRCA and City of Toronto policies and specifications. RATIONALE Tender RSD10 -10 was publicly advertised in the Daily Commercial News on May 25, 2010 with a mandatory site meeting held on May 27, 2010. Tender packages were sent to eight (8) contractors as follows: • APLUS General Contractor; • The Ontario Construction Company; 378 • Soderholm Maritime Services Inc.; • Grascan Construction Ltd.; • McNally Construction Ltd.; • Somerville Construction; • Dean Construction; and • Galcon Marine. The Tender Opening Committee opened the tenders on June 16, 2010 with the following results: Tender RSD10 -10 Toronto Island Marina Seawall Repairs Project BIDDERS TOTAL (excl. HST) Somerville Construction $545,000.00 The Ontario Construction Company Limited $619,372.00 McNally Construction Inc. $707,500.00 Aplus General Contractors Corporation $1,456,500.00 Halcrow Yolles reviewed the bids received against its own cost estimate and has determined that the bids are of reasonable value, with exception of the highest bid. Further assessment by Halcrow Yolles of the lowest bidder's experience and ability to undertake similar projects was conducted through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback that the lowest bidder is capable of undertaking the scope of work. Based on this evaluation, staff recommend that Contract RSD10 -10 be awarded to Somerville Construction for the total cost not to exceed $545,000.00, plus applicable taxes, as they are the lowest bidder that meets TRCA specifications. FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA funds are available in account #185 -31. The full costs of the project are 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto. Report prepared by: Aaron D'Souza, 416 - 393 -6336 Email: pnewland @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Patricia Newland, 416 - 392 -9690 Email: pnewland @trca.on.ca Date: June 17, 2010 379 RES. #A102 /10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed, Regional Municipality of Peel Hi -Lands of Bolton Corp., CFN 30396. Acquisition of a partial taking from a property municipally known as 13540 -13650 Caledon -King Townline South, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project For 2006 - 2010 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #848/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Linda Pabst Pamela Gough THAT confidential item EX7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 -2010, be approved; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back when the item is completed and can be made public. CARRIED RES. #A103 /10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek Watershed Delco Homes Inc., CFN 44071. Acquisition of property located east of Church Street South, south of Kingston Road West, in the Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 - 2010 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek watershed. (Executive Res. #849/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Linda Pabst Pamela Gough THAT 1.495 hectares (3.694 acres), more or Tess, of vacant land, being Part of Lot 15, Concession 1, and designated as Blocks 2 on draft plan prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited under reference no. 07 -25- 938 -00, Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham, located east of Church Street South and, south of Kingston Road West, be purchased from Delco Homes Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; 380 AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED RES. #A104 /10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed Rice Commercial Group Limited, CFN 44139. Acquisition of valleylands located south of Stouffville Road and west of Woodbine Avenue from Rice Commercial Group Limited, Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York. (Executive Res. #850/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Linda Pabst Pamela Gough THAT 1.508 hectares, (3.726 acres), more or less, being Part of Lot 35, Concession 4, and designated Part 2 on draft plan of subdivision prepared by E.R. Garden Limited, #08- 4149A, located south of Stouffville Road and west of Woodbine Avenue, Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville, be purchased from Rice Commercial Group Limited; THAT the purchase price for the land be $2.00; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect hereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. RES. #A105 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and, Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed, Regional Municipality of Peel Purchase of land - Vera Torok, CFN 37939. Acquisition of a partial taking from a residential property located at 19153 St. Andrews Road, south of ' Beech Grove Side Road, Town of Caledon, Region of Peel, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 - 2010," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #B51 /10) Linda Pabst Pamela Gough 381 THAT 2.428 hectares (6.0 acres) more or Tess, being part of Lot 19, Concession 5 East of Hurontario Street, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel and being a partial taking from a property municipally known as 19153 St. Andrews Road be purchased from Vera Torok; THAT the purchase price be $36,000, together with the vendor's legal fees to a maximum of $1,000; THAT acquisition by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is conditional on all necessary funding being available; THAT TRCA receive conveyance of the land required free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers and Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever actions may be required to give effect thereto including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED RES. #A106/10 - DUKE OF RICHMOND DEVELOPMENT INC. AND TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL Request for a permanent easement for a sanitary sewer and watermain Rouge River Watershed, Town of Richmond Hill, Region of York, CFN 44070. Receipt of a request from the Duke of Richmond Development Inc. and Town of Richmond Hill for permanent easements for a sanitary sewer and watermain. (Executive Res. #852/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Linda Pabst Pamela Gough WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Duke of Richmond Development Inc. and Town of Richmond Hill for a permanent easement for a sanitary sewer and watermain, on the east side of Bathurst Street and north of Gamble Road; AND WHEREAS it is the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with Duke of Richmond Development Inc. and Town of Richmond Hill in this instance; 382 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT permanent easements containing a total of 1.3 hectares (3.2 acres), more or less, be granted to the Town of Richmond for a permanent easement for a sanitary sewer and watermain, said land being Part of Block 181, Plan 65M -3829 and designated Part 1 and 2 on draft R -plan, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York; THAT consideration is to be the nominal sum of $2.00, plus all legal, survey and other costs be paid by Duke of Richmond Development Inc.; THAT an archaeological investigation is to be conducted before any site disturbance with any mitigative measures required being carried out, all at the expense of Duke of Richmond Development Inc.; THAT all permits pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06 be obtained by the Duke of Richmond Development Inc. prior to the commencement of construction; THAT all TRCA -owned lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated /stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines; THAT the Duke of Richmond Development Inc. and Town of Richmond Hill are to fully indemnify and save harmless TRCA from any and all claims for injuries, damages or loss of any nature resulting in any way either directly or indirectly from this sale or the carrying out of construction; THAT said conveyance is subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27 as amended; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to implement the conveyance agreement, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED RES. #A107/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LAND South Side of Giltspur Drive, Adjacent to 67 Giltspur Drive, City of Toronto, Humber River Watershed, CFN 36583. Declaring surplus a parcel of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned land located on the south side of Giltspur Drive, adjacent to 67 Giltspur Drive, City of Toronto - North York Community Council Area, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #853/10) Glenn De Baeremaeker Bill Fisch 383 THAT a parcel of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) land consisting of 0.06 hectares (0.15 acres), more or less, being Part of Block B, Registered Plan 5390 and Part of Magellan Drive, Registered Plan 3621, shown as Part 2 on Plan 64R- 10559, located on the south side of Giltspur Drive, adjacent to 67 Giltspur Drive, in the City of Toronto - North York Community Council Area, Humber River watershed be declared surplus to the requirements of TRCA subject to: (a) submission and approval of site plans, to include details pertaining to grading and sediment control; (b) obtaining all necessary approvals and permits from TRCA prior to issuance of any municipal building and /or foundation permits; (c) an archaeological investigation is to be conducted before any site disturbance with any mitigative measures required being carried out at no cost to TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT the parcel of land be advertised publicly for sale in accordance with TRCA's disposal policies. AMENDMENT #1 Moved by: Seconded by: Maria Augimeri Bonnie Litt ley THAT the main motion be replaced with the following: THAT the report be referred to staff for a report back on the possibility of severing a parcel of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) land consisting of 0.06 hectares (0.15 acres), more or less, being Part of Block B, Registered Plan 5390 and Part of Magellan Drive, Registered Plan 3621, shown as Part 2 on Plan 64R- 10559, located on the south side of Giltspur Drive, adjacent to 67 Giltspur Drive, in the City of Toronto - North York Community Council Area, Humber River watershed. RECORDED VOTE Eve Adams Nay Maria Augimeri Yea Bryan Bertie Yea Glenn De Baeremaeker Nay Bill Fisch Nay Pamela Gough Nay Lois Griffin Yea Colleen Jordan Nay Bonnie Littley Nay Glenn Mason Nay Gerri Lynn O'Connor Nay Linda Pabst Nay Gino Rosati Yea John Sprovieri Nay Richard Whitehead Nay 384 AMENDMENT #2 RES. #A108/10 Moved by: Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Bill Fisch THAT the main motion be replaced with the following: THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff be authorized to convey a parcel of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) land consisting of 0.06 hectares (0.15 acres), more or less, being Part of Block B, Registered Plan 5390 and Part of Magellan Drive, Registered Plan 3621, shown as Part 2 on Plan 64R- 10559, located on the south side of Giltspur Drive, adjacent to 67 Giltspur Drive, in the City of Toronto - North York Community Council Area, Humber River watershed to Habitat for Humanity and /or the City of Toronto for Habitat for Humanity affordable housing purposes only. RECORDED VOTE Eve Adams Yea Maria Augimeri Nay Bryan Bertie Nay Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Bill Fisch Yea Pamela Gough Yea Lois Griffin Nay Colleen Jordan Yea Bonnie Litt ley Nay Glenn Mason Yea Gerri Lynn O'Connor Yea Linda Pabst Yea Gino Rosati Nay John Sprovieri Yea Richard Whitehead Nay AMENDMENT #1 WAS NOT CARRIED AMENDMENT #2 WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff be authorized to convey a parcel of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) land consisting of 0.06 hectares (0.15 acres), more or Tess, being Part of Block B, Registered Plan 5390 and Part of Magellan Drive, Registered Plan 3621, shown as Part 2 on Plan 64R- 10559, located on the south side of Giltspur Drive, adjacent to 67 Giltspur Drive, in the City of Toronto - North York Community Council Area, Humber River watershed to Habitat for Humanity and /or the City of Toronto for Habitat for Humanity affordable housing purposes only. 385 SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION RES. #A109 /10 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Seconded by: Eve Adams Bonnie Litt ley THAT Section II items EX8.1 - EX8.4, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #4/10, held on June 4, 2010, be received. CARRIED Section II Items EX8.1 0 EX8.4, Inclusive WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION POLICY (Executive Res. #854/10) REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LAND (Executive Res. #855/10) COATSWORTH CUT DREDGING PROJECT (Executive Res. #856/10) PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN (Executive Res. #857/10) SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES. #A110 /10 - CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT, 2009 Receipt of report on progress towards operational sustainability in 2009. Moved by: Seconded by: Bonnie Litt ley Colleen Jordan IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Corporate Social Responsibility Report (CSR), 2009 for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1999, the Authority approved a corporate Environmental Policy statement and a framework to implement an environmental management system. Since that time, staff has done research and engaged in extensive consultations both internally and with various outside institutions to determine and test environmental management targets, objectives and tools. The program was expanded in 2004 to allow for inclusion of social and economic targets and renamed Sustainability Management System in order to better manage TRCA's organizational commitment to sustainability. In 2009, the program was renamed the Corporate Social Responsibility Program to more appropriately align with accepted international terminology for sustainability reporting. 386 The Corporate Social Responsibility Program enables TRCA managers to continually review, consult, monitor, report, revise and improve TRCA's environmental and social performance in selected areas where internal operations have significant impact on the environment. These areas are called 'significant aspects' under ISO 14000 terminology, one global standard for environmental management systems. The primary vehicle for communicating TRCA's sustainability performance to stakeholders is the annual Corporate Social Responsibility Report. The report is presented in eight categories of sustainability performance, as follows: • Employee Engagement; • Carbon Footprint; • Energy Use; • Water Use; • Green Purchasing; • Vehicles, Fuel and Travel; • Land Management; • Waste Management. Outlined below is a summary of the report. Hard copies of the complete Corporate Social Responsibility Report, 2009 will be available at the meeting. Summary of TRCA Operational Sustainability for 2009 A high environmental consciousness pervades TRCA operations and increasingly, sustainability has become a top priority as illustrated by a willingness to find innovative ways to become more sustainable. One particularly significant milestone in 2009 was the articulation of a set of vision statements for each category of our sustainability performance along with associated goals and objectives. This was achieved through an extensive staff consultation process. The vision statements identify the level of sustainable operations we wish to achieve in the long term while the goals and objectives provide tangible milestones that can be met in the short and medium term (Attachment 1). In 2010 a TRCA Sustainable Facilities Committee will be formed to develop a workplan for achieving these outcomes. Employee Engagement In 2009, TRCA staff participated in Pollution Probe's annual Clean Air Commute and the City of Toronto's 20 Minute Makeover. TRCA continued its membership (since inception) in Smart Commute, North Toronto and Vaughan running car pool and trip reduction events, and providing staff with access to a car pooling database and a guaranteed ride home for "green" commute. As well, EcoSchools and TRCA EcoOffices "green teams" were operational at five educational facilities and four offices. 387 In 2010, TRCA will focus on developing a comprehensive annual employee engagement program with the goal of assisting employees in becoming more sustainable at work and at home. TRCA's staff engagement program must be enhanced in order to further our sustainability goals and help staff become more sustainable not only at work but in other areas of their lives as well. TRCA will model its engagement program (in part) on programs such as those run by London Health Sciences and St. Michael's Hospital, which have demonstrated the direct benefits to organizational sustainability that can be achieved by helping employees become more sustainable in their daily lives. Carbon Footprint In 2009, TRCA conducted its first ever operational carbon footprinting exercise, calculating a total carbon footprint using International ISO standards. The globally accepted standardized methodology (International Standards Organization (ISO)) for reporting on carbon requires an organization to define the "scope" of its reporting and to reliably collect representative data from across the organization. With the assistance of Pinchin Environmental and CarbonCounted Inc., TRCA has calculated a carbon footprint for 2009 based on most of the mandatory elements of Scopes One and Two, and one element of Scope Three in the International Standards. Coolant loss from cooling systems as well as the impact from TRCA's small livestock holdings, while mandatory for Scopes One and Two, were not included as the information from our many holdings was not available. Although the impact of these items.is expected to be small, we will be devising and enacting a methodology for obtaining this data in 2010. TRCA's mandatory Scope One and Scope Two carbon footprint for 2009 is 2,591 tonnes of CO 2 equivalents. In addition to the mandatory elements in Scope One and Scope Two of the standards, TRCA also calculated the carbon emissions for one important Scope Three item: waste sent to landfill. When this Scope Three element is included in the overall carbon emissions reported, TRCA's footprint for 2009 is 3,462 tonnes of'CO2 equivalents. Facility energy consumption represents 54% of this total footprint, highlighting the importance of energy conservation and transition to renewable energy sources for TRCA's carbon reduction goals. The Scope Three contributor, waste, represents 25% of the carbon footprint while TRCA vehicles and equipment account for the remaining 21%. In 2010, TRCA will be calculating site /facility footprints for various TRCA business areas and /or facilities. As well, in 2010 TRCA will begin the process of accounting for additional Scope Three (non- mandatory carbon factors explained further in the CSR report ). While these factors are not mandatory as per the International Standards, they are important contributors to the overall carbon footprint of TRCA, and as an organization leading in the area of sustainability, it is important for TRCA to pursue accounting for and mitigation of all aspects of its operation generating carbon emissions. Energy In 2009, TRCA's facility energy use (all facilities) was 17% above that in 2003; however, this increase has occurred over a period of 42% expansion in staff and the addition of two major new facilities. In 2009, total facility energy use decreased for the first time since the inception of the Corporate Social Responsibility program (decrease of 4.2 %, despite a 5% increase in staff). 388 2009 saw the completion of a ground source heating and cooling system at the TRCA's leased office at Downsview Park and this system substantially increased TRCA's corporate use of renewable energy. While the system has a natural gas supplementary system in place to handle tough heating days (very cold days when the ground source heating is not fully effective) no natural gas was consumed in 2009 due to mild temperature conditions. Currently, 6.7% of TRCA facility floor space (square footage) is serviced (primarily) by renewable energy sources for heating and cooling (up from 3.9% in 2008 with the addition of the Downsview Office). These facilities are: • GreenWorks Building, Archetype Sustainable House and Renewable Energy Cottage at Kortright Centre; • Restoration Services Centre; • Downsview Office. TRCA'S priority in energy is to develop a corporate Energy Management Plan to guide operational practice and further retrofits, identify expectations for new facilities and conversions to renewable energy where possible. Purchase of green electricity (currently at Restorations Services Centre, Kortright, and Head Office) is an interim step along TRCA's path to the production of our own electricity from renewable sources. The corporate Energy Management Plan will be a major part of a corporate facility sustainability plan which will engage all facilities managers in developing short and long term plans for TRCA facilities in the areas of energy, water conservation, as well as in transitioning toward facility sustainability certification (e.g. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for existing buildings). Facility sustainability planning is a major objective of the CSR program in 2010, and will be facilitated through the development of a TRCA Sustainable Facilities Committee. Water Total municipal water consumption at TRCA is now approximately 65,000 cu. m for 2009, down from 70,000 cu. m in 2008. In 2010, TRCA's Sustainable Facilities Committee will embark on setting goals, objectives and targets for potable water reduction, data gathering (including well consumptions) and stormwater treatment (as well as metrics and methods for monitoring each). TRCA staff will also determine metrics and methodology for measuring and reporting on TRCA stormwater practices at its facilities. Green Purchasing In 2009, staff developed a green purchasing training program and carried out one initial round of training for interested staff. As well, staff arranged for externally conducted green cleaning audits at Kortright Centre, Black Creek Pioneer Village and the Downsview Office. In 2010, green procurement training will continue and staff will act on the results of the green cleaning audits. As well, staff will consider other products and services for inclusion on the Mandatory Green Products and Services Procurement List. Vehicles, Fuel and Travel Due to significant growth in the organization, consumption of fuel and kilometres driven for business continues to increase: However, TRCA fleet fuel efficiency for 2009 was 16.4 litres of fuel per 100 kms, an improvement of 7.3% from the peak in 2006. Absolute fuel use, remains approximately 35% above 2003 levels. 389 In 2009, TRCA's fleet (approximately 60 vehicles) underwent a comprehensive review under the Municipal Fleet Challenge program for Ontario. The independent audit was conducted by E3 Consultants based in British Columbia. TRCA's fleet management performance, including elements of sustainability, were measured and compared with municipalities and other government agencies across Ontario. Some highlights of TRCA's performance are articulated below: • " Our review confirms that the TRCA fleet is a well managed asset." • "Good record keeping and data are evident." • "..fleet age is lower and availability higher than average." • "..medium fuel efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions are much lower than average. In 2010, staff will continue to enact TRCA's GreenFleet strategy. Waste TRCA generated 642 tonnes of waste in 2009,.a reduction of approximately 4% from 2008. Of the 642 tonnes generated, 142 tonnes were recycled for a diversion rate of 22 %. This suggests a significant decrease in diversion from previous years (40% in 2007 and 41% in 2008). The reasons for the drop in performance are not immediately known, however, there are a number of factors which may have contributed to this decrease in diversion rate. 2009 was the first year of a new waste hauler contract. As TRCA relies on the waste hauler to report diversion rates, it is possible that a difference in methodology between the new haulers and the previous hauler accounts for the difference. As well, the economic downturn may account for the decrease in material mass recycled by the hauler. Staff proposes the implementation of periodic waste audits at all facilities as a means of overcoming unreliable information from haulers. Fantastic efforts were made in 2009 by TRCA's Parks and Culture Division. In 2009, the recycling infrastructure (signs, bins, etc.) at TRCA's parks were substantially enhanced to provide easier to use and more effective source separation capabilities for the general public: Anecdotal information from Parks staff indicates that the new approach has worked exceedingly well. In 2010, the Sustainable Facilities Committee will enact a plan to ensure waste audits are conducted at TRCA sites. This approach will: • bring TRCA in line with upcoming provincial requirements to have waste audits performed; • allow for consistent methodology year -to -year; • ensure the diversion data is based on what TRCA and its visitors successfully separated into the recycling stream, instead of what the hauler was able to sell. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Key activities of the Corporate Social Sustainability Program in 2010 will be: • convene a Sustainable Facilities Committee to standardize approach to data acquisition, and devise short and long -term plans for transformation of facilities to meet corporate sustainability goals; • develop a comprehensive annual employee engagement program; • add to overall corporate carbon footprint by calculating site /facility footprints for various TRCA business areas and /or facilities; 390 • develop a corporate Energy Management Plan to guide operational practice and further retrofits; • continue GreenFleet efforts; • establish plan for system of facility waste audits (correct existing data problems). FINANCIAL DETAILS The CSR program is funded through the TRCA operating budget. Report prepared by: Brian Dundas, extension 5262 Emails: bdundas @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Brian Dundas, extension 5262 Emails: bdundas @trca.on.ca Date: May 12, 2010 Attachments: 1 391 Attachment 1 Sustainability Category Vision Goals Objectives Employee Engagement TRCA staff are champions of sustainability where they work, learn, live and play. Develop and carry out an annual employee engagement program to facilitate and assist staff involvement in sustainability related activities where they work, learn, live and play. Have 80 staff members participate in Pollution Probe's Clean Air Commute by 2012. At least 200 staff members participate in the 20 Minute Makeover by 2012. Have EcoSchool /EcoOffice type programs (or their equivalent) at all work locations by 2012 Carbon TRCA operations will have a positive effect on greenhouse gas emissions and thus help mitigate climate change (offset the emissions of others). TRCA will be carbon neutral by 2025. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% from 2005 levels by 2018 70% reduction in carbon footprint at Field Centres, by 2018. Energy TRCA is a net producer of green energy for the community. TRCA uses 80% renewable energy in the operation of its facilities by 2025. TRCA uses energy efficiently in its operation with total energy consumption reduced by 50% from 2005 levels by 2025. TRCA uses 50% renewable energy in the operation of its facilities by 2015. Reduce total energy consumption by 30% from 2005 levels by 2015. Purchase 80% of electrical energy (i.e. hydro obtained from the grid) from green sources by 2015. Establish a CSR Sustainable Facilities Committee to establish short and long range planning for building and facility transition to sustainability. 392 Sustainability Category Vision . Goals Objectives Water TRCA operations and facilities are models for managing potable water and stormwater runoff. Minimum 15mm of source water control at all TRCA facilities. Reduce total water consumption by 35% from 2009 levels by 2025 Reduce water consumption at corporate offices (Downsview, Head Office, and Boyd), Kortright and Black Creek Pioneer Village 25% from 2009 levels by 2015. Green Purchasing TRCA procures all the products it consumes and services it hires from environmentally and socially responsible sources. 40% of food purchased by TRCA is sourced locally by 2012. Establish facility /area /operation specific objectives by 2010. Determine definition of "local . food" by 2010. Determine methodology for assessing local food performance (and, consequently, setting additional, quantifiable Corporate Goals) by 2010. Vehicles, Fuel, Equipment TRCA's transportation needs will be met by sustainable electric and biofuel based - vehicles. TRCA's fleet will achieve an average of 12 litres per 100 kilometres fuel efficiency by 2018. Reduce TRCA greenhouse gas emissions from fleet and travel by 50% from 2009 levels by 2018. 393 Sustainability Category Vision Goals Objectives Land Management TRCA will protect, conserve and manage TRCA properties within an ecosystem framework, and in consultation with the community, ensuring watershed health, public enjoyment and environmental sustainability. Complete baseline land management plans for the 13 major TRCA properties. Waste TRCA minimizes the Diverting 80% of total waste 80% reduction in waste in amount of waste from operations and treats what waste it does generate as a resource. from all TRCA facilities by 2018. educational field centres by 2018. Reduce landfill waste stream originating from Parks and Culture Facilities by 80% by 2012. Increase staff and visitor awareness and participation in Recycling Program. Be certified members Recycling Council of Ontario and Audubon International by 2012 for all Parks and Culture facilities. 394 RES. #A111/10 - UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY WATERBASE PROJECT Technology transfer of watershed modelling approaches to developing nations. Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Linda Pabst IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the United Nations University Waterbase Project be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #1/10, held on February 26, 2010, the board directed staff to report back on the adoption of watershed water quality modelling work in the Duffins Creek by the United Nations University as part of their WaterBase Project. WaterBase is a project of the United Nations University with an aim of advancing Integrated Water Resources Management (IWR) in developing nations by providing free, open source tools for modelling and decision making, along with requisite resources, websites, tools, training materials and professional support. Across the globe, developing countries require advanced tools to assist in decision making regarding the implementation of effective watershed management actions. Scientists and engineers in these developing countries recognize the utility of using watershed modelling tools and geographic information systems (GIS) in their decision making. Opportunities to apply these modelling tools and GIS are hampered by lack of money, lack of expertise, inadequate training and a dependence on external expertise. Through the effort of the WaterBase project, scientists and engineers in developing nations will have, at no cost, access and training support for the models and GIS they need. This is in part due to a movement toward the development of non - proprietary computer software programs and GIS mapping. This movement stems from a US Federal requirement that all scientific studies which develop models, computer mapping and data, etc. with US Federal funds, make their software, data and GIS available for use free of charge. This open access policy has proven to be beneficial in that this federally funded research can be used in other watersheds; and through collaborative working arrangements, researchers from around the globe continue to advance and support computer models for water resources management. 395 For the past 15 years Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been working with researchers at the University of Waterloo and Environment Canada to apply watershed modelling tools which assist TRCA in the management of watersheds such as the Duffins Creek. One of the models used is the Agricultural Non Point Source Model (AGNPS) developed by The U.S. Department of Agriculture. GIS interfaces for the AGNPS model were developed by Environment Canada and University of Waterloo scientists, with Great Lakes Sustainability Funds in the late 1990s to support non point source work in Duffins Creeks and other watersheds in the Great Lakes Basin. This AGNPS computer model and the GIS interface are now posted on the WaterBase site, with links to GIS layers for the Duffins Creek that are available through the World Wide Web for download. Through WaterBase Canadian researchers who worked with TRCA to model Duffins Creek help to advise other scientists around the World on the set -up and application of the computer model and how to obtain GIS maps. Additional information is provided on t the WaterBase website www.waterbase.org. FINANCIAL DETAILS There are no financial implications for TRCA. Report prepared by: Gary Bowen, extension 5385 Emails: gbowen @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gary Bowen extension 5385 Emails: gbowen @trca.on.ca Date: June 2, 2010 RES. #A112 /10 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Seconded by: Linda Pabst Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Section IV item EX9.1 - Coxwell Sanitary Trunk Sewer Emergency Response Plan, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #4/10, held on June 4, 2010, be received. CARRIED ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 RES. #A113 /10 - APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Moved by: Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Gino Rosati 396 THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.2 - EX10.91, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #4/10, held on June 4, 2010, be received. NEW BUSINESS RES. #A114/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: NEW BUSINESS Colleen Jordan Glenn De Baeremaeker CARRIED THAT New Business items EX11.1 and EX11.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #4/10, held on June 4, 2010, be received. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:30 a.m., on Friday, June 25,2010. Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair /ks 397 CARRIED Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer c. erTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #6/10 July 23, 2010 The Authority Meeting #6/10, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, July 23, 2010. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:47 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Vice Chair David Barrow Member Bryan Bertie Member Laurie Bruce Member Mike Del Grande Member Pamela Gough Member Suzan Hall Member Jack Heath Member Colleen Jordan Member Peter Milczyn Member Ron Moeser Member Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair Linda Pabst Member John Parker Member Anthony Perruzza Member John Sprovieri Member Richard Whitehead Member ABSENT Eve Adams Member Paul Ainslie Member Gay Cowbourne Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Bill Fisch Member Grant Gibson Member Lois Griffin Member Bonnie Litt ley Member Glenn Mason Member Maja Prentice Gino Rosati Member 398 RES. #A115 /10 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Pamela Gough Maria Augimeri THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/10, held on June 25, 2010, be approved. PRESENTATIONS (a) CARRIED A presentation by Michael Gusche, Project Manager, City of Mississauga, in regard to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority Etobicoke Creek Trail Link. (b) A presentation by Jon Gee, Senior Manager, Environment Canada, in regard to item AUTH7.2 - Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan.. RES. #A116 /10 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Linda Pabst David Barrow THAT above -noted presentation (b) be deferred. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) A letter dated July 20, 2010 from Madeleine McDowell, Toronto, in regard to receipt of Honour Roll Award. RES. #A117 /10 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Seconded by: David Barrow Ron Moeser THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received. CARRIED 399 CORRESPONDENCE (A) Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Toronto July 20th, 2010 Dear Chair O'Connor I was truly touched by Lois Griffin's words and by the Honour Roll Award on June 25th. My sincere thanks for the little Red Oak that will inhabit Bruce's Mill Donation Forest. All best wishes, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Madeleine McDowell 400 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #A118/10 - ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEKS TRAIL EXTENSION AND ASSOCIATED PERMEABLE PARKING LOT /STAGING AREA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Update on approximately 12 kilometres of public use trail extension projects in the Etobicoke and Mimico creeks watersheds and associated permeable parking lot /staging area demonstration site at the Lester B. Pearson International Airport lands. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Maria Augimeri THAT the presentation by Michael Gusche, Project Manager, City of Mississauga on the Greater Toronto Airports Authority Etobicoke Creek trail link be received; THAT the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, cities of Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton and Region of Peel, be thanked for their contribution towards Etobicoke and Mimico creeks trail development and associated valley land restoration; THAT the Etobicoke- Mimico Watersheds Coalition and respective project teams be recognized for their assistance and support in advocating for and implementing trail connection projects throughout the Etobicoke and Mimico creeks watersheds; AND FURTHER THAT members of the Authority be invited to attend the official opening of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority trail link and permeable parking lot in the fall of 2010. CARRIED BACKGROUND A network of well connected trails has been identified as an important public open space requirement in "Turning Over a New Leaf: The Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watershed Report Card 2006 ". The table below represents the status of trails as reported in the 2006 watershed report card: Watershed Length of Existing Trails Percentage of Desired Trail Network in Place Etobicoke 127 km 66% approximately Mimico 64 km 66% approximately Since the release of the report card, significant progress has been made towards the development of a well connected trails network in both the Etobicoke and Mimico creeks watersheds. Approximately 12 kilometres of trail extension along the Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek is scheduled to be completed over the next several years with support from local municipalities, businesses, community groups and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Trail specifications and use for each link is determined in consultation with municipal staff based on opportunities and constraints. Discussed below are the various new trail enhancement projects scheduled to be completed between 2010 to 2012, but does not represent trail repair or maintenance projects currently undertaken by municipalities. 401 Status of Other Trail Links The trail connection projects are currently being developed in partnership with municipalities. Where funding has been approved, staff is proceeding with design and approvals. Appropriate third-party agreements for trail easements will be negotiated through municipalities, as required. Provided below is a brief progress update on each project: 1. West Etobicoke /Greater Toronto Airports Authority Trail (7.0 km from Matheson Boulevard East to Drew Road, Mississauga, Etobicoke Creek watershed) • This project is being delivered by the City of Mississauga in partnership with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), Region of Peel, Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco- Business Zone and TRCA. TRCA has endorsed the City's trail design and has agreed to manage the planning and construction for a portion of the trail which will also include habitat and restoration work as well as interpretive signage through Edward Scarlet Park. The current development phase of the Etobicoke Creek trail within the City of Mississauga-is approximately 7.0 kilometres long (from Matheson Boulevard East through the western boundary of Lester B. Pearson International Airport (LBPIA) to Mount Charles Park). GTAA has approved the proposed trail through LBPIA lands and is also partnering with the City of Mississauga and TRCA to develop a permeable parking lot and staging area as a pilot project within the Pearson Eco-Business Zone. 2. Sherway Trail (0.7 km from QEW to Sherway Drive, Toronto, Etobicoke Creek watershed) This section of the trail will establish a trail link between the City of Toronto and City of Mississauga. The project is being delivered through a partnership between the City of Toronto, TRCA and the Sherway Trail Project Team (a working group of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition). The funding for this trail link has been made available through the City of Toronto, Section 37 development contribution. TRCA staff will manage the planning and construction of this project which will also include habitat and restoration work as well as interpretive signage. Trail design has been completed and approved by both City of Toronto and TRCA. All necessary permits are being obtained including finalization of an access agreement with the Ministry of Transportation. Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in the Fall/Winter of 2010. 402 3. South Mimico Trail (0.8 km from Lakeshore to QEW, Toronto, Mimico Creek watershed) This section of the trail established an important connection from the waterfront trail at Humber Bay Park to South Mimico neighbourhoods along Mimico Creek. TRCA and City of Toronto staff are working in partnership to secure lands and funding through new development projects along Park Lawn Road. TRCA staff is also working with Toronto Water to coordinate construction activities through the Bonar Creek Stormwater Management Pond project. The concept design and trail alignment has been completed and approved by both City of Toronto and TRCA. We are currently in the process of developing the designs for two pedestrian crossings over Mimico Creek. Agreements have also been negotiated with developers to incorporate pedestrian trail links and restoration along Mimico Creek through development review. Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2011. 4. Kennedy Valley Trail and Restoration (2.0 km from Drew Road to Hwy 410, Brampton, Etobicoke Creek watershed) This trail link establishes a gateway to Brampton at Drew Road, where the trail connects with the Etobicoke Creek Trail in Mississauga. The project is being delivered through a partnership between the City of Brampton, Region of Peel and TRCA. Funding for this project has been made available through the City of Brampton (trail construction and design) and the Region of Peel (restoration). Damage to valley habitat and vegetation by all- terrain vehicles is a significant issue which will be addressed through a multi - partner enforcement and communication strategy in this area. TRCA staff will manage the planning and construction of this project, which will also include habitat and restoration works as well as interpretive signage. Trail designs have been completed and necessary permits are being obtained from the Ministry of Transportation. Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in the fall /winter of 2010. 5. Valleywood Trail (1.5 km from Mayfield Road to Hwy 10, Caledon, Etobicoke Creek watershed) This trail Zink will connect the Etobicoke Creek Trail in the City of Brampton to the Town of Caledon. TRCA staff is currently in the process of negotiating funding for trail development with the developer in Mayfield West. TRCA has completed a concept design for the trail link. Once the funding is confirmed and the concept design is approved, TRCA staff will manage the planning and construction of this project which will also include habitat and restoration work as well as interpretive signage. Permeable Parking Lot /Staging Area Demonstration Site The permeable demonstration parking lot and staging site AT LBPIA has been constructed along Etobicoke Creek trail to highlight green elements that can be integrated into parking areas in order to improve local water quality and manage stormwater runoff at source. In order to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and restore the natural hydrological cycle, green parking lots integrate permeable paving surfaces and vegetative swales that allow water to infiltrate the soil. This site will also serve as an opportunity to educate companies in the Pearson Eco- Business Zone on how they can improve their sites through green parking lot techniques. 403 Additional in -kind support for the parking lot and staging area has been provided by Ready Mix Concrete Association of Ontario, Dufferin Concrete, TD Friends of the Environment Foundation and the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan. The City of Mississauga is leading the organization of a formal opening ceremony planned for September 2010 (date to be determined). FINANCIAL DETAILS Total estimated budget for all five projects (including trail extension, pedestrian crossings, restoration, staging areas and signage) is approximately $5 million. Thus far, a total (approved) funding commitment of approximately $ 2.6 million has been made by partner municipalities (Toronto, Peel, Mississauga and Brampton), TRCA, development industry and local fundraising efforts. In addition to these trail extension projects, the permeable parking lot demonstration project in the Pearson Eco- Business Zone has received a funding commitment (cash and in -kind) of approximately $120,000. Report prepared by: Vince D'Elia, extension 5667 Emails: vdelia @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Vince D'Elia, extension 5667 or Chandra Sharma, extension 5237, Emails: vdelia @trca.on.ca or csharma @trca.on.ca Date: July 8, 2010 Attachments: 1 404 TRAIL MAP ETOBICOKE & MIMIC° CREEKS WATERSHED MDIICO WATERSHED Toosrits rlkI: 1111) Kefue;3y V'Jta,: T �;I Srampkan A37-0Ft49iE13 TRAILO (lGiiOpT T' @36ii 65'i'r N -' Y4 ' 61M Isne ETRAI1G5riia CPIAA6i e1 iMMO CA 3N$OS TUNiaNY? mop akcacrx GL!!IYSENW.4.7NUR4 AUTHORITY' .- Lmar: tiF.ti 57W, £Rasa F'ffF *Wra3. %6[:m,* LEGEN D R ai "WiifkA Tess, NasrS3 fAsft AAA Faa &:;uiIt Monk TrWfi . WewgoeIN RES. #A119/10 - TORONTO AND REGION REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN One year renewal of Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan agreements between Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, respectively. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Maria Augimeri THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to work with federal and provincial representatives to finalize the 2010 -2011 Remedial Action Plan agreements between TRCA and Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, respectively; THAT TRCA staff continue to work with the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) team, federal, provincial and municipal staff, the academic community, environmental non - governmental organizations and others to implement the 2010 -2011 RAP workplan and advance RAP objectives; AND FURTHER THAT federal government departments, provincial ministries, Members of Parliament, Members of Provincial Parliament, councillors, community groups, universities, schools, libraries and persons on the RAP mailing list throughout the Toronto and Region Area of Concern, be advised that the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan: Update on Actions 2007 -2010 report is available on the Toronto and Region RAP website. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan was instituted in response to the 1987 designation of Toronto and Region as a Great Lakes Area of Concern (AOC). The AOC designation was one of 42 (later 43) made by the International Joint Commission. The Toronto and Region AOC consists of six watersheds stretching from the Rouge River in the east to Etobicoke Creek in the west. A presentation will be made to the Authority by Jon Gee, Senior Manager of the Great Lakes Areas of Concern section of Environment Canada, and will provide an overview of the status of Canadian AOCs around the Great Lakes. Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) and Canada - Ontario Agreement (COA), Environment Canada (EC) and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) share responsibility for ensuring progress on the Great Lakes AOCs. Since 2002, TRCA has led the administration of the Toronto and Region RAP under agreements with EC and the MOE. Management of the Toronto and Region RAP is undertaken by representatives from EC, MOE, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and TRCA. On March 31, 2010, the 2007 -2010 COA expired, as did the respective 2007 -2010 RAP agreements between TRCA and EC and MOE, respectively. TRCA has completed the deliverables required under this agreement, including the production of a public summary of actions completed. This report, Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan: Update on Actions 2007 -2010, summarizes the TRCA programs that were the recipients of RAP funding and their key outcomes achieved over the three -year period of the agreement. The report is available online at www.torontorap.ca or as a hard copy upon request. 406 On June 13, 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon announced their intention to renegotiate the GLWQA. The GLWQA came into effect in 1978, and was last amended in 1987 - the time at which areas of concern and remedial action plans were introduced through GLWQA Annex 2. The renegotiation of the GLWQA is currently ongoing, and there have been informal indications that the negotiation process could be complete by the end of 2010. Conservation Ontario has been involved as a respondent in the associated GLWQA public consultation processes. As the GLWQA is the agreement from which COA negotiations are predicated, the federal and provincial governments have chosen to defer the renegotiation of the next COA. Instead, the governments have extended the existing COA for a period of one year, thereby maintaining program scope and funding at existing levels for the 2010 -2011 federal /provincial fiscal year. New one -year agreements between the TRCA and EC and MOE will reflect this extension. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Current Remedial Action Plan Initiatives The TRCA RAP workplan for 2010 -2011 was approved at the RAP Team meeting of April 20, 2010. The 2010 -2011 workplan is similar to those of previous years, with the majority of resources being directed toward the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP), the Regional Watershed Monitoring Network (RWMN), the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program (TNHP), watershed strategies, and education and outreach initiatives. These programs continue to reflect the RAP's priorities in supporting Low Impact Development (LID), stormwater management, effective stewardship and environmental monitoring of the AOC. Two pre- existing but expanded initiatives also figure prominently in the 2010 -2011 Toronto and Region RAP workplan: the science and research advanced through Aquatic Habitat Toronto, and the RAP communications plan. Aquatic Habitat Toronto (AHT) is a multi - jurisdictional committee that includes representatives from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, MNR, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, the City of Toronto and TRCA. The RAP will be supporting AHT research science -based initiatives to identify and assess existing and potential future fish habitat along the AOC waterfront, as well as investigate the responses of the fish community to habitat restoration projects. The RAP communications plan will address three major initiatives in the coming year. The first will be the public review of the reclassification of the AOC Beneficial Use Impairments. At the completion of the RAP Stage 1 report in 1989, Toronto and Region was deemed to be "Impaired" for eight categories of environmental degradation, or Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI), as well as to require additional research on three Beneficial Use Impairments. Three Beneficial Use Impairments were deemed to be "Not Impaired ". Of the three BUIs requiring additional assessment, research and analysis have been completed for two: Fish Tumours or Other Deformities; and Bird or Animal Deformities or Reproductive Problems. The research results indicate that these Beneficial Uses are not impaired within the Toronto and Region AOC. Therefore, conditional on the completion of a review period, these two BUIs will be formally re- designated to Not Impaired in 2010 -2011, making them the first such reclassifications of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan. 407 The second major initiative addressed under the RAP communications plan is the review and update of the criteria required for the remaining Area of Concern to be considered "Impaired" or "Not Impaired ". The existing criteria were set forth in the 1994 RAP Stage 2 document Clean Waters, Clear Choices. The review of these criteria will involve a public consultation process underpinned by consultation with academic and agency technical experts. The anticipated outcome of these proceedings will be updated targets based on indicators of both environmental quality and program implementation - these targets will outline an ambitious but achievable path forward toward delisting Toronto and Region as an Area of Concern by 2020. Two major projects currently in the planning approval process - the Mouth of the Don revitalization and City of Toronto Don River and Central Waterfront Project (Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan Implementation) constitute important elements of a revitalized Toronto and Region AOC. Finally, the communications plan will continue to fund a new public outreach program - Lake Ontario Evenings - initiated in 2009. Lake Ontario Evenings (LOE) is a speaker's series that is administered by TRCA and jointly funded by RAP and source water protection. The mandate of the LOE program is to provide casual public venues in which attendees can listen to, and ask questions of, experts on issues currently faced by Lake Ontario. There have been three LOE events to date (on the themes of water diversion, biodiversity and the lake nearshore), and the audience response has been sufficiently positive to continue this initiative into the coming year. Challenges for the Future As noted above, the one year COA extension supporting RAP in 2010 -2011 is similar in scope and resources to that provided in recent years. While the re- evaluation and updating of AOC delisting targets will provide a realistic and achievable endpoint to the Toronto and Region RAP, it is unlikely that these targets will be met and the Toronto and Region be delisted as an Area of Concern without significant financial commitments by all levels of government. FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA funding for RAP initiatives in 2010 -2011 will be provided by one -year funding agreements between TRCA and EC ($250,000) and MOE ($250,000); these agreements and associated funding will expire on March 31, 2011. Project proponents from within TRCA apply to the Toronto and Region RAP team for funds, and the TRCA RAP workplan is developed on the basis of these proposals. It is anticipated that multi -year funding agreements may be possible upon finalization of the new COA agreement. In addition to these dedicated RAP funds, certain TRCA projects (e.g. the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program and Rural Clean Water Program) also receive funding through the MOE, MNR and federal Great Lakes Sustainability Fund for the purpose of advancing RAP objectives. Report prepared by: Stephanie Hawkins, extension 5576 Emails: shawkins @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Stephanie Hawkins, extension 5576 Emails: shawkins @trca.on.ca Date: May 19, 2010 408 RES. #A120 /10 - CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES PLAN REVIEW AND PERMITTING ACTIVITIES Policies and Procedures, EBR Registry Number: 010 -8243. Final approval of new chapter, "Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities ", for inclusion in the "MNR Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authorities Manual ". Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Maria Augimeri WHEREAS the Ministry of Natural Resources has approved a new chapter, "Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authorities Plan Review and Permitting Activities ", for inclusion in the MNR Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authorities Manual; AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff supports the new chapter as it provides clarity about the roles and responsibilities of conservation authorities (CAs) in the municipal planning and Conservation Authorities Act (Section 28) regulatory permitting process and promotes a greater consistency between CAs in the delivery of these activities and improved transparency; AND WHEREAS TRCA, through its Business Excellence objective, is committed to working cooperatively with all municipal partners, the development community and public stakeholders in the implementation of TRCA's planning and regulatory programs, including opportunities to increase procedural transparency; AND WHEREAS TRCA is already implementing many of the components of the new chapter through its existing plan review and permitting activities, including Authority board approved policies and TRCA's Planning and Development Procedural Manual; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be given the authority to make any necessary procedural adjustments to the implementation of TRCA's planning and regulatory program, consistent with the new Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) chapter; AND FURTHER THAT all member municipalities and the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2007, MNR, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), and the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure (MEI), embarked upon an initiative to clarify the roles of conservation authorities in both the development plan review and Conservation Authorities Act (Section 28) regulatory permitting processes. A Conservation Authorities Liaison Committee (CALC) was formed to facilitate dialogue amongst stakeholders in order to clarify interrelated roles and promote efficient delivery of mandates for provincial interest. The CALC membership included MNR, MMAH, MEI, Conservation Ontario (CO), select CAs appointed through CO (including TRCA), and representatives from the development industry, municipal sector and environmental groups. 409 The CALC reviewed and provided input to the content of a new chapter for incorporation in the existing MNR Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authorities Manual, 1997. The objective of this new chapter is to provide clarity about the roles and responsibilities of CAs in the municipal planning and regulatory permitting processes and promote a greater consistency between CAs in the delivery of these activities and improved transparency. In general, the chapter articulates the current legislative and operational framework under which CAs conduct their planning and regulatory functions. The chapter provides that the best practice is for every CA to have board - approved service delivery policies and procedures for their plan review and permitting processes that encompass the following best practice tools outlined in the chapter, including pre - consultation, complete application, decision timelines and fees. A draft of the chapter was posted on the Environmental Registry (EBR) on November 25, 2009 for a 47 -day public review and commenting period. Through representation on the CALC and through CO, TRCA staff provided comments on the.draft chapter. A decision was made on April 23, 2010 to proceed with the proposed chapter subject to changes made as a result of the public consultation. According to the notice of decision posted on the EBR on May 28, 2010, the Ministry received a total of 27 comments. Comments received were generally supportive of the document and suggested minor changes to some sections and text to further clarify the policies. Only a few of the proposed changes were not supported and some comments received were deemed to be outside the scope of the policies and procedures document and were not incorporated. Implications to TRCA TRCA staff is supportive of the creation of this new chapter of the MNR Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authorities Manual as it is generally reflective of our current planning and regulatory program implementation. • Since 1994, TRCA has Authority approved policies entitled "Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program" (VSCMP) to guide our planning and permitting responsibilities. TRCA staff is currently undertaking a comprehensive update to the VSCMP, which will result in "The Living City Policies ". The proposed new policy document will be subject to a comprehensive municipal, public and stakeholder consultative process, in 2011, prior to submission to the Authority, consistent with all TRCA initiatives and consistent with the consultative process advocated in the new chapter. • On September 28, 2007, the Authority approved the "Planning and Development Procedural Manual" (Resolution #A196/07), which is a comprehensive document to guide members of the public, the development community and our municipal partners. This document is an informative resource that provides a summary of the legislative and policy framework governing TRCA and explains our role and review procedures for of all types of applications under the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and the Conservation Authorities Act. It outlines the requirements for complete applications and associated fees and includes a series of checklists and guidelines to assist applicants with the preparation of various studies and technical reports /drawings in support of their submissions. The Manual also includes review service deliveries based on the submission of a complete application. The Manual is posted on the TRCA website and has been distributed to all member municipalities and BILD. TRCA staff has found it to be a valuable implementation tool and it provides procedural transparency for the development community, the public and member municipalities. 410 • TRCA staff continue to seek opportunities, where appropriate, to streamline the permit review and approval process: Permission for Minor Works Protocol (2006), Permit Re- Issuance Protocol (2008) and Permission for Routine Infrastructure Protocol (2008). In accordance with Authority approval in 2007, TRCA's procedural manual is updated on an on -going basis to reflect any procedural issues related to legislative changes or technical updates related to current practices. TRCA staff will be making minor edits to the "Planning and Development Procedural Manual" to reflect the new "MNR Policies and Procedures for CA Plan Review and Permitting Activities" chapter. This will include updating the legislation section and minor modifications to the section of the document that describes the permitting process. Unlike the regulations issued under the Planning Act, the Conservation Authorities Act does not prescribe timelines for the processing of permits under Section 28(1) Regulations. The new chapter promotes a timing and decision framework around the processing of permits, similar in principle to the application process under the Planning Act, including pre - consultation, complete applications, etc. The TRCA procedural manual already embeds a similar framework and includes delivery standards based on a complete application. The TRCA manual will be updated through minor edits to the procedural steps, (e.g. written notification within 21 days of receipt of a permit application as to whether it is complete or not), and decision timelines on complete applications to reflect the new MNR chapter. TRCA staff is of the opinion that these minor changes will not adversely impact our current Regulatory program implementation. TRCA staff is also taking this opportunity to review and update where necessary the existing guidelines and checklists in the TRCA manual, as well as include any additional checklists or guidelines reflective of current practices that will assist the development community, the public and municipalities with their submissions. All updates to TRCA's procedural manual will be circulated to TRCA member municipalities and BILD in September. Municipal Context The municipal sector, (AMO, Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario, City of Toronto), was represented on the CALC and provided input into the development of the new MNR chapter. Municipalities also had the opportunity to provide comment through the EBR posting. TRCA staff is aware that some of our member municipalities, (Region of Peel, Region of Durham and the Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville), prepared reports to inform their Councils about the new chapter. 411 The new chapter acknowledges that CAs may perform a technical advisory role to municipalities, as determined under the terms of service agreements. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) framework is described in TRCA's Planning and Development Procedural Manual. Currently, TRCA has entered into plan review and technical advisory MOUs with our upper tier regional municipalities (Peel, York and Durham), the City of Toronto, some of our lower -tier municipalities (Mississauga, Markham, Caledon) and TRCA staff has initiated the process with Brampton. Several of TRCA's existing MOUs need updating to reflect changes in roles and responsibilities, new policy needs and increased demand on technical environmental services for plan review and assistance with Ontario Municipal Board hearings, within financial capabilities. Other municipalities within TRCA's jurisdiction prefer to work informally with TRCA for the provision of similar planning and technical advisory services as part of our approved program service, in a manner consistent with the provisions of the new chapter. Development Community The development industry (BILD, Ontario Home Builders, Hamilton - Halton Home Builders) was represented on the CALC and also provided input into the development of the new MNR chapter. TRCA staff has on -going dialogue with the development community (BILD, developers, consultants and proponents) about the implementation and delivery of our planning and regulatory program. TRCA's Planning and Development Procedural Manual was created as a result of these discussions in an effort to provide guidance to those seeking development approvals from TRCA and increase procedural transparency. TRCA staff continues to seek opportunities to streamline the review and approval process, where appropriate and improve the delivery of our planning and regulatory program. TRCA will continue to consult with the development industry in this regard. Additionally it should be noted that consistent with our current procedures, BILD will be consulted in the development of TRCA review fees. As per the MNR Policies and Procedures Manual for Conservation Authorities, fees for planning and permitting services may recover but not exceed the costs associated with administering and delivering these services on a program basis. At Authority Meeting # 10/09, Resolution #A232/09 was approved, in part, as follows: ...AND FURTHER THAT in future amendments to the Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Review Services, TRCA move toward full cost recovery as soon as possible, and no later than January 1, 2012. TRCA staff is currently working on this approach to begin discussions with BILD in the fall. CONCLUSION TRCA staff is supportive of the new chapter, "Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities" approved for inclusion in the MNR Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authorities Manual as it provides clarity regarding the role of CAs in planning and permitting activities. It promotes consistency between CAs in the delivery of these activities and improved transparency. Many of the new requirements of the chapter have been embedded in TRCA's mode of operation for a decade or more. TRCA's documents are being updated to reflect the minor adjustments as required. 412 Report prepared by: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281 Emails: Inelson @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281, Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Emails: Inelson @trca.on.ca, cwoodland @trca.on.ca Date: July 12, 2010 RES. #A121/10 - THE LIVING CITY REPORT CARD Partnering with Greening Greater Toronto on The Living City Report Card and the future of individual TRCA watershed report cards. Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Ron Moeser THAT TRCA staff be authorized to partner with Greening Greater Toronto (GGT), an initiative of the Toronto City Summit Alliance, to produce the first edition of The Living City Report Card in conjunction with the Greening Greater Toronto Score Card; THAT TRCA staff continue to produce brief report cards on the health of individual watersheds in TRCA's jurisdiction on a five year cycle following the production of The Living City Report Card subject to data availability, funding and staff resources; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff make provisions in the 2012 -2021 capital budget forecast for producing report cards. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #2/10, held on March 26, 2010, Resolution #A20/10 was approved, in part, as follows: THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) adopt the framework and indicator themes for The Living City Report Card;... ...THAT staff report back on how the health of individual watersheds will be tracked, either through individual report cards and in the living city report card; THAT source water protection and riparian habitat be included within the Indicator Themes in the living city report card.;... 413 TRCA -GGT Partnership Opportunity Since Authority Meeting #2/10, TRCA staff has had discussions with senior management at Greening Greater Toronto (GGT) to explore a partnership opportunity through the development of The Living City Report Card in conjunction with GGTs Greening Greater Toronto Score Card. GGT is an initiative of the Toronto City Summit Alliance which is a coalition of leaders from the business, labour and non - profit sectors and government formed to address various challenges facing the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). GGT is one of three working groups of the Toronto City Summit Alliance committed to making the GTA the greenest city region in North America and serves as an important link between key stakeholders to accelerate the greening process. GGT's long term regional environmental vision is focused on: reduced greenhouse gas emissions, cleaner air, cleaner water, reduction of waste and improved waste management as well as more sustainable land use practices. GGT last reported on these themes in 2008 and has been successful in leading action around green procurement, commercial energy efficiency and education. For the time being, the joint publication will be referred to as The Living City Report Card until the title is finalized. The Living City Report Card The Living City Report Card will report on parameters on a jurisdiction wide basis compared to individual watershed report cards. The Living City Report Card will provide an overview of conditions across watersheds for a particular time frame. TRCA's regional monitoring data will be used to report generally on the water quality and biodiversity indicators in The Living City Report Card. Some references may be made at the watershed scale. Individual TRCA Watershed Report Cards Concise watershed specific report cards will continue to be produced by TRCA to communicate regional monitoring data and other relevant information on watershed conditions approximately every five years subject to data availability, funding and staff resources. On occasion, news bulletins and other short media advisories may be used to report on topics between the regular reporting years. The regional monitoring program, in its next reporting phase, will be analyzing data and reporting on a set of core environmental indicators (i.e. surface water quality, groundwater, benthic invertebrates, fish communities, terrestrial natural heritage, stream flow, precipitation, West Nile virus and fluvial geomorphology) that reflect ecosystem condition and integrate the monitoring requirements of the watershed report cards. The individual watershed report cards will also need to meet the requirements of Conservation Ontario for producing watershed report cards. Conservation Ontario has produced a minimum of three indicators which include forest conditions, surface water quality and groundwater quality. All 36 Ontario conservation authorities are expected to report on these three indicators every five years. Conservation authorities do have the option of reporting on more indicators as the need and resources become available. RATIONALE A joint TRCA -GGT report card venture benefits both parties: • co- branding of The Living City Report Card as a TRCA -GGT publication; • greater profile for the first edition of The Living City Report Card through a joint marketing and promotional campaign; 414 • launching of the report at the Toronto City Summit meeting in February, 2011. Both organizations were originally planning the launch of separate publications at the same time; • presenting a more holistic perspective of sustainable communities by combining the indicators of both organizations; • broader public dissemination of the report card through TRCA and GGT networks; • increased budget and staff resources; and • increased exposure for TRCA and The Living City Report Card leading to more partnership and funding opportunities. TRCA and GGT staff have been working on compiling a list of indicators and measures which will fit the reporting objectives of both organizations. This list modifies some of the indicators that were originally presented to the Authority in March, 2010. The protection of source water areas in TRCA's jurisdiction will be presented in both The Living_City Report Card and watershed specific report cards. This will represent the amount of Oak Ridges Moraine being protected by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Greenbelt Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan and TRCA regulations. Riparian habitat in TRCA's jurisdiction will be reported under the natural cover quantity indicator in the report card. The following table presents the draft list of indicators and measures for The Living City Report Card: Indicator Greening Greater Toronto Measures TRCA Measures (Potential or Draft) Carbon Dioxide Emissions • Total carbon dioxide emissions using benchmark cities • Carbon dioxide emissions per capita • Energy consumption Air Quality • Sulfur dioxide emissions • None Water • Water quality index • Water consumption per capita Quality • Watershed water quality index based on phosphorus, chloride, E.coli • Waterfront phosphorus, algae, beach closures Quantity • Flood risk to people and structures • Percent urban area with stormwater controls, mean annual flow, baseflow Waste • Waste generated per capita • Waste diversion • None 415 Indicator Greening Greater Toronto Measures TRCA Measures (Potential or Draft) Land Use • Greenspace (hectares) per capita (all private and public natural cover /parkland) • Population density . Greenspace • Watershed public greenspace (hectares) per capita (TRCA, municipal, provincial, federal land) • Waterfront public land (hectares) • Waterfront shoreline protection Certified Green Buildings • Number of buildings, square meters and percent of floor space Agriculture • Region's ability to produce 10 percent of its fresh vegetable needs • Agricultural land in production (hectares) Cultural Heritage • Number of heritage conservation districts per region Biodiversity n/a Natural Cover Quality • Percent natural cover in each habitat category • Total average patch scores for jurisdiction Natural Cover Quantity • Percent natural cover Urban Forest • Leaf area index Fish, Birds, Amphibians and Plants • Species richness for fish • Number of species in each L rank for birds and amphibians • Floristic quality index Ecological Goods and Services • Value of green infrastructure per region In addition to the list of indicators above, there are two other indicators that TRCA intends to report on in The Living City Report Card, but they do not fit into the updated indicator framework. Staff will look for alternative ways to include this information in the content of the report card. These indicators include: 1. education and community action which will report on the number and percentage of the student body participating in outdoor education; and 416 2. conservation investment, which will report on the annual TRCA budget per capita over the years. The report card will be launched by TRCA and GGT at the next Toronto City Summit on February 10th and 11th, 2011, which is expected to be attended by media and approximately 500 people. Approximately 2,000 copies of the report card are expected to be printed along with an interactive web component. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • GGT staff to organize a workshop with GGT staff and TRCA to refine indicators and measures, and devise a table of contents and work plan; • GGT and TRCA staff to work together to develop a presentation format, a marketing strategy and promotion plan; • TRCA staff to add capital budget requests to the 2012 -2021 forecast to support the development of report cards in the future; • TRCA staff to continue to work with The Living City Report Card Advisory Committee on the development of indicator reports, and the marketing and promotion of the final product. The Advisory Committee is comprised of representatives of TRCA Watershed Task Forces; • present The Living City Report Card to the Authority for approval in principle on November 26, 2010; and • launch The Living City Report Card at the next Toronto City Summit on February 10th and 11th, 2011. FINANCIAL DETAILS Approximately $85,000 in funding is available from the City of Toronto and regions of Peel and York for The Living City Report Card in capital accounts 416 -40 and 129 -92. Funding will cover staff time, writing, printing, social marketing tools and promotion. GGT will be contributing staff time and resources towards research, writing, editing, communications and marketing. Report prepared by: Sonia Dhir, extension 5291 Emails: sdhir @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Emails: gwilkins @trca.on.ca Date: July 14, 2010 RES. #A122/10 - DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM STATUS REPORT Town of Caledon (formerly Albion Township). To provide a status report on the Density Bonus Program and update on progress and achievements. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Maria Augimeri 417 THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) continue to work with the Town of Caledon to implement the Density Bonus Reforestation Program. CARRIED BACKGROUND For over twenty years TRCA has been working with the Town of Caledon and various developers to increase tree cover and manage forests within the Palgrave Estate Residential Community as described in the Official Plan of the Town of Caledon. The area is bounded to the west by Regional Road 50, Highway 9 to the north, Caledon -King Townline to the east and the community of Bolton to the south. Through this "Density Bonus" program, development proponents who agree to reforest vacant land as part of their development application are able to apply for additional building lot density. For every four hectares (10 acres) reforested, the developer will receive an additional bonus building lot within the approved development. These reforested areas, situated on privately -owned Tots, are protected by agreements and deposits with the developer and subsequent landowners. Additional areas not suitable for development are often conveyed to TRCA to manage and protect. All of the costs associated with these density bonus reforestation projects are the responsibility of the developer, and subsequent private homeowners. Records show that since 1991 TRCA has planted more than 192,000 reforestation seedlings and 17,100 tree whips and wildlife shrubs under eleven "Density Bonus" reforestation agreements. Under the terms of the agreements, plantings are guaranteed by TRCA for a period of three years from the time of planting. Yearly assessments are conducted by TRCA and reported to the Town of Caledon along with recommendations to maintain stocking levels at or above a seventy percent survival rate. Any infill planting during this three year period is solely the responsibility of TRCA. Within the last four years, TRCA has implemented three density bonus agreement projects resulting in the creation of more than 25 hectares (62 acres) of reforested land. All of this reforestation helps to meet municipal goals of increasing tree cover within the Town of Caledon and provides ancillary watershed management and environmental benefits to TRCA and the Region of Peel. This program truly is a win - win -win situation for all parties involved. Individual homeowners find themselves living in an area with significant tree cover, rather than open grass fields and extensive manicured lawns. TRCA is able to buffer streams, offer linkage areas for wildlife, increase tree cover and create forest habitat that would otherwise not be possible. The developers involved are rewarded with additional building Tots, as well as the opportunity to sell properties backing onto "Forested Conservation Lands ". The public in general reaps many of the same benefits as TRCA, with the additional benefit that most of these developments become almost invisible to passersby within a relatively short period of time. 418 Current Projects There are presently two "Density Bonus" reforestation projects in progress. The first phases of both Palgrave Estates West and Sunshine Estates /Glorco Holdings were planted in the spring of 2009. One infill planting was completed in the spring of 2010 to address areas where regrading for road construction was not finished in time for the initial installation. Both of these projects have had excellent survival and initial establishment in the eighteen months, with estimates close to 95% overall. Staff is currently working with the Town of Caledon planning staff and a new program applicant "Cedar Glen Estates" to finalize a contract for this three -year agreement to commence in April 2011. This agreement will see the planting of over 7,000 reforestation seedlings and more than 1,350 deciduous trees and wildlife shrubs. In all, over 3.8 hectares (9.5 acres) will be reforested and protected on this project, with much of the planting being completed to buffer significant wetlands and sensitive forested areas. FINANCIAL DETAILS All of the costs associated with reforestation plan development and implementation are fully recovered from the development proponent. Report prepared by: Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379 Emails: thildebrand @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379, Dave Rogalsky, extension 5378 Emails: thildebrand @trca.on.ca, drogalsky @trca.on.ca Date: June 03, 2010 RES. #A123/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: WILKET CREEK CHANNEL WITHIN WILKET CREEK PARK Rehabilitation Study and Geomorphic Systems and Habitat Study Approval of Contract. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff working in partnership with the City of Toronto to develop long term rehabilitation plans and associated implementation of works for the Wilket Creek tributary of the Don River, within the City of Toronto, to address erosion hazards threatening infrastructure. Suzan Hall Maria Augimeri WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has worked in partnership with the City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department (PF &R), and Toronto Water for the purpose of completing a rehabilitation and master geomorphic study of Wilket Creek, and for the implementation of works in support of the study outcomes; AND WHEREAS City of Toronto PF &R and Toronto Water have requested that TRCA undertake the Wilket Creek project, and are prepared to fully fund the proposed project; AND WHEREAS the first stage of the project involves a contract for consulting services; 419 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the contract for Wilket Creek Rehabilitation and Master Geomorphic Study be awarded to Parish Geomorphic at an upset limit of $301,500 plus HST, this being the proposal that best meets TRCA specifications; THAT a contingency allowance of $31,000 for the consulting contract, to be expended as authorized by TRCA officials, be approved; THAT staff be authorized to commence an Environmental Assessment (EA), in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process for the purpose of completing this project; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Watercourses and adjacent park areas within the City of Toronto sustained a significant amount of damage as the result of the August 19, 2005 storm event. In response to the damage caused, City of Toronto PF &R entered into an agreement with TRCA in February of 2007, to complete the repairs required to return the damaged areas to a state of good repair in order to ensure protection of life and property within the City of Toronto parks systems while funding for long term rehabilitation of key sites was sought. The Wilket Creek tributary of the West Don River was one of the watercourses that suffered a significant amount of damage as the result of the August 19, 2005 storm event. In 2007/8 TRCA staff undertook large scale restoration works within Edwards Gardens, and a series of 10 state of good repair projects within Wilket Creek Park, as part of the aforementioned agreement entered into by PF &R and TRCA in February of 2007. On June 23, 2008 Wilket Creek was subjected to another serious rainfall event, resulting in damage to three of the state of good repair sites, previously repaired by TRCA. At this point, it was determined by TRCA and the City that state of good repair works were no longer sufficient to address the ongoing risk to infrastructure and public safety within Wilket Creek Park. In 2009 PF &R and Toronto Water identified a multi -year funding plan to provide approximately $2.2 million dollars to developing long term protection to "at risk" infrastructure, and to rehabilitate the watercourse within Wilket Creek Park. The funding was approved to commence in 2010 and will be allocated accordingly over the next three years. Due to the success of the partnership developed by TRCA and PF &R for the purpose of completing the August 19, 2005 Storm Damage Project, and the numerous successful projects that TRCA has partnered with Toronto Water to complete, the City has requested that TRCA assist in the completion of this project. TRCA's role will be to act in a project management capacity, and also to provide expertise in the implementation of works utilizing staff and resources to complete the project. This partnership will be beneficial to all parties involved, as TRCA staff is able to streamline the planning, design and approvals phases, and offer full scale construction and contract management services. 420 As part of the partnership agreement, TRCA issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) and accompanying Terms of Reference for the completion of a geomorphic investigation and the development of long term rehabilitation solution for Wilket Creek, with emphasis on Wilket Creek Park. The following consultants were selected by TRCA and Toronto Water for issuance of a RFP based on previous experience working on City -led geomorphic master plans for the watercourses within the City of Toronto, and for their expertise in bioengineering solutions and large -scale riverine erosion control projects completed with TRCA: • Aquafor Beech; • Geomorphic Solutions (Sernas Group); • Parish Geomorphic. The proposals were opened at a Tender Opening Committee meeting on Monday July 12, 2010, with the following results: Company Primary Fees (Plus HST) Provisional Expenditures (Plus HST) Total Value (Plus HST) Aquafor Beech $170,346 $400,000 $570,346 Geomorphic Solutions $187,305 $246,500 $433,805 Parish Geomorphic $177,150 $124,350 $301,500 Based on the review of the proposals, and the combination of select provisional expenditures in addition to the primary fees, staff recommends the contract be awarded to Parish Geomorphic for the completion of the consulting portion of this project. Further, TRCA will initiate a Municipal Class EA that will incorporate the findings of the investigation in the development and implementation of works within Wilket Creek Park. FINANCIAL DETAILS This project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto, whereby Toronto Water is responsible for the costs associated with the Geomorphic Master Study, and Parks, Forestry and Recreation are responsible for providing the funding for the implementation of works. The funding for this project is distributed over a three to four year period (2010 — 2013) with a total anticipated budget of $2.2 million. Report prepared by: Patricia Newland, 416- 392 -9690 Emails: pnewland @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Patricia Newland, 416 - 392 -9690 Emails: pnewland @trca.on.ca Date: July 13, 2010 421 RES. #A124/10 - EAST DON TRAIL (CHARLES SAURIOL RESERVE) Phase 1 b, Award of Contract RSD10 -17 - Pedestrian Footbridge and Overhead Protective Canopy Structures. Award of contract for the supply and installation of a pedestrian footbridge over the East Don River and the supply and installation of overhead protective canopy structures under CNRand CPR trestle crossings as part of the East Don Trail - Phase 1B implementation at the Charles Sauriol Reserve, City of Toronto. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Maria Augimeri THAT the contract for the supply and installation of a pedestrian bridge over the East Don River be awarded to Hobden Construction Ltd. at a cost of $390,015.00, plus applicable taxes, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of ten percent (10 %) of the total cost of the contract for eligible disbursements and as a contingency allowance, if deemed necessary; AND FURTHER THAT authorized staff be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1995, R.V. Anderson and Associates (RVA) was retained by the City of Toronto to undertake a comprehensive study and provide proposed trail networking options in the East Don Valley system spanning from Milne Hollow (Lawrence Avenue /Don Valley Parkway) to the forks of the Don River. The study was completed in 1997 and resulted in a conceptualized alignment and network of trails servicing the East Don valleylands. The construction of the East Don Trail project was given approval to proceed by Resolution #A44/09 at Authority Meeting #3/09, held on April 24, 2009, subject to funding from the City of Toronto as part of the Natural Environment and Stand Alone projects and completion of the required approval processes. Phase 1 a trail construction works were implemented in 2009/2010, including the establishment of the approved trail alignment /construction access route between Milne Hollow Park and Wynford Heights Crescent and the installation of a 34 metre prefabricated, self- weathering steel pedestrian footbridge (bridge 1 c) north of Wynford Heights access trail. Bridge 1 c was installed on its footings in early February 2010. 422 As part of the 2009 projects with the City of Toronto, the City requested that TRCA implement trail planning and design for Phase 1 b works in the Milne Hollow /East Don project area including preparation of trail network engineering design and construction details. In November 2009, TRCA engaged the services of RVA to complete the Phase 1 b trail network engineering design component. This was undertaken in anticipation of construction commencing in 2010. The East Don Trail project has federal infrastructure funding incorporated, and as such, all works must be installed and completed in advance of the March 31, 2011 deadline. The East Don Trail - Phase 1 b construction includes a 34 metre prefabricated, self- weathering steel pedestrian footbridge and two overhead protective canopies to protect pedestrians from the potential of debris falling from elevated track level while passing under the CN and CP railway trestle crossings on the trail. RATIONALE Request for Tenders were sent to the following eight (8) contractors /suppliers, who were selected based on their area of business expertise and past experience on TRCA projects: 1. Algonquin Bridge Inc.; 2. Dynex Construction; 3. Ganawa Bridge Products and Services; 4. Hobden Construction; 5. McPherson - Andrews Contracting Limited; 6. Rutherford Contracting Ltd.; 7. Somerville Construction; 8. Wyndale Paving. The tender packages requested bids for the following work: • installation of helical pier footings, armour stone protection and associated work; • supply of a self- weathering steel pedestrian bridge; • delivery and installation of the pedestrian footbridge; and • supply and installation of two (2) overhead protective canopy structures and associated work. Seven potential bidders attended the mandatory site inspection meeting held on June 16, 2010. Three (3) sealed tenders were received on or before bid closing at 4:00 pm on July 8, 2010. Bids were opened on July 9, 2010, by Gerri Lynn O'Connor, Jim Dillane, Nick Saccone, Kathy Stranks and Dave Rogalsky in accordance with TRCA's procurement and tendering practices. The bid results are as follows: Company Bid (Plus HST) Hobden Construction Ltd $390,015.00 McPherson- Andrews Contracting Ltd $521,067.01 Rutherford Contracting Ltd $510,316.12 423 Staff recommends that the contract RSD 10 -17 East Don Trail - Phase 1 b be awarded to Hobden Construction Ltd, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications and requirements. FINANCIAL DETAILS All expenditures that pertain to this contract will be assigned to the East Don Trail Network project budget account 117 -49. These expenses are fully recoverable from the City of Toronto. Report prepared by: Dave Rogalsky, extension 5378 Emails: drogalsky @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Dave Rogalsky, extension 5378 Emails: drogalsky @trca.on.ca Date: June 10, 2010 Attachments: 1 424 Attachment 1 KEY PLAN (N.T. 425 RES. #A125/10 - SUPPLY OF RENTAL RATES FOR OPERATED HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND DUMP TRUCKS Contract Extension. Extension of Contract RSD09 -18 for the Supply of Rental Rates for Operated Heavy Construction Equipment and Dump Trucks, for a further one year period. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Maria Augimeri THAT Contract RSD09 -18 for Supply of Rental Rates for Operated Heavy Construction Equipment and Dump Trucks, awarded in 2009 to Sartor & Susin Ltd., be extended for a period of one year to July 31, 2011 subject to terms, conditions and performance satisfactory to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/09, held on July 10, 2009, Resolution #A135/09 was approved as follows: THAT the Restoration Services Division utilize, as required, the services of Sartor and Susin Limited for the supply of operated heavy construction equipment and dump trucks for the period August 1, 2009 to July 31, 2010, it being the proposal that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA's) requirements at a competitive cost; THAT staff be authorized to use the next lowest tender if the need arises. AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. In preparation of the original tender documents, staff included a provision whereby the successful bidder could request a one year extension to the contract at a specific maximum percent increase or decrease to the unit prices bid. Sartor & Susin Ltd. have requested, in writing, a one year extension to their contract with an overall year two increase, in the unit rates, of five percent. RATIONALE TRCA and Sartor & Susin Ltd. have worked together on numerous successful projects over many years and through the tendering process, Sartor & Susin Ltd. have consistently provided the lowest unit rates with a broad spectrum of equipment and fully experienced operators. Staff has reviewed the proposed new rate structure, in conjunction with a review of performance over the past year, and is satisfied that the requested five percent increase is indicative of overall industry operating cost increases and is warranted. 426 FINANCIAL DETAILS The value of this contract is estimated to be approximately $2,000,000 based upon a review of similar workloads in previous years. An increase or decrease in workload will have an impact on the value of this contract extension. The operated equipment is rented on an "as required" basis with no minimum or maximum rental hours guaranteed. Report prepared by: Aaron D'Souza, 416- 393 -6336 Emails: ajdsouza @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416- 392 -9725 Emails: mmcdonnell @trca.on.ca Date: June 28, 2010 RES. #A126/10 - 14th AVENUE SOUND AND VISUAL ATTENUATION LANDFORM Placement of clean surplus fill on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned tablelands located on the south side of 14th Avenue adjacent to Canadian National rail line in the Town of Markham. Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath David Barrow THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) request proposals from contractors to supply and place clean surplus fill on TRCA -owned lands as a means to create an environmental berm /buffer to enhance natural habitat and visitor functions in the future Bob Hunter Memorial Park (Rouge Park), subject to a final design approved by Rouge Park Alliance, and archaeological and municipal approvals; THAT the funds received as compensation for receiving the surplus soil be set aside exclusively for project costs, for future restoration and habitat enhancement of the property and associated Rouge Park and TRCA purposes; AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to execute all the necessary documentation required. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA staff, in conjunction with the Rouge Park Alliance, have identified a five hectare parcel of tableland that could be enhanced by importing and strategically placing clean surplus fill. The site is located on the east side of the CN rail line, south of 14th Avenue in the Town of . Markham. This area is in the Bob Hunter Memorial Park (part of Rouge Park). 427 TRCA is currently working with its partners to refine a design for a landform to enhance the boundary between Bob Hunter Memorial Park and the adjacent rail line, the urban developments in the Community of Box Grove and 14th Avenue to the north. A vegetated berm along the western perimeter of the park will provide a physical and visual boundary between urban and park lands, and would provide some habitat variety to a flat site. The landform would reduce noise into the naturalized and public use areas. TRCA staff will complete a detailed construction implementation design drawing showing how the five hectare parcel of tableland will be enhanced by importing and strategically placing clean surplus fill. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed project will provide an opportunity to restore forest cover and create wetland and interpretive opportunities while creating the foundation for diverse habitat and public features. Upon completion of the fill placement and grading phase of the project and subject to available revenues, TRCA staff will implement naturalization and regeneration plantings as part of an overall restoration plan. Staff view these functions as assets to the future protection of the park and its restored habitats. TRCA will oversee the construction of the landform and the financial compensation will allow for the implementation of a restoration plan beneficial to Bob Hunter Memorial Park, Rouge Park and TRCA. TRCA staff will implement a soils quality control program to ensure and confirm that all soil placed on site meets Ministry of Environment parkland criteria. Final design configuration for fill placement will be subject to the findings of a scheduled archaeological assessment and any recommendations to protect important cultural heritage assets. RATIONALE TRCA has completed similar projects in other areas with considerable success. Examples of these successful projects include: • the berm on Kortright Centre for Conservation tablelands off Pine Valley Drive; • Boyd North Pit rehabilitation off Rutherford Road; • berming along Intermodal Drive and Highway 407 within Claireville Conservation Area; • berming and wetland complex development at Boyd North (along Islington Avenue north of Rutherford Road). Staff sees this regeneration work as a benefit to all involved as the surplus fill, along with the financial compensation, will allow for the creation of habitat opportunities and public features on the property. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will complete a landform design agreeable to TRCA and Rouge Park Alliance. An archaeological assessment will be completed on the proposed site. TRCA will obtain all municipal and regional approvals and permits associated with the proposed project. Staff will begin the process of requesting proposals from qualified contractors to supply and place the required fill. FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA staff anticipates that fill revenue from this project will offset direct project operating and restoration costs. 428 Report prepared by: David Hatton, extension 5365 Emails: dhatton @trca.on.ca For Information contact: David Hatton, extension 5365 Emails: dhatton @trca.on.ca Date: July 06, 2010 RES. #A127/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: PORT UNION WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE 2) Tender RSD10 -22. Award of Tender RSD10 -22 for the supply and delivery of approximately 7,000 tonnes of 75mm -200mm cobbles. Suzan Hall Maria Augimeri THAT Contract RSD10 -22 for the supply and delivery of approximately 7,000 tonnes of 75mm -200mm cobbles to the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project (Phase 2), City of Toronto, be awarded to Glenn Windrem Trucking for a total unit price of $28.45 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $199,150.00, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project (Phase 2) is located south of Lawrence Avenue east, along the Lake Ontario shoreline between Chesterton Shores and the Rouge River in the City of Toronto. The project will consist of approximately 1.6 km of shoreline protection, trails and parkland development. The preferred option through the Class Environmental Assessment process calls for the construction of six headlands, and seven cobble beach cell units. The cobbles will be used in the shoreline protection of beach cell units 6 and 7. RATIONALE Tender packages were sent to nine suppliers as follows: • Glenn Windrem Trucking; • Stonescape Quarry; • J.C. Rock Limited; • Dufferin Aggregates; • Lafarge Aggregates; • Nelson Aggregate Company; • Brock Aggregates; • Fowler; • Greenwood Ready Mix & Aggregates. Tender RSD10 -22 was publicly advertised in the Daily Commercial News on June 21, 2010. The Tender Opening Committee opened tenders on July 9, 2010 with the following results: 429 Tender RSD10 -22 Supply and Delivery of Approximately. 7,000 Tonnes of 75mm - 200mm Cobbles BIDDERS TOTAL UNIT PRICE (per tonne for 7,000 tones) TOTAL VALUE OF CONTRACT (plus HST) Glenn Windrem Trucking $28.45 $199,150.00 Fowler $28.75 $201,250.00 Nelson Aggregates Co. $29.17 $204,190.00 Dufferin Aggregates $31.62 $221,340.00 J.C. Rock Ltd. $31.75 $222,250.00 Larfarge North America Inc. $59.37 $415,590.00 Based on the bids received, staff recommend that Glenn Windrem Trucking be awarded Contract RSD10 -22 for the supply and delivery of approximately 7,000 tonnes of 75mm -200mm cobbles for the unit cost of $28.45 per tonne and a total amount not to exceed $199,150.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that meets TRCA specifications. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds are available within account #224 -70 from The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation. Report prepared by: James Dickie, 416 - 392 -9702 Emails: jdickie @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Joe Delle Faye, 416 - 392 -9724 Emails: jdellefave @trca.on.ca Date: July 12, 2010 RES. #A128/10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Solmar Development Corporation, CFN 44353. Acquisition of property located, west of Coleraine Drive and north of Mayfield Road in the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, under the 'Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 - 2010', Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Maria Augimeri 430 THAT 3.93 hectares (9.71 acres), more or Tess, of vacant land, being Part of East Half Lot 2, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Albion, County of Peel) and designated as Block 3 on draft R -Plan prepared by Krcmar, Ontario Land Surveyors under job no. 05 -974, west of Coleraine Drive and north of Mayfield Road, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, be purchased from the Solmar Development Corporation; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Resolution #A260/05 at Authority Meeting #9/05, held on November 25, 2005, approved the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 -2010. Negotiations have been conducted with Mr. Maurizio Rogato of Solmar Development Corporation. Attached is a plan showing the location of the subject lands. RATIONALE The subject property is valleyland. The subject property falls within TRCA's approved master plan for acquisition for the Humber River watershed as outlined in the approved Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 -2010. TAXES AND MAINTENANCE Based on the realty taxes paid on adjacent TRCA -owned lands, it is estimated that the taxes will be approximately $100. The addition of the subject parcel will not significantly impact TRCA's maintenance costs at this location. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds for the costs related to the purchase are available in the TRCA land acquisition capital accounts. Report prepared by: Edlyn Wong, extension 5711 Emails: ewong @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223, Edlyn Wong, extension 5711 Emails: mfenning @trca.on.ca ewong @trca.on.ca Date: July 12, 2010 Attachments: 1 431 Attachment 1 Legend Roads i Subject Property k"!) TRCA Property `7OR6,Yi0ANDIfCtO\' - onservatran for The Living City S lQ M71 0 530 Meters ICMCMIMMI 432 RES. #A129/10 - FRENCHMAN'S BAY - WEST ROUGE CANOE CLUB Licence Agreement Extension, CFN 26339. To extend the temporary licence agreement with the West Rouge Canoe Club for the existing location on the west spit of Frenchman's Bay in the City of Pickering for three years, renewable annually, commencing November 1, 2009. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Maria Augimeri THAT the request to extend the temporary licence agreement with the West Rouge Canoe Club for a paddling facility on Frenchman's Bay for three years, renewable annually, commencing November 1, 2009, be approved, subject to conditions satisfactory to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff and solicitor; THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action is required to implement the license agreement extension, including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Pickering and Pickering Harbour Company be so advised by the CAO's Office. CARRIED BACKGROUND In April 1994, the West Rouge Canoe Club (WRCC) established a paddling facility on the west spit of Frenchman's Bay on lands owned by TRCA. The facility consisted of two trailers on wheels for the temporary storage of canoes and kayaks, and a parking area for three to five cars. The facility was approved by TRCA and Pickering Council. Extensions to that approval have been granted by Pickering Council and TRCA from 1995 through 2009. At Authority Meeting #5/07, held on June 22, 2007, Resolution #A141/07 was approved as follows: THAT the request to extend the temporary licence agreement with the West Rouge Canoe Club for a paddling facility on Frenchman's Bay for three years commencing November 1, 2006, be approved subject to conditions satisfactory to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff and solicitor; THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action is required in connection with the continuation of the West Rouge Canoe Club paddling facility on TRCA -owned lands, including the execution of appropriate documents; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Pickering be so advised. On February 27, 2010, TRCA received a request from the West Rouge Canoe Club to extend this temporary licence agreement for the next three years. On April 8, 2010, TRCA notified City of Pickering of the lease extension request. City of Pickering staff prepared a report (Report PF12 -10) for consideration by the Planning and Development Committee on May 3, 2010. At the City of Pickering Council Meeting held on May 17, 2010, the Council Decision was recorded as Resolution #87/10: 433 1. THAT the request of the West Rouge Canoe Club to extend its lease agreement with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for three years on an annual basis commencing with the period November 1, 2009, to October 31, 2010 and expiring October 31, 2012, to accommodate a temporary compound on the west spit of Frenchman's Bay for the storage, within trailers, of canoes and kayaks associated with the club's paddling facility, be supported by Council, and 2. Further, that the City Clerk forward a copy of Report PD 12 -10 to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. RATIONALE TRCA staff, City of Pickering staff and the WRCC are currently investigating opportunities for a permanent seasonal facility, consistent with TRCA/Pickering waterfront plans. A potential site location is being reviewed to relocate the WRCC further west of their current site to an area designated in the Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park Development Plan for boat launching and public water access. Once a proposal has been received from WRCC, the matter will be considered by both the City of Pickering and TRCA. Until that time, City of Pickering and TRCA staff recommend that the licence agreement for the current site be renewed. Pickering Harbour company will be notified of the licence agreement extension as owners of the abutting lake bed of Frenchman's Bay. Staff, upon approval by the Authority, will prepare and execute the necessary documents for extension of the licence agreement on an annual basis, commencing with the period November 1, 2009 to October 31, 2010. FINANCIAL DETAILS WRCC will continue to pay annually $500 rent for the next three year lease period. WRCC will continue to cover the costs of one portable toilet which will be accessible to park users, and any additional costs deemed appropriate to cover TRCA property taxes for the site area. WRCC also agrees to assist TRCA with on site clean -up and assist in monitoring any activities deemed detrimental to the public's enjoyment of this area. WRCC will also maintain the trailers to the satisfaction of TRCA staff. Report prepared. by: Connie Pinto, extension 5387 Emails: cpinto @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Connie Pinto, extension 5387 Emails: cpinto @trca.on.ca Date: July 5, 2010 434 ORDER OF AGENDA RES. #A130 /10 Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Linda Pabst THAT item AUTH7.13 - Growing Durham, be moved up in the agenda. RES. #A131 /10 - GROWING DURHAM Reporting back on draft Toronto and Region Conservation Authority resolution regarding provincial draft modifications to Durham Regional Official Plan Amendment 128 and the Carruthers Creek headwaters. Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Linda Pabst WHEREAS on July 25, 2008 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) recommended, when commenting on the Growing Durham planning process leading up to Durham Region Official Plan Amendment 128, that TRCA reaffirm its commitment to support the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Task Force recommendation that a precautionary approach be taken toward the upper Carruthers Creek watershed, in order to protect the remaining environmental attributes and prevent potentially expensive infrastructure remediation projects in the lower reaches of the creek in the existing downstream Ajax community; AND WHEREAS TRCA advised that the proposed settlement boundary expansion associated with the Carruthers Creek headwaters is premature until all aspects of the provincial growth plan including an environmental analysis have been addressed and that a watershed plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek be completed prior to the approval of the regional and local official plan amendment approving development for Northeast Pickering; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff advised in the Authority report of March 27, 2009 in responding to the policies in the Durham draft Official Plan Amendment (OPA) that TRCA planning staff is satisfied that updating the watershed plan prior to expanding urban boundaries at the local municipal level represents sound and reasonable environmental planning; AND WHEREAS a watershed study for the Carruthers Creek has not been undertaken in support of the Amendment; AND WHEREAS on March 12, 2010 the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) issued a draft decision on Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) 128 which proposes a number of modifications to the Amendment and whereas the draft decision proposes to delete the proposed Northeast Pickering Urban area from the Amendment; AND WHEREAS the criteria for the Greenbelt expansions include that the land be contiguous to the Greenbelt, include agricultural uses, protect natural connections and build upon the Growth Plan of the Greater Golden Horseshoe; 435 AND WHEREAS TRCA when commenting on the draft regulations for expansion of the Greenbelt advised that headwaters areas with little Greenbelt protection be considered as prime locations for Greenbelt expansion; AND WHEREAS the Headwaters of the Carruthers Creek are contiguous to the Greenbelt, contain agricultural lands and important environmental features; AND WHEREAS Ajax Council on May 25, 2010, when commenting on the MMAH draft decision requested that the whitebelt lands in Northeast Pickering be incorporated into the Greenbelt; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA reiterate its position that an update to A Watershed Plan for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek needs to be completed prior to the local OPA for urban boundary expansion, in order to assess the environmental carrying capacity of the watershed, define a sustainable natural heritage system and address potential flooding and erosion impacts to downstream residents and infrastructure - consistent with other watershed plan recommendations for the Rouge and Humber rivers; THAT a Greenbelt designation for any new lands proposed to be added to the Greenbelt could only occur pursuant to a comprehensive, municipally -led planning process for Greenbelt boundary adjustment, as required by the provincial criteria for Growing the Greenbelt; THAT TRCA supports the draft modification of Durham Region OPA 128 from MMAH, with slight revisions, to require the Durham Official Plan to contain a policy directing its local municipalities to deregister plans of subdivision that have been registered for eight years or more and do not meet the growth management or environmental objectives of the ROP, and require that approvals of draft plans of subdivision include a lapsing date, and require a similar policy to be included in the Durham ROP at its next update; AND FURTHER THAT MMAH, Region of Durham, City of Pickering, Town of Ajax and interested organizations such as Sierra Club, Environmental Defence and Greenbelt Foundation be so advised. AMENDMENT #1 Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Suzan Hall THAT the eleventh paragraph of the main motion be amended to read: THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA reiterate its position that an update to A Watershed Plan for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek needs to be completed prior to the regional and local OPA for urban boundary expansion, in order to assess the environmental carrying capacity of the watershed, define a sustainable natural heritage system and address potential flooding and erosion impacts to downstream residents and infrastructure - consistent with other watershed plan recommendations for the Rouge and Humber rivers; 436 RECORDED VOTE Maria Augimeri Yea David Barrow Nay Bryan Bertie Nay Laurie Bruce Nay Mike Del Grande Nay Pamela Gough Yea Suzan Hall Yea Jack Heath Nay Colleen Jordan Yea Peter Milczyn Yea Ron Moeser Yea Gerri Lynn O'Connor Nay Linda Pabst Nay John Parker Nay Anthony Perruzza Yea John Sprovieri Nay Richard Whitehead Nay AMENDMENT #2 RES. #A132/10 Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Suzan Hall THAT the seventh paragraph of the main motion be moved to be the twelfth paragraph of the main motion and be amended to read: THAT TRCA reiterate it comments made April 25, 2008 when commenting on the draft regulations for expansion of the Greenbelt that headwaters areas with little Greenbelt protection be considered as prime locations for Greenbelt expansion; RECORDED VOTE Maria Augimeri Yea David Barrow Nay Bryan Bertie Yea Laurie Bruce Yea Mike Del Grande Yea Pamela Gough Nay Suzan Hall Yea Jack Heath Nay Colleen Jordan Yea Peter Milczyn Yea Ron Moeser Yea Gerri Lynn O'Connor Nay Linda Pabst Nay 437 RECORDED VOTE Cont'd John Parker Nay Anthony Perruzza Yea John Sprovieri Nay Richard Whitehead Nay AMENDMENT #1 WAS NOT CARRIED AMENDMENT #2 WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS on July 25, 2008 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) recommended, when commenting on the Growing Durham planning process leading up to Durham Region Official Plan Amendment 128, that TRCA reaffirm its commitment to support the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Task Force recommendation that a precautionary approach be taken toward the upper Carruthers Creek watershed, in order to protect the remaining environmental attributes and prevent potentially expensive infrastructure remediation projects in the lower reaches of the creek in the existing downstream Ajax community; AND WHEREAS TRCA advised that the proposed settlement boundary expansion associated with the Carruthers Creek headwaters is premature until all aspects of the provincial growth plan including an environmental analysis have been addressed and that a watershed plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek be completed prior to the approval of the regional and local official plan amendment approving development for Northeast Pickering; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff advised in the Authority report of March 27, 2009 in responding to the policies in the Durham draft Official Plan Amendment (OPA) that TRCA planning staff is satisfied that updating the watershed plan prior to expanding urban boundaries at the local municipal level represents sound and reasonable environmental planning; AND WHEREAS a watershed study for the Carruthers Creek has not been undertaken in support of the Amendment; AND WHEREAS on March 12, 2010 the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) issued a draft decision on Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) 128 which proposes a number of modifications to the Amendment and whereas the draft decision proposes to delete the proposed Northeast Pickering Urban area from the Amendment; AND WHEREAS the criteria for the Greenbelt expansions include that the land be contiguous to the Greenbelt, include agricultural uses, protect natural connections and build upon the Growth Plan of the Greater Golden Horseshoe; AND WHEREAS the Headwaters of the Carruthers Creek are contiguous to the Greenbelt, contain agricultural lands and important environmental features; 438 AND WHEREAS Ajax Council on May 25, 2010, when commenting on the MMAH draft decision requested that the whitebelt lands in Northeast Pickering be incorporated into the Greenbelt; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA reiterate its position that an update to A Watershed Plan for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek needs to be completed prior to the local OPA for urban boundary expansion, in order to assess the environmental carrying capacity of the watershed, define a sustainable natural heritage system and address potential flooding and erosion impacts to downstream residents and infrastructure - consistent with other watershed plan recommendations for the Rouge and Humber rivers; THAT TRCA reiterate it comments made April 25, 2008 when commenting on the draft regulations for expansion of the Greenbelt that headwaters areas with little Greenbelt protection be considered as prime locations for Greenbelt expansion; THAT a Greenbelt designation for any new lands proposed to be added to the Greenbelt could only occur pursuant to a comprehensive, municipally -led planning process for Greenbelt boundary adjustment, as required by the provincial criteria for Growing the Greenbelt; THAT TRCA supports the draft modification of Durham Region OPA 128 from MMAH, with slight revisions, to require the Durham Official Plan to contain a policy directing its local municipalities to deregister plans of subdivision that have been registered for eight years or more and do not meet the growth management or environmental objectives of the ROP, and require that approvals of draft plans of subdivision include a lapsing date, and require a similar policy to be included in the Durham ROP at its next update; AND FURTHER THAT MMAH, Region of Durham, City of Pickering, Town of Ajax and interested organizations such as Sierra Club, Environmental Defence and Greenbelt Foundation be so advised. BACKGROUND At Executive Committee Meeting #4/10, held on June 4, 2010, Resolution #B65/10 was approved as follows: THAT the following be referred to staff for report back: WHEREAS on July 25, 2008 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) recommended, when commenting on Durham Region Official Plan Amendment 128, that TRCA reaffirm its commitment to support the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Task Force recommendation that a precautionary approach be taken toward the upper Carruthers Creek watershed, in order to protect the remaining environmental attributes and prevent potentially expensive infrastructure remediation projects in the lower reaches of the creek in the existing downstream Ajax community; 439 AND WHEREAS TRCA advised that the proposed settlement boundary expansion associated with the Carruthers Headwaters is premature until all aspects of the provincial growth plan including an environmental analysis have been addressed and that a watershed plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek be completed prior to the approval of the regional and local official plan amendment approving development for Northeast Pickering; AND WHEREAS a watershed study for the Carruthers Creek has not been undertaken in support of the Amendment; AND WHEREAS on March 12, 2010 the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing issued a draft decision on Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) 128 which proposes a number of modifications to the Amendment and whereas the draft decision proposes to delete the proposed Northeast Pickering Urban area from the Amendment; AND WHEREAS the criteria for the Greenbelt expansions include that the land be contiguous to the Greenbelt, include agricultural uses, protect natural connections and build upon the Growth Plan of the Greater Golden Horseshoe; AND WHEREAS TRCA when commenting on the draft regulations for expansion of the Greenbelt advised that headwaters areas with little Greenbelt protection be considered as prime locations for Greenbelt expansion; AND WHEREAS the Headwaters of the Carruthers Creek are contiguous to the Greenbelt, contain agricultural lands, significant environmental features and are not necessary for development within the 2031 planning horizon of the Durham Regional Official Plan; AND WHEREAS Ajax Council on May 25, 2010, when commenting on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing draft decision requested that the whitebelt lands in Northeast Pickering be incorporated into the Greenbelt; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA supports the draft modification of Durham Region OPA 128 from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to delete the proposed Northeast Pickering urban area; THAT TRCA supports that the lands in Northeast Pickering containing the headwaters of Carruthers Creek be incorporated into the Greenbelt; AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Region of Durham, City of Pickering, Town of Ajax, and interested organizations such as Sierra Club, Environmental Defence and Greenbelt Foundation be so advised. Staff has previously reported to the Authority at various phases of the "Growing Durham" initiative on three separate occasions: July 2008, October 2008 and March 2009. The Growing Durham initiative is the planning process of the Regional Municipality of Durham to amend their official plan to be in conformity with the provincial "Places to Grow" (P2G) Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. One of the main outcomes of this planning process was to recommend the addition of new P2G "whitebelt" lands into the regional urban boundary in order to accommodate population and employment growth forecast to the 2031 planning horizon. A key issue for TRCA was the proposed addition of whitebelt lands in north east Pickering into the regional urban boundary, encompassing the headwaters of the Carruthers Creek watershed - what would be the environmental impacts? what would be the downstream flooding and erosion impacts? when would be the appropriate time to address these impacts through an updated watershed plan: before or after the regional official plan amendment? Despite Authority recommendations that an update to the watershed plan be completed prior to adoption of the ROPA and the addition of whitebelt lands into the urban boundary, it was adopted as ROPA 128 by Regional Council in June 2009, prior to undertaking an updated watershed plan but including a policy requiring a watershed plan be completed /updated prior to the local municipality adopting their own local OPA to bring lands into the local municipal urban boundary. Before ROPA 128 takes effect it must be approved by the provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. MMAH did a further round of public and agency consultation on the adopted ROPA 128, wherein TRCA submitted the previous Authority reports and resolutions as our input. Subsequently, MMAH released a draft letter to the Region in March, 2010 outlining the provincial position on ROPA 128. This included a number of wording amendments, as well as their more substantial proposed modification to remove the north east Pickering expansion lands from ROPA 128, as they were deemed premature at this time. In general, the provincial rational for removal of these lands was based on: use of a land budget methodology that over - estimated future employment growth and the resulting land base needed, residential greenfield density targets not being adequately met, lack of a comprehensive infrastructure and fiscal analysis for the recommended growth scenario, the proposed expansion lands not being contiguous to existing developed areas nor a sequential extension of growth, plus other technical considerations. Following from the proposed provincial modifications to ROPA 128 Durham Council approved a response to the Province of Ontario in June, 2010. TRCA staff has not had the time to review this extensive work in detail. Staffs understanding is, however, that while some limited amount of employment lands have been agreed on for removal, the bulk of whitebelt lands in north east Pickering are still being recommended for inclusion to the urban boundary. The Province will now consider this submission from Durham and make their final determination on ROPA 128 modifications over the next few months. Carruthers Creek Environmental Assessment Work TRCA's previous comments on the Growing Durham work resulted in an Authority resolution that is aligned with the provincial response to exclude the north east Pickering lands, but for different reasons. At Authority Meeting #8/08, held on October 24, 2008, Resolution #A236/08 was approved, in part, as follows: 441 ...THAT TRCA does not support the incorporation of lands in the headwaters of the Carruthers Creek watershed into the Durham Region 2031 urban boundary until such time as the following issues have been satisfactorily addressed: • completion of an update to A Watershed Plan for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek to assess the environmental carrying capacity of the watershed, define a sustainable natural heritage system, and address potential flooding and erosion impacts to downstream residents and infrastructure,... A portion of the work highlighted in this resolution is currently being investigated through the Carruthers Creek Environmental Assessment work. When updated flood plain mapping was prepared by TRCA for the Carruthers Creek watershed between 2007 and 2009, a new and expanded Regional Storm Flood Plain was identified near the mouth of the creek within the Pickering Beach neighbourhood. The expanded flood plain is no longer contained within the valleyland system and now extends beyond the Carruthers Creek valleylands through the centre of the Pickering Beach neighbourhood into Lake Ontario. Pickering Beach is a historical neighbourhood at the mouth of the Carruthers Creek along-the shoreline of Lake Ontario that had initially developed as a seasonal cottage community but which has transitioned to an urbanized permanent residential community within the Town of Ajax. The revised flood plain mapping is a concern to the residents of the area who now face flood risk and new development restrictions associated with flood plain lands. To respond to residents' concerns, Town of Ajax staff was authorized by Ajax Council to obtain proposals for the initiation of an Environmental Assessment for the Carruthers Creek watershed. Town staff has identified that the purposes of the Environmental Assessment are to: • review and update the hydrology for the watershed as required; • identify potential risks to the hydrology for the watershed including approved urban areas and the long term potential for urbanization in the Carruthers Creek headwaters; • identify options to mitigate the downstream flood risks based on existing, approved and potential urban developments within the watershed; • identify solution(s) to mitigate /remediate the risk of flooding within the watershed, and in particular, including a "Flood Remediation Area" within the Pickering Beach neighbourhood. A Request for Proposals has been issued by the Town with consultant selection and commencement of the study anticipated this summer leading to a final report in late spring /early summer 2011. 442 Common Issue Across TRCA Watersheds The issue of new development extending further up the watersheds, and the resulting concerns for downstream flooding and erosion impacts are not unique to Durham. Recently updated watershed plans for the Etobicoke Creek, and Rouge, Don and Humber rivers watersheds have all shown modelling results that predict increasing flooding and erosion impacts to downstream residents and infrastructure. TRCA staff has been consistent in advocating through the York Region OPA planning process, for example, as well as the local municipal OPA process in Vaughan and Markham, of the need for updated hydraulic studies in the Humber and Rouge rivers to confirm staffs opinion that regional level stormwater controls will be needed for new developments, prior to decisions being made about future urban growth. Although TRCA staff support intensification of development as good planning, there is an inherent conflict that more intense development will generate more impervious surfaces, more storm run -off and greater need to manage the potential for increased flood and erosion hazards downstream. This will mean a new way of doing development in the whitebelt lands to mitigate these impacts, such as the incorporation of greenroofs or low impact development using best management practices such as rainwater harvesting for indoor use, or using rain barrels, grass swales or rear yard ponding as lot level controls to manage for water balance. It may involve more innovative, costly or land intensive measures for volume control such as underground storage tanks, "3rd pipe" infiltration systems or much larger stormwater ponds. If climate change results in greater duration, intensity and frequency of heavy rain events, or a shift in seasonal timing to more rain events when the ground is already saturated or frozen, "business as usual" development practices will increase the risk of flooding to downstream residents and increase the risk of erosion undermining and blowing out the extensive infrastructure investments in sewer and water pipes or bridge piers in creeks and valleys. Not only will new development need to be done differently to prevent flooding and erosion hazards, but also redevelopment within the existing urban boundary will need to become more proactive in managing for stormwater. Maintenance and retrofits to existing storm ponds will need to be undertaken as well as possible land- consumptive regional controls. TRCA is advocating through the York Region and local municipal OPA processes that comprehensive master environmental servicing plans (MESP) be undertaken when large areas within the existing urban boundary are proposed to be redeveloped. The EA process described above for the Carruthers Creek in Ajax is another example of the work that will need to be undertaken within the existing urban areas to mitigate stormwater impacts from redevelopment and intensification, as well as the additional work and controls needed for new upstream greenfield developments. Roles and Mandate of Conservation Authorities In respect of the draft resolution that was referred back to staff for this report, it is important to remind Authority members of what are and are not the defined roles of a conservation authority. 443 In terms of land use approvals for applications under the Planning Act, such as official plan amendments, zoning by -laws and amendments, draft plans of subdivision, consents (severances) and minor variances, the municipality is generally the approval authority (the Province still is for major, comprehensive regional OPAs). TRCA, or conservation authorities in general, are "commenting agencies" in the Planning Act process and we provide our comments and recommendations to the municipality. The municipality makes the choice to accept or reject the recommendations of a conservation authority. Specifically, TRCA has an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with Durham Region to provide planning advice and technical clearance on environment - related issues. In that regard, TRCA comments that adding north east Pickering lands into the urban boundary is premature, based on the unknown extent of environmental implications of development to the headwaters ecosystem, are within the scope of our mandate. TRCA also has delegated authority from the Province to ensure that provincial interests with respect to natural hazards such as flooding and erosion hazards and hazardous sites are properly managed to avoid or minimize risk to life, property and public financial liability from improperly planned or sited development. TRCA provides comments to municipalities on behalf of the Province in this sphere, and thus TRCA's comments generally carry more weight than just recommendations. TRCA's role in this regard has led to extensive discussions with provincial and municipal staff across the TRCA jurisdiction in seeking appropriate solutions to proposed intensification of development within special policy areas (SPA). Similar to above, TRCA comments that adding north east Pickering lands into the urban boundary is premature, based on the uncertainty of the extent and severity of downstream flooding and erosion impacts, is well within the scope of TRCA's mandate. Lastly, TRCA also has a regulatory role through the Conservation Authorities Act and Regulation 166/06 to administer a permitting process for the "Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation ". While not strictly at play at the ROPA level of planning, TRCA is always careful to ensure our permitting requirements are recognized through the Planning Act process to avoid the situation of having a development application approved in an area where staff could not support a permit application. Currently, staff has no technical or scientific basis to say that a permit within the Carruthers Creek headwaters area could not be supported. This led to the recommendation that further technical work, through an updated watershed plan, would be beneficial prior to adopting OPA 128, in order to provide a scientifically defensible analysis and opinion of how much development could occur and under what circumstances, such as the level of stormwater controls necessary to prevent downstream flooding and erosion hazards. Clause by Clause Analysis of Draft Resolution Resolution #B65/10 directed that the draft resolution be referred to staff for a report back to the Authority. Staff has undertaken a clause by clause analysis of the draft resolution to check for factual correctness and consistency with previous TRCA resolutions and staff opinions on this topic. In general, staff finds that the resolution needs a number of modifications to achieve this consistency and factual correctness. Editorial commentary has been provided to explain the changes being proposed by staff. Lastly, staff recommend adding one additional clause to the resolution, emanating from the draft provincial modifications to OPA 128, as described below. 444 WHEREAS on July 25, 2008 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) recommended, when commenting on Durham Region Official Plan Amendment 128, that TRCA reaffirm its commitment to support the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Task Force recommendation that a precautionary approach be taken toward the upper Carruthers Creek watershed, in order to protect the remaining environmental attributes and prevent potentially expensive infrastructure remediation projects in the lower reaches of the creek in the existing downstream Ajax community; Generally correct, however, technically this was the Growing Durham planning process prior to it becoming OPA 128. Minor change to reflect this fact is recommended. AND WHEREAS TRCA advised that the proposed settlement boundary expansion associated with the Carruthers Creek headwaters is premature until all aspects of the provincial growth plan including an environmental analysis have been addressed and that a watershed plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek be completed prior to the approval of the regional and local official plan amendment approving development for Northeast Pickering; This part of the July 25, 2008 resolution was amended at the direction of the Authority to include the word "regional and" in front of "local official plan amendment". In a subsequent staff report to the Authority dated March 27, 2009, in providing comments on Durham's final proposed OPA, staff reported that the amendment contained policies requiring an approved watershed plan at the OPA stage of urban boundary expansion at the local municipal level. The TRCA staff report indicated that "TRCA planning staff is satisfied that updating the watershed plan prior to expanding urban boundaries at the local municipal level represents sound and reasonable environmental planning." Staff therefore recommend an additional clause as follows: AND WHEREAS TRCA staff advised in their Authority report of March 27, 2009 in responding to the policies in the Durham draft OPA that TRCA planning staff is satisfied that updating the watershed plan prior to expanding urban boundaries at the local municipal level represents sound and reasonable environmental planning; AND WHEREAS a watershed study for the Carruthers Creek has not been undertaken in support of the Amendment; AND WHEREAS on March 12, 2010 the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing issued a draft decision on Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) 128 which proposes a number of modifications to the Amendment and whereas the draft decision proposes to delete the proposed Northeast Pickering Urban area from the Amendment; AND WHEREAS the criteria for the Greenbelt expansions include that the land be contiguous to the Greenbelt, include agricultural uses, protect natural connections and build upon the Growth Plan of the Greater Golden Horseshoe; 445 Staff agree that these clauses are factual, although the last clause contains only selected criteria (see below). Additionally, the middle clause is correct, but the reason for the proposed deletion of the lands by the Province is for land budget and other reasons and not environmental reasons. No change recommended. AND WHEREAS TRCA when commenting on the draft regulations for expansion of the Greenbelt advised that headwaters areas with little Greenbelt protection be considered as prime locations for Greenbelt expansion; Correct. However, when commenting on the draft Greenbelt Plan in 2004 staff recommended four specific areas be added into the Greenbelt, and this did not include Carruthers Creek headwaters. No changes recommended to this clause. AND WHEREAS the Headwaters of the Carruthers Creek are contiguous to the Greenbelt, contain agricultural lands, significant environmental features and are not necessary for development within the 2031 planning horizon of the. Durham Regional Official Plan; Partially correct. TRCA has done no independent analysis to verify whether or not the lands are necessary for development within the 2031 planning horizon. This is not a role for TRCA but is an issue to be resolved between the Region of Durham and the Province of Ontario. Staff recommend removing this last part of the clause. AND WHEREAS Ajax Council on May 25, 2010, when commenting on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing draft decision requested that the whitebelt lands in Northeast Pickering be incorporated into the Greenbelt; Specific commentary within the May 20, 2010 Ajax staff report identified Northeast Pickering as a "principal town concern" with ROPA 128 and a "significant departure from Durham Region's existing urban structure." Town staff reiterated concern with impacts to watershed hydrology in terms of future flood events specifically tied to the Pickering Beach Neighbourhood; ecological impacts to the Natural Heritage characteristics of the watershed and potential infrastructure impacts within Ajax. Town staff also noted potential conflicts with the provisions of the Provincial Growth Plan, which prevent the establishment of 'new settlement areas'. Town of Ajax staff conclude by stating that: "the province's draft Decision to modify ROPA 128 to eliminate the principle of urban development within Northeast Pickering is strongly supported by staff." However, the process of Ajax making the request to include these lands in the Greenbelt does not meet the provincial criteria for "Growing the Greenbelt ". This requires that a request to grow the Greenbelt be from a regional tier government (in a two -tier system - Durham in this case), supported by a council resolution, with a further resolution of support from the lower tier host municipality (in this case, Pickering). No change recommended. THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA supports the draft modification of Durham Region OPA 128 from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to delete the proposed Northeast Pickering urban area; 446 Staff recommend amending this draft clause to make it more consistent with previous TRCA resolutions and staff recommendations on this topic and reflective of the fact that this is a common concern across all TRCA watersheds. Staff recommend the clause be amended to read: THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA reiterate its position that an update to A Watershed Plan for the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek needs to be completed prior to the local OPA for urban boundary expansion, in order to assess the environmental carrying capacity of the watershed, define a sustainable natural heritage system and address potential flooding and erosion impacts to downstream residents and infrastructure - consistent with other watershed plan recommendations for the Rouge and Humber rivers; THAT TRCA supports that the lands in Northeast Pickering containing the headwaters of Carruthers Creek be incorporated into the Greenbelt; Staff recommend amending this clause to be more consistent with the provincial criteria and process for Growing the Greenbelt, as follows: THAT a Greenbelt designation for any new lands proposed to be added to the Greenbelt could only occur pursuant to a comprehensive, municipally -led planning process for Greenbelt boundary adjustment, as required by the provincial criteria for Growing the Greenbelt; AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Region of Durham, City of Pickering, Town of Ajax, and interested organizations such as Sierra Club, Environmental Defence and Greenbelt Foundation be so advised. No change recommended. As noted above, the provincial draft modifications proposed to Durham's ROPA 128 included an additional modification of interest to TRCA, that was not supported by Durham at this time. That proposed modification was the addition of a policy dealing with deregistration and subdivision approval lapsing provisions. The Province is proposing to add policies that would allow the Region or area municipality to deregister plans that have been registered for eight years or more and do not meet the growth management objectives of the ROP; and require that approvals of draft plans of subdivision include a lapsing date. The Region did not accept this policy because it has not been vetted through a full and complete public consultation process, nor have the implications on existing registered plans been analyzed. The Region may give consideration to reviewing this matter at a later time. 447 This issue is important to TRCA because of the number of old approved plans of subdivision, some dating back to the 1980s or earlier, that result in current applications for TRCA permits. These subdivisions were approved in an era of much Tess stringent environmental regulation, with many wetlands, significant woodlands and other environmental features being carved up into individual lots. TRCA staff has spent countless hours negotiating with landowners to alter their proposed developments in order to minimize impacts to the features and functions in order to be able to issue permits that meet the five tests of the Conservation Authorities Act. This process is frustrating for both TRCA staff and landowners, resulting in extensive delays for approvals, costly revisions to landowners' plans and a general sense that the planning "system" is broken in this area. TRCA staff recognizes the valid concerns of Durham Region in not accepting the proposed modification at this time. However, TRCA believes that this does not preclude a policy in the Regional OP directing the local municipalities to contain such a policy in their official plan. In most cases the required analysis and consultation could be undertaken during this current round of local official plan updates and the Region could enact a similar provision in its own OP at its next OP update. In addition to the above - mentioned recommended amendments to the draft Authority resolution, staff therefore recommend adding a further clause to the resolution as follows: THAT TRCA supports the draft modification of Durham Region OPA 128 from MMAH, with slight revisions, to require the Durham Official Plan to contain a policy directing its local municipalities to deregister plans of subdivision that have been registered for eight years or more and do not meet the growth management or environmental objectives of the ROP, and require that approvals of draft plans of subdivision include a lapsing date, and require a similar policy to be included in the Durham ROP at its next update; Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361 Emails: dburnett @trca.on.ca For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361 Emails: dburnett @trca.on.ca Date: July 19, 2010 448 RES. #A133/10 - LOWER DON SPECIAL POLICY AREA Modifications to Special Policy Area Boundaries and Floodplain Management Policy Framework on Lands South of Keating Channel. The City of Toronto is amending the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Central Waterfront Secondary Plan (OPA 388) for the Lower Don Lands to implement the draft Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment. This will result in the "shifting" of land uses to accommodate the new river valley. The Authority is requested to endorse the replacement of the current "One Zone" and "Special Policy Area" flood plain management policy approach on the lands with that of a more appropriate "Two Zone Concept ". Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Maria Augimeri THAT the request by the City of Toronto to amend the boundary of the Lower Don Special Policy Area designation, as described within Official Plan Amendment No. 388 be supported for approval by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR); THAT the proposed Lower Don Two Zone Concept flood plain management policies to replace the existing Special Policy Area and One Zone flood plain management policies on the lands located south of the Keating Channel, west of the Don Roadway (excluding certain lands not in the flood plain), and north of the Ship Channel, inclusive of 480 Lake Shore Boulevard East, be endorsed; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to work with the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario to refine the detailed Two Zone Concept policies and bring back the final policies for Authority adoption into TRCA's planning and regulatory program implementation; THAT staff be directed to update the Ontario Regulation 166/06 mapping for the Lower Don Lands to reflect updated floodplain modeling; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, MMAH and MNR be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND The recommendations in this report apply to the portion of the Lower Don Lands bounded by the Keating Channel to the north and the Don Roadway to the east, as well as lands known as 480 Lake Shore Boulevard East located between the railway, the Gardiner Expressway and the Don River, all in the City of Toronto (Attachment 1). 449 Provincial Flood Plain Policy Framework Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) establishes the policy framework for managing natural hazards, including flooding hazards. In accordance with provincial standards, flooding hazards may be managed through a One Zone Concept, Two Zone Concept or a Special Policy Area (SPA) approach. In general, the One Zone Concept is the primary provincial approach to managing flood risk through the planning process which essentially requires that no new development be permitted within the flood plain. In exceptional circumstances, a Two Zone Concept or SPA approach may be considered. The Province has established procedures for assessing the suitability of applying the Two Zone Concept. Under this policy approach the flood plain is separated into two zones: the floodway, where the majority of the flow is conveyed, and the flood fringes which exist on both sides of the floodway. New development in the floodway is prohibited but development and site alteration in the flood fringe may be permitted, subject to specific conditions, including the requirement to protect new development to the level of the Regulatory flood, typically through controlled filling in the flood fringe. The feasibility of the Two Zone Concept requires the examination of a number of factors (e.g. impacts upstream and downstream of the site, feasibility of flood proofing, ingress /egress, servicing, etc.). The application of this approach is intended to be on a major reach basis. The policies and boundaries of a Two Zone Concept are determined through a consultative process between the municipality, the conservation authority and MNR technical staff, and implemented through amendments to a municipality's Official Plan and Zoning By -law. The Province also provides a mechanism known as a "Special Policy Area" designation to recognize the unique circumstances of historic communities that existed within flood vulnerable areas prior to the implementation of a provincial flood hazard planning policy and where the application of the One Zone approach would result in a significant socioeconomic impact, and where a Two Zone approach is not technically feasible. The Province has established procedures for assessing the suitability of this approach. The policies and boundaries of a SPA are determined through a consultative process between the municipality, the conservation authority, MNR and MMAH, and implemented through amendments to a municipality's Official Plan and Zoning By -law, both of which must be approved by the Ministers of MNR and MMAH. Existing Flood Plain Policy Framework In 1994, the City of Toronto was granted approval by MNR and MMAH to implement a Special Policy Area approach to the Lower Don area as part of the Province's overall approval of the Official Plan for the City of Toronto. The SPA designation was supported by TRCA and the boundaries extend from York Street in the west, Queen Street in the north, Leslie Street in the east, and Lake Ontario and part of the Port Lands north of the Ship Channel in the south (Attachment 2). The boundary of the SPA was reflective of the limit of the flood plain known at this time. The remainder of the Lower Don Lands located within the floodplain are subject to One Zone policies. 450 Proposed Flood Plain Policy Framework Since 1994 considerable planning initiatives and flood modeling and remediation analyses has occurred in the Lower Don Lands culminating into the draft Individual Environmental Assessment for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project (DMNP EA, anticipated approval mid -2011) for the subject lands. Ultimately this project will transform the existing mouth of the Don River including the Keating Channel, into a healthier, more naturalized river outlet to the Toronto Inner Harbour and Lake Ontario, while at the same time permanently removing the risk of flooding to over 230 hectares of urban land to the east and south of the river. At Authority Meeting #4/10, held on May 21, 2010, Resolution #A74/10 was adopted, supporting the concept design for the preferred alternative as specified in the draft DMNP EA and its submission to the Minister of the Environment for approval. The preferred alternative was also supported by the City of Toronto on July 4, 2010. The City also requested that TRCA, in consultation with the City's Waterfront Secretariat, ensure that the proposed corridors of the new river valley and associated infrastructure in the Lower Don Lands are protected from encroachment by development. Given TRCA's and the City of Toronto's support for an entirely new flood plain configuration in the Lower Don Lands, as well as direction given to staff through Resolution #A74/10, a new flood plain management planning policy regime is required. On July 4, 2010, the City of Toronto endorsed amending the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Central Waterfront Secondary Plan (OPA 388) for the Lower Don Lands to implement the DMNP EA and directed City staff to submit these documents, along with the required technical studies, to the Province as the basis for review and refinement of the draft amendments. These documents, in a refined format, were submitted to the Province on July 15, 2010. In order to ensure that development that may compromise the implementation of the DMNP EA does not proceed, it is necessary to remove the Special Policy Area that applies to a portion of the Lower Don Special Policy Area located south of the Keating Channel, west of the Don Roadway and the portion of the SPA on the 480 Lake Shore Boulevard East lands, both of which total approximately 26 hectares (Attachment 2). The existing Special Policy Area would allow for development under existing zoning to occur, subject to floodproofing. Similarly, to ensure that minor additions to existing development that may compromise implementation of the DMNP EA do not proceed, it is necessary to remove the One Zone flood plain management policy from those lands located outside the Special Policy Area but which are subject to flooding based on updated modeling. 451 The City's submission to the Province, with the support of TRCA staff, recommends replacing the SPA and One Zone area with a modified Two Zone Concept flood plain management planning policy approach (Attachment 1). This approach will prohibit all development on the proposed new river valley and associated 10 metre buffer while allowing a flexible approach to temporary uses in the remainder of the Port Lands to ensure the economic viability of these lands until the DMNP EA is implemented. Lands not in the floodplain slated for development as a City of Toronto Regional Sports Centre are excluded from the Two Zone Concept. The Two Zone Concept will require that the DMNP EA, or phases thereof, be implemented prior to of any development approvals for new uses as envisioned in OPA 388 being considered. The Two Zone concept is unique to the Lower Don Lands as the proposal is to cut to form a new primary river valley and then fill to contain any remaining flood fringe or spill areas, rather than simply fill the flood fringe. A comprehensive hydraulic analysis has been undertaken to ensure that there will be no up or downstream impacts. It is the opinion of TRCA staff that the application of the Two Zone Concept on the subject lands is appropriate and in keeping with provincial technical procedures, and therefore consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2005. TRCA Planning and Regulatory Policy and Program Implementation TRCA relies on the PPS 2005, the provincially approved Lower Don Special Policy Area policies, and the policies in TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP), 1994, when reviewing planning and development applications within the Port Lands. TRCA also administers Ontario Regulation 166/06, 'Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses', under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, which is applicable to the subject lands. A permit from TRCA under Ontario Regulation 166/06 is required prior to any new development taking place and before a building permit is issued under the applicable law provisions of the Ontario Building Code Act. TRCA's regulatory implementation policies in the VSCMP are consistent with applicable provincial flood plain management approach. VSCMP and the mapping that supports the implementation of Ontario Regulation 166/06 will need to updated to be consistent with the proposed Two Zone Concept. NEXT STEPS City and TRCA staff will be meeting with provincial staff on July 21, 2010 to discuss the City's submission in support of OPA 388. A community public meeting with stakeholders is scheduled for July 22, 2010. It should be noted that the majority of the property within the Lower Don Lands is within public ownership. The Statutory Public meeting under the Planning Act is scheduled for August 17, 2010, with Council consideration of OPA 388 to occur on August 25/26, 2010. It is anticipated that the Province will have reviewed the submission and provided comments in advance of the Council meeting. Further refinement of the policy framework may occur as a result of this consultative process. TRCA staff propose to bring back the final detailed Two Zone policies to the Authority in order that they be formally adopted for implementation in TRCA's planning and regulatory programs. 452 SUMMARY As part of the provincial procedures and approval process, a resolution from the Authority in support of the proposed amendment to the Lower Don Special Policy Area boundary, as described within Official Plan Amendment No. 388, is required by MMAH and MNR. The replacement of the SPA and One Zone flood plain management planning and regulatory approach on the subject lands with a Two Zone Concept framework will facilitate the implementation of the DMNP in accordance with the final approved Environmental Assessment, in a flood plain management planning approach that is consistent with the PPS, 2005. The proposed Two Zone Concept policy framework will ensure that the lands do not develop inappropriately prior to implementation of the flood remediation works, while allowing for some limited lands uses to continue to operate and some limited interim temporary uses. Report prepared by: Steven Heuchert, extension 5311 and Laurie Nelson, extension 5281 Emails: sheuchert@trca.on.ca and Inelson @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Steven Heuchert, extension 5311, Laurie Nelson, extension 5281 Emails: sheuchert@trca.on.ca and Inelson @trca.on.ca Date: July 19, 2010 Attachments: 2 453 P CLAi I' 1 AREA O tiE I E tiC P. Ci L' C ..:,`', r.. l l: E i r l O°'AL F L. �. IAF"i ER E_ >MENP' L.L'N`1 LI'LEt1E,1' EL). Proposed Two - Zane Regis = .cc-611 ine P= sl?t._4C 1; -1 lcrra� C,t13Fitc FsBct ezt W. sta i3 610 OWNS w ird ttc. Cat No: Fs.eiac5l ,)es9tut l sw�rOwareEt.cia ci-lt Ana rtipuswD Y fr t c2i74JYII 1- }uawvend Lower Don Special Policy Area cJirom F Deartary.....d .:1•Aree timer )eNSperi41 Arz, 5 C 14 u, t trA,6 ter: SPA a KJ n Z luawyaellV RES. #A134/10 - LOWER DON SPECIAL POLICY AREA Modifications to Special Policy Area Boundaries on Lands North of Keating Channel. The City of Toronto is amending the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Central Waterfront Secondary Plan (OPA 388 and 389) for the downtown area to reflect the imminent completion of the Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project and the removal of the lands from the flood plain. The Authority is requested to endorse the removal of the Special Policy Area upon completion of the Flood Protection Landform and direct staff to update Ontario Regulation 166/06 Regulation Mapping. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Maria Augimeri THAT the request by the City of Toronto to amend the boundary of the Lower Don Special Policy Area designation, as described within Official Plan Amendment No. 389 be supported for approval by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR); THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to update the Ontario Regulation 166/06 mapping for the lands north of the Keating Channel and west of the Don River to reflect the removal of the flood plain upon completion of the Lower Don River West Flood Remedial Project; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC), MMAH and MNR be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND The recommendations in this report apply to the portion of the Lower Don Special Policy Area bounded by the Keating Channel to the south and the Don River to the east, excluding lands known as 480 Lake Shore Boulevard East, in the City of Toronto (Attachment 1). These lands are referred to as flood plain "Spill Zone 3" in the downtown core and the East Bayfront. Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Framework Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2005 establishes the policy framework for managing natural hazards, including flooding hazards. In accordance with provincial standards, flooding hazards may be managed through a One Zone Concept, Two Zone Concept or a Special Policy Area (SPA) approach. In general, the One Zone Concept is the primary provincial approach to managing flood risk through the planning process, which essentially requires that no new development be permitted within the flood plain. In exceptional circumstances, a Two Zone Concept or a SPA approach may be considered. 456 The Province of Ontario provides a mechanism known as a "Special Policy Area" designation to recognize the unique circumstances of historic communities that existed within flood vulnerable areas prior to the implementation of a provincial flood hazard planning policy and where the application of the One Zone approach would result in a significant socioeconomic impact, and where a Two Zone approach is not technically feasible. The Province has established procedures for assessing the suitability of this approach. The policies and boundaries of a SPA are determined through a consultative process between the municipality, the conservation authority, MNR and MMAH, and implemented through amendments to a municipality's Official Plan and Zoning By -law, both of which must be approved by the Ministers of MMAH and MNR. Existincl Flood Plain Policy Framework In 1994, the City of Toronto was granted approval by MNR and MMAH to implement a Special Policy Area approach to the Lower Don area as part of the Province's overall approval of the Official Plan for the City of Toronto. The SPA designation was supported by TRCA and the boundaries extend from York Street in the west, Queen Street in the north, Leslie Street in the east, and Lake Ontario and part of the Port Lands north of the Ship Channel in the south, (Attachment 1). Proposed Special Policy Area Boundary Adjustment Since 1994, considerable planning initiatives and flood modeling and remediation analyses has occurred in the Lower Don Lands. In 2005, the Ministry of the Environment approved the Lower Don River West Flood Remedial Project Environmental Assessment prepared by TRCA on behalf of TWRC. Since that time much of the preferred alternative to permanently flood protecting the eastern downtown core has been implemented or is underway. Specifically, the construction of the Flood Plain Landform (FPL) component of the flood protection works is being undertaken by Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) on behalf of the Province of Ontario, TRCA and TWRC. It is expected that the project will be complete, and flood protection implemented, in late 2011. As the flood plain will be removed from these lands upon completion of the FPL, the Special Policy Area designation on the West Don Lands will no longer be necessary. Given this, on July 4, 2010, the City of Toronto endorsed amending the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Central Waterfront Secondary Plan (OPA 389) to remove the Special Policy Area as a technical amendment to the Official Plan upon TRCA confirming that the lands are entirely flood protected and that TRCA has updated its Regulation mapping to reflect this. OPA 389 also puts into place a framework for addressing site specific land use changes within the SPA in the interim. Under the PPS, such land use changes, especially those representing intensification, are not permitted without provincial approval. The City's proposed approach, with provincial support, is to place Holding designations on lands subject to land use changes so that development may not proceed in the flood plain until the lands are removed from the flood plain and the SPA is removed from the lands. City Council directed City staff to submit the draft OPA 388 along with the required technical studies to the Province for review and approval. These documents were submitted to the Province on July 15, 2010. TRCA staff support the proposed approach and recommend that OPA 388 be endorsed. 457 TRCA Planning and Regulatory Policy and Program Implementation TRCA relies on the PPS 2005, the provincially approved Lower Don Special Policy Area policies and the policies of TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP), 1994 when reviewing planning and development applications within the Port Lands. TRCA also administers Ontario Regulation 166/06, 'Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses', under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, which is applicable to the subject lands. A permit from TRCA under Ontario Regulation 166/06 is required prior to any new development taking place and before a building permit is issued under the applicable law provisions of the Ontario Building Code Act. TRCA's regulatory implementation policies in VSCMP are consistent with the applicable provincial flood plain management approach. The mapping that supports the implementation of Ontario Regulation 166/06 will need to be updated once the FPL is completed to reflect that the subject lands have been permanently removed from the flood plain. Accordingly, the subject lands will no longer be subject to Ontario Regulation 166/06. NEXT STEPS City and TRCA staff will be meeting with provincial staff on July 21, 2010 to discuss the City's submission in support of OPA 389. The Statutory Public meeting is scheduled for August 17, 2010, with Council consideration of OPA 389 to occur on August 25/26, 2010. It is anticipated that the Province will have reviewed the submission and provided comments in advance of the Council meeting. SUMMARY As part of the provincial procedures and approval process, a resolution from the Authority in support of the proposed amendment to the Lower Don Special Policy Area boundary, as described within Official Plan Amendment No. 389, is required by MMAH and MNR. The proposed amendment to the SPA boundary following the completion of the FPL will reflect that the subject lands have been permanently removed from the flood plain. On this basis, the SPA designation will no longer be warranted, and therefore TRCA staff recommends support of OPA No. 389. Report prepared by: Steve Heuchert, extension 5311, Laurie Nelson, extension 5281 Emails: sheuchert @trca.on.ca, Inelson @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Steve Heuchert, extension 531, Laurie Nelson, extension 5281 Emails: sheuchert @trca.on.ca and Inelson @trca.on.ca Date: July 19, 2010 Attachments: 1 458 Lower Dan Special Policy Area PORTION TO BE REMOVED WHEN LANDFORM COMPLETE Lid. rd Prvktviati C g ;Intel Lovoir S ec ii€t Petity Asa »E• I ze kat- a5ct DAtti, E re-u' , S1 �� Fiy#lss"R �f ..t_ L luauay3LlIV RES. #A135 /10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Mimico Creek Watershed 1672500 Ontario Limited, CFN 44289. Purchase of property located west of Park Lawn Road, south of The Queensway (rear portions of 152, 154 and 156 Park Lawn Road), City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006- 2010 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Mimico Creek watershed. (Executive Res. #867/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Moeser Linda Pabst THAT 0.12 hectares (0.31 acres), more or Tess, of vacant land being Part of Lots 285, 286, 287 and 288, Plan M -137 and designated as Parts 6, 7 and 8 on Plan 66R- 24845, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), located west of Park Lawn Road, south of The Queensway (rear portions of 152, 154 and 156 Park Lawn Road), be purchased from 1672500 Ontario Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00 and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) will be responsible for survey costs and the vendor's reasonable legal fees; THAT TRCA receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. RES. #A136 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED CITY OF TORONTO Request for a Permanent Easement for Two Storm Sewer Outlets Don River Watershed, City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), CFN 42854. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide permanent easements for two storm sewer outlets, north side of Finch Avenue, east of Dufferin Street, Don River watershed, City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area). (Executive Res. #868/10) Ron Moeser Linda Pabst 460 WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide permanent easements for two storm sewer outlets, north side of Finch Avenue, east of Dufferin Street, Don River watershed, City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area); AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT permanent easements containing a total of 0.15 hectares (0.37 acres), more or less, be granted to the City of Toronto for two storm sewer outlets, said land being Part of Lot 21, Concession 2 WYS, City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), as shown on a plan entitled: 740 FINCH AVENUE WEST, prepared by City of Toronto - Technical Services, Survey and Mapping, under their Job No. 2009 -1052; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, plus all legal, survey and other costs to be paid by the City of Toronto; THAT the City of Toronto is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of these easements or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the City of Toronto; THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated /stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06 be obtained prior to commencement of construction; THAT said easements be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED 461 RES. #A137 /10 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LAND North of King Street East, east of Old King Road (rear of 269 King Street East - Bolton), CFN 42978. Declaring surplus a parcel of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority land located north of King Street East; east of Old King Road (rear of 269 King Street East - Bolton, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #869/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Moeser Linda Pabst THAT a parcel of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) land consisting of 0.001 hectares (0.003 acres), more or less, being Part of Lot G, Block 1, Plan BOL -7, shown as a portion of Part 3 on Plan 43R- 13764, located north of King Street East, east of Old King Road (rear of 269 King Street East - Bolton), Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, Humber River watershed be declared surplus to the requirements of TRCA; THAT staff enter into negotiations with Bill and Gillian Smillie, owner's of 269 King Street East, Bolton, for the sale of a parcel of TRCA land to resolve the long standing encroachment on TRCA property; AND FURTHER THAT a report be brought forward to the Executive Committee at a future date with the results of the negotiations. CARRIED RES. #A138 /10 - ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO POSITION PAPER Joint and Several Liability. Recommends support for Association of Municipalities of Ontario position paper on issue of joint and several liability. (Executive Res. #870/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Moeser Linda Pabst WHEREAS the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) has issued a position paper on reform of the legal provisions for joint and several liability as it relates to local government; AND WHEREAS Conservation Ontario recognizes the value to conservation authorities of reform of joint and several liability in the local government sector which includes conservation authorities and other special purpose bodies; 462 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) support the Association of Municipalities of Ontario position paper dated April 1, 2010, on reform of joint and several liability, recognizing that the proposed changes would apply to conservation authorities; AND FURTHER THAT the Province of Ontario, Conservation Ontario, TRCA's participating municipalities and AMO be so advised. SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION RES. #A139 /10 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Moeser Linda Pabst CARRIED THAT Section II items (EX8.1 and EX8.2), contained in Executive Committee Minutes #5/10, held on July 9, 2010, be received. CARRIED Section II Items EX8.1 & EX8.2 SOLARCITY TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PARTNERSHIP (Executive Res. #871 /10) ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING (Executive Res. #872/10) SECTION IV - RES. #A140 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD SUMMARY OF REQUESTS FOR QUOTATIONS AND REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010. Receipt of the 2010 mid -end summary of procurements approved by the Chief Administrative Officer or his designate. David Barrow Ron Moeser IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the summary of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) procurements approved by the Chief Administrative Officer or his designate for the January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010 period, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/05, held on June 24, 2005, Resolution #A124/05 approved the Purchasing Policy, and resolved, in part, as follows: 463 staff report to the Business Excellence Advisory Board semi - annually with a list of all Requests for Quotations and Requests for Proposals approved by the Chief Administrative Officer pursuant to Schedule 'A'; Pursuant to the resolution quoted above, the summary of Requests for Quotations and Requests for Proposals from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010, is found in Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. The report includes approvals of $10,000 or greater, to the maximum allowable limit under the policy, approved by the Chief Administrative Officer or his designate. The attached summary includes the criteria as to why non - competitive procurement was appropriate for the particular goods or services procured, as per Section 1.14 of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Purchasing Policy (Attachment 1). As permitted under the approved policy, the Chief Administrative Officer has designated senior staff, generally including director and manager level positions, approval authority for purchases up to $10,000 (including PST but not GST as TRCA recoups GST). Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Email: kstranks @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Email: kstranks @trca.on.ca Date: January 12, 2010 Attachments: 3 464 Attachment 1 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY PURCHASING POLICY Section 1.14 Non - Competitive Procurement Process A non - competitive procurement process shall only be used if one or more of the following conditions apply and a process of negotiation is undertaken to obtain the best value in the circumstances for the TRCA. Authorized Buyers are authorized to enter into negotiations without formal competitive bids, under the following circumstances: 1. The goods and services are only available from one source or one supplier by reason of: • A statutory or market based monopoly • A fluctuating market prevents the TRCA from obtaining price protection or owing to market conditions, required goods or services are in short supply • Existence of exclusive rights (patent, copyright or licence) • Need for compatibility with goods and services previously acquired and there are no reasonable alternatives, substitutes or accommodations • Need to avoid violating warranties and guarantees where service is required 2. An attempt to purchase the required goods and services has been made in good faith using a competitive method and has failed to identify a successful supplier. 3. When the extension or reinstatement of an existing contract would prove most cost - effective or beneficial. The extension shall not exceed one year. 4. The goods and services are required as a result of an emergency, which would not reasonably permit the use of the other methods permitted. 5. The required goods and services are to be supplied by a particular vendor or supplier having special knowledge, skills, expertise or experience that cannot be provided by any other supplier. 6. Any other sole or single source purchase permitted under the provisions of this policy including those noted in Schedule 'B'. 465 Attachment 2 REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION Sole Source (up to $50,000) January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010 Project Awarded Bidder Cost Not to Exceed ($) Plus Applicable Taxes Sole Source Criteria (Section 1.14 of TRCA's Purchasing Policy) LR - 24 Backpack Electrofisher Smith -Root Canada 10,028.00 5 Archetype Sustainable House Energy Monitoring Project Six Ryerson University Graduate Students Mathematics of Information Technology and Complex Systems (MITACS) Inc. internship program 30,000.00 3 & 5 BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE Alcoholic Products • Beer Store and LCBO 20,000.00 1 Supply of John Deere Parts Podolinsky Turf Equipment 15,000.00 1 & 5 Nursery Irrigation Pond - Supply and Installation of Floating Island /Aeration System C &M Aquatics Ltd. 10,565.00 1 Microbial Food Web Analysis Fisheries and Oceans Canada 18,450.00 1 & 5 Mimico Creek Wetland Berms - Supply and Delivery of Approximately an Additional 480 tonnes of 225mm to 450mm riprap Nelson Aggregates 13,166.40 + 10% contingency 3 Telemetry Fish Tags VEMCO 23,790.00 5 BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE (BCPV) Supply and Installation of Two New Elevator Doors ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited 27,750.00 1 & 5 Tent Top for BCPV Patio Tent Advanced Tent Rentals 14,180.00 1 Public Relations Services Philpott Communications 36,000.00 3 Radio Promotion for the 2010 Summer Season BOOM 97.3 19,200.00 3 Bob Hunter Memorial Park - Supply and Plant Native Grass and Wildflower Mixes Rural Lambton Stewardship Network 43,800.00 5 Post and Paddle Fencing Materials for 2010 Restoration Services Projects Lanark Cedar 30,500.00 5 Mimico Waterfront Linear Park - Survey Work MMM Group 17,000.00 5 466 REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION Lowest Bid (up to $100,000) January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010 Project Awarded Bidder Cost Not to Exceed ($) Plus Applicable Taxes Number of Quotations Requested/ Complete Bids Received Safety Footwear - Imagewear by Mark's Work Wearhouse 25,000.00 2/2 HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA Gatehouse Construction BLT Construction 27,227.16 +10% contingency 5/2 Water Service Upgrade Avertex Utility Solutions Inc. 54,116.00 + 10% contingency 4/3 Asbestos Abatement and Removal at 541 Rodd Avenue, City of Pickering Ferro Canada Incorporated 32,000.00 + 5,000 contingency 3/2 BROOKBANKS PARK PROJECT Supply and Delivery of Approximately 800 Tonnes of 2 to 4 Tonne Armourstone Glen Windrem Trucking 34,944.00 8/2 Supply and Delivery of Approximately 500 Tonnes of 100mm to 200mm Gabion Stone Nelson Aggregate Company 14,640.00 8/2 Supply and Delivery of Approximately 300 Tonnes of 150mm to 300mm Cobbles Glen Windrem Trucking 10,884.00 8/2 BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE Beverage Products Coca -Cola Bottling Group 19,000.00 2/2 Renting Various Golf Carts Bennett Golf Carts 19,000.00 4/2 Supply and Delivery of Fuel Armstrong Petroleum LTD. 12,000.00 3/3 Resale Food Products Skor Food Group Inc. 19,000.00 3/3 Course Hardware and Accessories AIITurf Ltd. 12,000.00 3/2 Conversion of Wet to Dry Sprinkler System - 1352 Lakeshore Road East, Mississauga Viking Fire Protection Inc. 17,770.00 5/2 SUGARBUSH MAPLE SYRUP FESTIVAL Horse Drawn Wagon Rides A & A Farmyard Friends 19,000.00 10/2 Bulk Maple Syrup Voisins Maple Products Limited 14,000.00 13/3 Packaged Maple Syrup Voisins Maple Products Limited 67,436.05 13/3 Maple Syrup Products Voisins Maple Products Limited 19,955.70 13/3 Food Service Products Skor Food Group a 17,374.71 7/5 CHESTERTON SHORES OUTFALL PROTECTION PROJECT Supply and Delivery of Approximately 800 Tonnes of 3 to 5 Tonne Armour Stone J.C. Rock Limited 34,368.00 7/3 Supply and Delivery of Approximately 500 Tonnes of 225mm -450mm Riprap Stone Nelson Aggregate Company 13,070.00 7/2 467 Project Awarded Bidder Cost Not to Exceed ($) Plus Applicable Taxes Number of Quotations Requested/ Complete Bids Received Brampton Diversion Channel Structure Serve Construction Limited 86,100.00 5/2 Wilket Creek Project - Supply and Delivery of 8 Steel Road Plates Ontario Laser Rentals Ltd. 14,000.00 6/4 Supply of Paper - Spicers 30,000.00 Unknown - Part of City of Toronto Competitive Process SOURCE WATER PROTECTION Printing and Mail Services to Landowners Grant's Mailing Services Inc. 10,370.00 + 10,000.00 renewal if required 4/1 Catering Services Hammerhead Catering Services 16,824.00 3/3 ACQUISITION OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT Two New Hybrid Automobiles Dixie Ford Sales Ltd. 58,756.00 15/6 One New Passenger Van Maciver Dodge Jeep 20,862.00 15/5 One New Midsize Pickup Truck Yorkdale Toyota 29,935.20 15/7 Two New 4X4 Crew Cab Trucks Al Palladini's Pine Tree Ford Lincoln 84,156.00 15/6 One New 4X4 Chassis Crew Cab Truck with Hydraulic Dump Box Dixie Ford Sales Ltd. 56,918.00 15/5 One New Loader/Tractor Hutchinson Farm Supply 62,360.00 8/4 One New Hybrid SUV Dixie Ford Sales Ltd. 34,280.00 15/6 Two New Midsize Wagons Durham Kia 40,778.00 12/5 One New 4x4 Chassis Cab Truck with Hydraulic Dump Box Dixie Ford Sales 57,322.00 15/5 One New Wide Area Mower Nobleton Farm Service 47,900.00 8/4 One New Loader Tractor Nobleton Farm Service Ltd. 46,100.00 4/2 One New Skidsteer Loader /Auger Strongco Equipment 25,945.00 4/3 One New Crawler Carrier Hill Valley Equipment Sales & Rentals Inc. 82,650.27 5/3 Two Zero -Turn Mowers B.E. Larkin Equipment Ltd. 27,900.00 5/3 One New Utility Vehicle B.E. Larking Equipment Limited 16,073.00 5/4 Two New 2011 4X4 Crew Cab Trucks Fines Ford Lincoln Sales 85,366.00 13/3 Painting at Albion Hills Field Centre Manny's Pro Painting 13,767.94 3/2 48 Month Lease of Xerox Colour Copier Xerox Canada Ltd. 24,410.08 3/3 Partners in Project Green Marketing Kit - Print 2,500 Copies Lowe Martin Group 12,500.00 3/3 468 Project Awarded Bidder Cost Not to Exceed ($) Plus Applicable Taxes Number of Quotations Requested/ Complete Bids Received Don Valley Brick Works - Supply and Installation for Electrical Service for Bluefrog Biodredging Sytem Sturdy Power Lines Ltd 21,899.71 + 10% contingency 6/4 ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA Beach Centre Unit Paving Daytona Contracting 32,100.00 +10% contingency Advertised on Bidingo /23 Beach Entrance Pathway Upgrade • Daytona Contracting 10,850.00 +10% contingency 4/2 Construction Support (Excavator and Operator) of Various Habitat Restoration Projects Valefield Contracting Inc. 98,789.60 3/3 - ALBION HILLS AND INDIAN LINE CAMPGROUNDS Supply of Firewood for Albion Hills and Indian Line Campgrounds McNichol Firewood LTD 65,000.00 +10% contingency 4/3 Washroom Upgrades at Albion Hills Campground PCI Contracting Mechanical 13,230.00 +10% contingency 5/2 CHINGUACOUSY PARK POND RESTORATION PROJECT Supply and Delivery of 250mm to 600mm Cobblestone Glenn Windrem Trucking 22,490.00 - 3/2 Supply, Delivery and First Watering of 57,000 Square Feet of Sod Boynton Brothers Sod Farm $13,965.00 3/3 PORT UNION WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE 2) Supply and Delivery of Approximately 2,000 Tonnes of 4 to 6 Tonne Armour Stone Glenn Windrem Trucking 90,440.00 7/1 Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,200 Tonnes of 300mm -600mm Riprap Stone J.C. Rock Limited 28,788.00 7/3 Janitorial Services for the Restoration Services Centre Allcare Maintenance Services 12,020.00 4/4 Kortright Centre for Conservation - Interior Painting Commercial and Industrial Painting Contractors 23,462.00 +10% contingency 5/2 Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project - Reference Plan /Survey Work Ivan B. Wallace, Ontario Land Surveyor Ltd. 12,500.00 • 4/3 Heart Lake Conservation Area - Water Service Upgrade Avertex Utility Solutions Inc. 54,116.00 +10% contingency 4/3 Petticoat Creek Conservation Area - Swimming Pool Subbase Preparation BLT Construction Services 75,200.00 +10% contingency 6/3 7914 14th Avenue, Town of Markham - Installation of Two Piece Bathroom Benedetto Plumbing 11,400.00 3/2 561 Glasgow Road, Village of Bolton - Replacement of Flat Roof Centre Street Roofing Ltd. 13,500.00 3/3 BCPV North Property at 7100 Jane Street - Supply and Installation of Galvanized Chain Link Fence Bramalea Fence Ltd. 21,460.00 3/3 469 Project Awarded Bidder Cost Not to Exceed ($) Plus Applicable Taxes Number of Quotations Requested/ Complete Bids Received Dogs Off Leash Areas - Installation of Chainlink Fencing Pedestrian Entry Enclosures and Service Gates Roma Fence Limited 29,634.01 3/3 EAST DON TRAIL (CHARLES SAURIOL RESERVE) Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,300 Tonnes of Granular A Aggregate Lafarge Aggregates 25,155.00 3/3 Supply and Delivery of Approximately 2,000 tonnes of granular B Type II Aggregate Glenn Windrem Trucking 39,120.00 3/3 BOB HUNTER PARK TRAIL (YORK REGION SOUTHEAST COLLECTOR) Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,200 Tonnes of Granular A Limestone Aggregate Lafarge Aggregates 20,580.00 3/2 Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,000 Tonnes of Recycled 19mm Crushed Aggregate James Dick Construction Ltd. 12,370.00 3/2 470 REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION Lowest Bid Not Accepted (up to $25,000) January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010 Project Awarded Bidder Cost Not to Exceed ($) Plus Applicable Taxes Number of Quotations Requested/ Complete Bids Received Glen Haffy Conservation Area - Fish Food Martin Mills Inc. 25,000 +10% contingency 2/2 Supply of Pumping Vault Toilet Septic Tanks and Building Septic Systems be awarded to at a cost not to exceed $ Smith Excavating Grading & Septic Services 20,000.00 +10% contingency 3/3 471 Attachment 3 REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL Competitive Bid (up to $100,000) January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010 Project Awarded Bidder Cost Not to Exceed ($) Plus Applicable Taxes Number of Quotations Requested/ Complete Bids Received SOURCE WATER PROTECTION Peer Review of Three Technical Reports Jagger Hims 56,778.00 5/4 Peer Review of Six Technical Reports AMEC 66,000.00 5/4 Peer Review of Three Technical Reports Jacques Whitford 45,300.00 5/4 Peer Review of Three Technical Reports CRA 54,825.00 5/4 Plain Language Editor Colborne Communications 26,750.00 8/2 . Geomorphic and Slope Stability Assessment of Section of Humber River Near Hayhoe Avenue, City of Vaughan Geomorphic Solutions 18,887.00 + 3,800.00 contingency 6/3 Erosion Risk Analysis and Geomorphic Assessment of Section of Humber River below McMichael Art Gallery, Village of Kleinburg Aquafor Beech Limited 14,540.00 +3,000.00 contingency 5/3 Slope Stability Analysis and Erosion Risk Assessment for Glen Stewart Ravine located within Beach Community, South of Kingston Road, and West of Balsam Avenue, in the City of Toronto Terraprobe Limited 15,000.00 +10% contingency 3/3 Supply of Pyrotechnics Display for Caledon Canada Day Celebration Northstar Fireworks 13,000.00 12/3 PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN Delivery Green Parking Lot Program University of Toronto 30,000.00 4/1 Development and Delivery of Training and Mentorship for Green Energy Management Co -op Program Agviro Inc. 65,500.00 11/4 Safety Review of Secord Dam Hatch Limited 47,468.00 4/3 Consulting Services for Kortright Visitor Centre Retrofit Project Levitt Goodman Architects 85,000.00 +10% contingency 26/15 Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan for the Black Creek neighbourhood in Toronto - Preparation of Phases 1 and 2 - Consulting Team Led by du Toit Allsopp Hillier 55,000.00 3/3 (shortlist) 19 submitted Expression of Interest Development of Rouge Park Trails Master Plan Schollen and Company Inc. 84,191.10 8/4 Detailed Design for Replacement of Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Works Along Section of East Highland Creek at Rear of 95 to 105 Portico Drive, City of Toronto Terraprobe Limited 10,000.00 +10% contingency 4/2 Detailed Design of Replacement Retaining Wall Along Section of Mimico Creek at Rear of 12 to 34 Beaucourt Road, City of Toronto SPL Consultants Limited 10,320.00 +1,100.00 contingency 4/2 472 REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL Sole Source (up to $50,000) January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010 Project Awarded Bidder Cost Not to Exceed ($) Plus Applicable Taxes Sole Source Criteria Lotus Notes Application Development and Administration Services AppVision 50,000.00 5 Stability Analysis of Valley Slope Adjacent to Kleinburg United Church Terraprobe Ltd. 14,300.00 +10% contingency 5 HYRDOGEOLOGIC CONSULTING SERVICES Consulting Services for Hyrdrogeologic Services WESA Inc. 15,000.00 3 Consulting Services Related to Core Logging of a Well in York Region Genivar Consultants Limited Partnership 40,000.00 3 Etobicoke Creek Digital Floodline Papping Greck and Associates Limited 30,000.00 3 ' GST /HST Consultation Services PricewaterhouseCoopers 15,000.00 5 Ontario Stewardship Ranger Program, York Environmental Stewardship Rangers Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 10,000.00 1 & 5 Delivery of Partners in Project Green Eco- Efficiency Program for Food Processors Guelph Food Technology Centre 30,000.00 3 Toronto Island Marina Seawall Repair Project - Detailed Design Halcrow Yolles 18,300.00 • 3 473 RES. #A141 /10 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: David Barrow Ron Moeser THAT Section IV items AUTH8.2.1 and AUTH8.2.2, in regard to watershed committee minutes, be received. CARRIED Section IV Items AUTH8.2.1 & AUTH8.2.2, Inclusive DON WATERSHED REGENRATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting #3110, held on May 13, 2010 Minutes of Meeting #4/10, held on June 10, 2010 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Minutes of Meeting #2/10, held on June 15, 2010. RES. #A142 /10 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Moeser Linda Pabst THAT Section IV items (EX9.1 - EX9.3, inclusive), contained in Executive Committee Minutes #5/10, held on July 9, 2010, be received. Section IV Itesm (EX9.1 - EX9.3, Inclusive) GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 (Executive Res. #B73/10) LOWEST BID NOT ACCEPTED (Executive Res. #B74/10) LOWEST BID NOT ACCEPTED (Executive Res. #B75/10) ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 RES. #A143 /10 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Moeser Linda Pabst THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items (EX10.1 - EX10.126, with the exception of EX10.19 - 117 Colonel Danforth Trail), contained in Executive Committee Minutes #5/10, held on July 9, 2010, be received. CARRIED 474 RES. #A144 /10 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Moeser Linda Pabst THAT a permit be granted in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 for the application EX10.19 - 117 Colonel Danforth Trail, which is listed below. CITY OF TORONTO [SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA] EX10.19 CARRIED 117 COLONEL DANFORTH TRAIL To construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, site grade and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on Lot 41, Plan 2546, (117 Colonel Danforth Trail), in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), Highland Creek Watershed. The purpose is to develop within a Regulated Area of the Highland Creek watershed to facilitate construction of a replacement dwelling. CFN: 44316 - Application #: 0593/10/TOR Report Prepared by: Michelle Stafford, extension 5250 For information contact: Steve Heuchert, extension 5311 Date: June 29, 2010 SPECIAL BUSINESS RES. #A145 /10 - DRAFT DISCUSSION PAPER - ENCROACHMENTS Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath David Barrow THAT Special Business item Draft Discussion Paper - Encroachments, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #5/10, held on July 9, 2010, be received. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:45 a.m., on Friday, July 23, 2010. Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair /ks 475 CARRIED Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer ts. terTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #7/10 September 17, 2010 The Authority Meeting #7/10, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, September 17, 2010. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:50 a.m. PRESENT Paul Ainslie Member Maria Augimeri Vice Chair David Barrow Member Bryan Bertie Member Laurie Bruce Member Gay Cowbourne Member Mike Del Grande Member Bill Fisch ' Member Pamela Gough Member Lois Griffin Member Jack Heath Member Colleen Jordan Member Glenn Mason Member Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair John Parker Member Anthony Perruzza Member John Sprovieri Member Richard Whitehead Member ABSENT Eve Adams Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Grant Gibson Member Suzan Hall Member Bonnie Littley Member Peter Milczyn Member Ron Moeser Member Linda Pabst Member Gino Rosati Member Maja Prentice Member 476 RES. #A146 /10 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Bryan Bertie Paul Ainslie THAT the Minutes of Meeting #6/10, held on July 23, 2010, be approved. CARRIED CONFLICT OF INTEREST Gay Cowbourne has declared a conflict of interest in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Off-shore Wind Facilities as her husband is on the Board of Directors of Toronto Hydro. DELEGATIONS (a) A delegation by Sherri Lange and Michael Spencley, founding members, Toronto Wind Action, speaking in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Off -shore Wind Facilities. (b) A delegation by Shivanthini Lombardi, Electrical Engineer, speaking in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Off -shore Wind Facilities. (c) A delegation by Roy Wright, President, Save the Toronto Bluffs, speaking in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Off -shore Wind Facilities. RES. #A147 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: THAT above -noted DELEGATIONS Bill Fisch Laurie Bruce delegations (a) - (c) be heard and received. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Michael D'Andrea, Director, Water Infrastructure Management, Toronto Water, City of Toronto, in regard to Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Insurance Bureau of Canada's Watershed Awards. (b) A presentation by John Nemeth, Manager of Water Resources, Town of Richmond Hill, in regard to Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Insurance Bureau of Canada's Watershed Awards. 477 RES. #A148 /10 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: David Barrow Gay Cowbourne THAT above -noted presentations (a) and (b) be heard and received. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) A letter dated September 13, 2010 from Brenda Fawcett of Scarborough, in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Off -shore Wind Facilities. (b) A letter dated September 13, 2010 from Roy Wright, President, Save the Toronto Bluffs, in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Off -shore Wind Facilities. RES. #A149 /10 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Seconded by: Bill Fisch Laurie Bruce THAT above -noted correspondence (a) and (b) be received. CARRIED 478 CORRESPONDENCE (A) September 13, 2010 Brenda Fawcett Scarborough, Ontario Catherine DeAbreu Waterfront Administrative Clerk Watershed Management Division Toronto and Region Conservation Authority e -mail: cdeabreu(dtrca.on.ca Dear Ms. DeAbreu, Re: Board Report for Offshore Wind September 17, 2010 A 9:30 Thank you for inviting me to speak at your meeting of September 17, 2010. Unfortunately I will be out of town and unable to attend. I request that my comments, summarized below be provided to the Chair and members of the Authority, prior to the meeting on September 17, 2010. 1) The "Background" section in the report gives a very complementary interpretation of the Green Energy Act. I think that many municipalities and their constituents would disagree that O. Reg. 359/09 is "based on transparency and clear and up -front provincial rules, while ensuring the environment and human health are protected ". Keeping in mind the mandate of the TRCA, perhaps you should take a more unbiased view of the potential impacts of this legislation and subsequent regulations on the environment. 2) The report states, "The concept of a five kilometer exclusion zone for the construction of wind turbines will assist with reducing impacts on ecological health, coastal physical processes and water quality." All this statement is saying is that a 5 km setback for Industrial Wind Turbines (IWT's) would have less impact than a 1 km setback. Has not the TRCA been doing any research on their own regarding set backs used in other jurisdictions? 3) The report states, "TRCA is encouraged that the Province of Ontario will supplement the off -shore wind policy with research currently underway by the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Tourism and Culture." Does the TRCA know what studies are being undertaken by these Ministries? If so, how do you expect they will impact the TRCA review process? Has the TRCA looked at studies on IWT related kills of bats, birds and insects in other jurisdictions? Has the TRCA looked at reports on potential impacts of low frequency sound from IWT's on aquatic life? Has the TRCA looked at studies that indicate that IWT arrays can divert the flight path of migratory birds (i.e.- into a zone of high rise buildings)? 479 4) The report states, "The Discussion Paper identifies that MNR will be the responsible legislated body developing a guidance document to address coastal engineering matters. Conservation authorities have been delegated the responsibility of reviewing and approving off -shore wind turbine projects where the proponent is not the Crown." Does this mean that the TRCA would be responsible for approving projects proposed by the City of Toronto and /or its subsidiaries (i.e. — Toronto Hydro)? Is this not a conflict of interest as the City of Toronto funds, establishes policy and appoints Board Members to both organizations? 5) The report states, "Within the jurisdiction of TRCA, there are a number of areas that are globally important for birds and insects. Tommy Thompson Park is well known for its biological significance through its designation as an Important Bird Area of global significance and is one of the best examples of Great Lakes coastal habitat restoration." Tommy Thompson Park (located largely on a man made feature) is singled out as an area worthy of protection. Is not the internationally renowned geological formation of the Scarborough Bluffs with it's historical, cultural and biological (Carolinian forest) significance worthy of special mention? 6) Why has the TRCA been silent on this issue to date? I have written Mr. Denney on at least 3 occasions, since the fall of 2008, regarding IWT's in Lake Ontario, and have yet to receive a response. Is the TRCA an independent organization mandated to protect our environment and formulate its own positions? For the sake of the remaining natural environment under the control of the TRCA, I hope this is the case. Yours truly, Brenda Fawcett Cc B. Denney Freeman K. Stranks N. Gaffney 480 CORRESPONDENCE (B) September 13, 2010 Roy Wright Scarborough, Ontario Catherine DeAbreu Waterfront Administrative Clerk Watershed Management Division Toronto and Region Conservation Authority e -mail: cdeabreu @trca.on.ca Dear Ms. DeAbreu, Re: September 17, 2010 Offshore Presentation Meeting Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the offshore wind turbine issue. As a citizen conservationist, I appreciate TRCA's input to the MOE and MNR environmental registry. I would urge the TRCA to reword their position statement regarding support of the Ontario Government, "Green Energy Act ". "The TRCA supports renewable energy technologies as part of Ontario's energy mix." Add "when it makes environmental and economic sense ". Your endorsement of sustainable energy solutions reads not unlike the current Liberal government's position where degradation of wildlife habitats, negative human health effects, economic viability and vistas are not mentioned or completely minimized. In your EBR submission, it appears that the TRCA has chosen to take on dual missions. Your mandate mission to manage, protect and conserve our environment must take priority over accommodation of experimental offshore industrial developments. The Great Lakes comprise 20% of the world's most precious resource, our drinking water. The "green" ideology to industrialize offshore with IWT's will further compromise this resource that is presently stressed from the past and present commercial activities. Please send MNR a strong informed conservationist message of your position that emphasises the precautionary principle over the irrational political agenda that: "doesn't do much for our power supply or the environment ". Some excerpts from the "Ottawa Citizen "; • What Ontario has actually done is commit a lot of your money to create wind energy that we don't need. • The McGuinty government is paying wind producers three times the going rate for electricity, but that's not the sweetest part of the deal. On days when there is surplus power, wind farm companies will be paid not to produce electricity. • Ontario's wind strategy is not driven by facts, it's driven by politics. 481 • Wind is so unimportant that you could pull the plug on every wind farm in Ontario and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. On a good day, wind produces about one per cent of Ontario's power. Under the Liberal plan, Ontarians will be paying for wind power whether it's generated or not. • Ontario's quest for clean, green power is taking place while neighbouring Quebec is overloaded with power, most of it produced by water. • While wind doesn't do much for our power supply or the environment, it does make a useful excuse for the politically sensitive increases in your power bills. • The link is at: www.ottawacitizen.com / technology/ Those +political +winds +keep +blowing /3482281 /stor y.html Some excerpts from the Globe and Mail; • Controversial proposal for turbines in Lake Ontario off the shores of Scarborough. • Energy Minister Brad Duguid says he doesn't think it's critical to our future energy needs. The link is at: www.theglobeandmail.com /news /national /ontario /an -ill- wind -on- lake -erie /article 1697544/ I am forwarding our MOE and MNR EBR submissions sent on behalf of our environmental group "Save the Toronto Bluffs" for your consideration. I look forward to meeting you Friday morning. Roy Wright, President Save the Toronto Bluffs C.C. Brian Denny Nancy Gaffney Kathy Stranks 482 Roy Wright Toronto, ON Mr. Barry Duffey, Manager Environmental Programs Division Program Planning and Implementation Branch Ministry of Environment July 15, 2010 Dear Mr. Duffey, Re: Environmental Registry #011 -0089 The organization Save the Toronto Bluffs does not support the installation of industrial wind turbines in our Great Lakes. We can not continue to pollute 20% of the world's fresh water when demand for water is going to outstrip availability in the very near future. If the powers that be deem it mandatory that IWT's be placed in the Great Lakes, then the setback must exceed 10 km. 1. European countries with the greatest experience with offshore installations support distances of much greater than 5 km: e.g. Denmark at 13 km; Germany at 30 km; Netherlands at 15 km. These countries also limit the size and number of installations where coastal communities exist. Ontario's coastal communities deserve the same consideration. 2. The state of Michigan is proposing a 6 mi /9.7 km setbacks for land "at the edge of a Great Lake (accounts for viewsheds, as well as historic and ceremonial use properties, and near -shore activities (e.g. recreational boating) ". (Report of the Michigan Great lakes Wind Council, September 1, 2009) The same report recommends a 13 mi /20 km setback from national park lakeshore. Ontario should have at least a 10 km setback to preserve viewsheds, recreational boating and park lakeshore. 3. Toronto's drinking water intakes are situated at a distance of 3 — 3.5 km from shore. The construction of giant wind turbines and the contaminant disturbance of the toxins in the lakebed so close to intakes are of grave concern to the public especially when some contaminants can not be removed by our current filtration methods. The drinking water source for millions of Torontonians should be protected by an offset of at least 10 km. to ensure some degree of safety to our drinking water. 483 4. Dr. Lu Lombardi's review of the scientific literature of the health disturbances caused by wind turbines proves that at least 5% of the population is adversely affected by the noise of land -based turbines. Because sound of all levels travels farther over water than over land and is amplified by that water, a setback of at least 10 — 20 km should be established to protect the health of the many thousands of people living along the shoreline. Ontario must protect the health of its citizens. 5. Sites including significant stopover locations, offshore waterfowl foraging areas (such as islands and the winter feeding areas for waterfowl which may be at or past 10 km from shore), migration and travel corridors such as those along and across Lake Ontario, flight routes into bat hibernacula, and habitat necessary to the conservation of rare species of wildlife must be protected by an offset of at least 10 km. The list of bat and bird species killed over a 6 month period by Wolfe Island turbines includes 134 bats of three different kinds, 28 tree swallows, 8 bobolinks, 7 purple martins, 6 turkey vultures, 5 mourning doves and 3 red - tailed hawks. Turbines placed in the lake would pose a threat to all migrating species. There must be a significant exclusion zone of 10 km to help to preserve waterfowl, birds and bats. 6. Environmental assessments carried out by proponents of turbine installations are highly suspect. We strongly urge that there be an independent review of any such environmental assessments. 7. The OPA- commissioned Helimax Report on sites favourable for wind turbines recommended exclusion zones: • environmental areas of concern • national parks • conservation reserves • Great Lakes coastal wet lands In addition, STTB recommends avoiding cultural, ANSI, archaeological, geological, parks, marinas, tourist and heritage sites. Ontario should act on these recommendations from this highly- regarded consultant for exclusion zones. 8. The Helimax Report recommends ratings of 35 — 40% capacity for economic efficiency and cited over 60 locations in the Great Lakes where such capacity could be reached. (Most offshore installations around the world are placed in high -wind yield areas, achieving 30 — 60% capacity for most of the seasons.) Turbines should not be built in areas which do not support 35 — 40% capacity. Ontario should exclude development in areas of low capacity. 484 To summarize, we recommend a setback distance of 10 km to protect people, wildlife, drinking water sources; independent review of proponent - prepared environmental assessments; and exclusion zones for protection and efficiency. Thank you for your consideration of this submission on behalf of communities from Toronto's Beach area to Ajax. Roy Wright, President Barry Matthews, Vice President Save the Toronto Bluffs 485 September 9, 2010 Mr. John Friberg, Ministry of Natural Resources Dear Mr. Friberg, Re: EBR Registry #011-0907 'Save the Toronto Bluffs' makes the following recommendations and comments for your consideration. I. Constraint and/or Exclusion Zones • Navigation Lanes: minimum 2 km. setback • Commercial Fishing Activity: minimum 5 km. setback • Sensitive environmental and ecological areas: minimum 5 km. setback • Areas subject to important recreational activities; e.g. popular shorelines, parks and boating clubs: minimum 10 km. setbacks • Cultural heritage features; e.g. Niagara escarpment, Scarborough Bluffs and ANSI sites: minimum 10 km. setbacks • Inland lakes and water bodies; e.g. Lake Simcoe: 100% total exclusion from IWTs. • Other Great Lake considerations for exclusions; 1. where winds are less than the minimal recommendations outlined in the OPA Halimax report i.e. 35 -40% capacity 2. where lake bottom heavy metal toxins are prevalent and may be disturbed via construction and deconstruction of towers and from vibrations transferred from blade rotations. For example, Lake Ontario has the most accumulated toxic industrial lakebed waste deposits in the Great Lakes 3. drinking water intakes — minimum 5 km. setback 4. populated communities and high density urban communities: 10 km. setback; light density lakeside communities; 5 km. setback 5. airports: 5 km. setbacks because of radar interference II. Public Information Meeting Process At present, community information meetings are a meaningless exercise. Developer presentations are misleading and biased, questions are not answered and no provisions are required for the PER reports to be accurate when provided by the developer. For example, MNR found the PER report from Toronto Hydro's presentation at Sir Wilfrid Laurier CA to be completely satisfactory. No mention was made of the sabotaged meeting where 5 bus loads of lobbyists took over the microphones for 2 hours denying the affected community to ask their questions. 486 Suggestion — The PER report to include a summary comment of the meeting provided by the elected Councillors present in the affected communities. III. Agreements with Neighbouring Jurisdictions Dialogue should be paramount when sharing the same common interests of protecting the environment, our drinking water, wildlife habitats and concerns of lakefront communities. Ontario, Ohio, New York and Michigan could combine their common and best practise information for equitable and mutually beneficial agreements. IV. Michigan Study re: How, Where and When MNR is advised to study the Michigan offshore report. It is an 86 page comprehensive review, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, prepared in a responsible fashion to mitigate many of the uncertain issues that offshore IWT will present. Link with: www.michiganglowcouncilorg /GLOW %20Report%209 -1 -09 FINAL.pdf Yours truly, Roy Wright, President Barry Matthews, Vice President Save the Toronto Bluffs 487 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION Moved by: Seconded by: OFF -SHORE WIND FACILITIES Renewable Energy Approval Requirements. To provide comments to the Ministry of the Environment on the Off -shore Wind Discussion Paper and Proposed Approach and to the Ministry of Natural Resources on Off -shore Windpower: Consideration of Additional Areas to be Removed from Future Development. Bill Fisch Laurie Bruce WHEREAS the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has prepared a Discussion Paper and Proposed Approach for Off -shore Wind Facilities (MOE Environmental Registry (EBR) posting 011- 0089); AND WHEREAS the Ministry of Natural Resources has posted the consideration of additional areas to be removed from future development for Off -shore Wind Facilities (MNR EBR posting 011 - 0907); THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority endorse Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff comments provided to the Ministry of the Environment for EBR Posting #011- 0089 on August 24, 2010 (Attachment 1); AND FURTHER THAT the Authority endorse TRCA staff comments on EBR Posting #011 0907 and provide them to the Ministry of Natural Resources through the EBR. RECORDED VOTE Paul Ainslie Nay Maria Augimeri Nay David Barrow Yea Bryan Bertie Nay Laurie Bruce Yea Mike Del Grande Nay Bill Fisch Yea Pamela Gough Nay Lois Griffin Nay Jack Heath Yea Colleen Jordan Nay Glenn Mason Nay Gerri Lynn O'Connor Nay John Parker Nay Anthony Perruzza Yea John Sprovieri Yea 488 NEW MOTION #1 RES. #A150 /10 Moved by: Seconded by: Mike Del Grande Pamela Gough THAT the Authority, not withstanding that TRCA staff commented on MNR EBR postings 011 -0089 and 011 -0907, has met on September 17, 2010 and upon its review are not in a position to comment and support any movement forward on placement of windmills in Lake Ontario; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority is not prepared to support the direction of windmill placement until full studies are available that deal with vibration on fish habitation, sediment analysis, cement leaching and any other studies that deal with environmental impact of such an undertaking. RECORDED VOTE Paul Ainslie Nay Maria Augimeri Yea David Barrow Yea Bryan Bertie Yea Laurie Bruce Yea Mike Del Grande Yea Bill Fisch Yea Pamela Gough Yea Lois Griffin Yea Jack Heath Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Glenn Mason Yea Gerri Lynn O'Connor Yea John Parker Yea Anthony Perruzza Yea John Sprovieri Yea NEW MOTION #2 RES. #A151 /10 Moved by: Seconded by: Paul Ainslie Mike Del Grande THAT the Authority requests a moratorium on wind turbines in Lake Ontario; AND FURTHER THAT the Province of Ontario be so advised. RECORDED VOTE Paul Ainslie Yea Maria Augimeri Yea David Barrow Nay 489 RECORDED VOTE Cont'd Bryan Bertie Yea Laurie Bruce Nay Mike Del Grande Yea Bill Fisch Yea Pamela Gough Yea Lois Griffin Yea Jack Heath Nay Colleen Jordan Yea Glenn Mason Yea Gerri Lynn O'Connor Yea John Parker Yea Anthony Perruzza Nay John Sprovieri Nay THE MAIN MOTION WAS NOT CARRIED NEW MOTION #1 WAS CARRIED NEW MOTION #2 WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND The Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 was passed in the Legislature on May 14, 2009. The Act places priority on expanding Ontario's use of clean and renewable sources of energy including wind, water, solar, biomass and biogas power. Developing these renewable resources is a cornerstone of Ontario's future prosperity and the government's plan to combat climate change and phase out coal. As a key pillar in supporting the development of Ontario's green economy, the Ontario government introduced O. Reg. 359/09 (Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1) made under the Environmental Protection Act, on September 24, 2009. This regulation offers an approach to regulating renewable energy generation facilities that is based on transparency and clear up -front provincial rules, while ensuring that the environment and human health are protected. On June 25, 2010, the Ministry of the Environment posted a policy proposal on the Environmental Registry that outlined a proposed approach for Renewable Energy Approval requirements for off-shore wind facilities (Environmental Registry No. 011- 0089). To facilitate input, MOE posted an Off-shore Wind Discussion Paper that outlined considerations for regulatory amendments to the Renewable Energy Approval (0. Reg. 359/09) to provide up -front provincial rules for off-shore windpower facilities, including a proposal for a five kilometre shoreline exclusion zone for off-shore turbines, measured from the water's edge of the Great Lakes, other inland lakes (eg. Lake St. Clair), and the major islands. This MOE posting also identified that the Ministry of Natural Resources was undertaking a phased review of Ontario's current process for making Crown land available for renewable energy projects. This review would include consideration of where, when and how the government makes Crown land available for off -shore wind projects, and may result in additional areas being constrained from off -shore wind development. Comments on EBR No. 011 -0089 were due on September 7, 2010. TRCA staff provided comments to the Ministry of the Environment on August 24, 2010, subject to future endorsement by the Authority. 490 On August 18, 2010, the Ministry of Natural Resources posted a policy proposal entitled Off -shore Windpower: Consideration of Additional Areas to be Removed from Future Development on the Environmental Registry. EBR No. 011 -0907 invites comments on potential off -shore areas and criteria that should be taken into consideration which may constrain future development as part of the Crown land application process. Comments on this posting are due October 4, 2010. Areas that may be constrained from future development could include: • navigational lanes; • areas of core commercial fishing activity; • sensitive environmental and ecological areas and features; • areas subject to important recreational activities; • cultural heritage features; • areas of natural gas activity; • areas of inland lakes not subject to the proposed five kilometre exclusion zone; • other inland waterbodies (eg. Lake Simcoe, Lake Nipissing, Lake Nipigon, Lake of the Woods, etc); and • other Great Lakes specific considerations. This EBR posting also invites comment on where, when and how the government should make off-shore areas of Crown land available for off -shore wind development. As the identification of areas constrained from development, and the application of the Ministry of the Environment's proposed shoreline exclusion zone, may be applied to existing Crown land off -shore applications, the Ministry of Natural Resources will defer the processing of any existing applications and will not be accepting any new applications until a decision about these proposals has been made. RATIONALE EBR No. 011 -0089: The Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 places priority on expanding Ontario's use of clean and renewable sources of energy including wind, water, solar, biomass and biogas power in an effort to combat climate change. TRCA's Strategic Plan, Moving Toward The Living City, identifies that recognizing and integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation will be a critical component in achieving the objectives and goals of a healthy, sustainable urban region. TRCA supports renewable energy technologies as part of Ontario's energy mix. Our strength and experience in adaptive watershed management to protect, maintain and restore the health of our watersheds is based on science and research. Accordingly, TRCA is encouraged that the Province of Ontario will supplement the off -shore wind policy with research currently underway by the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Tourism and Culture. The completion of guidance documents will provide a clear explanation of minimum requirements for each proponent. TRCA staff would like to participate in the dialogue associated with the preparation of these guidelines along with Conservation Ontario and the provincial ministries. 491 The concept of a five kilometre exclusion zone for the construction of wind turbines will assist with reducing impacts on ecological health, coastal physical processes and water quality. The Ministry should be commended for proposing a minimum exclusion zone of this nature in combination with the requirement to undertake various studies to assess impacts and determine appropriate mitigation techniques. The five kilometre exclusion zone appears to be sufficient to ensure littoral transport and coastal processes, habitat function and recreation opportunities are not negatively impacted within TRCA jurisdiction. However, it is important in our opinion to allow science to further define the appropriate exclusion zone for each proposed installation due to the limited knowledge of off -shore wind turbines in fresh water areas and possible major negative impacts. Each of the Great Lakes and inland lakes in the system hosts a unique set of challenges and constraints. For example, the depth of Lake Ontario at 5 km, within TRCA jurisdiction, can be over 60 metres which may minimize potential impacts to littoral drift or disruption to fish habitat but may still be positioned in a flyway. These and other • constraints will need a comprehensive review to provide a clear assessment of all resource management issues. The Discussion Paper identifies that MNR will be the responsible legislated body developing a guidance document to address coastal engineering matters. Conservation authorities have been delegated the responsibility of reviewing and approving off-shore wind turbine projects where the proponent is not the Crown. TRCA suggests that the guidelines be developed collaboratively between Conservation Ontario and the Ministry of Natural Resources, as conservation authorities will be responsible for reviewing and approving through the issuance of permits (upon satisfying regulatory tests) as defined by the Conservation Authorities Act. The current Regulation 359/09 being a Provincial Regulation has no ability to address federal legislative processes. For example, until such time as a project is considered to be complete enough for a final submission there is no lawful trigger in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process that would provide input under Section 35 of the Federal Fisheries Act for off -shore alternative energy proposals unless being reviewed by a conservation authority with an agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to review projects under the Federal Fisheries Act. TRCA would request clarification regarding how the federal agencies may be further involved in each of the off -shore wind proposals at a very early stage to ensure all impacts can be addressed and mitigated appropriately by all legislative responsibilities. The Federal Government has the jurisdiction over migratory birds as defined by the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Other birds and bats are under the jurisdiction of the Province (MNR). Within the jurisdiction of TRCA, there are a number of areas that are globally important for birds and insects. Tommy Thompson Park is well known for its biological significance through its designation as an Important Bird Area of global significance and is one of the best examples of Great Lakes coastal habitat restoration. As such, it is critical that the impacts of wind turbines on birds, bats and insects be better understood and must be subject to additional research so that impacts can be minimized to these highly sensitive migratory flyways. We recommend that further discussion be sought with Parks Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service and MNR regarding the 5 km exclusion zone for certain important bird areas and highly sensitive migratory flyways. As MNR begins the second phase of their Crown Land Renewable Energy Policy review, TRCA recommends that strong consideration be given to developing constraint mapping where off -shore wind turbines are not permitted in areas that are globally important migratory bird areas. 492 EBR No. 011 -0907: The list of areas that may be constrained from future development as part of the Crown land application process noted in this EBR posting would appear to be comprehensive and in keeping with the considerations outlined in the Off -shore Wind Discussion Paper. Accordingly, staff recommend that a copy of TRCA's comments on EBR No. 011 -0089 be forwarded to the Ministry of Natural Resources in response to this posting. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff will continue to monitor and provide input on the development of the policies and requirements for Off -shore Wind Facilities through the EBR process and report back to the Authority as required. Additionally, TRCA staff will continue to seek opportunities to work collaboratively through Conservation Ontario with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment on these initiatives. Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Date: September 8, 2010 Attachments: 1 493 Attachment 1 41 70RONTO AND REGION' The— conservation for The Living City August 24, 2010 Mr. Barry Duffey, Manager Ministry of the Environment Environmental Programs Division Program Planning and Implementation Branch 135 St. Clair Avenue West, 4th Floor Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5 Dear Mr. Duffey: Re: • Environmental Bill of Rights Registry.No 011 -0089 - Offshore Wind Discussion Paper We have reviewed the Offshore Wind Discussion Paper presently posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (Registry No.011- 0089), and provide the following . comments for your consideration. These comments are provided by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff and are subject to the review and endorsement of our Authority Board at its next meeting on September 17, 2010. The Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 places priority on expanding Ontario's use of clean and renewable sources of energy including wind, water, solar, biomass and biogas power in an effort to combat climate change. TRCA's Strategic Plan, Moving Toward The Living City, identifies that recognizing and integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation will be a critical component in achieving the objectives and goals of a healthy, sustainable urban region. The TRCA supports renewable energy technologies as part of Ontario's energy mix. Our strength and experience in adaptive watershed management to protect, maintain and restore the health of our watersheds is based on science and research. Accordingly, we are encouraged that the Province will supplement the off -shore wind policy with research currently underway by the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Tourism and Culture. The completion of guidance documents will provide a clear explanation of minimum requiremerrts for each proponent. TRCA staff would like to participate In the dialogue in preparation of these guidelines along with Conservation Ontario and the provincial ministries. The concept of a five kilometre exclusion zone for the construction of wind turbines will assist with reducing impacts on ecological health, coastal physical processes and water quality. The Ministry should be commended for proposing a minimum exclusion zone of this nature in combination with the requirement to undertake various studies to assess impacts and determine appropriate mitigation techniques. The five kilometre exclusion .f2 494 zone appears to be sufficient to ensure littoral transport and coastal processes, habitat function and recreation opportunities are not negatively impacted within TRCA jurisdiction. However, it Is important in our opinion to allow science to further define the appropriate exclusion zone for each proposed installation due to the limited knowledge of offshore wind turbines in fresh water areas and possible major negative impacts. Each of the Great Lakes and inland lakes in the system hosts a unique set of challenges and constraints. For example, the depth of Lake Ontario at 5 km, within TRCA jurisdiction, can be over 60 metres which may minimize potential impacts to littoral drift or disruption to fish habitat but these and other constraints will need a comprehensive review to provide a clear assessment of all resource management issues. The Discussion Paper identifies that the Ministry of Natural Resources will be the responsible legislated body developing a guidance document to address coastal engineering matters. Conservation Authorities have been delegated the responsibility of reviewing and approving offshore wind turbine projects where the proponent is not the Crown. We suggest that the guidelines be developed collaboratively between • Conservation Ontario and the Ministry of Natural Resources, as CAs will be responsible for reviewing and approving through the issuance of permits (upon satisfying regulatory tests) as defined by the Conservation Authorities Act. The current Regulation 359/09 being a Provincial Regulation has no ability to address Federal legislative processes. For example, until such time as a project is considered to be complete enough for a final submission there is no lawful trigger in the CEAA process that would provide input under Section 35 of the Federal Fisheries Act for offshore alternative energy proposals. TRCA would request clarification regarding how the Federal agencies may be further involved in each of the off -wind proposals at a very early stage to ensure all impacts can be addressed and mitigated appropriately by all legislative responsibilities. The Federal Government has the jurisdiction over migratory birds as defined by the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Other birds and bats are under the jurisdiction of the Province (OMNR). Within the jurisdiction of TRCA, there are a number of areas that are globally important for birds and Insects. Tommy Thompson Park is well known for its biological significance through its designation as an Important Bird Area of global significance and is one of the best examples of Great Lakes coastal habitat restoration. As such, it is critical that the impacts of wihd turbines on birds, bats and insects be better understood and must be subject to a- comprehensive review to minimize impacts to these highly sensitive migratory flyways. We recommend that further discussion be sought with Parks Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service and MNR regarding the 5km exclusion zone for certain important bird areas and highly sensitive migratory flyways. As MNR begins the second phase of their Crown Land Renewable Energy Policy review, we recommend that strong consideration be given to developing constraint mapping where offshore wind turbines are not permitted in areas that are globally important migratory bird areas. 495 In an effort to provide additional clarity to TRCA staff comments, the recommendations are summarized below for your consideration: • TRCA staff would like to participate in the dialogue in preparation of future guidance documents along with Conservation Ontario and the provincial ministries; • The five kilometre exclusion zone appears to be sufficient to ensure littoral transport and coastal processes, habitat function and recreation opportunities are not negatively impacted within TRCA jurisdiction; • It is recommended that science further define the appropriate exclusion zone for each proposed installation due to the limited knowledge of offshore wind turbines in fresh water areas and possible major negative impacts; • It is recommended that the coastal process guidelines be developed collaboratively between Conservation Ontario and the Ministry of Natural Resources, as CAs will be responsible for reviewing and approving through the issuance of permits; • It is recommended that the role and timing of Federal Agency review of Offshore Wind proposals be clarified; • It is recommended that further discussion be sought with Parks Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service and MNR regarding the 5km exclusion zone for certain important bird areas and highly sensitive migratory flyways; and • It is recommended that strong consideration be given to developing constraint mapping where offshore wind turbines are not permitted in areas that are globally important migratory bird areas. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Discussion Paper, we will provide a copy of the minutes from our Authority Board once it has been endorsed at its meeting on September 17th, 2010. If you have any questions or require clarification please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Nancy G - '' ey, B.Sc. Waterfront Specialist Watershed management Division (416) 661 6600 extension 5313 ngaffney(ctrca.on.ca cc: Natasha Leahy, Conservation Ontario 496 RES. #A152/10 - BLACK CREEK STABILIZATION WORKS Approval to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto for the construction of replacement stabilization works along a section of Black Creek in support of the future York Community Recreation Centre. Moved by: Seconded by: Bill Fisch John Parker THAT approval be granted to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto for the construction of stream stabilization works along a section of Black Creek immediately downstream of Eglinton Avenue; THAT the agreement be subject to availability of funding from the City of Toronto; AND FURTHER THAT authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND The City of Toronto is proposing to construct the York Community Recreation Centre on a presently vacant parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Eglinton Avenue West and Black Creek Drive. The subject property is known as Keelesdale Park . At the site, Black Creek flows through the property from a northeasterly to southwesterly direction. While the creek has existing erosion protection works such as gabion baskets, concrete slabs and rip rap stone along its banks, and these existing structures are fragmented and in various stages of disrepair. Furthermore, the unprotected sections of the lower slope are generally oversteepened suggesting that erosion processes are active in this area. A slope stability analysis completed by Terraprobe Limited on behalf of the City of Toronto in December 2008 determined that the west slope in the vicinity of the proposed York Community Recreation Centre building and parking lot is not stable in its current condition and that slope stabilization measures are required to ensure that the proposed development is not at risk in the long term. The City of Toronto subsequently prepared detailed design plans from Terraprobe's recommendations, and a permit to construct the approved bank stabilization works is on Executive Committee Agenda #7/10 for consideration on September 10, 2010. The works consist primarily of an armourstone retaining wall and planted riverstone revetment along the west bank, complemented by minor in- stream works (e.g. riffles) and a comprehensive restoration plan of native trees and shrubs along the upper slope and tableland. RATIONALE Recognizing Restoration Services' experience in erosion control and site restoration, the City of Toronto requested staff's assistance in the implementation of the Black Creek stabilization works while City staff focus on the approval of the proposed York Community Recreation Centre. 497 Scope of Work The scope of work to be undertaken for this project by TRCA consists of the following tasks: 1. Prepare a detailed cost estimate and Memorandum of Understanding for the construction of the approved works. 2. Prepare, issue, award and manage all contracts for equipment, materials and services related to the construction of the approved works. 3. Implement the works as per the approved design, including final site restoration. 4. Monitor the site as agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding and report findings to the City of Toronto. FINANCIAL DETAILS The work is estimated at $493,450 plus HST. The cost of the project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto under account 184 -01. Report prepared by: Moranne McDonnell, 416 - 392 -9725 Emails: mmcdonnell @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416- 392 -9725 Emails: mmcdonnell @trca.on.ca Date: August 27, 2010 RES. #A153/10 - 51 DEER VALLEY DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT Initiation of the Class Environmental Assessment process forthe 51 Deer Valley Drive Erosion Control Project, Village of Bolton. Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath David Barrow THAT staff be directed to commence a Class Environmental Assessment for the 51 Deer Valley Drive Erosion Control Project, Village of Bolton. CARRIED BACKGROUND The area of concern is a section of the Humber River located adjacent to the east of the Deer Valley Drive right -of -way and immediately north of the residential property, 51 Deer Valley Drive. The study area is approximately 90 m downstream from the Glasgow Road Bridge, along a bend of the Humber River, approximately 75 m in length. A location map of the study area is shown in Attachment 1. In the spring of 2009, the site was identified to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) by the Town of Caledon, and by the residents of 51 Deer Valley Drive. The residents reported the loss of several trees, as well as ongoing crest recession towards the road on the coincident slope adjacent to No. 51 Deer Valley Drive. 498 TRCA retained a professional engineering consulting firm, Terraprobe Limited, to complete a geotechnical investigation to determine the potential risk for future slopes failures and any potential impacts to the Deer Valley Drive right -of -way and the residential property (51 Deer Valley Drive). Terraprobe identified that the instability of the slope was a result of the active toe erosion caused by the water flow along the unprotected bank. Terraprobe recommended that bank protection measures be implemented to address possible future localized instability of the slope. Terraprobe confirmed there is potential for future slope failures if no protection works were completed at this site. Terraprobe recommended that the preferred solution is to extend the existing armourstone wall downstream to protect the slope from further toe erosion, thus protecting the property currently at risk. RATIONALE The Deer Valley Slope area has been identified as a priority area for remedial works, based on the information gathered from the results of the slope stability analysis and erosion risk assessment conducted earlier this year. TRCA's goal through this project is to: "Minimize the hazards to life and property that result from erosion of river banks, valley walls and shoreline and to protect and enhance the natural attributes of the valley and lakefront settings" Several of the key objectives outlined in TRCA's Erosion Control and Lake Ontario Shoreline Program are: (1) to implement a program of erosion control works on a priority basis to protect public and private lands where public safety and property are endangered by erosion; (2) to implement a program of erosion control works on public and private lands to protect the natural valleys and shoreline features and associated aquatic and terrestrial habitats adversely affected by the erosion; (3) to design remedial works, on a design block basis, as part of an ecosystem approach for the entire watercourse or shoreline which will limit erosion, enable public access adjacent to the water's edge wherever feasible, be conducive to maintenance, and enhance aquatic and terrestrial resources; (4) to acquire those properties where the erosion hazard is severe and where the cost of remedial works is excessive in comparison to the value of the property; (5) to secure title to the lands where erosion control measures are to be constructed and where the lands are valuable additions to the green space systems; (6) to protect and enhance the natural valley and shoreline features and associated terrestrial and aquatic habitats; and (7) to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and any other environmental protection legislation. This project presents an opportunity to meet TRCA's objective of providing long -term protection of private property. Therefore, staff request that the Class Environmental Assessment process be initiated to determine a preferred remedial measure of erosion control. 499 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The planning and design phases of this project will be carried out under the Conservation Ontario Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Project (2002). The Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) approach is considered a suitable means for the planning of remedial flood and erosion control projects because it provides a consistent, streamlined process that ensures compliance with Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) requirements. The Class EA process requires the development of a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) which includes from members of the general public including affected landowners, public interest groups, and any other parties interested in the planning and design phases of the project lifecycle. Interested individuals are provided with opportunities to offer recommendations on the development of the remedial solutions, and to place objections to design proposals where appropriate. The Class EA process for this project will identify and evaluate a range of alternatives (including the recommendation provided by Terraprobe) to determine a preferred solution that will best resolve the observed risk to life and property due to erosion. The Class EA will include the geotechnical investigation conducted by Terraprobe Limited and may require additional studies pertaining to the geotechnical, fluvial geomorphological, ecological and archaeological conditions within the area to assist staff in the development of the final detailed design of the preferred alternative. FINANCIAL DETAILS A budget of $40,000.00 has been allocated to undertake the Class EA. Funding is available in the Peel Climate Change Mitigation Capital Budget under account code 128 -95. Report prepared by: Aaron D'Souza, 416- 393 -6336 Emails: ajdsouza @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: kdion @trca.on.ca Date: August 18, 2010 Attachments: 1 500 Attachment 1 501 RES. #A154/10 - WEST ETOBICOKE CREEK SOUTH OF BRITANNIA ROAD EAST PROJECT Initiation of the Class Environmental Assessment Process for the West Etobicoke Creek South of Britannia Road East Project, City of Mississauga. Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath David Barrow THAT staff be directed to commence a Class Environmental Assessment for the West Etobicoke Creek South of Britannia Road East Project, City of Mississauga. CARRIED BACKGROUND The area of concern is a section of West Etobicoke Creek located near the southwest boundary of the Lester B. Pearson International Airport lands in Red Oak Plain Park, south of the Britannia Road East bridge (Attachment 1). The study area extends approximately 260 m downstream from the Britannia Road bridge and includes two issues of concern: an erosion scar approximately 140 m in length immediately downstream of the bridge on the right bank; and a series of what appear to be shallow failures along the coincident slope downstream from the scar (Attachment 2). At the top of slope is a large truck storage facility which is under private ownership. The truck storage lot extends to the edge of the slope crest, immediately above the areas of instability. Due to the close proximity of the storage facility, a risk assessment of the immediate slope was undertaken to determine whether remedial works are required to provide Tong -term protection of the property. A slope stability and geomorphic assessment was undertaken to: • assess the causes and extent of erosion in the area; • assess the level of risk to infrastructure due to erosion; • provide recommendations to resolve any identified risks due to erosion; and • expedite the design of any stabilization works that may be required at the affected slopes. Jacques Whitford Stantec Limited was subsequently retained to undertake this study in late fall 2008. The findings of the assessment concluded that: • Erosion at area of instability does not currently threaten property or infrastructure but left unchecked will eventually erode into the steeper slopes currently undergoing erosion downstream at instability area #2. (Attachment 2). • Erosion at the second area of instability currently poses a threat to public safety and private property along the adjacent table lands. • Vegetated rip rap should be considered to control bank erosion at the first area of instability. • For the second area of instability, a vegetated rip rap combined with trench slope breakers, slope vegetation and tableland drainage was recommended to stabilize the slopes. 502 Based on the conclusions of the report, staff is seeking direction to initiate a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) to mitigate the risk due to erosion. The alternatives to be developed and considered through the Class EA will be informed by the results of the Jacques Whitford Stantec report and any additional geotechnical, geomorphological, and ecological studies deemed necessary to select the preferred alternative. The resulting preferred alternative will form the basis of a final design for any remedial works at the project site. RATIONALE The planning and design phases of this project will be carried out under the Conservation Authority Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Project (2002). The Class EA approach is considered a suitable means for the planning of remedial flood and erosion control projects because it provides a consistent, streamlined process that ensures compliance with Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) requirements. The Class EA process requires the development of a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) which.includes members of the general public such as affected landowners, public interest groups, and any other parties interested in the planning and design phases of the project Iifecycle. Interested individuals are provided with opportunities to offer recommendations on the development of the remedial solutions, and objections to design proposals where appropriate. Meetings with other regulatory agencies will also be held as deemed appropriate. FINANCIAL DETAILS A budget of $40,000.00 has been allocated to undertake this Class EA. Funding is provided by the Region of Peel and is available in account 129 -02. Report prepared by: Aaron D'Souza, 416 - 393 -6336 Emails: ajdsouza @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: kdion @trca.on.ca Date: August 24, 2010 Attachments: 2 503 Attachment 1 Subject Area 504 Attachment 2 505 RES. #A155 /10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Floriri Village Investments Inc., CFN 32440. Entering into an agreement with Floriri Village Investments Inc. in accordance with Section 30 of the Expropriations Act. Moved by: Seconded by: Lois Griffin Pamela Gough THAT confidential item AUTH7.5 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 -2010 be approved; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back when the item is completed and can be made public. CARRIED RES. #A156 /10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Thornhill Ravines Development Corporation, CFN 44334. Purchase of property located east of Dufferin Street, south of Major Mackenzie Drive, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 - 2010 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed. (Executive Res. #810011 0) Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Bill Fisch THAT 1.25 hectares (3.10 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 19, Concession 2 and designated as Block 33 on a draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Schaeffer & Dzaldov Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No. 03- 589 -OOA, dated June 22, 2010, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located east of Dufferin Street, south of Major Mackenzie Drive, be purchased from Thornhill Ravines Development Corporation; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; 506 AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including execution and signing of all necessary documentation. CARRIED RES. #A157 /10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed E. Manson Investments Limited and Zureit Holdings Limited, CFN 44558. Purchase of property located east of Dufferin Street, north of Major Mackenzie Drive, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 - 2010 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed. (Executive Res. #8101/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Bill Fisch THAT 0.90 hectares (2.22 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 22, Concession 2 and designated as Block 36 on a draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Schaeffer Dzaldov Bennett Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No. 03- 814 -OOE, dated May 31, 2010, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located east of Dufferin Street, north of Major Mackenzie Drive, be purchased from E. Manson Investments Limited and Zureit Holdings Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including execution and signing of all necessary documentation. CARRIED RES. #A158 /10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project, CFN 42334. Partial takings from 10 property owners on the Lake Ontario shoreline, City of Toronto, in the Scarborough Community Council Area, to facilitate the construction of Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project. (Executive Res. #8102/ 10) 507 Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) acquire the following partial takings to facilitate the construction of the Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project: Parcel 'A' THAT a parcel of land containing 0.251 hectares (0.620 acres) being Part of Lots 169 and 170 on Registered Plan M -440, designated as Part 2 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace ErtI Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T- 0022 -RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 50 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Hakeem Olajuwon; Parcel 'B' THAT a parcel of land containing 0.154 hectares (0.379 acres) being Part of Lots 168 and 169 on Registered Plan M -440, designated as Parts 4 and 6 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T- 0022 -RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 48 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Joanne and Robert Brown; Parcel 'C' THAT two parcels of land containing 0.418 hectares (1.033 acres) being Part of Lots 165, 167 and 168 on Registered Plan M -440, designated as Parts 8, 10 and 14 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T- 0022 -RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 32 and 42 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from William Wai -Leung Chan; Parcel 'D' THAT a parcel of land containing 0.172 hectares (0.426 acres) being Part of Lot 166 on Registered Plan M -440, designated as Part 12 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T- 0022 -RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 38 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from David Keane and Melba Cuddy- Keane; Parcel 'E' THAT a parcel of land containing 0.174 hectares (0.431 acres) being Part of Lot 164 on Registered Plan M -440, designated as Part 16 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace ErtI Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T- 0022 -RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 30 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Trevor Harris; Parcel 'F' THAT a parcel of land containing 0.178 hectares (0.440 acres) being Part of Lot 163 on Registered Plan M -440, designated as Part 18 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T- 0022 -RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 22 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Gisela, Rudolph and Margot Braune; 508 Parcel 'G' THAT a parcel of land containing 0.135 hectares (0.334 acres) being Part of Lot 162 on Registered Plan M -440, designated as Part 20 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T- 0022 -RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 20 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Daphne and William Webster; Parcel 'H' THAT a parcel of land containing 0.155 hectares (0.383 acres) being Part of Lot 161 on Registered Plan M -440, designated as Part 22 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T- 0022 -RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 16 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Janet Fitzpatrick and Alister Sinclair; Parcel 'I' THAT a parcel of land containing 0.143 hectares (0.353 acres) being Part of Lot 160 on Registered Plan M -440, designated as Part 24 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T- 0022 -RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 10 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Susan Scinocca; Parcel 'J' THAT a parcel of land containing 0.219 hectares (0.541 acres) being Part of Lot 159 on Registered Plan M -440, designated as Part 26 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T- 0022 -RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 2 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Ronald and Ruby Gunraj; THAT the purchase price for each of the parcels be $2.00 plus vendor's reasonable legal costs and the owners entering into an erosion control agreement; THAT TRCA receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transactions at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to execute all necessary documentation required. CARRIED 509 RES. #A159 /10 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY -OWNED LAND West side of Weston Road, north of Highway No. 401, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), CFN 43289. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is in receipt of a request for a land exchange of a parcel of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority land located on the west side of Weston Road, north of Highway No. 401, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #B 103/ 10) Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Glenn Mason THAT item EX8.4 - Request for Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned Land, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/10, held on September 10, 2010, be referred to Executive Committee Meeting #8/10, scheduled to be held on October 1, 2010. RES. #A160 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED TOWN OF CALEDON Request for a permanent easement for a stormwater management facility and purchase of property located north of Mayfield Road and east of Highway 10, Town of Caledon and City of Brampton, Region of Peel, CFN 35747. Receipt of a request from the Town of Caledon and Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited to provide a permanent easement for a stormwater management facility and purchase of property located north of Mayfield Road and east of Highway 10, Town of Caledon and City of Brampton, Etobicoke Creek watershed. (Executive Res. #B 104/10) Jack Heath Bill Fisch WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the Town of Caledon for a stormwater management facility which will assist Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited with their development in this vicinity; WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interests of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the Town of Caledon and Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited in this instance; 510 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing 0.5688 hectares (1.4056 acres), more or less, be granted to the Town of Caledon for a stormwater management facility to facilitate the development of adjacent lands owned by Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited, said land being part of Lot 18, Concession 1 E.H.S., designated as Part 1 on Plan 43R- 33386, Town of Caledon and City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) The easement price is $295,176 which is to be paid by Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited to TRCA, plus all legal and survey costs incurred to complete the transaction; (b) In addition, Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited will provide the following: (I) purchase of a parcel of land by TRCA for nominal consideration of $2.00 containing 0.3665 hectares (0.9055 acres), said land being part of Lot 18, Concession 1 E.H.S., designated as Part 2 on Plan 43R- 33386, City -of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, subject to a permanent easement for the stormwater management facility; (ii) contribution towards the Etobicoke Creek Regeneration Project in an amount satisfactory to TRCA staff be made to mitigate for the adverse impacts of the stormwater management facility on the natural system; (c) All disturbed areas are to be restored to the satisfaction of TRCA as soon as possible after completion of construction; (d) Sediment control measures in a manner satisfactory to TRCA are to be practiced during construction; (e) Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited shall monitor the effectiveness of the facility for a two year period following construction and rectify to the satisfaction of both Town of Caledon and TRCA staff any performance issues; (f) (g) The Town of Caledon is to be responsible for all repairs and /or maintenance of the stormwater management facility which may be required in perpetuity and for indemnifying TRCA from any and all claims arising from the construction; An archaeological investigation is to be conducted before any site disturbance with any mitigative measures required being carried out all at the expense of Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited to the satisfaction of TRCA; (h) Any additional considerations as deemed appropriate by TRCA staff or its solicitor. THAT said easement be subject to an Order in Council being issued in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27 as amended; 511 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to implement the easement agreement, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED RES. #A161/10 - CITY OF TORONTO Conveyance of Land for Beechgrove Drive, south of Lawrence Avenue East, City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), Highland Creek Watershed, CFN 44487. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto for conveyance of land for Beechgrove Drive, south of Lawrence Avenue East, in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area). (Executive Res. #8105/ 10) Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Bill Fisch WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to convey certain lands for Beechgrove Drive, south of Lawrence Avenue East, in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area); AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a parcel of TRCA -owned land containing 0.045 hectares (0.111 acres), more or less, required for Beechgrove Drive, said land being Part of Block A, Registered Plan M -1080, City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area) designated as Parts 1, 2 and 3 on Plan 66R- 24996, be conveyed to the City of Toronto; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, plus all legal, survey and other costs to be paid by the City of Toronto; THAT the City of Toronto is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from this sale; THAT said conveyance be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED 512 RES. #A162/10 - CITY OF TORONTO Conveyance of Land for the Construction of a Cul -de -sac as Part of the Partial Closure of Kirkhams Road, City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), Rouge River Watershed, CFN 44025. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto for conveyance of land for the construction of a cul -de -sac as part of the partial closure of Kirkhams Road, in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area). (Executive Res. #B 106/ 10) Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath David Barrow WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to convey certain lands for the construction of a cul -de -sac as part of the partial closure of Kirkhams Road, in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area); AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a parcel of TRCA -owned land containing 0.12 hectares (0.29 acres), more or less, required for the construction of a cul -de -sac as part of the partial closure of Kirkhams Road, said land being Part of Lot 5, Concession 3, City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), designated as Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 on a draft Plan of Survey prepared by the City of Toronto Technical Services - Survey and Mapping, entitled: KIRKHAMS ROAD, under their Job No. 2008 -0660, dated September 21, 2009, be conveyed to the City of Toronto; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, plus all legal, survey and other costs to be paid by the City of Toronto; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the City of Toronto; THAT the conveyance of land be subject to a landscaping plan, subject to the approval of TRCA staff; THAT the City of Toronto is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from this sale or the carrying out of construction; THAT said conveyance be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended; 513 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. • CARRIED RES. #A163 /10 - HYDROLOGIC STUDY OF IMPACTS OF FLOOD FLOWS AND MITIGATION Future Development in the Humber River Watershed. Award of contract for hydrologic study of the Humber River watershed to assess impacts of future development on flood flows and to develop appropriate stormwater quantity control criteria to prevent increases to flood flows. (Executive Res. #B 107/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Bill Fisch THAT the contract to undertake a hydrologic study of the Humber River watershed, to assess the impacts of future development on flood flows, and to develop appropriate stormwater control criteria to prevent increases to flood flow and flood risk, be awarded to AMEC Earth & Environmental at a cost not to exceed $179,870.00, plus a contingency allowance in the amount of $20,130.00, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such actions as is necessary to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A164 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES 2011 Operating and 2011 - 2020 Municipal Capital Budgets. Recommends approval of the preliminary estimates for the participating municipality 2011 - 2020 capital budgets and a guideline of 2% for the participating municipality general levy for the 2011 operating budget. David Barrow Jack Heath THAT the preliminary estimates for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) 2011 -2020 participating municipality capital budgets, as outlined in attachment 1, be approved for submission to the respective municipalities; THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2011 operating budget include an increase of 2% over 2010 for the municipal general levy; THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2011 operating budget include an additional amount for the Rouge Park of $108,000; 514 AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to submit the foregoing 2011 budget requests to the City of Toronto and the regional municipalities of Peel, York and Durham in accordance with their respective submission schedules. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA has begun the process of submitting preliminary estimates to its municipal funding partners. The process begins in June and submissions are required by staff of the various participating municipalities commencing in July each year. Staff has met with staff of the regions of Peel and York and the City of Toronto to present TRCA budget requirements. Meetings with Durham staff are expected shortly. Meetings with the participating municipalities to finalize the budget will occur over the next four months. Meetings with Peel, York and Durham include representatives of the other conservation authorities which have jurisdiction in those regions. Each jurisdiction has its own unique process to be followed for the budget submissions which ultimately must be approved by the respective municipal councils. Because 2010 is an election year, approvals will likely be delayed into the first quarter of 2011. RATIONALE Operating Budget Staff is in process of completing the preliminary estimates for the 2011 operating budget. As always, staff will recommend a balanced budget in which expenditures are equal to the revenues including revenue from operations, grants and municipal levy. Municipal levy accounts for about one third of the annual operating budget, totalling $11.556 million in 2010. Staff is recommending that the guideline for 2011 be a 2% increase over 2010. This will amount to about $231,000. Each participating municipality shares in the cost of the 2% increase in proportions based on modified current value assessment (CVA). Pressures on the operating budget include an increase in OMERS contributions of 1% with an estimated cost of $300,000, health benefit costs of about 5 %, property insurance costs, rising energy costs as well as annualization of salary changes in 2010. In 2011, in accordance with provincial requests for salary constraint and recognizing the many financial pressures faced by TRCA's municipal partners, staff is proposing no cost of living (COLA) adjustment for salaries and wages. In addition, TRCA is in receipt of a request from the Chair of the Rouge Park Alliance for an increase in the base funding for the Rouge Park. The base funding for the Rouge Park is in the form a special levy by TRCA to each of its participating municipalities. This has been in place since the creation of the Rouge Park Alliance and is part of a Memorandum of Understanding signed with the province. In 2010 the base levy for the Rouge Park was $132,000 apportioned to the participating municipalities on the basis of modified Current Value Assessment. The Rouge Park is asking for an additional $108,000 in 2011. This would amount to an additional funding request to each of TRCA's participating municipalities: Toronto, $71,000; York, $21,250; Peel, $12,400; Durham, $3,200; Mono /Adjala, $150. Staff will include this request in the TRCA operating budget submissions to each participating municipality. 515 Capital Budgets Staff has completed the municipal portion of the 2011 -2020 capital program. Participating municipalities require that TRCA provide 10 year capital budget projections and each municipality has their own unique requirements and format for this information. Obviously, most attention is paid to the 2011 and 2012 capital programs. Attached are summary tables for each of the following: City of Toronto, regions of Peel, York and Durham. Staff prepares for the City and Regions, budget binders which include detailed information on each capital project and program. These binders are in the process of being finalized and will be available to Members who require them. City of Toronto . The capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs which meet the existing City of Toronto targets. The City funds TRCA capital programs from both debt and water reserve funding, in roughly 50/50 proportions. The City annual debt guideline for TRCA is $3 million and has remained unchanged for more than 15 years. The portion of the capital from water reserves has increased marginally, about 2 to 3% annually. Funding from the City remains inadequate to meet critical state of good repair and infrastructure requirements of TRCA's work within the City. Erosion sites, shoreline protection and repairs to waterfront parks require additional commitment from the City. Accordingly, staff has prepared a prioritized list of critical infrastructure needs which are additional to the core funding request. This list is extensive and reflects the fact the capital funding from the City has been inadequate for many years. Staff will work with the City of Toronto representatives appointed to TRCA to review the capital budget needs and determine opportunities to address critical shortfalls in funding. Regional Municipality of York The capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs. York Region guidelines provide for some increase in key programs and require TRCA to submit "business cases" to demonstrate needs beyond the guidelines. In 2010, the Region of York agreed to significant funding increases for TRCA in the areas of conservation land care and hydrological mapping as well as a one time contribution to the office accommodation project. In the 2011 submission, staff has included a list of priority projects reflecting needs that extend beyond current funding. The Region has made a significant investment in conservation programs but there is still much to be done. Staff hope to work with Region staff to determine which of the priority needs could be met in 2011 and beyond. Regional Municipality of Peel The capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs. Peel Region guidelines provide for some increase in key programs and require TRCA to submit a rationale to demonstrate needs beyond the guidelines. Staff has prepared this material and will be submitting it to Region staff shortly. The 2011 capital program is based on estimates for 2011 prepared as part of the 2010 submission and adjusted downward to reflect agreed upon program reductions as part of the 2010 process. The overall increase in capital in Peel Region is about 7.4% 516 Regional Municipality of Durham Capital funding for Durham Region totals $825,000. Included is $125,000 as Durham's share of a pooled capital program for groundwater management in which TRCA holds funds from participating municipalities spent at the discretion of a steering committee of regional works and conservation authority staff. TRCA's capital funding from Durham is $700,000 which has remained the same since about 2004. The 2011 -2020 Durham submission is very preliminary at this stage. It includes significant increases to meet the backlog of needs in Durham. Staff of the five conservation authorities will meet to determine the submission of a joint capital program for all five conservation authorities. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, TRCA's submission will change. CONCLUSION Staff is- prepared to describe in detail any of the capital projects and programs included in the submissions at the meeting of the Board or at the Authority on September 17th. These submissions are "preliminary" and will be discussed at length with the respective staff of the participating municipalities prior to the final submissions which will be presented to the respective municipal councils. Approval of the preliminary estimates by the Authority enables staff to go forward with our discussions knowing that the Chair and members are in support of the proposed projects and programs-subject to the ability of the respective municipal jurisdictions having the necessary funding available. Report prepared by: Jim Dillane, extension 6292 Emails: jdillane @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Jim Dillane, extension 6292 Emails: jdillane @trca.on.ca Date: September 1, 2010 Attachments: 1 517 TABLE 3 2- Sep -10 Region of York Capital Budget Request Forecast 2011 -2020 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Project Name 2010 Final (with some of extra $ approved) 2011 Submission 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 CORE ITEMS (NOT NEEDING A BUSINESS CASE): 5 1,290,000 $ 1,315,000 $ 1,342,000 $ 1,372,000 $ 1,399,000 $ 1,400,000 Subtotal Core S Other York Capital $ 2,879,000 $ 3,262,000 $ 4,551,507 $ 4,642,507 Watershed/Subwatershed Planning:Implementation phase $ 233,000 $ 253,000 $ 260,000 $ 245.000 $ 215.000 $ 240,000 $ 214,000 $ 216,000 $ 260,000 $ 260,000 $ 260,000 Floodworks & ForecasdWaming System Programs 5 305,000 $ 345,000 $ 519,000 $ 442.000 $ 542.000 $ 612,000 $ 614,000 $ 614,000 $ 619,000 5 619,000 $ 619,000 Regional Groundwater Modelling (Management) Programs $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 130,000 5 140,000 $ 140.000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Regional Watershed Monitoring Program 5 315,000 $ 330,000 $ 330,000 5 340,000 5 340,000 $ 405,000 3 405,000 $ 420,000 $ 426,000 $ 426,000 $ 426,000 Regional Flood (Natural) Hazard Mapping Program $ 195,000 $ 230,000 $ 253,000 $ 242,000 $ 251,000 $ 260,000 $ 237,000 $ 246,000 $ 258,090 $ 267,000 $ 267.000 Regional Natural Heritage Modeling (Mapping) Program 5 127,000 $ 130,000 $ 135,000 $ 140,000 5 155,000 $ 155,000 $ 167,000 $ 167,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175.000 Stewardship including Regeneration $ 715,000 $ 836,000 $ 867,000 $ 884.000 $ 901.000 $ 926,000 $ 941,000 $ 968,000 $ 980,000 $ 1,009,000 $ 1,026,000 Sub -total Core York Capital $ 2,015,000 $ 2,249,000 $ 2,494,000 $ 2,433,000 $ 2,544,000 $ 2,748,000 $ 2,728,000 $ 2,781,000 $ 2,868,000 6 2,906,000 $ 2,923,000 "Beyond Core" extra needs: REQUIRE A BUSINESS CASE for 2011 REQUEST, POST 2011 ITEMS TBD Watershed Planlop up Reseach/Adapta5on,Headwaters Drainage /Hydrology Watershed Plan: Cumulative build up of Sustainable Neighbourhoods core base (separate from enhancement below) Watershed Plan: Cumulative build up Fallowap Plans base (separate from enhancement below) Floodworks/waming: O.P. Hydrology program FloodworksAvaming : Add new Floodworks Program $ 120,000 $ 175.000 $ 200.000 0 250,000 $ 155,000 $ 155,000 $ 161,000 0 161.000 $ 161.000 $ 161,000 195,000 $ 195,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 245,000 $ 245,000 $ 270,000 0 270,000 $ 270,000 145,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 170.000 0 220,000 $ 220,000 9 220,000 5 220.000 $ 220,000 Floodworks/Weming:Cumuiative build up of base for Warning, Erosion, Large /small dams V ■ Floodmap:Cumulative build up Base for Growth / Policy items Stewardship: Rouge Regeneration increase aimIL Stewardship: New hem Rouge Community events COStevardship:Cumulative CTP / Sust. Communities / LCC Campus bold up of base Stewardship: Cumulative Misc. top -ups Regen Stewardshlp:Cumlative top-ups Stew/Ed, Sust.Comm/Sust. tech Other York items getting 2010 but not sure if they are "core": REQUIRE A BUSINESS CASE 34,000 5 94.000 5 104,000 0 31,000 5 32,000 $ 37,000 $ 38,000 5 38,000 0 38.000 19,000 $ 86.000 0 135,000 $ 128,000 0 201,000 $ 151,000 $ 166,000 $ 260,000 $ 260,000 Office Accommodation Project $ 196,000 $ 80,000 5 275,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 Living City Centre Project (finished) 0 250,000 $ - Conservation Land Care Project (ongoing) $ 418,000 $ 813,000 $ 1,214,000 $ 1,239,000 $ 1,264,000 5 1,290,000 $ 1,315,000 $ 1,342,000 $ 1,372,000 $ 1,399,000 $ 1,400,000 Subtotal Core S Other York Capital $ 2,879,000 $ 3,262,000 $ 4,551,507 $ 4,642,507 $ 4,912,507 $ 5,017,507 $ 5,171,507 $ 5,212,507 6 5,370,507 $ 5,529,507 $ 5,547,507 NEEDS BEYOND ABOVE BASE FUNDING (In order of priority): Kortright Campus Development Project (Ends 2020) Spcs: Climate Consortium Research/Action/Integration Enhanced: Watercourse Inventory & Assessment Project (ends 2013) Enhanced Rouge Watershed MonitoringRegional Monitoring Program: F Enhanced Watershed Erosion Monitoring and Maintenance Program (or Enhancement :Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan Progren $ - $ 250,000 $ 300,000 $ 1 00,000 $ 112,000 $ 500,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 5 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ 103,000 $ 107,000 $ - $ - 5 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 132,000 5 85,000 $ 90,000 5 45,000 5 47,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ - $ 500,000 $ 545,000 $ 560,000 $ 575,000 $ 590,000 $ 605,000 $ 615,000 $ 615,000 $ 615,000 $ - $ 275,000 $ 275,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 325,000 5 325,000 $ .375,000 $ 375,000 $ 375,000 Subtotal of Proposed needs beyond base $ • $ 1,512,000 $ 1,660,000 $ 1,962,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,170,000 81,212,505 $ 1,230,000 $ 1,290,000 $ 1,290,000 $ 1,290,000 TOTAL OF DIRECT CAPITAL REQUESTS $ 2,879,000 $ 4,774,000 $ 6,211,507 $ 6,304,507 $ 6,112,507 5 6,187,507 9 6,383,507 $ 6,442,507 6 6,660,507 5 6,819,507 $ 6,837,507 Other items: Infrastructure (includes 2010 Cfimate Consortium) $ 405,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 5 275,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 $ 275,507 Regional Open Space System $ 23,615 $ 25,000 $ 27,000 $ 29,000 $ 31,000 $ 33,000 $ 35,000 $ 37,000 $ 39,000 $ 39,000' $ 39,000 Subtotal of Other gems funded as part of Operating request $ 429,122 $ 300,507 $ 302,507 $ 304,507 0 306,507 $ 308,507 $ 310,507 5 312,507 $ 314,507 $ 314,507 $ 314,507 TOTAL INCLUDING OTHER CAPITAL $ 3,308,122 $ 5,074,507 $ 6,514,014 $ 6,609,014 $ 6,419,014 $ 6,496,014 $ 6,694,014 $ 6,755,014 $ 6,975,014 5 7,134,014 $ 7,152,014 I. Iuawyaend Region of Durham 2011- 2020 Capital Budget Summary Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 9/2/2010 Project I!tame < : 2010 Final 2011 need identified last year 2011 submission 2012 2013 2014 2015 201&. - -' _ 2017 _ 2018 2019 , 2020. , Watershed /Subwatershed Planning $70,000 $252,000 $70,000 $311,000 $312,000 $303,000 $334,000 $352,000 $357,000 $362,000 $187,000 $187,000 Flood Works, Forecast/Warning $97,000 $276,000 $122,000 $294,000 $284,000 $285,000 $291,000 $291,000 $294,000 $295,000 $296,000 $297,000 Groundwater Management $125,000 $130,000 $125,000 $130,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 Watershed Monitoring $65,000 $70,000 $65,000 , $80,000 $85,000 $90,000 $95,000 $105,000 $110,000 $115,000 $120,000 $120,000 Natural Hazard Mapping $20,000 $31,000 $20,000 $33,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Natural Heritage Mapping $50,000 $60,000 $50,000 $60,000 $65,000 $65,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 Regeneration (Stewardship) $119,000 $145,000 $112,000 $150,000 $165,000 $171,000 $178,000 $184,000 $191,000 $197,000 $204,000 $210,000 Education /Stewardship /Sust. Comm & Tech $45,000 $137,000 $45,000 $127,000 $167,000 $142,000 $152,000 $160,000 $142,500 $170,000 $175,000 $175,000 Waterfront Development $94,000 $108,000 $94,000 $123,000 $133,000 $108,000 $95,000 $97,000 $99,000 $101,000 $103,000 $105,000 Conservation Land Care $140,000 $292,000 $124,000 $359,000 $423,000 $528,000 $639,000 $749,000 $865,000 $965,000 $966,000 $966,000 SpecialInfrastucture $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub -total before proposed enhancements $825,000 $1,501,000 $827,000 $1,667,000 $1,814,000 $1,872,000 $2,034,000 $2,188,000 $2,308,500 $2,455,000 $2,301,000 $2,310,000 GRAND TOTAL $825,000 $1,501,000 $827,000 $1,667,000 $1,814,000 $1,872,000 $2,034,000 $2,188,000 $2,308,500 $2,455,000 $2,301,000 $2,310,000 2- Sep -2010 2011 Project Name 2010 Submission 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Watershed /Subwatershed Planning $275,000 $284,000 $319,000 $352,000 $389,000 $427,000 $418,000 $399,000 $408,000 $415,000 $415,000 Groundwater Management Strategy $125,000 $125,000 $130,000 $140,000 $140,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Terrestrial Natural Hentage $190,000 $183,000 $144,000 $144,000 $155,000 $155,000 $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 Natural Heritage Regeneration Projects $623,000 $637,000 $613,000 $642,000 $670,000 $700,000 $731,000 $760,000 $791,000 $812,000 $844,000 Sustainable Communities $814,000 $879,000 $841,000 $802,000 $845,000 $967,000 $1,004,000 5959,000 $980,000 $1,076,000 $1,081,000 Regional Watershed Monitonng and Reporting $355,000 $370,000 $387,000 $405,000 $427,000 $450,000 $476,000 $502,000 $480,000 5480,000 $480,000 Flood Control Works $520,000 5473,000 $464,000 $482,000 $512,000 $533,000 5549,000 $565,000 $584,000 $594,000 $594,000 Environmental Assessment Review $280,000 $290,000 $300,000 $310,000 5320,000 5330,000 $340,000 $350,000 $360,000 $370,000 $370,000 Works Sub -Total $3,182,000 $3,241,000 $3,198,000 $3,277,000 $3,458,000 $3,712,000 $3,835,000 $3,852,000 $3,920,000 $4,064,000 $4,101,000 Major Facilities Retrofit $80,000 $92,000 $103,000 $115,000 $115,000 5115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 Kortright Campus Development $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 Public Use Infrastructure 541,000 $46,000 $48,000 $52,000 $55,000 $57,000 $60,000 $63,000 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 Office Accomodation Project $0 $45,802 $160,802 $160,802 $160,802 $160,802 $160,802 $160,802 $160,802 $160,802 $160,802 Washroom Upgrades $100,000 5105,000 $110,000 $110,000 $116,000 $121,000 $127,000 $134,000 $141,000 $141,000 $141,000 Campground and Conservation Area Improvements $325,000 $350,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 5400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 ♦w Heart Lake Plan Implementation 5697,000 5695,000 5704,000 5770,000 5500,000 5170,000 5170,000 5170,000 5170,000 5170,000 5170,000 V, Conservation Land Planning $972,000 $1,149,000 $1,148,000 $1,170,000 $1,169,000 $1,167,000 $1,166,000 $1,165,000 51,334,000 51,357,000 $1,357,000 Conservation Land Care /Open Space $15,000 $15,000 $16,000 $17,000 $18,000 $20,000 $21,000 $22,000 $23,000 $23,000 $23,000 0 Information Technology $46,000 $57,000 $60,000 563,000 $66,000 569,000 $72,000 575,000 $77,000 $77,000 $77,000 Conservation Capital Sub -Total $2,451,000 $2,729,802 $2,924,802 $3,032,802 $2,774,802 $2,454,802 $2,466,802 52,479,802 $2,661,802 52,684,802 $2,684,802 TOTAL CAPITAL $5,633,000 $5,970,802 $6,122,802 $6,309,802 $6,232,802 $6,166,802 $6,301,802 $6,331,802 $6,581,802 $6,748,802 $6,785,802 Other Projects: Peel Climate Change Mitigation $5,325,000 $5,800,000 $7,309,000 $6,551,000 $6,464,000 $6,661,000 $7,102,000 $6,972,000 $7,030,000 $6,959,000 $6,873,000 GRAND TOTAL $10,958,000 $11,770,802 $13,431,802 $12,860,802 $12,696,802 $12,827,802 $13,403,802 $13,303,802 513,611,802 $13,707,802 $13,658,802 Summary by Category City of Toronto Grand Totals Category 2010 Approved T l0UdcetCAPIlAL PUn0115G ASKS lake Gpemtnp wbn¢caTWO,1 PRELIA1WAR11Demlep Subm.00ne rTaomc 1011• CAPITAL BUDGET .1.110 Yea, Subm,cewn Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2011 Water 2011 Debt %Change 2010 -2011 Submission Waterfront and Valley Erosion Control 1,480000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,530,000 1,600,000 1,600 000 1600,000 1 600 000 1,600,000 1,600 000 1 600 000 750,000 750,000 563.9% Waterfront Development 1,454,000 1,523,000 1.552 000 1,608 000 1,573 000 1,423 000 1,423,000 1,423,000 1,423,000 1,423.000 1,423,000 545,000 978,000 135.6% Toronto RAP 2,011,000 2.263,000 2,318,000 2,321,000 2,380,000 2,626 000 2,727,000 2,830,000 2.935,000 3,043,000 3060,000 2,263,000 0 10.3% The Living City Centrei6CG Campus Development Program 207,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7% Black Creek Pioneer Village Retrofit Program 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 0 350,000 0.0% Major Faokbes Retrofit Program ( ongoing) 462, 000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460, 000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 0 460,000 0.0% Information Technology Replacement Program (ongoing) 264,000 264,000 264,000 264,000 264 000 264,000 264 000 264,000 264,000 264,000 264,000 0 264,000 0.0% Public Use Infrastructure Retrofit Program (ongoing) 198,000 198,000 198.000 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 0 198,000 0.0% antrastructure total 1,274,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 0 1,272,000 81.6% Greenspace Land Acquisition Program (ongoing) 80,000 87,000 93,000 99,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 87,000 0 19.2% GRAND TOTAL 6,506,000 6,645,000 6,735,000 8,830,000 6,925,000 7,021,000 7,122,000 7,225,000 7,330,000 7,438,000 7,455,000 3,645,000 3,000,000 6.0% Water Funded Porbon 3,554,500 3,645,000 3,735,000 3,830,000 3,925,000 4,021,000 4,122,000 4,225,000 4,330,000 4,438,000 4,455,000 0 Debt 2,951,500 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 o a a o a a CRITICAL NEEDS BEYOND BASE: (Prioritized) Potential Enhancement Troutbrook I Dennison Road West 500,000 650,000 75,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 000 250,000 Potential Enhancement: More Waterfront MAJOR MAINTENANCE (8 futures sites) 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 1,700,000 1,900,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 1,000,000 Potential Enhancement Scarborough Waterfront Access Plan 500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 500,000 Potential Enhancements: More Floodworks i.e. Hogg's Hollow 100,000 200,000 85,000 85,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 Rouge Park Pedestrian BridgefTrad at Steaks 8 Reesor Road 300,000 300,000 Critical Need: Toronto Islands - Gibraltar Point 7,600,000 7,600,000 3800,000 3,800,000 subtotal 0 10,000,000 13,450,000 5,260,000 5,785,000 5,900,000 8,500,000 6,500,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 4,150,000 5,850,000 0 0 ♦ l7 Critical Needs Previouslv IndenSOed 8 Requested. v' Office ACwmodaton Project 0 921,665 921,665 921,665 921,665 921 665 921,665 921.665 921,665 921,665_ 921,665 0 921,665 0.006 NKCC Campus Development Program 225000 225 ,000 225,000 225,000 225, 000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 112,500 112,500 GRAND TOTAL INCLUDING EXTRA NEEDS 6,506,000 17,791,665 21,331,665 13,236,665 13,856,665 14,067,665 14768,665 14,871,665 15,476,665 15,584,665 15,601,665 7,907,500 9,884,165 0 0 Water Funded Portion Including extra needs 3,554,500 7,907,500 8,172,500 4,065,000 4,122,500 4,133,500 3,784,500 4,337,500 4,442,500 4,550,500 4,567,500 Debt including extra needs 2,951,500 9,884,165 13,159,165 9,171,865 9,734,165 9,934,165 10,984,165 10,534,165 11,034,165 11,034,165 11,034,165 76,303,325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION RES. #A165 /10 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne David Barrow THAT Section II items EX8.1 - EX8.4, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #6/10, held on August 6, 2010, be received. Section II Items EX8.1 - EX8.4, Inclusive CANADA GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL GREATER TORONTO CHAPTER (Executive Res. #B84/ 10) VULNERABLE SECTOR SCREENING (Executive Res. #885/10) ORGAN DONOR LEAVE (Executive Res. #B86/10) PETTICOAT CREEK CONSERVATION AREA (Executive Res. #B87/ 10) • RES. #A166 /10 - HEARING REPORT Moved by: Seconded by: Lois Griffin David Barrow CARRIED THAT the Hearing Report contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/10, held on September 10, 2010, be received. RES. #A167 /10 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Bill Fisch CARRIED THAT Section II items EX9.1 & EX9.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/10, held on September 10, 2010, be received. CARRIED Section II Items EX9.1 & EX9.2 EAST DON TRAIL - ASPHALT PAVING (Executive Res. #B 108/ 10) APPOINTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (Executive Res. #8109/10) 522 SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES. #A168/10 - COATSWORTH CUT DREDGING PROJECT Contract Extension RSD10 -15. Extension of Contract RSD10 -15 for additional maintenance dredging within Coatsworth Cut at Ashbridge's Bay Park in the City of Toronto. Moved by: Seconded by: Paul Ainslie Maria Augimeri IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report dated August 19, 2010, on the Coatsworth Cut Dredging Project contract extension be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Maintenance dredging is routinely carried out within Coatsworth Cut to maintain sufficient depths within the channel for the boating community, and was last completed in 2008 with approximately 4,250 cubic metres of sediment removed from the channel. As maintenance dredging is typically required every one to years, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) completed a hydrographic (water- based) survey of Coatsworth Cut in May 2010, in anticipation that dredging would be required. The results of the survey estimated that approximately 4,000 cubic metres of sediment would need to be removed to provide the minimum depth below chart datum required for safe navigation, providing the volume on which to base the Request for Quotations to retain a dredging contractor. At Executive Committee Meeting #5/10, held on June 4, 2010, Resolution #B56/10, was approved as follows: THAT Contract RSD10 -15 be awarded to The Ontario Construction Company Limited for the channel maintenance dredging of Coatsworth Cut for the total cost not to exceed $167,990.00 plus HST, which includes a contingency amount of $5,000.00 to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including obtaining necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. The Ontario Construction Company mobilized and began dredging operations in early July 2010. On July 28, 2010 a hydrographic survey was performed to confirm that the required volume was removed by the contractor. Upon analysis of the survey it was discovered that approximately 1,500 cubic metres of additional sediment had deposited in the limits of the work area since the May 2010 survey was completed. It was determined by staff that the location and quantity of material would impede safe navigation through the channel and therefore needed to be removed. 523 RATIONALE In the interest of eliminating the hazard posed to the boaters by the additional sediment, TRCA's Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) authorized that further dredging of the obstructed area be carried out while the mobilized contractor was on site, resulting in a savings of both time and cost of mobilization and demobilization of resources to eliminate the hazard. Following the issue of a Change Order outlining the revised scope of work and contract value, the contractor proceeded with the removal of the additional 1,500 cubic metres of sediment, completing the dredging on August 13, 2010. FINANCIAL DETAILS The extra work fell under the same terms and conditions as prescribed in Contract RSD10 -15 but with a new price structure negotiated in good faith between TRCA staff and The Ontario Construction Company. The Ontario Construction Company Limited agreed to reduce their dredging rate from $31.85 to $30.20 per cubic metre removed; Contract RSD10 -15 has a revised contract value of $218,290 plus HST. Funding for the project is provided by the City of Toronto Waterfront Development 2010 budget, in account 211 -16. Report prepared by: James Dickie, 416 - 392 -9702 Emails: jdickie @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416- 392 -9725 Emails: mmcdonnell @trca.on.ca Date: August 19, 2010 ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 RES. #A169 /10 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne David Barrow THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.1 - EX10.127, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #6/10, held on August 6, 2010, be received. RES. #A170 /10 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Bill Fisch 524 CARRIED THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX11.1 - EX11.126, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/10, held on September 10, 2010, be received. CARRIED NEW BUSINESS RES. #A171/10 - MEETING ATTENDANCE Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Gay Cowbourne THAT staff report back in the spring 2011 on options regarding tracking arrival and departure times of members at Authority and committee meetings. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:49 p.m., on Friday, September 17, 2010. CARRIED Gerri Lynn O'Connor Brian Denney Chair Secretary- Treasurer /ks 525 OF'THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #8/10 October 29, 2010 The Authority Meeting #8/10, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, October 29, 2010. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Vice Chair David Barrow Member Bryan Bertie Member Laurie Bruce Member Gay Cowbourne Member Mike Del Grande Member Bill Fisch Member Pamela Gough Member Lois Griffin Member Jack Heath Member Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair Anthony Perruzza Member Maja Prentice Member John Sprovieri Member Richard Whitehead Member ABSENT Eve Adams Member Paul Ainslie Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Grant Gibson Member Suzan Hall Member Colleen Jordan Member Bonnie Littley Member Glenn Mason Member Peter Milczyn Member Ron Moeser Member Linda Pabst Member John Parker Member Gino Rosati Member 526 RES. #A172 /10 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Laurie Bruce THAT the Minutes of Meeting #7/10, held on September 17, 2010, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Catherine Purcell, Director, Parks, Recreation and Culture, Township of King, in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Cold Creek Conservation Area. RES. #A173 /10 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Pamela Gough THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #A174 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED COLD CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Summary of accomplishments by the Cold Creek Stewardship Committee and the Township of King since taking over management responsibility of the Cold Creek Conservation Area in 2006. Jack Heath Pamela Gough THAT a letter be sent to the Township of King and Cold Creek Stewardship Committee thanking them for their positive contribution to protecting and restoring the Cold Creek Conservation Area through habitat management, recreational use and educational programs. CARRIED BACKGROUND Cold Creek Conservation Area consists of 190 hectares within the Humber River watershed. The area is located on Concession Road 11, three kilometres north of the King Road midway between the communities of Bolton and Nobleton, in the Township of King, Regional Municipality of York. 527 Historically, the property was used for outdoor education and recreation programs and included many facilities dedicated to the outdoor sportsman such as hunter safety, shooting ranges, dog sled racing and remote controlled model airplanes. Cold Creek Conservation Area was closed to formal public use in 1990 due to financial constraints resulting from the decision to close the shooting range, and loss of associated revenues as well as other corporate financial pressures. TRCA initiated the preparation of a comprehensive management plan for Cold Creek Conservation Area in January 2002. This management plan includes a description and evaluation of the property based on relevant plans and policies, landscape features and functions, environmental constraints and opportunities. Establishment of a community stewardship committee was recommended in the management plan to assist with the protection, restoration and recreational activities in the Cold Creek Conservation Area. TRCA staff assisted with the establishment of the Cold Creek Stewardship Committee in 2003. Members included local residents, community groups and elected representatives. The stewardship committee together with Township of King officials felt an effective way to accelerate the implementation of the management plan was to take over responsibility for the property through a management agreement with TRCA. This was finalized in 2006. Cold Creek Conservation Area has been revived and reopened by the Township of King to provide a variety of recreational opportunities such as bird identification hikes, rock climbing, archery, cross - country skiing, and snow shoeing. The area is also home to many summer camps including Outdoor Adventure Camp and Youth Outdoor Camp. Numerous school groups visit Cold Creek for curriculum -based educational programs, leadership and team building. Working in partnership with TRCA and the Township of King, the Cold Creek Stewardship Committee has undertaken several projects including directional and educational trail signage, a trail interpretive guide, frog and bird monitoring, restorative tree planting and monitoring as well as an outreach program aimed at educating visitors about the importance of keeping their dogs on a leash while visiting the conservation area. Thanks to the financial support of the Ontario Trillium Foundation, the Region of York, TD Friends of the Environment, Water for Tomorrow, Walmart Evergreen Fund and the Benjamin Moore Foundation, renovations and repairs have been possible at the Visitor Centre, the Education Centre, boardwalk and heritage barn. New facilities include a water treatment shed, high /low ropes course and a garden which is used for educational purposes and to promote local food to students and visitors. Report prepared by: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Email: gwilkins @trca.on.ca Date: October 14, 2010 528 RES. #A175/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT, 2005 Five Year Review, EBR Posting No. 010 -9766. Provide comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on the five year review of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Bryan Bertie Lois Griffin WHEREAS the Province of Ontario is undertaking a review of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2005 through a posting by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) on the Environmental Registry (EBR Posting No. 010 - 9766); AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has mandated roles and responsibilities in the land use planning and development process as described in the staff report dated October 13, 2010; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority endorse the staff report and comments contained in Attachment 1 for TRCA's submission to MMAH in response to EBR Posting No. 010 -9766; THAT the Province be requested to incorporate amendments or new policies into the PPS, as identified by Conservation Ontario and supported by TRCA, related to: i) strengthening the policies for natural heritage and water to promote a "systems" approach, ii) increasing clarity and direction regarding the management of natural hazards as they relate to intensification proposals within Special Policy Areas and shorelines, and iii) making reference to implementation guidelines, where they exist, while updating existing older PPS implementation guidance documents and creating new ones where they are currently lacking; THAT the Province be requested to incorporate amendments or new policies into the PPS, as identified by TRCA and related to an "urban agenda" to address issues associated with major redevelopment and intensification that: i) promotes a systems approach for the management of natural heritage and water resources that incorporates protection for "locally" significant features and functions, ii) embeds the values and principles of "Green Infrastructure" for the management of water resources to achieve multiple benefits and resiliency for watersheds within the urban context, and iii) provides strong direction to conduct an integrated and comprehensive risk -based approach to managing natural hazards for intensification proposals in Flood Vulnerable Areas; 529 THAT TRCA staff seek opportunities to meet with the Province to discuss TRCA's comments and promote their incorporation into a revised PPS that supports a foundation for sustainable communities; AND FURTHER THAT member municipalities, Conservation Ontario and the Ministry of Natural Resources be so advised by the CAO's Office. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is issued under Section 3(1) of the Planning Act and sets out the Ontario government's policy direction for land use planning and development. The PPS is reviewed once every five years; the current PPS came into effect on March 1, 2005. In May 2010 the Province initiated a review of the PPS through an Environmental Bill of Rights Registry Posting (EBR #010 -9766) and has requested comments be submitted by October 29, 2010, focusing on the following six questions: 1. What policies of the current PPS are working effectively? . 2. Are there policies that need clarification or refinement? 3. Are there policies that are no longer needed? 4. Are there new policy areas or issues that the Province needs to provide land use planning direction on? 5. Is additional support material needed to help implement the PPS? 6. Do you have any other comments about the PPS? TRCA Commenting Process TRCA is commenting on the PPS five year review on the basis of: • our role as a commenting agency under the Planning Act; • our delegated responsibility from the Ministry of Natural Resources to represent the "provincial interest" regarding natural hazards, as per Section 3.1 of the PPS, 2005, when reviewing and commenting on policy documents and planning applications, as part of the Provincial One - Window Plan Review Service; • our role in providing plan review and technical advisory services related to natural hazards, natural heritage and water resources as defined in memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with member municipalities; and • our role as a watershed -based resource management agency, to represent the program and policy interests developed under Section 20 and 21 of the Conservation Authorities Act in the land use planning process. In order to provide a coordinated response on the PPS five year review, a multi - disciplinary group of TRCA staff, (including planning, ecology, engineering and hydrology staff), with experience working with the PPS were invited to participate in an internal PPS brainstorming session. This session examined the effectiveness of the current PPS and its application to day -to -day planning matters of interest to TRCA and conservation authorities in general. From the comments captured during the brainstorming session, a comprehensive chart was developed and circulated to staff for review, which resulted in TRCA staff's final PPS comment chart (Attachment 1). 530 The focus of TRCA staff comments were on three particular sections of the PPS - 2.1 Natural Heritage, 2.2 Water and 3.1 Natural Hazards. Comments on the remainder of the PPS were also collected and included as part of the response. Additionally, emerging issues within the TRCA's highly urbanized watersheds were also identified for consideration in provincial policy direction. Conservation Ontario Commenting Process Conservation Ontario (CO) compiled comments for the PPS five year review, which were endorsed by Conservation Ontario Council on October 4, 2010. Key TRCA staff with experience on various sections of the PPS were invited as members of the CO PPS Review Team and were involved in the commenting process through teleconferences, written correspondence and discussions with representatives from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). Further to the work done at staff level, it is important to acknowledge TRCA staffs' direct involvement with Conservation Ontario through their commenting process as members of the CO PPS Review Team. Based on this collaboration with CO, TRCA staff is generally supportive of the Conservation Ontario submission and has integrated some of the comments that emerged from their process into our comments. TRCA /Conservation Ontario Mutual Comments The following highlights and summarizes those themes and comments of mutual interest to both CO and TRCA. Page number references are given (in brackets) to the location of the associated specific comments in Attachment 1. The top three issues identified through the Conservation Ontario commenting process are: 1. to strengthen the policies for natural heritage and water to promote an integrated watershed "systems" approach to planning, protection and management, as opposed to the current features -based approach; 2. to update existing older PPS implementation guidance documents, where they exist, and to create new ones where they are currently lacking; and 3. to increase clarity and direction regarding the management of natural hazards as they relate to intensification proposals within Special Policy Areas and shorelines and also how and when the two -zone concept should be applied. Climate Change (pg 18) The concern of climate change is an emerging issue that must be incorporated into the planning process: • Decisions must take into account the risks arising from climate change. e Dealing with adaptation to climate change requires collaboration between all levels of government and stakeholders. • An implementation guideline is needed to assist municipalities to address climate change. This should be developed in consultation with municipalities, provincial ministries, conservation authorities and other stakeholders. 531 Systems Approach (pg 1,3,4) Greater emphasis needs to be placed on a natural systems approach as opposed to focusing on natural heritage features and areas because individual components cannot be considered in isolation when protecting a system. • Require a natural "systems" approach, which would encompass both a natural heritage system and a water resource system (as per Greenbelt Plan). • Stronger direction for a natural heritage systems approach in the PPS would improve consistency with the recently revised provincial technical guide, the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, and would also make the PPS more consistent with recent direction in other provincial plans and increase protection for natural heritage systems (including individual natural heritage features and areas) as well as the hydrologic system. Stronger Language (pg 1,2,6,8 -11) Planning authorities rely on the wording of policy to inform and defend their decisions. In this regard, opportunities to enhance and strengthen current policies were identified: • Ensure that the terminology in the PPS is as consistent with other provincial policies and plans as possible (e.g. the Greenbelt Plan, the Growth Plan, etc.) to facilitate the implementation of these policies and plans. Implementation Tools (pg 5,8,12 -14) The Province has developed a number of technical support materials to assist stakeholders with the implementation of the PPS. • No reference is made in the PPS to the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide and other supporting documents. These manuals are necessary in providing guidance to the local planning authorities to identify and map significant woodlands, valleylands and wildlife habitat, and should be specifically referenced in the policies. • Ensure that the technical guidance to support the implementation of the PPS is as up -to -date as possible and keep pace with the current policy regime. Some technical guidelines (e.g. Natural Hazards) in use have not received a detailed review since the 1980s or 1990s and must now be updated to reflect the current PPS policy regime and include climate change considerations. • An implementation guideline is needed to assist municipalities to address climate change. This should be developed in consultation with municipalities, provincial ministries, conservation authorities and other stakeholders. • An update to the Stormwater Management Manual is needed, especially as it relates to areas proposed for major redevelopment and intensification and the need for integrated watershed management to update watershed conditions, assess new risks and cumulative impacts on an ongoing basis, and how to implement the provincial expectation that these cumulative impacts will be addressed through lot level, source, conveyance and end of pipe solutions in a highly urbanized landscape. Natural Hazards (pg 8 -11) Conservation authorities have been delegated the responsibility to represent the provincial interest related to natural hazards. • Concerns have been raised about the lack of direction provided within the PPS regarding redevelopment and intensification along shorelines and more dialogue with the Province is requested to address this concern. 532 • Further provincial direction regarding Special Policy Areas (SPA) is required including definitions and criteria for `new or intensified development and site alteration', increasing land use and densities, clarity on the creation of new Tots and intensification related to the character and built form of the original SPA approval. • Discussion with the Province is requested to provide clarity about when the Two Zone Concept should be applied and how it is enacted. TRCA Specific Comments The following sections outline the main themes and issues that emerged from TRCA's comprehensive review process as detailed in Attachment 1. Page number references are given (in brackets) to the location of the associated specific comments in Attachment 1. The top three issues identified through the TRCA commenting process are similar to the Conservation Ontario issues, but more reflective of an "Urban Agenda ", given the highly urbanized nature of TRCA watersheds and provincial directions for intensification and redevelopment within existing urban boundaries. They are: 1. to strengthen the policies for natural heritage and water to promote a "systems" approach to planning, protection and management, as opposed to the current features -based approach, and in particular, to provide a strong basis for the protection of locally significant features and functions as opposed to just provincially significant features; 2. to embed into the PPS the concept, value and principles of "Green Infrastructure" for the management of water resources to achieve multiple benefits, especially through technological means in intensification areas where natural heritage systems and their water management functions have been diminished and degraded; and 3. to increase clarity and direction regarding the management of natural hazards as they relate to intensification proposals or Urban Growth Centres within Flood Vulnerable Areas that are not SPAs, and the need to promote to municipalities through the PPS an integrated and comprehensive risk -based approach to managing natural hazards that addresses flood remediation, risk - reducing urban design and flood emergency planning as part of the redevelopment /intensification planning process. Urban Agenda (pg 3,4,7,12,13) As the conservation authority with the largest urbanized and urbanizing watersheds in the Province, TRCA recommends that the PPS acknowledge the challenges unique to urban watersheds. Precedent has already been set in the PPS in its acknowledgement of differences between geographic areas of the Province (i.e. recognizing the difference in levels of protection for wetlands, woodlands and valley lands in northern Ontario and southern Ontario). A similar consideration should be given to urban and rural environments. In our role as a watershed -based resource management agency, TRCA has a growing base of scientific knowledge gained through TRCA's watershed plans and monitoring programs about the incremental and cumulative impacts of urbanization. Trends in TRCA's jurisdiction and in other highly urbanized areas of the Greater Toronto Area and the Province, require special direction under an "Urban Agenda" to plan for and accommodate pressures from intensification in an existing urban context in order to build resiliency in our watersheds, both now and in the future. 533 As municipalities amend their Official Plans (OP) for conformity with provincial plans such as the Greenbelt Plan and the Places to Grow Growth Plan, the concepts of sustainable community design are emerging. Through TRCA's participation in OP review with member municipalities we are beginning to see a greater linkage of watershed plan science and new technology to manage water resources and to enhance natural heritage systems. Concerns about local food security and climate change are driving a trend toward investment in maintaining and promoting near urban agriculture. These potentially competing, but also potentially synergistic demands for productive soils, local agriculture, natural systems enhancements and the use of new technologies in water management for sustainable community design, all demonstrate the need for additional guidance in the PPS specific to highly urbanized areas by using an integrated watershed management approach. Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) is the process of managing human activities such as land use changes and natural resources on a watershed basis. This approach allows for the protection of important water resources, while at the same time addressing critical issues such as the current, future and cumulative impacts of rapid growth and climate change. IWM is an approach that recognizes and operates based on the interconnectedness of ecology, economy and society. In doing so, IWM ensures adequate supplies of good quality water are maintained for the entire population while still preserving the hydrological, biological and chemical functions of the ecosystem. IWM is an evolving and continuous process through which decisions are made for the sustainable use, development, restoration and protection of ecosystem features, functions and linkages. Integrated watershed management allows for addressing multiple issues and objectives, and enables us to plan within a very complex and uncertain environment. Intensification and redevelopment pressures within the existing urban landscape are resulting in additional pressures being placed on natural heritage and water resource systems. This development regime of intensification places greater pressures on the already compromised existing natural system to accommodate competing land uses and increasing intensity of use for interests such as recreation and infrastructure. Additionally, there are a significant number of urban Flood Vulnerable Areas (FVA) within TRCA's jurisdiction that are currently not designated as Special Policy Areas or Two Zone Areas that are slated as Urban Growth Centres in the Places to Grow Plan or targeted by municipalities as areas for major redevelopment. Inherently, this results in a conflict between growth management, environmental protection and public health and safety, requiring additional policy direction in the PPS. The incorporation of policies to address an Urban Agenda using an integrated watershed management approach would be beneficial for these unique challenges faced in major urban areas. The following provides explanation for those issues needing to be incorporated under an Urban Agenda. 534 Climate Change (pg 18) Currently the PPS provides little emphasis to manage the impacts and risks of climate change. TRCA's large urban, intensifying and urbanizing watersheds pose further challenges associated with climate change. The Province has advanced the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 and is promoting climate change awareness. Increased regional and city interests in embarking on climate change /sustainability strategies and Green Building Standards suggests a further need to incorporate provincial direction on climate change into the PPS to provide provincial support to these emerging local initiatives. TRCA is proposing amendments to Part IV of the PPS, the Vision for Ontario's Land Use Planning System. The proposed wording would acknowledge climate change as a real issue that communities will face over time and identify it as a critical issue for building resilience to cope with anticipated impacts. Many of the other changes being recommended in other PPS policies also have the effect of addressing adaptation or mitigation of climate change impacts. We support the initiative to collaborate with all levels of government and stakeholders and at the very least receive commitment from the Province to address this issue if it does not get captured in this pending PPS update. Green Infrastructure (pg 15 -17) In order for watershed plan recommended lot level and conveyance measures to be incorporated into stormwater management, green infrastructure principles need to be embedded into the PPS. Green infrastructure is a concept that has been under discussion in the technical and scientific fields for quite some time, but has not yet been embedded in the planning regime. It is rooted in science and based on the philosophy that water sustains life and green infrastructure sustains water. Green infrastructure refers to natural green elements (street trees, woodlands, wetlands, meadows, soil, etc.) and engineered green elements (greenroofs, permeable pavement, rainwater harvesting, stormwater management ponds, etc.) that occur in urban and rural settings. Currently the PPS makes no reference to green infrastructure, nor does it provide direction to planning authorities to implement green infrastructure strategies. The PPS should acknowledge and promote the benefits of green infrastructure to existing and proposed communities, and particularly in areas that are intensifying, for its sustainable community attributes such as low impact development stormwater management practices, protection and expansion of greenspace /forest cover, protection of natural drainage, application of greenroofs, and the retrofit of stormwater systems to current standards. TRCA recommends the addition of two new policies describing the importance of green infrastructure in creating sustainable communities plus direction on where and when it shall be implemented, as well as definitions for green infrastructure, natural green elements and engineered green elements. Green infrastructure provides multiple benefits, is cost effective and needs to be valued and supported by the Province and municipalities in the same manner as traditional hard "roads and pipes" infrastructure. 535 Local Systems Approach (pg 1,3,4) As a Province -wide document, more direction needs to be given on how to manage for locally significant features in urban areas. Due to the development and intensification pressures urban communities face and because of their scarcity in these environments, local natural heritage and water resource systems are even more important to protect. The PPS needs to acknowledge the significance of these local features and systems by promoting an Urban Agenda that would allow for stronger protection of locally significant features. While some locally significant features may not be considered `significant' at the vegetation or species level, they may still provide corridors that connect to provincially significant features and contribute to overall system health. They also are an integral part of green infrastructure, contribute to the mitigation of flood and erosion hazards and provide local recreational and neighbourhood aesthetic and community character benefits. Currently, the policies on significant natural heritage features and areas are not inclusive enough to give support to the municipalities who identify locally significant features and establish Official Plan policies to protect them. The PPS should be amended, (as per Attachment 1), to provide clear and strong direction for the protection of locally significant features and areas and for their incorporation, through an integrated watershed management planning approach, into a protected natural heritage system. Natural Hazards (pg 8 -11) The PPS needs to address Flood Vulnerable Areas that are not designated or qualify as SPAs or Two -Zone Areas but have been designated as Urban Growth Centres or targeted by municipalities for major redevelopment. The One Zone flood plain policy approach is difficult to implement in some of these areas and presents economic and social implications. Given the intensification trend in our urban watersheds and the potential for cumulative and climate change impacts to increase flood risk, the PPS needs to promote that municipalities integrate a comprehensive and risk based approach to managing natural hazards as an integral part of their planning regime. Once again, an integrated watershed management approach to planning for major urbanization, redevelopment and intensification is necessary for assessing cumulative impacts over time and for undertaking regular updates to watershed hydrology to assess flooding and erosion hazards from upstream developments to downstream intensification areas, as well as from the intensification areas themselves. The Province needs to provide more direction to municipalities on flood remediation, encouraging urban design that minimizes risk, promotes comprehensive solutions to improve ingress /egress for emergency services and requires flood emergency planning as part of the redevelopment /intensification planning process. Development should not be considered unless all of these factors have been addressed. TRCA staff has identified these issues to MNR staff through the CO PPS process and have been invited to explain the issues being faced within TRCA's jurisdiction to the Provincial SPA and Growth Management /Intensification Committee, in order to facilitate consideration of policy and technical implementation options. 536 SUMMARY This PPS review has provided TRCA the opportunity to put forth comments on the PPS with direct relation to issues occurring within TRCA's jurisdiction. Because of TRCA's role as a commenting agency under the Planning Act, delegated responsibility to represent the "provincial interest" related to natural hazards, MOUs with partner municipalities, role as a water management agency and interest in natural heritage and water resource systems, it is imperative that TRCA outline our comments and concerns with respect to PPS policies and implementation. TRCA staff will continue to seek opportunities to consult with provincial staff and discuss in more detail TRCA's comments and to promote their incorporation into an updated PPS. Report prepared by: Kathy Padgett, extension 5687; Anant Patel, extension 5618 Emails: kpadgett@trca.on.ca; apatel @trca.on.ca For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361; Laurie Nelson, extension 5281 Emails: dburnett@trca.on.ca; Inelson @trca.on.ca Date: October 13, 2010 Attachments: 1 537 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section Rationale x- 1. R c ommenK a tuns e 2.1 Natural Heritage Question 1: What policies of the current PPS are working effectively? 2.1.3; 2.1.4 When natural features are designated by the Province, these policies work effectively. Question 2: Are there policies that need clarification or refinement? CO NHS 2.0 Preamble The intent of the PPS is ultimately to protect the system rather than just the features and areas (provincially significant components). This edit to the preamble is proposed to advance a systems approach and is consistent with policy 3.2.1(3) from the Greenbelt Plan (see details below). Add the following wording to Preamble: Ontario's long -term prosperity, environmental health, and social well -being depend on protecting natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage and archaeological resources for their economic, environmental and social benefits. These resources are interdependent and should be managed and protected using an integrated watershed management planning approach. CO NHS SL 2.1 It is recommended PPS terminology be as consistent as possible with provincial plans such as the Greenbelt Plan and the Growth Plan. The recommended change would make the PPS more consistent with section 3.2.1(3) of the Greenbelt Plan which states, "The Natural System is made up of a Natural Heritage System and a Water Resource System that often coincides given ecological linkages between terrestrial and water based functions." It is recommended that the name of this section be changed to "Natural Heritage System" , CO NHS SL 2.1.1 It is recommended the PPS reinforces the systems approach throughout the policies as opposed to a features based approach. It is recommended that municipalities be required to identify and protect natural heritage systems as part of an Official More emphasis should be placed on a systems approach to protecting natural heritage features and areas. Reword as follows: 2.1.1 Natural heritage systems features be and areas shall Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (strikethrough) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8110, October 29, 2010 1 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section Rationale Recommendations Plan update and consider the effects of development and other activities on the system as a whole. protected for the long term. CO SL 2.1.2 A wording change is recommended in order to strengthen the policy and make it consistent with wording in the remainder of Section 2.1. Reword as follows: 2.1.2 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long -term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should shall be maintained, restored whcrc and /or, improved, recognizing or, possible linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water foaturos systems and ground water features systems. CO SL 2.1.3 a); Glossary Since the PPS was approved the Provincial Endangered Species Act, 2007 was passed and the references to "endangered species" and "threatened species" require updating to recognize the legislation. Update the terms "endangered species" and "threatened species" throughout the document, including the glossary. CO IT SL 2.1.4 It is recommended this policy be edited to strengthen the systems approach. The term "no negative impacts" is too vague, subjective and not realistic in practice. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual states that "no negative impacts" is almost impossible to achieve as change will always cause change and therefore there will always be some impact, whether positive or negative. Therefore, an objective needs to be stated that if development is approved in these significant features, a net ecological improvement to the system is a test that must be met. This wording addition will also help address cumulative impacts. Currently, cumulative impacts are seldom considered because there is no direction for municipalities to consider it. Also, The Natural Heritage Reference Manual provides some direction on no negative impacts, but could be more specific. The manual should outline the kinds of impacts that would Reword as follows: 2.1.4 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in... unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no impacts the heritage negative on natural system aturcc or their ecological or hydrologic functions, and net ecological enhancements to the system are achieved. Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (strikethrough) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8/10, October 29, 2010 2 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section _... Rationale °E`F =r§ gum l =" Recommen`dations ` e generate a certain level of degradation and have examples of the level of degradation being referred to. Question 3: Are there policies that are no longer needed? 1 None identified. Question 4: Are there new policy areas or issues that the Province needs to provide land use planning direction on? NHS 2.1.3 or 2.1.8 It is recommended the PPS be revised to prohibit new infrastructure in Provincially Significant Wetlands unless there are no reasonable alternatives and there will be no negative impacts. Wetlands in TRCA watersheds are still being negatively impacted by infrastructure projects such as the Highway 410 extension. Reword as follows: 2.1.3 Development aad , site alteration and infrastructure shall not be permitted in: OR Add the following new policy: 2.1.8 Infrastructure shall not be permitted in Provincially Significant Wetlands unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the Provincially Significant Wetlands or on their ecological functions. CO NHS UA Policy moved from 2.1.4 b) to 2.1.3:• 2.1.3 d) PPS policies protecting significant woodlands are weak and should be strengthened. Negative impacts related to woodlands are not defined and it is very easy to demonstrate that there are no negative impacts to woodlands, even with the removal of trees. Moving the policy regarding significant woodlands from Policy 2.1.4 b) to 2.1.3 would be consistent with the Greenbelt Plan wherein Significant Woodlands are considered Key Natural Heritage Features similar to wetlands. Move the following policy: 2.1.3 d) significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield CO 2.1.4 f) g) Smaller wetlands and woodlands currently don't fall within the Add the following new policies: Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (strikethrough) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8/10, October 29, 2010 3 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section Rationale Recommendations NHS UA . • PPS definition of significant and as a result many of them are being lost. Municipalities are under no obligation to protect wetlands and woodlands that are not provincially significant through the plan review process. Too often in urban areas woodland values are minimized because the woodlands are smaller and somewhat degraded. It is recommended the PPS include policy direction for smaller wetlands and woodlots that recognizes their importance in maintaining a healthy system. 2.1.4 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: f) all other wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E; g) all other woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield identified as having ecological significance at the landscape, vegetation community or species level and /or are part of a natural heritage system. unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. NHS UA 2.1.4 h) The PPS needs to place stronger emphasis on protecting the system and managing species before they become rare. While some locally significant features may not be considered 'significant' at the vegetation or species level, they may still provide corridors (i.e. via agricultural land) and are integral to the system as a whole. Locally significant features do not become any less significant to the system because they may be considered degraded. The integrity of provincially significant features and areas is often dependent on the integrity of the rest of the system (i.e. local features), therefore it should be clarified that local features should be considered as integral to overall system health. Locally significant components of the natural heritage system and provincially significant components of the natural heritage system that the Province doesn't map will not be adequately protected unless the PPS policies are strengthened for local components, for a systems approach, and for clarification on where municipalities can seek technical guidance to determine significance. Currently, the policies are not The PPS needs to clarify that provincially significant also includes those natural heritage systems that are significant on a regional watershed and municipal (local) scale. Add the following new policy: 2.1.4 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: h) regionally and locally significant features and functions that are part of an identified natural heritage system. unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (s#ikeHfedgh) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8/10, October 29, 2010 4 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section , Rationale Recommendations inclusive enough to give support to the municipalities who identify locally significant features and establish Official Plan policies to protect them. Question 5: Is additional support material needed to help implement the PPS? IT Training required for Natural Heritage Reference Manual. IT If locally significant features are added to the PPS, a guidance document will need to be prepared to assist with interpretation and implementation. Question 6: Do you have any other comments about the PPS? 1 None identified. 2.2 Water Question 1: What policies of the current PPS are working effectively? 1 No comment. Question 2: Are there policies that need clarification or refinement? CO SL 2.2 Title It is recommended that PPS terminology be as consistent as possible with provincial plans such as the Greenbelt Plan and the Growth Plan. This change would make the PPS more consistent with the Greenbelt Plan. It is recommended that the name of this section be changed to "Water Resource System" SL 2.2.1 c) and e) It is recommended to include wording to ensure the adequate protection of ecological water supplies for aquatic habitat. Reword as follows: 2.2.1 Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by: c) identifying surface water features, ground water features, Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (strikethrouglh) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8/10, October 29 ,, 2010 5 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section Rationale Recommendations .yd, hydrologic functions aad , natural heritage features and areas and aquatic habitat which are necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of the watershed; e) maintain linkages and related functions among surface water features, ground water features, hydrologic functions and , natural heritage features and areas and aquatic habitat; SL 2.2.1 g) It is recommended to include more comprehensive wording by incorporated the term water balance so that all indicators are adequately addressed. Reword as follows: 2.2.1 Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by: g) managing for water balance by ensuring stormwater management practices minimize stormwater volumes and -_- - -• rates to: .. --t - ._ - -- 1. reduce contaminant Toads; 2. preserve ground water and baseflow characteristics; 3. prevent undesirable erosion; 4. prevent increases in flood risk potential; 5. maintain hydrological and ecological functions; and 6. maintain an appropriate diversity of aquatic life. SL 2.2.2 Recommend the use of stronger language. Reword as follows: 2.2.2 Development and site alteration shall be restricted...will be protected, improved or restored. Mitigative measures and /or alternative development approaches may shall be required in order to protect, improve or restore sensitive surface water features, sensitive ground water features, and their hydrological functions. Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (stfikethredgh) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8110, October 29, 2010 6 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section ; Rationale €t " ° "' Recommendations Question 3: Are there policies that are no longer needed? 1 None identified. Question 4: Are there new policy areas or issues that the Province needs to provide land use planning direction on? CO 2.2.1 d) It is recommended the PPS provides a link to anticipated Source Protection Planning initiatives. Add the following wording: 2.2.1 Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the qualityand quantity of water by: d) implementing necessary restrictions on development and site alteration to: 1. protect all municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas; and 2. protect, improve or restore vulnerable surface and ground water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features, and their hydrologic functions; and 3. protect existing and future drinking water sources in accordance with Source Protection Plans. UA 2.2.1 f) Include policies on innovative technologies with links to the Water Opportunities Act (i.e. synergies, by- products by other local industries). Recommend the use of stronger language as the word 'promoting' is too weak. Reword as follows: 2.2.1 Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by: f) promoting implementing efficient and sustainable use of water resources, including practices for water conservation, rain water harvesting, reuse and sustaining water quality; and Also, make reference to the Water Opportunities Act in Part IV. Question 5: Is additional support material needed to help implement the PPS? Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (str-ikethfew14) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8110, October 29, 2010 7 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section Rationale Recommendations IT 2.2.1 a) It is recommended that specific guidance /direction on how to implement and integrate watershed plans into municipal planning documents (i.e. Official Plans) be provided by the Province. The Province has developed supporting materials to assist planning authorities and decision - makers with implementing the policies of the PPS. For example, Energy Conservation, Efficiency and Supply Information Sheet. A similar Information Sheet/supporting material should be developed for implementation of watershed plans. IT Update Stormwater Management Manual. IT Develop a technical guidance manual for implementation of the PPS water section policies, similar to manuals that exist for implementation of Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard policies of the PPS. Direction is required regarding the protection of surface water features, especially headwaters. Question 6: Do you have any other comments about the PPS? CC 1 1 None identified. 3.1 Natural Hazards Question 1: What policies of the current PPS are working effectively? 3.1.1 This policy works effectively to keep development out of the floodplain. Question 2: Are there policies that need clarification or refinement? CO SL 3.0 Preamble The policy direction contained in Section 3.0 needs to be clarified in order to provide greater direction at both the watershed and site scale for the prevention of downstream flooding impacts. Currently the direction within the PPS focuses on directing development away from known hazards. However new hazards can potentially be created and /or • existing hazards aggravated through development. The purpose of this additional directive statement is to take into Add the following text to the end of the preamble: Ontario's long -term prosperity, environmental health and social well -being depend on reducing the potential for public cost or risk to Ontario's residents from natural or human - made hazards. Development shall be directed away from areas of natural or human -made hazards where there is an unacceptable risk to public health or safety or of property Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (stfikethfeugh) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8/10, October 29, 2010 8 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Thomm ,- , �SmcUon . '' `' , - Rationale . ' ^� �� � _ »'` ���,w�, , , ' . �� ` ' �Reunmmendat�ns � -` � r ,` � ^�'`,,.`, ` ``' . ,,,! ./~..~�/irit account a broader perspective on land use patterns and a cumulative effects- ased perspective on hydrologic impacts associated with development. damage. Further, development shall not create new hazards or aggravate existing hazards. CO SL 3.1.1 Make the wording for 3.1.1 consistent with wording for 3.1.2. Reword as foliows: 3.1.1 Development and site alteration shall generaily be directed to areas outside of: CO 3.1.2 There are only 10 other shafl nots' in the PPS. Given this, the policy Ianguage ntly provides a clear and unambiguous prohibition. However, experience has shown that the prohibition is questioned when balanced against other policy direction i.e. iritensification, compact communities, infihling, efficient use of land, etc. Reword as foliows: 3.1.2 Despite any other policy, with the exception of policies 3.1.3, 3.1.5 and 3.1.G.dove|opmentand site alteration shall not be permitted within: CO SL 3.1.2 e) Overall, this section is strong on flooding hazards but notas strong on erosiori hazards; the recommended edit proposes to address this issue. Add the foliowing new policy: 3.1.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: e) erosion hazards. CO SL 3.1.3 a) Changes to PoIicy 3.1.3 Special Policy Areas (SPA) are required to further clarify recent provincial direction and guidelines regarding SPAs. Need better provincial guidance on the level of intensification permitted in Special Policy Areas, iricluding criteria and definition for the phrase new or intensified development' Reword and add to the following policy: 3.1.3 Despite policy 3.1.2, developmentand site alteration may be permitted in certain areas identified in policy 3.1.2: a) In those exceptional situations where a Special Policy Area has been approved. The designation of a Specia! Policy Area, and change to the any cite cpecific poIicies or boundaries applying to a Special Policy Area, must be approved by the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Natural Resources prior to the approval authority approving such changes or modifications. No new Themes: CC — Climate Change co Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments o/ — oeen|nfrastruomre IT — lmplementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language uA — u,uan*monua EBR Posting #010-9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (str-ikethce440) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8/10, October 2Q.%O1O 9 ' TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section _ ' ' ' Rationale �� '�r ~ ' / �� Re�gmmendmt�nm -- � , �, .& '�rx �»��_ �� ��+��~�� - ' ',. . ~.~ . �.�� development, intensification or development or site alteration is permitted within a Special Policy Area unless it conforms with the policies approved for use in the designated Special PoIicy Area; or CO SL 3.1.4 a) . . The wording in its current form is very prescriptive as it relates to "institutional uses and may not capture the full scope of uses (e.g. privately run, assisted living facilities). The prohibition should Iink to the risk factor. Reword as foliows: 3.1.4 Development shall not be permitted to Iocate in hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the use is: a) an institutional use including, but not Iimited to, those associated with hospitals, nursing homes, pre-school, school nurseries, day care and schools, or similar facilities whee as there is a threat to the safe evacuation of the sick, the elderly, persons with disabilities, or the young during an emergency... CO SL 3.1.4 b) Proposed edits are intended to strengthen and clarify this policy. . Reword as foliows: • 3.1.4 Development shall not be permitted to locate in hazardous lands and ooze�ouoa� � sites ` b) an essential em service such as that provide by fire, police and ambulance stations and electrical substations, which would as itwould be impaired during an emergency as a resulting of flooding, the failure of floodproofing measures and/or protection works, and /or erosion; and... CO SL 3.1.5 To ensure consistency across the Province, clariflcation should be provided about the intent of the two-zone concept, when it should be applied and how it is enacted (much as the Special Policy Area process is dealt with in policy 3.1.3 a). Note that "two zone" is italicized and a definition has been Reword as foliows: 3.1.5 Where the two zone concept for flood plains & applied has been approved, development and s/te alteration may be permitted in the flood fringe, subject to appropriate floodproofing to the flooding hazard standard Themes: CC — Climate Change CO port for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010-9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (str-ikethfewill) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8/10, October 29, 2010 10 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 * Theme Section,. Rationale Recdm mendations Proposed. approved by the Minister of Natural Resources. CO SL 3.1.6 This addition has been proposed because currently 3.1.6 a), b), c) & d) only applies to development and site alteration within two zone areas, but this direction should be applied where development and site alteration has been permitted in certain areas as per 3.1.3. The wording proposed is to make clear that this policy (in and of itself) is not to be used as a justification for development and is only intended to supplement how such allowable development would occur. Reference to hazardous sites (defined in PPS as unstable soil and unstable bedrock) has been deleted because 3.1.6 deals with two zone flood plains and only hazardous lands (see definition in PPS) is relevant. Recommended edits: 3.1.6 Further to policies 3A.3 and 3.1.5 and except as prohibited in policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.4, development and site alternation may be permitted in those portions of hazardous lands and hazardous site:, where the effects and risk to public safety are so minor se as to be managed or mitigated in accordance with provincial standards, as determined by the demonstration and achievements of all of the following: Question 3: Are there policies that are no longer needed? None identified. Question 4: Are there new policy areas or issues that the Province needs to provide land use planning direction on? IT UA Need policies for Flood Vulnerable Areas /Flood Prone Areas that are not designated or qualify as SPAs or two- zones. • Urban areas that are subject to redevelopment, intensification or urban growth centres. ▪ The one -zone concept is too difficult to implement in these scenarios. • Economic and social impacts. Further dialogue with the Province is necessary to explain issues that are currently being faced within the TRCA jurisdiction in order to consider policy and technical implementation options. UA 1.1.3.3 The existing policy in practice has not provided sufficient direction regarding intensification and redevelopment. Add the following new sentence to the end the second paragraph: 1.1.3.3 Intensification and redevelopment shall be Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training' NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (stfikethrough) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8110, October 29, 2010 11 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section Rationale Recommendations Intensification and redevelopment within growth centres will not have an adverse impact on flood levels within the watershed. CO IT UA 1.1.3.9 The intent of the proposed policy 1.1.3.9 e) is to provide further policy direction to prevent downstream flooding impacts associated with the approval of new or enlarged settlement areas. The following new policy is recommended. 1.1.3.9 A planning authority may identify a settlement area or allow the expansion of a settlement area boundary only at the time of a comprehensive review and only where it has been demonstrated that: e) the settlement area or expansion of a settlement area will not have an adverse impact on flood levels within the watershed. CO SL UA 3.1.1 d) The intent of the proposed policy 3.1.X is to provide further ,policy direction and clarification at both the watershed and site scale to prevent downstream flooding impacts associated with approval of new or enlarged settlement areas, changes in lands use and applications for development and site alteration. As flood plain mapping for watersheds are being updated, a trend has been observed involving greater downstream flood levels resulting in larger areas susceptible to flood hazards. A factor in the existence of these enlarged flood plains could be attributed, in part, to the changes in watershed hydrology caused by urbanization. Current PPS direction focuses mainly on the prevention or management of development within known hazards but development outside the hazard area can also lead to impacts. Policy 1.1.1 c) speaks to avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause public safety concerns. In addition, Policy 2.2.1 a) and b) speak to watershed scale planning and minimizing potential negative impacts. These two policies need to be integrated and strengthened through a The following new policy is recommended: 3.1.1 Development shall generally be directed to areas outside of. - d) Further to policy 1.1.1 c) and 2.2.1 a) and b), planning authorities shall ensure that development and site alteration does not create new hazards and that existing hazards are not aggravated. • Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (stfikethfaug14) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8/10, October 29, 2010 12 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section ,r ='=' R.r °' Rationale �.� �(�' Recommendations complementary direction within Section 3.1 to clearly direct the actions of planning authorities to avoid the creation of new downstream natural hazards associated with changes to watershed land use patterns and hydrology. CO IT SL The PPS needs to be enhanced to provide better direction for development/redevelopment along the Great Lakes Shoreline. In particular, issues around shoreline protection works and intensification has been an emerging issue in recent years. An approach to protect existing development but not to facilitate intensification along shorelines is advocated both by the CA and in municipal planning documents. This issue warrants a fulsome discussion between the Province and stakeholders. Additionally, the current MNR Technical Guidelines for the Great Lakes are dated 1996 and therefore in need of updating to reflect current science and PPS policy regime. CO IT SL To ensure consistency across the Province, clarification should be provided about when the two zone concept would be applied and how it is enacted. _ Proposed for consideration: Two -zone: The two -zone concept means a contiguous flood plain area where the floodway and flood fringe have been identified through a comprehensive study. Where it can be demonstrated by a municipality that the one zone approach is too restrictive, selective application of the two zone concept may be considered on a subwatershed or major reach basis in accordance with provincial guidelines. The creation of a two zone area must be approved by the affected municipality (ies) and the Conservation Authority, or the Ministry of Natural Resources, where no Conservation Authority exists (Conservation Ontario PPS Recommendations, 2010). IT SL UA PPS needs to promote that municipalities integrate a comprehensive and risk based approach to managing natural hazards as an integral part of their planning regime. The Province should provide more direction to municipalities on flood remediation, encouraging urban design that minimizes risk, comprehensive flood solutions to improve ingress /egress Further dialogue with the Province on this issue is warranted to explain and consider policy or technical implementation options. Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (str-ikethfaug44) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8/10, October 29, 2010 13 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section `"' Rationales' - Recommendations for emergency services, and require emergency planning as part of redevelopment. Development /redevelopment should not be considered unless all these factors have been considered. It is recommended that creative redevelopment opportunities that lower flood risks be considered (e.g. Don Mouth Naturalization and Port lands Remediation). Regeneration and restoration need to be.incorporated into engineering design of remediation projects and these aspects should be included in the technical guidance provided by the Province. IT UA Within TRCA's jurisdiction, member municipalities experience urban flooding (i.e. flooding generated by runoff as opposed to riverine /shoreline flooding) and this generates many of the land use issues contemplated within the existing 'natural hazards' framework. Urban flooding should be addressed in the PPS. Further dialogue with the Province is warranted, however it is recommended that this be a place holder for future PPS updates and that further dialogue with the Province is warranted Question 5: Is additional support material needed to help implement the PPS? CO IT The technical guides that support the implementation of the PPS need to be up -to -date as possible. The MNR Technical Guides that support the implementation of Section 3.0 range in date from 1987 to 2002. As a result the Guidelines do not reflect the current policy regime of the 2005 PPS. Update MNR Flood Hazard Technical Guidelines: Appendix 6 — Floodproofingl /Safe Access to support Policy 3.1.2 (c). Add new guidance for developing flood emergency plans. Need better provincial guidance on assessment of risk for existing essential emergency services already located within hazardous lands and servicing the needs of the community. It is recommended that the Province update the Technical Guidelines to reflect the most current PPS policy regime as well as current science and technical practices. CO It is recognized that the Province updated the Special Policy Recommend the Province provide further updates to Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (etrikethreugh) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8110, October 29, 2010 14 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section ‘,.. '������ ,, , � Rationale -|�� ^� � ~�L , ��q � ' , . � "�' /' �- ' .. '4� IT UA Area Guidelines in 2008. Through experience of undertaking comprehensive reviews of SPAs within TRCA's jurisdiction, it is recommended that further updates are warranted to provide further guidance/examples of approaches to address issues of iritensification, flood emergency planning, etc. Appendix 5: SPA Guidelines to address intensification and flood emergency planning. . Question 6: Do you have any other comments about the PPS? None identified. , '�a Recornn�endaUonefor the RenmmindmrofthepPS �/ - ~ ��,' ( �6' /, ' � Question 1: What policies of the current PPS are working effectively? I |Nocomment. Question 2: Are there policies that need clarification or refinement? IT 4.8 Implementation and Interpretation The municipality requires the developer to deal with infrastructure (primarily roads) as part of the subdivision, thus avoiding the EA process. Add the foliowing paragraph to the end of 4.8: 48 In addition to land use a | to ixhn infrastructure under applicable Iegislation. The proponent is responsible for ensuring that the project planning process used to tulfill the requirements ofthe Planning Act has met the intent of the Municipal Class EA as per section A.2.9, A.2.9.1, A.2.9.2 and A.2.9.3 ofthe Municipal Class EA Document. Question 3: Are there policies that are no Ionger needed? I 1 None identified. Question 4: Are there new policy areas or issues that the Province needs to provide land use planning direction on? GI UA 1.6 Infrastructure It is recommended the PPS place more emphasis on encouraging sustainable green building design. Add the following policy: Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010-9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (stfik,et4Foug.14) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8/10, October 29, 2010 15 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section'---- , Rationale Recommendations and Public Service Facilities . 1.6.4 Infrastructure and public service facilities should be encouraged to utilize sustainable infrastructure design strategies to reduce energy and water consumption, and lifecycle costs associated with the design, construction and operation of infrastructure systems. GI 1.6.9 Green New policy is required to recognize the importance of Add the following new policy: UA Infrastructure green infrastructure in meeting multiple objectives. Green Infrastructure plays an essential role in maintaining a more natural water balance and conserving water supplies at the source. Green Infrastructure provides numerous environmental, social 1.6.9.1 Planning authorities shall encourage and support opportunities for implementing green infrastructure through land use planning and development patterns which: and economic benefits including the conservation of biodiversity and habitats, maintaining water quality, controlling erosion and enhancing recreation, tourism and neighbourhood desirability while contributing resilience to the impacts of urban growth and climate change. It is recommended to add a new policy section 1.6.9 Green Infrastructure to achieve this. (a) protects and enhances natural land forms, biodiversity and ecosystems; (b) promotes the integration of natural green elements and engineered green elements, especially in urban areas where natural green elements have been diminished or degraded; (c) improves the aesthetic (visual) quality and sense of place of all communities and landscapes; (d) contributes to the improvement of water quality through water conservation erosion control, and stormwater management practices; (e) manages water resources in a holistic and integrated manner based on protection, conservation and treatment for re -use or return to the environment; and Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (str-i.kethfooej44) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8/10, October 29, 2010 16 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme � . Section � - Rationale Recommendations (f) provides resilience to the impacts of climate change and urban growth. GI UA 1.6.9 Green Infrastructure New policy is required for direction on when and where to use green infrastructure. Add the following new policy: 1.6.9.2 Green infrastructure should be promoted at all stages of the land use planning and building design process to incorporate comprehensive and integrated water management strategies and low impact development. GI UA Glossary Include new definition for green infrastructure. . Add the following new definition: Green infrastructure: refers to (a) an interconnected network or system of natural green elements and engineered green elements; (b) a system of green areas, corridors and technologies that perform numerous environmental services in urban and rural environments GI UA Glossary Include new definition for engineered green elements. Add new following new definition: Engineered green elements: are human - created systems and technologies that are designed to mimic ecological functions to reduce environmental impacts from human activities including elements such as stormwater management ponds, green roofs, green walls, permeable pavement and rainwater harvesting. Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (stfikethr-aug.14) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8/10, October 29, 2010 17 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme Section Rationale Recommendations ..= GI UA Glossary Include new definition for natural green elements. Add new following new definition: Natural green elements: includes traditional green features such as trees, wetlands, riparian areas and buffers that should be protected and restored in a natural heritage system, as well as open space, agricultural lands and soils that provide water retention benefits. Question 5: Is additional support material needed to help implement the PPS? IT 4.9 Implementation and Interpretation Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act are included in Part IV; PPS needs to reference other provincial legislation on natural heritage systems. Reword as follows. 4.9 Provincial plans shall take precedence over policies in this Provincial Policy Statement to the extent of any conflict. Examples of these plans are created under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act arm , the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, the Greenbelt Act and the Places to Grow Act. Also use similar wording to update Page 3 of the PPS. IT 4.2 Implementation and Interpretation The issue surrounding 'old planning approvals' and municipalities not invoking the provisions within the Planning Act to eliminate /not renew old draft plan approvals, site approvals, etc. that would not meet today's planning /policy regime needs to be addressed in the PPS. While direction is given in the Planning Act regarding the issue of lapsing, it is recommended that the PPS acknowledge this more explicitly and more direction be given by the Province so that municipalities may better use this tool. Question 6: Do you have any other comments about the PPS? CC Part IV: Vision for Ontario's Land Use Planning The issue of climate change needs to be addressed in the PPS. It is recommended the Province, in collaboration with all levels of government and stakeholders, study and determine how and where within the PPS climate change can Add the following wording' The long -term prosperity and social well -being of Ontarians depend on maintaining strong communities, a clean and Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI — Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (sirikethrough) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8/10, October 29, 2010 18 TRCA Comments on PPS 5 Year Review Attachment 1 Theme' Section Rationale Recommendations-- _ -= System be integrated. This should be an action item for this PPS update. healthy environment and a strong economy... It is equally important to protect the overall health and safety of the population. The Provincial Policy Statement directs development away from areas of natural and human -made hazards, where these hazards cannot be mitigated. This preventative approach supports provincial and municipal financial well -being over the long term, protects public health and safety, and minimizes cost, risk and social disruption. The PPS also acknowledges that communities will be faced with the impacts of changing climate in the years to come. It will be critical to improve the Province's climate - resilience to ensure we can cope with the anticipated impacts of climate change and its associated opportunities and challenges. Themes: CC — Climate Change CO — Support for Conservation Ontario's Comments GI - Green Infrastructure IT — Implementation Tools and Training NHS — Natural Heritage Systems Approach SL — Stronger Language UA — Urban Agenda EBR Posting #010 -9766 Bolded (bolded) text indicates a suggested addition Strikethrough (str-ikethfaug.14) text indicates a suggested deletion TRCA Authority Meeting #8110, October 29, 2010 19 RES. #A176/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: LOWER DON TWO ZONE CONCEPT FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT POLICIES Request for approval of a Two Zone Concept flood plain management policy consistent with the policies in OPA 388. Bill Fisch Maja Prentice WHEREAS the Lower Don Two Zone Concept flood plain management policies to replace the existing Special Policy Area and One Zone flood plain management policies on the portion of the Lower Don Lands generally located north and south of the Keating Channel, west of the Don Roadway and north of the Ship Channel, as described in City of Toronto Official Plan Amendment 388 (OPA 388), have been approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and adopted by the City of Toronto; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority adopt the Two Zone Concept flood plain management policies of OPA 388, as outlined in Attachment 1 for implementation into Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Planning and Regulatory Program; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC), MMAH and MNR be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND Over the summer of 2010, TRCA Planning and Development staff worked with the City of Toronto, TWRC, MNR and MMAH on various policy amendments to implement the draft Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project (DMNP EA, to be submitted to Ministry of the Environment). At Authority Meeting #6/10, held on July 23, 2010, Resolution #A133/10 was approved, in part, as follows: ...THAT the proposed Lower Don Two Zone Concept flood plain management policies to replace the existing Special Policy Area and One Zone flood plain management policies on the lands located south of the Keating Channel, west of the Don Roadway (excluding certain lands not in the flood plain), and north of the Ship Channel, inclusive of 480 Lake Shore Boulevard East, be endorsed; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to work with the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario to refine the detailed Two Zone Concept policies and bring back the final policies for Authority adoption into TRCA's planning and regulatory program implementation... 557 Further to this, and with approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the City of Toronto adopted OPA 388 on August 27, 2010. The relevant policy section of OPA 388 is found in Attachment 1. OPA 388 replaces the Special Policy Area and One Zone flood plain management policy framework on the subject lands with a modified Two Zone Concept flood plain management planning policy approach. This approach prohibits all development on the proposed new river valley and associated 10 metre buffer identified in the draft DMNP EA while allowing a flexible approach to temporary uses in the remainder of the Port Lands to ensure the economic viability of these lands until the DMNP EA is implemented. Lands not in the flood plain slated for development such as a City of Toronto Regional Sports Centre are excluded from the Two Zone Concept. The Two Zone Concept will require that the DMNP EA, or phases thereof, be implemented prior to any development approvals being considered. This will ensure that the lands do not develop inappropriately prior to the implementation of the flood remedial works. SUMMARY It is the opinion of TRCA staff that the application of the Two Zone Concept on the subject lands, in accordance with the provisions of OPA 388, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2005 and in keeping with provincial technical procedures identified in MNR's River and Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit Technical Guideline, Appendix 4. OPA 388 has been approved by MNR and MMAH and adopted by the City of Toronto. On this basis, staff recommend that the Two Zone Concept policies of OPA 388 identified in Attachment 1 be adopted and fully implemented into TRCA's Planning and Regulatory Program. Report prepared by: Steve Heuchert, extension 5311 Emails: sheuchert @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Steve Heuchert, extension 5311; Laurie Nelson, extension 5281 Emails: sheuchert @trca.on.ca; Inelson @trca.on.ca Date: October 13, 2010 Attachments: 1 558 Attachment 1 EXCERPT FROM OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 388 Due to the risk of flooding and important site planning and environmental considerations in the Lower Don Lands, a Two Zone Concept, as desci'ibed in the Provincial Policy statement. of floodplaiu management applies to the portion of the Lower Don Lands generally located north and south of the Keating Channel, west of the Don Roadway and north of the Ship Channel, shown as Two Zone Concept on Map 3, Floodplain Lands of the Official Plan. Under the Two Zone Concept, development, excluding the construction of servicing and infrastructure forming part of the flood protection works and the proposed Promontory, shall not be permitted until all of the following has been satisfied: 1. The remedial flood protection works approved in the approved Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA are complete and in effect: 2. Updated flood line mapping haq been prepared and approved by the TRCA; 3_ Phases 1-4 inclusive of the Lower Don Lands Class Environmental Assessment Master Plan are complete and in effect; 4. The development meets the program, regulatory, and policy requirements of the TRCA; 5. Notwithstanding 1) above, development is permuted in association with phased implementation of the remedial flood protection works outlined in the approved DMNP EA, subject to: The development phase meeting all flood plain management policies with respect to ecological management, naturalization, flood remediatron (including but not limited to safe ingressiegress and flood proofing to the level of the Regulatory Flood; and no significant off site impacts to flooding) to the satisfaction of the TRCA and the City; and that development is appropriately phased without compromising the implementation of future phases of the DMNP; Assessment of the phasing plan against the implementation of the approved precinct plan(s) and transit. transportation, water, waste water and storm wvatet• and other servicing infrastructure plan: of the Lower Don Lands Class Environmental Assessment Master Plan; iii. The undertaking of adequate public consultation to obtain broad stakeholder and agency input respecting the proposed phased implementation of the remedial flood protection works: and iv. Updated flood line Wrapping prepared and approved by the TRCA for the phase in recognition that the proposed development phase is flood protected to the level of the Regulatory Flood_ 6. Notwithstanding the above, Council may_ in a by -law passed under S. 39 of the Planning Act authorize the temporary use of land, or existing buildings or structures for any purpose set out therein that is otherwise prohibited by the Zoning by -law if all of the following have been satisfied: a. The temporary use is not located on lands identified as pall of the new valley corridor. including the 10 metre buffer. m the DMNP EA_ b The temporary use will not compromise the implementation of the DM\--P EA c. The period of tune for which the authorization shall be an effect shall not exceed one year 559 EXCERPT FROM OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 388 from the day of the passing of the by-law. d. Any new stnictures must be temporary in nature and easily removable. e. Any new temporary structures must be floodproofed to the satisfaction of the TRCA. f A flood emergency response plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the TRCA and the City g. The following temporary use are prohibited: Residential uses; n. Institutional uses associated with or in the nature of hospitals, nursing homes, pre-school, school nurseries, day care and schools; Essential emergency service such as that provided by fire, police and ambulance stations and electrical substations, which would be impaired during an emergency as a result of flooding or the failure of floodproofing measures; iv. Uses .associated with the disposal, manufacture, treatment or storage of hazardous substances.. h. The •temporary use meets the program and pohcv requirement .of the TRCA. Nothing in this section will limit the ability of legal ccnforniing uses existing on the day of adoption of this bylaw to .continue to exist. Map 3. Floodplain Lands of the Official Plan 560 MO:NE CNCEPT FRKM ARSAS SMECTIO OFKIN. $51144 Ate; RES. #A177/10 - TROUTBROOKE SLOPE STABILIZATION PROJECT Class Environmental Assessment. Initiation of the Class Environmental Assessment process for the Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization Project, 35 - 51 Troutbrooke Drive, City of Toronto. Moved by: Seconded by: Maria Augimeri Bill Fisch THAT staff be directed to commence a Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization Project, located at the rear of 35 - 51 Troutbrooke Drive, City of Toronto; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto Council and Council Elect be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND In May 2009, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff completed an inspection of the rear property of 45 Troutbrooke Drive after being notified of a severe slope failure affecting a ravine section of Black Creek near Jane Street and Sheppard Avenue West. A th follow -up inspection by TRCA and Terraprobe Inc. on May 12 , 2009 confirmed that the failure area extends from 51 Troutbrooke Drive at its west limits, to 35 Troutbrooke Drive at its east limits. Nine residences are affected, although the failure appears to be most severe at 45 Troutbrooke Drive where the failure scarp has exposed the foundation wall. In July 2009, Terraprobe was retained by TRCA to determine the cause(s), effects, hazards and extent of the recent slope failure based on existing and acquired geotechnical and topographic data. Specifically, the long -term stable slope crest position was established in relation to the residential properties in the study area to determine whether any of the existing dwellings were at risk. Terraprobe determined the failure was caused by historical filling along the slope crest, as well the construction of make -shift retaining structures at the rear of the properties. Furthermore, Terraprobe concluded that there is significant risk of additional failures within the slope fill near the crest and recommended major slope restoration and stabilization works. Since completing the geotechnical and slope stability assessment, Terraprobe has been retained by TRCA to continue monthly monitoring of the slope movement to ensure that the homes are not at risk. TRCA and Terraprobe staff have met with City of Toronto Building Department staff to discuss the results of the slope stability assessment. The findings of the ongoing monitoring have been sent to City staff. Since commencing the monitoring program, Terraprobe has reported further slumping and erosion of soils near the original area of failure. Visual observations indicate that in addition to 45 Troutbrooke Drive, the foundation wall of #47 is also now exposed. RATIONALE While the existing slope is considered adequately safe and stable against deep seated failures, the erosion adjacent to the dwellings and failure of the existing retaining structures is limiting or precluding the homeowners access to their rear properties. Ongoing slumping and further erosion near the failure scarp poses an ongoing safety issue for the homeowners. 561 Based on the results of the geotechnical and slope stability assessment, the Troutbrooke Drive site has been identified as a priority area for remedial works under TRCA's Erosion Control Program. Terraprobe has been contracted to determine the extent and nature of fill material and to expedite work on the preparation of remedial options to address the slope instability. Staff is recommending that planning and detailed designs be carried out to minimize risk to life and property as a result of the erosion of the valley wall, while protecting and enhancing the natural attributes of the Black Creek valley. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The planning and design phases of this project will be carried out under the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Project (2002). The Class EA approach is considered a suitable means for the planning of remedial flood and erosion control projects as it provides a consistent, streamlined process that ensures compliance with Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) requirements. The Class EA process for this project will identify and evaluate a range of alternatives to determine a preferred solution. The Class EA process involves the inclusion of members of the general public including; affected landowners, public interest groups, and any other interested parties in the planning and design phases of the project lifecycle. ' Interested individuals are provided with opportunities to offer recommendations on the development of the remedial solutions, and objections to design proposals where appropriate. FINANCIAL DETAILS As per TRCA's policy regarding contributions by private property owners for works carried out on private lands, benefiting landowners will be required to contribute to the cost of the project, either financially, or through the transfer of lands. Following the selection of a preferred solution staff will determine if title to the property is required. If it is determined that title to the property is not required, the need for a permanent easement over the private property for the work area and access route will be assessed. A cash contribution in accordance with the approved funding formula will also be required. TRCA's Erosion Control Program is significantly limited in its ability to undertake major maintenance works on existing erosion control works, to construct new erosion control works and to provide assistance in high risk erosion sites in a timely manner due to a lack of available funding. A record number of slope failures were reported in the City of Toronto in 2009. However, funding for the program has remained static, preventing TRCA from responding in a timely fashion to erosion hazard sites. 562 Based on the range of potential options available to address the slope failure, staff has estimated that the cost to complete the planning, design and implementation of the remedial works is in the order of $1,000,000 to $1,500,000. Funding is available in TRCA's Valley and Shoreline Erosion Control 2010 budget under account code 139 -37 to undertake only the planning and design phase. TRCA has requested an additional $1,255,000 as part of TRCA's 2011 Toronto Capital Budget request to implement the preferred solution at Troutbrooke. TRCA's ability to implement the proposed solution is contingent upon receipt of additional funding from the City of Toronto in 2011. Report prepared by: Lindsay Prihoda, 416- 393 -6346 Emails: Iprihoda @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Emails: Itephenson@trca.on.ca Date: October 04, 2010 Attachments: 1 563 Attachment 1 564 RES. #A178/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: YORK - PEEL - DURHAM - TORONTO GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY Approval of Agreement 2010 -2012. Recommends Toronto and Region Conservation Authority enter into a three -year agreement with Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority for the York -Peel- Durham - Toronto Groundwater Management Study. Bill Fisch Maja Prentice WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) entered into a three year agreement with Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) in 2007 for provision of project management services for the York -Peel- Durham - Toronto (YPDT) Groundwater Management Study (Resolution #A83/07); AND WHEREAS the services under the previous agreement were provided to the satisfaction of TRCA, the municipal funding partners and the other CAs partnered in the groundwater program; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT an agreement with CLOCA to provide ongoing project management and technical services to the partner agencies be approved at a cost not to exceed $400,000, plus applicable taxes, per calendar year for the period January 2010 to December 31, 2012; THAT this agreement be on terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitors, if necessary; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized officials be directed to take the necessary actions to implement the agreement including obtaining approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #3/07, held on April 27, 2007, Resolution #A83/07 for the provision of project management services for the YPDT Groundwater Management study was approved as follows: THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a three year agreement with CLOCA to provide ongoing project management services to the partner agencies be approved at a cost not to exceed $200,000, plus applicable taxes, per calendar year, THAT this agreement be on terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitors; THAT the appropriate officials be authorized and directed to execute all necessary documentation required; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the status of the York - Peel - Durham - Toronto Groundwater Management project. 565 Since its inception in 2001, this study has provided significant benefits to TRCA as well as the other conservation authority and municipal partners. As required by Authority Resolution #A83/07, staff has provided annual updates to the Authority documenting major accomplishments. With the expiry of the previous agreement, a new agreement is required. YPDT Groundwater Management project is directed by a Steering Committee consisting of senior staff representatives of the various funding partners, the Regions of Peel, York and Durham, the City of Toronto, TRCA, CLOCA and other CA's. TRCA requests annual funding on behalf of the Steering Committee from the Regions of Peel, York, Durham and the City of Toronto and administers the funds on behalf of the group. RATIONALE The YPDT -CAMC (Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition) groundwater initiative continues to contribute insightful, practical deliverables to the partner agencies. The key focus areas of the groundwater program continue to be data management, geological understanding, numerical groundwater modelling and policy development. A large part of the success of the initiative has been the delivery of data and tools at a practical level to partner agency staff and their consultants who are charged with understanding the groundwater system for a variety of day -to -day issues, including water supply impact assessments and wellhead protection area delineation. For 2010, the YPDT -CAMC technical steering committee recommended that staff take a larger role in the work to increase internal knowledge and capacity, and to expedite key tasks involving the database and geologic model enhancements. This shift in responsibilities has increased the overall workflow for YPDT -CAMC staff, with a corresponding decrease in consultant contract assignments. The technical steering committee will continue to review the annual workplans and ensure that the goals and objectives of this program are met. Projects undertaken by the YPDT -CAMC staff and consultants to date include verification of water well locations, drilling of strategic boreholes, geophysics (seismic and downhole), data model construction and geologic and groundwater flow modelling. This work has been paid for by annual contributions by the municipal partners, supplemented by provincial funding (Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM), Ministry of the Environment (MOE), and Ministry of Natural Resources). The YPDT -CAMC groundwater management program has four contract staff. Salaries, benefits, office costs and other disbursements are paid out of the annual contributions to the program by the senior partners (regions of York, Peel, Durham, and the City of Toronto). The shift of some work from consultants to contract staff has resulted in improved delivery of the program. Total costs of the program remain largely unchanged as a result of the shift but the annual costs" covered under the CLOCA -TRCA arrangement have increased. This arrangement is expected to continue through 2012. 566 FINANCIAL DETAILS The $400,000 for the first year of this new three -year agreement is currently in the budget, account #104 -90. In 2011, as in recent years, this will be funded through contributions from the regions of Durham, York and Peel and the City of Toronto. The 2011 budget request of each municipal partner is $125,000. Future amounts for the second and third years of this agreement will be covered through annual municipal contributions to the program. CLOCA has provided four staff for this project since 2001, and this arrangement will continue through the period of this agreement. Report prepared by: Don Ford, extension 5369 Emails: dford @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Steve Holysh, extension 5588 Emails: sholysh @trca.on.caDate: October 04, 2010 RES. #A179/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: FILL ENCROACHMENT ON TRCA LANDS Adjacent to Lots 66 to 69, Plan 43M -1629, CFN 44732. Authorization to commence legal action to resolve a fill encroachment onto Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned lands adjacent to Lots 66 to 69, Plan 43M -1629 (Estate of Valley Creek), City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel. John Sprovieri Maja Prentice THAT authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to commence legal action as necessary to resolve a fill encroachment onto TRCA -owned lands adjacent to Lots 66 to 69, Plan 43M -1629 (Estate of Valley Creek), City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel. CARRIED BACKGROUND In mid 2005, unauthorized fill was place on TRCA -owned land at the rear of Lots 66 to 69, Plan 43M -1629, municipally known as 32, 34, 36 and 38 Valleyside Trail. It would appear that this fill was placed by the builder (Lakeview Homes) of homes in the adjacent Estates of Valley Creek subdivision. The owner of the subdivision is 939843 Ontario Ltd. (Giampaolo Investments) and their consultant is Candevcon Limited Engineers & Planners. This matter was first brought to the attention of TRCA in July of 2005. At that time TRCA's Enforcement staff documented the extent of the problem. The fill appeared to be approximately one to two metres in depth and covers approximately 1,200 square metres. The fill is not in a regulated area. 567 TRCA was contacted by one of the adjacent property owners in June of 2006. A site meeting was held in July of 2006 with Candevcon and they agreed to submit a restoration proposal for the encroachment. TRCA received two proposals from Candevcon, the first one in July of 2006 and the second one in January of 2007. Both proposals were unacceptable to TRCA staff as they did not involve the removal of the fill from TRCA property. In October of 2007, Candevcon retained Strybos Barron King Landscape Architects to prepare a restoration plan. At that time Candevcon also requested permission, which was granted, to access the site to determine the depth of fill. TRCA received the restoration plan in November of 2007. However, in spite of numerous requests, the grading plan identifying the fill to be removed has not been received. As a result of lack of action on the part of 939843 Ontario Ltd. (Giampaolo Investments) and recent discussions with Regional Councillor John Sprovieri who represents the area and has had discussions with area residents, TRCA staff is seeking direction to take legal action if necessary, to resolve the issue. Staff will make a further effort to arrive at an acceptable solution failing which legal action may be taken. Report prepared by: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: mfenning @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 or Ron Dewell, extension 5245 Emails: mfenning @trca.on.ca or rdewell @trca.on.ca Date: October 12, 2010 RES. #A180/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF RESOLUTION #A94/09 Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned Land, Rear of 2175 Lakeshore Boulevard West City of Toronto, Lake Ontario Waterfront, CFN 38910. Request for amendment of Resolution #A94/09 from South Beach (Lakeshore) Developments Limited for an extension to the time periods for the temporary licence for construction of the parking structure under a parcel of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned land located south of Lakeshore Boulevard West, east of Parklawn Road, City of Toronto, Lake Ontario waterfront. Bill Fisch Maja Prentice THAT Resolution #A94/09 adopted at Authority Meeting #5/09, held on June 26, 2009 be amended as follows: 568 Delete the following clauses: THAT TRCA will grant South Beach a temporary licence for a period of two years commencing within four years of the closing date for construction of the parking structure; THAT South Beach is to provide a letter of credit in the amount of $400,000 to ensure that the restoration of the property is completed to the satisfaction of TRCA and the City of Toronto; Add the following clauses: THAT TRCA will grant South Beach a temporary licence for a period of four years commencing within ten years of the closing date for construction of the parking structure; THAT South Beach is to provide a letter of credit in the amount of $400,000 (increased annually by the Consumer Price Index for Ontario) to ensure that the restoration of the property is completed to the satisfaction of TRCA and the City of Toronto; • CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting # 5/09 held on June 26, 2009, the Authority adopted Resolution #A94/09 as follows: THAT WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from South Beach (Lakeshore) Developments Limited to purchase subsurface rights, a parcel of land and grant easements on the parcel of TRCA -owned land located south of 2175 Lakeshore Boulevard West; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interests of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to complete a sale of subsurface rights, a parcel of land and grant easements to South Beach (Lakeshore) Developments Limited in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA finalize a transaction with South Beach (Lakeshore) Developments Limited on the following basis: (a) TRCA sell subsurface rights for an underground parking structure for parking, utilities, heating and air - conditioning services in TRCA -owned lands containing 0.125 hectares (0.309 acres), more or less, the upper limit of the strata will be at a depth of at least 1.5 metres below grade and the lower limit of the strata is to be approximately 30 metres below grade of the property described Part of the Bed of Lake Ontario in front of Lot 29, Registered Plan 1176, City of Toronto being Part 2 on draft reference plan prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited under their Reference No. 07- 22- 731 -04 -A; 569 (b) TRCA sell a parcel of land for an emergency pedestrian exit stairway containing, 0.003 hectares (0.008 acres), more or less, described Part of the Bed of Lake Ontario in front of Lot 29, Registered Plan 1176, City of Toronto being Parts 5 and 6 on draft reference plan prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited under their Reference No. 07- 22- 731 -04 -A; (c) TRCA grant permanent easements for maintaining and repairing the parking structure and facilities and constructing, maintaining and repairing an emergency pedestrian exit stairway over the land containing 0.122 hectares (0.301 acres), more or less, described Part of the Bed of Lake Ontario in front of Lot 29, Registered Plan 1176, City of Toronto being Parts 1 and 4 on draft reference plan prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited under their Reference No. 07 -22- 731 -04 -A; (d) TRCA grant a permanent easement for access from the stairway to Marine Parade Drive over the land containing 0.008 hectares (0.019 acres), more or less, described Part of the Bed of Lake Ontario in front of Lot 29, Registered Plan 1176, City of - Toronto being Part 4 on draft reference plan prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited under their Reference No. 07 -22- 731 -04 -A; THAT consideration be the sum of $1,280,000 plus TRCA will be paid an addition sum based on 50% of $36.47 per square feet of residential gross floor area (GFA) should the GFA of TRCA property exceed the original GFA of 34,000 square feet used to calculate the consideration; THAT TRCA will transfer all density rights to South Beach (Lakeshore) Developments Limited attributable to the TRCA -owned lands; THAT TRCA will grant South Beach a temporary licence for a period of two years commencing within four years of the closing date for construction of the parking structure; THAT South Beach is to provide a letter of credit in the amount of $400,000 to ensure that the restoration of the property is completed to the satisfaction of TRCA and the City of Toronto; THAT said conveyance is subject to the necessary Planning Act approvals; THAT said conveyance is subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27 as amended; AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the execution of any documents. The sale of the subsurface rights to South Beach (Lakeshore) Development Limited was completed on October 1, 2010. At the time of closing South Beach requested an extension to the time periods for the temporary licence for construction of the parking structure. South Beach has requested the time frame for construction be increased from two years to four years. They indicated that a two year construction time frame was very optimistic and left no buffer in case of unforeseen complications. 570 Also South Beach has requested an extension to the time to commence construction of the parking structure from four years to 10 years. South Beach has identified two factors that have influenced their decision to request this extension. The first relates to the change in the economy since the deal was negotiated in mid -2007. The other factor is that the sale was completed in advance of all of the City of Toronto planning approvals being obtained. To date, South Beach has obtained amendments to the Official Plan and the Zoning By -law. These approvals have given them sufficient comfort to waive the condition relating to planning approval and complete the transaction. Still outstanding is the Land Owner's Precinct Plan. A Precinct Plan is developed in consultation with the City to ensure a coordinated network of roads, streets and blocks, and integrated servicing and grading, prior to allowing development on individual sites. South Beach has to complete the Precinct Plan and Site Plan Control for construction to proceed. With this additional work and the change in the economy, South Beach is concerned that they may not be in a position to start construction within the four year time frame and has requested an extension. The only concern identified is that with inflation the $400,000 letter of credit may not be sufficient in 10 years to ensure restoration of TRCA property. South Beach has agreed to increase the letter of credit annually by the Consumer Price Index for Ontario. Through this sale TRCA has retained ownership of the surface rights which are being managed as parkland by the City of Toronto. Staff has had discussions with staff at City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation, Legal Services, and Planning departments regarding this request. City staff has indicated that an extension of time to the developer for access through the surface lands being retained by TRCA seems to be a reasonable request. It is in the best interest of all the parties that the extension of the time for access be allowed to permit the build out of the entire development, including the parkland. Report prepared by: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: mfenning @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223, or Ron Dewell, extension 5245 Emails: mfenning @trca.or.ca, or rdewell @trca.on.ca Date: October 08, 2010 RES. #A181/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: 2011 FEE SCHEDULE Changes to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2010 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming. Bill Fisch Maja Prentice THAT the Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming be amended as set out in Attachment 1 to the report dated October 14, 2010, and become effective January 1, 2011. CARRIED 571 BACKGROUND Each year staff conducts a review of the TRCA Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming to determine any changes. Throughout 2009 and 2010, Parks and Culture Division has added several new offerings and improvements to its facilities such as Heart Lake and Petticoat Creek aquatic facilities. Staff proposes to increase fees in order to reflect the recent improvements and infrastructure upgrades. RATIONALE The following outlines the highlighted areas of proposed fee increases and restructuring: • General Admission at Petticoat Creek and Glen Haffy conservation areas have increased to be on par with the other TRCA conservation areas. • Group Camping offerings have been consolidated to two locations Indian Line and Albion Hills conservation areas as these locations provide the amenities and services for overnight groups. • Day Camper fees have been increased to reflect the cost of the program delivery. • Group picnic site permit fees has been streamlined and restructured. in order to facilitate on -line bookings and price equity. • Pool admission fees to Petticoat Creek and Heart Lake aquatic facilities have increased to reflect the new offerings. • Cross - country ski trail fees at Albion Hills have increased to reflect industry standard. • Guided tour fees at Black Creek Pioneer Village have increased to be inclusive of program reservation fee. Staff has closely evaluated pricing structures of programs similar in operations to TRCA across the GTA. The evaluations determined that TRCA's proposed 2011 fees will remain competitive with like facilities. The proposed changes are recommended in order to offset projected increased operating costs as well as significant capital project investments. In August of 2009, staff commenced funding negotiations with the City of Pickering for the required Petticoat Creek RInC pool project funds of $1 million. However, following negotiations and several delays in bringing the partnership funding proposal before City of Pickering Council, it was brought to TRCA's attention that the City of Pickering had not allocated any financial resources towards the project in their 2010 - 2011 budgets. Due to the lack of financial commitment by the City of Pickering in regard to providing the remaining $1 million for the project and the tight timeliness at hand, staff proposed to implement internal funding methods to cover the required remaining 33% of the project costs. TRCA has sufficient cash flow to mitigate the need for borrowing the required $1 million. Subsequently, at Authority Meeting #2/10, held on March 26, 2010, Resolution #A27/10 for the redevelopment of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool was approved, in part, as follows: ...THAT the fee structure ensure that the project pay back the $1 million within approximately 5 years of opening; THAT staff report back on the fee structure in 2011;... The proposed general admission and pool admission fee increases at Petticoat Creek Conservation Area will generate an additional revenue of $88,500 in 2011, with a minimum of $50,000 going towards TRCA reserves to pay back for the construction of the facility as follows: 572 Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Admission Fee Comparison Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Income Statement Comparison REVENUE 2009 2010 Proposed $443,124 $610,000 Total Expenditures 2011 General Admission - Adult $5.00 $5.50 $6.50 General Admission - Senior $4.00 $4.25 $5.50 Pool Admission $3.50 $3.75 $4.75 Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Income Statement Comparison REVENUE 2007 -2009 Budget (3 Year Average) 2011 Projected Budget Total Revenue $443,124 $610,000 Total Expenditures ($434,622) ($473,000) NET $8,501 $137,000 Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Projected 6 Year Income Statement Following Construction of New Aquatic Facility Should annual net incomes exceed projected amounts, more funds may potentially be paid back to the TRCA reserve, therefore, shortening the duration of the payback schedule. Changes to the 2010 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming are outlined in Attachment 1. Report prepared by: Martha Wilson, extension 5674 Emails: mwilson @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards @trca.on.ca Date: October 14, 2010 Attachments: 1 573 2011 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Gross Revenue $610,000 $646,600 $685,396 $726,520 $770,111 $816,317 $865,297 Gross Expenditure ($473,000) ($487,190) ($501,806) ($516,860) ($532,366) ($548,337) ($564,786) Net Income $137,000 $159,410 $183,590 $209,660 $237,745 $267,980 $300,511 Pay Back to Reserve 50,000 $100,000 $125,000 $125,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 Should annual net incomes exceed projected amounts, more funds may potentially be paid back to the TRCA reserve, therefore, shortening the duration of the payback schedule. Changes to the 2010 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming are outlined in Attachment 1. Report prepared by: Martha Wilson, extension 5674 Emails: mwilson @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards @trca.on.ca Date: October 14, 2010 Attachments: 1 573 Attachment 1 Changes To The 2010 Fee Schedule For 2011 - Public Facilities and Programmin Item Description 2010 Base 2010 Gross 2011 Base 2011 Gross Plus HST HST Included Plus HST HST Included 1.0 For general admission at Conservation Areas, per day; 11 For each adult from sixteen to fifty -nine years of age at Glen Haffy and Petticoat Creek. 5 50 6.50 1 -2 For each adult from sixteen to fifty -nine years of age at Conservation Areas_ 6 50 6.50 1.3 For each senior sixty years of age or over at Glen Haffy; and Petticoat Creek. 4.25 5.50 1 4 For each senior sixty years of age or over at Conservation Areas 5.50 5.50 5.0 For a permit to use a designated group campsite at Glen Haffy, Heart Lake, Boyd, Petticoat Creek and Bruces Mill, subject to a limit of seven nights use, per night; for a group of up to twenty persons; 5.1 For a group of up to twenty persons 100.00 nia 5.2 For each additional person, in conjunction with a permit issued under item 5.1 3.25 n/a 6.0 For each day camper, not overnight, per day, inclusive of general admission. 2 75 3.00 11.0 . For a permit to occupy a group campsite at Albion Hilts or Indian Line for a group of up to twenty persons, inclusive of general admission; 11.1 For a permit to occupy a group campsite for a group of up to twenty persons, inclusive of general admission; 250.00 250.00 11.2 at Albion Hills Pleasantview group campsite, for a youth group. 200.00 n/a 11.3 at Albion Hills Meadowvale or Cedar Grove group campsite, for an adult group 200.00 n/a 11.4 at Albion Hills Meadowvale or Cedar Grove group campsite, for a youth group. 165.00 n/a 11 5 at Indian Line group campsite, for an adult group 250.00 nra 11.6 at Indian Line group campsite, for a youth group. 200 00 rtla 11.7 For each additional person per night, in conjunction with a permit issued under items 11 1 5 00 5.00 12.0 Fora permit for the use of a group picnic site, exclusive of general admission; 70.00 to 500.00 155.00 to 500.00 14.0 14 1 For admission to aquatic facilities exclusive of general admission; Per day at Albion Hills, for each person two years of age or over 3.75 3.75 14.2 Per day at Petticoat Creek and Heart Lake, for each person two years of age or over n/a 4.75 574 Changes To The 2010 Fee Schedule For 2011 - Public Facilities and Programmin Item Description 2010 Base 2010 Gross 2011 Base 2011 Gross 15.0 For the use of cross - country ski traits at Albion Hills. inclusive of general admission; 15 1 For each person from sixteen to fifty nine years of age. 16.00 18.00 15.2 For each child five to fifteen years of age. 9 00 10.25 15 4 For each senior sixty years of age or over 13 00 14.75 15-5 For a family of one or two adults and their children who are fifteen years of age or under 40 00 45.00 16.0 For the use of cross - country ski trails at Albion Hills, inclusive of general admission, after 1 p.m.; 161 For each person sixteen to fifty nine years of age 13.00 14.75 16.2 For each child five to fifteen years of age. 7.00 8.00 16.3 For each child four years of age or under. 16 4 For each senior sixty years of age or over. 11.00 12.50 16 5 For a family of one or two adults and their children who are fifteen years of age or under. 30 00 34.00 20.0 For parking at Black Creek Pioneer Village, per vehicle, per day, exclusive of general admission. 6.00 7.00 21.0 For general admission to the Black Creek Pioneer Village, during the regular operating season, per day; 21.6 For each student participating in a general tour program, subject to a minimum group size of twenty persons 10.00 10.50 21.7 For each student participating in a specially designated tour program, subject to a minimum group size of twenty persons. 11 00 11.50 21.8 For each student participating in a designated activity program, subject to a minimum group size of twenty persons. 13.00 13.50 21.9 For each student participating in the Dickson Hill School program, per day, subject to a minimum group size of twenty persons 10.00 10.00 21.10 For each student participating in an at day program in March and April 18.50 23.0 For a Guided Tour at Black Creek Pioneer Village, as part of a tour group with a reservation, including general admission; 23 1 For each adult from sixteen to fifty -nine years of age, subject to a minimum group size of twenty persons. 16.00 16.50 23.2 For each senior sixty years of age and over, subject to a minimum group size of twenty persons. 15.00 15.50 575 RES. #A182/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: AUDIT SERVICES Appointment. Recommends appointment of auditors for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto for a five year term and appointment of BDO Dunwoody as, auditors for the Rouge Park. Bill Fisch Maja Prentice THAT the contract for Audit Services be awarded to Grant Thornton at an initial annual cost not to exceed $46,725.00, plus applicable taxes for 2010 and an annual increase of two to four per cent for the following four years, for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto (CFGT); THAT, pursuant to Section 38 of the Conservation Authorities Act, the firm of Grant Thornton be appointed auditors of TRCA, effective November 1, 2010; THAT the term of the engagement be for five years subject to annual appointments by the Authority based on satisfactory performance; THAT CFGT be advised of the results of the proposal call process with the recommendation that the Board of Directors of CFGT appoint Grant Thornton as CFGT auditors under similar terms and conditions; AND FURTHER THAT the contract for Audit Services for the Rouge Park Alliance be awarded to BDO Dunwoody at a total cost not to exceed $5,000.00, plus applicable taxes for 2010 and an annual increase of zero to ten per cent for the following four years, subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA and approval of the Rouge Park Alliance. CARRIED BACKGROUND Section 38 of the Conservation Authorities Act requires every conservation authority (CA) to be audited annually, and that the auditor is to be independent of the CA. The contract period for the existing audit services has expired. A new competition for audit services was conducted in September 2010. A Request for Proposals was released for selection of an individual or company to provide external audit services as required by the Conservation Authorities Act. Included in the proposal call is the audit for The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto. The CFGT which appoints its own auditor, has agreed to participate in the proposal. TRCA acts for the Rouge Park Alliance because the Alliance is not a legal entity. The proposal call consisted of nine organizations, each of whom would separately select the auditors based upon the responses. The nine organizations were: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Foundation, Conservation Ontario, World Green Building Council, Rouge Park Alliance, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Foundation. The proposal call closed on Friday, September 24, 2010. 576 The proposal call was advertised using the MERX Canadian Public Tenders Service. This is a Canada -wide electronic tendering service. A number of Greater Toronto Area based firms were contacted and directed to the MERX website. RATIONALE The following firms submitted proposals for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto: • KPMG; • Deloitte & Touche; • Grant Thornton; • Price Waterhouse Coopers. In addition to the above -noted companies, BDO Dunwoody submitted a proposal for the Rouge Park Alliance. All organizations were evaluated on their qualifications, experience, understanding of the sector and the fees and estimated hours of service to complete the assignments. All proponents were found to be qualified to conduct the audits required. Deloitte & Touche presented the lowest 2010 fees ($42,500) but also estimated significantly fewer hours for both TRCA and CFGT 2010 audits. Grant Thornton presented the second lowest fees at 10% higher than Deloitte & Touche and estimated about 80 per cent more hours than Deloitte & Touche. Both proponents also submitted five year projections of their fees which included reasonable increases for inflation. Grant Thornton is the current external auditor for both organizations and, over the term of their appointment, audits have been completed to the satisfaction of staff. The cost to transition to a new audit firm in terms of educating audit staff unfamiliar with the complexity of TRCA operations would be significant and would more than offset the differential in fees (about $4,225 in year one) between the two low bidders. Staff recommends that the contract for audit services should be awarded to Grant Thornton for TRCA and CFGT. KPMG presented the lowest 2010 fees and significantly fewer hours for Rouge Park Alliance audit. BDO Dunwoody presented the second lowest fees at 12 per cent higher than KPMG and estimated more realistically the hours required to complete the audit. In discussion with KPMG, they have declined acceptance of the Rouge Park Alliance audit services. Staff recommends that the contract for audit services for the Rouge Park be awarded to BDO Dunwoody subject to approval of the Rouge Park Alliance. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds are available within account 020 -20 in the Operating Budget from TRCA's municipal partners. The 2009 audit fees were $31,500 for TRCA and $4,000 for CFGT for a total of $35,500, plus HST. The awarding of this contract will result in combined annual fees of $46,725, plus HST for 2010 and an increase of two to four per cent annually for the following four years. 577 The awarding of the contract for Rouge Park Alliance will result in an annual fee of $5,000, plus HST for 2010 and an increase of zero to ten per cent annually for the following four years. Report prepared by: Janice Darnley, extension 5768 Emails: jdarnley @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Janice Darnley, extension 5768 Emails: jdarnley @trca.on.ca Date: October 14, 2010 RES. #A183 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY -OWNED LAND West side of Weston Road, north of Highway No. 401, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), CFN 43289. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is in receipt of a request for a land exchange of a parcel of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority land located on the west side of Weston Road, north of Highway No. 401, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #8116/10) Bryan Bertie David Barrow THAT item EX7.1 - Request for Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned Land be received. RES. #A184 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED PORT UNION WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE 2) Tender RSD10 -30. Award of Tender RSD10 -30 for the supply and delivery of approximately 10,000 tonnes of 75mm -200mm cobbles. (Executive Res. #8117/10) Bryan Bertie David Barrow THAT Contract RSD10 -30 for the supply and delivery of approximately 10,000 tonnes of 75mm -200mm cobbles to the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project (Phase 2), City of Toronto, be awarded to Fowler Construction Company Limited for a total unit price of $24.85 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $248,500.00, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; 578 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining needed approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A185 /10 - REVISED PROJECT FOR THE ETOBICOKE MOTEL STRIP WATERFRONT PARK (Revised March, 1993) V. and E. Gadzala Holdings Limited and 412264 Ontario Limited, CFN 24191. Settlement of costs resulting from the expropriation of lands from V. and E. Gadzala Holdings Limited and 412264 Ontario Limited. (Executive Res. #B 120/ 10) Moved by: Seconded by: Bryan Bette David Barrow THAT confidential item EX7.3 - Revised Project for the Etobicoke Motel Strip Waterfront Park (Revised March, 1993) be approved; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back when the item is completed and can be made public. SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES. #A186 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED 2010 FINANCIAL PROGRESS REPORT August 31, 2010. Receipt of 2010 Financial Progress Report, as of August 31, 2010. Jack Heath Pamela Gough IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) 2010 Financial Progress Report as of August 31, 2010, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND As part of TRCA's financial management process, staff provide to the Authority financial progress reports. This report relates to operating and capital variances as of August 31, 2010 and projected year -end status. RATIONALE A year -end operating budget deficit of $281,000 is projected based on analysis of revenues and expenditures to the end of August. Key pressures consist of: 579 • unrealized revenue in the conservation areas due to poor weekend weather conditions which was partially offset by underspending leaving a pressure of approximately $192,000; • funding from The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto will likely fail to achieve target by $100,000; and, • the field centres experienced lower than anticipated bookings which were partially offset through cost savings resulting in a pressure of $75,000. The projected 2010 year end capital financial status includes a number of variances from budget. Reasons for these variances include such factors as: • delays in obtaining various approvals, and /or property acquisitions sometimes resulting in funding being carried to the following year, for example Mimico Phase 11 is projecting $1,745,000 to be carried into 2011; • projecting additional funding of about $4,0,00,000 becoming available during the year to fund land acquisitions beyond the budget; • additional funds which became available during the year for special projects, for example the Warden Woods Park trail realignment and resurfacing projecting $325,000 and the Bluffers park dredging projecting $240,000; cancellation of projects such as the $120,000 project for Ministry of Natural Resources dam survey due to funds not being secured; • a common theme where funding is received for projects which are multi -year in nature, for example the Seaton trail project which received $600,000 provincial funding of which $200,000 will carry forward to 2011. Budgets for these projects will carry forward until the completion of the project. • Based on the following, there is a projected 2010 capital surplus of approximately $500,000: special restoration projects which will produce a $200,000 surplus that will be used to pay down the Restoration Services Centre carrying cost; • and disposal in Peel which will result in a $300,000 surplus in 2010 and a further $300,000 in 2011. Provisions are made for carry forward of funding for the capital works that are delayed or multi -year in nature. Capital funding is normally project specific, therefore there is less opportunity for surplus funds to be available for unrestricted use. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff has made a number of expenditure reductions to deal with anticipated revenue shortfalls in areas such as parks and Black Creek Pioneer Village. Staff continue to monitor financial progress and will make further adjustments as opportunities arise in the last two months of the year. Report prepared by: Janice Darnley, extension 5768 Emails: jdarnley @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Janice Darnley, extension 5768 Emails: jdarnley @trca.on.ca Date: October 07, 2010 580 RES. #A187/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: PUBLIC RECORD Authority Resolution #A220/09, CFN 32060. Recommendation approving acquisition of land municipally known as 6461 Steeles Avenue East, located south of Steeles Avenue East, and east of Littles Road, City of Toronto, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 - 2010," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River watershed becomes a public record. Jack Heath Maria Augimeri IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the following Resolution #A220/09 approved at Authority Meeting #9/09, held on November 27, 2009, be received and become a public record: THAT 27.378 hectares (67.651 acres) more or less, consisting of a rectangular shaped parcel of land improved with a two storey brick farmhouse, a frame barn and metal driveshed, being Part of Lot 11, Concession 5 and designated as Parts 1, 2 and 3 on Plan 66R -13615 save and except Part 2 on Plan 66R -17217 and Part 2 on Plan 66R- 17218, City of Toronto, municipally known as 6461 Steeles Avenue East, located south of Steeles Avenue East, east of Littles Road be purchased from Runnymede Development Corporation Limited; THAT the purchase price be $3,018,000.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land required free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers and Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs and disbursements are to be paid; THAT the authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to take whatever actions may be required to give effect thereto including the obtaining of necessary approvals, and the signing and execution of any documents; AND FURTHER THAT the Rouge Park Alliance be so advised by the CAD's Office. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #9/09, held on November 27, 2009, Resolution #A220/09 was approved in camera as it pertains to legal matters in which TRCA is involved. Confidential minutes were retained as a record of this item at the meeting. As a matter of policy, TRCA reports back on in camera items when they can become public so a record of the resolution appears in public minutes. 581 RATIONALE At the time the report was prepared, the board of Runnymede Development Corporation Limited had not approved the transaction. Runnymede Development Corporation Limited staff requested that TRCA's report be kept confidential until their board had approved the transaction. This approval has now been obtained and the property closing has been completed. Report prepared by: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: mfenning @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223, Ron Dewell, extension 5245 Emails: mfenning @trca.on.ca, rdewell @trca.on.ca Date: October 5, 2010 RES. #A188/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: IN THE NEWS Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities and news stories from May - September, 2010. Maria Augimeri David Barrow IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the summary of media coverage and Good News Stories from May - September, 2010 be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Since 2006, the Authority has received a staff report on Good News Stories which summarized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) key accomplishments for the preceding few months. Further, at Business Excellence Advisory Board Meeting #1 /06, held on March 3, 2006, it was requested that an overview of media coverage for TRCA be provided twice yearly. The new format is to provide one report providing highlights of TRCA's activities and news coverage, as outlined in this staff report. The consolidated "In the News" report will be brought to the Authority for receipt every couple of months in place of the Good News Stories and Media Summary reports. Healthy Rivers and Shorelines • Watershed Management - An MOE Great Lakes Office economic study reports numerous environmental and human use benefits of implementing the Rouge River Watershed Plan and estimates societal net benefits in the order of $687 million. The Rouge River watershed findings were extrapolated to other tributaries to Lake Ontario with resulting benefit cost ratios in the range of 1.6 to 2.4. Additional estimates of the value of reduced beach closures and increased fish abundance in Lake Ontario were in the $40 to $140 million range annually (Marbek, 2010, draft report "Assessing the Economic Value of Protecting the Great Lakes: Rouge River Case Study for Nutrient Reduction and Nearshore Health Protection). 582 • On May 26th, CBC The National interviewed TRCA as part of their news story on low Lake Ontario water levels. • Water Canada Magazine in May, listed the Lake Ontario Evenings: Shoreline event information and also had an article about the Water is our Future Discovery 2010 of which a TRCA expert was a panelist. The article includes a quote from a TRCA spokesperson. • The Discovery Channel's Daily Planet filmed a segment with TRCA experts at Bluffers Park capturing the dredging process in June. A May 29th Toronto Star story "Landlocked for the holidays Scarborough Bluffs; Bluffer's Park boaters barred from lake after silt clogs the channel" discusses the dredging work that TRCA will do and includes an interview with TRCA expert. • Land Acquisition - TRCA working closely with the local community, completing the acquisition of Heathercrest Park in the Mimico Creek watershed. The six acre property contains a 2.5 acre mature woodlot and a tributary of the Mimico Creek and makes a valuable contribution to the limited greenspace and natural drainage areas remaining in the Mimico Creek watershed. This acquisition will significantly contribute to the natural cover in the Mimico Creek watershed which is only three percent at present. • Story titled "Park to Nowhere is going somewhere says TRCA" ran on July 15th and discusses the two parcels of land left which are needed for Phase Two of Mimico Waterfront Linear Park. • Planning and Development - A June 28th Brampton Guardian Story "School Board Adopts Flood Policy" says that Peel board has agreed pathways prone to flooding will be avoided when mapping walking routes for its students. Board officials are waiting for a report from TRCA on whether the area at issue in Claireville, and other walking routes for Peel board students, are capable of handling significant rainfalls. • On July 5th The Daily Commercial News ran a story that discussed that Waterfront Toronto, in conjunction with TRCA, is seeking an official plan amendment for the Lower Don Lands. On July 7th, Toronto City Council voted to support the preferred alternative for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project, and its submission for approval to the Ministry of Environment. On August 25th, Toronto City Council adopted an Official Plan Amendment for the Lower Don Lands to implement the renaturalized Don River as per the draft Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment and the Lower Don Lands Framework Plan, thereby entrenching the regeneration of the river and the Lower Don Lands into planning policy. • A National Post news story in July 14th, regarding stacked Ice Rinks at the Toronto waterfront included concerns for flooding risks to the landfilled areas and mentions TRCA. • Certification /Awards - First annual Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Insurance Bureau of Canada's Watershed Award for demonstrated municipal leadership adapting to climate change by reducing vulnerability to flooding and water damage was awarded to the City of Toronto for their Basement Flooding Protection Program Environmental Assessment project and the Town of Richmond Hill for their Pioneer Park Environmental Assessment project. 583 • TRCA Facilities, Equipment and Property - An article in the Brampton Guardian "Development will destroy Marsh ", ran on August 23rd about Orchard Ridge Brampton GP Inc., developing a subdivision on the east side of the area south of Regional Road 7, paid TRCA $1.2 million for an easement on the land to build a stormwater management pond on four hectares (six acres) of the conservation land. • Cultural Heritage - TRCA's Archaeology Unit began detailed investigations of three ancient Aboriginal campsites in private backyards for the Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control project near the Bead Hill National Historic Site in Scarborough; with participation by an archaeological liaison from Six Nations of the Grand River. • 30 high school students learn about Ontario's past peoples and excavation techniques at the Graham House archaeological site on the Claremont Field Centre property and successfully graduate with a university prep credit at the 34th Boyd Archaeological Field School. • Partnerships - Ontario Regional Adaptation Collaborative (ORAC) Agreement signed with MOE for a total of $160,000 funding to establish a Community of Practice and Source Protection Climate Change Training for Ontario source protection authorities. First phase funding of $20,000 received. • Human Interest / Human Health - Media (Caledon Enterprise, Beach - Riverdale Mirror, CBC.ca, Mississauga News) reported on TRCA's High Water Safety Bulletin issued in June and late July to warn public to stay away from rivers and streams during high periods of rain. Regional Biodiversity • Land Acquisition - The Etobicoke Guardian ran a front page story and photo titled "TRCA saves Heathercrest Park" on July 15th. A second mention of the acquisition appeared in the Etobicoke Guardian in an August 26th story on city property purchases. A reader sent in a Letter to the Editor on July 30th, thanking TRCA for saving the park. • Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants and Wildlife - A pair of Red - necked Grebes are nesting on an artificial floating platform installed by Restoration Services staff at Colonel Sam Smith Park. • 20% of transmitters in USDA Wimbrill study were picked up near Toronto. We have visual confirmation of one at Tommy Thompson Park. • Acadian flycatcher and Canada warbler are two bird species at risk which can be found in a northern section of TRCA's jurisdiction. • In the May 15th story "where animals unpack" National Post writer spoke with TRCA about the number of bird species, mammals, reptiles, snakes and species of fish found in the GTA and what people should do if they encounter them. • TRCA expert was interviewed on Global TV news on July 18th to discuss the impact of the oil spill on Canadian migratory birds. • TRCA handled many media inquiries on Giant Hogweed. Stories appeared in Canoe News, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, 24Hours, CBC's The National, CBC local news, CityNews, 680 News, Corriere Canada, Global TV News and Pickering News Advertiser. • Global TV on July 16th ran a story on general invasive plant species, other than Giant Hogweed that people may encounter. Global interviewed two TRCA experts for the story. 584 • In a Canadian Press story, TRCA commented on our efforts to control Canadian Geese populations. The story title "Deadly summer for Canada geese who are culled, beaten to death in the U.S." ran in 17 media outlets across Canada including a video on the Toronto Star and stories in MSN Canada, AM980, Medicine Hat News, Yahoo Canada, CP24, CTV, Lethbridge Herald and more. • Two artificial nesting /roosting towers installed in the Rouge last year are showing evidence of chimney swift use. The towers may have been used as a roost by migrating swifts early this spring and may be used by nesting swifts this year. • The number of Double- crested Cormorant nests on the ground continues to swell. In 2009 the ground nesting colony experienced a 51 % increase and this year it expanded by an additional 59 %. • Restoration - A June 10th story in Pickering News Advertiser "Pickering chooses TRCA for fish habitat restoration" discusses how TRCA was approved to conduct the restoration works identified in the environmental servicing plan for Duffin Heights to compensate for the loss of the natural features due to development. • Town of Ajax awarded contract for restoration and trail improvements at Greenwood Conservation Area. • The Scarborough Mirror reported in a June 30th story "Plan in place to control Scarborough Bluffs erosion" and July 23rd story about the Meadowcliffe Drive Project, to build erosion - control works in front of the bluffs below Meadowcliffe Drive and to regenerate the Guild Inn shoreline have received provincial approval and reports on them were expected at TRCA's July board meeting. The story mentions that TRCA has prepared a draft plan illustrating how a continuous waterfront trail could be completed in Scarborough between Bluffer's Park and East Point Park. • Planning and Development - Since 2005, TRCA staff has been assisting on the planning, approval and implementation of the York /Durham Sanitary System (YDSS). One of the products of this association with York Region was the agreement to implement a five -year plan to construct the trail and habitat enhancements associated with the Southeast Collector Environmental Enhancement Plan. This agreement will ultimately provide the community with 5.5 km of 3 m wide multi -use trail, 2.9 km of granular secondary trail and 3.14 km of improved hiking trails, along with associated trailheads, bridges and parking areas, throughout the newly created Bob Hunter Memorial Park in Markham. As well as the trails infrastructure, TRCA staff will be involved in the creation of various habitat communities, including meadows, wetlands, riparian areas and the reforestation of 28.6 hectares of restored farm fields. Work on this project was started this spring, with the planting of the first meadow area and the construction of the Phase One primary and secondary trail sections. • The Richmond Hill Liberal ran a story "Observatory Conservation plan gets tuned up" on May 12th that stakeholders including TRCA prompted the Town of Richmond Hill's decision to further investigate strengthening the document before bringing it back to council for the final look. • Research and Innovation - In celebration of the International Year of Biodiversity, TRCA's aquatics group was invited to participate in the ROM's special speakers and events hosted every Friday night. TRCA was there on July 2nd and showcased, to a wide audience, the redside dace stewardship video produced through TRCA research conducted in the Rouge and Don rivers over the past three years. A follow -up presentation was made by staff, again at the ROM, in August, 2010. 585 • Facilities, Equipment and Property - Toronto Star publication "Do It! Magazine" did a full page story about Claireville Conservation Area based on a tour provided by TRCA. The story was called "A secret retreat: 'Closed' conservation area boasts 33 km of nature trails through forest, wetland and meadow ". Sing Tao Daily, an ethnic media outlet, covered the Grand Opening in their publication. The Brampton Guardian wrote about a history hike at Claireville Conservation Area in its June 20th paper. • Vaughan Today ran a story called "Survive Summer" on June 17th that lists things for families to do. The list includes Kortright Centre and Boyd Conservation Area. • Beach - Riverdale Mirror story "Leslie Street Spit will get an $8 million upgrade" June 18th describes new infrastructure planned at Tommy Thompson Park. Now Magazine ran a similar story called "Leslie St. Spit gets remade" on May 6th. • Education and Stewardship - TRCA letter to the editor at Toronto Star was published on July 19th in response to an article promoting invasive garden plants. Our response suggested non - invasive alternatives, including native species. TRCA also invited the paper's garden columnist to a tour of natural areas experiencing garden plant encroachments. The tour was held for industry tradespeople and members and staff of Landscape Ontario. The successful tour opened dialogue between Ontario Invasive Plant Council, Landscape Ontario, Credit Valley Conservation, and the garden industry. The Toronto Star writer agreed that invasive plant species had a negative impact on biodiversity. • Celebrations and Events - A TRCA expert was interviewed in May on Rogers Daytime Talkshow Toronto edition regarding the Tommy Thompson Bird Festival. CP24's morning show did their live eye the week leading up to the event to learn more about the bird festival. • As part of the Tommy Thompson Butterfly Festival, TRCA participated in a CBC National News story on the monarch butterflies migration to Central Mexico. The story aired on Saturday, August 21st at 5:00 pm. News stories about the Festival also ran in the Beach - Riverdale Mirror on August 18th. The event was on CTV Toronto as part of the weather segment on the 6:00 p.m. news Saturday, August 21st • Waterfront Toronto in partnership with the City of Pickering and TRCA, officially opened the Gateway to Port Union Waterfront Park on June 9th. Running from the Rouge River in Toronto to Bella Vista Drive and Dyson Road in Pickering, the new trail was built to make access to the lake and waterfront trail systems seamless, easy and safe for visitors and trail users from both cities. The Gateway also provides a link to Toronto's Port Union Waterfront Park, phase one of which opened in 2006 and includes a 3.6- kilometre waterfront trail system and five cobblestone beaches. Phase two is currently under construction and is expected to open to the public in 2012. • Claireville Conservation Area re- opened to the public on May 28th. • New pool and waterplay facility, Lakeview Splash, opened on July 16th at Albion Hills Conservation Area, with spectacular vista over Lake Albion. • TRCA was interviewed on Caledon Radio regarding the opening of Lakeview Splash and Caledon Canada Day. • Caledon Enterprise ran a story about Caledon Canada Day at Albion Hills Conservation Area and photos ran in Snap Caledon's July issue. • On May 1st, Globe and Mail included Kortright Centre's Four Winds Spring Kite Festival as part of their Five Things This Weekend List. 586 • Partnerships - The Caledon Enterprise published a story about Cold Creek stewardship by the Cold Creek Stewardship Committee and the Township of King, and the area's connection to TRCA on July 8th. • Presented on the importance of biodiversity to Sharp Canada employees as part of their initiatives for the International Year of Biodiversity. This helped to establish potential partnerships including Partners is Project Green. • More than 200 Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) employees participated in a 14th annual planting day. Since 1996, PWC has been engaged in assisting the City of Mississauga and TRCA to restore and regenerate portions of the Edward L. Scarlett greenbelt located in the Etobicoke Creek valley adjacent to PWC's Mississauga facilities. To date PWC volunteers have been instrumental in planting over 7,250 trees and shrubs in an effort to renaturalize the greenbelt. This year also marks the first time PWC initiated a wildflower planting as part of naturalizing a portion of their own property with 2,500 native wildflowers. • Price Waterhouse Coopers asked for activities for employees during G20, so their employees planted trees and pulled invasive species at Tommy Thompson Park. When Direct Energy heard about this, they joined in. • Financial Capacity - Received funding from Metcalfe Foundation, Imperial Oil and TD Friends of the Environment Foundation for TRCA's Winged Migration Program at Tommy Thompson Park. • Aquatic Plants Program received $20,000 from Sobey's Earth Day Canada. Will subsidize bussing, equipment and supplies. • Human Interest - The May edition of Snap Ajax included images from TRCA's Sunny Days for Conservation Fundraiser. • A May 18th Toronto Star story brought to light information about an artists rock sculptures at Tommy Thompson Park in story "Artist impromptu sculptures dotted Leslie St. Spit ". The writer interviewed TRCA staff person regarding the "art". Sustainable Communities • Certification /Awards - Partners in Project Green won a marketing award for its program guide from the Economic Developers Association of Canada. • Research and Innovation - TRCA, City of Mississauga, Greater Toronto Airports Authority and Holcim Construction completed a green parking lot demonstration site highlighting pervious concrete and bioswales at Toronto Pearson. • TRCA, GTAA, Region of Peel and cities of Toronto, Mississauga and Brampton received Canadian Institute of Planners Planning Excellence Award Honourable Mention for Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco- Business Zone. • Finished Low Impact Development design guide. Next evolution of stormwater management, pushing technologies such as greenroofs, bioretention, etc. into the development market. It is one of two guides in Canada and is receiving a lot of accolades. • TRCA has signed an agreement for $90,000 with the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and the City of Toronto to evaluate and disseminate results on the performance of 14 large solar energy installations on City of Toronto buildings. • The Living City Carbon Calculator in Peel receiving good media coverage. 587 • Facilities, Equipment and Property - CBC Radio program Here and Now, King Sentinel, Fairways Golf Magazine Industry Bulletin, Ontario Golf News published news about Bathurst Glen Golf Course's Audubon International Certification. To be showcased on What's Green in York on Rogers Cable in the fall. Toronto Today Newspaper story in August on "Five fun ways to get greener" included a mention of Bathurst Glen Golf Course. • Education and Stewardship - TRCA represented at the GeoCanada Conference of 4,500 geoscientists across Canada. Two presentations were made, one on the PAIE (Professional Access and Integration) program and the other on geothermal energy. • On June 11, Canadian Business Magazine printed TRCA press release "New Report Offers More Than 20 Strategies for Local and Regional Governments to Fight Climate Change ". Stories were also published in Novae Res Urbis "Guidebook for Municipalities: Carbon Neutral ", Toronto Sun /Canoe News "Battle for climate change in cities" and Ecolog News "Strategies for reducing GHG emissions in Cdn Cities: Report." TRCA expert on this topic also did a radio interview on CFAX 570. • Partners in Project Green's energy co -op program is training staff and students, and providing expert support, to undertake energy conservation initiatives at seven companies. • Had a booth and large natural landscape /stormwater management display - "Nature's Hydrologic Pump" - at OCE Discovery conference, which was well received. • Celebrations and Events - Green Living Magazine on June 18th ran a story about HSBC's support for the Kortright Centre for Conservation Power Trip Trail. Vaughan Citizen, Rogers First Local York Region and Korean Global TV News also ran a story and photo of the event. • Partnerships - On July 1st, Canadian Transportation and Logistics Magazine published a story regarding Partners in Project Green and Supply Chain and Logistics Association Canada (SCL) new partnership that will allow both parties to access each other's programs at no extra cost. • Financial Capacity - RBC approved $100,000 grant for water projects at the Kortright Centre as part of their Blue Water Program. • The Metcalf Foundation granted $140,000 to the Black Creek SNAP project. The funds will help support community engagement activities, demonstration projects and the development of the final plan and business case for implementation. • The Trillium Foundation approved a $132,000 grant for community -based projects in the Highland Creek watershed. • Human Interest / Human Health - The McVean Farm officially opened its Farmers Market in July, making fresh - picked, organically grown produce available for sale on -site. Approximately 500 people attended the McVean Farm Open House Days. TasteT.O. a website that features best places to dine in Toronto helped to publicize the event in their Flavours of the Day column. Brampton Guardian published two stories about McVean Farm: "Farming innovations take Root" July 17th and "Take a Tour of McVean Farm" on July 7th. • "Helping Youth Help Themselves" is a story that ran on August 23rd in the Beach - Riverdale Mirror about the work The Toronto Urban Farm, a collaboration between TRCA and the City of Toronto. 588 Business Excellence • Restoration - Humber team completed six community outreach projects, with over 1,500 participants and planted over 6,000 trees and shrubs. • The Weston Family Foundation will invest in redoing the entrance to the Weston Quarry Garden at the Brick Works. • Facilities, Equipment and Property - A July 20th Pickering News Advertiser story called " Tug of war over Pickering Home" describes how TRCA was applying for a demolition permit for a home (Norman Scudellari property) jointly owned by TRCA and the City of Pickering. After a storm of emails, letters and public comments by Pickering councillors, TRCA has since agreed to let the City explore using the home for community purposes, such as a meeting centre. • TRCA reports close to $500 million (before amortization) in physical assets in fiscal 2009, the first year that new standards for financial statement presentation apply. • Education and Stewardship - Held two tours of our restoration projects as part of IAGLR conference. Over 100 researchers from across North America attended and it was very well received. TRCA studies and programs featured in papers and posters in sessions besides those sessions hosted by TRCA. • TRCA staff participated in the regional and provincial Envirothon competitions for high school students as the theme was groundwater. • Funded by the Weston Foundation, TRCA hosted two day Monarch Teacher Network workshops on the monarch butterfly at Lake St. George Field Centre and Black Creek Pioneer Village. Overwhelmingly positive response from participants. The Toronto Star ran a story on August 12th about the Monarch Butterfly workshops in the article "Butterflies let imaginations take wing; Workshop gives teachers tips on using Monarchs as tool for different studies ". An interview by TRCA education staff also ran on CBC Radio International Spanish on September 8th. • First annual "Terry Carr /Ray Reid Archaeology Bursary" awarded to student to attend Boyd Archaeological Field School at 50% off, and all students who applied for the bursary received a smaller award due to a single donation. Funds were raised through staff donations to the Conservation Foundation. • On July 27, CP24's morning show shot their live -eye segments at Black Creek Pioneer Village, the host learned about the mill, Victorian dancing, farm animals and baking bread. • Cultural Heritage - On June 25th CTV news filmed a segment at BCPV's Battle of Black Creek and AM680 did a story called "Fatherhood celebrates historic anniversary" that mentioned the Battle of Black Creek event. A total of 17 other media outlets, including print and online event calendars, covered this special event. • The North York Mirror's July 25th issue published a story on Black Creek Pioneer Village's new 19th century photographer's studio "Black Creek brings 19th century photography into focus ". • The Canadian Press, on July 30th, ran a story about Black Creek Pioneer Village's International Barn event. The coverage was picked up in 19 media outlets across the country including: Yahoo! News, Lethbridge Herald, The Guardian, The Telegram, MyTownCrier, Ontario Heritage Connections, The Examiner, The Daily Courier, Guelph Mercury and BIogTO. • Black Creek History Brewery Tours August publicity included stories in Taps - The Beer Magazine, Good Food Revolution, zoomers radio, and Fairchild N. • Rogers TV show "Structures" filmed at Black Creek Pioneer Village as a part of their story on historic taverns. 589 • Celebrations and Events - Two of the keynote speakers from IAGLR attended the TRCA sponsored Lake Ontario Evening. • Paddle the Don raised $60,000. Media profile for Paddle the Don included: Paddle the Don interview with David Love, John Moore Show, CFRB, April 30th; Paddle the Don, 680 News, April 30th; Event mentions on Chum FM Morning Show, April 30th; Event mentions on CBC Radio 1 and twice on CBC Radio 2- May 2nd; Broadcast TV: Paddle the Don, CTV News @ 6, Paddle the Don, Global News @ 6, event coverage and news anchor chatter about the event ; Globe and Mail - For Good Causes: Raising Awareness, photo and cutline, Globe & Mail, May 3rd; Toronto Star: The Fixer- More Clean up Remains for Stinky Don River, Toronto Star May 3rd; Caledon Enterprise - Water, Water Everywhere, May 5th; Canadian Business Magazine Blog - CSR Moment of the Week, May 7th: Lake Ontario Waterkeeper Weekly- Paddling the Don River in the Heart of Toronto, May 11, 2010. • York Children's Water Festival very successful. June's Snap Brampton included photos from the Peel Children's Water Festival including a photo of the Life is Better in Peel booth. • • May 26th -29th, 17 successful community events were held across the Rouge River watershed in celebration of "Rouge Days ". The Scarborough Mirror ran two stories about the Rouge Days events. Other media coverage include Snap Brampton, Snap Markham, My Town Crier, City Parent, and Guiding Star media outlets, as well as 13 other community calendar listings. • Black Creek Pioneer Village welcomed 7,640 visitors to the 11th Annual Doors Open Toronto on May 29th and 30th. Visitors enjoyed free admission, a special focus on the architectural heritage of the living history village, and hands on archaeology provided by the Toronto Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society and TRCA archaeologists. The Richmond Hill Liberal ran a story in June "Village festival opens doors to community's past" it talks about the various York Region Doors open including the one held at Lake St. George Field Centre. The North York Mirror included the event in their May 24th article "Historic sites open doors to architectural past" and Toronto Sun listed Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) in their Doors Open article. • On June 16th The Brampton Guardian did a write up on the Peel Eco -fest and mentions TRCA's participation. • Over 1,000 people attended Mill Pond Splash, on a day that started out very rainy. July's edition of Snap Richmond Hill included photos from Mill Pond Splash. The Liberal published a story on June 2nd, to raise awareness about TRCA's Mill Pond Splash event. • With sheep shearing help from BCPV, the Toronto Spiders team handspun and knitted a jumper from sheep's back to theirs in record time and won the 2010 International Back to Back Wool Challenge. Countries competing included Australia, Canada, Japan, UK, South Africa and Czech Republic. The competition promotes wool world wide but also raises funds for cancer research. • Black Creek Pioneer Village's Alice in Wonderland event received media coverage in May from CFRB, City TV, Global TV, CTV, Fairchild TV, Zoomer Radio, Snap North Toronto. • The Conservation Foundation hosted eight very successful corporate events this summer and has developed a "Corporate Events Menu ". 590 • Partnerships - Bankers paddled down the Humber River and others picked up garbage along the Don River, and built windmills and solar collectors at Kortright. June's issue of Snap North Toronto included photos from the TRCA RBC Clean up event at E.T. Seton Park. • TRCA will be assisting the City of Toronto in implementing Dog Off Leash areas at six different parklands from Etobicoke to Scarborough. Containment fencing and access gates are planned to protect against environmental degradation to sensitive ravine and park slopes and vegetation. Toronto will be providing funding for TRCA's implementation to a total of $168,000. • Financial Capacity - Morguard Investments will donate $10,000 towards the Kortright Permeable Pavement project. • Professional Access and Integration Enhancement (PAIE III) Program: Environmental Engineers and Geoscientists for a Green Economy has been approved for renewed funding by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI) in the amount of $573,787. PAIE is an Ontario bridge training program that will assist 40 internationally trained Environmental Engineers and Geoscientists to become employed in their field and licensed in Ontario. "PATE is one of nine projects in Ontario that has been approved for renewed funding, of a total of 31 bridging projects approved by MCI. TRCA will deliver this program over a two -year period from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2012. • Received $16,200 grant from Canadian Heritage for BrewsFest. • Weston Foundation increased support from $600,000 to $1.4 million over three years to Education for Tomorrow program. • Received $25,000 from Toronto Field Naturalists for bus funding to support 100 Toronto schools that take field trips to TRCA field centres and the Kortright Centre. • Lake St. George Field Centre saw its busiest summer in many years with eight straight weeks of residential summer camps. Clients included the Ontario Co- Operative Association, Outward Bound /Ethiopian Young Diplomats and others. • Gone live with online mapping sales for floodline mapping. • BCPV was awarded an $18,000 Museums and Technology grant from the Ontario Ministry of Culture for a collections digitization project. • Human Interest - TRCA public relations from May- August produced 21 news stories about TRCA and to the media via event advisories and media releases. More than 220 media hits for TRCA were collected from May - August 2010 from online, print, TV and radio media. Black Creek Pioneer Village public relations tracked more than 100 BCPV stories and events listings from May - August. • Canadian Newcomer Magazine's July /August environment issue included a story about TRCA's M2P and PAIE programs in article titled "A Bridge to Meaningful Jobs ". Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264, Rowena Calpito, extension 5632 Emails: kstranks @trca.on.ca, rcalpito @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264, Rowena Calpito, extension 5632 Emails: kstranks @trca.on.ca, rcalpito @trca.on.ca Date: September 28, 2010 591 RES. #A189 /10 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES Moved by; Seconded by: Maria Augimeri David Barrow THAT Section IV items AUTH8.4.1 and AUTH8.4.2, in regard to watershed committee minutes, be received. CARRIED Section IV Items AUTH8.4.1 & AUTH8.4.2, Inclusive DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting #5/10, held on July 8, 2010 Minutes of Meeting #6/10, held on September 9, 2010 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Minutes of Meeting #3/10, held on September 21, 2010. RES. #A190 /10 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD (Executive Res. #B 121 / 10) Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Pamela Gough THAT Section IV item EX9.1 - Spadina Quay Parkette, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #8/10, held on October 1, 2010, be received. ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 RES. #A191 /10 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Moved by: Seconded by: Bill Fisch John Sprovieri CARRIED THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items (EX10.1 - EX10.155, inclusive), contained in Executive Committee Minutes #8/10, held on October 1, 2010, be received. CARRIED 592 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:10 a.m., on Friday, October 29, 2010. Gerri Lynn O'Connor Brian Denney Chair Secretary- Treasurer /ks 593 THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #9/10 November 26, 2010 The Authority Meeting #9/10, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, November 26, 2010. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:47 a.m. PRESENT Bryan Bertie Member Laurie Bruce Member Gay Cowbourne Member Mike Del Grande Member Pamela Gough Member Lois Griffin Member Suzan Hall Member Jack Heath Member Colleen Jordan Member Glenn Mason Member Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair Linda Pabst Member John Parker Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member Richard Whitehead Member ABSENT Eve Adams Member Paul Ainslie Member Maria Augimeri Vice Chair David Barrow Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Grant Gibson Member Bill Fisch Member Bonnie Litt ley Member Peter Milczyn Member Ron Moeser Member Maja Prentice _ Member John Sprovieri - Member 594 RES. #A192 /10 - MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Richard Whitehead Gay Cowbourne THAT the Minutes of Meeting #8/10, held on October 29, 2010, be approved. CARRIED CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mike Del Grande declared a conflict of interest in regard to items AUTH5.1 and AUTH7.1 in regard to Project for Acquisition of Office Space, as it conflicts with future duties as a Councillor at the City of Toronto. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES. #A193 /10 Moved by: Seconded by: Richard Whitehead Gay Cowbourne THAT the committee move into closed session to hear presentation AUTH5.1 and to discuss AUTH7.1 - Project for Acquisition of Office Space, which are confidential as they pertain to on -going property negotiations. CARRIED ARISE AND REPORT RES. #A194 /10 Moved by: Seconded by: Anthony Perruzza Colleen Jordan THAT the committee arise and report from closed session. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Jim Dillane, Director, Finance and Business Services, TRCA, in regard to confidential item AUTH7.1 - Project for Acquisition of Office Space. 595 RES. #A195 /10 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Seconded by: Anthony Perruzza Colleen Jordan THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) A letter dated November 12, 2010, from Madeleine McDowell, Toronto, in regard to removal of topsoil. RES. #A196 /10 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Bryan Bertie THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be referred to staff for a report back to the Authority at a future meeting. CARRIED 596 CORRESPONDENCE (A) November 12th, 2010 The Chair and Board Members Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1 S4 Dear Chair O'Connor: The Authority, from time to time, receives requests from developers to undertake works within a TRCA regulated area in order to facilitate topsoil stripping and pre - grading. All of these are in areas already approved for development under one or another municipal Official Plan often dating back twenty or more years. - There are six such applications in the November 26th agenda. This, I believe is an unusual number, and prompted this letter. Would it be possible for the Authority to set up an accumulative List of the acres/hectares of land, by watershed, being stripped of topsoil, for which they grant approval. The incremental loss of arable land should be documented, if only for monitoring purposes. It would be a useful additional tool in projection of run off and canopy regeneration planning. Development already approved can not be challenged, but it might be of value to monitor the removal and possibly, the redistribution of topsoil. An accumulative record of topsoil removal might even inspire more good placement and use of clean top soil, possibly in relationship to the new and growing urban agriculture. It would be good information to have, both in terms of urbanization and its environmental implications for the watersheds in such things as storm water management and in terms of loss of arable lands with their productivity and their recharge value: Thank you for your kind attention, Madeleine McDowell 597 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #A197/10 - PROJECT FOR ACQUISITION OF OFFICE SPACE Purchase and Sale Agreement. Recommends approval of a project for acquisition of office space and proposed purchase and sale agreement with ING Real Estate. Moved by: Seconded by: Anthony Perruzza Colleen Jordan WHEREAS the current office accommodation of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Head Office at 5 Shoreham Drive is sub - standard; AND WHEREAS staff that perform core "head office" activities are currently housed in multiple locations that add to the operating costs and result in inefficiencies in operations; AND WHEREAS the current market assessment is that it will be more economical for .TRCA to reduce the the amount of rental accommodation for staff; AND WHEREAS the current market condition provides the opportunity to acquire property at a reduced cost as compared to previous years; AND WHEREAS the project to acquire consolidated office space cannot proceed without funding support of TRCA's participating municipalities; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Project for Acquisition of Office Space be approved; THAT staff be directed to seek approval of the Project for Acquisition of Office Space by the member municipalities; THAT total funding for the Project of $14,000,000 be levied from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's participating municipalities on the basis of the modified current value assessment formula; THAT staff be directed to finalize an acceptable purchase and sale agreement with representatives of ING Inc. for acquisition of the property at 1235 Ormont Drive, City of Toronto, on terms and conditions acceptable to TRCA and its solicitors, perform such due diligence as is required and report to the Authority no later than March 25, 2011, with a recommendation on the purchase and sale agreement; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take action necessary to implement the project including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. 598 RECORDED VOTE Bryan Bette Yea Laurie Bruce Yea Gay Cowbourne Yea Pamela Gough Yea Lois Griffin Yea Suzan Hall Yea Jack Heath Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Glenn Mason Yea Gerri Lynn O'Connor Yea Linda Pabst Yea John Parker Yea Anthony Perruzza Yea Gino Rosati Yea Richard Whitehead Yea THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED RES. #A198/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT CONNECTION Agreement with Credit Valley Conservation. Direction to enter into an agreement with Credit Valley Conservation to provide advice around the feasibility of creating new lands, through Iakefilling, that will provide public waterfront access, connections to existing trails and park systems, and allow for the creation of coastal habitats. Suzan Hall Pamela Gough WHEREAS the long- standing goal of the Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area, 1967 is to make the waterfront accessible; WHEREAS TRCA staff was requested by Region of Peel staff to provide expert advice regarding the potential development of a new waterfront amenity; WHEREAS Peel and Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) are seeking Council and board approvals to proceed with a feasibility study forth with; WHEREAS the majority of the waterfront within the defined study area is within CVC's jurisdiction; 599 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into an agreement with CVC to provide expert advice and assistance on a fee for service basis to the Regional Municipality of Peel regarding the feasibility of the development of a waterfront amenity along the Lake Ontario waterfront located at the boundary of CVC and TRCA's jurisdiction, City of Mississauga, Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT TRCA staff report back as required upon completion of the feasibility study with regards to further TRCA involvement in subsequent planning and implementation; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the agreement including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND The foundation of waterfront planning and development undertaken by TRCA is based on the Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area, 1967. As the designated implementation agency for the 1967 waterfront plan, TRCA began the development of major waterfront amenities including the Humber Bay Park Complex, Ashbridge's Bay Park, Bluffers Park and the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area in the early 1970s. TRCA consolidated its resource management plans and programs into The Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program (1980). The objective of the Program is "to create a handsome waterfront, balanced in its land use, which will complement adjacent areas, taking cognizance of existing residential development and making accessible, wherever possible, features which warrant public use ". TRCA's waterfront development evolved into an ecosystem -based approach, which included the guiding principles and key objectives of the Metropolitan Waterfront Plan (1994). One key objective of the 1994 waterfront plan is "to provide for continuous public access along the waterfront for public use and enjoyment ". TRCA also adopted the key principles of Regeneration (1992), released by The Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront: "to provide an ecosystem -based framework to ensure that shoreline management activities result in a clean, green, accessible, diverse, connected, open, affordable, attractive and useable waterfront ". Within both TRCA's and CVC's jurisdiction, official plans speak to the need to improve public access to the waterfront. In 2007, the City of Mississauga initiated a review of the Lakeview and Port Credit districts to update the policy framework that guides future development activity and municipal investment. An extensive public consultation process is documented in the Lakeview and Port Credit District Policies Review and Public Engagement Process Directions Report. Lakeview's vision was identified as Strengthening the Community with a focus on improving community health and the environment, reconnecting to the Lake Ontario waterfront and providing economic stability. 600 The results of the public consultation process confirmed public support for achieving public access to the waterfront and suggested the need for a public shoreline that connects parkland and natural areas from Cooksville Creek to Etobicoke Creek. Based on these works, on October 6, 2010, the City of Mississauga initiated a collaborative public consultation process to prepare a visionary master plan for the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Lakeview site and its surrounding context. In early December, the City of Mississauga will carry out additional public consultation for the proposed land use policy framework and its coordination. CVC staff will work with the City's team to ensure shoreline improvements, natural heritage and connectivity are considered during this planning process, consistent with conservation authority regulations, policies and guidelines. RATIONALE In the spring of 2010, the Region of Peel began to explore potential local sites to accommodate fill generated by several planned projects over the next ten years. Currently, fill generated by the Region of Peel infrastructure projects, including the Hanlan Feedermain project, is trucked to Milton and Brampton. The trucking costs represent an estimated 25% of the total project costs. Based on TRCA's waterfront development expertise, the Region of Peel requested that TRCA staff facilitate dialogue with the City of Mississauga and CVC to explore, conceptually, how this fill resource could be better used for the creation of a new waterfront greenspace. On May 31, 2010 representatives from all four agencies (Region of Peel, TRCA, CVC and City of Mississauga) met to discuss the merits of reusing locally generated fill to create a waterfront greenspace between Marie Curtis Park in Toronto and Lakefront Promenade Park in Mississauga; this section of the waterfront having been highly altered and currently inaccessible to the public. This new waterfront greenspace could be designed to serve the needs of multiple recreational functions (i.e., hiking, boating, cycling, etc.) and re- create critical coastal habitats such as wetlands, forests and spawning areas. Based on the outcome of the May agency meeting, CVC offered to facilitate a feasibility study in partnership with TRCA, and on behalf of the stakeholders, to explore this opportunity further. Subsequent inter - agency meetings have continued to foster this dialogue and the interest by all parties. CVC will continue to lead dialogue with all involved agencies to ensure full collaboration and cooperation as far as the feasibility study is concerned and its direct and indirect links to current planning of the OPG Lakeview lands, Marie Curtis Park, Arsenal Lands and CVC's Lake Ontario Integrated Shoreline Strategy. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The feasibility study will examine the potential to create, through lake filling operations, new lands that will provide public waterfront access, connections to existing parks systems and allow for the creation of coastal habitats. The purpose of the feasibility study is to define risks and explore costs and benefits of the project proceeding to the Environmental Assessment stage. The feasibility study will identify stakeholder requirements, establish baseline conditions based on existing information, identify specific planning and knowledge gaps, outline design and implementation activities, and propose schedules and cost estimates. The feasibility study will consider not only site - specific planning and technical considerations, but also surrounding local and regional initiatives to maximize compatibility. 601 FINANCIAL DETAILS Through an agreement with CVC, TRCA staff will provide technical support in the preparation of the feasibility study. The agreement will outline a work plan, assignment of tasks, schedule and budget for the feasibility study. The agreement would stipulate required reimbursement to cover TRCA staff time and related expenses, expected to be in the range of $50,000 to $100,000. Report prepared by: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Emails: Istephenson @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Emails: Istephenson @trca.on.ca Date: August 20, 2010 Attachments: 1 602 Attachment 1 LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT CONNECTION STUDY AREA Lake Ontario Legend Study Area TRCA Property Roads for The Living City 35.0 175 0 350 Mete's • • . / SI tate Catena 603 KEY MAP RES. #A199/10 - ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO 2009/2010 ANNUAL REPORT Acknowledging key recommendations related to conservation authorities made by the Environmental Commissioner in his 2009/2010 Annual Report. Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Laurie Bruce WHEREAS the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO) has called for a significant redefinition of Conservation to make do with less and to use what we have more wisely in order to halt long -term degradation of the environment for future generations, address significant consequences of climate change and biodiversity loss; AND WHEREAS key recommendations have been made in the Annual Report regarding Conserving Biodiversity, Integrated Watershed Management Planning and Stormwater Management; AND WHEREAS the ECO has acknowledged and called for a continued leadership role of conservation authorities in redefining Conservation through his Annual Report recommendations; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) endorse recommendations 2, 8 and 15 of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario in his 2009/2010 Annual Report titled "Redefining Conservation'; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA's member municipalities, Conservation Ontario, the provincial ministries of Natural Resources, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Infrastructure, Environment, Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the ECO be so advised by the CAO's Office. CARRIED BACKGROUND On September 22, 2010, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO), Mr. Gord Miller, released his 2009/2010 Annual Report titled "Redefining Conservation." The ECO is an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario created through the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993. Recently, through the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009, the ECO's mandate has been expanded to report publicly on Ontario's progress toward meeting our greenhouse gas emission reduction and energy conservation targets. As such, he has a unique role reporting directly to the people of Ontario, through their Provincial Parliament on progress related to climate change and energy conservation. The ECO's reports also seek to make ministries accountable for their environmental decisions, to ensure that ministry decisions are made in accordance with the goal all Ontarians hold in common: to protect, conserve and restore the natural environment for present and future generations. 604 RATIONALE The ECO, in his 2009/2010 Annual Report, calls for a significant redefinition of the concept of 'Conservation'. The ECO states that, even with attempts to move toward sustainable development, current government policies are leading to long -term degradation of the environment for future generations. This environmental degradation includes the significant consequences of climate change and biodiversity loss. To address this situation we must make do with less and use what we have more wisely. The ECO calls for "a concept of conservation that is based on our new understanding of ecological processes and the appropriate use of resources. Our conservation ethic must consider the cumulative impacts of our activities, incorporate a precautionary approach to decision making and include intergenerational equity in our considerations. To be successfully applied, conservation ideals must be integrated into our economic system." Fifteen (15) focused recommendations are made to the provincial government in the Report. Of these, conservation authorities have a key leadership role to play in addressing three of the fifteen recommendations, which are discussed in turn below. 1) ECO Recommendation: that the Ministry of Natural Resources lead a co- ordinated afforestation strategy for southern Ontario, with a target of planting 1 billion trees of native species, to address the long -term ecological function of natural heritage systems and the impacts of climate change. TRCA's watershed planning, terrestrial natural heritage planning, stewardship and afforestation activities have helped to lay the groundwork for this recommendation. In the Report, the ECO notes that "Conservation Authorities (CAs) have a long history in tree planting and afforestation. Since the 1940's, CAs have provided planting services to landowners, including those that did not qualify for provincial programs. Over the past few years, on average, CAs have planted over 2.5 million trees each year." The call for planting one billion trees is based, in part, on Environment Canada recommendations that all watersheds should have at least 30 per cent natural forest cover to support wildlife species, conserve biodiversity and maintain water quality and quantity. To buttress the need for an ambitious target of 1 billion trees and associated provincial support, the ECO relies upon research undertaken by TRCA in the Humber River watershed: "The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority estimates that at the current rate of tree planting, it would take 175 years to reach 30 per cent forest cover in the West Humber, Lower Humber and Black Creek subwatersheds." In recent years, TRCA has played a valuable role in the development of urban forest studies. TRCA has been undertaking urban forest studies alongside its member municipalities to describe the urban forest and quantify its contribution to air quality, water management, biodiversity and to climate change mitigation. This work has assisted municipalities in strategically improving and managing the urban forest. The collaboration on urban forest studies across the TRCA jurisdiction, in its totality, represents the largest such study ever undertaken. 605 The afforestation strategy envisioned by the ECO would set out priorities for key planting areas, such as watersheds with Tess than 30 per cent forest cover, and incorporate climate change mitigation and adaption considerations. Should the province adopt this recommendation, it is clear that TRCA could play a key role in implementation based upon our work in afforestation throughout the TRCA jurisdiction. 2) ECO Recommendation: that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing amend the Provincial Policy Statement to require integrated watershed management planning. This recommendation recognizes the vital watershed management planning work that has been undertaken by CA's throughout the province. By elevating integrated watershed management planning to a 'requirement' as part of municipal land use planning under the key provincial land use policy framework - the Provincial Policy Statement - the ECO is seeking to strengthen the role of watershed planning within Ontario's land use planning system. As stated by the ECO: "Integrated watershed management, currently practiced by most Conservation Authorities, is an excellent example of how natural landscape features can be conserved and protected in Ontario's land use planning context." The ECO notes in the Report that "approximately two- thirds of CAs have or are carrying out watershed studies or plans in the province. There is no comprehensive water policy legislation in Ontario that guides integrated watershed management planning. As a result, interpretation of policies and implementation of integrated watershed management plans vary across the province." To address this situation the ECO recommends that the Provincial Policy Statement be revised to mandate integrated watershed management planning in order to protect all of Ontario's ecologically and hydrologically significant features. To support a revised Provincial Policy Statement, the ECO calls for a "comprehensive water policy" to provide consistency to the practice of integrated watershed management planning to be implemented by CAs across the province. TRCA has been a leader with our watershed planning and implementation work often breaking new ground in innovation and the application of resource science. For example, to develop a greater understanding of local climate change impacts and vulnerability to our watersheds, TRCA has initiated work to share new science, research, tools and technologies with end -users through the work of the Climate Consortium for Research Action and Integration (CC -RAI). A greater recognition of watershed planning within Ontario's planning system would add greater weight to the recommendations and management actions contained within TRCA's watershed plans as land use decisions are made, thereby supporting successful implementation. 3) ECO recommendation: that the Ministry of the Environment take the lead on collecting appropriate hydrologic data, and creating models, to allow stormwater management planning to reflect changing climate patterns. 606 This recommendation touches upon significant components of TRCA's work: stormwater management and climate change. The ECO in his report calls for a suite of innovative approaches to redefine Ontario's approach to stormwater management to assess vulnerability and adapt to climate change. According to the ECO, innovation is also needed to lower the ecological impact of stormwater. Finally, the ECO flags a key information gap related to outdated weather data on the intensity, duration and frequency (IDF) of storms, which is used to plan for and properly size new infrastructure. On each of these fronts, TRCA has been working in a leadership role with the Ministry of the Environment, municipal partners and others to find solutions to current stormwater management issues. Earlier this year TRCA released Getting to Carbon Neutral: A Guide for Canadian Municipalities, which was commissioned by TRCA to develop and highlight various practical approaches municipalities can take to reduce their carbon emissions to address both climate change mitigation and adaption. Recently, as the first of its kind for Ontario, TRCA released a Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide along with Credit Valley Conservation to provide guidance on a suite of innovative low impact development approaches to reduce the ecological impact of stormwater management. With respect to IDF weather data, TRCA has been working with Environment Canada to explore revisions to the IDF data to address climate change. In each instance, TRCA has taken a leadership position to ensure that stormwater management planning in Ontario responds to current and anticipated future climate change issues. CONCLUSION TRCA staff recommend that recommendations 2, 8 and 15 of the ECO in his 2009/2010 Annual Report be endorsed, as the ECO has underscored several vital areas of conservation including afforestation, integrated watershed planning, stormwater management and climate change. The ECO's message of redefining conservation brings to focus the vital work that conservation authorities play in supporting the values espoused in the Environmental Bill of Rights: to protect, conserve, and restore the natural environment for present and future generations. Report prepared by: Chris Jones, extension 5718 Emails: cjones @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Emails: cwoodland @trca.on.ca Date: November 8, 2010 RES. #A200/10 - PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN: STEERING COMMITTEE Revised Terms of Reference and Membership. To approve the 2011 -2012 Partners in Project Green Steering Committee revised terms of reference and membership. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Pamela Gough 607 THAT the Partners in Project Green Steering Committee Terms of Reference, as appended, be approved; THAT the 2011 -2012 list of Partners in Project Green Steering Committee members, as outlined in the staff report, be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the cities of Toronto and Mississauga be requested to appoint representatives to the Partners in Project Green Steering Committee. CARRIED BACKGROUND In partnership with Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), Regional Municipality of Peel, City of Toronto, City of Mississauga and City of Brampton, TRCA has been working to implement Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco- Business Zone. Partners in Project Green is an initiative to develop North America's largest eco- business zone around Toronto Pearson International Airport (Toronto Pearson). Through new forms of business -to- business collaboration, Partners in Project Green delivers programming that helps businesses reduce energy and resource costs, uncover new business opportunities, and address everyday operational challenges in a green and cost - effective manner. Partners in Project Green is overseen by a steering committee that brings together representation from all three levels of government and the business community to provide oversight on the development, implementation and management of Partners in Project Green, while championing green economic development and infrastructure investments around Toronto Pearson. At Authority Meeting #6/08, held on July 25, 2008, Resolution #A184/08 was approved, in part, as follows: ...THAT the Terms of Reference for the Partners In Project Green: A Pearson Eco - Business Zone Steering Committee, as appended, be approved and staff be authorized to establish the Partners in Project Steering Committee to begin the implementation of key priorities;... The first two -year term of the Partners in Project Green Steering Committee will expire at the end of 2010. As per Section 4 of the 2009 -2010 Terms of Reference, the current Partners in Project Green Steering Committee reviewed the Terms of Reference at their recent meeting and endorsed the following changes: • Executive Committee - addition of the Executive Committee within the Terms of Reference, as well as its roles and meeting structure. • Steering Committee Membership Structure - membership structure of the Steering Committee, including sector representation, association representation and government representation were changed to reflect the following: • Business Community - 28 representatives drawn from the business community in the Pearson Eco- Business Zone. 608 • Municipalities - five representatives, including a council member from the Region of Peel, cities of Toronto, Brampton and Mississauga, along with the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the Region of Peel. • Federal and Provincial Governments - two staff or political representatives from senior levels of government, with one from the province and one from the federal government. • TRCA - two representatives from TRCA, including the CAO and the Chair of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition. 2011 -2012 Partners in Project Green Terms of Reference At Partners in Project Green Steering Committee Meeting #3110, the following was approved: THAT the 2011 -2012 Partners in Project Green Steering Committee Terms of Reference be recommended to TRCA for necessary approvals. A copy of the updated 2011 -2012 Partners in Project Green Steering Committee Terms of Reference is outlined in Attachment 1. 2011 -2012 Partners in Project Green Steering Committee The following are the proposed representatives for the 2011 -2012 Partners in Project Green Steering Committee: Business Representatives 1. Debbie Baxter, Chief Sustainability Officer, Loyalty One 2. Mike Brandt, Chief Financial Officer, Monteco Group, representing Ontario Environment Industry Association 3. Paul Callegari, Director, Property Management Industrial, GWL Realty Advisors 4. Brad Chittick, Associate -Vice President, Supply Chain Major Projects, Canadian Tire 5. John Coyne, Vice President General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Unilever 6. Ferg Devins, Vice President Government and Public Affairs, Molson Coors 7. Jane Holmes, Vice President Corporate Affairs, Woodbine Entertainment Group 8. Bob Griesbach, Director of Business Consulting, Hatch Energy, representing Mississauga Board of Trade 9. Andrew Gustyn, Corporate Sustainability Manager, Unisource 10. Randy Hansuld, Regional Relationships Manager, RBC 11. Walter Kraus, Senior Director Environmental Affairs, George Weston Ltd. 12. Neil Lacheur, Vice President Property Management, Bentall Real Estate 13. Eric Lange, President, Lange Transportation 14. Toby Lennox, Vice President Corporate Affairs and Communications, GTAA 15. Trevor Lui, Director of Food & Beverage, International Centre 16. Darryl Neate, Manager of Sustainable Programs, Oxford Properties 17. Mark O'Connor, Director Security and Compliance, Kuehne and Nagel 18. Dan Pastoric, Executive Vice President and Chief Operation Officer, Enersource 19. Jaipaul Singh, Member, Brampton Board of Trade 20. Ernie Springolo, Country Head, Bayer Material Science, Bayer Inc. 21. Renee Spurrell, Sourcing Manager, General Electric 22. Anne Tennier, Vice President Environmental Affairs, Maple Leaf Foods 23. Blair Wolk, Project Manager, Orlando Corporation 609 Political Representatives 1. Eve Adams, Councillor, Region of Peel 2. Bob Delaney, MPP Mississauga- Streetsville, Province of Ontario 3. Sandra Hames, Councillor, City of Brampton 4. David Szwarc, Chief Administrative Officer, Region of Peel 5. Vacant - Federal Government 6. Vacant - Councillor, City of Mississauga 7. Vacant - Councillor, City of Toronto TRCA 1. Suzanne Barrett, Chair, Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition 2. Brian Denney, Chief Administrative Officer Representatives from municipal partners and the federal government are yet to be confirmed. The additional business community, representatives are also still be to be confirmed. Report prepared by: Chris Rickett, extension 5316 Email: crickett@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Chris Rickett, extension 5316 Email: crickett @trca.on.ca Date: November 8, 2010 Attachments: 1 610 Attachment 1 GTAA Partners in Project Green A PEARSON ECO- BUSINESS ZONE Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco- Business Zone Draft Steering Committee Terms of Reference (2011 -2012) 1. Background Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco- Business Zone is developed by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), the Region of Peel, City of Toronto, City of Brampton, City of Mississauga and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), to transform the lands surrounding Toronto Pearson into an internationally recognized community of eco- friendly businesses. The Partners and Project Green Steering Committee is being established to implement this vision. 1.1 Authority Direction At Authority Meeting #6/08, held on July 25, 2008, Resolution #A184/08 was approved, in part, as follows: ...THAT the Terms of Reference for the Partners In Project Green: A Pearson Eco- Business Zone Steering Committee, as appended, be approved and staff be authorized to establish the Partners in Project Steering Committee to begin the implementation of key priorities;... 2. Vision The vision of Partners in Project Green is to transform the Pearson Eco- Business Zone into an internationally recognized community known for its competitive, high performance and eco - friendly business climate. 3. Mandate The mandate of the Steering Committee is to: • Assist businesses in the Pearson Eco- Business Zone to improve their financial and environmental performance; and, • Retain and attract green investment in the Pearson Eco- Business Zone. Generally, the Steering Committee will work with all relevant stakeholders to: • Build capacity - to stimulate strategic investments and partnerships that lead to green market transformation in the Pearson Eco- Business Zone. • Initiate action - to be a catalyst for new ideas, innovation, excellence and improvement in the employment lands encompassed by the Pearson Eco- Business Zone. 611 Specifically, the Steering Committee will be responsible for: • Overseeing the development, implementation and management of the Partners in Project Green Business Plan. • Facilitating, initiating and directing resources to project teams to implement projects and programs identified through stakeholder consultation. • Championing green economic development and infrastructure investments in the Pearson Eco- Business Zone. • Providing a regional business perspective in the areas of federal, provincial and municipal policy and program development as it pertains to green economic development. • Publishing an annual report • Undertaking regular stakeholder consultation, to review, evaluate and improve Partners in Project Green programs and projects. 4. Reporting Relationship The Steering Committee is responsible to the broader region and community and the overall goals of Partners in Project Green. It will be accountable to the goals of Partners in Project Green by ensuring measurable goals are set and monitored, assessed and reported. The Steering Committee is a subcommittee of TRCA and will regularly update the Authority on the status of Partners in Project Green initiatives, and provide updates to municipal councils and the GTAA board as requested. The Steering Committee will advise staff on issues concerning the Pearson Eco- Business Zone and request implementation of projects and programs. Projects will be subject to TRCA or other agency approvals and approved funding. TRCA staff will assist with obtaining any required approvals. 5. Structure The Steering Committee will have a Chair and Vice Chair and will establish action- orientated project teams to pursue key initiatives and will be supported by a secretariat provided by TRCA. 5.1 Appointment of Steering Committee Members The Steering Committee will consist of approximately 37 voting members that will be comprised of 28 businesses from within the Pearson Eco- Business Zone and 8 government representatives as follows: • Business Community (28 representatives) • 28 members drawn from the Pearson Eco- Business Zone and representatives of the business community. • Municipalities (5 representatives) • The Region of Peel, City of Toronto, City of Brampton and City of Mississauga will be invited to a Council member or designate. • Chief Administrative Officer of the Region of Peel. 612 • Federal and Provincial Governments (maximum 2 representatives) • One Member of Provincial Parliament and one Member of Parliament or senior staff representatives from Provincial and Federal government will be invited to participate. • TRCA (2 representatives) • The Chair of the Authority or other designated TRCA member or staff (Chief Administrative Officer) and the Chair of the Etobicoke - Mimico Watersheds Coalition. Steering Committee members will be appointed for two -year terms by TRCA. It is anticipated that members will commit at least four days per year to prepare for and attend Steering Committee meetings. Steering Committee members will be expected to act as advocates at various events (e.g. visibility at key events and speaking engagements) and participate in or provide members for project teams. The Steering Committee will meet on a quarterly basis or at the call of the chair. Meetings are anticipated to be no more than one -half day in length and an agenda will be distributed in advance of meetings. 5.2 Appointment Process Membership on the Steering Committee will be drawn from organizations with connections to the Pearson Eco- Business Zone based on the following criteria: • Sector - whether the organization represents a critical sector within the Pearson Eco- Business Zone. • Involvement with Partners in Project Green Project Teams - whether the organization has or is willing to be involved in Partners in Project Green Project Teams. • Organizational leadership on sustainability - the organization has shown sustainability leadership. • Location - an operation and /or connection to the Pearson Eco- Business Zone. Municipalities and other levels of governments will be formally requested to make appointments. All proposed appointments will be presented to the Authority for formal approval. The Chair and Vice Chair will be elected by the members of the Steering Committee. 5.3 Steering Committee Chair and Vice Chair The Chair and Vice Chair will provide leadership in building a shared vision and community commitment for moving forward with a blueprint for action. The Chair will have the following additional responsibilities: 613 • being the primary spokesperson for Partners in Project Green at public and official functions; • presiding over Steering Committee meetings, setting the agenda and generally ensuring the effectiveness of meetings; • recruiting members to project teams and appointing project team chairs; • ensuring that the nomination and appointment of Steering Committee members occurs through an effective process and in a timely manner; and, • facilitating progress on Partners in Project Green initiatives in collaboration with working group chairs. In the absence of the Chair, the Vice Chair will perform the above functions. 5.4 Staff Liaison Additionally, staff from the Region of Peel, City of Toronto, City of Brampton and City of Mississauga will be requested to designate a staff from their economic development departments to liaise with the Steering Committee. Additional staff from planning and works may be appointed to participate on project teams as required. 5.5 Executive Committee An Executive Committee that reports to the Steering Committee will be established and comprised of seven members including the Chair and Vice Chair, representatives of the founding agencies (TRCA and Region of Peel), and three members nominated by the Steering Committee. The Executive Committee will advise staff and monitor priorities to ensure Partners in Project Green goals are being achieved. They will also provide leadership and communication among Partners in Project Green members and supporters. The responsibilities of the Executive Committee will include: • Act as a spokespersons for Partners in Project Green; • Advise staff in setting priorities for Partners in Project Green Steering Committee meetings; • Provide recommendations on programs and projects that have been approved as objectives by the Partners in Project Green Steering Committee; and, • Act as a sounding board for staff to advance activities between Partners in Project Green Steering Committee meetings. The Executive Committee will meet on a monthly basis either in- person or by conference call. 614 The Executive Committee will report to the Partners in Project Green Steering Committee and they will endorse the Executive Committee minutes to approve decisions. The rules applicable to Partners in Project Green Steering Committee meetings will apply to Executive Committee meetings. 5.6 Quorum A quorum will consist of one -third of the members of the Steering Committee. 5.7 Project Teams Project teams will be task oriented and established based on Steering Committee priorities as reflected in its work program. Work plans will be prepared for each working group including projected outcomes and timelines. Project teams will be comprised of both Steering Committee members and non - members who have a particular expertise critical to the task at hand. They will meet as required, will keep the Steering Committee apprised of activities and progress and will report to the Steering Committee as appropriate. 5.8 Project Team Chairs The Chair of a project team can either be from the Steering Committee or from a Pearson Eco- Business Zone business or outside organization. They will provide leadership on specific initiatives and effective communication between the Steering Committee and project teams, and among project teams as appropriate. ,Chairs of project teams will have the following additional responsibilities: • being the primary spokesperson for the project team at public and official functions; • setting work program and meeting schedule in collaboration with project team members and the secretariat, and presiding over project team meetings; • recruiting project team members; and, • ensuring project team terms of reference are drafted and confirmed with the Steering Committee. 5.9 Rules of Conduct Consensus -based decision making will be the preferred procedure. TRCA Rules of Conduct and Purchasing Policies will be adhered to as required. 6. Secretariat The Steering Committee, its Chair and project teams will be supported by a secretariat led by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The secretariat will provide facilitation, project and program development and implementation, research and policy analysis, administrative support, financial management and communications. 615 7. Funding Steering Committee and project team members will contribute their expertise as in -kind services. Compensation for transportation will be provided for attendance at meetings according to TRCA policy where these are not covered by their agency or other source. Core funding for Partners in Project Green will come from both public and private sector organizations, with specific funding for programs and projects being sought from a variety of funding sources. 616 RES. #A201/10 - RENEWAL OF INSTALLATION AGREEMENT WITH THE GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY Vicinity of Acacia Avenue, City of Toronto. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto for renewal of an existing installation agreement. Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Pamela Gough WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is the owner of Part of Lot 12, Concession VI and Lot 247, Registered Plan 1842, City of Toronto; AND WHEREAS the subject lands have been turned over to the City of Toronto, in accordance with the terms of an agreement dated June 14, 1961; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the renewal of the installation agreement with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) for a term of five years commencing January 1, 2010, be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give affect thereto, including obtaining necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND On February 15, 1979 TRCA, with the agreement of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (now the City of Toronto), entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Transport, representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (now the Greater Toronto Airport Authority), authorizing Transport Canada (now the Greater Toronto Airports Authority) to install a pole- mounted monitoring facility to record aircraft noise on TRCA -owned lands on Acacia Avenue, North York District, City of Toronto. The agreement was continuously renewed by TRCA until March 31, 1994. TRCA then turned over to Metro Toronto the yearly administration of the licence, and since April 1, 1994 Metro has been responsible for its management. The last licence was for a term of five years, which expired March 31, 2007 and included an annual licence fee of $500 for Year 1, $550 for Year 2, $600 for Year 3, $650 for year 4, and $700 for year five, net, plus all applicable taxes and costs related to the licensed area. Either party has the right to terminate the licence at any time upon giving at least ninety (90) days prior written notice to the other. Between 2007 and 2010 the City of Toronto undertook negotiations with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority for all of their locations. A sketch illustrating the TRCA -owned land effected is outlined in Attachment 1. 617 FINANCIAL DETAILS In accordance with the terms and conditions of the management agreement, no revenue or expense will be incurred in this instance by TRCA. The licence fee for the five year period will be $500 for Year 1, $515 for Year 2, $530 for Year 3, $546 for Year 4, and $563 for Year 5. The City of Toronto staff has advised that this proposal is satisfactory to the City, which will receive the revenues generated. Report prepared by: Lori Colussi, extension 5303 Emails: Icolussi @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Lori Colussi, extension 5303 Emails: Icolussi @trca.on.ca Date: November 17, 2010 Attachments: 1 618 Attachment 1 FlltIF1AD Subject Property Legend Subject Property TRCA Property Roads ©nserva titan for The Living City 30 15 0 3G Meters 619 RES. #A202 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY -OWNED LAND West side of Weston Road, north of Highway No. 401, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), CFN 43289. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is in receipt of a request for a land exchange of a parcel of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority land located on the west side of Weston Road, north of Highway No. 401, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #B 130/ 10) Gay Cowbourne Gino Rosati THAT item EX7.1 - Request for Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned land be deferred to a future Executive Committee meeting. CARRIED RES. #A203 /10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed Estate of Taimi Soosaar, CFN 44124. Acquisition of land located east of Bayview Avenue north of Stouffville Road, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, under "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 - 2010," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River watershed. (Executive Res. #8131 /10) Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Gino Rosati THAT 3.059 hectares (7.559 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 2, Concession 2, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, located east of Bayview Avenue, north of Stouffville Road be purchased from the Estate of Taimi Soosaar; THAT the purchase price be $30,000.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transactions at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs and disbursements are to be paid; 620 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect hereto including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. RES. #A204 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed Mattamy Development Corporation, CFN 44769. Acquisition of valleylands located south of Hoover Park Drive and east of Ninth Line from Mattamy Homes, Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York. (Executive Res. #B132 /10) Gay Cowbourne Gino Rosati THAT 11.60 hectares (28.68 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 32, Concession 8, and designated Part 1 on a draft plan of survey prepared by Rady - Pentek & Edwards Surveying Ltd, #06 -105, located south of Hoover Park Drive and east of Ninth Line, Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville, be purchased from Mattamy Development Corporation; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements and a lease to Telus Communications Company; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete' the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect hereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. RES. #A205 /10 - CARRIED GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Mansions of Humberwood Inc., CFN 44768. Purchase of property located north of Humberwood Boulevard, east of Highway No. 427 (rear of 720 Humberwood Boulevard), City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 - 2010 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #B 133/10) 621 Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Gino Rosati THAT 1.00 hectare (2.47 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Block 1, Registered Plan 66M -2257 and designated as Block 41 on draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Holding Jones Vanderveen Inc., Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No. 10- 2040- MPLAN1, dated June 8, 2010, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), located north of Humberwood Boulevard, east of Highway No. 427 (rear of 720 Humberwood Boulevard), be purchased from Mansions of Humberwood Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. RES. #A206 /10 - Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Andridge Homes Limited, CFN 44766. Purchase of property located east of Dufferin Street, south of Teston Road, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 - 2010 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed. (Executive Res. #B 134/ 10) Gay Cowbourne Gino Rosati THAT 8.21 hectares (20.28 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lots 24 and 25, Concession 2 and designated as Blocks 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 73, 74, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88 and 89 on a draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Schaeffer & Dzaldov Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No. 03- 809 -00, dated May 20, 2010, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located east of Dufferin Street, south of Teston Road, be purchased from Andridge Homes Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; 622 THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining needed approvals and execution of documentation. CARRIED RES. #A207/10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed Primont Homes, CFN 44775. Purchase of property located south of Gamble Road, west of Yonge Street, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006- 2010 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River watershed. (Executive Res. #B 135/ 10) Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Gino Rosati THAT 0.64 hectares (1.58 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 24 on Plan 4667 and designated as Block 14 on a draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by P. Salna Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, under their File No. 76 -10M, dated June 28, 2010, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, located south of Gamble Road, west of Yonge Street, be purchased from Primont Homes; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to a permanent easement in favour of the Town of Richmond Hill for maintenance of a roadway embankment and existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED 623 RES. #A208 /10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006 -2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Heathwood Homes (Tranquility -West) Limited, Regional Municipality of York, CFN 44763. Acquisition of property located on the east side of Bathurst Street between Humberland Drive and Mason Avenue in Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, under the 'Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006 - 2010', Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #B 136/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Gino Rosati THAT 15.38 hectares (38.01 acres), more or less, of vacant land, being Part of Lots 67 and 68, Concession I, and Block 108 Registered Plan 65M -3352, Geographic Township of King, designated as Block 132 on draft M -Plan prepared by Lloyd and Purcell under job no. 04 -554, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Heathwood Homes (Tranquility -West) Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED RES. #A209 /10 - MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION Expropriation Settlement, CFN 30391. Settlement of compensation relating to lands expropriated by the Ministry of Transportation for Highway #410, located north of Mayfield Road, East of Highway #10, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel. (Executive Res. #8137 /10) Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Gino Rosati 624 WHEREAS the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) expropriated Parts 1 and 2 on Expropriation Plan PR1149444 on October 6, 2006 and Part 1 on Expropriation Plan PR1384710 on December 5, 2007 from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into a settlement of compensation with MTO for said expropriations on the following basis: 1) The compensation be $66,700.00 plus interest at 6% annually from the date of expropriation until the date of payment together with TRCA's reasonable legal fees; 2) MTO abandon its expropriation of Part 2 on Plan 43R- 31166, and Part 2 be returned to TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to implement the settlement agreement, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED RES. #A210/10 - OFFICE ACCOMMODATION Lease of Office Space at the Earth Rangers Centre, CFN 40721. Approval to enter into a lease for a five -year term for approximately 4,400 square feet of office space at the Earth Rangers Centre at Kortright Centre for Conservation. (Executive Res. #8138/ 10) Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Gino Rosati THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a lease with the Earth Rangers Foundation for office space located at the Earth Rangers Centre at Kortright Centre for Conservation; THAT the term of the lease be for 60 months (five years) commencing January 1, 2011; THAT the terms and conditions of the lease be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitor; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary actions to implement the lease agreement including obtaining all necessary approvals and the signing and the execution of all necessary documents. CARRIED 625 RES. #A211 /10 - MEETING SCHEDULE 2011 -2012 To provide a schedule of meetings for the forthcoming Authority year, beginning January 28, 2011 and ending February 24, 2012. (Executive Res. #B 139/10) Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Gino Rosati THAT the Schedule of Meetings 2011 -2012, dated November 1, 2010, be approved; THAT the Executive Committee be designated the powers of the Authority during the month of August, 2011, as defined in Section 2.10 of the Rules of Conduct; AND FURTHER THAT the CAO's Office distribute this schedule at the earliest opportunity to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) watershed municipalities and the Ministry of Natural Resources. CARRIED SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION RES. #A212 /10 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Suzan Hall THAT Section I1 items EX8.1 - EX8.3, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #9/10, held on November 12, 2010, be received. CARRIED Items EX8.1 - EX8.2, Inclusive ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING Executive Res. #B 140/ 10 SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN POLICY OPTIONS DISCUSSION PAPER Executive Res. #8141 /10 HABITAT IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND PEEL CLIMATE CHANGE BUDGET. Contract Executive Executive Res. #B 142/10 SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES. #A213 /10 - THE LIVING CITY REPORT CARD Progress report on The Living City Report Card. 626 Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Pamela Gough THAT the staff report on the progress of The Living City Report Card be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #6/10, held on July 23, 2010, Resolution #A121/10 was approved as follows: THAT TRCA staff be authorized to partner with Greening Greater Toronto, an initiative of the Toronto City Summit Alliance, to produce the first edition of The Living City Report Card in conjunction with the Greening Greater Toronto Score Card; THAT TRCA staff continue to produce brief report cards on the health of individual watersheds in TRCA's jurisdiction on a five year cycle following the production of The Living City Report Card subject to data availability, funding and staff resources; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff make provisions in the 2012 -2021 capital budget forecast for producing report cards. TRCA staff continue to collect data via the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program and from other sources in preparation for publishing future watershed specific report cards. Funding has been included in the ten year forecast for data collection, analysis, project management, design, printing and electronic distribution. The Living City Report Card Update The Living City Report Card will be published in February, 2011 and will report on parameters relevant to the Greater Toronto Area as well as some details on watersheds and the Lake Ontario waterfront within TRCA's jurisdiction. There are no changes to the six main themes since this project was last presented in July, 2010. The six topics to be discussed include: Carbon Emissions, Air Quality, Water, Waste, Land Use and Biodiversity. After much consideration and consultation with Greening Greater Toronto and various experts, the table below presents the final list of indicators, measures and the agency responsible for reporting on the indicator. In selecting these indicators serious consideration was given to criteria such as the availability of data, ability to track trends over time, understandability, relevancy and jurisdictional wide issues. 627 Final List of Indicators and Measures Metric Indicators & Measures Carbon Total Carbon (GGT) Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Capita (GGT) Air Quality Sulphur Dioxide (GGT) Volatile Organic Compounds (GGT) Particulate Matter (GGT) Nitrogen Oxides (GGT) Water Water Quality (TRCA): Water Quality Index Water Quantity (TRCA): flood risk; % developed land with stormwater control Water Consumption per Capita (GGT) Waste Residential Waste Diversion (GGT) Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC &I) Diversion (GGT) Land use Agriculture (TRCA: food deserts, farmland conservation, lands in crop production, gross farm receipts, cost revenue ratio, commodity profile, farm operator succession Greenspace (TRCA): Hectares of greenspace per capita Urban Forest (TRCA): Leaf Area Index Green Buildings (TRCA): number and total floor space of certified green building by municipality Intensification (GGT) Biodiversity Natural Cover Quantity and Quality (TRCA): percent natural cover, habitat patch analysis score Terrestrial Biodiversity (TRCA): Floristic Quality Index, birds, frogs Aquatic Biodiversity (TRCA): native species richness Education (TRCA): number of school participants in outdoor education Several modifications have been made to the indicators and measures. Three new indicators have been added to describe air quality. These include volatile organic compounds, particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. Phosphorus concentrations and algae in Lake Ontario will not be reported due to the unavailability of data. Waste diversion will be reported but not waste generated per capita. Shoreline protection has been removed as a health indicator since this is more of an action aimed at protecting or enhancing watershed conditions or safeguarding people and property. Urban intensification will be used as an indicator versus population density. For agriculture, the extent of food deserts will be presented in place of the ability to grow 10% of the regions vegetable requirements. It is still undecided if human heritage will be presented in the report card. We are still investigating the availability of suitable information. Possible measures include the number of properties in heritage conservation districts, designated heritage structures, registered archaeological sites and visitation at "Open Door" heritage venues. The outcome of our research will dictate whether human heritage will be included in the report card. 628 Each indicator discussion will provide an overview of current conditions, trends, examples of key efforts aimed at improving current conditions, future targets, key steps to reach the target, and a grade. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a sample presentation of the Terrestrial Biodiversity Indicator. The report card will also feature a series of essays or "deep dives" on topics considered to be important issues for a sustainable city region such as waste, transportation, land use planning and design, and ecological goods and services. Greening Greater Toronto will prepare the waste and transportation essays. The Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) will prepare the land use planning and design essay, and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) will prepare the essay on ecological goods and services. Report Presentation The Living City Report Card will be presented in three different formats: 1. Tong -form report, 8.5 x 11 vertical format and approximately 60 pages in length will include one to two page spreads for each indicator; 2. short- form /scorecard: an abbreviated six panel fold out which will highlight key messages and findings; and 3. interactive on -line presentation which will be extensively disseminated to a broader audience. The on -line version will result is a significant reduction in printing of paper products. The outline for the long form report includes: 1. Introduction (jointly signed by TRCA and GGT) 2. Definition: • characterization of geographic study area; • detailed overview of methodology; and • acknowledgements. 3. Overview of Themes and Indicator Data: • Six themes: carbon emissions, air quality, water, waste, land use and biodiversity and an overview of what they mean, why they matter, why measure them, and comparisons within the GTA/TRCA jurisdiction and with other city regions. • Each theme will include: introduction, driver tree (a visual representation of the primary parameters "driving" the various indicators), and a presentation of the indicators condition, trends if available, grade, partnerships, target and next steps. 4. Deep -Dive on Select Topics for Sustainable Communities • transportation (GGT); • waste (GGT); • land use design and planning (OPPI/TRCA); • ecological goods and services (TRCA). 629 5. How You Can Step Up /Call to Action • Outlines what individuals, private sector organizations, nonprofit organizations and governments can do to address the issues identified to improve the environmental performance of the region. The report card recommends some of the major steps needed in the way of policy, investment or behavioral change needed for a healthy sustainable city region. External Contributors TRCA and GGT have engaged a wide range of external experts to contribute to many of the indicators and "deep dive" topic discussions. To name a few, OPPI will write a call to action regarding the ways in which city region planning must be done in the future. For the agriculture indicator, the Martin Prosperity Institute, Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto will be writing on the topic of food deserts which will present a compelling story about the local food challenges facing TRCA's jurisdiction. Planscape will also present key findings and messages affecting the conventional agricultural sector in the GTA. In addition, a University of Toronto professor has undertaken extensive research on the GTA's greenhouse gas emissions for various sectors which will presented in the report card. Launch The report card will be launched by TRCA and GGT at the next Toronto City Summit on February 10th and 11th, 2011, which is expected to be attended by media and approximately 800 people. We expect to produce and distribute approximately 800 copies of the report card at the event and subsequently by electronic media. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE November, 2010 • Finalize design concepts. • Edit and finalize content. • Submit content for layout. • Develop a communications strategy in partnership with GGT which will detail how the report card will be disseminated and promoted via social marketing and mail -outs leading up to and following the launch of the report card. • Select a printer company to produce the documents. December, 2010 • Develop on -line presentation. • Communications strategy to be finalized. • Initiate implementation of the communications strategy. January, 2011 • Final review of print materials. • Print materials sent for production. • Finalization of on -line presentation. • Implementation of communications strategy. 630 February, 2011 • Launch at Toronto City Summit, February 10 -11, 2011. Report prepared by: Sonia Dhir, extension 5291 Emails: sdhir @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211 Emails: gwilkins @trca.on.ca Date: November 12, 2010 Attachments: 1 631 Attachments 1 The Living City Report Card 2010 Indicator — Terrestrial Biodiversity Grade D, wth data showing a downward trend in biodiversity ihe biodversity of our plant, bird and frog species are a direct indica«orofhnwmeUwmaro protecting and restoring the regional system of natural areas across the TRCA's jurisdiction While a grade of 'D' for biodiversity is sufficient cause for serious concern, the urban portions of TRCA's watersheds have scored an aarrningIy Fow grade af 'F'. The data also show that conditions are deteriorating in the face of continued urban dev&opment, the invasion of non native species and the impacts of climate change. Typically, the monitoring sites accorded the higher grades (mostly Bs and Cs) are located in the more rural and northern portions af the region that feature large patches of intact habitat and suffer fower dsturbances from traffic or development. Only the most adaptabe and opportunistic species-just one third of the 1,112 species plants and am[ma|y that originally thrived inthenogion - havebee^able to maintain ofoothold in the urban core, While the data shows declines in plant biodiversity are not as severe as thosc scen among bird and frog species, the respite may only be temporary. When conditions become unfavourable, birds leave to search aut more appropriate habitat, while local frog populations may smpy die out, Plants are not mobile and whie inthviduas may persist for a time, they will eventually decline and disappear. Gracie Grading Criteria Forest Bit o* for Wetland Birds Terrestrial Forest mQ/~ px"dkersiry Wetland poV~ Frogs A ^37 >12 >30 >34 >19 8 27-3h 9—l1 2h-3O 27-3] 15-18 � z7—z6 7-8 z1—Z5 20 -26 11 -14 D 7-1a 5-6 1*-20 1z—z9 o — zV F u — * o—« 11-15 o — zz o-7 , The Floristic Quality Index (FQ)|sa measure mfa site soverall plant community integrity and bxodi,ersby. o�m���°� ~�^� Trends im Terrestrial Bixdiversity • Within the urban zone, no frogs were present in 9 of the 22 monitoring sites, and an additional four sites had onty one species. • Approximately 10% of the native local species of flora and 6% of the birds, amphibians, reptiles and rnarnmais have been extirpated from the region. • Many other species just 'hanging on'. Of the 1,112 native flora and fauna species found in the region, 700 (63%) have been identified as specipooy^Regiuno|[onservat|onConcprn°. • White thoy may be stffl be Eound in undisturbed pockots and natural areas across the region, their range has shrunk by more than 80% and they have disappeared almost entirely from the urban core of the region. • The province has designated 19 species of plants, mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians fnundinthe'negionas"SpeciesatKisk~indanAerofexUrpatio^. * Invasive plants and animals can out-compete and displace many native species. Today, introduced nonTnative plants make up 45% of all the flora species found in the region. Leadership • TRCA will continue to undertake invasive alien plant management on TRCA-owned properties. Terrestrial invasive plants can out-compete native flora for resources and transform targe areas into virtual monocutturos. • TR[Aisimplementing its Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy through land securement, stewardship, and restoration, while municipalities are using the stratogy to identify and protect their own naturat heritage systems within their plannirtg documents. • Provincial and federal agencies working on biodiversity strategy and invasive species strategies. The For example, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (KdNR) is working on recovery planning for Species at Risk in the province. • TRCA is partnering with the City of Toronto to produce a series of biodiversity guidebooks that will describe the wealth of biodiversity within the city and highlighting threats and potential mitigations. Target for 2016 The five-year target is to complete reforestation and wetland habitat restoration on approximately 750 hectares across the region. In addition, the management of alien invasive species will continue on both TRCA property and private lands, and high priority plant restoration projects will be designed and undertaken to increase the quantity and quality of habitat patches. U�n�^��� ���� Next Steps • The cost of restoring forest and wetland habitats and increasing the amount of natural cover on some 750 hectares will be approximately $8.5OO'000. One mf the primary threats to biodiversity is the loss of habitat, so this investment is important for the sustainability of species populations in the TR[Ajurisdiction, w rRcA will continue to monitor the terrestrial natural heritage system at the long-term monitoring plots to detect chan es in species composition, distribution and abundance. Currently, these detailed surveys are available for approximately 60% of the natural cover. • Roads can fragment habitat areas, so TRCA will continue to work with regional and local governments to implement and plan appropriate safe passageways for wildlife. w TRCA will finalize priorities for restoration of various vegetation communities and species and begin implementation of these projects through the TRCA Species and Communities Recovery Pr 'ect. V���m� u�^�� RES. #A214 /10 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES Moved by: Seconded by: Glenn Mason Linda Pabst THAT Section IV item AUTH8.2.1, in regard to watershed committee minutes, be received. CARRIED Section IV Item AUTH8.2.1 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting #7/10, held on October 12, 2010. RES. #A215 /10 - OUT OF COUNTRY TRAVEL Chief Administrative Officer. Receipt of information on the Chief Administrative Officer's out of country travel to Greenbuil J 2010 and the Green Cities Conference, to be held from November 17 -19, 2010 in Chicago, United States and February 27 to March 2, 2011 in Melbourne, Australia, respectively. (Executive Res. #B 143/ 10) Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Laurie Bruce THAT the staff report dated October 19, 2010 on Out of Country Travel for Brian Denney, Chief Administrative Officer, be received. ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 RES. #A216 /10 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Moved by: Seconded by: Richard Whitehead Colleen Jordan CARRIED THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items (EX10.1 - EX10.94, inclusive), contained in Executive Committee Minutes #9/10, held on November 12, 2010, be received. CARRIED 635 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:55 a.m., on Friday, November 26, 2010. Gerri Lynn O'Connor Brian Denney Chair Secretary- Treasurer /ks 636 khk 01FTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY#10/10 January 7, 2011 The Authority Meeting #10/10, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, January 7, 2011. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Vice Chair David Barrow Member Bryan Bertie Member Laurie Bruce Member Bob Callahan Member Gay Cowbourne Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Biase Member Chris Fonseca Member Pamela Gough Member Lois Griffin Member Colleen Jordan Member Chin Lee Member Gloria Lindsay Luby Member Glenn Mason Member Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair Anthony Perruzza Member Dave Ryan Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member Vincent Crisanti Member Jack Heath Member Peter Milczyn Member Linda Pabst Member John Parker Member Gino Rosati Member Richard Whitehead Member 637 RES.#A217/10 - MINUTES Moved by: Gay Cowbourne Seconded by: Pamela Gough THAT the Minutes of Meeting #9/10, held on November 26, 2010, be approved. CARRIED RES.#A218/10 - REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-TREASURER This is a certification that the persons listed below are duly appointed and are entitled to sit as members of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: David Barrow THAT the report of the Secretary-Treasurer advising that all persons listed herein have been duly appointed and are entitled to sit as Members of this Authority for the 2011-2012 year, be received: DURHAM Colleen Jordan Gerri Lynn O'Connor Dave Ryan PEEL Bob Callahan Chris Fonseca John Sprovieri Jim Tovey Richard Whitehead TORONTO Paul Ainslie Maria Augimeri Vincent Crisanti Glenn De Baeremaeker Chin Lee Gloria Lindsay Luby Peter Milczyn John Parker Anthony Perruzza YORK David Barrow Michael Di Biase Jack Heath Linda Pabst Gino Rosati MONO/ADJALA-TOSORONTIO Glenn Mason; 638 THAT the Executive Committee will continue for the January 14, 2011 meeting with the remaining nine members of the previous twelve membership, with quorum as a majority of the now nine member committee; AND FURTHER THAT the years of service of Bonnie Littley, Eve Adams, Grant Gibson, Maja Prentice, Michael Del Grande, Suzan Hall, Ron Moeser and Bill Fisch to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be acknowledged with great appreciation. CARRIED SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES.#A219/10 - PLANNING AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATION FEE SCHEDULE 2011 Planning, permitting and environmental assessment fee schedule adjustments for 2011. Moved by: Gay Cowbourne Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff has established administration fees to provide service delivery for municipalities and the development industry for the review of a wide range of applications requiring environmental planning and technical expertise; WHEREAS TRCA has established revenue targets for the 2011 Planning and Development plan review function of TRCA as part of the annual operating/capital budgeting exercise; WHEREAS staff monitor the level of service demands for planning, ecology, engineering, hydrogeology and enforcement reviews and report on an annual basis on the implications of cost recovery; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review services dated January 7, 2011 be reconfirmed as effective immediately incorporating a 2% inflationary cost increase for 2011 as per Authority approvals in January 2010; THAT staff inform all municipalities within TRCA's jurisdiction and the development industry of the updates to the TRCA fee schedule; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority as to the progress of the provincial Conservation Authorities Liaison Committee (CALC) assessment on planning/permitting fee review, and on TRCA's internal review of 100% cost recovery for fees. 639 AMENDMENT RES.#A220/10 Moved by: Gay Cowbourne Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT the last two paragraphs of the main motion be replaced with the following: THAT staff inform all municipalities within TRCA's jurisdiction and the development industry of the updates to the TRCA fee schedule and TRCA's intent to move to 100% cost recovery in 2012; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority as to the progress of the provincial Conservation Authorities Liaison Committee (CALC) assessment on planning/permitting fee review, and on TRCA's internal review and Authority commitment for 100% cost recovery of service to be effective by January 1, 2012. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED RECORDED VOTE Maria Augimeri Yea David Barrow Yea Bryan Bertie Yea Laurie Bruce Yea Bob Callahan Yea Gay Cowbourne Yea Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Michael Di Biase Yea Chris Fonseca Yea Pamela Gough Yea Lois Griffin Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Chin Lee Yea Gloria Lindsay Luby Yea Glenn Mason Yea Gerri Lynn O'Connor Yea Anthony Perruzza Yea Dave Ryan Yea John Sprovieri Yea Jim Tovey Yea THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED 640 THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff has established administration fees to provide service delivery for municipalities and the development industry for the review of a wide range of applications requiring environmental planning and technical expertise; WHEREAS TRCA has established revenue targets for the 2011 Planning and Development plan review function of TRCA as part of the annual operating/capital budgeting exercise; WHEREAS staff monitor the level of service demands for planning, ecology, engineering, hydrogeology and enforcement reviews and report on an annual basis on the implications of cost recovery; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review services dated January 7, 2011 be reconfirmed as effective immediately incorporating a 2% inflationary cost increase for 2011 as per Authority approvals in January 2010; THAT staff inform all municipalities within TRCA's jurisdiction and the development industry of the updates to the TRCA fee schedule and TRCA's intent to move to 100% cost recovery in 2012; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority as to the progress of the provincial Conservation Authorities Liaison Committee (CALC) assessment on planning/permitting fee review, and on TRCA's internal review and Authority commitment for 100% cost recovery of service to be effective by January 1, 2012. BACKGROUND Over the past 8 years TRCA staff has been reviewing and monitoring the level of service for plan and permitting review, and has been adjusting the fee schedule to reflect changes in the volume, scale and complexity of project submissions. Streamlining the plan review process and refining fee charges commensurate with the specific assignment has been part of all negotiations and schedule refinements over the last few years. In addition, TRCA has conducted comparable analysis of development review with neighbouring conservation authorities (CAs) and member municipal partners. After a lengthy period of consultation with BILD over the 2008 Fee Schedule, staff brought forward a modest change to fees on January 8, 2010 including a 2% increase in all fees for 2010 and 2011, respectively. With a cost recovery ratio of 55-60% of the total budget costs, the Authority modified staff's recommendation and instructed staff to re-assess the Fee Schedule for 100% cost recovery and bring back a proposal for full cost recovery by 2012. The resulting Resolution #A 231/09 was approved, in part, as follows: THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the 2010-2011 Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review Services dated December 18, 2009 and incorporating a 2% cost of living increase for each of 2010 and 2011, be approved, to be effective January 8, 2010; ........ 641 AND FURTHER THAT in future amendments to the Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Review Services, TRCA move towards full cost recovery as soon as possible, and no later than January 1, 2012. Since last year staff has been assessing the cost recovery calculations and have studied the cost implications of a comprehensive cost recovery approach to charging fees for plan review. The required alterations needed to recover 100%from the fee charges would be significant (in the order of magnitude of doubling current fees in some cases). At the same time this year, the Province of Ontario established the Conservation Authority Liaison Committee to address issues related to planning and permitting mandate and process, and fee cost across the CAs in the Province. CALC includes representatives from the ministries of Natural Resources, Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Energy and Infrastructure, Conservation Ontario, select CAs, development industry, NGOs and municipal sectors. CALC produced a policies and procedures document to assist CAs, municipalities and the development community to understand the roles and responsibilities of CAs in the planning and permitting process. CALC is also completing its review of the fee schedule standards across all CAs in Ontario. In light of this provincial initiative, TRCA staff believes that we should postpone such discussions on appropriate cost recovery until the level of service principles and associated costs are addressed with the provincial committee representatives. In the meantime, however, TRCA must move forward in terms of fee coverage for the anticipated workload in 2011 and pressures on current operating budgets. Proposal The proposal for this Fee Schedule rests with maintaining our original proposal of a 2% increase to all fees in 2011, as addressed in the staff report to the Authority on January 8, 2010, and the Authority's approval of the proposal effective January 8, 2010. This 2% is an inflationary adjustment and would assist TRCA in achieving a 55%to 60% cost recovery target for 2011. BILD (Building Industry and Land Development Association) has been consulted on the proposal for 2011, and this issue was extensively discussed prior to the last Fee Schedule refinement last January. TRCA staff has made a commitment to hold discussions on the 100% cost recovery summaries in the spring. Several streamlining proposals are also being put forward for the fee schedule to assist in expediting reviews. These recommendations will be brought forward to the BILD working committee discussions in the early 2011, and are not subject for approval until after consultation has been completed as per TRCA's new Fees Policy/Guideline 2009. Trends in Workload and Service Delivery Demand The volume of planning and permitting applications has remained steady from 2009 to 2010 at TRCA. With the municipal election, the first three quarters of the year were exceptionally busy with development planning applications and associated permitting. Trends in the Environmental Assessment (EA) workload has also remained high for 2009/2010 particularly with the impact of the new infrastructure Stimulus Funding. Emergency Works for infrastructure repairs has also increased for the EA review team. 642 TRCA Planning and Development has had a record year in terms of permits approved for construction with well over 1,000 permits issued in 2010 -the highest volume yet for TRCA. TRCA met our revenue target for 2009 and anticipate meeting that target of$3,100,000 for 2010. Preliminary summary for 2010 Planning Applications 600 (plus 215 carry forward) New Permits 1,060 (plus carry forward 200) Permits Issued 1,125 Environmental Assessments 130 EMPs (Environmental Management Plans) 3 Solicitor Inquiries 650 Violations Issued 110 Active OMB/MLC hearings 10 MESP's (Master Environmental Servicing Plans) 8 (plus Seaton 15) Special Planning/Development Review Committees 25 Official Plan exercises 6 Participation in Secondary/Block Plans processes and the technical review of associated MESPs (Master Environmental Servicing Plan) has formed an increasing sector of our workload this year and this trend will increase as we move forward into 2011 and 2012. One of our goals on fee cost recovery for 2010 was aimed at completing a range of negotiations with proponents on outstanding MESP review requirements (some new and others part of files in transition). TRCA was successful in negotiating a total of approximately$330,000 for MESP reviews in the spring of 2010 for study review already in process. In addition, TRCA staff has just negotiated approximately $400,000 for new MESP work that will carry into 2011. These funds which were established to support MESP review service delivery, assist Planning and Development meet a higher cost recovery level than in the past, as well as, provide staffing capacity and level of service needed for these large, complex studies. The MESP funds need to be managed carefully to ensure that the required levels of service with TRCA's municipal partners and landowner groups are sustained over a typical 2 -3 year period of study. Although the number of OMB (Ontario Municipal Board) hearings have been quite heavy for TRCA staff this year, we have successfully managed to settle the majority of site planning issues through negotiated settlements. TRCA's legal costs have therefore been kept well within our legal consulting budget allocation. Planning and Development will be relying heavily on our comprehensive fee schedule for funding of the general staff complement, as well as, MESP fee negotiations for 2011. The Environmental Assessment team, also relies on specialized service agreements to fund review efforts for major infrastructure projects such as TTC (subway/transit systems), Coxwell Emergency Works Project and key regional infrastructure assignments. 643 Preliminary Fee Adjustments for Streamlining The following streamlining changes to the fee schedule are recommended for discussion with BILD through our working group consultation in 2011. Many of the following fee adjustments have come from discussions with staff and BILD working committee members as options to cost recover where efforts warrant. These changes generally assist the applicant to gain a faster, more efficient approval. TRCA staff believe that these fee and category changes will assist in expediting certain approvals for applicants and landowners, and will allocate the appropriate fee to more time consuming efforts particularly complex permits, grading submissions and phased approvals. These recommended fees are not put forward for Authority approval at this time, and will need more analysis by TRCA staff for cost recovery, and further dialogue with BILD representatives, before coming back to the Authority. Phased Approvals Frequently, applicants require a series of phased development approvals to proceed through the draft plan stages of subdivision approval. The frequency of this request and level of effort for this workload has increased. TRCA recommends that a new fee be established to cover increased efforts involved in this expedited task. Expedited Comments and Clearance for Registration This optional fee includes efforts as a special circumstance to provide clearance comments within five working days of the request. Since these efforts often throw other projects out of order of priority, it is recommended that a expedited fee should apply. Expedited services are only provided as workload allows and upon the approval of the Director, Planning and Development. Red Line Revisions TRCA has traditionally not used red lined drawings for expediting approvals and when used the issues and drawing changes are usually very minor in nature; TRCA's current fee is $500. Staff sees the need for a major red line revision category that covers urgent approvals, and more complex design solutions. TRCA recommends a major red line revision fee category to be used in critical approvals, not as a main stream approval technique. Repeat Submissions TRCA has experienced over the years increasingly the nuisance of incomplete submissions and repeat submissions that do not address the issues covered in our commenting letters. In order that TRCA staff can avoid "mini submissions" and dragged out multiple submissions that do not always deal with TRCA's issues comprehensively, staff recommend a repeat submissions fee for those projects that exceed the preferred two submission approach. It is recommended that a re-submission fee be applied to every submission beyond a reasonable two submissions. The principle of this type of fee has generally been supported in previous discussions with BILD. Broaden Permit Categories to reflect Complexity The current fee schedule does not cover the workload inherent in the broad spectrum of permit types that are reviewed by TRCA staff. Staff recommends restructuring categories including adjustments to major filling/grading and in stream works, adding a new permit category for major channel modifications/major stream restoration assignments and road crossings, and adding a fee for topsoil stripping review, etc. These fees need to move closer to full cost recovery. 644 Special Policy Area (SPA) Applications Applications are becoming increasing time consuming when gaining approvals within the Special Policy Area (SPA) designations and require more rigorous studies to address SPA flood related/design issues. Involvement with the Province will be required in many cases where special land use approvals are necessary. All applications located in the SPA or Flood Vulnerable Area will be charged a new premium on the application. Minor Works In addition, the Ministry of Natural Resources is currently in the process of proposing amendments to the regulatory legislation that would facilitate the Executive Committee to delegate positive permit decisions to conservation authority staff. The amendments are intended to simplify and streamline the permitting process. At this time, the amendments are anticipated to be in place by mid-2011. TRCA staff is planning to re-evaluate the categories for minor works approvals as an expedited review delegated to staff. Additional changes to the fee schedule will be formulated as part of the ongoing monitoring and streamlining of the fee schedule, demands of the workload and the 100% cost recovery evaluations. Training TRCA has agreed to provide training to the BILD membership on issues of complete submission, avoiding approval pit-falls and technical specialty workshops, e.g. the new Erosion and Sediment Erosion control guidelines. Topics for continuing learning educational sessions will be formulated as part of our BILD working group sessions. CONCLUSION TRCA will be relying heavily on the modest increase for inflation of 2% on this fee schedule to assist in meeting our cost recovery target of 55-60%. TRCA has a projected revenue target for 2011 of$3,444,000 to raise from fee coverage. TRCA will also rely on fee requests for MESP studies and specialized requests for large scale infrastructure projects to cover the workload demands and build staffing capacity. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff will continue to represent our Authority on the CALC committee on issues of conservation authority mandate, planning procedures, fee schedule implementation and service delivery. TRCA staff will bring forward in early 2011 the work that has been conducted to date on the 100% cost recovery scenario for Authority discussion, and discussions with the Province. In addition, TRCA staff will continue to meet with our area BILD working group on matters of fee adjustment and streamlining in 2011, and will have a working group discussion on the required 100% recovery fee option as directed by the Authority in 2010. The implications of the fee changes will be discussed in more detail. 645 Staff will inform TRCA's municipal partners of the revised fee schedule for 2011. TRCA staff continues to work with municipal staff to negotiate planning processes for MESP's for new growth areas, and to negotiate fee structures that cover technical review and negotiations for the Secondary Plans, Block Plans and supporting MESPs. Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Email: cwoodland @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Email: cwoodland @trca.on.ca Date: December 16, 2010 Attachments: 3 646 Attachment 1 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For Planning Services Effective January 7, 2011 APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEE CLEARANCE FEE Screening letter $80 N/A (Refer to Note #9) Concept Development/ *minor $250 N/A Property Enquiry *major $5,200 N/A (Refer to Note #10) with one site visit $360 N/A Variances $360 Refer to Note #5 Consent/Severance/Land Division *minor $720 N/A (Refer to Note #3) *major $1,725 $755 Single Residential Site Plan *minor $500 N/A (Refer to Note #3) *major $2,915 $630 Site Plan *minor $1,090 N/A (Refer to Note #3) *intermediate $4,160 $1,040 *major -25ha or less $9,950 $2,190 -greater than 25ha $14,350 $2,190 Official Plan Amendment (OPA) *minor $1,090 N/A (Refer to Note #3) *major $4,320 $1,875 Zoning By-law Amendment/ *minor $1,090 N/A Rezoning (ZBA/RZ) *major $4,320 $2,190 (Refer to Note #3) Multi-Unit Building Application *minor- 5ha or less $10,825 $3,590 (Rental, Condominium, mixed use) *major-25ha or less $21,540 $7,905 - greater than 25ha $28,715 $7,905 Draft Plan of Subdivision *minor-5ha or less $10,825(base fee) $3,590 (Refer to Note #3) *major-25ha or less $21,540 $7,905 (base fee) $7,905 - greater than 25ha $28,715(base fee) Subdivisions without prior comprehensive MESP review will be charged an additional $100 per lot Golf courses or Aggregate pits -25ha or less $7,285 N/A -greater than 25ha $14,565 N/A Block and Tertiary Plans and -25ha or less $7,140 (base fee) N/A Master Environmental Servicing -greater than 25ha $14,280(base fee) N/A Plan (MESP) Additional charge of$450 per hectare for (Refer to MESP Fee Guidelines for comprehensive MESP implementation) 647 OTHER APPLICABLE FEES Description Fee Pre-consultation meeting No charge Pre-consultation technical team site visit (Refer to Note #10) $2,600 Additional Site Visit Charges up to '/2 day $630 up to 1 day $1,250 (First site review is allowed as part of processing. Multiple field including travel time assessments, stakings and negotiations are charged separately.) (Refer to Note #10) Additional Clearance fee for Subdivision Phases $1,560 *Applicant Driven Formal Modification $1,040 Re-submission due to *incomplete submissions $3,125 All applications located in Special Policy Area (SPA) or Flood Vulnerable Area will be charged a 25% premium on the applicable fee *See Definitions Notes 1. The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the municipality. The final clearance fee will be billed directly by the TRCA and paid prior to final clearance of an application. All payments must be made within 30 days of TRCA notification in writing. Interest will be charged and accumulated beyond 30 days. 2. Re-submission fees will be billed directly by the TRCA and must be paid prior to final clearance of an application. 3. Only one set of fees apply when processing and reviewing a combined application(e.g. a subdivision/OPA/ZBA). The highest rate of fees applies if review at the same time. 4. The TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees or adjust fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort or development application scenarios not captured in the schedule. Custom fees will be negotiated for fast-tracked or unique circumstances for large scale/complex review efforts. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant. TRCA reserves the right to assess fee requirements after one year of processing planning applications. Additional fees can be charged post one year and unreasonable delays. 5. Where a site visit and/or extended review is required for a Variance application, a clearance fee of$100 is applicable. 6. Subdivisions that have several phases, will be charged a separate clearance fee of$1,560 at the time of clearing each phase. 7. All application fees (except Concept Development) include one initial site visit. 8. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees to reflect requirements under Bill 51 for either planning or regulatory legislation. 9. Generally,this fee does not apply to major developments. 10. This is not a mandatory fee. This is a guidance tool at the request of the applicant. 648 MESP Fee Guidelines for Implementation The Fee Schedule sets a generic cost across the jurisdiction as follows: Proposals 25ha or less $ 7,140 Base Fee Proposals greater than 25ha $14,280 Base Fee An additional charge of$450 per hectare (gross) is applied to each application inclusive of natural systems. The TRCA fee assumes an average 2 year timeframe for MESP completion. TRCA reserves the right to re-evaluate the MESP fee status after a two year process. A Terms of Reference for the MESP work tasks must be prepared and agreed to by all parties —the municipality, TRCA and the proponent. TRCA's 2010 fee schedule includes the following MESP milestone payment structure: MESP PHASE OF WORK PAYABLE 1. Preliminary Initiation (at Project start-up) Base Fee applies (Scoping of MESP/Terms of Reference Initiation) 2. Terms of Reference completion/MESP Initiation 50% payable (Includes existing conditions report/field work First MESP Submission/Review) 3. Prior to First Submission Comments 20% payable 4. Prior to issuance of final MESP approval by TRCA 30% payable (Maximum 3 review submissions) All official plan amendment, zoning and draft plans of subdivision fee requirements that evolve out of the Secondary/Block planning and MESP process apply separately as per TRCA's approved fee schedule at the time of submission. No additional per lot charges will apply on draft plans if a MESP is completed, approved and paid for. Plans of subdivision that have not been studied under the MESP process, will be charged an additional fee of$100 per lot, over and above the subdivision base and clearance fees (see schedule). On occasion, MESP fee requirements may be scoped to the type of municipal process and scheduling parameters (e.g. fast-tracked, updates and transitional files, reduced scope of work). Construction permits for works under TRCA's provincial regulation are charged separately at the time of detailed design and construction of draft plan components (such as stormwater management facilities, road/bridge crossings, pipe boring and drilling works, stream channel works, etc). 649 Definitions Minor-An application is determined to be "minor" where no technical studies are required, or only a scoped Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. Minor Subdivision -A subdivision application is determined to be "minor" where no technical studies, or only a scoped Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required and where the site is 5ha or less. Intermediate- Non-residential site plans of a mid-scale requiring technical studies for estate residential and commercial/industrial site plans. Major-An application is determined to be "major" where technical studies beyond a scoped Environmental Impact Statement (such as Stormwater Management or Geotechnical) are required. Incomplete Submissions-A submission for review is deemed to be "incomplete" where TRCA has provided a checklist of requirements, and the application has not met all requirements. Applicant Driven Formal Modification-A fee for an "applicant driven formal modification" will be charged where plans are submitted for review after the application has received draft plan approval from the municipality. 650 Attachment 2 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) Effective January 7, 2011 ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 FEE PERMIT APPLICATION Works on Personal Residential Property *minor$360 *major$730 Municipal Projects: • Regional/Local; NO EA required $1,082 • Emergency Works $3,540 Utilities • Single residential $1,040 • Development project based $2,860 Projects on Subdivision Lands, Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Properties, Resource-based Recreation and Other Projects Standard Projects Include: • SWM ponds and associated outfalls $4,020 per project • Other outfalls • Road Crossings • Grading • In-stream Works Major Projects: • New Road Crossings $6,035 per project • Natural Channel Modifications Minor Improvements $2,155 per project Red Line Revisions by TRCA $510 All applications located in a SPA (Special Policy Area) or Flood Vulnerable Area will require an additional 25%on standard fee Permission for Minor Works- Letter of Approval $80; $360 with site visit (see qualification criteria, as approved June 9, 2006) Municipal: $2,155 Permit Revisions Residential minor/major: 25%of current fee Others: 50%of current fee Permit Re-Issuance for Ontario Regulation 158 (1 time only) 50%of current fee Permit Re-Issuance for Ontario Regulation 166/06 (1 time only) 50%of current fee No permit required/regulatory and fisheries review&advice only $630 ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 FEE PROPERTY INFORMATION Solicitor/Realtor/Property Inquiry $250 *See Definitions 651 Notes 1. The permit fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. In the event that the permit fee is not paid at the time of filing an application, fees must be paid prior to issuing a permit. 2. The TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical, and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant. 3. All permits are issued for two years. 4. Ontario Regulation 158 was revoked with the approval of Ontario Regulation 166/06. Any request for an extension for a permit under Ontario Regulation 158 not granted before May 8, 2006, will be considered under Ontario Regulation 166/06. One permit re-issuance extending the permit approval for a period of two years will be granted before the works are considered new works. Such requests will be assessed in accordance with any new updated technical hazard information. Extensions will not be required for those works not located within an area regulated under the new regulation. 5. There are no extensions for permits issued under Ontario Regulation 166/06. On a one-time basis, and upon notification 60 days prior to the expiration of an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit, applicants may apply for re-issuance of a new permit for the original approved works, before the works are considered new. Such requests will be assessed in accordance with any new updated technical hazard information and the current policies in place. There is no guarantee of an automatic approval. 6. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees related to regulatory legislation changes or updates. Definitions Personal Residential Property Minor -Applications on a personal residential property determined to be "minor" include ancillary structures such as decks, sheds, garages and pools; minor additions (less than 50% of the original ground floor area); and the placement of less than 30 cubic metres of fill. Major -Applications on a personal residential property determined to be "major" include major additions (greater than 50% of the original ground floor area), new structures or buildings; all works in the floodplain; and the placement of 30 cubic metres or more of fill. 652 Attachment 3 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Review Services Effective January 7, 2011 APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEE ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT APPLICATIONS OR APPLICATIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH UTILITY BOARD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS Environmental Assessment Review Master Plan $10,400 minor $26,000 major (subject to negotiation) Individual EA $26,000 (subject to negotiation) Class EA-Schedule/Category A - EA pre-approved n/a - Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit may be required *see below Class EA-Schedule/Category B $5,200 Class EA-Schedule/Category C $10,405 EA Addendum Reports $1,875 EA Property Screening or Inquiry $250 Detailed Design Review Detailed Design $1,875 Environmental Management Plan $1,875 *Regulatory Review Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit Application $1,080 - Class EA- Schedule/Category A (or equivalent) Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit Application $2,500 - Individual or Class EA-Schedule/Category B & C Revision to Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit 25%of current fee- minor change 50%of current fee- major change Review of works for application of Section 35 of the Fisheries Act $630 (when no permit required) Fish Timing Window Extension $5,200 Routine Infrastructure Works - Letter of Approval $310 plans only $630 technical reports or site visit Emergency Works $3,540 Other Additional Site Visit Charges up to 1/2 day $630 (First site review is allowed as part of processing) up to 1 day $1,250 Red Line Revisions by TRCA $510 653 NOTES 1. The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. Applications will not be processed until fees are received. 2. Only one set of fees apply when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. an EA Property Screening or Inquiry or an Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit Application). The highest rate of fees applies. 3. TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort (e.g., Environmental Management Plan Review). Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant. 4. All application fees (except EA Property Screening or Inquiry) include one initial site visit. 5. Specific Municipal Service Delivery Agreements take precedent over the fee schedule. 6. For the Class Environmental Assessment Act Applications, the schedules or categories specific to the respective class EA document or environmental assessment review procedures of utility boards or commissions, including Enbridge, Consumers Gas or Bell Canada, will be applied. 7. Infrastructure Maintenance Minor Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure. 8. Emergency Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure. 9. In accordance with the Crown Agency Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 48, s.1, and the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 27 the following Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from the Conservation Authorities Act: • Go Transit • Hydro One • Ministry of Transportation • Ontario Realty Corporation • Ministry of Natural Resources • Greater Toronto Airports Authority, and • Downsview Park As such, these proponents are exempt from review fees and exempt from the TRCA regulatory approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are not required). However, in circumstances where the review is considered major, TRCA can negotiate funding to compensate for its review time.These proponents may not be exempt from approvals under the Fisheries Act or the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and are responsible for obtaining the appropriate approvals independent of TRCA. In accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. E.18, s.4 these proponents are required to consult with TRCA throughout the EA process. 10. The following corporations are not exempt from the Conservation Authorities Act: • Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) • CN Rail, and • CP Rail As such, these proponents are not exempt from review fees or the TRCA regulatory approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ont. Reg. 166/06 are required). In accordance with agreements between TRCA and Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Ministry of Natural Resources, TRCA will also conduct reviews under the Fisheries Act or the Lakes and Rivers ImprovementAct. In accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. E.18, s.4 these proponents are required to consult with TRCA throughout the EA process. 11. TRCA has extensive environmental and cultural data that is available for use by the proponent, subject to the waiver of a legal disclaimer and the provision of user fees. Where there are data sharing agreements in place, municipalities, agencies and Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from these fees and the data will be provided free of charge. For all others, an application form for the purchase of such data will be forwarded to the proponent for use at their discretion. 654 RES.#A221/10 - MARIE CURTIS PARK REVITALIZATION CONCEPT PLAN (December 2010) To obtain Authority endorsement of the Marie Curtis Park Revitalization Concept Plan and to authorize advancement of the detailed design and implementation of Phase One work. Moved by: Dave Ryan Seconded by: Maria Augimeri THAT the Marie Curtis Park Revitalization Master Plan (December 2010) be approved in principle; THAT staff be directed to implement the detail design and implementation of all Phase One elements of the Revitalization Master Plan; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the resolution of Marie Curtis Park (East and West) Phase Two parking issues and the Arsenal Lands Master Plan when completed. CARRIED BACKGROUND In October 1992, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) purchased the Arsenal Lands property with the intent of expanding Marie Curtis Park West to form a 41 hectare waterfront park. The land purchase was made possible through a joint collaboration involving the City of Toronto, Regional Municipality of Peel, City of Mississauga, Province of Ontario and TRCA. TRCA also owns Marie Curtis Park East and West in the City of Toronto currently under management agreement with the City of Toronto to operate and maintain the parks. In 1998, The Arsenal Lands Park and Site Remediation Master Plan was prepared and approved by the Authority. In 2007, The Arsenal Lands/Marie Curtis Park West Master Plan Addendum was prepared to update the 1998 Master Plan. The Master Plan Addendum is consistent with the goals and objectives of the original master plan. The addendum reinforces the original intent of the partners to form a regional waterfront park. This is accomplished by integrating the Arsenal Lands with the west side of Marie Curtis Park and through an enhancement of the proposed park amenities to suit the park's regional scale. Given the park's proximity to the border of the cities of Mississauga and Toronto, the park will function as a'Gateway Park'that will service residents from both municipalities. Marie Curtis Park East will continue to serve the public as a local park. Since completion of the Addendum in 2007, there have been ongoing discussions between the cities of Mississauga and Toronto and TRCA, on how to implement the Arsenal Lands/Marie Curtis Park given existing budget constraints. The original budget outlined in 2005 for the Arsenal Lands Master Plan at the City of Mississauga and the City of Toronto will not realize the Plan. Considerable cost increases have resulted in a substantial shortfall for detailed design and master plan implementation. To provide park implementation despite the funding shortfall, a new approach to implementation and management was developed which is a coordinated but separate implementation process. TRCA and the City of Toronto have undertaken a revitalization of Marie Curtis Park (West and East) with the City of Mississauga and TRCA focusing on the Arsenal Lands. 655 At Authority Meeting #3/10, held on April 30, 2010, Resolution #A55/10 was approved as follows: THAT the Authority approve the modified approach to implement the Arsenal Lands/Marie Curtis Park West Master Plan Addendum by adding Marie Curtis Park East to the Master Plan Addendum and undertaking the implementation as two separate but integrated plans in collaboration with the cities of Mississauga and Toronto, as described in the status report dated April 30, 2010; THAT staff report to the Authority when the revised concept design for the Arsenal Lands Master Plan and Marie Curtis Park (East and West) Master Plan are completed, AND FURTHER THAT the cities of Mississauga and Toronto be so advised. TRCA and the City of Toronto have initiated a design process for Marie Curtis Park (East and West). A Revitalization Master Plan has been developed through public and agency consultation. Funds have been secured to implement priority elements of the Master Plan (Phase One) in 2011. Detailed design can begin early in 2011 with construction starting in April. Discussion of Phase Two Master Plan components will continue in 2011, with implementation anticipated for 2012, pending budget approval. The recommended Revitalization Master Plan and the work to be undertaken in each Phase of the Plan are attached. The City of Mississauga and TRCA are partnering to undertake a review and re-evaluation of the current Arsenal Lands Master Plan. The City of Mississauga will provide project management for the concept review and implementation of the Arsenal Lands plan. It is anticipated that a preliminary concept will go to the public in the new year. Once the Arsenals Lands Master Plan has been completed it will come to the Authority for consideration. Staff of Mississauga, Toronto and TRCA are participating on the Steering Committee for both design processes to ensure coordination and consistency, with opportunities for public and stakeholder consultation coordinated wherever possible to represent the integrated approach to implementation of the Master Plan. The overall layout of Marie Curtis Park and the Arsenal Lands will be approached as a design exercise to bring together a variety of park features into a unified whole; blending the three parks. RATIONALE Marie Curtis Park Revitalization Master Plan A community engagement process was initiated for Marie Curtis Park by the City of Toronto (Parks, Forestry and Recreation) and TRCA staff. Two public meetings were held. The first meeting took place on June 29, 2010 and a subsequent meeting was held on November 9, 2010. This consultation process generated significant interest. Approximately 150 people attended the two public open house meetings and more than 80 written submissions were received. Following the June meeting, the comments submitted by residents were compiled and reviewed. The community identified a number of priorities: • retain the "natural gentle feeling" of Marie Curtis Park; 656 • keep the creek natural; • move the existing parking lot at Marie Curtis East back from the creek; • protect and enhance wildlife habitat; • focus on preserving existing vegetation and trees; • develop strategies to deal with geese; • improve the beach quality; • support for the provision of a boardwalk/pathway along the lake; • provide improved access for fishing; • revitalize the play area; • provide more seating areas; • provide off-leash dog area; • separate walking/bicycle pathways; • recognition of the historic cannon (used in the War of 1812); • provision of bike parking; and • re-open existing concession stand. Primary concerns expressed by the public included: • the addition of a parking lot near the lake at Marie Curtis Park East; • proposal to re-locate the existing Marie Curtis Park East parking lot nearer to the street edge (concern that it will impact views and create disruption and noise for homeowners across the street); and • loss of naturalized areas in Marie Curtis Park West currently utilized by deer. Note: The proposal to re-locate the existing parking in Marie Curtis Park East was based on the need to address environmental impacts and to provide urgently needed repairs to the lot. The lot is scheduled for a state of good repair replacement in 2012. th Following the June 29 meeting, a number of features on the preliminary Revitalization Master Plan were confirmed, refined or changed. These include: • establishment of new goose management strategy and deterrent features; • proposed parking adjacent to the beach was removed; • proposal to move the current parking lot at Marie Curtis Park East was refined. Based on comments from residents at the June, 2010 meeting, the proposed parking lot along the street edge was reconfigured to reduce the size of the footprint along the street edge. A new parking lot at the north end of Marie Curtis Park East was recommended; • inclusion of a dog off-leash area; • inclusion of a new children's water play and family area; • inclusion of new boardwalk and seating areas; • inclusion of new fishing areas; and • removal of Marie Curtis Park West parking lot. 657 th There is strong support for the revitalization improvements presented at the November 9 public meeting. The priority elements to be completed as part of Phase One (2011) include a new children's play area; goose management strategies; a boardwalk with seating; installation of dogs-off leash area; removal of the parking lot at Marie Curtis West; installation of stone overlooks for fishing/creek restoration; and a forest trail restoration plan for the woodlot. There however, remains concern about relocation of the existing parking lot at Marie Curtis East. Concerns have been raised that the relocation of the existing parking lot will increase traffic, air pollution, and noise in the late hours, will devalue homes, and will make it more accessible for illicit activity. Residents were also concerned that the new parking lot proposed at the north end of Marie Curtis Park East will attract overflow from the GO commuters. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE MBTW Group will begin the design development phase in January 2011 for the elements of Phase One of the Revitalization Master Plan as listed above. Contract documents will be prepared and released into the market place to enable construction to begin as quickly as possible in the spring of 2011. The City of Toronto and TRCA will be investigating further the site conditions at Marie Curtis Park East. Early in 2011 a strategy to address the environmental impacts and neighbourhood concerns with respect to the parking issues that have been identified will be circulated to the public. There are no plans to alter the existing parking configuration at Marie Curtis Park East until 2012 at the earliest. TRCA and City of Toronto will work with Councillor Mark Grimes to ensure there is support for Phase Two improvements prior to detailed design and subsequent implementation. TRCA staff will report back to the Authority once resolution of outstanding issues relating to Phase Two of the Revitalization Master Plan has been achieved. The Arsenal Lands Concept Plan will be submitted for Authority consideration upon completion. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for Phase One of the Marie Curtis Park Revitalization Concept Plan is within the City of Toronto capital budgets. Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney @trca.on.ca Date: December 02, 2010 Attachments: 3 658 Attachment 1 cum pr�skFk r� �' q/i/�%/�///,� r:� d ✓r ri// ,..% h f rq r'I jr/ '�vN �i r N � n_ , iw"M uW rlNfiu.� ,;/ °hi;;" Q LU ........ � ✓'/� //"/i // 0 /i r� Vic, u r/r//1 //o e' owl /i / // /� / ✓� � � a� �/� %//✓r� � /i� �rr� r��/� �/�///��� /�////ter q � �„w IV 2i aw " CL / cu a a r y n uJ w: , J rq 659 Attachment 2 ®fie k _ Y j loty� hf i6 4r yp11V1��11�� 7"111,11111,11 LU at 1 I ae `I I rayl ' I I "F � �„ "h""'°.� Y `� '(� fly•I /�I�. . r � y I Ir.,�.."'w.T' 9P dtP7 C L W � Aa d�rw l �p 4 ..L � J m P. v- r P m c =' A 3N J .9 660 Attachment 3 d e ten"" oIn ilk UJ + r f rJhi; w x � � � � - a ru �k2�4lo-+Clf�' J I a � r r w a a a 661 RES.#A222/10 - ROUGE RIVER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Receipt of the final draft Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan (2010). Moved by: Dave Ryan Seconded by: Maria Augimeri WHEREAS fisheries management plans (FMP) are important supporting documents for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) watershed plans, restoration plans and stewardship programs; AND WHEREAS the development of the final draft Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan (2010) has been led by TRCA in partnership with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Aurora District and Lake Ontario Assessment Unit, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Rouge Park; AND WHEREAS substantial input from stakeholders and the general public has been sought; AND WHEREAS the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) provides guidance to achieve multiple and shared aquatic ecosystem goals set by TRCA, the Province of Ontario and the federal government by identifying the significant ecological links between river ecosystems and Lake Ontario; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the final draft Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan, dated December 2010, be received and OMNR Central Region be requested to post for 30 days on the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights and comments be received and incorporated, as appropriate, in the final plan and brought back to the Authority for endorsement; THAT staff be directed to continue to update relevant fisheries and fish habitat data by undertaking field investigations to close data gaps identified in the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) and to use this information to enhance the interpretation and management direction provided in the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010); THAT staff be directed to use the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) as a resource document for review of planning and permit applications as well as TRCA restoration and stewardship projects; THAT staff be part of an advisory group with agency partners such as OMNR, Rouge Park and DFO in order to more effectively coordinate the implementation of recommendations in the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) with municipalities and stakeholders in the watershed; THAT staff be directed to take the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) to the Rouge Alliance; AND FURTHER THAT municipalities and stakeholders who have been involved in the development of the draft Rouge River FMP (2010) be so advised. CARRIED 662 BACKGROUND A fisheries management plan provides background information on the state of the aquatic ecosystem as well as management objectives and strategies for protection and enhancement. It establishes priorities for specific activities that can inform ecosystem and land use planning, as well as stewardship, restoration and research efforts. TRCA has prepared the updated Rouge River FMP following the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources' guideline for Watershed-based Fisheries Management Plans (OMNR, 2005). Technical guidance for the updated Rouge River FMP was provided by OMNR (Aurora District and Lake Ontario Management Unit), DFO, Rouge Park and TRCA with additional input from key stakeholders (Building Industry and Land Development Association and Metro East Anglers Group) and the general public. The original Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan was written in 1992. This new FMP provides important updates on watershed conditions, new legislation, watershed management approaches, and the assessment of fish communities and habitat. Also of primary importance in the new FMP is the identification and description of the linkages between land use changes and the water resources system that, in turn, impact the form and function of streams. Accordingly, this updated Rouge River FMP is inextricably linked to the Rouge River Watershed Plan: Towards a Healthy and Sustainable Future (TRCA 2007), and other initiatives related to The Living City objectives for Healthy Rivers and Shorelines, and Regional Biodiversity. Beginning in 2005, TRCA, in partnership with OMNR, began data collection as the first step in support of the updated FMP. This Rouge River FMP (2010) has subsequently been developed with leading edge technical understanding of the watershed and its response to urbanization. The unique character and variable conditions of the watershed have been captured within 10 geographically distinct fisheries management zones that effectively represent large subcatchment areas. RATIONALE The primary objective of the 2010 update to the Rouge River FMP is the management for native aquatic biodiversity that supports the conservation of genetic, species, and aquatic ecosystem diversity across the entire watershed. The FMP also recognizes the need to protect endangered species and other sensitive fish species within the Rouge River. Other aquatic management priorities include maintaining or restoring natural hydrology, addressing cumulative effects, preventing new introductions and further spread of aquatic invasive species, continuing to assess the natural recruitment of lake-based salmonids and climate change. Characterization of the Rouge Portions of the Rouge River watershed continue to be urbanized. However, in comparison to most of the other watersheds in the Greater Toronto Area, the Rouge has experienced less development pressure to date. The northern portion of the watershed is primarily a rural landscape with some large natural areas and numerous stream corridors. It is within these relatively natural areas of the upper watershed that healthy and diverse aquatic ecosystems are found, including those that support redside dace populations, a provincially endangered species. Therefore, the northern portions of the Rouge watershed represent substantial and important opportunities to maintain healthy aquatic conditions that support native fish communities. 663 On the east side of the watershed is Rouge Park. It encompasses a large section of the Little Rouge River subwatershed and the lower main Rouge River within the City of Toronto and Town of Markham. Within the Rouge Park boundaries, additional management direction has been identified, by the Park, which is geared toward the protection of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The middle and southern sections of the Rouge River watershed have been developed with a mix of existing older and new residential and commercial developments. As a result, the aquatic system is exhibiting impacts in the form of habitat degradation and declines in sensitive species abundance. Here, there needs to be greater emphasis on connectivity to upstream reaches and continued enhancement, improvement or retrofit of stormwater management controls at the landscape and lot level. The Rouge River currently has populations of many sensitive species that have almost disappeared from highly urban watersheds, such as the Don and Highland rivers. Some of these species have been selected as target species for the Rouge, including; brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis), redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus) and rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum). The effective protection of these species means that the rest of the associated fish communities are expected to persist and hopefully thrive as well. Recommendations The main recommendations of the Rouge River FMP are summarized below: 1. Integrate water management with aquatic ecosystem health at early stages of the land use planning process. This is one of the fundamental lessons learned from past efforts to protect aquatic resources and fisheries. This Rouge River FMP (2010) recommends that all land use planning frameworks, including: watershed plans, subwatershed plans, secondary plans, and master environmental servicing plans be informed by appropriately detailed watershed and subwatershed characterization that encompass an understanding of many physical and ecological watershed components, including: groundwater and surface water regimes, in-stream habitat conditions (e.g. water quality, temperature and morphology) and aquatic community assemblages. This characterization provides an overview of the cumulative effects which can strongly influence aquatic ecosystem health. 2. Maintain the flow regime of streams pre- to post-development. Maintaining a flow regime that supports stream form and function as appropriate for target species (and associated fish communities) is required to achieve many of the priority objectives laid out in this Rouge River FMP. With that, there are a number of specifics pertaining to the direct and cumulative effects of stormwater management and water taking, including: • That early in the land use planning process, investigations or assessments of the natural hydrology (e.g. water balance) should be undertaken at the subwatershed or catchment scale. • That the most effective designs for new stormwater management ponds and other Low Impact Development measures (e.g. cooling and infiltration trenches, evapotranspiration through vegetated swales, rain harvesting) that respect the natural hydrology are implemented. Retrofit opportunities need equal consideration where appropriate. 664 • That the discharge from stormwater management ponds be recognized as having the potential to cause adverse or damaging impacts on target fish species and habitat; and that technical and design options focus on the achievement of effluents that are protective of target fish species and habitat. • That water takings (including in sensitive aquatic habitat areas; e.g. headwaters, redside dace reaches) continue to be screened by review agencies for site specific and cumulative effects on the aquatic system. 3. Protect Redside Dace and its habitat. The Rouge River watershed currently provides a habitat stronghold for the endangered redside dace. The FMP identifies subcatchment areas where redside dace occur. It provides recommendations and direction on construction timing as well as restoration, rehabilitation and stewardship opportunities in support of recovery planning for redside dace. 4. Increase the connectivity within the watershed to support native biodiversity and healthy fish communities. In-stream barriers (e.g. online ponds, perched culverts, dams/weirs, etc.) are one of the main issues in the Rouge River from several perspectives: fragmentation of habitat in smaller tributaries, impacts to water quality and temperature, and barriers to fishes migrating up from Lake Ontario to the headwaters. There are also strategic barriers that should be maintained to partition species to support native biodiversity. There are approximately 253 in-stream barriers that prevent or limit fish from moving through the watershed of which 33 are prioritized for management in this Rouge River FMP. 5. Prevent the further establishment and expansion of aquatic invasive species in the Rouge watershed and undertake to reverse the abundance of established invasives. Recent fish collection records indicate three aquatic invasive species are present in the lower reaches of the Main and Little Rouge: sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), round goby ( Neogobius melanostomus) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio). The main issues are evidence of expanding distributions and no management partition within the Little Rouge or lower main Rouge to protect the upper watershed. Strategies to address these issues are: • targeted monitoring; • development of a response strategy for each fish management zone; • increased stewardship/education; and • maintenance of strategic barriers with the intent of preventing the potential further upstream movement of round goby. The Sea Lamprey Control Centre of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is considering the installation and operation of a seasonal/removable barrier in the lower reaches of the Rouge River to control sea lamprey as a potential alternative to the present use of chemicals (i.e. Iampricide). 6. Identify opportunities and undertake priority riparian planting to address and improve aquatic habitat. The Rouge River FMP provides recommendations on priority areas for the enhancement of riparian zones. Certain types of riparian vegetation communities are recommended for planting, depending on location in the watershed and target species requirements. These recommendations are consistent with the watershed objectives for the terrestrial system. 665 7. Support ongoing assessment of rainbow trout stocking and potential naturalization. Traditional support and recommendations focused on enhancing angling opportunities have been preserved in the Plan. The stocking of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in support of Lake Ontario fisheries objectives is also supported. However, in recognition of potential competitive and/or predatory effects of juvenile trout on native fish species, it is recommended that the stocking of rainbow trout (and all other salmonids) be discontinued within Rouge watershed streams that support redside dace. Streams occupied by native brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis) should also be partitioned from stocked salmonids. It is also recommended that assessments be continued to determine if rainbow trout are establishing a naturally self-sustaining population within the main Rouge, an objective of the original 1992 FMP. Brown trout (Salmo trutta) stocking is recommended to continue only in the lower reaches close to Lake Ontario. 8. Provide examples of implementation projects that could address the priority recommendations within this Rouge River FMP and provide a means to measure the Plan's success. Each Fish Management Zone has a series of recommendations and restoration project ideas referred to as Implementation Project Opportunities. These projects have been developed to provide a readily available list of opportunities for agencies and/or stakeholders to help preserve and ultimately enhance the aquatic ecosystem. Project themes include: • Sensitive Streams: characterization, monitoring, mapping; • Monitoring and Assessment: effectiveness of mitigation techniques and restoration projects; • Priority Barrier Management: mitigation, removal or maintenance; • Aquatic Invasive Species: prevention of further spread; • Species at Risk Management: redside dace protection and recovery; and • Stewardship Opportunities: in-stream rehabilitation projects and outreach programs. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Once the Authority has received the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010), staff will undertake the following actions: • TRCA website access to the draft Rouge River FMP (2010) in middle of February, 2011 to coincide with release of the redside dace specific habitat regulation under the Endangered Species Act, and provincial draft urban development guidelines for redside dace. • Posting of this final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) to the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights as part of the OMNR approvals process will occur at the discretion and timing of the OMNR; in the interim, the final draft Rouge River FMP can be used by TRCA, OMNR, other agencies and stakeholders. • Staff will seek funding and partnerships to implement projects that help achieve the objectives identified in this final draft Rouge River FMP. • Staff will seek funding and partnerships to undertake applied research and assessments aimed at filling data gaps identified in the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010). • That municipalities and stakeholders who have been involved be advised that the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) has been received by the Authority and has been submitted to the OMNR for posting on the EBR. 666 Hard copies of the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) are available upon request. Report prepared by: Christine Tu, extension 5707 Emails: ctu @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Christine Tu, extension 5707 Emails: ctu @trca.on.ca Date: December 20, 2010 RES.#A223/10 - YORK-PEEL-DURHAM-TORONTO GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY Memorandum of Understanding for sharing groundwater data. Moved by: Dave Ryan Seconded by: Maria Augimeri WHEREAS the Executive Steering Committee for York-Peel-Durham-Toronto (YPDT) groundwater study has directed the YPDT Technical Steering Committee to make the hydrogeologic data from the project available to the public; AND WHEREAS the YPDT Technical Steering Committee has developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Collection, Maintenance, and Distribution of Groundwater Data and Information; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Memorandum of Understanding for the Collection, Maintenance, and Distribution of Groundwater Data and Information be approved; THAT the term of the MOU be for the period January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2020; THAT the MOU be on terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitors, if necessary; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized officials be directed to take the necessary actions to implement the agreement including obtaining approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Since its inception in 2001, the YPDT groundwater study has provided significant data and modelling outputs to Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) as well as the other conservation authority and municipal partners. The project is directed by an Executive Steering Committee consisting of senior staff representatives of the various funding partners, the Regions of Peel, York and Durham, the City of Toronto, and the conservation authorities. 667 The YPDT groundwater initiative continues to contribute insightful, practical deliverables to the partner agencies. The key focus areas of the groundwater program continue to be data management, geological understanding, numerical groundwater modelling and policy development. A large part of the success of the initiative has been the delivery of data and tools at a practical level to partner agency staff and their consultants who are charged with understanding the groundwater system for a variety of day-to-day issues, including water supply impact assessments and wellhead protection area delineation. Projects undertaken by the YPDT-CAMC (Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition) staff and consultants to date include verification of water well locations, drilling of strategic boreholes, geophysics (seismic and downhole), data model construction and geologic and groundwater flow modelling. This work has been paid for by annual contributions by the municipal partners, supplemented by provincial funding (Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM), Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)). The previous data sharing MOU for the YPDT project was approved in 2008, and contained the following key elements: 1) description of the overall project and its objectives; 2) roles and responsibilities for collection, deposition and maintenance of data for the project; 3) roles, responsibilities for interpretation of the geologic data; 4) roles and responsibilities for the distribution of both data (e.g., water levels in wells) and interpreted products (e.g., groundwater flow maps); 5) contractual details (i.e., liability, insurance, terms and conditions, etc.); 6) accessibility of data and information and the protection of confidential information; 7) key contact names at each agency responsible for release of data and interpreted products; 8) standard data sharing agreement to be signed by any party wanting access to the data and interpreted products. RATIONALE There has been significant interest from the consulting community for access to the YPDT data and interpreted products, but the existing data sharing agreement for this project required case-by-case data requests and releases by the key agency contacts listed in Schedule 2 of the existing MOU. Therefore, this existing data sharing model has not been a cost-effective use of YPDT or agency staff resources. In 2010, an alternate, web-based, data sharing process was developed in partnership with First Base Solutions. This is the same service provider that developed the TRCA on-line flood plain mapping tool. First Base Solutions Inc. has agreed to host the information and arrange the distribution of the data in accordance with the principles in the existing MOU. In return, First Base Solutions will receive a portion of the proceeds from the individual data requests. However, the change in distribution mechanism requires that Section 9 of the MOU be amended to specify that First Base Solutions be responsible for release of data and derived products on a pilot project basis. These changes have been discussed amongst the YPDT Technical Steering Committee members, who have unanimously agreed to the proposed approach. 668 The revised MOU will facilitate the release of the YPDT data through the website until December 31, 2020. FINANCIAL DETAILS There are no costs associated with the execution of this agreement, but it is expected that some revenue will be generated to account#104-90 from the pilot arrangement with First Base Solutions Inc. Report prepared by: Don Ford, extension 5369 Emails: dford @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Don Ford, extension 5369 Emails: dford @trca.on.ca Date: October 27, 2009 RES.#A224/10 - CANADIAN CERTIFIED INSPECTOR OF SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM Memorandum of Understanding. Request for authorization to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with CISEC Inc. to develop the program. Moved by: Dave Ryan Seconded by: Maria Augimeri THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CISEC Inc. to facilitate the development of a Canadian Certified Inspector of Sediment and Erosion Control (CISEC-Canada) Program; THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the MOU including the signing and execution of documents; THAT TRCA work with Conservation Ontario to promote this program across Ontario; THAT TRCA pursue partner opportunities with the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) and other national organizations to promote this program across Canada; AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the Authority on the progress of the program. CARRIED BACKGROUND Within Ontario there is a need for targeted training aimed at construction and development industry professionals who inspect and maintain erosion and sediment (ESC) measures. Feedback obtained through recent ESC training events hosted by TRCA indicated that industry professionals believe the lack of clarity and inconsistency in ESC site inspections should be remedied through the development of a certification program for inspectors. 669 The U.S. based CISEC program, introduced in 2005 and administered by the nonprofit organization CISEC, Inc., has successfully certified ESC inspectors across the U.S. and continues to expand its membership on a monthly basis. The program is comprised of a series of training modules followed by a nation-wide, certification exam. Successful candidates of the certification program are further required to complete 12 hours of professional development training, each year, to be eligible for certification renewal. This continuing education requirement ensures that certified inspectors will continuously update their knowledge and expertise in the field and also serves to elevate the integrity of the program and its members. The purpose of the MOU agreement is to formalize the relationship between TRCA and CISEC Inc. In addition, the MOU serves to identify key roles and responsibilities, ensuring that the interests and goals of both parties are acknowledged and advanced. The key roles and responsibilities of each party include: CISEC Inc. shall: • provide access to U.S. CISEC program documentation including training modules, exam and PowerPoint presentations for adaptation by TRCA; • provide editing and reviewing services for revisions made by TRCA; • retain copyright of the final CISEC-Canada training modules and presentation material; • coordinate administration of CISEC-Canada program and registry. TRCA shall: • review and revise U.S. CISEC program documentation including training modules, exam and PowerPoint presentations as required to ensure consistency with provincial and federal legislative requirements and local guideline documents; • coordinate and gain approval from CISEC Inc. for all revisions. CISEC Inc. and TRCA shall: • coordinate activities to update the U.S. CISEC certification exam to reflect CISEC-Canada content. A preliminary work plan has been developed and will be implemented upon signing of the MOU. The project will be initiated with a thorough review of the existing CISEC manual, training program, presentation materials and the certification exam. All components will be revised to reflect local policies and federal legislative requirements and to ensure consistency with the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction. Upon completion of the initial revisions, all materials will be circulated for peer review by a technical committee, including representatives from Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, local and regional municipalities, Ontario Municipal Engineers Association, conservation authorities, and construction and development industry contacts. The peer review committee will serve as a venue for securing appropriate support to facilitate roll out throughout the Province of Ontario. 670 The first training program and exam will be offered in April 2011, and will be delivered by a U.S. CISEC trainer. A second offering will be scheduled in the fall of 2011 based on industry demand. Development of capacity for training instructors will be a top priority. Several TRCA staff have indicated their interest in becoming instructors for this program and are currently working toward completion of their certification requirements under the U.S. program. Recruitment of additional training candidates will begin after the first round of certifications is awarded here in Ontario. TRCA will work with Conservation Ontario and other conservation authorities to identify appropriate staff, or other contacts, that could become certified and trained as instructors, who would then facilitate training workshops in other areas of the Province. Frequency and location of course offerings beyond year one will be dependent on the number of certified instructors. It is intended that the focus for the first two to three years will be directed at rolling out the program throughout the Province. Further expansion across the country will be based on the success of the program within Ontario and on availability of funding. Promotion of the program at the national level will be pursued by TRCA through its existing partnership with the Canada Green Building Council or with another national organization such as the Canadian Standards Association. RATIONALE Partnership with CISEC Inc. presents an excellent opportunity for TRCA to adapt a proven, well respected program into a curriculum that is consistent with needs of the ESC industry in Ontario. Over the past several years, TRCA has hosted a number of ESC workshops. These workshops have been well received and have provided TRCA with an opportunity to receive feedback on the training needs of the industry. Through the MOU agreement with CISEC Inc., TRCA will be provided support with the adaptation and roll-out of the CISEC-Canada program. The MOU provides for revenue sharing opportunities which would otherwise be unavailable to TRCA. It is intended that revenue generated through registration fees for both the training course and exam will be sufficient to cover future staff costs to administer the CISEC-Canada program. The CISEC program is well aligned with other TRCA initiatives and will serve to further the TRCA's vision for The Living City. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds are available in account 120-42 to cover staff resources for editing program materials, to facilitate peer review and for organization of the program launch. Additional funds have been requested from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment ($10,000) and from Fisheries and Oceans Canada ($5,000). Combined, these funds will be sufficient to initiate the program in 2011. It is intended that the program will be self-funding in the future, in that any costs to expand the program throughout the Province, will be generated through course and exam fees. Report prepared by: Patricia Lewis, extension 5218 Emails: plewis @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Glenn MacMillan, extension 5212 Emails: gmacmillan @trca.on.ca Date: December 09, 2010 671 RES.#A225/10 - RECREATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE CANADA/ONTARIO RECREATION PROGRAM Funding Extension. Request for extension of funding from March 21, 2011 to October 31, 2011 for the projects for Replacement of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Swimming Pool, Installation of Heart Lake Swimming Pool, and Upgrading Albion Hills Conservation Area Trail. Moved by: Dave Ryan Seconded by: Maria Augimeri WHEREAS the federal and provincial governments are providing a one-time extension of the deadline for funding of projects under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, Building Canada Fund; Communities Top-Up, the Recreational Infrastructure Canada/Ontario Recreation Program, and the Knowledge Infrastructure Program from March 31, 2011 to October 31, 2011; AND WHEREAS all funding from the Government of Canada and Ontario will cease after October 31, 2011; AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has asked the provincial government for an extension to federal and provincial funding to October 31, 2011 for the following projects: Program: Recreational Infrastructure Canada/Ontario Recreation Program Project numbers: R1984; R1986; R1988 • Project titles: Replacement of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Swimming Pool; Installation of Heart Lake Swimming Pool; Upgrading of Albion Hills Conservation Area Trail Total eligible cost: $3,000,000 (R1984); $1,600,000 (R1986); $100,000 (R1988); THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority attests that it will continue to contribute its share of the required funding for the aforementioned projects; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT actual claims for all eligible costs incurred by March 31, 2011, for the aforementioned projects must be and will be submitted no later than April 30, 2011; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority will ensure that the project will be completed. CARRIED BACKGROUND In May of 2009, the Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) and Ontario Recreation programs announced that government funding was available for various recreational infrastructure projects. Through the Canada RInC and Ontario REC programs, the governments of Canada and Ontario were willing to support Ontario's communities and create jobs through upgrades and improvements to recreational infrastructure. The government of Canada and Ontario would fund up to one third each of a project's total eligible cost up to a maximum of$1 million per project from each government agency. 672 On July 7, 2009 the Canada RlnC and Ontario REC Program approved funding for the following projects. 1. replacement of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Swimming Pool at a total project cost of $3,000,000; 2. installation of Heart Lake Swimming Pool at a total project cost of$1,600,000; and 3. upgrading of Albion Hills Conservation Area Trail at a total project cost of$100,000. Two thirds of the costs are provided by Canada RlnC and Ontario REC funding, with TRCA required to secure the remaining required funds for the project. The funding arrangement included aggressive deadlines as grant conditions which requires the work to be completed by March 31, 2011. 1. Replacement of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Swimming Pool Project Budget: $3,000,000; RlnC Funding: $2,000,000; TRCA Funding: $1,000,000 Original Forecasted Completion Date: March 31, 2011. Revised Forecasted Completion Date: June, 2011. Main features of the new aquatic facility at Petticoat Creek Conservation Area will include: 2 • fully accessible, 6 feet deep, over 1600m concrete pool with beach entry, capacity of 800 patrons; • state of the art vacuum DE filtration system with skimmers and closed loop water recycling system; 2 • splash pool area over 1500m with interactive water play as well as hand manipulated water features; • large splash pad without standing water; • both active and passive water play areas at varying water depths and spray effects; and • Upgrade current washroom and changeroom facilities to be barrier-free featuring low flow toilets, faucets, motion occupancy and T8 lighting. Forecasted project completion details outlined in Attachment 1. 2. Installation of Heart Lake Swimming Pool Project Budget: $1,600,000; RlnC Funding: $1,066,700 ; TRCA Funding: $533,333 Original Forecasted Completion Date: March 31, 2011 Revised Forecasted Completion Date: June 1, 2011 Main features of the new outdoor pool at Heart Lake Conservation Area will include: 2 • fully accessible, 6 feet deep, over 840m concrete pool with beach entry, capacity of 600 patrons; • state of the art vacuum DE filtration system with skimmers and closed loop water recycling system; and • barrier-free washroom and changeroom building, 1,500 sq. ft. featuring low flow toilets, faucets, motion occupancy and T8 lighting. Forecasted project completion details outlined in Attachment 2. 673 3. Upgrading of Albion Hills Conservation Area Trails Project Budget: $100,000; RInC Funding: $66,667 ; TRCA Funding: $33,333 Original Forecasted Completion Date: March 31, 2011 Revised Forecasted Completion Date: July 1, 2011 The Albion Hills Conservation Area Trail Enhancement Project consists of the following upgrades: • 20 kilometres of new mountain biking and fitness trails in order to meet current public demand; • enhancement of existing trails including re-surfacing, trail widening, bridge and rock work; • installation of accessible and barrier-free trails; • hazardous tree, shrub and debris trimming and removal. TRCA's accessibility plan articulates its commitment to providing barrier-free public access opportunities for all park visitors. TRCA is dedicated to improving trail accessibility at Albion Hills Conservation Area by widening existing trails, ensuring surface material and slopes meet accessibility criteria, and providing barrier-free access to trail heads. The enhancement of the existing trail system will positively impact all visitors by ensuring recreation initiatives such as mountain biking, hiking and cross-country skiing are available for the future Forecasted project completion details outlined in Attachment 3. RATIONALE 1. Replacement of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Swimming Pool The initial delay in the Petticoat Creek Pool project resulted from drawn out funding negotiations between TRCA and the City of Pickering. In August of 2009, staff commenced funding negotiations with the City of Pickering for the required Petticoat Creek RInC pool project funds of$1 million. However, following negotiations and several delays in bringing the partnership funding proposal before City of Pickering Council, it was brought to TRCA's attention that the City of Pickering had not allocated any financial resources towards the project in their 2010 - 2011 budgets. Due to the lack of financial commitment by the City of Pickering in regard to providing the remaining $1 million for the project and the tight timeliness at hand, staff proposed to implement internal funding methods to cover the required remaining 33% of the project costs. TRCA has sufficient cash flow to mitigate the need for borrowing the required $1 million. Subsequently, at Authority Meeting #2/10, held on March 26, 2010, Resolution #A27/10 for the redevelopment of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool was approved, in part, as follows: ...THAT the fee structure ensure that the project pay back the $1 million within approximately 5 years of opening; THAT staff report back on the fee structure in 2011;... Following the aforementioned project approval in March 2010, staff proceeded with the project as follows: • Phase 1- Demolition: was initiated on March 26, 2010 and completed on May 17, 2010. • Phase 2 - Subbase Preparation: was initiated on May 17, 2010 and completed on June 30, 2010. 674 • Phase 3 -Aquatic Facility Construction: was initiated on May 21, 2010 and was tentatively scheduled for substantial completion on December 31, 2010. The delay in the substantial completion date of the Petticoat Creek pool project from December 31, 2010 to June of 2011 is a result of a number of unforeseen site circumstances and contractor issues. Upon site excavation and final rough grading, large amounts of surface water runoff during non-significant rain events as well as groundwater were encountered on various portions of the site. Staff therefore redesigned the subsurface drainage piping network, which included installation of additional piping and increasing the drainage piping specification and diameter. In addition to this unforeseen site condition, the general contractor responsible for the completion of the facility has shown less than aggressive allocation of resources during the summer and fall construction periods. Although numerous attempts by staff were made to increase productivity, only minor improvements were noted, and as a result, the exterior construction component of the project extended into the winter season. The contractor indicated increased costs associated with exterior winter work, including, concrete additives, winter heating, ground protection and heating. Upon review of the costs associated with proceeding with exterior winter works, staff and the consulting team determined the price to be well outside of the project budget. As a result, staff deferred all exterior works until spring 2011, when these costs would not be a significant factor. 2. Installation of Heart Lake Swimming Pool Although staff is anticipating that the project will be 97% complete ("substantially complete") by March 31, 2011, an extension to the deadline is being requested due to several deficiencies. Upon review of the completed concrete decking and asphalt paving, the consulting team noted several cracks and deficiencies in the work that require repair in the spring of 2011. Therefore, a maintenance holdback has been applied to the project at 10% of the contract amount and the deficiencies are scheduled to be completed by May, 2011- weather permitting. 3. Upgrading of Albion Hills Conservation Area Trail TRCA is able to expand the scope of the project within the original budget to include additional trail enhancements. It is important this extra trail work occurs first, prior to the production of trail signs and guides to ensure that signage is reflective of actual trail work. This will result in the enhancement of additional trails and a more accurate communication of the improved trail network at Albion Hills Conservation Area. FINANCIAL DETAILS 1. Replacement of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Swimming Pool $2,000,000 in funding is available through federal and provincial sources through the Canada RInC and Ontario REC funding programs. The remaining $1,000,000 of the funds is available within TRCA's cashflow reserves and will be paid back through future premium user fees and associated revenues produced by the operation of the aquatic centre, as approved by Resolution #A181/10 in the 2011 Fee Schedule at Authority Meeting #8/10, held on October 29, 2010. 675 2. Installation of Heart Lake Swimming Pool $1,066,000 in funding is available through federal and provincial sources through the Canada RInC and Ontario REC funding programs. The remaining $533,000 is budgeted to be available through the 2010 Heart Lake Master Plan Implementation funds in account number 419-49. One third of the forecasted 2011 expenditure of$950,125 will be covered by the carry forward from the 2010 budget. 3. Upgrading of Albion Hills Conservation Area Trail $66,667 in funding is available through federal and provincial sources through the Canada RInC and Ontario REC funding programs. The remaining $33,333 is budgeted to be available through the 2009 and 2010 Peel Land Care capital budget (account codes 440-83 to 440-89). One third of the forecasted 2011 expenditure of$24,160 will be covered by the carry forward from the 2010 budget. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The federal and provincial governments have agreed to a one-time extension of the time frame for completion of the aforementioned projects. The extension takes the time for completion from March 31, 2011, to October 31, 2011. The Government of Ontario is administrating the program on behalf of both the provincial and federal government authorities, and requires that the organizations wishing to take advantage of the extension submit an approved board resolution in order to take advantage of the extension. The Government of Ontario has provided the necessary resolution, accordingly, staff has prepared this report and recommends approval by the Authority. Report prepared by: Kate Pankov, extension 6418 Emails: kpankov @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards @trca.on.ca Date: January 03, 2011 Attachments: 3 676 Attachment 1 < 4$ CL E ILL M 9 21 Z44 pp ffl Ri CL a: E L 0, 2 ICL IL F 6�1 F 4$ D E E 0 0 0 IS a E 11 V !E 75 3� LP mp ICL V), ry T) E CL OR E Q !E CL 04 E 46� E ; E far E m� M E E CL :,D: CL ICL I I 14) 14) 00 0) ILL ILL L.L 677 Attachment 2 LE f6 f6 �J A ILL W LL 2 IL LE (L CL E Cn Cn C")3 v CZ 0 V E to o O' �E "t) 8) is Cz 6 urn '� LL � js 2 IL E U. ILL ILL E 678 Attachment 3 20 —0 0 uax p ; > 7f! as LE 115 Si 75 .2 8 8 L L T E 0- Co i'5 CL HL- IL vi 2 C LE 2 ,2 LL (4) Co IL Nil171 P T Tg CID 0 CL c —o P -P L f E E 0 4p any X, 7-5 q� V iii ' Co AP 0 P'- U. ILL ILL E 679 RES.#A226/10 - FUEL/OIL SPILL Standard Auto Wreckers Fuel/Oil Spill Tributary of the Little Rouge River. Receipt of staff report on the fuel/oil spill to a tributary of the Little Rouge River on November 19, 2010. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne THAT the staff report on the fuel/oil spill to a tributary of the Little Rouge River from the Standard Auto Wreckers property at 1216 Sewells Road be received; AND FURTHER THAT the Rouge Park Alliance be so advised by the CAO's Office. AMENDMENT RES.#A227/10 Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT the following be inserted after the first paragraph of the main motion: THAT TRCA request Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) to address the encroachments by Standard Auto Wreckers and to complete the transfer of the lands into Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) ownership in accordance with the 2004 land transfer agreement between TRCA and the Province of Ontario; THAT TRCA request the Province of Ontario to undertake discussions with Standard Auto Wreckers regarding potential acquisition of the property and/or relocation of the business; THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: THAT the staff report on the fuel/oil spill to a tributary of the Little Rouge River from the Standard Auto Wreckers property at 1216 Sewells Road be received; THAT TRCA request Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) to address the encroachments by Standard Auto Wreckers and to complete the transfer of the lands into Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) ownership in accordance with the 2004 land transfer agreement between TRCA and the Province of Ontario; THAT TRCA request the Province of Ontario to undertake discussions with Standard Auto Wreckers regarding potential acquisition of the property and/or relocation of the business; AND FURTHER THAT the Rouge Park Alliance be so advised by the CAO's Office. 680 BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #9/10, held on November 26, 2010, staff was requested to prepare a report on the fuel/oil spill by Standard Auto Wreckers at 1216 Sewells Road, to a tributary of the Little Rouge River, in the City of Toronto. On November 19, 2010, a report was made to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) Spills Action Centre regarding a fuel/oil spill in a tributary of the Little Rouge River adjacent to the Standard Auto Wreckers property. MOE, City of Toronto (Toronto Water) and TRCA staff immediately attended the site. Upon MOE arrival at the site, the City of Toronto staff had installed booms, pads and pillows in an attempt to contain and absorb the fuel/oil. City of Toronto staff had also determined that fuel/oil had leaked from a shipping container/sea can building on the Standard Auto Wreckers property, impacting the river. The shipping container/sea can building was determined to have been used for pulling and storing engines. The building is located on the edge of the property, directly adjacent to the creek. The creek and adjoining property are owned by Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC), a provincial agency. MOE is the lead agency, responsible for ensuring that the persons responsible for the spill/discharge, take all actions necessary to cease the discharge, undertake appropriate remedial actions and to restore the natural environment. MOE has required Standard Auto Wreckers, by way of a Provincial Officers Order, to undertake all measures necessary to cease the off-site migration of contaminants. Standard Auto Wreckers, in consultation with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and its retained clean up contractors and consultant, determined that in order to stop the discharge and remediate the site, approximately 200 metres of a tributary of the Little Rouge River would need to be diverted. MOE has also provided information to several media outlets at the onset of the spill, regarding the Ministry's response to it. There have been no further media requests for information, since that time. TRCA directed all media requests to MOE for response. Through TRCA, Standard Auto Wreckers with assistance from its retained consultant, consulted with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) regarding the approvals necessary to relocate the creek. As detailed below, TRCA confirmed that provincial and federal approvals were required for the temporary channel diversion, the permanent channel relocation, as well as for future site clean-up and remediation . On behalf of MOE, TRCA was instrumental in facilitating the approvals for the temporary diversion, and is committed to working with MOE to ensure that the required approvals for any future works are given in a timely and coordinated manner. Approval Requirements for the Temporary Channel Diversion: • TRCA- Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit: Because the temporary creek diversion is located on provincial land, no permit is required from TRCA. • TRCA- Remedial Action Plan (RAP): As partners with Environment Canada and MOE, TRCA technical staff provided comment regarding the ecological and water management issues associated with the temporary channel diversion to MOE and ORC for their consideration in approving the channel realignment works. Both agencies were appreciative of TRCA's expertise and assistance. 681 • TRCA- Permission to Enter: TRCA property in Rouge Park is located immediately to the south of the creek relocation site. In consultation with Rouge Park staff, TRCA issued a permission to enter for construction vehicles only through its property through a farm field. The tenant farmer was appropriately notified. • MNR - Fish Collection Permit: A fish collection permit was issued to Standard Auto Wreckers as part of this project. • MNR - Species at Risk: MNR has confirmed that the subject watercourse does not support redside dace and is not deemed to be habitat for this species. MNR does not have any records indicating the presence of any other species at risk at the location of the subject property • DFO - Fisheries Act Authorization: Through its Level 3 Agreement under the Fisheries Act, TRCA staff reviewed the creek diversion details and provided comments on behalf of DFO. Once TRCA concerns were satisfied, DFO issued an emergency Fisheries Act Authorization for the temporary creek diversion. Approval Requirements for the Permanent Diversion: • Technical studies and detailed design drawings will be required for the permanent channel to ensure that environmental issues related to flooding, erosion, and terrestrial and aquatic habitat, are adequately addressed. These studies will be conducted in the immediate future by consultants for Standard Auto Wreckers to determine appropriate design details. TRCA will continue to act in its capacity as a RAP partner and watershed manager, and review the details on behalf of MOE and ORC, as well as within our Level 3 Agreement under the Fisheries Act with DFO, as required. • Specific permit requirements will be determined once the detailed design is finalized. Clean-up and Remediation • At this time, the exact impact of the spill has not been determined. MOE has required that Standard Auto Wreckers delineate the extent of the spill, and undertake appropriate remediation and restoration. • To determine impacts in the ground, qualified contractors hired by Standard Auto Wreckers will trench within the flood plain of both their own property and that of ORC. They will work outwards, and systematically delineate the area of soil contamination. Contaminated soils will be removed and the area will be filled with clean soil that meet standards set by MOE. Contaminated soils will be immediately removed and safely stored through/on Standard Auto Wreckers' property as per MOE requirements. Contaminated soils will not be moved through TRCA property, nor will they be stored in the flood plain. • Trenching, grading and restoration on Standard Auto Wreckers' property will require Ontario Regulation 166/06 permits from TRCA. Specific permit requirements will be determined once the site grading details are finalized. • Trenching, grading and restoration on ORC property, because it is provincial land, will not require TRCA permits. TRCA is committed to working with MOE and ORC to ensure the flood plain is restored with appropriate grading and plantings. • The building that was constructed out of the shipping containers/sea cans has not been removed at this time as it was determined that the building is of benefit by sheltering the impacted area from storm effects such as rainfall. The owner has indicated that at the most it would take a week to dismantle the building. During the December 2010 MOE site visit, it was observed that a large number of vehicles have been removed from the areas needed for access during the delineation and remediation activities. 682 • MOE is requiring Standard Auto Wreckers conduct a visual assessment of any downstream impacts in order to delineate areas impacted by the spill. As much of this property is owned by TRCA in Rouge Park, a separate permission to enter from TRCA is required. • It is expected that off-site impacts could extend as much as two kilometres downstream. Because of storm events this fall, there could also be impacts on the flood plain. • The consultants for Standard Auto Wreckers will use the information collected in their delineation study to prepare an impact assessment and remediation plan to the satisfaction of MOE. TRCA staff will work with MOE, ORC and Rouge Park staff to review this report in order to ensure that impacted lands in both Rouge Park, as well as on lands owned by ORC, are appropriately remediated and restored. NEXT STEPS • TRCA will continue to work with MOE, ORC, DFO, MNR, Rouge Park and Standard Auto Wreckers to provide technical advice and facilitate approvals in order to protect and restore habitat in the tributary of the Little Rouge River. Permits from TRCA will be required for works on the private property owned by Standard Auto Wreckers. Staff will use the permit approval approach to provide the Authority with details of the final restoration plans for this area. • TRCA will encourage ORC to address the encroachments by Standard Auto Wreckers and to complete the transfer of the lands into TRCA ownership in accordance with the 2004 land transfer agreement between TRCA and the Province of Ontario. • TRCA continue discussions with Standard Auto Wreckers regarding potential acquisition of the property and/or relocation of the business. Report prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 5217 Emails: bwilliston @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217; Renee Afoom-Boatang, extension 5714 Emails: bwilliston @trca.on.ca; raffoom-boatang @trca.o.ca Date: December 17, 2010 RES.#A228/10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Block 11 Properties Inc., CFN 44864. Purchase of property located north of Rutherford Road, west of Bathurst Street, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006-2010", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed. (Executive Res.#B150110) Moved by: Gay Cowbourne Seconded by: Laurie Bruce 683 THAT 0.70 hectares (1.73 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 16, Concession 2 and designated as Part 1 on Plan 65R-28982, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located north of Rutherford Road, west of Bathurst Street, be purchased from Block 11 Properties Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining needed approvals and signing and execution of documentation. CARRIED RES.#A229/10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Fernbrook Homes (McNair Creek) Limited, CFN 44885. Purchase of property located west of Bathurst Street, north of Major Mackenzie Drive, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006-2010", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed. (Executive Res.#B 151/10) Moved by: Gay Cowbourne Seconded by: Laurie Bruce THAT 2.32 hectares (5.73 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 23, Concession 2 and designated as Part 41 on Plan 65R-30842 as well as Blocks 91 and 92 on a Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Schaeffer Dzaldov Bennett Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No. 03-833-OOC, dated May 31, 2010, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located west of Bathurst Street, north of Major Mackenzie Drive, be purchased from Fernbrook Homes (McNair Creek) Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; 684 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining needed approvals and execution of documentation. CARRIED RES.#A230/10 - TOWN OF AJAX Request for a Permanent Easement for a Storm Sewer Outlet and Plunge Pool Duff ins Creek Watershed, Town of Ajax, CFN 44850. Receipt of a request from the Town of Ajax to provide a permanent easement for a storm sewer outlet and plunge pool, west side of Ravenscroft Road, south of Taunton Road, Duff ins Creek watershed, Town of Ajax. (Executive Res.#B152110) Moved by: Gay Cowbourne Seconded by: Laurie Bruce WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the Town of Ajax to provide a permanent easement for a storm sewer outlet and plunge pool, west side of Ravenscroft Road, south of Taunton Road, Duff ins Creek watershed, Town of Ajax; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the Town of Ajax in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 0.04 hectares (0.11 acres), more or less, be granted to the Town of Ajax for a storm sewer outlet and plunge pool, said land being Part of Lot 12, Concession 3, Town of Ajax, as shown on a Plan of Survey, prepared by Tham Shanmugarajah Surveying Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No. 09-006; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of$2.00, plus all legal, survey and other costs to be paid by the Town of Ajax; THAT the Town of Ajax is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the Town of Ajax; THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines; 685 THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06 be obtained prior to commencement of construction; THAT said easement be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED RES.#A231/10 - CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES PLAN REVIEW AND PERMITTING ACTIVITIES Town of Wh itch urch-StouffviIle Comments. Response to Town of Wh itch urch-StouffviIle staff comments related to the recently approved Ministry of Natural Resources "Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities". (Executive Res.#B153110) Moved by: Gay Cowbourne Seconded by: Laurie Bruce WHEREAS the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has approved a new chapter, "Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authorities Plan Review and Permitting Activities", for inclusion in the MNR Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authorities Manual; AND WHEREAS Town of Whitchurch-StouffviIle staff made specific comments regarding the proposed chapter during the consultation phase; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) acknowledge the Town of Wh itch urch-Stouffville staff comments; AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Wh itch urch-StouffviIle and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority be so advised. CARRIED SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES.#A232/10 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne 686 THAT Section IV item AUTH8.2 in regard to Watershed Committee Minutes, be received. CARRIED Section IV Item 8.2.1 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting #8/10, held on November 10, 2010 RES.#A233/10 - SECTION IV- ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Section IV item EX9.1 - Lowest Bid Not Accepted, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #10/10, held on December 3, 2010, be received. CARRIED ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 RES.#A234/10 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Michael Di Biase THAT Ontario Regulation items (EX10.1 - EX10.38, inclusive), contained in Executive Committee Minutes #10/10, held on December 3, 2010, be received. CARRIED TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:25 a.m., on Friday, January 7, 2011. Gerri Lynn O'Connor Brian Denney Chair Secretary-Treasurer /ks 687