HomeMy WebLinkAboutAuthority 2011kk,
01FTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY Annual #1/11
January 28, 2011
The Authority Meeting Annual #1/11, was held in the Weston Theatres, Black Creek
Pioneer Village, on Friday, January 28, 2011. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the
meeting to order at 10:48 a.m.
PRESENT
Paul Ainslie
Member
Maria Augimeri
Vice Chair
Bryan Bertie
Member
Laurie Bruce
Member
Bob Callahan
Member
Gay Cowbourne
Member
Vincent Crisanti
Member
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Member
Michael Di Biase
Member
Chris Fonseca
Member
Pamela Gough
Member
Jack Heath
Member
Chin Lee
Member
Gloria Lindsay Luby
Member
Glenn Mason
Member
Peter Milczyn
Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Chair
Linda Pabst
Member
John Parker
Member
Anthony Perruzza
Member
Gino Rosati
Member
Dave Ryan
Member
Jim Tovey
Member
Richard Whitehead
Member
ABSENT
David Barrow
Member
Lois Griffin
Member
Colleen Jordan
Member
John Sprovieri
Member
1
ANNUAL/INAUGURAL MEETING
The Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer, Brian Denney, assumed the Chair for the
Annual Meeting and conducted the 2011 Election of Officers.
APPOINTMENTS TO TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FOR
2011-2012
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 2011-2012 year, or until their
successors are appointed.
ADJALA-TOSORONTIO/MONO Glenn Mason
DURHAM Colleen Jordan
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Dave Ryan
TORONTO Paul Ainslie
Maria Augimeri
Bryan Bertie
Laurie Bruce
Gay Cowbourne
Vincent Crisanti
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Pamela Gough
Lois Griffin
Chin Lee
Gloria Lindsay Luby
Peter Milczyn
John Parker
Anthony Perruzza
PEEL Bob Callahan
Chris Fonseca
John Sprovieri
Jim Tovey
Richard Whitehead
YORK David Barrow
Michael Di Biase
Jack Heath
Linda Pabst
Gino Rosati
2
RES.#A1/11 - APPOINTMENT OF SCRUTINEERS
Moved by: Chris Fonseca
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT Mr. Robert Rossow, Partner, Gardiner Roberts LLP and Mr. Jonathan Wigley,
Partner, Gardiner Roberts LLP, be appointed as scrutineers for the election of officers, if
required.
CARRIED
CHAIR OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Gerri Lynn O'Connor was nominated by Glenn De Baeremaeker.
RES.#A2/11 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS
Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT nominations for the office of Chair of the Authority be closed.
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 John Parker.
RES.#A3/11 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
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.
3
REGION OF DURHAM REPRESENTATIVE ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Colleen Jordan was nominated by Gerri Lynn O'Connor.
RES.#A4/11 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT nominations for the Region of Durham representative on the Executive Committee
be closed.
CARRIED
Colleen Jordan was declared elected by acclamation as a Region of Durham representative on
the Executive Committee, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1 /13.
REGION OF PEEL REPRESENTATIVES ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Richard Whitehead was nominated by Chris Fonseca.
Jim Tovey was nominated by Richard Whitehead.
RES.#A5/11 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS
Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT nominations for the Region of Peel representatives on the Executive Committee be
closed.
CARRIED
Richard Whitehead and Jim Tovey were declared elected by acclamation as the Region of
Peel representatives on the Executive Committee, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/13.
REGION OF YORK REPRESENTATIVES ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Michael Di Biase was nominated by Jack Heath.
Jack Heath was nominated by Gino Rosati.
RES.#A6/11 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS
Moved by: Linda Pabst
Seconded by: Jim Tovey
i❑
THAT nominations for the Region of York representatives on the Executive Committee be
closed.
CARRIED
Michael Di Biase and Jack Heath were declared elected by acclamation as the Region of York
representatives on the Executive Committee, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/13.
CITY OF TORONTO REPRESENTATIVES ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Gay Cowbourne was nominated by Maria Augimeri.
Vincent Crisanti was nominated by Maria Augimeri.
Anthony Perruzza was nominated by Maria Augimeri.
Glenn De Baeremaeker was nominated by Maria Augimeri.
Bryan Bertie was nominated by Maria Augimeri.
RES.#A7/11 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS
Moved by: Peter Milczyn
Seconded by: Chris Fonseca
THAT nominations for the City of Toronto representatives on the Executive Committee be
closed.
CARRIED
Gay Cowbourne, Vincent Crisanti, Anthony Perruzza, Glenn De Baeremaeker and Bryan
Bertie were declared elected by acclamation as City of Toronto representatives on the
Executive Committee, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/13.
REGION OF DURHAM REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD
Dave Ryan was nominated by Gay Cowbourne.
RES.#A8/11 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Paul Ainslie
THAT nominations for the Region of Durham representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory
Board be closed.
CARRIED
5
Dave Ryan was declared elected by acclamation as the Region of Durham representative on
the Budget/Audit Advisory Board, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1 /13.
REGION OF PEEL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD
Bob Callahan was nominated by Jim Tovey.
RES.#A9/11 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS
Moved by: Chris Fonseca
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT nominations for the Region of Peel representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory
Board be closed.
CARRIED
Bob Callahan was declared elected by acclamation as the Region of Peel representative on
the Budget/Audit Advisory Board, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1 /13.
REGION OF YORK REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD
David Barrow was nominated by Michael Di Biase.
RES.#A10/11 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS
Moved by: Linda Pabst
Seconded by: Dave Ryan
THAT nominations for the Region of York representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory
Board be closed.
CARRIED
David Barrow was declared elected by acclamation as the Region of York representative on
the Budget/Audit Advisory Board, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1 /13.
CITY OF TORONTO REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD
Maria Augimeri was nominated by John Parker.
RES.#A11/11 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS
Moved by: Chin Lee
Seconded by: Paul Ainslie
THAT nominations for the City of Toronto representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory
Board be closed.
CARRIED
Maria Augimeri was declared elected by acclamation as the City of Toronto representative on
the Budget/Audit Advisory Board, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1 /13.
RES.#Al2/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
MINUTES
Gay Cowbourne
Richard Whitehead
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #10/10, held on January 7, 2011, be approved.
CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#A13/11 - BROCK NORTH AND SOUTH RESTORATION PLAN
Update on staff progress related to the acquisition and planned
restoration of the former Brock North and South landfill sites located
north and south of the 5th Concession, in the City of Pickering and the
Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham.
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Dave Ryan
WHEREAS the City of Toronto has conveyed its 392 hectare (969 acre) Brock North and
South lands to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for nominal
consideration of $2.00;
AND WHEREAS TRCA staff has initiated planning and discussions with staff of the City of
Pickering and the Town of Ajax related to the restoration and recreational potential of the
property;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff continue required consultation and
planning activities and proceed with restoration of the property;
7
THAT TRCA staff pursue all available funding opportunities to finance the required
restoration of the property;
THAT TRCA staff be authorized to enter into necessary agreements with area and
regional municipal partners to facilitate restoration of the property;
THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement any
agreements including obtaining needed approvals and the signing and execution of
documents;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report back on the outcome of the restoration planning,
financing strategy, management plan and agreements.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/09, held on May 22, 2009, Resolution #A75/09 was approved, in part,
as follows:
...THAT TRCA staff work with the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax to develop a
renaturalization and management plan for the complex that includes Brock North, Brock
South, Pickering property and Greenwood Conservation Area;...
The former Brock North and South landfill sites are located on the north and south sides of the
5th Concession Road, east of Brock Road in the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax. These
lands were secured by the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in 1969 as part of a
landfill site selection process. At that time, in order to purchase land for use as a landfill in
another jurisdiction, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was required to enter into
an agreement with the Township of Pickering. The required agreement, among other matters,
provided that "on completion of the refuse disposal sites, the land would be turned over to the
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, for recreation purposes." The
southwest portion of the Brock North site was used for landfilling in the late 1970's; however,
the waste was removed from the site in 1997. The lands were subsequently declared surplus
by the City of Toronto in 2008.
Since making TRCA's interest in the lands known to City of Toronto, TRCA staff has been
investigating the unique opportunity to transform the property into the most significant natural
heritage parcels and recreational destinations in Durham Region. The Brock North and South
lands include 392 hectares (969 acres) adjacent to two major natural corridors that offer critical
breeding habitat and connectivity to other important habitats within the Duffins Creek
watershed. From a regional hydrogeological perspective, these properties play a unique role
as both recharge and discharge areas of regional groundwater. Together with TRCA's
adjoining 297 hectares (735 acres) at Greenwood Conservation Area, this acquisition will result
in the creation of a greenspace measuring 689 hectares (1,704 acres).
In anticipation of the land conveyance, TRCA staff initiated meetings with City of Pickering and
Town of Ajax to discuss the restoration of the lands, future use, required planning and
preparation of management and operation agreements.
RATIONALE
The terrestrial landscape and hydrologic function of the Brock Road North and South properties
have been significantly altered through previous aggregate extraction and landfill operations.
TRCA estimates that 138 hectares (341 acres) or 35% of the lands have been disturbed through
previous land use activities which have altered the topography, drainage and ability to support
historic vegetation (Attachment 1). Restoring these disturbed areas offers a unique opportunity
to re-establish populations of a number of sensitive species, including aquatic, avian and
terrestrial species at risk. TRCA staff is currently preparing a restoration plan for these
properties to ensure that functional connections are made between existing habitats to support
a diversity of flora and fauna species.
The intent of TRCA's restoration plan is to ensure that lands contribute to TRCA's vision for the
Duff ins Creek with functioning wetlands, diverse and self-sustaining communities of native
plants, fish and wildlife, and where natural and human heritage features are protected and
valued. The Brock Road North and South properties have been assessed by TRCA staff to
identify opportunities to restore the hydrological function, unique landforms, and terrestrial and
aquatic habitats. TRCA has determined that in order to restore a functional physiographic
landform that supports natural watershed drainage, importing of fill material and re -contouring
of the landscape will be of critical importance. These restoration efforts will promote
re-establishment of historic vegetative communities, create connections between existing
habitats patches, and allow overall vegetation cover to be restored through planting efforts.
TRCA's current planning practice gives priority to restoring altered and degraded sites for each
habitat. For terrestrial opportunities, priority will be directed at re -vegetation to promote
connections between existing forest patches, increase forest patch size, as well as the creation
of different habitat types. Some unique habitat features have succeeded due to the dramatic
land alterations, some of these should remain to increase diversity, and some should be
restored to more historic conditions. Drainage restoration work will focus on enhancing the
interstitial zone between surface and groundwater. The aquatic restoration target for all stream
reaches is to maintain good quality continuous habitat that is consistent with a natural
coldwater system. In relation to fish management, target species include redside dace, Atlantic
salmon and brook trout. Removal of obstructions to fish passage is needed, including natural
barriers such as debris jams, and old infrastructure, such as a dam removal. Increasing
riparian cover along headwater drainage features is also required.
Planning undertaken to date has identified the opportunity to achieve the following at this site:
• repair degraded wetlands and restore hydrologic function resulting in the restoration of 26
hectares of wetland habitat;
• link the natural system and provide connectivity with the planned Seaton Natural Heritage
System to the west and the Greenwood Conservation Area to the east;
• promote diversity of habitats including thicket swamp, cattail marsh and meadow marsh,
and provide habitat for species of concern within TRCA's jurisdiction including Virginia rail,
swamp sparrow, wood frog and spring peeper;
• conduct both large and small scale reforestation initiatives and install structural habitat
features to connect existing habitat cover which will result in 139 hectares of forest
restoration;
• restore the hydrology of the site, day -light streams, remove barrier and utilize natural
channel design principles, and stream -side plantings to improve 14.7 km (142 hectares) of
cold water fisheries habitat and riparian corridors.
Once restored these lands have the potential to provide numerous recreational opportunities
including hiking, cross country skiing, angling and nature viewing experiences. This tract of
land will also facilitate important regional trail linkages to the Trans Canada Trail, Seaton Trail,
Oak Ridges Moraine Trail and Rouge Park Trail systems, as well as connections to the planned
communities of Seaton, Duffins Heights and Northern Ajax. These and other recreational uses
of the Brock North and South properties will be considered during a future master plan
process.
With the growing demand for recreation in Durham Region, TRCA and our partners will work
together to achieve a sustainable balance between meeting these demands and preserving the
natural heritage function of our conservation lands. Initial discussions regarding the future use
of the lands have identified that City of Pickering is interested in utilizing two parcels of land
measuring approximately 69 hectares (170 acres) for the future expansion of the Pickering
Museum and a district park facility. Through consultation with staff from the Town of Ajax,
TRCA has confirmed support for expediting TRCA's restoration plan and including the Brock
South property into the existing 10 year management agreement for the Greenwood
Conservation Area.
As per the conditions of the acquisition agreement, the City of Toronto has indicated their
preference that the lands be used to support future open space and park purposes, including
paths, trails and other passive recreational uses. Assuming the lands are used for these
purposes the City of Toronto has stipulated that no compensation payable to City of Toronto is
required. The City of Toronto has specifically identified that ancillary uses by Pickering, Ajax or
Ontario such as an expansion of the Pickering Museum, a district park of 20.23+ hectares (50+
acres) serving Pickering with stadiums, places of assembly and active recreational and cultural
uses, then compensation will be payable and will be the fair market value (FMV) of the interest
granted. Other conditions of sale identify that if the property or some portion is to be sold in the
next 50 years or is used for purposes other than those included in the agreement then either
the City may require the property to be reconveyed to it at the original purchase price of $2.00
or the City will be entitled to the profit so that in the case of leasing, licensing or permitting
someone to use some or all of the property, the profit would be considered to be the FMV of
the payments to be made under the right, license, lease or use given regardless of the amounts
that are actually paid to TRCA. TRCA would however be entitled to deduct from the profit its
costs of capital improvements, environmental clean up and costs of acquiring, operating and
maintaining the property.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
In the short term TRCA's focus will be to complete and implement the restoration plan for the
property to ensure that a strong foundation is in place to support integrity and diversity of
habitats and the connectivity between them. Working in partnership with the City of Pickering,
Town of Ajax and Region of Durham, TRCA will complete the following:
• identify stakeholders and key interests in site;
• capture the existing planning context and long term targets and pressures on the site;
• summarize the existing conditions of the site;
W
• complete detailed topographic surveys of disturbed areas to determine the volume of fill
material required to re-establish natural conditions;
• develop plan and site specific detailed designs to restore the natural heritage features and
hydrology of the site;
• provide opportunity for public input into the restoration plan;
• outline a five year work plan, including costs and funding strategy;
• prepare a detailed year one implementation plan;
• plan and develop conservation authority program delivery as it relates to TRCA capital
projects.
Following preparation of the restoration plan, TRCA will continue to work with municipal staff to
ensure that integration of planned recreational facilities and public use areas are in harmony
with the ecosystems of the property. Through a master planning process, TRCA will work with
our partners and in consultation with the community to introduce public use, provide
interpretation of natural and cultural heritage features, and to prepare necessary management
and operation agreements. City of Toronto representatives will also be consulted to ensure that
any financial implications tied to the purchase agreement are defined and understood by TRCA
and its partners.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the preparation of a restoration plan for the Brock North and South property is
currently available in account 109-70. TRCA staff will prepare a budget based on a five year
work plan which outlines potential costs and funding sources to implement TRCA's restoration
plan for the site. As fill and topsoil will be required as part of the plan to restore site drainage
and landscape features damaged through previous land uses, this site poses a significant
opportunity to generate fill revenues which will fund future work at this property. TRCA staff will
also pursue partnerships with the Ministry of Transportation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters to fund recovery
of habitats associated with species of concern.
Report prepared by: Thomas Sciscione, extension 5749
Emails: tsciscione@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296
Emails: Istephenson@trca.on.ca
Date: January 11, 2011
Attachments: 1
11
Attachment 1
12
SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
RES.#A14/11 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT Section II items EX8.1 - EX8.5, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes
#11 /10, held on January 14, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
Items EX8.1 - EX8.5, Inclusive
SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD RETROFIT ACTION PLAN
(Executive Res. #B162110)
BLUFFER'S PARK DAY MOORING DOCK REPAIR PROJECT
(Executive Res. #B163110)
AQUATIC PLANTS PROPAGATION MATERIALS
(Executive Res. #B164110)
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
(Executive Res. #B165110)
CONTRACT EMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED STAFF
(Executive Res. #B166110)
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES.#A15/11 - SUMMARY OF REQUESTS FOR QUOTATIONS AND REQUESTS FOR
PROPOSALS
July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010. Receipt of the 2010 end of year
summary of procurements approved by the Chief Administrative Officer
or his designate.
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Jack Heath
THAT the summary of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) procurements
approved by the Chief Administrative Officer or his designate for the July 1, 2010 to
December 31, 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:
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';
13
Pursuant to the resolution quoted above, the summaries of Requests for Quotations and
Requests for Proposals from July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, are 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.
Attachment 1 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.
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 applicable taxes not recoverable by TRCA).
For the information of the members, staff undertook a review of purchases approved by the
Authority and Executive Committee in 2010 (including contingencies). The following is a
summary of purchases approved by the Authority and Executive Committee combined (Board)
and Chief Administrative Officer/designate (Procurements):
2010 Purchases $10,000 or Greater in Value
Board
(Plus Applicable Taxes)
Procurements
(Plus Applicable Taxes)
Sole Source $1,254,890.00
$1,486,093.04
Lowest Bid/Competitive $5,320,516.50
$4,876,895.75
Not Lowest Bid $62,048.00
$79,061.40
TOTAL $6,637,454.88
$6,442,050.19
The total purchases for TRCA in 2010 of $10,000 or greater, approved by the Authority,
Executive Committee or Chief Administrative Officer/designate were $13.1 million, including
contingencies, plus applicable taxes. Total purchases less than $10,000 in value were
approximately $13.4 million. Together these purchases make up approximately $26.5 million of
TRCA's total expenditures of about $85 million in 2010.
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: December 20, 2010
Attachments: 3
14
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:
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'.
15
Attachment 2
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Sole Source (up to $50,000)
JuIV 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Sole Source
($)
Criteria
Plus Applicable
(Section 1.14
Taxes
of TRCA's
Purchasing
Policy)
Source Water Protection MPAC Data
Conservation Ontario
13,000.00
5
Advertising the Notice of Expropriation at
Toronto Star
22,080.00
5
Mimico
Tommy Thompson Park Geotechnical
Terraprobe Inc.
10,250.00
3 & 5
Investigations
Sutron Stream Gauge Monitoring Equipment
Hoskin Scientific Canada
20,605.50
1
Development of Flow Rating Curves
Ontario Hydrometric Services
25,592.00
1 & 5
Limited
2010 Laboratory Analytical Services
AGAT Laboratories
46,001.50
3
Toronto Eastern Beaches
Baird and Associates
40,000.00
5
+ 10% contingency
Regional IDF Pilot Study
Tarik Islam
16,000.00
5
MIMICO WATERFRONT LINEAR PARK
Appraisal Work
Integris Real Estate
48,000.00
5
Counsellors
+ disbursements
Survey Work
MMM Group
15,000.00
5
295 Unwin Avenue Nursery Relocation Project -
DNM Lock -Block TM Ltd.
40,000.00
1
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 400 units
of Concrete Lock -blocks
Petticoat Creek Aquatic Facility Project - Project
Harrington and McAvan
24,800.00
5
Management and Technical Services
Landscape Architects
+ 10% contingency
Interior Door Replacement at Albion Hills Field
PCI Pinho Contracting
13,990.48
4
Centre
+ 10% contingency
Wildlife Road Crossing Mitigation Strategy
EcoKare International
30,000.00
5
Kleinburg New Forest North Earth Works
JAnpro Environmental Group
30,000.00
3
BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE
Artifact Database Management Software
Eloquent Systems
10,050.00
5
Temporary Labour
Labour Unlimited
39,000.00
5
Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action
Schollen and Company Ltd.
15,525.00
3
Plans - Development of Two Designs for Low
(team lead)
Impact Development Demonstration Projects
Post and Paddle Fencing Materials
Lanark Cedar
17,000.00
5
Repairs to Centaur Off Road Track Vehicle
The Shop Industrial
13,380.97
5
Revised Project for the Etobicoke Motel Strip
Robson Associates Inc.
13,250.00
5
Waterfront Park (March, 1993) - Appraisal Work
Wellhead Protection Area Analysis, Vulnerability
AECOM Technology
11,300.00
3 & 5
Scoring, and Threat Analysis, Uxville
Corporation
CTC Source Water Protection Landowner
Gran'ts Mailing Services Inc.
20,000.00
3
Notification Letters
16
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Sole Source
($)
Criteria
Plus Applicable
(Section 1.14
Taxes
of TRCA's
Purchasing
Policy)
Corporate Security Alarm Systems, 2010
CHUBB Security Systems
25,000.00
5
Corporate Security Alarm Systems, 2011
CHUBB Security Systems
25,000.00
5
Rental Properties - Rental and Maintenance of
Aquasoft
25,000.00
3
Water Treatment Equipment
+ 10% contingency,
Graduate Students Internship Program -
Ryerson University
30,000.00
3 & 5
Archetype Sustainable House Energy
2011
Monitoring
Glen Haffy Conservation Area - Supply and
Fish Farm Supply Co.
17,216.16
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Lowest Bid (up to $100,000)
July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable
Requested/
Taxes
Complete
Bids
Received
Indian Line Campground Sewage Pump
Nor -Line Plumbing and
11,815.00
3/3
Replacement
Mechanical Ltd.
+ 10% contingency
Kortright Centre for Conservation Valley Access
PCI Contracting
44,940.00
8/8
Trail Upgrade Project
+ 10% contingency,
BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE 5/3
Preventative Maintenance Plumbing for 2010 to
Nor -Line Plumbing Ltd.
15,321.00
2011
Glen Haffy Conservation Area - Supply and
Fish Farm Supply Co.
17,216.16
3/1
Installation of Hatchery Pump and Aeration
+ 10% contingency
System
Supply and Delivery of Rental Linen Products
Topper Linen and Uniform
27,985.00
5/5
for 2010 and 2011
Service
+ 10% contingency
Don Valley Brick Works South Entrance Fencing
Roma Fence Ltd.
23,614.15
3/2
Improvements
+ 10% contingency
Former Rayner Property - Replacement of
Smith Excavating, Grading &
17,000.00
4/1
Septic System for 11900 Heart Lake Road
Septic Services
Former Canada Post Property - Mould
Environmental Operations
20,900.00
4/4
Remediation of 1352 Lakeshore Boulevard East
North Colonel Danforth Park, Pathway Paving
Melrose Paving Company
37,458.00
6/5
Works
Limited
17
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable
Requested/
Taxes
Complete
Bids
Received
295 UNWIN AVENUE NURSERY RELOCATION PROJECT
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 8550
Strada Aggregates Inc.
74,812.50
6/4
Tonnes of Recycled 19mm Crusher Run
Paving Works
Ipac Paving Limited
56,260.40
6/5
Supply and Installation of Chain Link Fence
Atlas Fence Toronto Ltd.
91,100.00
5/2
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 36 Rolls
Terrafix Geosynthetics Inc.
13,954.68
2/2
of Woven Geotextile
Concrete Pad Construction
BryRon Contracting
40,000.00
4/4
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 5500
Strada Aggregates Inc.
48,125.00
4/2
Tonnes of Recycled 50 mm Crusher Run
WARDEN WOODS PARK
Trail Project - Supply and Delivery of
Lafarge Aggregates
19,450.00
6/4
Approximately 1000 Tonnes of 19mm Crusher
Run Limestone
Culvert Replacement
McPherson-Andrews
92,421.00
10/3
Contracting Limited
+ 5,000.00 contingency
Pathway Paving Works
IPAC Paving Limited
53,664.00
6/4
TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
Cell One Fish and Level Control Structure
Cole Engineering
18,750.00
3/3
Design
Embayment C Shoreline Enhancement Project -
Glenn Windrem Trucking
15,900.00
3/2
Supply and Delivery of 400 Tonnes of 250 to
660mm Cobblestone
Hi-Lands of Bolton Corporation Property
David Horwood Limited,
15,000.00
3/3
Survey Work
Ontario Land Surveyors
160 Digital Cameras for Leadership Awards
Pentax Canada Inc.
20,800.00
3/3
SPADINA QUAY PARKETTE
Hardware for Landscape Improvements
Acorn Ironworks
14,788.00
3/2
Landscape Improvements
Hank Deenen Landscaping
95,480.00
4/4
Ltd.
BOB HUNTER MEMORIAL PARK
Fencing Requirements, 7784 Reesor Road
Roma Fence Ltd.
9,590.00
3/3
+ 20% contingency
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1500
Lafarge Aggregates
31,635.00
3/3
Tonnes of 19mm Crusher Run Limestone &
Approximately 400 Tonnes of 50mm Crusher
Run Limestone
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable
Requested/
Taxes
Complete
Bids
Received
CHARLES SAURIOL ENVIRONMENTAL DINNER
Event Design and Coordination
Stuart & Saladino
12,500.00
3/1
+ 10% contingency
Supply of Audio Visual and Event Services
AVW TELAV Audio Visual
19,899.87
6/4
Solutions
Albion Hills Field Centre Fire Suppression
PCI Pinho Contracting
49,000.00
4/1
+ 10% contingency
Wicksteed Park Pathway Paving Works
lBryron Contracting Limited
27,367.00
6/5
PORT UNION WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT (Phase 2)
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,000
Nelson Aggregate Company
23,170.00
8/4
Tonnes of 25mm-75mm Cobbles
Supply and Delivery of the Concrete Storm
Hanson Pipe & Precast
19,258.00
3/3
Sewer Outfall Pipe
Limited
Pathway Paving Works
Ipac Paving Limited
30,308.00
6/5
Don Valley Brick Works South Entrance -
Glenn Windrem Trucking
13,650.00
3/3
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 700
Tonnes of 3/4 Inch Crusher Run Limestone
Four Panasonic Toughbook Laptops (Rugged
KLM Solutions
14,086.00
4/4
Laptops)
BLACK CREEK COMMUNITY CENTRE PROJECT
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 500
J.C. Rock Limited
22,490.00
8/3
Tonnes of 2 to 4 Tonne Armour Stone
Rental of Tub Grinder & Operator
Cleargreen Forestry Products
29,230.00
2/2
Inc.
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,600
Glenn Windrem Trucking
62,400.00
8/2
Tonnes of 250mm-600mm Riverstone
Limited
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 550
J.C. Rock Limited
15,273.50
6/4
Tonnes of 100mm-200mm Gabion Stone
Pickering Lands Site Barkey Property -
GTA Fence
17,435.00
3/3
Livestock Exclusion Fencing
+ 15% contingency
Beretta Farms - Livestock Exclusion Fencing
Brussels Agri Service Ltd.
23,000.00
3/3
Former Runnymede Property - Drilling of New
Boadway Well Drilling
16,286.63
4/4
Well for 6461 Steeles Avenue East
Tankless Water Heating System Project at
Powerful Group of Companies
16,424.00
5/5
Albion Hills and Indian Line Campgrounds
Inc.
+ 10% contingency
2010 Base Mapping - Mitchell Creek and Rouge
Northway-Photomap Inc.
14,839.00
3/2
Flood Plain Mapping
Rouge Park Pathway Reconstruction Project
IPAC Paving Limited
19,740.25
6/5
Paving Works
Supply and Installation of Domestic Solar Hot
Green Sun Rising Inc.
12,860.00
11/2
Water Heating and Air Source Heating Display
at Kortright Centre
M
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable
Requested/
Taxes
Complete
Bids
Received
Shared Path/Sentier Partage-Toronto Historical
systeme huntington inc.
32,040.18
3/3
Park Signage Program
(+ 10% contingency)
Supply and Delivery of Point of Sale Hardware
Amsdell Inc.
55,632.00
9/4
Snow Removal Services
+ 10% contingency
Supply of Additional Reforestation Seedlings
• Forest Care
• 3,700.00
3/3
• Ferguson Forest Centre
• 3,000.00
• Pineneedle Farms
• 15,812.00
Total Cost 22,512.00
+ shipping
Removal and Disposal of Asbestos Containing
Ferro Canada Inc.
10,480.00
3/3
Material from Former Central Maintenance Barn
& 1 Room at Boyd Centre
Replacement of Flat Roof for 8 Pickering
B.W. Doucette
9,800.00
3/3
Townline
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Lowest Bid Not Accepted (up to $25,000)
Julv 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable
Requested/
Taxes
Complete
Bids
Received
Kortright Centre - Construction of Solar Hot
Precision Contracting
14,850.00
11/3
Water Display Building
(+ 10% contingency)
Head Office and Black Creek Pioneer Village
Champion Snow Removal
12,024.00
5/5
Snow Removal Services
(+ 10% contingency)
KC
Attachment 3
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL
Sole Source (up to $50,000)
Julv 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Sole Source
($)
Criteria
Plus Applicable
Taxes
Monitoring and Assessment Services of Adult
Ontario Federation of Anglers
18,000.00
5
Atlantic Salmon in Duffins Creek
and Hunters
Troutbrooke Drive Slope Stabilization Project
Terraprobe Inc.
49,800.00
5
Hydrogeologic Consulting Services
AquaResource Inc.
45,000.00
3
Partners in Project Green - Green Parking Lot
University of Toronto
35,000.00
3
Program
Regulatory Storm Floodline Mapping
Cole Engineering
21,700.00
5
Comparative Acoustic and Trawlings Surveys,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
15,000.00
5
and Modelling
Quantification of Habitat Changes using the
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
10,000.00
5
Habitat Alteration and Assessment Tool
Fish Population and Habitat Use Monitoring
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
35,500.00
5
Review of Demand Side Management
Enerlife Consulting Limited
13,612.50
5
Framework for Natural Gas Distributors
Durham Region Indoor Market Business
Durham Region Farm Fresh
25,000.00
5
Planning
Marketing Association
Peer Review of the Hydrology, Water Balance
Cole Engineering
15,000.00
5
and Erosion Modeling for the Central Pickering
Development Land Seaton Master
Environmental Serving Plan
21
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL
Competitive Bid (up to $100,000)
July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable
Requested/
Taxes
Complete
Bids
Received
Ladies Golf Club of Toronto - Slope Stability
Coffey Geotechnics Inc.
23,700.00
4/3
Analysis and Detailed Design
+ 2,500.00 contingency
Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan
Consulting Team Led by du
80,000.00
25 + biddingo /
for Lake Wilcox Community
Toit Allsopp Hillier
19
295 Unwin Avenue Nursery Relocation Project -
Morrison Hershfield Limited
14,750.00
10/1
Detailed Design and Specifications for Hydro
+ 10% contingency
and Irrigation Site Servicing
Climate Consortium for Research Action and
The Innovolve Group Inc.
25,000.00
8/2
Integration: Regional Climate Modelling Ad Hoc
Committee Proposal and Business Case
PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN: A PEARSON ECO -BUSINESS ZONE
Consulting Services for Implementation Eco -Industrial Solutions Inc. 47,500.00 4/4
Waste Reduction Training JEmerald Group 18,000.00 3/3
EROSION RISK ANALYSIS AND GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT
51 Deer Valley Drive Erosion Control Project
Geomorphic Solutions Ltd.
22,286.00
5/3
+$3,728.60
contingency
East Humber River at Langstaff Road
Geomorphic Solutions Ltd.
10,078.00
3/2
+ 10% contingency
West Etobicoke Creek South of Britannia Road
W.F. Baird & Associates
30,500.00
7/5
East Project - Remedial Erosion Control and
Coastal Engineers Ltd.
+ 8,550.00 contingency
Slope Stabilization Works
Web -based Occupational Health and Safety
W.R.M. Safety Solutions
53,500.00 (3 years)
3/3
Program
Consulting
17,500.00 (year 1)
17,500.00 (year 2)
18,500.00 (year 3)
22
RES.#A16/11 - IN THE NEWS
Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities and
news stories from October - December, 2010.
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Jack Heath
THAT the summary of media coverage and Good News Stories from October - December,
2010 be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
As per Authority direction during 2006, a consolidated report covering highlights of Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities and news coverage for the preceding few
months is provided to the Authority every few months. The stories for October to December,
2010 are as follows:
Healthy Rivers and Shorelines
• Watershed Management - Toronto and Region Source Protection Authority received the
Proposed Assessment Report. Following the second public consultation period the
report was delivered to the Minister of the Environment on schedule.
• Land Acquisition - Almost 1.5 hectares at Boydwood in the Rouge Park came into public
ownership due to negotiations at the Ontario Municipal Board.
• Planning and Development - The Environmental Assessment for the Don Mouth
Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project was officially submitted to the
Ministry of the Environment for public and stakeholder review and Minister's
decision.
• A story in the Toronto Sun on November 23rd "Nasty mess leaks into Rouge creek"
describes a fuel/oil spill that occurred, and Ministry of the Environment and TRCA
preparing for clean-up and future prevention. The Toronto Star also covered the
story in "Wrecker's oil leak fouls local creek".
• Education and Stewardship - 105 people attended the Provincial Flood Forecasting and
Warning Workshop in Niagara Falls and raised over $300 for flood relief.
• On December 1 st, 2010 Stewardship staff received $155,700 from the Ministry of the
Environment to administer the 2011/12 Early Response Program in the Credit
Valley -Toronto and Region -Central Lake Ontario (CTC) Source Protection Region.
• In story "Stream of Dreams runs through Palgrave" on December 2nd, the Caledon
Enterprise wrote about TRCA's involvement with the mural created at Palgrave Public
School to raise awareness about environmental issues. The story quotes TRCA
spokespeople.
• Cultural Heritage - Toronto Sun columnist writes about the Humber Book in his
December 5th column as a holiday gift for anyone interested in history.
• The South Asian Focus story on October 6th "White paper on proper ash disposal
norms ahead" discusses how representatives from TRCA and Credit Valley
Conservation at a Hindu conference mentioned that a brochure has been designed
to offer guidelines on depositing the remains of religious offerings in bodies of water.
23
Regional Biodiversity
• Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants and Wildlife - The Tommy Thompson Park Bird Research
Station (TTPBRS) caught a Whip-poor-will. This nocturnal species belongs to the
nighjar family, a group of birds known as "goats uckers". It is listed as threatened in
Ontario, and represents a very uncommon capture. It is the first time TTPBRS has
encountered this species. Volunteers and participants were treated to a very rare
sighting.
• White deer spotted in Grand River Conservation Authority jurisdiction.
• Possums evicting raccoons out of peoples homes in the Rouge.
• American bittern spotted at Brock North, showing wetlands are in active use.
• A new species was collected this past field season and identified later in the fall to be
Senecio pauperculus. S pauperculus is a flora species of local conservation concern
and is in the aster family. The specimen was taken from Rouge Park.
• The impact of the Gulf spill continues to be of media interest. TRCA expert appeared
on the program @issue on the iChannel to talk about the spill's effects on Canadian
migratory birds.
• Restoration - Secured $300,000 from TTC for restoration of Rouge Park.
• The Stouffville Sun-Tribune December issue includes a letter to the editor from a
reader who would like to see all the funds generated from the Bruce's Mill fill
dumping to be diverted to Bruce's Mill Conservation Area.
• Infrastructure - On December 5, 2010, the East Don Trail project came one step closer
to reality with the connection of pedestrian trails and parklands in the East Don River
valley with the installation of a second pedestrian bridge. This 34m bridge links
Moccassin Trail Park on the west side of the Don Valley to Milne Hollow Park- part of
the Charles Sauriol Nature Reserve - on the east side of the river and Don Valley
Parkway near Lawrence Avenue. Work has been ongoing since late 2009 to create
the access required for construction and to formalize (implement) the conceptual
trail plan, resulting in nearly 2 kilometres of publicly accessible trails linking the City
of Toronto communities of Wynford Heights with Don Mills and Parkway East.
• Education and Stewardship - The Ontario Road Ecology Group (GREG) produced "A
Guide to Road Ecology in Ontario" helping to raise awareness of the impacts roads
have on wildlife and the natural system. TRCA is represented on the OREG Board of
Directors and some of our work is highlighted as case studies in the Guide.
• Recreation - In the story "Picnic area planned for Rouge" on November 4th, in the
Yorkregion.com, three possible future park sites within the Rouge Park are
discussed.
• Partnerships - Cultivating climate change collaborative with York University math
department on TRCA's West Nile virus monitoring. Opening the door for us to share
some of the datasets with scientists.
Sustainable Communities
• Research and Innovation - Porous concrete parking lot demonstration site opened at
Toronto Pearson in partnership with City of Mississauga, Greater Toronto Airports
Authority, Holcim Construction and the Ready Mix Concrete Association of Ontario.
• Water Opportunities and Conservation Act, 2010 passed.
• Greening Health Care is expanding into new provinces.
• Corporate Knights Magazine, issue 32, profiled TRCA's Greening Health Care
program including quotes from TRCA spokesperson in the "Green Wards" report.
24
• Water Canada Magazine and Municipal Information Network News both published
stories regarding TRCA's and Connect the Drops' new guidelines and training
seminars to promote water conservation with Rainwater Harvesting Systems.
•RBC's Water and the Future of the Canadian Economy report was released.
Partners in Project Green is highlighted as a premier program.
• Infrastructure - Launched Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition at the Brick Works.
Funded with almost $200,000 grant from Trillium Foundation to determine need for
green infrastructure in Ontario.
• An October 5th Scarborough Mirror story "Conservation authority calls for moratorium
on wind farms in Lake Ontario" describes that moratorium on offshore wind projects
received more support with a recent vote by the TRCA board members.
• Education and Stewardship - Reliance Home Comfort approved $50,000 donation to the
Green Home Makeover Project.
• Greening Health Care held the first Sustainability Forum, Workshop and Tradeshow,
attracting over 30 of Ontario's largest hospitals and representatives from Alberta
Health Care to tackle energy savings from steam plants and central heating
systems.
• Launched Ontario EcoCentres program. Addresses unique nature of education
centres. 15 sites in the pilot program, which provides a program for these centres to
reach carbon neutrality.
• Project launched in partnership with the Peel Aboriginal Network to built a traditional
sweat lodge at the Heart Lake Conservation Area, next to the Medicinal Wheel
garden. The sweat lodge will be used by the local aboriginal community to host
traditional ceremonies and will also serve as an educational tool during events -
Elders will educate students and public about the significance of the structure and
aboriginal connections to the local natural environment.
• TRCA spokesperson was quoted in story "York unveils water plan" in
YorkRegion.com regarding the Water Cafe conference held in King Township.
• Celebrations and Events - The Etobicoke Guardian published a story on December 1 st,
on Partners in Project Green's Cool Roof Launch. SNAP Etobicoke published
photos from the launch event.
• Partnerships - A Regional Climate Modelling Partnership was initiated with participation
of scientist and researchers from approximately 12 Ontario universities and
government representatives. This partnership aims at strengthening the links
between climate modellers, researchers, policy makers and practitioners to make
improved climate research and information available to municipalities, industry and
government on a level of detail that has not been previously done.
• In a DigitalJournal.com story, TRCA's role in the Evergreen Brick Works is
mentioned in article "Evergreen Brick Works Opens in Toronto".
• Financial Capacity - Received $100,000 grant for the Sustainable Neighbourhood
Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) project at Lake Wilcox.
•TRCA was awarded an $86,000 grant from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Green Municipal Fund for the County Court SNAP project.
• Human Interest / Human Health - In Toronto Star story "Harvest musings from a lousy
gardener", TRCA and FarmStart is mentioned in reference to the McVean Farm
events.
25
Business Excellence
• Planning and Development - Planning and Development had a record number of
permits issued in 2010, facilitating development projects to TRCA's standard
throughout the jurisdiction.
• Infrastructure - Air Photo Collection is organized. Historic air photos available for every
decade back to 1967, some coverage for 1958.
• Recreation - A November 25th story in Yorkregion.com "Stouffville's camping, BMX area
scrubbed" discusses the updated master plan for Bruce's Mill Conservation Area,
which includes more nature -based activities, and a plan that will focus on health
promotion, an active lifestyle and wellness.
• Mark Cullen wrote a column in a November 27th Toronto Star about how TRCA
provides some of the best walking opportunities in the 416 and 905 areas.
• Cultural Heritage - BLOGTO listed Black Creek Historic Brewery as one of the top
microbreweries in Toronto.
• Successful public archaeology dig day at the 19th century blacksmith's homestead
as part of the Claremont Field Centre's 40th anniversary celebrations.
• Staff and students have developed a new festive look at Black Creek Pioneer Village
(BCPV) to try to attract additional visitors during the holiday season.
• Celebrations and Events - The Charles Sauriol Environmental Dinner received media
coverage in Rogers Daytime Television, Green Living Magazine "What's so funny
about biodiversity? Environmental Dinner has fun with a serious topic", Spacing
Magazine "Hope springs eternal at Charles Sauriol Environmental Dinner", Water
Canada Magazine "Waterfront Toronto Wins for Stormwater Project" and
Mississauga News "Dinner celebrates the environment".
• On October 20th, TRCA staff appeared in Rogers Daytime to speak about several
Claireville Conservation Area events taking place.
• Partnerships - Glenn MacMillan elected to the Great Lakes Chapter Board of the
International Erosion Control Association.
• Partners in Project Green Kids in Nature Corporate Challenge launched with Earth
Rangers, where corporations support student trips to Kortright Centre and class
visits from Earth Rangers. Hoping to expand to $100,000 in sponsorships.
• Financial Capacity - BCPV met provincial standards for museums for 2010 and awarded
$200,000 grant. Have received $7-8 million from the Province of Ontario over the
years.
• An agreement with Staples has been reached where TRCA can "piggy back" onto
the agreement with the City of Toronto for purchase of office supplies. The
agreement allows TRCA to purchase items on the city agreement which are cost
effective, while at the same time adding items which are unique to TRCA. The
agreement should save TRCA up to 25% of our corporate spending or the
equivalent of $7,000 - 8,000.
• Sears Canada came on as a $25,000 sponsor for the Sauriol Dinner, leading the way
to the highest sponsorship ever. Gross revenue for the Dinner is about $290,000,
with approximately 750 people attending.
• Project for tree planting and new picnic tables at Glen Haffy Conservation Area
awarded funding of $5,000 as part of the Scouts Canada/Loblaw "Go Green"
program.
26
• A November 13th Toronto Star story "Ford team scrutinizes green projects"
describes list of programs being reviewed, including TRCA's Partners in Project
Green.
• The Examiner.com wrote a story regarding Christmas by Lamplight and Lunch with
Santa in "Eating out for the season at Black Creek Pioneer Village". On December
2nd, Toronto.com published a list of Winter Date Night Ideas, which includes
Christmas by Lamplight at Black Creek Pioneer Village. DigitalJournal.com did a
story called "Christmas Time at Toronto's Black Creek Pioneer Village" and the
North York Mirror did a feature story called "Black Creek offers Christmas" on
December 9th. A media tour of Christmas activities at Black Creek was well attended
by media on December 9th, including the Ming Pao Daily, Mummy blogger, Nikka
Times, North York Mirror, Toronto Sun, Fairchild TV and Deutsch Press and
Toronto.com.
• The November 30th and December 1 st Toronto Sun news brief describes BCPV in
the Christmas spirit and the events taking place at BCPV over the holiday season.
• Human Interest - TRCA entered a team in the annual Dillon Beach Volleyball tournament
in support of United Way, and came in first, for the first time.
• TRCA received a total of 55 media hits from October -December 2010.
• Story on Black Creek beer on CBC highlighted BCPV as a destination for adults.
• Local community paper in York Region wrote about the "Spooky Thrills in Pioneer
Village" in a story about Halloween events in BCPV.
• 25% of our PAIE (Public Access and Integration Enhancement program) participants
have found employment. The program is gaining momentum and TRCA staff is
hoping to engage other conservation authorities.
• BCPV setting for the CBC television show Being Erica and indicated that they were
at BCPV.
• The North York Mirror on November 26th included information regarding holiday
baking at BCPV.
• Black Creek Pioneer Village conducted a CTV Toy Mountain Campaign, collecting
145 toys.
• Black Creek Pioneer Village's Gingerbread Village received publicity in the Bakers
Journal on December 6th in story "Contest recreates Black Creek Pioneer Village in
Gingerbread".
• In "An unlikely friendship that offers a lifeline" the Globe and Mail reviews the book
Drive by Saviours written by Chris Benjamin who worked as a diversity coordinator
at TRCA.
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: January 12, 2011
27
RES.#A17/11 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Jack Heath
THAT Section IV items AUTH8.3.1 & AUTH8.3.2 in regard to watershed committee
minutes, be received.
CARRIED
Items AUTH8.3.1 & AUTH8.3.2
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #9/10, held on December 9, 2010
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #4/10, held on December 7, 2010.
ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
RES.#A18/11 - APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO
REGULATION 166/06
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.1 - EX10.68, inclusive, contained in Executive
Committee Minutes 11 /10, held on January 14, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:38 a.m., on Friday, January 28, 2011.
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Chair
/ks
Brian Denney
Secretary -Treasurer
khk
01FTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #2/11
February 25, 2011
The Authority Meeting #2/11, was held in Weston Theatre B, Black Creek Pioneer Village,
on Friday, February 25, 2011. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order
at 9:43 a.m.
PRESENT
David Barrow
Member
Bryan Bertie
Member
Laurie Bruce
Member
Bob Callahan
Member
Gay Cowbourne
Member
Vincent Crisanti
Member
Michael Di Biase
Member
Pamela Gough
Member
Lois Griffin
Member
Jack Heath
Member
Colleen Jordan
Member
Chin Lee
Member
Gloria Lindsay Luby
Member
Glenn Mason
Member
Peter Milczyn
Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Chair
Anthony Perruzza
Member
Gino Rosati
Member
John Sprovieri
Member
Jim Tovey
Member
Richard Whitehead
Member
ABSENT
Paul Ainslie
Member
Maria Augimeri
Vice Chair
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Member
Chris Fonseca
Member
Linda Pabst
Member
John Parker
Member
Dave Ryan
Member
RES.#A19/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
MINUTES
Bob Callahan
Gloria Lindsay Luby
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/11, held on January 28, 2011, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Laura Stephenson, Manager, Project Management Office, TRCA, in
regard to item AUTH9.1 - Brock North and South Restoration Plan and Mike Fenning,
Manager, Acquisitions and Sales in regard to Item EX8.2 - Ontario Realty Corporation.
(b) A presentation by Gary Wilkins, Humber Watershed Specialist, TRCA, in regard to The
Living City Report card.
(c) A presentation by Jim Dillane, Director, Finance and Business Services, TRCA, in regard
to Project for Acquisition of Office Space.
RES.#A20/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
PRESENTATIONS
Colleen Jordan
Jack Heath
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
RES.#A21 /11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
PRESENTATIONS
Jim Tovey
Laurie Bruce
THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received.
CARRIED
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
RES.#A22/11
Moved by: Colleen Jordan
Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne
THAT the committee move into closed session to hear above -noted presentation (c), as it
pertains to legal matters.
CARRIED
nVA
ARISE AND REPORT
RES.#A23/11
Moved by: Lois Grffin
Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne
THAT the committee arise and report from closed session.
CARRIED
RES.#A24/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
PRESENTATIONS
Jack Heath
Michael Di Biase
THAT above -noted presentation (c) be heard and received.
CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#A25/11 - THE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION OF GREATER TORONTO
Re -branding and Monthly Donor Campaign. The Conservation
Foundation of Greater Toronto seeks financial support from Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority for the re -branding of the Foundation and
for a new monthly donor campaign.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THAT The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto's (CFGT) proposal to be renamed
"The Living City Foundation" be endorsed;
THAT in 2011, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) commit to making the
following two investments in the "The Living City Foundation", subject to budget approval:
i) $100,000 provision from within the TRCA communications budget to create a visual
identity for the renamed Foundation and build a user-friendly, highly interactive website
linked to the TRCA websites to engage people and recruit supporters;
ii) $300,000 loan to finance a new monthly donor campaign; the loan to be on terms and
conditions satisfactory to TRCA;
AND FURTHER THAT "The Living City Foundation" report regularly to TRCA on the
progress of the monthly donor campaign, and initially at Authority Meeting #8/11,
scheduled to be held on September 30, 2011.
CARRIED
31
RATIONALE
At CFGT Board of Directors Meeting #4/10, held on Wednesday, October 6, 2010, the name
change and the plans to continue recruiting monthly supporters were approved. With the
release of "The Living City Report Card", TRCA has an opportunity to reinvest in our individual
supporter campaign. To be more effective, the CFGT should become "The Living City
Foundation" so that potential supporters have a better understanding that their money is going
to build "The Living City". This change will be accomplished by an amendment to the Letters
Patent of the CFTG. TRCA is asked to endorse the change in name. CFGT has made provision
for the incidental costs to change letterhead, brochures, etc. over time.
Monthly Donor Campaign
Individuals contribute over 80% of the money given to Canadian charities. For the most part,
this money comes as unrestricted revenue. This is important to TRCA as the funds can be
used for general operating purposes where the need is greatest. For this reason, securing
donations from individuals is the most competitive area of fundraising for CFGT.
Over three years ( 2007, 2008 and 2009) CFGT conducted a pilot project to determine if it could
recruit monthly supporters. Over the period, canvassers went door-to-door to ask for monthly
support of TRCA's work. An amount of $300,000 was invested and CFGT recruited 1,015
monthly supporters. By the middle of 2010, that investment was recovered. The pilot project
was clearly a success.
Today, CFGT still has 681 of these supporters who contribute every month. The total
contributed by individuals recruited through this $300,000 investment was $347,000 as of
January 31, 2011. These supporters continue to contribute $6,600 every month. The pilot
project conclusively showed that, even without public awareness of CFGT, individuals were
willing to support TRCA's important environmental work. This is because our offer, "Look After
Where You Live," resonated with residents of the Toronto region.
The driving rationale for this campaign is the clear evidence that people living in the Greater
Toronto Area (GTA) will support it. The Report Card stresses that the actions individuals take
will be crucial if we are to make the GTA a cleaner, greener, healthier place to live. This
campaign will invite supporters to do just that.
Getting into the business of individual supporters has profound implications for TRCA. Through
this campaign, The Living City Foundation will build a robust file of individuals who contribute
monthly to our work. Over time, many of these generous people will increase their monthly
financial commitment and some will make additional large contributions to special projects. In
the longer term, a significant number of these people will leave a legacy for the work of the
Foundation through a gift from their estates.
TRCA has shown it can flourish in the highly -competitive area of fundraising from individuals.
Over time, contributions from individual supporters can become a mainstay of TRCA's annual
revenue.
32
FINANCIAL DETAILS
TRCA is requested to invest $100,000 to develop and implement a communication and
marketing plan for the re -branded Foundation. Creating a dynamic, interactive website which
will invite individuals in the GTA to experience "The Living City" in their neighbourhood will be a
key investment. It will link to TRCA events and excursions and will be filled with information for
those wishing to know about nature where they live and work. It will also encourage individuals
to take the actions suggested in "The Living City Report Card". The website will include
applications which users can download to their own computer or their phone so that they may
get more enjoyment out of visiting TRCA's facilities. Finally, the website will invite visitors to
become monthly supporters of TRCA's work.
The $300,000 requested for investing in recruiting monthly supporters would be in the form of a
loan from TRCA to the Foundation. The bulk of the activity will be the door-to-door campaign
asking for monthly support. Given our experience, the Foundation should be able to repay the
loan within 24 months. TRCA staff has indicated that the $300,000 loan can be accommodated
within the TRCA cash flows.
Report prepared by: David Love, 416-667-6291
Emails: dlove@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: David Love, 416-667-6291
Emails: dlove@trca.on.ca
Date: February 9, 2011
RES.#A26/11 - HUMBER SOURCE WOODS (HAPPY VALLEY) PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Recommends approval of the Humber Source Woods Property
Management Plan.
Moved by: Richard Whitehead
Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne
THAT the Humber Source Woods Property Management Plan dated February, 2011, be
approved;
THAT a stewardship committee be established with representation from the Nature
Conservancy of Canada (NCC), Regional Municipality of York, Township of King and
interested community stakeholders to advise on the management of the property and
participate in public outreach activities;
THAT in accordance with the Landholding Agreement between NCC and Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the Humber Source Woods Property Management
Plan be submitted to NCC for approval;
THAT the Humber Source Woods Property Management Plan be referred to the Township
of King and the Regional Municipality of York for endorsement;
33
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff work with the Township of King and the Oak Ridges
Trail Association to formalize and manage an appropriate trail system on the property
with links to the community and other larger trail networks.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In March of 2010, NCC partnered with TRCA in the protection of the Happy Valley Forest by
securing the Humber Source Woods property from Geoffrey Love and Mary Anne McEvenue.
This is the first partnership between the NCC and TRCA and as such represents an important
conservation milestone.
For more than a decade NCC has been working to protect and secure land, and foster
stewardship within the Happy Valley Forest Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI). The
TRCA purchase of the Humber Source Woods property compliments this larger initiative and
ensures a partnership approach for the appropriate protection and management of the land.
Currently, NCC is collaborating with all partners to develop and implement a series of common
principles for the stewardship and property management of the entire Happy Valley Forest
ANSI. Once developed, the overarching principles will be incorporated into all TRCA's work in
the area.
The Humber Source Woods is a 21.9 hectare property that falls within the Natural Core Area of
the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan and is partially located within the Happy Valley Forest ANSI
(Attachment 1).
At Authority Meeting #9/09, held on November 27, 2009, the purchase of the Humber Source
Woods was approved and subsequently, the process for the development of the Humber
Source Woods Property Management Plan. Resolution #A212/09, in part, states:
THAT a partial taking of 22 hectares (54.3 acres), more or less, consisting of an irregular
shaped parcel of vacant land together with a right-of-way for access 15 metres in width
along the northerly boundary of the retained lands, said land being Part of Lot 15,
Concession 6, Township of King, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from
William G. Love and Mary Anne McEvenue;...
THAT TRCA enter into a Landholding Agreement for the property with the Nature
Conservancy of Canada;...
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may
be required to given effect thereto including the obtaining of necessary approvals and
the signing and execution of any documents.
Section 5 of the aforementioned Landholding Agreement between NCC and TRCA on March
26, 2010, in part, states that:
TRCA shall forthwith prepare a Property Management Plan in consultation with and for
the approval of NCC, which shall set out the manner in which each part of the land shall
be managed, protected and monitored to achieve the purpose of long term
conservation. TRCA and NCC shall use their best efforts to reach agreement on the
Property Management Plan and execute same as soon as reasonably possible and in
any event within one year of the date hereof...
34
The purpose of completing the Humber Source Woods Property Management Plan is twofold.
First this plan is intended to fulfill the requirements as set out in the Landholding Agreement
signed between NCC and TRCA. Second, this plan has been developed to ensure the
preservation of the Humber Source Woods for future generations.
A Technical Advisory Committee comprised of TRCA staff from conservation lands, property
services, ecology, cultural heritage, forestry and The Conservation Foundation of Greater
Toronto was formed at the start of the planning process and guided the development of the
management plan.
TRCA staff has been in regular communication with NCC since the initial stages of property
acquisition and plan development. NCC staff has reviewed the final draft of the management
plan and provided valuable comments which have been incorporated into the document.
Additionally, TRCA staff has had the opportunity to meet with local area residents and key
stakeholders at a recent NCC sponsored Happy Valley Landowner's workshop and has
addressed their comments within this plan. In an effort to further the dialogue between the
public and TRCA regarding the management of the Humber Source Woods, the plan
recommends public information sessions to coincide with future NCC sponsored landowner
workshops, the inclusion of public members on the stewardship committee and the
incorporation of a property user survey in Phase 3. The results of this outreach program will
inform the final development of management zones and permissible uses on-site.
Guiding Management Plan Principles and Conservation Goals
Relevant policy documents were reviewed in the development of this plan including provincial
policy and plans, regional and local official plans, local NCC plans, as well as TRCA policy
documents. The Management Plan aims to be consistent with the views and goals of the
diverse policy framework that relates to the site. Of particular importance to the property are the
Humber River watershed plan and the NCC Natural Area Conservation Plan.
The plan incorporates the following key principles of the Humber watershed plan as guiding
management principles for the property:
• Increase awareness of the watershed's resources.
• Protect the Humber River watershed as a continuing source of clean water.
• Celebrate, regenerate and preserve our natural historical and cultural heritage.
• Increase community stewardship and take individual responsibility of the health of the
Humber River.
• Establish linkages and promote partnerships among communities.
• Build a strong watershed economy based on ecological health.
• Promote the watershed as a destination of choice for recreation and tourism.
The plan incorporates the following conservation goals, as listed in the NCC's Happy Valley
Natural Area Conservation Plan:
• Increasing interior forest habitat.
• Protecting and restoring 25% of the Happy Valley Forest ANSI to old growth forest.
• Maintaining or enhancing extant species at risk.
• Providing education and interpretive opportunities of forest ecology.
35
• Promoting compatible land use, habitat linkages and the stewardship of habitat on private
land in and around the natural area.
These management principles and conservation goals will be achieved through the
implementation of the 40 recommendations listed in the plan.
Plan Description
The Humber Source Woods Property Management Plan is based on available TRCA property,
ecological, cultural heritage and forestry data. At present, comprehensive ecological and
cultural heritage data is limited. As a result, a major component of the Management Plan is
recommendations for completing these inventories. The Management Plan recommends
consultation with TRCA ecology and cultural heritage staff regarding the development of
permanent management zones and trail locations once the required inventories are complete.
The plan proposes 5 phases of TRCA work and involvement in the Humber Source Woods
property. Phase 1, which has been completed, dealt with site securement, preliminary site
inventory and estimation of work required to complete the plan. Phases 2 and 3 propose the
development of background reports, conceptual management zones, a preliminary trail plan
and a communications plan. Phase 4 outlines the key steps towards implementing the trail and
communication plan. The final phase highlights the ongoing land management and care for the
site and reinforces a commitment to TRCA's partnership with NCC in the Happy Valley Area. All
of the phases include both consultations with the NCC and public outreach components.
In the interim, the Management Plan proposes four conceptual management zone types. These
conceptual zones were developed based upon typical TRCA management zones. This
approach has been supported by the Technical Advisory Committee, as well as NCC. The four
proposed management zone types are: Nature Reserve, Primary Restoration, Heritage
Protection and Public Use.
The preliminary trail plan recommends the adoption of the existing well established trail system
on-site with the addition of a single 130m connection between existing trails to complete an
on-site trail loop. The finalization of the trail plan and routing will be completed following a
detailed review and impact analysis using full ecological inventory information. Copies of the
full Management Plan document is available upon request.
A management plan for the Humber Source Woods provides the following four key strategies
that fulfill the requirements of the purchase agreement with NCC and work to protect the
significant natural and cultural heritage features on the site:
• outlines action and duty of care requirements that TRCA has completed to protect and
secure the property;
• utilizes existing ecological and social information about the site to establish conceptual
management zones for the property, as an interim approach to management that is
consistent with TRCA's land zoning principles;
• details the required natural and cultural heritage studies and key next steps to finalize
the management zones and public use trail plan;
• describes the partnership approach to managing the property with full involvement from
NCC, York Region, Township of King and local community members.
36
TRCA staff has led the development of the Management Plan, with the Technical Advisory
Committee and NCC providing input and direction. The Technical Advisory Committee and
NCC fully support the plan including the conceptual management zones and the 40 plan
recommendations. Future work outlined in the plan will further the knowledge base of TRCA
and NCC, while ensuring the protection of the Humber Source Woods. In addition to the
Management Plan being consistent with and supporting the Humber River watershed plan, it
fully incorporates TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy and the broader goals
outlined within the TRCA's vision for The Living City.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Implement a comprehensive natural heritage survey of the property to finalize
management zones and trail plans.
• Develop a cultural heritage proposal outlining works to be completed, budgets and
funding sources.
• Undertake a preliminary cultural heritage survey in connection with finalizing
management zones and trail plans.
• Implement forestry work with regard to trail safety on-site and subsequently, with regard
to maintaining forest health.
• Implement a public outreach program via NCC sponsored landowner workshops, York
Region Land Securement Group, Oak Ridges Trail Association, and other public groups
or forums concerned with Happy Valley or the Humber Source Woods.
• Finalize specific policies and boundaries for each of the four conceptual management
zones with the support of the stewardship committee, NCC and the public outreach
program.
• Send copies of the Management Plan, along with thank you letters to each of the
Technical Advisory Committee members, Township of King and Regional Municipality of
York for endorsement and request that the document be used in land use planning and
other watershed management decisions, as well as request that their staff participate on
the Humber Source Woods Stewardship Committee.
• Send a copy of the Management Plan to NCC for approval in accordance with the
Landholding Agreement.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total cost to implement the Management Plan is estimated at $26,000 over three years.
TRCA has budgeted $9,900 for implementation activities in 2011 under York Region Land Care
account 442-03. Opportunities to match funds from other sources such as the municipal,
provincial and federal governments, NCC, local community groups and private funding sources
will be pursued.
Report prepared by: Mike Bender, extension 5287, Adam Szaflarski, extension 5596
Emails: mbender@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Mike Bender, extension 5287
Emails: mbender@trca.on.ca
Date: February 01, 2011
Attachments: 1
37
Attachment 1
I
I
1p�o
no]
I
!!9
CIL
M
0
L)
0
E
9
I'IFS
C
2
@
OL
If
Lj
tc
0—
cc:
'E
0 C
2
OL,
RES.#A27/11 - ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEKS WATERSHEDS TECHNICAL
UPDATE REPORT
Approval of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watersheds Technical
Update Report and immediate steps to facilitate its implementation.
Moved by: John Sprovieri
Seconded by: Glenn Mason
THAT the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watersheds Technical Update Report (herein
"the Report") be approved;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to use the
Report to inform and guide ongoing work and long term workplanning and budget
preparation;
THAT copies of the Report be circulated to municipalities within the Etobicoke and
Mimico Creeks watersheds, and they be asked to use the Report to inform their ongoing
programs and work with TRCA to implement the recommendations appropriate to their
municipality;
THAT copies of the Report be circulated to provincial and federal governments, as well as
to other relevant organizations and interest groups and they be asked to use the
information contained in this Report to inform their ongoing programs;
AND FURTHER THAT the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition be thanked for their
input during the development of this Report and for their commitment to assist TRCA in
implementation of the Report's recommendations.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Purpose and Scope of Technical Update
The purpose of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watersheds Technical Update study was to
fill data gaps and analyse the technical information that has become available since publication
of the watershed strategy Greening Our Watersheds; A Strategy for the Etobicoke and Mimico
Creek Watersheds (TRCA, 2002) and report card Turning Over a New Leaf. The Etobicoke and
Mimico Creeks Watersheds Report Card (TRCA, 2006).
The report consolidates updated information in the following areas:
• Groundwater quantity and quality
• Surface water quantity
• Baseflow and water use
• Stormwater management and streamflow
• Fluvial geomorphology
• Surface water quality
• Terrestrial natural heritage system
• Aquatic system - instream barriers to fish passage
The updated technical information is meant to support the watershed strategy and inform the
ongoing implementation of policies and programs by TRCA and its partners.
W
Key Findings and Recommendations
These are highly urbanized and degraded watersheds. Much positive action is underway
toward their revitalization, however much work remains to be done. This report provides
updated science to support ongoing programs. Key findings and contributions of this work
include:
• Groundwater -surface water interactions and relationships to stream baseflow and wetlands
are defined.
• Rebounding groundwater levels were observed in the vicinity of Bovaird Drive and Heart
Lake Road due to cessation of dewatering activities associated with aggregate extraction
and further investigation is required.
• Only 30% of the extensive urban areas was developed with any stormwater management
measures and, of this, less than 2% has an optimum level of control (by today's standards) -
thus making implementation of the municipal stormwater retrofit strategies especially critical
to watershed health.
• This study has begun to benchmark the channel morphology of these altered creek
systems.
• A refined targeted terrestrial natural heritage system has been recommended, including a
ranking of priority management areas. Given the limited opportunities to expand natural
cover, efforts to enhance the urban forest are especially needed to help sustain the system.
• Instream barriers to fish movement were identified and classified in terms of their priority for
restoring movement through the entire system (from Lake to headwaters), local habitat or
stewardship opportunities.
The report also identifies strategic priorities for action, in the areas of: policy development,
monitoring enhancements, further investigation and regeneration.
For details, see Attachment 1 (Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watersheds Technical Update
Report - Executive Summary).
Consultation Process
TRCA staff delivered presentations on the emerging technical work at meetings of the
Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition during 2008 to 2010. TRCA staff presented the key
findings and recommendations of the Technical Update study at a Coalition meeting held in
March 2010, and received comments on the Draft Report via the Policy Subcommittee of the
Coalition during May to June 2010. The Implementation Priorities section of the Final Draft
Report was presented to the Coalition at its November 2010 meeting, along with an overview of
the proposed municipal and agency consultation process for the Final Draft Report. The
Coalition's approval of the Report will be considered at the February 18, 2011 meeting (a verbal
report of their decision will be brought to the Authority meeting).
A meeting of municipal, provincial and federal representatives was held in March 2010 to
present the overall technical findings and recommendations and seek input on an approach for
setting regeneration implementation priorities. The implementation recommendations were
subsequently developed, and a full final draft Technical Update Report circulated for review in
November 2010.
W
During the period November 2010 to January 2011, TRCA staff met with most watershed
municipalities and key provincial and federal agencies to discuss the Report's findings and
recommendations.
The feedback received has been positive, indicating that the updated science will provide
valuable information in support of many ongoing programs and initiatives. Partners also have
commented on the useful subwatershed regeneration plans, which compile regeneration
recommendations into a convenient set of reference maps.
There is already a strong indication of staff support for action on priority implementation
initiatives, including the Region of Peel and City of Brampton's interest in collaborating on
further investigation of the rebounding groundwater levels and the City of Mississauga's interest
in pursuing the development of a Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP)
project.
Minor edits for clarification have been made to the Final Draft Report in response to comments,
and staff now recommend that the Final Report be approved.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Prepare and publish an illustrated Executive Summary booklet to assist in disseminating
key findings and recommendations.
• Distribute copies of the final report and Executive Summary booklet to watershed
municipalities and other partners and post on the TRCA website.
• Use the Report's information and recommendations to guide implementation initiatives in
collaboration with the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition, watershed municipalities
and other partners.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for this work was provided in the Region of Peel and City of Toronto Capital Budgets in
account 120-11.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Emails: smeek@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Emails: smeek@trca.on.ca
Date: February 07, 2011
Attachments: 1
41
Attachment 1
Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watersheds
Technical Update Report
Executive Summary
2 2
The Etobicoke Creek watershed (211 km ) and Mimico Creek watershed (77 km ) are highly
urbanized and degraded systems. They begin south of the Oak Ridges Moraine and drain into
the north shore of Lake Ontario, flowing through the Region of Peel, Town of Caledon, and
Cities of Brampton, Mississauga and Toronto along their course. Much positive action has
already been taking place toward their revitalization.
In these watersheds, new technical information has emerged since publication of the watershed
revitalization strategy Greening Our Watersheds: A Strategy for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek
Watersheds (TRCA, 2002). A more recent report, Turning over a new leaf: The Etobicoke and
Mimico Creeks Watersheds Report Card (TRCA, 2006), identified the need for additional
information to address specific data gaps. As part of an adaptive approach to watershed
management, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority felt that an updated watershed
study was necessary to provide a more informed basis for decisions affecting these
watersheds. This information will be valuable to municipalities as they plan for further urban
growth and adopt climate change strategies.
The purpose of this Technical Update is to develop an improved understanding of the
watersheds and update the strategic management recommendations and implementation
priorities, based on analysis of new technical information. The report addresses the following
areas:
• Groundwater quantity and quality
• Surface water quantity
o Baseflow and water use
o Stormwater management and streamflow
• Surface water quality
• Fluvial geomorphology
• Terrestrial natural heritage system; and
• Aquatic system - instream barriers to fish passage.
Watershed objectives, indicators and targets from Turning over a new leaf: The Etobicoke and
Mimico Creeks Watersheds Report Card (TRCA, 2006) were used to guide the scope of
technical work, except in a few cases where they were revised or developed by this Technical
Study to address gaps or reflect new science.
This Executive Summary presents a brief description of the focus of technical update work, key
findings and management recommendations for each study component. This is followed by a
summary of the strategic management directions, implementation priorities and guidance on
how this information is to be used. The recommendations in this report are meant to inform the
ongoing work of all watershed partners in their efforts to restore the natural function and
resilience of these degraded watersheds and build their capacity to adapt to change.
42
Key Findings by Study Component
Groundwater Quantity and Quality (Section 3.0)
This section addresses a knowledge gap identified in previous watershed strategy and report
card documents, by drawing upon new groundwater -related information available through the
York -Peel -Durham -Toronto - Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (YPDT-CAMC)
groundwater program. The section introduces a set of objectives, indicators and targets for
groundwater quantity and quality management in these watersheds. Key findings are as
follows:
• Groundwater recharge is less than 100mm/year across these watersheds, due to the
predominantly low permeability silt, clay and silt till soils, except for the Brampton Esker
area of the Etobicoke Creek watershed (Highway 410 between Mayfield Road and
Queen Street) where estimated recharge is close to 380 mm/yr and the remnant Lake
Iroquois shoreline in Mimico Creek watershed with recharge rates up to about 340
mm/yr (Dundas Street and Islington Avenue area).
• Three principal regional aquifer systems exist, from deepest to shallowest:
Scarborough Aquifer Complex, Thorncliffe Aquifer Complex, and the Oak Ridges
Aquifer Complex.
• Groundwater flow direction is primarily from the headwater areas in the northwest
toward Lake Ontario in the southeast.
• Groundwater levels appear to be rebounding in the vicinity of the Brampton Esker in
response to cessation of dewatering associated with aggregate extraction, posing
implications for the design of subsurface infrastructure, increased baseflow in the West
Branch of Etobicoke Creek, stormwater management pond operations, and long term
pumping.
• Groundwater discharge to streams is predicted to be highest in the Main Etobicoke
Creek branch south of Bovaird Road to near Steeles Avenue (Oak Ridges aquifer
outcrop) and in the Mimico Creek from about Eglinton Avenue south to Dundas Street
(Thorncliffe Aquifer) and the Bloor Street area (Scarborough Aquifer).
• Groundwater use is concentrated in the upper reaches of the Etobicoke Creek
watershed, primarily for livestock/agricultural purposes, commercial groundwater
takings, and groundwater remediation.
• There are no municipal water takings for potable drinking water, although the capture
zone for the Cheltenham wells extends into the Etobicoke Creek headwaters.
• The groundwater use for both watersheds represents less than 1 % of the total
recharge, representing a low level of stress on the groundwater system.
• Heart Lake Wetland Complex is primarily dependent on surface water inputs, although
the lake remains part of the groundwater system due to leakage of surface water
through finer grained/organic deposits that form the lake bottom.
• Cheltenham wetland complex located west of Creditview Road between King Street
and Old School Road is also primarily surface water dependent.
• Limited groundwater quality data exist, but suggest typical chemistry as other shallow
aquifers in Southern Ontario (i.e. calcium/magnesium carbonate). Shallow aquifer met
potable water standards when used for municipal supply during 1964-1972.
43
Management Recommendations
1. Manage the rebounding groundwater levels and their effects, as necessary, in the
vicinity of the former Brampton Esker aggregate pits: a) Undertake more monitoring of
groundwater levels in this vicinity; b) Assess hydraulic capacity of outlet pipe from Major
Oaks Park pond; c) Determine flow volumes at Esker Lake North pumping station; and
d) Develop action plans that consider long term risk management, aquatic habitat
enhancement opportunities and monitoring needs, as required.
2. Maintain and enhance (not beyond natural levels) groundwater recharge in relation to
new and existing development.
3. Install groundwater level monitoring wells in Thorncliffe and Scarborough aquifers.
4. Install groundwater quality monitoring wells in Thorncliffe and Scarborough aquifers
when sustainable funding becomes available; use BMPs to prevent contamination of
Oak Ridges Aquifer or Equivalent.
Baseflow and Water Use (Section 4.0)
This section provides a more in-depth analysis of the low flow regime than was previously
possible, with the benefit of additional low flow and water use survey data and an improved
understanding of the groundwater flow system. Key findings are as follows:
• Mean summer baseflow in Etobicoke Creek has been increasing by 1.3% per year
since 1967; larger increasing trends have been observed in both Creeks during the
most recent 10 year period (1997 to 2006), among the highest in all TRCA watersheds.
• Some of the increase in baseflow in Etobicoke Creek may be attributed to the rising
groundwater levels in the Brampton Esker area.
• Mean summer baseflow in Mimico Creek has decreased by 0.3% per year since 1966,
but increased by 2.5% per year in the last 10 years, possibly associated with
urbanization.
• Half the years in the recent 10 year period had normal or in excess of normal annual
precipitation, suggesting that distribution of precipitation over the year is important in
sustaining baseflow.
• Although the Oak Ridges Aquifer or Equivalent (ORAE) feeds the headwaters of other
TRCA watersheds, this aquifer appears to be providing significant baseflow only in the
middle reaches of the Etobicoke Creek West Branch between Bovaird Drive and Steeles
Avenue and Mimico Creek north of Steeles Avenue.
• Although there are several locally significant groundwater contributions, believed to be
from ORAE, many Etobicoke Headwater tributaries are dry in summer.
• The Brampton Esker feature was is deemed to be an important source of groundwater
inputs to Spring Creek with local contributions to baseflow downstream of the Esker
Lakes.
• Significant losing reaches exist, particularly in Etobicoke Creek south of Steeles
Avenue and Upper Mimico tributaries to below Derry Road, possibly due to water
takings and interactions between the stream and alluvium deposits adjacent to the
watercourse.
• The majority of the 48 known water users (surface and ground water) in these
watersheds are located in the Etobicoke Creek headwaters with the water withdrawn for
livestock watering purposes.
• The greatest volume of water withdrawals (from all sources) per year occurs in the
Etobicoke West Branch and Mimico Creek for golf course irrigation, from solely surface
water sources.
• There are ten known surface water users within these watersheds which include eight
golf course operations, a nursery and a miscellaneous use..
• Three highly vulnerable stream reaches were classified, in which water users could
potentially take more than 25% of measured baseflow (Lower Mimico Creek, Etobicoke
Headwaters and Tributary 4); the latter two of these reaches were classified as such due
to having dry stream conditions during the 2007 field measurements.
Management Recommendations
1. Manage current and future water use, particularly water taking permit decisions, with
reference to the new information provided by this Technical Update.
2. Protect important recharge and discharge zones, including natural features such as the
Oak Ridges Moraine (or equivalent) and the Brampton Esker.
3. Continue baseflow monitoring within the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks.
4. Investigate ways to identify stream reaches that may be sensitive to baseflow
fluctuations due to climate change.
Stormwater Management and Streamflow (Section 5.0)
This section presents an updated summary of existing stormwater management practices and
analysis of historical and modeled streamflows. Substantial additional work has been
completed as part of this Technical Update to improve the stormwater pond infrastructure
database and identify where minor modifications to the sewershed and hydrologic sub -basin
boundaries are needed to reflect existing drainage conditions. This work will provide a more
accurate basis for future hydrological studies, stormwater retrofit designs and analysis of
streamflow conditions. Key findings are as follows:
• Approximately 88% of the Mimico Creek watershed and 63% of the Etobicoke Creek
watershed are designated as urban (2002 land use data), resulting in a high degree of
imperviousness.
• Stormwater management practices have evolved to address an increasingly broader
range of objectives in these watersheds as urban growth has occurred in these
watersheds.
• 46 stormwater management ponds lie within the Etobicoke Creek watershed, 25
ponds are in the Mimico Creek watershed, and 2 ponds lie within the Lake Ontario
drainage area. The majority of these ponds do not meet current standards, as they
were developed prior to the implementation of water quality and erosion control.
• Only 30% of the urbanized areas within the watersheds were developed with the benefit
of stormwater management plans.
45
• Approximately 8% of the urbanized areas in the Mimico Creek watershed have quality
treatment and only 0.2% of the developed areas provide an Enhanced level of quality
treatment, as defined in the Ministry of the Environment's Stormwater Management
Planning and Design Manual. Approximately 21 % of the developed areas in the
Etobicoke Creek watershed have quality treatment and only 2% represents an
Enhanced level of treatment.
• Only 9% of the developed areas in the Mimico Creek watershed and 25% of the
developed areas in the Etobicoke Creek watershed have erosion controls. The
predominant level of erosion control is 25 mm/24 hour.
22% of the developed areas in the Etobicoke Creek watershed and 26% of developed
areas in the Mimico Creek watershed have quantity controls; this generally reflects
current requirements at the time of the development. It is time to review and confirm
quantity control criteria.
Opportunities to improve the level of treatment of stormwater have been identified by
TRCA and individual municipalities (by retrofitting existing stormwater management
facilities, constructing new end of pipe facilities at outfalls and applying other innovative
approaches).
Design flows from the original and updated hydrology models were compared for both
watersheds. For Mimico Creek, updated models showed an increase in flows for the 5
year event at 3 nodes within the watershed, an increase in flow during the 100 year
event at the upper portion of the watershed only, and a decrease at the lower nodes.
The Regional event showed a decrease in flow. Results for both the Regional and 100
year may be attributed to variations in the modeling techniques.
• Etobicoke Creek modeled design flows showed a 50% reduction for both the 5 year and
100 year events at the top end of Spring Creek, due to flow attenuation now provided by
the Dixie Bovaird pond. Further downstream, the impact of the pond dissipates and
flows were shown to increase for both events. The Regional event (which is not affected
by the Bovaird pond) showed an increase by 2-19% throughout the watershed.
• Historical streamflow data analysis showed that mean annual streamflow in both
watersheds has increased over the past 40 years (27% increase in Mimico Creek and
44% increase in Etobicoke Creek), and the increase has been accelerating for the past
10 years (with a 60% increase measured over this time period).
• Current stormwater management practices within the watersheds are not adequate to
achieve the overall quantity control targets. More stringent stormwater management
controls are required for both watersheds (i.e. maintain or reduce baseline peak flows
for 2 to 100 year return periods).
• Updated floodline mapping will be completed in 2010. Draft information indicates that
although the number of flood vulnerable "clusters" has not increased since the 1980
Flood Control Study, there appear to be significant changes in floodlines, which may
result in increased risk to structures within the floodplain. Further analysis and
consultation with municipalities and landowners will continue into 2011.
Properties in the vicinity of Major Oaks Pond in Brampton are at a potential risk of
flooding due to recent modifications to the Brampton Esker system. Further study is
required to assess risks.
• Development potential of the special policy areas within the watersheds, and in
particular, the Downtown Brampton SPA and the Dixie/Dundas SPA will require
harmonizing of the planning policies with hazard management policies.
• Need for updates including: delineation of drainage boundaries to address
discrepancies identified in this study, future updates to hydrology models in keeping
with the timing of Official Plan updates, and reassessment of stormwater management
criteria based on study findings.
Management Recommendations
Stormwater management policy, criteria and program maintenance:
1. Encourage the implementation of source controls and conveyance controls (following
low impact development techniques) for all new development and infill developments
and as part of retrofit programs in older urban areas.
2. Develop new stormwater quantity control criteria, based on findings of the most recent
hydrology updates.
3. Undertake timely updates to the hydrology models for both watersheds. Timing should
coincide with the municipal Official Plan updates.
4. Develop strategies and protocols that are adaptive to climate change scenarios, such as
intensity and frequency of extreme events.
5. Ensure that Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) studies address quality,
erosion, quantity and water balance aspects of stormwater management, for all new
development blocks. Infill development should be subjected to the current stormwater
management criteria and site level retrofits (such as greenroofs or bioswales) should be
required.
6. Recognize the need to integrate floodline management with development review in high
risk areas (such as Special Policy Areas).
Monitoring and Further Study
7. Maintain TRCA's Regional Monitoring Network sites within the watershed to measure
quality, erosion at sensitive locations. Identify and install additional stream gauge sites
at appropriate locations to allow effective calibration of hydrology models.
8. Update the delineation of external watershed boundaries to reflect existing conditions
and allow for more accurate modeling and watershed management.
9. Undertake further monitoring and analysis of the Brampton Esker system (particularly
the outlet of the Major Oaks stormwater pond) to assess potential changes to the
hydrology and hydraulics as a result of the backfilling of Esker Lake North. Determine
mitigation options as necessary.
Continuous improvements to stormwater management practice
10. Complete the flood protection and remedial capital works strategy and undertake
projects that will mitigate flooding as funding permits.
11. Implement the findings of the municipal stormwater retrofit studies and the Catchment
219 study.
12. Strengthen partnerships to expedite improvements to the watersheds and continually
advance the science and the practice.
47
Surface Water Quality (Section 6.0)
This section provides an updated evaluation of current water quality conditions for routine
parameters in Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks, according to targets set out in the previous
watershed report card. Key findings are as follows:
• Non point sources of contamination from urbanization are still considered to be the
largest contributor to surface water quality in these Creeks.
• Levels of nutrients and metals have been maintained or decreased over the past
decade.
• Chloride concentrations and bacteria levels show an increasing trend.
• It will be a challenge to meet 2025 targets for total phosphorus, chloride and bacteria.
Management Recommendations
1. Improve stormwater management quality and quantity control in new and existing urban
areas (see Stormwater and Streamflow section), with particular effort on addressing
common pollutants including total suspended solids, phosphorus and bacteria.
2. Investigate sources of high E. coli levels in both Creeks.
3. Municipal partners should monitor the effectiveness of salt management plans.
4. Investigate the potential significance of chloride contributions from groundwater sources
associated with marine shale formations in the lower watersheds.
5. Promote the adoption of a Provincial chloride objective for the protection of freshwater
aquatic life.
6. Improve knowledge of wet weather water quality.
7. Update the analysis for non -routine water quality parameters not addressed by this
Technical Update.
Fluvial Geomorphology (Section 7.0)
This section addresses a knowledge gap identified in previous watershed strategy and report
card documents, by analysing and interpreting the fluvial geomorphic data collected in
Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. The section introduces a set of objectives, indicators and
targets for fluvial geomorphology in these watersheds. Key findings are as follows:
This study has introduced preliminary findings and begun to establish an
understanding of the fluvial geomorphology of these complex altered creek systems. It
is premature to draw conclusions without additional years of data collection, and
consequently key findings should be interpreted with caution.
Erosion threshold analysis found that in the upper part of the watershed, the critical
discharge values represented flow conditions well above bankfull conditions. Critical
discharges in the lower reaches of the watershed represented erosive flow conditions
much more frequently (within bankfull). When coupled with the typically more incised
lower reaches, which constrain flow within the channel, these flows increased the
potential for erosion.
• Cross-sectional assessment identified a total of ten sites within Etobicoke Creek which
showed greater than 5% change between 2001 and 2008 (considered to be in state of
active adjustment). Of these sites, four showed greater than 5% change in terms of
erosion and the other six sites showed greater than 5% change in terms of deposition
(aggradation).
• Detailed field investigations at the three Etobicoke Creek sites which exhibited the
highest rates of erosion, indicated that only one site appears to be actively eroding at a
reach scale, while the other two are tending toward deposition. Thus, further data is
required to draw conclusions about the pattern of change.
• Only one site on Mimico Creek exceeded 5% change in cross-sectional area in the form
of deposition. This site, however, is located within the tailwaters of the system; an area
characteristically associated with sediment storage due to lower gradients and the
backwater effect induced by Lake Ontario.
• Majority of channel enlargement noted within Etobicoke Creek and to a lesser extent in
Mimico Creek was within the headwaters and mid -waters, as expected (these zones are
typically responsible for sediment production and transport).
• Bedrock controlled sites tended to be wider and shallower than other sites of
comparable drainable area in Etobicoke Creek, due to the erodible nature of the shale
bedrock.
• Within Etobicoke Creek, the strongest relations identified through the regional curve
analysis were with respect to upstream drainage area and the following parameters:
bankfull discharge, cross-sectional area and bankfull width. Relations developed
through the regional curve analysis can be used to establish estimates of stable channel
dimensions for portions of the watercourse lacking detailed geomorphic information or
flow data.
• Within Mimico Creek the strongest relations identified through the regional curve
analysis were with respect to upstream drainage area and the following parameters:
bankfull width and cross-sectional area.
• Only 45% of the riparian zone in Etobicoke Creek and 49% in Mimico Creek has natural
cover.
• Much of the instability in headwater reaches is due to natural causes. Channel
alteration, together with the effects of urbanization, have caused instability in the
reaches of Etobicoke Creek and lower Spring Creek around Lester B. Pearson
International Airport. Channel sensitivity is also noted in the lower Etobicoke Creek
which meanders through a shale bedrock valley and has also seen substantial channel
alteration.
Management Recommendations
1. Prioritize remedial erosion works, based on a watershed -wide assessment which has
identified at risk infrastructure or property at risk.
2. Repeat detailed field assessments at Regional Watershed Monitoring Network (RWMN)
fluvial geomorphologic sites and expand the network of sites.
3. Manage runoff volumes through SWM and water balance maintenance.
4. Utilize erosion threshold values as guide for new development applications and
stormwater retrofit designs.
5. Promote reach -based design and management of erosion protection and channel
works.
Terrestrial Natural Heritage System (Section 8.0)
This section presents a refined target terrestrial natural heritage system (TNHS) for the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks watershed, based on the TRCA's Regional Terrestrial Natural
Heritage System Strategy (TRCA, 2007). Key findings are as follows:
• Existing TNHS is degraded with impaired ecological function.
• Only 12.4% natural cover remains. Natural cover includes forest, wetland and meadow
communities.
• Habitat patches tend to be small, convoluted and disconnected.
• The refined targeted TNHS for these watersheds would comprise 14.1 % natural cover,
representing a small increase over existing conditions.
• Watersheds continue to provide habitat for TRCA species of conservation concern,
including some L2 species.
• Valley systems allow greater north -south connections, acting as wildlife corridors for
both migrant and resident species.
• Heart Lake Conservation Area and Etobicoke Headwaters support a diversity of forests
and wetlands.
• Etobicoke and Mimico terrestrial biodiversity may be supported by the relatively more
diverse systems in the neighbouring Humber and Credit River watersheds.
• Targeted TNHS for these watersheds would comprise 14.1 % natural cover.
• East -west connectivity is severely reduced; target system helps to address the lack of
connectivity by identifying new habitat areas to provide east -west connections (e.g.
hydro corridor south of 407).
• Given the limited opportunities to expand the TNHS, there is an even greater need to
manage the urban matrix through stewardship, naturalized landscaping and urban
forest management.
Management Recommendations
1. Focus terrestrial restoration, enhancement and management activities on the 21 Priority
Management Areas identified in this Technical Update.
2. Promote stewardship, naturalized landscaping and urban forest management within the
urban matrix.
Aquatic System - Instream Barriers to Fish Passage (Section 9.0)
As recommended by the GTAA Living City Project Etobicoke Creek - The Aquatic System
(TRCA, 2006), an instream barrier assessment in Etobicoke Creek was initiated in 2005 and
completed in 2008. A similar assessment was completed in Mimico Creek in 2009. This
section of the Technical Update reports on the findings of the barrier assessment work and
identification of priority barriers for management action. Key findings are as follows:
Within Etobicoke Creek.
The assessment confirmed the presence of 513 instream structures within 150 km of
watercourse.
AC
• Of the 513 instream structures assessed, 179 are barriers to non -jumping fish species
and of those, 125 barriers prevent passage of jumping species.
• The issue of habitat fragmentation is greatest in Little Etobicoke Creek and Etobicoke
Creek East Branch (Spring Creek system). There are lengthy portions of the Etobicoke
Creek West Branch that remain open with few anthropogenic barriers.
• The areas that support relatively high quality stream reaches are within the Etobicoke
Creek Headwaters subwatershed and are targeted for reconnection by barrier
mitigation. By reconnecting good habitat to like similar habitat, there will be greater
opportunity for successful reproduction and fish survival.
• Only eight barriers would have to be mitigated to allow fish passage between Lake
Ontario and the headwaters, along the Etobicoke Creek West Branch, allowing fish
access to 50 km of watercourse.
• The potential increase in baseflow in the Etobicoke Creek West branch, due to
rebounding groundwater levels (discussed in Groundwater Section), may affect barrier
mitigation priorities if further investigations reveal aquatic habitat opportunities.
• Multiple local benefits could also be achieved in the upper reaches of Spring Creek
through wetland enhancement and connection to the stream.
Within Mimico Creek:
• The assessment confirmed the presence of 338 instream structures along 57.2 km of
watercourse.
• Of the 338 instream structures, 145 are barriers to non -jumping fish species, and of
those, 126 barriers prevent passage of jumping species.
• Habitat fragmentation is a result of typical physical barriers, but also high flow
velocities, damaged infrastructure and/or engineered instream works, major
transportation infrastructure (i.e. highways and railway crossings), and garbage
pollution.
• Reconnecting Lake Ontario to the Mimico Creek headwaters would require a lot more
effort as compared to Etobicoke Creek, due to the numerous barriers that exist.
Therefore, the most immediate gains in Mimico Creek would likely be measurable in the
lowest reaches by mitigating the first few barriers to allow native species from Lake
Ontario to become better connected with the watershed.
• Opportunities for multiple local benefits center on restoration efforts that have greatly
improved habitat conditions in the East Mimico Creek headwaters.
Management Recommendations
Manage instream barriers to fish passage on a priority basis and as opportunities arise.
Barriers in each Creek were organized into one of three categories of management
priority, from a fisheries management perspective (i.e. further analysis of engineering,
approvals, cost etc. was beyond the scope of this assessment):
a. Category A works to achieve the overall target of connectivity from the Lake to
headwaters;
b. Category B priorities include the extension of existing natural habitat within a
watercourse;
C. Category C priorities are small scale projects that address local issues but
provide stewardship opportunities.
51
Summary and Strategic Management Directions (Section 10.0)
This Technical Update has helped to fill gaps and improve knowledge about the Etobicoke and
Mimico Creeks watersheds - how they functioned naturally, how they have been influenced by
human activities and how the future challenges of additional urban growth and climate change
can be addressed to achieve the watershed vision.
Beginning south of the Oak Ridges Moraine on the Peel Plain, the streams naturally have weak
baseflow and wide, shallow warmwater channels in their mid to lower reaches where they
eroded down to the shale bedrock. In the past two centuries, intensive land clearing for
agriculture and urbanization has resulted in the loss of natural cover, drainage of wetlands,
channelization of watercourses, aggregate excavation and dewatering around the Brampton
Esker, and introduction of impervious surfaces and pollutants into the watersheds. These
activities have left a legacy of fragmented and degraded habitats, risks to human life and
property and potential management requirements associated with groundwater level recovery.
Further urban growth and climate change represent future challenges. Much positive action
has already been taking place to turn the watersheds toward the path to regeneration.
Watershed partners have come together to develop plans and strategies and undertake
projects for more sustainable urban growth, improved stormwater management, regeneration
of degraded systems and various other greening initiatives.
A common theme among the detailed management recommendations is the need to restore
the natural function and resilience of the watersheds and build their capacity to adapt to
change. The following five strategic management directions have emerged from this work:
1. Expand and enhance natural cover and habitat connectivity, particularly through
protection of existing vulnerable habitat patches in the rural headwaters, restoring
east -west connections in the mid reaches and by improving the urban matrix.
2. Restore a more natural water balance through a combination of low impact
development (LID) measures and end -of -pipe stormwater retrofit projects, particularly
for extensive areas of impervious urban surface.
3. Foster stewardship and sustainable behaviour to achieve greater rates of
participation by private landowners.
4. Manage the rebounding groundwater levels in the vicinity of the Brampton Esker, as
necessary based on additional information.
5. Advance the science and practice of watershed management through continued
testing and refinement of innovative approaches.
These integral directions address many of the technical component objectives. They reinforce
recommendations already set out in Greening Our Watersheds and Turning over a new leaf and
provide additional insights into priorities for action.
Implementation Priorities (Section 11.0)
Many policies and programs of municipalities, TRCA and other agencies and groups are
already in place to support implementation of the management recommendations in this report.
Implementation priorities have been identified in the following areas:
52
1. Policy Directions (Refer to Table 11-1):
• Water balance, volume control and groundwater recharge
• Stormwater retrofits in existing developments
• Master environmental servicing plans (MESPs) for new development,
redevelopment and regeneration areas
• Sustainable urban form and practices
• Terrestrial natural heritage system
• Comprehensive flood risk assessment plans
• Monitoring and adaptive management
2. Monitoring Enhancements (Refer to relevant report sections for details):
• Groundwater wells in Thorncliffe and Scarborough aquifers.
• Baseflow in Etobicoke Creek West Branch near Steeles Ave., Spring Creek in the
vicinity of the Brampton Esker, Upper East Mimico Creek between Steeles Ave.
and Derry Rd.
• Stream gauges as appropriate to allow effective calibration of hydrology models.
• Fluvial geomorphic sites (locations to be confirmed pending results of ongoing
stormwater management analysis).
3. Further Investigation (Refer to sections 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0):
• Groundwater level recovery in the vicinity of the Brampton Esker
• Specific needs in other areas concerning climate change, hazard management
and water quality.
4. Regeneration
• Subwatershed Regeneration Plans (see Figures 11-1 to 11-11)
■ Subwatershed scale maps compiling the regeneration actions identified
from each technical study component
Priority Areas for Integrated Regeneration Projects (Refer to Table 11-3):
■ Little Etobicoke Creek subwatershed
Spring Creek subwatershed
Upper Mimico Creek East Branch subwatershed
Pearson Eco -Business Zone
Priority Areas for Habitat -focused Regeneration Projects (Refer to Table 11-4):
■ Etobicoke Creek Headwaters - Terrestrial Natural Heritage Regeneration
■ Lower Etobicoke Creek - Aquatic barrier mitigation and Terrestrial
Natural Heritage Regeneration
53
How this information is to be used
This updated technical information is meant to inform the ongoing implementation of policies
and programs by TRCA and its partners. It will assist in priority setting and contribute to the
production of the next watershed report card. Overall, the programs, policies and reports
projects informed by this update will contribute to the achievement of our watershed vision and
the goals and objectives of municipal sustainability strategies, climate change adaptation and
mitigation plans, the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan and to the management of the
Lake Ontario nearshore.
54
RES.#A28/11 - REPRESENTATIVES ON VARIOUS COMMITTEES
Appointment of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority members
and staff to various committees.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: Jim Tovey
THAT Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor and Mr. Brian Denney, Chief Administrative Officer
(CAO), be appointed as Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA)
representative and alternate, respectively, to Conservation Ontario;
THAT Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor be appointed as TRCA's representative and Mr. Brian
Denney, CAO, Ms. Adele Freeman, Director, Watershed Management and Ms. Carolyn
Woodland, Director, Planning and Development, be appointed as TRCA's alternates, to
the Rouge Park Alliance;
THAT Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor and Mr. Brian Denney be appointed as TRCA's Ex -officio
members to The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto;
AND FURTHER THAT the various organizations be so advised by the CAO's Office.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
TRCA is represented officially on three organizations namely: Conservation Ontario, Rouge
Park Alliance and The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto. Due to the recent
municipal election, the Authority is requested to advise these organizations of its appointments
for the next four year term.
Conservation Ontario
Conservation Ontario is an umbrella organization representing all 36 conservation authorities
which brings together over 800 members and 1,000 staff working together to achieve common
goals. Conservation Ontario is governed by a council consisting of two representatives of each
conservation authority. Council directs the activities of staff and a variety of working groups,
task forces and committees focusing on various areas of common interest to all conservation
authorities.
It has been the Authority's practice for many years to have the Chair designated as TRCA's
voting representative and the CAO as the alternate. It is recommended therefore that Chair
O'Connor be appointed to Conservation Ontario and Mr. Brian Denney be identified as the
alternate.
Rouge Park Alliance
The Authority is able to appoint one representative and several alternates to the Rouge Park
Alliance. It is recommended that Chair O'Connor be appointed as TRCA's representative on the
Rouge Park Alliance and that Mr. Brian Denney, Mr. Ron Dewell, Ms. Adele Freeman and Ms.
Carolyn Woodland be appointed as the alternates.
55
The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto
The Authority can appoint the Chair and CAO to the Conservation Foundation as Ex -officio
members.
Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
Date: February 9, 2011
RES.#A29/11 - MEMBERS' ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS
Review of method of recording Members' attendance at meetings of the
Authority
Moved by: Colleen Jordan
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT the current practice of recording attendance of Members at approved meetings of
the Authority be continued.
AMENDMENT
RES.#A30/11
Moved by: Colleen Jordan
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT the main motion be amended to read as follows:
THAT the current practice of recording attendance of Members at approved meetings of
the Authority be amended to include noting in the minutes of each meeting those who are
in attendance at the adjournment of each meeting.
h1►�il��l�]►�il���i
RECORDED VOTE
David Barrow
Yea
Bryan Bertie
Yea
Laurie Bruce
Yea
Bob Callahan
Yea
Gay Cowbourne
Yea
Vincent Crisanti
Yea
Michael Di Biase
Nay
Pamela Gough
Nay
Lois Griffin
Yea
Jack Heath
Yea
Colleen Jordan
Yea
Chin Lee
Nay
56
AMENDMENT
RECORDED VOTE Cont'd
Gloria Lindsay Luby
Nay
Glenn Mason
Nay
Peter Milczyn
Yea
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Nay
Anthony Perruzza
Nay
Gino Rosati
Nay
John Sprovieri
Nay
Jim Tovey
Yea
Richard Whitehead
Nay
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED
RECORDED VOTE
David Barrow
Yea
Bryan Bertie
Yea
Laurie Bruce
Yea
Bob Callahan
Yea
Gay Cowbourne
Yea
Vincent Crisanti
Yea
Michael Di Biase
Nay
Pamela Gough
Nay
Lois Griffin
Yea
Jack Heath
Yea
Colleen Jordan
Yea
Chin Lee
Nay
Gloria Lindsay Luby
Nay
Glenn Mason
Nay
Peter Milczyn
Yea
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Nay
Anthony Perruzza
Nay
Gino Rosati
Nay
John Sprovieri
Nay
Jim Tovey
Yea
Richard Whitehead
Nay
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS:
THAT the current practice of recording attendance of Members at approved meetings of
the Authority be amended to include noting in the minutes of each meeting those who are
in attendance at the adjournment of each meeting.
57
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #7/10, held on September 17, 2010, Resolution #A171/10 was approved
as follows:
THAT staff report back in the spring 2011 on options regarding tracking arrival and
departure times of members at Authority and committee meetings.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff was directed to consider the question
of whether a record should be made of Members' arrival and departure times at Authority
meetings. Concern was expressed that some Members were arriving late and leaving early and
receiving the same remuneration as other Members who were more attentive to the meetings of
the Authority.
This issue has been ongoing for some time. The Authority directed staff to review the practice
of recording attendance in 1990, with the resulting recommendation being that the practice
used today be maintained as illustrated as follows:
"we can arrive at no practical way to adequately record arrival and departure times of
Members of the Authority, at the many meetings that are held during the year. It is
recommended that the matter of arrival and departure times be left to the conscience of
the individual Members. Where collectively Members of the Authority believe a problem
exists, the most appropriate mechanism to deal with it would be within the membership
of the Authority on a peer basis."
RATIONALE
TRCA's Chief Administrative Officer and Manager, Chair and CAO's Office have reviewed
options and recommend that the 1990 position of the Authority be reconfirmed. Due to all job
functions of the recording secretary at meetings, tracking arrival and departure times of
Members is not deemed practical. Further, often Members miss recording their attendance at
the meeting on the sign -in sheet, so requiring Members to record arrival and departure times
on said sheets will not provide the desired result.
Therefore, staff recommends that the current recording practice of recording attendance be
maintained.
Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca
Date: February 9, 2011
RES.#A31 /11 - GREEN NATURAL GAS
Approval of Contract with Bullfrog Power. Recommends approval of a
sole source contract with Bullfrog Power for supply of green natural gas
to 5 Shoreham Drive.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: David Barrow
THAT a contract for supply of green natural gas to Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority's (TRCA) building at 5 Shoreham Drive be awarded to Bullfrog Power;
THAT the contract be for one year, renewable and on terms and conditions satisfactory to
TRCA staff;
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
TRCA has been a long time client and partner of Bullfrog Power, one of Canada's largest
renewable energy companies. TRCA's Head Office, Kortright Centre, Black Creek Pioneer
Village and the Restoration Services Centre are all "Bullfrog powered". Bullfrog has been a
past sponsor of the Charles Sauriol Environmental Dinner.
RATIONALE
Bullfrog is about to launch a program to supply green natural gas and has invited TRCA to be
among its first participants. Green natural gas is generated from organic waste, a natural
source that is continually replenished and would release only carbon dioxide that is part of the
natural carbon cycle produced by decay of organic waste. Use of this green natural gas
displaces fossil fuel -based natural gas which must be extracted from ancient sources deep
underground.
This is a sole source contract pursuant to Section 1.14.5 of TRCA's Purchasing Policy as
follows:
The required goods or services are to be supplied by a particular vendor having
specialized knowledge, skills, expertise or experience that cannot be provided by any
other supplier.
Bullfrog Power is the only local supplier of green biogas so staff recommend award of the
contract on a sole source basis.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
As with purchase of green electricity, there is a premium to be paid to help reduce carbon
emissions and help address climate change. Bullfrog will charge an additional 13.03 cents per
cubic metre for green natural gas. TRCA's building at 5 Shoreham Drive uses approximately
42,000 cubic metres of gas annually so the additional cost annually will be about $5,500.
m
Also, TRCA will have the benefit of participating in the Bullfrog launch of the green natural gas
product which will be done as a national multimedia marketing event as well as subsequent
Bullfrog marketing.
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: February 22, 2011
RES.#A32/11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duff ins Creek Watershed
Chieftan Development Corporation, CFN 45245. Purchase of property
located east of Brock Road, south of Rossland Road, City of Pickering,
Regional Municipality of Durham, under the "Greenlands Acquisition
Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duff ins
Creek watershed.
(Executive Res.#B 12/11)
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Lois Griffin
THAT 1.05 hectares (2.60 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 18,
Concession 2 and designated as Part 3 on Plan 40R-26825, City of Pickering, Regional
Municipality of Durham, located east of Brock Road, south of Rossland Road, be
purchased from Chieftan 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 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.#A33/11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Petticoat Creek Watershed
Ontario Realty Corporation, CFN 31243. Purchase of property located
north and south of Finch Avenue, east and west of Altona Road, City of
Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the "Greenlands
Acquisition Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation
Component, Petticoat Creek watershed.
(Executive Res. #613/11)
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Lois Griffin
THAT a total of 14.09 hectares (34.82 acres), more or less, consisting of five irregular
shaped parcels of land in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, be
purchased from the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC), said parcels are more particularly
described as follows:
Parcel (A) - 3.11 hectares (7.68 acres), improved with a residential dwelling, being Part of
Lot 33, Concession 2;
Parcel (B) - 9.15 hectares (22.61 acres), improved with a residential dwelling, being Part
of Lots 33 and 34, Concession 2;
Parcel (C) - 0.29 hectares (0.72 acres), vacant land, being Part of Lot 32, Concession 2;
Parcel (D) - 0.07 hectares (0.18 acres), vacant land, together with a five metre temporary
access right-of-way, being Part of Lot 31, Concession 2; and
Parcel (E) - 1.47 hectares (3.63 acres), vacant land, together with a five metre temporary
access right-of-way, being Part of Lot 32, Concession 1;
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
61
RES.#A34/11 - SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING
Extension of sole source contract to Thorpe & Associates to provide
professional services for the CTC Source Protection Region in the
drinking water source protection planning process and increase in
existing purchase order cap due to increased workload related to
enactment of the Clean Water Act, 2006 and regulations.
(Executive Res. #B 14/11)
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Lois Griffin
THAT the contract with Thorpe & Associates be extended for a period of two years,
commencing April 1, 2011, based on annual renewals to provide professional services for
the source water protection planning process for the CTC Source Protection Region -
Toronto and Region Source Protection Authority (TRSPA), Credit Valley Source
Protection Authority (CVSPA) and Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Authority
(CLOSPA);
THAT funding to Thorpe & Associates be capped at $130,000.00 per annum plus an
annual cost of living increase based on Statistics Canada, Consumer Price Index, Toronto
Area, plus a 10% contingency for fiscal years April 2011 to March 2012 and, April 2012 to
March 2013;
THAT the contract be subject to termination by Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) or Thorpe & Associates, for any reason, upon 30 days notice;
THAT this contractual obligation be binding on TRCA acting as lead source protection
authority only to the extent that the Province of Ontario continues to provide funding;
THAT the contract be reviewed annually by the CTC Management Committee and only
continue based on satisfactory performance of the contractor;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be authorized and directed to take such actions as
necessary to implement the contract including the execution and signing of documents.
CARRIED
SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
RES.#A35/11 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Lois Griffin
THAT Section II item EX9.1 - 2174824 Ontario Inc. (Hartman Heights), contained in
Executive Committee Minutes #1/11, held on February 4, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
62
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES.#A36/11 - BROCK NORTH AND SOUTH CONSERVATION LANDS
Restoration Plan, Additional Information
City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham. Report provides
additional information about previous site activities and regional context
of Brock North and South property.
Moved by: Colleen Jordan
Seconded by: Jack Heath
THAT the staff report dated February 15, 2011, relating to previous site activities and
regional context of the recently acquired Brock North and South conservation lands, City
of Pickering, Region of Durham, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #1/11, held on January 28, 2011, Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) staff brought forward an update on staff progress related to the acquisition
and planned restoration of the former Brock North and South landfill sites. TRCA's report in
entirety is included for your reference with Authority Minutes #1/11 included in this agenda
package. At this meeting, Resolution #A13/11 was approved as follows:
WHEREAS the City of Toronto has conveyed its 392 hectare (969 acre) Brock North and
South lands to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for nominal
consideration of $2.00;
AND WHEREAS TRCA staff has initiated planning and discussions with staff of the City of
Pickering and the Town of Ajax related to the restoration and recreational potential of the
property,
THEREFORE LET /T BE RESOLVED THAT staff continue required consultation and
planning activities and proceed with restoration of the property;
THAT TRCA staff pursue all available funding opportunities to finance the required
restoration of the property;
THAT TRCA staff be authorized to enter into necessary agreements with area and
regional municipal partners to facilitate restoration of the property;
THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement any
agreements including obtaining needed approvals and the signing and execution of
documents;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report back on the outcome of the restoration planning,
financing strategy, management plan and agreements.
63
Authority member, Regional Councillor Jack Heath, requested that staff provide further
information to illustrate the regional context of the property and the existing condition of the
site. Authority Member Gay Cowbourne also requested that staff identify the location of the
Brock West Landfill Power Plant in relation to the property.
Regional Context
Surrounding the Brock North and South property are the communities of Greenwood located
along Greenwood Road and along the Sixth Concession Road; and the community of
Brougham at the intersection of Brock Road and Highway 7. Both are small communities, with
the Greenwood neighbourhood population projected to be 690 by 2016 and the population of
Brougham projected to be 315 by 2016. Within the neighbourhood of Greenwood is the
Pickering Museum Village which borders the northeast corner of the Brock property. The
majority of the lands located within and north of Brougham are part of the federally -owned
lands acquired in the 1970s as a possible site for a future airport.
Several planned communities also surround the Brock property including the Duffin Heights
community to the south of the Brock property and the Seaton community to the west. The
Duffin Heights neighbourhood population is projected to be 9,400 by 2016. The planned
Seaton development is composed of 15 compact neighbourhoods that offer a range of
residential, mixed-use and employment areas that open on to forests, fields and streams. An
estimated 77,000 residents will live in this community, while employment lands will provide
approximately 33,000 jobs.
The Brock property provides the opportunity to make several important linkages to significant
natural heritage features and trail systems. The planned preservation of the heavily forested
West Duffins Creek valley and east -to -west natural corridors to be preserved through the
Seaton community will allow connections between the Brock property and the tributaries of
East Duff ins Creek creating an important linkage between the Oak Ridges Moraine and Lake
Ontario. Future trail connections to the Trans Canada Trail will provide future visitors to the
Brock property with access to the Waterfront Trail following Lake Ontario to the south and the
Oak Ridges Trail which traverses the moraine to the north. Potential for local trail linkages
between the Brock property, Greenwood Conservation Area and the 12.7 km Seaton Trail,
located along West Duff ins Creek in Pickering also exist.
Disturbed Site Conditions
The terrestrial landscape and hydrologic function of the Brock Road North and South properties
have been significantly altered through previous aggregate extraction and landfill operations.
TRCA estimates that 138 hectares (341 acres) or 35% of the lands have been disturbed through
previous land use activities which have altered the topography, drainage and ability to support
historic vegetation. Within these disturbed areas drainage ditches and water collection systems
have caused erosion or disrupted baseflow to area creeks. Culverts and creek crossings which
are remnants of the previous landuse activities also prevent or limit fish passage throughout the
property. Topsoil and aggregate removed from the site have also affected groundwater
recharge zones. In some areas groundwater is at or near surface which has had the affect of
increasing creek temperatures to the detriment of the cold water fishery. Poor soil conditions
and lack of overburden also affect the ability of natural forest cover to regenerate on the site.
x1j
Brock West Landfill Power Plant
The Brock West Landfill Power Plant is located several kilometres southwest of the recently
acquired property on Concession Road 3, approximately 1 km west of Brock Road.
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: February 15, 2011
RES.#A37/11 - CTC SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE
5th Quarterly Report from the Chair of the CTC Source Protection
Committee. Update on CTC Source Protection Committee activities.
Moved by: Colleen Jordan
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT the 5th 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.
Attachment 1 from Susan Self, Chair, CTC Source Protection Committee is the 5th Quarterly
Report to the Toronto and Region Source Protection Authority and provides an update on the
progress of source protection planning for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. This
report was received at CTC Source Protection Committee Meeting #1/11, held on January 25,
2011.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The next Chair's Quarterly Report will be sent to the Authority in March, 2011.
65
A meeting of the Toronto and Region Source Protection Authority will likely be scheduled to be
held immediately preceding Authority Meeting # 5/11, scheduled to be held on May 27, 2011.
Report prepared by: Megan Price, extension 5568
Emails: mprice@trca.on.ca
For Information contact:Megan Price, extension 5568
Emails: mprice@trca.on.ca
Date: February 14, 2011
Attachments: 1
• •
Attachment 1
RES. #227/11 Receipt of the Fifth CTC Chair's Quarterly Report: TRSPA.
CTC Chair's Quarterly Report to the three CTC Source Protection
Authorities
Moved by: Iry Harrell
Seconded by: Louise Foster
THAT CTC SPC receives the TRSPA Fifth Chair's Quarterly Report from the CTC Source
Protection Committee Chair, to the appropriate CTC Source Protection Authority.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
As required by Section 21 of the Clean Water Act, 2006 the CTC Source Protection Committee
(SPC) 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.
Assessment Report: TRSPA
Proposed Assessment Report. TRSPA
On December 21, 2010 the Proposed Assessment Report. TRSPA was delivered to the Director
of Drinking Water Source Protection at the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). This submission
followed two consultation periods: the first period ran from September 16, 2010 to October 22,
2010 and included a number of initiatives to engage potentially affected landowners. Following
the first consultation, the SPC revised the Draft and on November 17, 2010 the Proposed
Assessment Report. TRSPA was released for a second consultation period. The second, 30 -day
consultation ended on December 16, 2010. Additional information on the public consultation
process for both consultation periods is provided below.
Updated Assessment Report. TRSPA
The CTC SPC has received receipt of approval of the TRSPA Updated Assessment Report
workplan from the Director of Drinking Water Source Protection at the MOE which includes
additional technical studies. These studies include further work on groundwater systems (Tier 3
Water Budget and assessment of transport pathways) as well as work on lake -based systems
through the Lake Ontario Collaborative (Intake Protection Zone 3 threats modeling). The
majority of these studies are being prepared by consultants under the supervision of the
municipality responsible for the water system. The updated Assessment Report: TRSPA is due
to the province in June, 2011 following another consultation period.
67
Source Protection Plans
With the submission of the Proposed Assessment Report: TRSPA to the MOE, the program
focus shifts to the development of Source Protection Plans. Under the direction of the Source
Protection Plan Working Group, consultants have been hired to facilitate and organize a series
of policy development workshops which began on January 12, 2011. There will be a series of at
least four workshops, designed to cover the different types of threats identified in the region,
review existing policies and instruments covering these types of threats, and write draft policies
for the SPC to consider.
Following the completion of the workshops, a policy discussion paper will be drafted for
consideration by the SPC in their development of Source Protection Plans.
Public Consultation
Assessment Report
On September 16, 2010 the Draft Proposed Assessment Report: TRSPA was made available
electronically at www.ctcsw ,ca as well as in paper copy at Conservation Authority offices.
During this first consultation period ads were also taken out in area -wide newspapers to notify
residents of the dates, locations and times of the various open houses. Copies of the Draft
Proposed Assessment Report: TRSPA were sent to clerks of municipalities wholly or partially
within the TRSPA.
As part of the mandated consultation process of the Assessment Report, the SPC is required to
submit notification to "every person who the SPC believes could be engaging in one or more
activities that are or would be significant drinking water threats." Approximately 3,400
Notifications were sent in the TRSPA jurisdiction.
Five public open houses were scheduled during the first consultation period for residents in the
TRSPA. Attachment 1 provides a summary of the location and attendance at each open house.
Response from both public and SPC members who attended was generally positive. Many
people wanted to know what the implication for their property would be. Staff and committee
members encouraged people to stay up to date and involved through the policy development
phase.
Following receipt of public comments, the Proposed Assessment Report: TRSPA was released
for a second round of consultation on November 17, 2010. Copies of the Draft Proposed
Assessment Report: TRSPA were sent to clerks of municipalities wholly or partially within the
Toronto and Region Source Protection Area. The comment period closed on December 16,
2010. Comments received were submitted to the MOE along with the proposed report on
December 21, 2010.
• •
Source Protection Plannina Commencement Notification
The next round of consultation will happen in February, 2011. As part of the Clean Water Act,
2006 and its regulation, the SPC is required to inform residents on whose property there are, or
could be significant threats of the fact that the SPC is beginning to develop source protection
plans. This mailing is anticipated to occur in February, 2011. The notification letters will set out
the process and timing of the source protection plan development steps. Affected individuals
and municipalities will be consulted during the development of the proposed source protection
plans as well as have opportunity for formal consultation on the proposals prior to submission
to the province in August 2012.
Presentation to Council
The Chair of the CTC Source Protection Region and/or Senior Staff periodically make
delegations to municipal councils in the region's jurisdiction to keep them informed of the
source protection process. There has recently been a request from Uxbridge's council for a
presentation. The date is TBD, likely in February, 2011. The briefing is being coordinated with
the staff and chair of the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region to ensure
that the full range of source water protection tasks underway within Uxbridge are included.
NEXT STEPS
The next CTC SPC Chair's quarterly report will be delivered in April 2011 and will provide an
update on the Updated Assessment Report work, public consultation planning update for the
Source Protection Plans and update on the Source Protection Planning Workshops.
Report prepared by: Megan Price, extension 5568
Emails: mprice@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Megan Price, extension 5568
Emails: mprice@trca.on.ca
Date: January 13, 2011
Attachment: 1
Attachment 1
m
September 30
Ajax
Lake Ontario
Community
Collaborative/Ajax
0
5
Centre
October 6
Latcham Hall
Stouffville/Uxville
35
8
October 7
Nobleton
Nobleton/King City
Community
45
7
Centre
October 13
Caledon
Caledon/Alton/
Community
Inglewood/
20
9
Complex
Cheltenham
October 14
Clarke
Lake Ontario
Memorial Hall
Collaborative
4
4
m
RES.#A38/11 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Moved by: Colleen Jordan
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT Section IV items AUTH8.3.1 & AUTH8.3.2 in regard to Watershed Committee
Minutes, be received.
CARRIED
Items AUTH8.3.1 & AUTH8.3.2
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #1/11, held on January 13, 2011
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #5/10, held on September 24, 2010.
RES.#A39/11 - HEARING REPORT
Maria and Louis Louro Jr., 100 Old Mill Road, City of Toronto
(Executive Res. #68/11)
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Lois Griffin
THAT the Hearing Report contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1/11, held on
February 4, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
RES.#A40/11 - APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO
REGULATION 166/06
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Lois Griffin
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX11.1 - EX11.48, inclusive, contained in Executive
Committee Minutes #1 /11, held on February 4, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
71
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1:00 p.m., on Friday, February 25, 2011.
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Chair
/ks
72
Brian Denney
Secretary -Treasurer
kk,
01FTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #3/11
March 25, 2011
The Authority Meeting #3/11, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village,
on Friday, March 25, 2011. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at
9:50 a.m.
PRESENT
ABSENT
David Barrow
At Start of
Meeting in Progress
At End of
Gay Cowbourne
Member
Meeting
When Arrived
Meeting
Member
Paul Ainslie
No
Yes
No
Member
Maria Augimeri
Yes
Yes
Vice Chair
Bryan Bertie
Yes
Yes
Member
Laurie Bruce
Yes
Yes
Member
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Yes
Yes
Member
Michael Di Biase
Yes
Yes
Member
Chris Fonseca
No
Yes
No
Member
Pamela Gough
Yes
Yes
Member
Lois Griffin
Yes
Yes
Member
Jack Heath
Yes
Yes
Member
Chin Lee
Yes
Yes
Member
Gloria Lindsay Luby
No
Yes
No
Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Yes
Yes
Chair
Glenn Mason
Yes
Yes
Member
Anthony Perruzza
Yes
No
Member
Gino Rosati
Yes
No
Member
Dave Ryan
Yes
Yes
Member
John Sprovieri
Yes
Yes
Member
Jim Tovey
Yes
No
Member
Richard Whitehead
Yes
Yes
Member
ABSENT
David Barrow
Member
Bob Callahan
Member
Gay Cowbourne
Member
Vincent Crisanti
Member
Colleen Jordan
Member
Peter Milczyn
Member
Linda Pabst
Member
John Parker
Member
73
RES.#A41 /11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
MINUTES
Pamela Gough
Laurie Bruce
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/11, held on February 25, 2011, be approved.
CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
(a) A delegation by Peter Orphanos, Chair, Sierra Club of Peel Region in regard to item
AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan.
(b) A delegation by John Willetts, Friends of Claireville, in regard to item AUTH7.1 -
Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan.
(c) A delegation by Peter Orphanos, Chair, Sierra Club of Peel Region in regard to item
AUTH7.2 - Riverstone Golf Course.
(d) A delegation by John Willetts, Friends of Claireville, in regard to item AUTH7.2 -
Riverstone Golf Course.
(e) A delegation by Paul and Kristin Doan, representatives for the residents of Riverstone, in
regard to item AUTH7.2 - Riverstone Golf Course.
(f) A delegation by Todd Kerr, Director, Real Estate, Giampaolo Investments Limited, and
Diarmuid Horgan, President, Candevcon Limited in regard to item AUTH7.2 - Riverstone
Golf Course.
RES.#A42/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
DELEGATIONS
Gloria Lindsay Luby
Laurie Bruce
THAT above -noted delegations (a) and (b) be heard and received.
RES.#A43/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
DELEGATIONS
Gloria Lindsay Luby
Laurie Bruce
CARRIED
THAT above -noted delegations (c) - (f) be heard and received.
CARRIED
74
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Gary Wilkins, Humber Watershed Specialist, TRCA, in regard to item
AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan.
(b) A presentation by Quentin Hanchard, Manager, Development, Planning and Regulation,
TRCA, in regard to item AUTH7.2 - Riverstone Golf Course.
RES.#A44/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
PRESENTATIONS
Gloria Lindsay Luby
Laurie Bruce
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
RES.#A45/11 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Bryan Bertie
THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received.
CARRIED
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) An email dated March 23, 2011 from Rosemary Pauer, resident, Brampton, in regard to
item AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan.
(b) A letter from Robert Hulley and Heather Broadbent, Humber Watershed Alliance, in
regard to item AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan.
(c) An email dated March 24, 2011 from Lynn Short, in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Claireville
Conservation Area Management Plan.
(d) A letter dated March 24, 2011 from Susan Fennell, Mayor, City of Brampton, in regard to
item AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan.
RES.#A46/11 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT above -noted correspondence (a) - (d) be received.
CARRIED
75
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
Rosemary <>
03/22/2011 05:14 PM To <info@trca.on.ca>
cc
Subject Claireville Conservation Area
Dear Friends,
I have lived in Bramalea for thirty six years and have relied on Claireville Conservation Area as a wild
place, where many animals and birds can be seen and it is possible to walk with nature close to home.
For many years I have volunteered at the tree planting events and seen the trees grow over the years.
I understand that plans are in the works to make a wide trail around the conservation area, and this will
result in great harm to wildlife, as it will be used by atvs and motor cycles and youths on the rampage.
No matter what signs are posted, people ignore them, and a wide trail through bush will be just too
tempting for those who do not care about wildlife. There is no need for any more trails.
Claireville is a precious resource, close to large populations, and the animals and birds there should be
as undisturbed as possible. I oppose any further development on the area, including expanding golf
courses, or taking any of Claireville for recreational uses. There is little enough room for the animals as it
is, they are losing habitat at an alarming pace, so please leave them what there is now.
I understand that there is a meeting about this on 25th March, and I shall be glad if you will make my
views known to the Chairman. Please leave Claireville as it is now.
Thanking you, yours truly, Rosemary Pauer
76
CORRESPONDENCE (B)
To the Chair and Members of the Authority Board,
Over the past five Nears the local Chapter of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario has Nvorked
tirelessIv to open up to the public the vast heritage resources available in the Claireville Conservation
Area (CCA).
RecentIv, Nve have sponsored, together Nvith the Ontario Heritage Trust and the TRCA, two heritage hikes
in conjunction Nvith Trails Open Ontario Nvhich have been Nvell attended and appreciated by those in
attendance. One of the problems Nve have encountered in conducting these hikes is that there is no
organized trail available for public use. In each case, Nve have had to create `ad hoc' trails in conjunction
Nvith TRCA's environmental resources in order to seek out the most appropriate path so as not to
endanger sensitive habitat areas. For this reason Nve not only Nvelcome and support the plan for a
permanent Inter -regional Trail for Claireville but feel it is of the utmost importance in order to protect
sensitive areas and Nvild life in the CCA from indiscriminate use and to accommodate the groNving
population base in the area.
There are mariv heritage resources in the CCA. Among them is the McVean Double English Wheat Barn.
We have Nvorked Nvith the Brampton Heritage Board to have this rare barn and surrounding areas
designated under the Ontario Heritage Act and have an interpretive sign erected on the property. The Barn
has been the destination for several Nvell attended heritage tours over the past Nears since its designation.
There are other heritage sites in the CCA as Nvell, including the site of the first merchant grist mill and
saw mill on the West Humber River. There is also the site of the original settlement of the McVean and
Lawrence Families who are considered to be among the first settlers in the area. There are a number of
aboriginal sites including a Paleo Indian site. In addition, there are `old growth forests', remnants of the
Albion Plank Road route and The Wiley Bridge. The bridge is mentioned in the recently completed
Humber Watershed Bridge Inventory and cited as a potential heritage property suitable for designation
under the OHA.
In summary, Nve wholeheartedly support the establishment of an Inter -regional Trail in the CCA and
believe it Nvill not oniv benefit the community at large but enhance the surrounding tai base supporting
Municipalities by providing an opportunity for local tourism and outdoor recreation and an appreciation
of our culture and heritage. It almost goes without saving that Nve fully appreciate TRCA's efforts to
fulfill their mandatory regulations to protect and preserve the sensitive areas of the CCA and know that
under no circumstances, Nvould TRCA allow a trail system to adversely impact sensitive habitats.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert B. Hullev, Heather Broadbent,
Agent to the Board of Directors, Co -Chair Humber Watershed Alliance,
Architectural Conservanev of Ontario, Co -Chair, Heritage Subcommittee,
Member of the Heritage Subcommittee, Humber Watershed Alliance
Humber Watershed Alliance.
77
CORRESPONDENCE (C)
"Lynn Short" G'
03/24/2011 09:54 PM
I appreciate that Claireville Conservation Area is a very special place for many people. It is important to
create a situation that preserves its special aspects while allowing people to enjoy it.
There are areas that students can visit during the school year to learn about their environment. I have
been part of that program at the Toronto District School Board, seeing students explore and learn at
Claireville.
There are areas that children can explore in the summer while they participate in summer camp
activities. I have been part of that, leading nature walks each summer for the adventure camp groups
and witnessing the wonder in the children's eyes.
There are areas that are used by visitors from the public to walk dogs on leash or go on nature hikes. I
have enjoyed walks through the park with friends and family in all the seasons.
There are areas that few people visit and are reserved for native animals. These are important habitats
to support native species. I have participated in activities to support these areas, installing duck boxes
and planting trees
Visiting Claireville Conservation Area has the potential to expose people to the wonders of the natural
environment thus invoking a sense of ownership and stewardship for the land and its plants and
animals.
Claireville Conservation Area is a very important place for me and many other people of different ages.
The surrounding areas are rapidly being developed into industrial and residential areas. This is an
unstoppable reality of the GTA. As more people move into the surrounding residential areas, pressure to
use Claireville for recreation will increase. It is crucial that this use of the conservation area be focussed
in areas that will result in the least disturbance to environmentally sensitive areas and provide people
with opportunities to enjoy Claireville and develop a sense of ownership and stewardship for the area.
An inter -regional trail will encourage visitors in Claireville to remain on the trail. People will take the
path of least resistance, along the trail. This will keep people from entering the environmentally sensitive
areas. Without a defined trail, visitors will develop their own trails which are not necessarily following
paths that are desirable from an environmentally concerned perspective. I have witnessed dog owners
with their pets off leash and running through areas without official paths. Creating a trail which is
welcoming to visitors will allow visitation to the Conservation Area while resulting in a minimum
disturbance to plant and animal life.
I support the idea of an inter -regional trail as a way of protecting the valuable environmental areas of
Claireville while, at the same time, giving the residents of the surrounding areas access to this beautiful
natural area in an environmentally responsible way.
Sincerely,
Lynn Short
CORRESPONDENCE (D)
The Coij--)oratian of the City of Brampton
Susaii Feruiell
Mayor
TlnusdiyN March 24, ?011
Toronroand Regional Conservation Authority
5 Shoreliam Dril:e
Doivnsview, Ontario
M3N I S4
Canidi
Atte�ntion: Gerri L3aui O'Connor, Clim
At our meeting of December 15, 2010„ Brampton City Council directed staff to work with
TRC A to implement a comprehensb-ze trail plan that connects the West Huiuber uifei-
regional trail and Claireville area trials. Brainp;ton C"ouncil cilled for the trail network to be
designed in keeping with the natival heritagerotection objecti,-zes of Claireville with
P
special attention to the imique ewaronmental gotection, restoration and enhancement
oppormnines north of Queen Street
City stiff are examining modification to the Citys 3 0 metre asphalt standard to a granular
path to nunfimze eni.17ironmentil impacts. As Mayor of the City of Brampton, I am
personally aware that there is contimied debate on this matterand I would suggest there
needs to be some adch tional disciission and oonunumty consultation before the pathway
portion of the nhuiagenient plan can be completed. I would therefore be gratefitl if the
motion anclied to Ls letter would be considered by the Board as a way to resolve the parli
component of the plan.
The City of Branapton has the Rinds in place to construct the trail and we look fonvard to the
trail plans being finilized following the etr-,,ironmentil review being carried out by TRC A in
consultation with 1NR.
Sincerely
Susan Fennell,
Nfayof
W
CITY OF BRAMPTON MOTION:
CL.AIREXILLE CONSERVATION AREA IVIANAGEMENT PLAN
PATHWAY ALIGN-NIENT AND STANDARDS
WHEREAS an interregional trail supports'TRCA s,trategy
WHEREAS an interregional trail supports'The City of Brampton Pathways Master
Plan
WHEREAS TRCA adopted a motion by Mayor Susan Fennell incorporating the,
urban forest and nature first �hilosophy 'into the Management Plan
WHEREAS the, managenient principle of "land management activities shall
implement sustainable best practices and strive to elintuilate, MU'Umize, and nii'tigate
adverse impacts natural cidwral features functions and linkages" is highlighted i�n
the plan -
THEREFORE LET IT BE RES OLVED THAT
1. The TRCA staff and biologists wo:rk with the City of Brampton and
community groups to review and explore, alternate trail alignment options and
fb= that ensure, that the environmental integrity and environmental
potential of the area is not compromised, and
2. The TRCA and City staff present the results of their review of the trail
alignment and design standard to the public and stakeholders prior
implementing the trail project.
re-T-ffil
L�Iwj
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#A47/11 - CLAIREVILLE CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
Update (March 2011). Approval of the updated Claireville Conservation
Area Management Plan.
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Lois Griffin
THAT the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan, dated March 2011, including
updates described herein, be approved;
THAT funding for the implementation of the Claireville Conservation Area Management
Plan be included in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) capital budget
ten year forecast for Peel Region;
THAT copies of the updated Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan be
distributed to members of the Humber Watershed Alliance and Councillors and staff
representing the City of Brampton, City of Toronto and Region of Peel who have a
jurisdictional interest in the Claireville area;
THAT the Regional Municipality of Peel, City of Brampton and City of Toronto be
requested to include consideration of the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan
in planning decisions related to this geographic area;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff continue to work with local community groups on trail
options for the alignment in the vicinity of Queen Street and staff invite Authority
members to attend a site visit.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Claireville Conservation Area (CCA) is an 838 hectare (2,100 acre) parcel of land owned by
TRCA. This includes approximately 748 hectares of land and the 90 hectare Claireville
Reservoir. It is located in the West Humber subwatershed and is almost 15 per cent of all the
land owned by the TRCA in the Humber River watershed.
The CCA is located in the City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel (728 hectares of land)
and the City of Toronto (19 hectares of land). The CCA lands are bounded by Finch Avenue to
the south, Goreway Drive to the west and Highway 427 to the east. Highway 407, Steeles
Avenue and Regional Road 107 transect the property. The City of Mississauga abuts the
property to the southwest and the City of Vaughan in the Regional Municipality of York abuts
the property to the northeast.
The CCA is one of the largest tracts of land that TRCA owns. It is highly accessible to the public
and has recreation, tourism and education facilities and programs. It is an integral part of the
Toronto region's natural and cultural heritage fabric.
The existing management plan for the CCA was approved at Authority Meeting #2/97, held on
April 4, 1997, with the adoption of Resolution #A46/97. Since the endorsement of the CCA
Management Plan in 1997, the area surrounding the CCA has been subject to the influences of
increased development that has surrounded the property, unauthorized public use and
competing interests. Several years ago the Claireville Stewardship Committee suggested the
management plan be re -visited to:
1. update out of date language and references;
2. add new technical knowledge and accomplishments;
3. re -assess the management zones based on the terrestrial natural heritage strategy model
and subsequently to validate their accuracy or revise accordingly.
RATIONALE
Consultation
Updating the management plan has been done in consultation with a number of people and
organizations.
1. Humber Watershed Alliance/Claireville Stewardship Committee
The Humber Watershed Alliance and Claireville Stewardship Committee assisted in updating
the CCA Management Plan. They reviewed the 1997 management plan, made editorial
suggestions, and recommended additions, deletions and corrections. The Stewardship
Committee's primary suggestions were to remove the Commercial land management zone on
Regional Road 107 and avoid trail impacts on interior forest habitat. The updates to the
management plan for the CCA were approved by the Humber Watershed Alliance as Resolution
#G24/10 at Meeting #3/10, held on September 21, 2010.
2. Municipal Partners
The CCA is an integral part of Brampton's environmental and social fabric. Consequently, City
of Brampton representatives contributed to the update of the CCA management plan by
reviewing and commenting on the draft, contributing to the development of strategic vision,
goals and objectives, facilitating a public information session and attending site visits to view
recommendations in the field.
At Authority Meeting #3/10, held on April 30, 2010, the Mayor of Brampton, Susan Fennell,
made a presentation to emphasize the City of Brampton's interest in the CCA. At that same
meeting Resolution #A46/10 was approved, in part, as follows:
...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.
This delegation and resolution reinforced the value that City of Brampton places upon the CCA
as an important part of the natural heritage system, cultural heritage resource and an important
recreational destination for City of Brampton residents. TRCA involved City of Brampton staff,
the Regional Council member, and the Brampton Environmental Planning Advisory Committee
in the process of updating the management plan.
In addition to the City of Brampton, staff from the cities of Mississauga, Toronto and Vaughan
and the Regional Municipality of Peel were also provided the opportunity to comment on the
recommended updates to the management plan. Only Toronto and Peel Region staff
responded.
3. General Public
At the outset of updating the management plan, it was understood that recreation, education
and stewardship of the CCA are very important to the community at large. A public meeting
was held in June 2010 to present and receive input on the recommended updates to the
management plan. Opinions were split on the location and construction specifications of the
proposed inter -regional trail north of Queen Street. It is the desire of TRCA staff and municipal
staff to extend the existing trail in Toronto via the CCA to connect to the approved Brampton
trail system. This is supported by the City of Brampton's PathWays Master Plan (2002). Since
the area surrounding the CCA is completely urbanized, TRCA and City of Brampton staff
proposed a trail width of 2.5 metres to 3 metres with a crushed limestone tread to
accommodate the anticipated type and level of public use and to make provision for safety,
security and maintenance concerns. Some members of the public recommended the trail be a
0.5 metre wide earth or woodchip trail surface; however this does not meet the trail design
specification details that have been adopted by TRCA and the City of Brampton where
multi -use and public safety are major factors.
Plan Description
An updated management plan will replace the 1997 version once approved. Key changes are:
• Revisions to out-of-date language and references.
• Addition of current biological information and accomplishments to date.
• Addition of a vision statement and revised principles.
• Updated management zone mapping, including the addition of Cultural Heritage and
Agricultural Reserve land management zones and the reclassification of the 10 hectare
Commercial/Office node at Ebenezer Road and McVean Drive to Agricultural Reserve
and Restoration land management zones.
• Updated management recommendations.
• Addition of a Site Securement and Protection Plan, with associated mapping.
• Inclusion of a management plan implementation section.
Copies of the updated management plan for the CCA are available upon request.
The updated management plan supports the clauses in TRCA Resolution #A46/10 as stated
above. Forest cover is being maintained and enhanced through the designation of Nature
Reserve, Natural Environment and Primary Restoration land management zones at the CCA.
These zones protect existing forest, including sections of interior forest habitat, and will
increase the forest cover as the updated management plan is implemented. These initiatives
will allow the CCA to continue to be a forest in an urban area which provides refuge for animals,
protects forest plant species, offers passive recreation opportunities and improves the water
and air quality in the area.
The original management plan states that environmental considerations are paramount and the
actions since the plan's endorsement in 1997 have reinforced this position. The updated
management plan honours this same philosophy.
TRCA has worked extensively with the City of Brampton to ensure that the CCA is considered in
the environmental, social and cultural fabric of the City of Brampton. City of Brampton
representatives were an integral part of the development of the vision and management
principles for the updated plan. Also, TRCA worked with the City of Brampton staff to define a
route for the inter -regional trail north of Queen Street and to host the June 2010 public
information session regarding the updated management plan. The updated management plan
is consistent with and supports the City of Brampton's Official Plan and PathWays Master Plan.
Above all, this consultation has ensured that the CCA management plan will use a "nature first"
philosophy to restore and enhance the environmental sustainability of the local and regional
ecosystem.
In support of this philosophy, the updated management plan includes direction that will ensure
future land use activities in the CCA will not negatively affect the ecological health and diversity
of its natural heritage system. Consequently, the concept of a dogs -off -leash area and
commercial/office zone were removed from the updated management plan.
Vision and Management Principles
The strategic vision and guiding management principles define an end state for the property
and how we can achieve it.
Vision
Based on input from partners, stakeholders and the public, the following statement has been
developed to reflect a vision of CCA in the future.
MIA
"Claireville Conservation Area is an oasis for wildlife and people — a healthy, diverse
urban forest and one of the largest natural corridors in a major city region. It is a
destination where the natural and cultural heritage resources are protected and restored
through partnerships and community-based stewardship. Visitors enjoy year-round
nature -based recreation and education experiences while respecting the unique
environmental features."
Management Principles
In support of achieving the vision for the CCA, management principles have been added to the
updated management plan:
1. A natural environment management philosophy shall be paramount at the CCA.
2. The CCA shall maintain its primary function to store water, control downstream flooding and
regulate summer flow.
3. Land management activities shall implement sustainable best practices and strive to
eliminate, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts to natural and cultural heritage features,
functions and linkages.
4. Land uses shall respect the unique natural heritage attributes of the CCA and conform to
land management zone criteria and targets.
5. The CCA shall be integrated into the environmental, social and cultural fabric of the City of
Brampton, City of Toronto, Region of Peel and neighbouring municipalities.
6. Residents, local community groups, municipalities, businesses and other agencies shall
have opportunities to assist in the planning and stewardship of the CCA.
Management Recommendations
Management recommendations provide actions to achieve the vision and principles, and
support the updated management zone delineations. The key management recommendations
include the following:
General Land Management
• Focus high intensity public uses south of Steeles Avenue in order to limit the impact on
natural and cultural heritage. Limited low to moderate impact public uses may be
permitted north of Steeles Avenue.
Terrestrial Resources
• Implement the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy in the CCA by protecting the
land base and restoring and/or enhancing habitat wherever possible.
Aquatic Resources
• Assess populations of priority species and implement appropriate species recovery
strategies, in particular that of the Redside Dace.
Cultural Heritage Resources
• Preserve the heritage attributes of the McVean farm site and other archaeological, built
heritage and heritage landscapes.
• Develop a conservation, restoration and adaptive re -use plan for the McVean double
English Wheat Barn and former Robinson house.
Nature -based Public Use
• Implement the inter -regional trail as per the alignment and features proposed in the
updated management plan in conjunction with the City of Brampton and the City of
Toronto.
• Develop a comprehensive master plan for a formal trail system that complements the
inter -regional trail route at the CCA.
Conservation Education
• Maintain the lease agreement with the Toronto District School Board for the Etobicoke
Field Studies Centre.
Stewardship and Outreach
• Continue to maintain, support and increase opportunities for effective community and
partner stewardship of the CCA.
Operations and Conservation Area Management,
• Adhere to the management criteria related to the parks and greenspaces criteria of the
Audubon International's Cooperative Sanctuary Program.
• Follow and enforce all TRCA policies, including the TRCA Policy and Operational
Procedures for Managing Domestic Animals, the TRCA Policy for Managing Hazard
Trees and the TRCA Pest Management Policy.
Conservation Land Use and Management
• Maintain residential leases near the Claireville Dam and the Claireville Ranch.
• Decommission structures on former rental properties.
• Investigate potential uses for the former Robinson house, which has been identified to
have some heritage value.
• Undertake regular patrols to stop illegal poaching and garbage dumping on the
property.
Implementation, Monitoring and Review of the Management Plan
• Monitor all land management zones regularly using terrestrial natural heritage and
public use indicators.
• Review and update the plan as necessary.
Land Management Zones
The land management zone classes and definitions have been updated to be consistent with
land management zone classification system used for all other TRCA management and master
plans. The CCA has been divided into nine land management zones: Nature Reserve, Natural
Environment, Primary Restoration, Public Use, Special Management, Residential Lease,
Operations, Heritage Preserve and Agricultural Reserve. This includes the addition of three new
zones (Heritage Preserve, Agricultural Reserve and Special Management), and the slight
modification of some of the 1997 land management zone definitions. The Public Use, Public
Use /Commercial: high intensity, and Public Use: low - moderate intensity zones have been
changed to Public Use Zone. The Commercial/Office Node zone has been removed.
Management recommendations have been developed based on these zones and information
from relevant plans and policies. See Attachments 1 and 2.
•
• •
A greater portion of the CCA is zoned as Primary Restoration, going from 28 per cent in 1997 to
42 per cent in 2011, thereby reflecting the intent to improve the natural habitat of the area.
Lands dedicated to public use (the Public Use land management zone) increased from 10 per
cent of the land base in 1997 to 14 per cent in 2011 to accommodate the space for public
facilities and programming associated with increasing recreation and City of Brampton outdoor
education programs.
Areas dedicated to the preservation of the natural environment (Nature Reserve, Natural
Environment and Primary Restoration land management zones) experienced a decrease from
88 per cent of the CCA in 1997 to 82 per cent in 2011. This six per cent shift occurs because
three per cent of these lands are now dedicated to near -urban agriculture, slightly less than one
per cent are dedicated to heritage preservation (the McVean farm site), slightly less than one
per cent for the easement for the City of Brampton's stormwater management pond and the
outstanding amount has been assigned for public uses.
There are no lands within the CCA designated as surplus to TRCA needs nor are there lands
designated for commercial development in this update to the management plan. A house rental
and operational area for Indian Line Campground constitute the remaining land management
zone allocations.
The updated management plan includes one Public Use land management zone, as opposed
to the range of zones in the previous management plan. This was done to make the
management zones of the updated CCA management plan consistent with all other TRCA land
management and master plans. To this end, the updated management plan includes a table
with the standard TRCA land management types and examples of permitted uses (Table 3.2). It
should be noted that not all permitted uses listed in the table are appropriate at all TRCA
properties and that appropriate permitted uses are determined on a site -by -site basis through
the land management planning process. As such, further definition of the uses appropriate for
the CCA are provided in the Public Use Land Management Zone management
recommendations section of the updated management plan (Section 3.3.1.4). This section
indicates that the high intensity uses at the CCA are concentrated south of Steeles Avenue so
as to reduce the impact on the higher quality terrestrial habitat in the northern section of the
property. The existing uses of Wild Water Kingdom and Indian Line Campground are
maintained in the updated management plan. There is no intention to develop major
commercial and office facilities, such as low rise conference centre, nature interpretation centre,
banquet facility, restaurant, accommodation (bed and breakfast), corporate centre, office
buildings, institutions, retail establishments and service shops, at the CCA. This direction is
supported by the replacement of a Commercial Land Management Zone north of Regional
Road 107 with Agricultural Reserve land management zone for additional farm plots and a
Primary Restoration land management zone to provide natural buffers to the terrestrial habitat in
the Ebenezer Resource Management Tract.
No new high intensity uses have been introduced at the CCA since the 1997 management plan
and future high intensity activities are not supported outside of the Indian Line Campground
and Wild Water Kingdowm sites south of Steeles Avenue. Other public uses for parts of the
CCA, including low to moderate intensity, will be evaluated against the updated management
plan as they are proposed to TRCA.
Low to moderate intensity public uses are permitted in the central section of the CCA between
Steeles Avenue and Regional Road 107 (Queen Street East). This includes the maintenance of
the playing fields for day camps and the outdoor education centre, picnic areas, washroom
facilities and supporting parking lots. The Claireville horse ranch , day camp activities on the
former rugby fields, an expanded area around the washroom buildings near the Regional Road
50 entrance which act as a drop off and meeting area for City of Toronto and City of Brampton
day camp operations continue to be appropriate for this section of the property.
Public uses of the Ebenezer Resource Management Tract (the CCA section north of Regional
Road 107) will only be low intensity activities associated with the near -urban agriculture project
zoned as Agricultural Reserve, the Heritage Preserve which includes the McVean barn and
laneway, and the inter -regional trail. These may include trail heads, interpretive signs and
education opportunities.
Inter -regional Trail
One of the major components of this management plan update is defining an inter -regional trail
route that will form the centerpiece of the trail system at the CCA. The 12 kilometres of multi -use
trail will be a part of the western branch of the Humber River Inter -regional Trail system that
currently extends to the southern boundary of the CCA in the City of Toronto. The trail supports
TRCA strategies for inter -regional trail connections through its watersheds, as well as the City of
Brampton's Pathways Master Plan (2002). The trail alignment was subject to archaeological and
internal environmental reviews and has been approved by TRCA and City of Brampton staff.
The site assessments have concluded that there will be no detrimental impact on the
environment by the construction of the inter -regional trail. The trail will be designed to meet
both TRCA and City of Brampton trail design standards and requirements. The Ministry of
Natural Resources has confirmed the trail route is within the limits of the protected redside dace
fish habitat. Staff is waiting for the permit and recommended actions from the Ministry of
Natural Resources to enhance the local fish habitat of the West Humber at this location.
Most of the inter -regional trail alignment south of Queen Street follows the CCA's existing gravel
roads (Attachment 2). Some sections are close to the West Humber River or in the valleylands
but are located in places where environmental studies have indicated that there will be no major
long term impact on the environment from the construction and maintenance of the
inter -regional trail. In the Ebenezer Resource Management Tract, most of the trail route will
follow the valley land to provide a valuable user experience away from traffic and the built
environment.
Plan Implementation
Implementation of the updated management plan will begin immediately with recommended
projects scheduled for 2011 and continue for the next 10 years subject to budget approvals.
TRCA will partner with the cities of Brampton and Toronto, the Regional Municipality of Peel,
Humber Watershed Alliance and private partners to fully implement the updated management
plan. TRCA will continue to cooperate with other groups on funding applications to private
organizations and provincial and federal governments.
FOX -01
• •
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The successful implementation of the updated management plan for the CCA will require the
efforts of TRCA and its partners.
TRCA will take the following actions:
• TRCA staff to publish and distribute the updated management plan.
• TRCA staff to send copies of the updated management plan to elected representatives and
staff of the Regional Municipality of Peel, City of Brampton and City of Toronto
• TRCA to request that the City of Brampton, City of Toronto and Regional Municipality of
Peel include the updated Management Plan in their land use planning policies and
practices for this area.
• Humber Watershed Alliance to be asked to assist with the implementation of the updated
management plan.
• TRCA to utilize the updated management plan to assist with land stewardship and to
respond to land use planning initiatives related to the area
TRCA will work with the City of Brampton to ensure that the CCA is incorporated into the fabric
of the city by taking the following measures:
• TRCA will establish appropriate roles and responsibilities for the City of Brampton regarding
operational, maintenance and enforcement programs at the CCA to address issues such as
trails, prohibiting dogs off -leash and other encroachments.
• TRCA will seek opportunities for environmental and outdoor environmental education
programs with the City of Brampton that respect the unique natural heritage attributes of the
CCA.
• TRCA will seek support from the City of Brampton for heritage preservation and
management.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Management plan implementation details were developed in 2010 and capital budgets have
been prepared and submitted for some initial works starting in 2011.
The 2011 budget for TRCA Conservation Land Care Program in Peel Region includes $66,000
for implementation of the updated management plan, including public newsletters, structural
repairs to the McVean barn, and development of a detailed trail plan for the CCA. Other
operational costs will be covered in the Claireville Community Greenspace budget ($75,000).
City of Brampton staff has agreed to fund the construction of the inter -regional trail north of
Queen Street (3.3 kilometres). The 2011 City of Brampton budget includes $500,000 for its
construction.
Report prepared by: Deanna Cheriton, extension 5204
Email: dcheriton@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Email: gwilkins@trca.on.ca
Date: March 17, 2011
Attachments: 2 (Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan Update, March 2011,
available upon request)
• e
•
Attachment 1
Table 1: Land Management Zones at Claireville Conservation Area, 1997 and 2011
Management Plans
* 2011 land base is 749 hectares; 1997 land base is 848 hectares.
JWv
Nature Reserve
98.3
gro.121
;
13.1
Natural Reserve 190
22.4
Natural Environment
205.0
27.4
Natural Environment
320
37.7
Primary Restoration
313.8
41.9
Primary Restoration
240
28.3
Public Use
105.5
14.1
Public Use;
Public Use /
Commercial
25;
55
(total 80)
2.9;
6.5
(total 9.4)
Special Management
2.5
0.3
n/a
n/a
Heritage Preserve
0.7
0.1
n/a
n/a
Agricultural Reserve
21.5
2.9
n/a
n/a
Operations
0.8
0.1
n/a
n/a
Residential Lease
0.4
0.1
n/a
n/a
Surplus Lands
n/a
n/a
10
1.2
Commercial/Office
Node
n/a
n/a
8
1.0
* 2011 land base is 749 hectares; 1997 land base is 848 hectares.
Attachment 2
4
k -
F
f i
a
A4
ffl
T yy
4
k -
a
ev
IIm IU
141 _ k
•A� 4. V
'f" � +A Z Z' � Ci GYM �J W
f� s
IN 111 1IIIIII1111
IIIII
RES.#A48/11 - RIVERSTONE GOLF COURSE
Reporting back on the City of Brampton approved Official Plan
Amendment (City No. 298-2009), which designated portions of the West
Humber River Valley (within the Study Area) as "Special Policy Area - 10",
which may be used for golf course expansion.
Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Bryan Bertie
WHEREAS on July 16, 2008, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
responded to the City of Brampton proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and
supporting Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the Riverstone Golf Course expansion
that staff could not support the expansion as envisioned within the West Humber River
valley;
AND WHEREAS on October 7, 2009, City of Brampton Council approved and adopted an
OPA (City File No. 298-2009), which designates a portion of the West Humber River Valley
(within the Study Area) as "Special Policy Area 10", which may be used for golf course
expansion subject to a number of requirements, including the preparation of an updated
EIS;
AND WHEREAS the EIS shall include recommendations that will demonstrate to the
satisfaction of TRCA and City of Brampton:
(a) how the golf course expansion will have no negative impacts on the West Humber
River Tributary valley corridor natural features and their ecological functions; and,
(b) how a net gain in natural features and functions can be achieved through site design
and environmental management;
AND WHEREAS on November 27, 2009 at Authority Meeting #9/09, Amendment
Resolution #203/09 was approved that required TRCA staff to report back on the
Riverstone Golf Course application prior to providing the City of Brampton with TRCA's
comments;
AND WHEREAS TRCA staff received an updated EIS dated May 31, 2010 in support of the
proposed golf course expansion entirely within the West Humber River Valley, which is
proposed to occur north of an existing nine -hole golf course;
AND WHEREAS Region of Peel Council passed on September 9, 2010 (Resolution No.
2010-765) a recommendation that states that prior to the release of a technical response
to the EIS, that TRCA coordinate its review with Region of Peel staff, and City of
Brampton Council passed on September 15, 2010 a similar recommendation that prior to
the release of a technical response to the EIS, TRCA staff is to coordinate our review of
the study with City of Brampton staff;
AND WHEREAS TRCA staff met with City of Brampton staff on December 14, 2010 and
Region of Peel staff on February 1, 2011 in order to fulfill the requirements of the
Resolutions;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff reiterate its position that the
potential for a golf course expansion in the West Humber River Valley (within the Study
Area) cannot be supported as currently proposed as the updated EIS has not
demonstrated that the required "tests" of no negative impacts and a net gain have been
met;
AND FURTHER THAT should the City of Brampton and the owner of the Riverstone Golf
Course elect to pursue this matter further, the recommendations in the Future Directions
Section identified in this report be incorporated into the design of the golf course
expansion.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #1/09, held on September 25, 2009, Mr. Peter Orphanos, Chair, Sierra
Club of Peel Region, made a deputation in regard to his concerns that Peel Region's Regional
Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) 21 does not adequately protect significant valleylands from
active recreational uses such as golf courses or other incompatible uses. Based upon this
delegation, Resolution #A143/09 was approved at that meeting, as follows:
THAT above -noted delegation (a) be heard and referred to staff for consideration when
preparing a report to Authority Meeting #9/09, to be held on November 27, 2009.
TRCA staff brought forward a report to the November 27, 2009 Authority meeting, which
provided staff's position on proposed ROPA 21, and included staff's comments on the
delegation made by Mr. Orphanos. The report also identified that the proponents for the
Riverstone Golf Course were completing an EIS, in addition to other materials in support of the
proposed golf course expansion. Resolution #A203/09 was approved by the Authority at that
meeting, as follows:
THAT staff report back on the Riverstone Golf Course application prior to providing the City of
Brampton with TRCA's comments.
TRCA staff is in receipt of the EIS (May 31, 2010), and have discussed our comments with City
of Brampton and Region of Peel staff. TRCA staff is now reporting back to the Authority prior to
providing formal written comments to the City of Brampton.
Overview
The Riverstone Golf Course is an existing, semi -private, golf course located adjacent to
Claireville Conservation Area, within the valley corridor of the West Branch of the Humber River,
between McVean Drive and Cottrelle Boulevard, in the City of Brampton. This course operated
as an 18 hole course, with an additional pitch and put area, until approximately 2005. This
course was partially located within the West Humber valley, and partially located on adjacent
tablelands. In 2005, the owners of the Riverstone Golf Course sold the tableland areas for
residential development, and the course was reduced to nine holes. The owners of the
Riverstone Golf Course have subsequently pursued approvals to expand the golf course within
the West Humber valley system, north of Cottrelle Boulevard, to attain an additional nine holes.
W
TRCA staff has previously indicated that any proposed expansion to the golf course would
need to be partially located on tablelands, as insufficient space exists within the valley corridor
to allow for expanded golf course uses, while maintaining and enhancing the natural heritage
system in accordance with TRCA's objectives. The valley corridor is generally narrow and the
West Humber River meanders through it and there are very few mature stands of trees that exist
on the valley walls or bottomland. Development subsequently proceeded on the adjacent
tablelands, without the lands being pursued for golf course uses, which eliminated the option
for any tableland components. Through the development process, the valleylands directly
upstream of the existing course were conveyed to the City of Brampton, and were designated
in an Official Plan category and Zoning By-law designation that precluded golf course uses. At
the request of the owners of the Riverstone Golf Course, the City initiated an Official Plan
Amendment (in 2009) to allow this use to be further considered.
Background Information
The following is a brief chronology of the Riverstone Golf Course proposal.
• In 2006, City of Brampton Council passed a resolution which supported, in principle, the
expansion of the Riverstone Golf Course.
• An Environmental Review Report, prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited, dated 2007, was
subsequently prepared in support of an OPA, which was required to permit golf course
uses within the valleylands.
• TRCA staff provided comments on this OPA on July 16, 2008, as well as previous
comments on July 4, 2006, July 14, 2006 and April 17, 2007 for the tableland subdivision
application (City File #21T -05016B).
• In our correspondence, it was identified that a golf course expansion could only be
contemplated by TRCA, if it was built on the tablelands as well as the valleylands to allow
for a significant amount of the valley corridor to be preserved in a naturalized, enhanced
state.
• Negotiations through the tableland residential development (Port Mark Investments/Nu-land
Management subdivision) were premised on this requirement and specified the valleylands
be zoned in a category, which would only allow for passive recreational uses, and would
not include golf course uses. Buffers were also attained for this purpose. Numerous
discussions occurred at that time, which culminated in agreements with respect to the
valleyland zoning and buffers. Allowing tableland development to proceed without
consideration for tableland golf course uses precluded the opportunity to construct a golf
course expansion at that time.
• A Recommendation Report, dated August 15, 2008 was approved by the City of Brampton
Planning, Design and Development Committee on September 3, 2008 and the OPA (City
No. 298-2009) was adopted on October 7, 2009.
• OPA 298-2009 designated the West Humber River Valley (within the Study Area) as "Special
Policy Area 10", which may allow for a golf course expansion subject to the preparation of
an EIS. The approved OPA specifies the scope of the EIS to demonstrate to the satisfaction
of TRCA and City of Brampton:
1. How the golf course expansion will have no negative impacts on the West Humber
River Tributary valley corridor natural features and their ecological functions; and,
2. How a net gain in natural features and functions can be achieved through site
design and environmental management.
• TRCA staff met with the applicant's team of consultants on September 11, 2009 to discuss
the fundamental understanding on which the entire EIS would be premised. Our
discussions identified the need for the EIS to also consider the following planning hierarchy,
which is beyond the conditions identified in the approved OPA:
• compliance with significant valleyland and natural heritage policies of the Provincial
Policy Statement (PPS), 2005;
• Urban Linkage policies of the Provincial Greenbelt Plan, 2005;
• Restoration Opportunities identified in the West Humber Subwatershed Study;
• Core Area policies of the Greenlands System of the Region of Peel Official Plan;
• City of Brampton Official Plan natural heritage and environmental management policies;
• TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS) as refined as part of the
Humber Watershed Plan; and,
• TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) policies and
Ontario Regulation 166/06.
• The City of Brampton Council passed on September 15, 2010 a recommendation that prior
to the release of a technical response to the EIS, TRCA staff is to coordinate their review of
the Study with City of Brampton staff, such that coordinated and comprehensive comments
can be provided that have evaluated the full technical submission in context with the Region
of Peel Official Plan, the City of Brampton Official Plan and the applicable Bram East
Secondary Plan policies. Additionally, Region of Peel Council (Resolution No. 2010-765) on
September 9, 2009 passed a recommendation that also states that prior to the release of a
technical response to the EIS, TRCA coordinate their review with Region of Peel staff.
• TRCA staff is in receipt of an updated EIS, dated May 31, 2010, prepared by Aquafor Beech
Limited, in support of the proposed Riverstone Golf and Country Club course expansion.
TRCA staff has been in discussions with City of Brampton and Region of Peel staff since
receipt of the updated EIS.
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) Key Issues
The owners of the Riverstone Golf Course propose a natural system that they claim provides
the following enhancements:
• a net increase in the area of the forested habitat;
• a reduction in the area covered by non-native species such as Manitoba maple and
buckthorn;
• provision of large wetland areas (approximately 3.1 ha) that are contiguous with the river
channel/riparian area;
m
• a corridor consisting of a river channel with 15 metre woody riparian communities on
either bank that achieves a total corridor width in the order of 40 metres (with river
channel);
• a series of vernal pools within the wooded riparian zone to enhance amphibian habitat;
• buffering of natural areas from area of active golf course use by placing golf "roughs"
adjacent to the natural heritage features to the extent possible.
The following is a brief explanation of TRCA's key issues of the proposal:
• The proposal involves nine additional holes incorporated into an area of approximately
28 hectares.
• There is a thicket/woodland vegetation unit in a wider area of the corridor
(approximately 120 m wide) which accounts for 26% (4.5 ha) of the existing natural
areas in the study area. The proposed golf course expansion will result in the loss of
this feature, which based on site inspection is expected to provide for migratory bird
habitat, stability to the river channel and a core area that can provide an anchor for
future restoration.
• The study area currently is meadow and thicket vegetation and provides a linkage to
natural areas to the north, and to Claireville Conservation Area to the south.
• The proposed large wetlands that are contiguous with the river channel are to be used
for irrigation of the golf course and only provide a "secondary ecological" function.
• The design results in a minimum 15 metre buffer along the river corridor; however the
seven crossings and 10 flyovers result in the corridor being significantly fragmented and
will result in management of the buffer for low growing vegetation to maintain sightlines.
• The golf course layout (i.e., tee blocks, fairways, and greens) involves an area of
approximately 10 to 11 ha and the irrigation ponds/wetland features occupy an area of
approximately 3.1 ha, which is approximately 50% of the study area. The EIS identifies
buffering of natural areas from areas of the active golf course by placing golf "roughs"
adjacent to the natural features. These areas should be included as part of the active
area. Therefore, the total golf course operations/play area is greater than 50% noted
above.
TRCA Staff Review of the EIS
The design of the golf course and its associated activities/operations should protect the existing
natural heritage and hazard features, functions and linkages of the local landscape and
subwatershed area in a self-sustaining state. Proposals should also seek opportunities to
restore and enhance lands that have been ecologically degraded through past extensive and/or
intensive land uses (i.e., agriculture). The principle for which is to set aside and not fragment
the natural system, excluding natural areas from the active recreational use.
Based on our review, the EIS submitted does not sufficiently address the OPA conditions and
does not evaluate the proposed golf course expansion in the context of the above -noted
planning hierarchy.
m•
The EIS concludes that the introduction of the golf course in the valley system will represent an
overall environmental benefit. Based on the current design, TRCA staff cannot agree with this
statement as the long-term function of the natural heritage system is tied to the protection of the
land base. The existing valley corridor exhibits the impacts of the historic agricultural land
uses, however, it is naturally regenerating and is already providing important habitat for a
number of fauna species. The functions can be improved/accelerated through stewardship and
active restoration that is not dependant on having a golf course. As the EIS notes, the
restoration would not be functional for 50 to 100 years a timeline that would be expected if left
to regenerate naturally.
The EIS does not consider important landscape ecology principles. The size and shape of the
habitat patches are critically important, especially where there is limited natural cover in the
landscape such as this area. The urbanization of the tablelands means that the only
opportunity to maintain the natural heritage system is within the valley. There is one cultural
thicket/woodland identified in the EIS and this accounts for approximately 26% (4.5 ha) of the
existing natural areas within the study area lands. The proposed golf course expansion will
result in the loss of this feature, which appears to be the only remaining natural area of any size
between Claireville Conservation Area and further upstream areas.
The proposed golf course will occupy and require the manipulation of almost the entire
floodplain and valley bottom of this section of the West Humber River; approximately 50% of
the study area. The nine holes will require seven pedestrian bridge crossings of the river. In
addition, seven of the holes will play across the river and result in ten "lines of sight" necessary
for play. This means that the riparian zone in these areas cannot support the woody vegetation
the EIS recommends due to the need to maintain the sight lines. The report indicates that a
number of crossings and fly -overs and the size of the fairways, greens and tees have been
"minimized". However, the active play areas and irrigation ponds occupy almost the entire
floodplain. Two large ponds are proposed. The EIS identifies that both these ponds are to be
used for irrigation of the golf course and will provide a "secondary ecological" function. This
means that while wildlife will use these areas, habitat values may be compromised in order to
maintain them for irrigation (i.e., activities like pumping them down during dry weather and
adding chemicals or aeration devices to prevent algal growth, etc.).
The EIS report indicates that the existing natural cover is approximately 17 ha. This area only
includes the meadow habitats within 15 metres of the river. The EIS notes that the open
field/meadow habitats (not calculated with the existing natural cover total) occupy an additional
12.6 ha and that there is another 2.8 ha of land adjacent to the golf course expansion.
Therefore, the existing natural cover is approximately 32 ha, which is 10 ha larger than the 22
ha indicated in the report that will remain post -development.
The extensive amount of fill necessary to construct the golf course raises several key issues
related to general impacts such as changes to stream water balance and drainage patterns
within the valley, the amount of vehicular traffic within the valleylands and through the
neighbourhoods to build such a facility, and the management of erosion and sediment controls.
PIN
In conclusion, it remains the opinion of TRCA staff that the updated EIS has not demonstrated
"no negative impact" and has not demonstrated an environmental gain in either the short or
long-term.
• A golf course expansion as proposed will further reduce and fragment the natural heritage
system and it will introduce anthropogenic uses throughout the valley and at a time of year
that is coincident with the breeding season.
• Restoration and stewardship of small remnant strips of habitat will need to be able to
provide the habitat function of larger patches with less edge. The proposed
restoration/stewardship will have a large amount of edge that would be exposed to negative
edge effects. The existing valley, despite its past agricultural impacts, is providing large
habitat areas and over time will represent a larger, better configured system than could be
achieved with the golf course. This is particularly important given the surrounding
tablelands are being converted to urban uses. The current proposal does not meet the
intent/objectives of the Humber Watershed Plan, TRCA's TNHSS and VSCMP in terms of
improving and expanding the natural heritage system of the valley corridor.
As noted in TRCA's July 18, 2008 letter, our position identified that the potential for a golf
course expansion in this valley corridor was abandoned through the approval of the adjacent
subdivisions, which provided the only opportunity to consider the golf course on both the
tablelands and valleylands. TRCA's position identified that sufficient opportunities did exist,
however, no longer exist for a golf course expansion exclusively within the valley corridor to
allow the valley corridor to provide the intended and envisioned linkage function. As such, we
identified that TRCA staff cannot support the expansion of the golf course exclusively within the
West Humber Valley, as it was being explored. Based on our review of the updated EIS
document, our position remains the same.
To summarize our review of the updated EIS, we provide the following:
• The design should protect the existing natural heritage and hazard features, functions and
linkages of the local landscape and subwatershed area in a self-sustaining state.
• The EIS does not sufficiently address the OPA conditions or the above -noted planning
hierarchy.
• The existing valley land is regenerating.
• The EIS does not address important ecology principles, such as size and shape of habitat
patches.
• The golf course design operationally limits the extent of woody vegetation that can be
provided within the riparian zone and therefore does not support the conclusions of the EIS.
• The EIS identifies Bobolink, a species which has been recently included as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act (Ministry of Natural Resources) and evaluation has not
been provided as to the acceptability of this proposal from the Ministry of Natural
Resources.
Natural Hazards
The EIS does not address the natural hazards associated with the existing valleylands and the
implications for the proposed golf course expansion and long term operations.
• •
t�kej
While the assessment of erosion rates performed in tandem with the updated EIS suggests that
the fairways, greens and cart paths on the proposed plan are located outside of the immediate
erosion hazard, there are additional conditions to consider when assessing the impact of the
golf course on erosion and vice -versa. First, the upstream portion of the West Humber River
watershed continues to develop at a rapid rate, which is profoundly altering the hydrologic
regime of the river and will exacerbate rates of lateral channel movement and widening the
course over time. Second, it is likely that the golf course construction will result in the damage
or removal of riparian vegetation, particularly at the location of the cart path bridges and sight
line crossings, reducing bank integrity and further increasing erosion rates in impacted areas.
Therefore, because the entire golf course is proposed within the valley, the majority of the holes
are located in proximity to the river, it can be expected that these accelerated erosion
conditions will impact course features over its lifetime. Further, the erosion exacerbated by the
construction and long-term existence of the golf course will degrade aquatic and riparian
habitat.
Based on our site reconnaissance, it appears that significant slope erosion is occurring along
the outer portions of the valley walls (i.e., proposed hole 13). The potential for remediation to
the slopes will be inhibited in the future if the golf course expansion is constructed as currently
proposed.
The situation of the entire proposed golf course in the floodplain of the West Humber River
creates significant concern in that large portions of the course can be expected to flood
regularly. The construction of the course would therefore create significant new risks to life and
property (i.e., to users and to the infrastructure of the course) which TRCA policy generally
seeks to avoid. The landscaping of the course unless designed to keep alterations to existing
grades to an absolute minimum, may impact the flood conveyance and storage characteristics
and exacerbate flooding impacts downstream.
Future Direction
In the event that the City of Brampton elects to pursue this matter further, TRCA provides the
following comments for consideration:
• TRCA staff suggest that the City of Brampton consider a consolidated nine hole golf course
that utilizes both the existing golf course lands and the proposed valley. It may be possible
for an EIS that involves a consolidated nine hole golf course approach to meet the OPA
conditions noted above.
• A public trail should be incorporated into the existing golf course as well as any expansion
area. This is a key connectivity piece to link Claireville Conservation Area and upstream
valleyland areas through Brampton (which will all be in public ownership) to Caledon.
• It is suggested that the proposed expansion be re -configured in order to protect the cultural
thicket/woodland feature which comprises approximately 26% of the natural area within the
study limit and appears to be the only substantial natural cover remaining between
Claireville Conservation Area and upstream reaches.
• The EIS in support of either the proposed additional nine holes and/or a consolidated nine
hole golf course needs to provide greater connectivity on-site. In order to achieve this, it is
suggested that the study consider a broader scope of the area studied. It is our opinion
that the current study area (i.e., existing and proposed lands) inhibits the ability to achieve
the OPA conditions. It is TRCA staff's opinion that by expanding the study area and
considering potential improvements to upstream and/or downstream reaches of the West
Humber Valley, the feasibility to achieve the environmental tests is improved.
Based on discussions with City of Brampton staff, should the golf course expansion not
proceed, it is the City's objective to introduce a public trail system (also an objective with the
golf course expansion). The valleylands would be left to naturally regenerate with opportunities
for regeneration activities as part of the trail design.
Summary
As approved at TRCA Authority Meeting #9/09, Amendment Resolution #203/09 required
TRCA staff to report back on the Riverstone Golf Course application prior to providing the City
of Brampton with TRCA's comments. It is the intent of this report to provide an update at this
point only. It is anticipated that a separate report from TRCA staff will be brought forward in the
future, which provides a finalized TRCA staff position. As such, it is recommended that this
Authority report be provided to City of Brampton and Region of Peel staff as formal comments
to the updated EIS Report for the Riverstone Golf Course proposal. Also, it is recommended
that this report be provided to the owners of the Riverstone Golf Course to provide them with
the opportunity to respond to our formal comments and recommended future directions. As
suggested, it is recommended that TRCA staff report back to this Authority once further
coordination occurs between City of Brampton and Region of Peel staff, as well as the owners
of the Riverstone Golf Course, whereby TRCA staff can provide an updated/finalized position.
Report prepared by: Adam Miller, extension 5244
Emails: amiller@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
Emails: amiller@trca.on.ca
Date: March 17, 2011
RES.#A49/11 - DOUBLE -CRESTED CORMORANTS
Management Strategy for 2011. Management of Double -crested
Cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT staff be directed to continue to work with the cormorant advisory group to assist
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 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, Canadian
Wildlife Service, and any other required regulatory agency to seek approval for the 2011
management strategy for colonial waterbirds at TTP;
THAT staff be directed to implement the proposed management strategy for 2011;
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;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority annually regarding the
management of Double -crested Cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #2/10, held on March 26, 2010, Resolution #A23/10 was approved, in
part, as follows:
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority annually regarding the
management of Double -crested Cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park.
In addition to the largest Double -crested Cormorant (DCCO) colony in the lower Great Lakes
basin, Tommy Thompson Park 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 Tommy
Thompson Park 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.
Double -crested Cormorants have been nesting at TTP since 1990. The colony started with six
nests in trees on the tip of Peninsula B, and has since expanded to 9,434 nests, as recorded in
2010, 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 very poor health and the forest on Peninsula C is in declining health.
Monitoring of DCCO colony growth and expansion, impacts on vegetation cover, and the
dynamic interactions with other colonial bird nesting species have occurred since 1990.
Conclusions drawn from the data included:
• DCCO nesting has resulted in the loss or degradation of approximately 24 per cent of the
forest habitat available at TTP, although this loss has stabilized since DCCO have not
occupied any additional forest areas since management began in 2008.
• Peninsula A has been devoid of living forest since 2004. Only two standing trees remained
in 2010, one was dead and the other was in very poor health.
• Peninsula B has lost all the trees at the tip and most of the remaining nest trees inland were
in poor health and are expected to die within the next few years.
101
• Tree health has significantly declined in the core DCCO nest area on Peninsula C, but new
areas have not been occupied.
• The average annual DCCO population increase was 16.3 per cent between 1998 and 2010.
• The expansion of DCCO have displaced Black -crowned Night -Herons (BCNH) from their
primary nesting areas into marginal areas that are more prone to disturbance.
• Based on the rapid growth of the DCCO colony, management measures were undertaken
beginning in 2008 to keep the DCCO population from expanding 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 the Advisory
Group has met ten times, including a public meeting in April 2008. 2011 is the fourth
consecutive year of cormorant management at TTP, however little management occurred in
spring 2008 due to timing. The Cormorant Strategy Timeline (Attachment 1) summarizes the
consultation process, including the development of the strategic approach of the management
strategy undertaken in 2008 as per Resolution #A110/08, in 2009 as per Resolution #A22/09,
and in 2010 as per Resolution #A23/10.
The goal of the 2011 management strategy has not changed from the goal developed in 2008.
It is 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 are to:
a) increase public knowledge, awareness and appreciation of colonial waterbirds;
b) deter DCCO from nesting on Peninsula D;
c) limit further loss of tree canopy on the peninsulas beyond the existing DCCO colonies;
d) continue research on colonial waterbirds in an urban wilderness context.
The 2010 Strategic Approach was formulated based upon the 2008 and 2009 strategic
approaches and the comments and views expressed at the Advisory Group meetings. The
2010 Strategic Approach was adopted at Authority Meeting #2/10, held on March 26, 2010, as
part of Resolution # A23/10.
Throughout 2010 staff engaged academic groups, naturalist groups, researchers, media and
interested members of the public through various interpretive tours and presentations. This
included a presentation at the International Association of Great Lakes Research (IAGLR)
conference and an interpretive tour of TTP, including the DCCO colony, for IAGLR participants.
102
As anticipated, DCCO nests continued to increase in 2010, totalling 9,434 nests compared to
7,564 nests in 2009. The increase in nest numbers was mainly due to ground nesting on
Peninsula B increasing from 1,957 nests to 3,310 nests in 2010, a 69 per cent increase from
2009. This is a positive trend showing that ground nest enhancements are working to help
achieve the goal of the continued existence of a healthy, thriving DCCO colony. The significant
increase in the number of ground nests means that 35 per cent of the TTP DCCO colony now
nests on the ground, so their nests are not affecting the tree canopy. Tree nests on Peninsula
A and B decreased by 119 nests and tree nests on Peninsula C increased by 636 nests;
however, the number of trees containing nests in this area increased by just 25. This increase
in tree nesting on Peninsula C was sustained with denser nests (more nests per tree); the
nesting area did not expand into any new areas.
As a deterrent technique, simple 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 six
times during spring 2010, but no nesting attempts were witnessed.
Ongoing research by York University is helping inform staff about DCCO behaviours at TTP.
The research has shown that nesting success is higher in the ground nesting subcolony
compared to tree nesting DCCO. Ground nest productivity in 2010 was 95.5 per cent for the
study nests compared to 26 per cent productivity for Peninsula B tree nests and 64 per cent
productivity for Peninsula C tree nests. Research also found that in the Peninsula A ground
nest enhancement area there were 59 instances of DCCO loafing in the area compared to just
three instances of loafing in 2009. There were also 13 cases of nest building, six Ring -billed
Gull nest takeovers, three courtship displays and eight cases of DCCO sitting near the nests in
the study plot. Additionally visitations to the enhanced ground nesting area increased from
0.63 per hour in 2009 to 1.1 visits per hour in 2010. The study also showed that 70 per cent of
DCCO prefer tires that resemble nests and/or straw over the wood stakes.
In summary:
• Overall the DCCO population continues to rise at TTP. Most of the increase occurred in the
ground nesting colony on Peninsula B, which is a main target of the strategic approach.
• Ground nesting accounted for 72 per cent of the increase in the population.
• Now 35 per cent of the entire DCCO colony is sustained through ground nesting. Prior to
management only 15 per cent of the DCCO colony nested on the ground.
• The number of trees cormorants occupied increased by eight trees in 2010.
• 2010 management was successful at preventing DCCO nesting on Peninsula D.
• DCCO productivity is significantly higher for ground nesting birds than tree nesting birds.
• DCCO show increasing interest in the ground nest enhancement area on Peninsula A,
which illustrates that the enhancement techniques undertaken by staff and researchers are
effective at attracting DCCO to the site.
103
RATIONALE
An extremely high level of concern has been expressed regarding DCCO populations and their
management. Concerns have been raised from both sides, 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 balanced 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 DCCO 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 and 2010 strategic approaches, as well as York University
study findings, ground nest enhancements and pre- and post -nesting deterrents will continue.
The natural ground nesting area continues to expand and more DCCO frequented the ground
nest enhancement area. Peninsula C is the traditional nesting area to most of the BCNH colony
and is part of the park's largest forest block. The forest health in the nesting areas continues to
decline, although staff has been successful at preventing DCCO nesting at the tip of Peninsula
C. TRCA therefore, has developed the following strategic approach to the management of
DCCO at TTP for the 2011 season.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
As in previous years, the goal of the management strategy 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, with the same
strategic objectives as outlined above.
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:
• TRCA website;
• annual Spring Bird Festival (May 14, 2011);
• improving opportunities to view colonial waterbirds using viewing blinds and platforms;
• conducting tours with school and interest groups;
• presenting information at conferences and forums;
• participation in working groups on colonial waterbirds;
• installation of a remote camera in the ground nesting area that will upload images of DCCO
daily to the TRCA website.
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. Two temporary viewing blinds will be installed at the
edge of the Peninsula B and C colonies to allow visitors to view the birds without disturbance.
The blinds will also include information about TTP colonial waterbirds. Researcher disturbance
associated with TRCA and partner research programs will be controlled to reduce overall
disruption.
A remote camera will be installed at the ground nesting area on Peninsula B that will transmit
sequential still images of the colony to the website so appreciation of DCCO is fostered. The
camera will automatically upload images to the website on a daily basis at regular intervals.
Visitors to the website will view DCCO in their natural habitat, and the images will be used by
TRCA staff and researchers to monitor the ground nesting colony. A second remote camera
will be installed in the enhanced ground nesting area on Peninsula A, and should DCCO begin
nesting in this area, images will also be regularly uploaded to the website. Researchers
monitoring the enhanced ground nesting area have also offered to film DCCO nesting activities,
which can also be uploaded to the website. The website will be linked to the current TTP
DCCO website: www,trca,on,ca/cormorants. Staff is also investigating the feasibility of
establishing a live webcam to stream video of ground nesting DCCO.
In order to provide more information about DCCO and the TTP Strategic Approach, as well as
to solicit additional input from the public, staff will hold an interpretive colonial bird walk for the
Spring Bird Festival held on May 14, 2011. Park users will have the opportunity to view the
DCCO colonies and learn more about DCCO at TTP from TRCA staff. Staff will also continue to
engage academic groups, naturalist groups, researchers and the media, informing them about
DCCO at TTP.
Proposed 2011 Strategic Approach
As with the 2010 strategy, TRCA proposes to utilize a variety of techniques in an integrated
adaptive management approach to achieve the goals and objectives for the 2011 strategy. The
2011 Strategic Approach matrix (Attachment 2) 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 DCCO colony currently occupies three of the four peninsulas of the park comprising
three DCCO sub -colonies (Attachment 3). 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 DCCO will continue to use the areas and nesting
remains productive. Peninsula C is the most recently colonized area containing the largest
DCCO sub -colony and the largest Black -crowned Night -Heron population at the site. Peninsula
D is the only forested peninsula not occupied by colonial waterbird species.
105
As depicted in Attachments 2 and 3, the 2011 Strategic Approach will focus on pre -nesting
deterrents in the 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 tress; and ground nest
enhancements on Peninsulas A and B will encourage DCCO 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 DCCO and BCNH nests;
effects of deterrents on non -target areas/species; and the use of social attraction techniques to
persuade DCCO to nest on the ground.
Cormorant Conservation Zones
Peninsula A and the current nest area of Peninsula B are considered cormorant conservation
zones where DCCO 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.
Inactive Nest Removal
Inactive nest removal will continue for the 2011 season, and will be completed in winter and
early spring of 2011, prior to the return of the nesting DCCO. Inactive nest removal will take
place in the Primary Deterrent Areas as indicated in Attachment 3, primarily targeting trees in
fair health. Since almost all old nests will be removed from the Primary Deterrent Area prior to
the 2011 breeding season, any new nests started in 2011 will be obvious and newly placed
material will be promptly removed before it becomes an active nest.
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 to target areas with healthier trees as depicted in Attachment 3, and will
only be implemented if necessary and in response to cormorant nesting attempts in 2011.
Cormorant deterrence at the base of Peninsula B and C may be conducted where the BCNH
have nested in recent years. Deterrents will only be used in these areas given that they do not
adversely impact BCNH nesting.
By discouraging DCCO from nesting in trees in these areas staff anticipate that the stress on
forest health and tree canopy will be reduced, 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 BCNH and Great Egrets. Deterrents will not occur on Peninsula A or on
the majority of Peninsula B. Displaced tree nesting DCCO will be encouraged to ground nest
on Peninsulas A and B.
Pre-Nestina Deterrent Methodolo
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 4).
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 DCCO, BCNH, 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.
Effective DCCO deterrence requires the use of a suite of techniques. Deterrent techniques are
depicted in the 2011 Deterrent Escalation diagram (Attachment 4). 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 2011 as they did in previous years. Deterrent activity will only progress to the next
level when staff determine that DCCO 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 DCCO.
Deterrents beyond simple human presence would first progress to active techniques including
whistling, arm waving, followed by running and shouting. Activity would be further increased to
carrying three metre poles and waving the poles without tree contact progressing to moving
low tree branches and tapping on trees. Poles would not contact DCCO. If nesting attempts
persist, then artificial predators and decoys, including raccoons 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. 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 DCCO.
In a situation where DCCO 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.
In the event that nesting deterrents progress through the methodology depicted in Attachment
4, and escalate to the use of noise makers (Level 7), and DCCO 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 was undertaken in 2010 when 32 known -age nests were
removed.
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.
107
The Active Nest Removal Situation and Action Flow Chart (Attachment 5) 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 waterbirds (Humane Society of the United States,
2009. Canada Goose Egg Addling Protocol).
Active nest removal is being used as a deterrence tactic and is complimented with ground
nesting enhancements and the other deterrent techniques. This will be conducted to prevent
the expansion of tree nesting into new areas, and to protect healthier trees in the Primary
Deterrent Areas. In the event that eggs older than 10 days in age or nestlings are discovered,
deterrent activities focusing on that nest will stop.
Pre-Nestina Deterrent Monitorin
During deterrent activities observers will be stationed near the BCNH colonies, within view of
the ground nesting areas on Peninsulas A and B and on Peninsula D to determine where the
disturbed DCCO go and to monitor behaviours of non -target species, specifically BCNH and
egrets. Should staff determine that deterrent activities cause an increase of DCCO moving into
BCNH nesting locations or causes non -target species disturbance, deterrent activities will stop.
Pre -nesting deterrent activities will commence as soon as DCCO are observed in the deterrent
areas in early spring 2011.
Post -Breeding Deterrents
Upon completion of DCCO nesting, DCCO 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 DCCO are feeding
independently, post -breeding deterrents will be employed on the tip of Peninsula C and on
Peninsula D to reduce the effects of DCCO loafing, or resting on trees. Deterrents will not be
used on Peninsulas A and B, displaced DCCO 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 DCCO colonies
and field data indicates large loafing areas are currently available, staff anticipate that DCCO
will readily use these peninsulas for post -breeding loafing.
•
A variety of deterrent methods will be utilized that are humane for DCCO 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
same order as the pre -nesting deterrents and as illustrated in Attachment 4, with the exception
of nest removal, which will not be undertaken. 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.
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 2011 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 will also include the use of DCCO decoys
and auditory breeding calls to attract DCCO 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 2011 to increase the
ground nesting DCCO population in 2011.
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 DCCO 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 BCNH nesting. Habitat restoration activities
will occur in early spring 2011, so the bird colonies are not disturbed.
Monitoring, Research, and Reporting
Annual nest census data for DCCO, BCNH 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 DCCO and other waterbirds, as well as their spatial nesting
distribution within the peninsulas at TTP. 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.
Additionally a control plot will be established on Peninsula D so that health ratings can be
compared to non -colonial waterbird nest areas.
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 2011 season. This report will outline all approaches employed
in the 2011 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
2012 strategy using an integrated adaptive management approach.
The next meeting of the DCCO advisory group will be held in late fall 2011, after the completion
of the 2011 summary report. This meeting will provide an opportunity to review the results of
the 2011 season and discuss whether any changes are needed for 2012.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds are identified in the Tommy Thompson Park Interim Management account 210-19 in the
2011 Preliminary Capital Budget from the City of Toronto.
Report prepared by: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366; Karen McDonald, extension 5248
Emails: rtoninger@trca.on.ca; kmcdonald@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366;
Karen McDonald, extension 5248
Emails: rtoninger@trca.on.ca; kmcdonald@trca.on.ca
Date: March 18, 2010
Attachments 5:
110
Attachment 1
Cormorant Strategy Timeline
Advisory Group
January 24, 2008
• Values and interests of TTP
Meeting #1
• Conditions and concerns of DCCO colony
• Need for management
• Strategies to address concerns
Advisory Group
February 19, 2008
• Evaluate management options
Meeting #2
• Propose alternative approaches
Cormorant
March 3, 2008
• Includes background materials, Advisory Group meeting
Webpage
notes and presentations, Public Meeting workbook and
Launched
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
April 23, 2008
• Review public response
Meeting #3
• Discuss 2008 strategy
TTP Spring Bird
May 10, 2008
• Guided tours of cormorant colony
Festival
• Public survey on TTP cormorants
Authority Board
May 23, 2008
• Present 2008 strategy for Authority action
Advisory Group
December 10, 2008
• Review the 2008 population data, and monitoring
Meeting #4
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
February 4, 2009
• Develop the 2009 strategy
Meeting #5
Authority Board
March 27, 2009
• Present the 2009 strategy for TRCA Authority action
TTP Spring Bird
May 23, 2009
• Guided tours of cormorant colony
Festival
• Public survey on TTP cormorants
Advisory Group
December 15, 2009
• Review the 2009 population data and monitoring
Meeting #6
program
• Review 2009 strategy and preliminary research results
• Begin discussions on a strategic approach for 2010
Advisory Group
February 11, 2010
• Develop the 2010 strategy
Meeting #7
111
Colonial
April - November,
• York University, Centennial College, University of
Waterbird
2010
Toronto, International Association of Great Lakes
Interpretation
Research, City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation
and
• Society of Conservation Biology speaker series (Toronto
Presentations
Chapter), Institutes of Journalism and Natural Resources
• Toronto Field Naturalists walks, LEAF Tree Tour, Humber
Valley Heritage Trail Association, Citizens Coalition for
the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront, Toronto
Ornithological Club
Advisory Group
December 9, 2010
• Review the 2010 population data and monitoring
Meeting #8
program
• Review 2010 strategy and preliminary research results
• Being discussions on a strategic approach for 2011
Advisory Group
February 3, 2011
• Develop the 2011 Strategy
Meeting #9
112
Attachment 2
2011 Strategic Approach
Method
Peninsula
A
Peninsula
B
Peniinsul
C
Peninsul
D
Inactive Nest Removal
(prior to 2010 breeding season)
Pre -nesting Deterrents
PostBreeding Deterrents
Enhanced Ground Nesting
Habitat Restoration
113
Attachment 3
Cormorant Conservation Zones and 2011 Pre -Nesting Deterrent Locations
114
Attachment 4
2011 Deterrent Escalation
1. Human Presence
2a. Human Presence
waving arms,
clapping, whistling
2b. Human Presence
running, shouting
3. Human Presence
Carrying poles & waving
poles without tree contact
4. Human Presence
Carrying poles & moving low
branches, tapping on trees
5. Artificial Predators
Raptors, scarecrows,
raccoons, coyotes
6. Removal of Nest Material
Removal of new nest materials
7. Noise Makers
Artificial sounds from raptors,
scarecrows, raccoons,
coyotes, bangers
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.
115
Attachment 5
2011 Active nest removal situation and action flow chart
SITUATION 1
Behavior indicates
nest not active
adults not paired, or
actively copulating and
nest building
SITUATION 2
Adult behavior
indicates possible
incubation
' Nest greater
Nest less than than 10 days
10 days old old or age
Nest Removal unknown
I
No eggs Check nest
with mirror or
pole camera
Eggs present
Less than 10 Float Eggs
days old /Age eggs
116
SITUATION 3
Nestlings visible or
adult behavior
indicates nestlings
present
Greater than 10
days old or unable
to determine aqe
RES.#A50/11 - ACOUSTIC TELEMETRY FOR FISH POPULATION AND HABITAT USE
MONITORING
Approval for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to enter into a
three year agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Carleton
University and Environment Canada to conduct a study using acoustic
telemetry for fish population and habitat use monitoring.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has initiated planning and
discussions to enter into a three year agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and
Carleton University to initiate a study using acoustic telemetry for fish population and
habitat use monitoring;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a partnership between TRCA, Fisheries and
Oceans Canada (DFO) and Carleton University be created to implement an acoustic
telemetry and monitoring project at a cost not to exceed $495,000.00 ($165,000.00 per
calendar year), plus HST, for the period March 2011 to December 31, 2013;
THAT contingent upon securing appropriate external funding TRCA transfers funds
obtained from external funding to DFO not to exceed $85,000.00 per calendar year to hire
a post -doctoral associate who is an expert in the field of acoustic telemetry and to hire a
biologist to model the available fish habitat in the Toronto Harbour;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action
to implement the agreement including the signing and execution of documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
A pilot study was undertaken in 2010 to test acoustic fish monitoring equipment in the Toronto
Harbour. Acoustic receivers were successfully deployed into the harbour and 51 fish were
implanted with transmitters (VEMCO V13 transmitters). The fish tagged were largemouth bass
Micropterus salmoides), northern pike (Esox lucius) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio).
Restoration efforts in Toronto Harbour target the creation of habitat for largemouth bass and
northern pike as these fish are native, top predators fish whose existence will help to sustain a
healthy fish community in the harbour. Common carp are an invasive fish that has detrimental
effects on the native fish community as it destroys habitat required by native species.
The acoustic telemetry and monitoring project will assist with the restoration of beneficial uses
in the Toronto Region. Habitat improvement and creation are major considerations of the
waterfront revitalization effort, hopefully resulting in significant gains in fish and wildlife habitat.
The relative gains for fish populations are unclear according to the Toronto and Region
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Stage 2 document because of other ongoing stressors. Therefore
data connecting the habitat changes over time to changes in fish distributions and detailed
knowledge of seasonal and diurnal habitat usage is invaluable to functional ecosystem
restoration.
117
The technology for acoustic telemetry of fishes has recently improved and it is now possible to
track small fishes and their movement while collecting environmental information in
three-dimensional space passively through a network of in situ receivers. Several key
hypotheses about fish -habitat linkages can be addressed as well as testing the short-term
effectiveness of rehabilitation efforts. This information is not only helpful for the Toronto Area
but for all RAPs where habitat is impaired or other places where groups are undertaking habitat
restoration initiatives.
Habitat gains and losses will be tracked as the habitats are constructed and the local
environment is monitored over time by the project partners (TRCA/DFO/Carleton University).
Tracking fish usage before and after construction provides data to quantify restored habitat
usage relative to the prior degraded habitat condition and to adjacent habitats. This
comparison provides a relative gauge of quality and can determine time lags in fish usage of
restored habitats. Time series information regarding the environmental changes (both direct
and indirect) associated with habitat construction can be correlated with fish usage of those
habitats for different purposes (i.e. for refuge or feeding habitat usage). Detailed knowledge of
fish movements also puts other fish community monitoring data in context because it helps
determine home range sizes for species of interest and changes in habitat usage at finer
timescales than is possible to sample (e.g. hourly, diurnal) or when sampling is not an option
(e.g. overwinter).
RATIONALE
Aquatic Habitat Toronto (a committee consisting of representatives from TRCA, the City of
Toronto, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment
Canada and Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC)) has facilitated successful
research projects between DFO and TRCA to assess the fish community and habitat usage of
fishes in the Toronto region. Scientific research and monitoring projects undertaken by DFO
and TRCA to date have included young of the year fish research, fish population dynamics
research, and supplementing TRCA's normal annual monitoring with alternative methods such
as trawling. DFO has hired a post doctoral associate who is an expert in the field of acoustic
tracking to undertake the more scientifically rigorous portion of the project. Dr. Steven Cooke, a
Canada Research Chair at Carleton University is assisting in the supervision of the
Post -Doctoral Associate and lending his immense expertise in the area of acoustic telemetry to
the planning of the project and to the analysis of data collected.
The partnership will result in:
• pre- and post -data during major habitat rehabilitation projects providing needed
benchmarks for projects such as the rehabilitation of habitat in Tommy Thompson Park
(TTP), the Toronto waterfront and the Lower Don revitalization;
• input from both academia and industry on the success of rehabilitation efforts;
• the acquisition of the necessary equipment to undertake the acoustic tagging project.
118
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Each partner organization has committed substantial funding for each year of the project to
ensure the success of this project. DFO has committed $40,000 cash and 'in kind' support, and
Carleton University has committed $5,000 cash and 'in kind' support. TRCA base funding will be
provided from Toronto Waterfront Monitoring, account # 240-01 ($5 000), and TTP Embayment
Enhancement, account # 216-80 ($10 000). In 2011 the funding for the financial commitment
of TRCA to DFO for this project will be obtained from successful grant applications to the Great
Lakes Sustainability Fund ($85,000) and the RAP ($20,000). The $15,000 investment from TRCA
base funding will thus enable the implementation of a project with an overall annual value of
$165,000. Future year budgets will be dependent upon securing appropriate external funding.
The Great Lakes Sustainability Fund has already committed $25,000 for 2012 and both DFO
and Carleton University are committed to the continuation of this project. Additionally, in order
to ensure the longevity of this project, additional funding is being pursued from grants such as
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Strategic Grant and an Ontario Post -Doctoral Fellowship.
Report prepared by: Meg St John, extension 5628
Emails: mstjohn@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Meg St John, extension 5628
Emails: mstjohn@trca.on.ca
Date: March 07, 2011
RES.#A51 /11 - KORTRIGHT VISITOR CENTRE RETROFIT PHASE 1 PROJECT
Award of Contract. Recommends award of contract for Phase 1 of the
Kortright Visitor Centre Retrofit Project.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT the contract for the Kortright Visitor Centre Retrofit Phase 1 Project be awarded to
Struct-Con Construction Ltd., at a cost not to exceed $961,598.00, plus 10% contingency,
plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA) specifications;
THAT award of tender be subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and
legal advisers (if necessary), including but not limited to determination of the final
contract cost not to exceed the approved amount;
THAT should staff be unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable tender agreement with
the above-mentioned contractor, staff be authorized to enter into contract negotiations
with other contractors, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA
specifications;
119
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such actions as is
necessary to implement the tender including obtaining any needed approvals and the
signing and execution of documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Situated just north of Toronto, on 325 hectares of pristine woodlands, Kortright Centre for
Conservation (KCC) combines a natural oasis with some of the most leading edge sustainable
education programs and events in Canada. KCC hosts 135,000 visitors annually and offers over
50 environmental education programs for schools and 30 sustainable technology workshops
for the public, trade and professionals. It is also a popular location for green weddings and
corporate functions.
The Kortright Visitor Centre is a 30,000 square foot, three level post and beam structure, with a
140 seat theatre, eight classrooms, a cafe and gift shop. The Visitor Centre is the hub of all
educational and recreational programs and activities that provide avenues to nature based
adventures such as hiking, skiing, orienteering, geocaching, birding, dogsledding and a natural
classroom.
The Kortright Visitor Centre was constructed in 1979 and over the past 30 plus years staff has
noted significant deficiencies in the mechanical system and the overall energy efficiency of the
building. In more recent years, the HVAC mechanical equipment has deteriorated beyond its
life expectancy resulting in increased ongoing maintenance cost, excessive energy bills and
constant equipment failures which significantly impact daily programming. In order to continue
as Ontario's premier environmental and renewable energy education and demonstration centre,
TRCA plans to retrofit the Kortright Visitor Centre focusing on reducing the buildings overall
energy/carbon footprint.
On March 8, 2010 Request for Proposal (RFP) documentation was publically advertised for
consulting services for the Kortright Visitor Centre Retrofit Project. After evaluating the
submitted proposals, staff concluded that Levitt Goodman Architects Ltd. met all requirements
set out in the Request for Proposal. Due to proposal methodology and approach to the project,
relevant sustainable project experience, strong references and fee proposal, staff concluded
that Levitt Goodman Architects submission to be superior to the other submissions. Therefore,
in September 2010, staff received CAO's approval as follows:
That the contract for Consulting Services for the Kortright Visitor Centre Retrofit Project
be awarded to Levitt Goodman Architects, at a cost not to exceed $85,000, plus
applicable taxes, plus 10% contingency.
Over the last few months staff worked closely with Levitt Goodman Architects Ltd. to prepare
and refine detailed design and construction drawings required to move forward with the
tendering and building permit process. The scope of work for the Kortright Visitor Centre
Retrofit Phase 1 project includes:
1. replace the existing HVAC system with a geothermal ground source heat pump system;
2. replace clerestory windows on the mezzanine level;
3. installation of an Energy Recovery Ventilation unit;
4. all work related to the Designated Substance Survey report completed December, 2010.
120
RATIONALE
Request for Pre -qualification (RFPQ) documentation was publically advertised on February 1st,
2011. The following twenty-five (25) firms submitted pre -qualification documentation:
• Struct-Con Construction Ltd.;
• Elite Construction Inc.;
• J.D. Strachan Construction Ltd.;
• JJM McGuire General Contractors;
• Ledcor Construction Ltd.;
• Compass Construction Resources Ltd.;
• Garritano Bros. Ltd.;
• Percon Construction Inc.;
• Rutherford Contracting Ltd.;
• Geo -Energy Solutions;
• Quest Geothermal;
• Newgen Construction Corp.;
• Quad Pro Construction;
• APlus General Contractor Corp.;
• Arguson Projects Inc.;
• Berkim Construction Inc.;
• HN Construction Ltd.;
• KMA Contracting Inc.;
• Bemocon Construction Group Ltd.;
• Jeviso Construction Corp.;
• BECC Construction;
• Arc General Contracting;
• Spectre Construction & Management Inc.;
• Scott Builders Inc.;
• MJ Dixon Construction Ltd.
Staff evaluated the Pre -qualification documentation based on criteria that included:
1. CCDC 11 requirements and completion;
2. company experience and background;
3. personnel experience;
4. project record over the past five years;
5. references focusing on firms history of project control and experience.
Based on the evaluation process Request for Tender documentation was made available to
nine (9) pre -qualified General Contractors on February 18, 2011. The following firms obtained
documents:
• Struct-Con Construction Ltd.;
• Elite Construction Inc.;
• J.D. Strachan Construction Ltd.;
• JJM McGuire General Contractors;
• Ledcor Construction Ltd.;
• Compass Construction Resources Ltd.;
• Garritano Bros. Ltd.;
• Percon Construction Inc.;
• Rutherford Contracting Ltd.
121
All pre -qualified companies, except Ledcor Construction who declined to submit a bid due to
unavailable resources, attended a mandatory site meeting on Tuesday March 1, 2011.
Tenders closed on March 11, 2011 at 12:00 noon and were opened at Tender Opening
Committee Meeting #2/11 held on Friday, March 11, 2011 with the following results:
FIRM
BASE QUOTATION PRICE
(plus HST)
Percon Construction Inc.
$1,675,000.00
Compass Construction Resources Ltd.
$1,251,440.00
Rutherford Contracting Ltd.
$1,069,640.00
JJM McGuire General Contractors
$998,000.00
Struct-Con Construction Ltd.
$961,598.00
J.D. Strachan Construction Ltd.
Disqualified
Elite Construction Inc.
Disqualified
Garritano Bros. Ltd. I
Disqualified
Staff and the design team evaluated bids based on submission criteria outlined in TRCA's
Purchasing Policy and Request for Tender documents. Staff noted that the submissions
received from J.D. Strachan Construction Ltd., Elite Construction Inc. and Garritano Bros. Ltd.
contained significant irregularities. Upon review, staff noted that J.D. Strachan Construction
Ltd. and Garritano Bros. Ltd. neglected to complete the quotation form and to provide itemized
pricing for the scope of work. In addition, Elite Construction did not provide the required 50%
Labour and Material Payment Bond as requested in the tender documents. As a result, bid
submissions received from J.D. Strachan Construction Ltd., Elite Construction Inc. and
Garritano Bros. Ltd. were disqualified due to incomplete bid submissions.
In the event that TRCA receives a donation to the project in lieu of tendered goods and/or
services, TRCA reserves the right to award the work in whole or in part. As a result, the tender
specifications are itemized such that aspects of the work can be removed to achieve cost
savings for the project:
1. line item deletions: the project's scope of work to be altered by directly deleting line
items from the list of itemized prices in the tender form;
2. revisions using submitted unit prices: the project's scope of work to be altered by
revising the quantity of selected items (revised prices shall be calculated by applying
the unit prices for addition and deletion of items submitted by the contractor on the
tender form).
Based on evaluation of the bids received, staff recommends that the contract for construction of
the Kortright Visitor Centre Retrofit Phase 1 Project be awarded to Struct-Con Construction Ltd.
at a total cost not to exceed $961,598.00, plus 10% contingency, plus HST, it being the lowest
bid meeting all requirements set out in the Request for Tender and TRCA's Purchasing Policy
and specifications.
122
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds required to complete this project are available through TRCA's municipal funding
partners and Earth Rangers lease revenue and are identified in the preliminary 2011 Kortright
Retrofit capital budget account #418-22.
Report prepared by: Cindy Maw, extension 6413
Emails: cmaw@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Cindy Maw, extension 6413
Emails: cmaw@trca.on.ca
Date: March 08, 2011
RES.#A52/11 - PROJECT FOR ACQUISITION OF OFFICE SPACE
Purchase of 1235 Ormont Drive, City of Toronto. Recommends that
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority not proceed with the
purchase and sale agreement for the property at 1235 Ormont Drive, City
of Toronto
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Glenn Mason
WHEREAS the purchase and sale agreement for 1235 Ormont Drive, City of Toronto,
dated January 19, 2011, between Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and
SREIT(LP3B) LTD. as amended, provides, if by March 29, 2011, the Purchaser's Members
Approval or Conditional Approval is not given the agreement shall terminate;
AND WHEREAS complete funding for the project is not available;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the purchase and sale agreement with
SREIT(LP3B) LTD. not be approved;
THAT no Approval Notice or Conditional Approval as stated in the purchase and sale
agreement shall be given;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the action necessary to
terminate the agreement and obtain refund of deposits.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #9/10, held on November 26, 2010 Resolution #A197/10 was approved as
follows:
THAT the Project for Acquisition of Office Space be approved,
123
THAT total funding for the Project of $14,000,000 be levied from Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority's (TRCA) 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.
The Chair and Members received a briefing from the Director, Finance and Business Services
at the meeting of the Authority held February 25, 2011. The Authority was advised that staff
was continuing to meet the requirements of the purchase and sale agreement and were
completing due diligence with respect to the property. Also, the Authority was advised of the
status of approvals by the participating municipalities. In particular, staff advised that the City of
Toronto Executive Committee would be considering the matter at its meeting to be held March
21, 2011.
RATIONALE
Since the February 25th Authority meeting, the Region of York Finance and Administration
Committee has recommended to York Region Council that the TRCA office project be
approved. York Region Council will consider the matter on March 24th. The Region of
Durham Council approved the project as part of the budget approval at its meeting on March 9,
2011. Peel Region Council had approved the project in February as part of its budget approval
process. Staff has been advised that the respective Councils of the Town of Mono and the
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio have approved the project and their share of the funding.
The Chief Administrative Officer and the Director, Finance and Business Services, attended the
meeting of the City of Toronto Executive Committee on March 21, 2011, and responded to
questions at some length. After some discussion, Mayor Ford called for a vote on the motion
and the Executive Committee approved unanimously a motion that the TRCA request be
"deferred indefinitely". This means that the matter does not go to Council and that the matter
can be reopened at Executive Committee only by a two thirds vote. Effectively, the City has
decided not to support the project.
The project is conditional on all participating municipalities approving the project and their
respective shares of the funding. The City of Toronto is required to provide the largest share,
$9.21 million (65.8%). Without the City's commitment, staff must recommend that the purchase
and sale agreement for 1235 Ormont Drive, City of Toronto, not proceed.
124
The Purchase and Sale Agreement with the vendor provides under section 3.2 that if the
"Purchaser's Members Approval" is not given by the Purchaser prior to March 29, 2011, the
agreement shall terminate and be null and void. "Purchaser's Members Approval" is entirely at
the discretion of TRCA.
Implications of Not Acquiring 1235 Ormont Drive
Short Term
Staff is proceeding to take the following actions to deal with office accommodation issues in the
short term:
1. Complete the lease amending agreement with Parc Downsview Park for TRCA at its option
to retain the office space at 70 Canuck Drive for a further five years (about three years
remaining on the lease).
2. Complete the building condition assessment of the TRCA property at Swan Lake in
Richmond Hill with a view to retrofitting the existing 6,000 sq. ft. residential dwelling for use
as office space.
3. Investigate the availability of additional leased space at the Earth Rangers building at
Kortright (TRCA currently leases 2,200 sq. ft.).
4. Investigate the cost to renovate the Restoration Services Centre in Woodbridge to
accommodate additional office space.
5. Continue to invest in 5 Shoreham Drive to ensure the building provides safe and adequate
work space.
Long Term
TRCA remains committed to a long term solution to its office accommodation needs. As noted
in previous reports, in terms of geographical location, the existing site in the vicinity of 5
Shoreham Drive best meets TRCA's needs. There are two options which staff will be assessing:
A. Redevelopment of the Black Creek Pioneer Village parking lot lands with a view to a joint
public/private partnership that will achieve TRCA's goal of adequate, "green" office space
and generate opportunities for improved facilities for Black Creek Pioneer Village.
B. Potential partnership with the Regional Municipality of York in the development of their
property adjacent to the new subway station on Steeles Avenue with a view to TRCA
securing office space as part of a proposed York Region office on the site.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The purchase and sale agreement for 1235 Ormont Drive has provisions for payment of
deposits of $200,000 on acceptance and $325,000 on waiver of building conditions. Both
deposits have been made and are fully refundable.
TRCA incurred due diligence costs including completing a building condition report, an
environmental review and legal fees. At this time, direct costs are estimated at about $45,000.
Funding for this is available in the major facilities retrofit account from TRCA's municipal funding
partners.
Report prepared by: Jim Dillane, 416-667-6292
Emails: jdillane@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Jim Dillane, 416-667-6292
Emails: jdillane@trca.on.ca
Date: March 22, 2011
125
RES.#A53/11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed
Maribel Dos Santos and Joao Defaria, CFN 45379. Purchase of property
located on the east side of Pine Valley Drive, south of Major Mackenzie
Drive (municipally known as 9839 Pine Valley Drive), City of Vaughan,
Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project
for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River
watershed.
(Executive Res. #B21 /11)
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT 2.32 hectares (5.73 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 19,
Concession 6 and designated as Parts 8, 10 and 12 on Plan 65R-32685, City of Vaughan,
Regional Municipality of York, located on the east side of Pine Valley Drive, south of
Major Mackenzie Drive (municipally known as 9839 Pine Valley Drive), be purchased from
Maribel Dos Santos and Joao Defaria;
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 execution of
documentation.
CARRIED
RES.#A54/11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed
Queens Drive Facility Inc., CFN 45380. Purchase of property located on
the south side of Queens Drive, east of Jane Street (between 265 and
303 Queens Drive), City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council
Area, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015", Flood
Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed.
(Executive Res. #B22/11)
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
126
THAT 0.47 hectares (1.15 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Lot 35 and Part of
Lots 37 and 39, Plan 1557 and designated as Parts 2, 3 and 4 on a Plan of Survey
prepared by MMM Geomatics Ontario Ltd., Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No.
2010308-001-001, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area, located on
the south side of Queens Drive, east of Jane Street (between 265 and 303 Queens Drive),
be purchased from Queens Drive Facility 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 execution of
documentation.
CARRIED
RES.#A55/11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed
Belmont Properties (Weston) Inc., CFN 45407. Purchase of property
located north of Major Mackenzie Drive, east of Pine Valley Drive, City of
Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands
Acquisition Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation
Component, Humber River watershed.
(Executive Res. #623/11)
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT 0.98 hectares (2.43 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 22,
Concession 6 and designated as Block 233 on a Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by
KRCMAR Surveyors Limited, under their Job No. 00-183, dated February 3, 2011, City of
Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located north of Major Mackenzie Drive, east of
Pine Valley Drive, be purchased from Belmont Properties (Weston) 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;
127
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.#A56/11 - HYDRO ONE NETWORKS INC.
Request for a Permanent Easement for an Overhead 115 Kilovolt Hydro
Transmission line.
Don River Watershed, City of Toronto (Toronto and East York Community
Council Area, CFN 45375. Receipt of a request from Hydro One Networks
Inc. to provide a permanent easement for an overhead 115 kilovolt hydro
transmission line, south of the Canadian Pacific Railway line, between
Bayview Avenue and Millwood Road, Don River watershed, City of
Toronto (Toronto and East York Community Council Area).
(Executive Res. #624/11)
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request
from Hydro One Networks Inc. to provide a permanent easement for an overhead 115
kilovolt hydro transmission line, south of the Canadian Pacific Railway line, between
Bayview Avenue and Millwood Road, Don River watershed, City of Toronto (Toronto and
East 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 Hydro One Networks Inc.
in this instance;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of
0.21 hectares (0.53 acres), more or less, be granted to Hydro One Networks Inc. for an
overhead 115 kilovolt hydro transmission line, said land being Part of Lot 11, Concession
3, From The Bay, City of Toronto, as shown on a plan entitled: HYDRO ONE NETWORKS
COMPILED PROPERTY SKETCH;
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 $340,000.00;
128
(b) Hydro One Networks Inc. is to pay all TRCA's legal, appraisal, survey and other
costs incurred to complete the transaction;
(c) Hydro One Networks Inc. 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 although Hydro One Networks Inc. is exempt from approval pursuant to Ontario
Regulation 166/06 due to its status as an agency of the Province of Ontario, Hydro One
Networks Inc. is encouraged to work with TRCA staff to ensure that all requirements are
met for infrastructure related projects as outlined in TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor
Management Program policies / development criteria;
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 Networks Inc.;
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;
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.#A57/11 - SECURITY SERVICES
Award of Contract for Various Locations. Recommends award of contract
for security services for various Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority locations.
(Executive Res. #625/11)
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT a contract to provide security services for 5 Shoreham Drive, Black Creek Pioneer
Village and other Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) facilities be
awarded to Knights On Guard Protective Services, at the unit prices described in this
report dated February 16th, 2011, this being the proposal that best meets TRCA
specifications;
THAT the contract be on terms and conditions satisfactory to staff including performance
satisfactory to staff at all times and a 30/15 day cancellation clause by TRCA for any
reason;
129
AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to
implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents.
CARRIED
RES.#A58/11 - THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
Request for a Permanent Easement for a Public Alert Siren
Waterfront Pickering / Ajax Sector, CFN 34932. Receipt of a request from
the Regional Municipality of Durham to provide a permanent easement
for a public alert siren, north of Beachpoint Promenade, east of West
Shore Boulevard, Waterfront Pickering / Ajax Sector.
(Executive Res. #626/11)
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request
from the Regional Municipality of Durham to provide a permanent easement for a public
alert siren, north of Beachpoint Promenade, east of West Shore Boulevard, Waterfront
Pickering / Ajax Sector;
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 Durham in this instance;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of
0.001 hectares (0.003 acres), more or less, be granted to the Regional Municipality of
Durham for a public alert siren, said land being Part of Lot 189, Registered Plan M-7, City
of Pickering, as shown on a Plan of Survey prepared by Ivan B. Wallace, Ontario Land
Surveyor Limited, under their Drawing 5-9284-R, dated January 10, 2011, together with an
access easement across TRCA property (i.e. along Beachpoint Promenade) in order to
access the site from West Shore Boulevard;
THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, plus all legal, survey and other costs to
be paid by the Regional Municipality of Durham;
THAT the Regional Municipality of Durham 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 Durham;
130
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.
CARRIED
SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
RES.#A59/11 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
Moved by: John Sprovieri
Seconded by: Chin Lee
THAT Section II Items EX8.1 - EX8.1 0, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee
Minutes #2/11, held on March 4, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
Section II Items EX8.1 - EX8.10, Inclusive
REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LAND
(Executive Res. #B27/11)
GLEN ROUGE CAMPGROUND
(Executive Res. #B28/11)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TRIBUNAL
(Executive Res. #B29/11)
PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN ENERGY
(Executive Res. #B30/11)
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION FRENCH TRANSLATION
(Executive Res. #B31 /11)
CLIMATE CHANGE MODELLING
(Executive Res. #B32/11)
LOTUS NOTES DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION CONSULTING
(Executive Res. #B33/11)
APPOINTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
(Executive Res. #B34/11)
BOB HUNTER MEMORIAL PARK
(Executive Res. #B35/11)
BOB HUNTER MEMORIAL PARK
(Executive Res. #B36/11)
131
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES.#A60/11 - 2011 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND STAND ALONE PROJECTS
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Toronto. Advises of project implementation of various natural
environment and stand alone projects within the City of Toronto.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Glenn Mason
THAT the report dated March 8, 2011, on implementation of various natural environment
and stand alone projects as approved by the City of Toronto as part of the 2011 project
list, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has partnered with the City of Toronto for
many years to provide project design, coordination of approvals and implementation services
in support of City -led natural environment projects throughout the City and across the Toronto
waterfront.
In 2006, the City formalized the process and requested TRCA to enter into an agreement which
stipulated terms and conditions for the supply and delivery of projects and services in
accordance with an approved list of projects. The agreement also provided a mechanism by
which TRCA could invoice the City to recover costs for the services and materials supplied.
More recently, the City of Toronto adopted a Financial Control By -Law that stipulates payments
for specific works can be processed without the need for a formal agreement provided the
projects have been identified and have received prior approval by the City in accordance with
their policies and procedures.
For 2011, the approved list of projects/works is as follows:
LOCATION & FEATURE
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
APPROVED
PROJECT
COST
STAND
ALONE PROJECTS
Cottonwood Flats
implement soil remediation in support of
$225,000
proposed wetland habitat development
Chorley Park Trail
design and construction of an at -grade
$350,000
pedestrian trail linking Chorley Park and
Beltline Trail as part of Evergreen Brick
Works access improvements
Dogs Off Leash Area Fencing - various
install fencing and gates to protect natural
$420,000
sites including Kew Gardens, High Park, G.
environment areas
Ross Lord Park, Baird Park, Yonge/York
Mills, Earl Bales, Viewmount, Glen Agar,
Withrow Park, Ellis Avenue, Lameroux Park
132
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT PROJECTS
City Wide Environmental Initiatives
Toronto Islands Dune Restoration
implement access improvements including
$50,000
boardwalk and fencing to protect dune
ecosystem
Franklin Pond
increase water collection system to
$50,000
improve wetland habitat
Don Valley Brick Works
implementation of at grade pedestrian
$220,000
access improvements and Quarry Garden
entry feature
Interpretive Program
install interpretative signage at various
$7,000
locations
Humber Bay Butterfly Habitat
provision of technical services related to
$19,000
habitat management and improvements
Chester Springs Marsh
design and construction of modifications to
$20,000
inlet/outlet weir to improve water
catchment function and frequency
Milne Hollow (Charles Sauriol Reserve)
interim stabilization of historic Milne House,
$75,000
trail improvements and plantings
Burke Brook
design and construction of pedestrian trail
$300,000
and environmental improvements
Total Request - Stand Alone and Natural Environment projects
$1,736,000
RATIONALE
TRCA and the City of Toronto have a long history of working together on a number of
regeneration and habitat enhancement projects. Many of these projects are on TRCA-owned
lands of which the City is responsible for management.
TRCA is recognized by the City of Toronto as being able to provide cost-effective management
of watershed related projects while providing a specialized understanding of environmental
issues and associated design requirements, proven restoration expertise, assurance of a
comprehensive approval and permitting process, an ability to facilitate community involvement
and meet tight timelines.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
All expenditures made in the delivery and management of these approved projects are fully
reimbursable from the City of Toronto.
Tendering and purchases of goods and services will be conducted in accordance with TRCA's
Purchasing Policy.
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: March 08, 2011
133
RES.#A61/11 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Glenn Mason
THAT Section IV item AUTH8.2.1 in regard to Watershed Committee Minutes, be
received.
CARRIED
Section IV Item AUTH8.2.1
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #1/11, held on March 8, 2011
ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
RES.#A62/11 - APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO
REGULATION 166/06
Moved by: Pamela Gough
Seconded by: Jim Tovey
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.1 - EX10.45, with the exception of EX10.29 -
City of Toronto, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #2/11, held on March 4, 2011,
be received.
CARRIED
RES.#A63/11 - APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO
REGULATION 166/06
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 item EX10.29 - City of Toronto, contained in Executive
Committee Minutes #2/11, held on March 4, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NEW BUSINESS
RES.#A64/11
Moved by: Pamela Gough
Seconded by: Jim Tovey
THAT New Business item EX11 contained in Executive Committee Minutes #2/11, held on
March 4, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
134
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1:32 p.m., on Friday, March 25, 2011.
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Chair
/ks
135
Brian Denney
Secretary -Treasurer
kk,
01FTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #4/11
April 29, 2011
The Authority Meeting #4/11, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village,
on Friday, April 29, 2011. The Vice Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at
9:34 a.m.
PRESENT
ABSENT
Paul Ainslie
At Start of
Meeting in Progress
At End of
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Member
Meeting
When Arrived
Meeting
Member
Maria Augimeri
Yes
Yes
Vice Chair
Bryan Bertie
Yes
Yes
Member
Laurie Bruce
Yes
Yes
Member
Bob Callahan
Yes
Yes
Member
Gay Cowbourne
Yes
Yes
Member
Vincent Crisanti
No
Yes
No
Member
Michael Di Biase
Yes
No
Member
Chris Fonseca
No
Yes
Yes
Member
Pamela Gough
Yes
No
Member
Lois Griffin
Yes
Yes
Member
Jack Heath
Yes
No
Member
Colleen Jordan
Yes
Yes
Member
Chin Lee
Yes
Yes
Member
Gloria Lindsay Luby
Yes
Yes
Member
Peter Milczyn
No
Yes
Yes
Member
Linda Pabst
Yes
Yes
Member
John Parker
No
Yes
Yes
Member
Anthony Perruzza
No
Yes
No
Member
Dave Ryan
Yes
Yes
Member
John Sprovieri
Yes
Yes
Member
Jim Tovey
Yes
Yes
Member
Richard Whitehead
Yes
Yes
Member
ABSENT
Paul Ainslie
Member
David Barrow
Member
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Chair
Glenn Mason
Member
Gino Rosati
Member
136
RES.#A65/11 - MINUTES
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/11, held on March 25, 2011, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Jon Gee, Manager, Great Lakes Area of Concern, Environment
Canada, in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan.
(b) A presentation by Laurian Farrell, Manager, Flood Risk Management and Infrastructure,
TRCA, in regard to item AUTH8.1 - Flood Management Service.
(c) A presentation by Jim Dillane, Director, Finance and Business Services, TRCA, in regard
to item BAAB7.1 - 2011 Operating and Capital Budget.
RES.#A66/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
PRESENTATIONS
Chin Lee
Linda Pabst
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
RES.#A67/11 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti
THAT above -noted presentation (c) be heard and received.
CARRIED
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) An email dated March 25, 2011 from Santiago Kunzle, Principal, Montgomery Sisam
Architects Inc., in regard to the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Firm of the Year
Award.
137
RES.#A68/11 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Richard Whitehead
Seconded by: Pamela Gough
THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received.
CARRIED
138
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
Santiago Kunzle <skunzle a@montgomerysisam.com>
03/25/2011 03:11 PM
Brian:
To "Brian Denney (bdenney@trca.on.ca)" <bdenney@trca.on.ca>
cc
Subjec FW: Architecture Canada I RAIC announces 2011 Firm Award
t recipient
I am vein pleased to share the news that we have been selected by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada as the
firm of the year award recipient (please see below). Our work is in no small measure a reflection of our
collaboration with our clients (the Restoration Seivices Centre being a prime example) and we feel that this award
is in pail also TRCA 's.
Best regards,
Santiago Kunzle
Dipl. Arch. Principal, LEED Accredited Professional
Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc.
197 Spadina Avenue Suite 301 Toronto ON AiAiw.montgomeiN-sisam.com
Direct Tel 416.364.8079 Office Tel 416.364.8079 x 227 Fax 416 364 7723
skunzle cr'�montgomeiN-sisam.com
139
I I i 11,01 1 1 1 � N
Architecture Canada I RAIC announces 2011
Firm Award recipient
OTTAWA March, 21, 2011 — Architecture Canada, its pleased to announce that it has selected
Montgomery Srisam Architects as the recipient of its 2011 Architectural Firm Award.
Founded in '1978, IMontgomery Sisam Architects is a mid-sized architectural practice wholly
owned by iits :seven principals and based in Toronto. Working with a Highly collaborative
approach, the practice provides clients with a full l range of services iincludliiing master planning,
architecture, interior design and urban design. The rich diversity of project types and scales
include healthcare, infrastructure, educational, recreational) and residential projects-
ln choosing Montgomery Siisam ,architects, the Jury noted it "recognized the service
excellence that this 'Toronto firm has, demonstrated, for over 30 years, iin every sphere of its
practice®
Montgomery Sisarn Architects reflects the muelticudlturall nature of Taranto with over 40 staff
from '12 countrie^s. This diverse and talented group ii.s the practice's greatest resource_ The
majority of the staff are LEEDS, Accredited Professionals reflecting the practice's comumrtlment
to "green" design as part of the fundamental principles of good planning and good
archiitecture. The practice has developed an impressive mentoring program to strengthen
skills and worklplace culture aswell as an innovative volunteer Iprogiram that supports their
special need's clients.
The practice has a, reputation for design leadership that its supported' by over 45 provincial,
national and iintemation,all design awards.
Detaiills and downloadable images are available at: RNIC Firm, Award)
The RAIlC Architectural Firm Award recognizes the achievements of the firm for its quality
of architecture, its service to its clliients„ its innovations in practice, contributions to
archiitectural education and to professional iinstitutions, and associations and public
recognition.
The Royal Archiitectuirall Institute of Canada its a voluntary national association established in
1,907 as the voice for architecture and its practice iin Canada. Representing mire than 4,300
architects, the RAIC is the Ileadiing voice of architecture in Canada whose mission is
•
To affinm that architecture iniatters;;
*
To celebrate the richness and diversity of archRecture in Canada,- and
To support architects in achieving e;Kcellence.
-30-
Fair more lintormartion
Syl`viie Powell
M,&doaLane Communications Inc..
(613) 290-1497
s.acvdelll _lien,iedialaii�ecrsm,ceirm7i
PRTYAn Aki":pltl"'^',„I ul,,YuHIM”, F it T 1 r{nA r1PPP",H1F,,(i?t1 A ).0,
.i ", it s, N , " , 'e k . I, d V a ,rt u' k 9, a ,. , ur I, , 'd _,4 1 Muu " au . iR i to , ti
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#A69/11 - TORONTO AND REGION REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
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: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Pamela Gough
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to work with
federal and provincial representatives to finalize the 2011-2012 Remedial Action Plan
agreements between TRCA and Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, respectively;
AND FURTHER THAT 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 2011-2012
RAP workplan and advance RAP objectives.
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 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 Conservation Ontario has been involved as a respondent in
the associated GLWQA public consultation processes.
141
On March 31, 2010, the 2007-2010 COA expired, as did the respective 2007-2010 RAP
agreements between TRCA and EC and MOE, respectively. 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 extended the
2007-2010 COA over the 2010-2011 federal/provincial fiscal year and maintained program
scope and funding at existing levels. The subsequent one-year COA extension for 2011-2012
will similarly enable agreements between TRCA and EC and MOE for the current fiscal year.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Current Remedial Action Plan Initiatives
The TRCA RAP workplan for 2011-2012 was approved at the RAP Team meeting of April 12,
2011. The 2011-2012 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 Program (RWMP), 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 2011-2012 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 redesignation of two 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 the review period, these two BUIs will be
formally redesignated to Not Impaired in 2011-2012, making them the first such redesignations
of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan.
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.
142
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 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 five LOE
events to date (on the themes of water diversion, biodiversity, the lake nearshore,
environmental contaminants and the Toronto landscape), and the audience response has been
sufficiently positive to continue this initiative into the coming year.
Challenges for the Future
As noted above, the COA extension supporting RAP in 2011-2012 is similar in scope and
resources to that provided in recent years. While the review and update of AOC targets will
provide realistic and achievable endpoints for 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 2011-2012 will be provided by funding agreements between
TRCA and EC ($250,000), and TRCA and MOE ($250,000). 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 the agreement between TRCA
and MOE will be for one year and expire on March 31, 2012, but that a four-year agreement
with Environment Canada will be implemented following the May 2, 2011 federal election and
will expire on March 31, 2015.
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 municipal capital funding, MOE, MNR and federal Great Lakes Sustainability Fund
which also advances 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: April 7, 2011
RES.#A70/11 - FUTURE FORESTS
Silvicultural Forest Pests Status Report. Status report on current pests
that threaten southern Ontario forest resources.
143
Moved by: Pamela Gough
Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to work with all
levels of government to monitor trends and conditions of current forest insect and
invasive plant populations and to formulate appropriate strategies to manage or eliminate
those threats;
AND FURTHER THAT the forest health working group continue to report back annually to
the Authority regarding issues and threats, their implications and recommended
responses.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #5/10, held on June 25, 2010, Resolution #A95/10 was approved, in part,
as follows:
...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;...
The Forest Health Working Group was established January 2010 to coordinate and monitor
forest health issues and to facilitate coordination and improve efficiencies between internal
departments and programs.
Forest Health Defined
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 applies to
both individual woodlands and 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:
144
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 working group has developed an initial list of forest health threats. This list has been
created with three distinct types of threats being identified. The first type has been categorized
as "Direct Threats from Urban Development". Included in this are three main factors:
• habitat loss;
• forest fragmentation;
• modification to forest hydrology.
The Second category is identified as "Systemic Threats":
• climate change;
• lack of, or ineffective management;
• soil quality and volume (more applicable to urban forests);
• encroachments;
• over/inappropriate use;
• invasive plant species (dog strangling vine, garlic mustard, European buckthorn).
The third category is identified as "Silvicultural Threats":
• Asian long -horned beetle;
• emerald ash borer;
• gypsy moth;
• beech bark disease - important to track progress of disease in TRCA jurisdiction;
• oak decline - not yet in TRCA jurisdiction;
• red pine decline - early response important to be cost effective.
The preceding is an initial list of priority forest health threats. Modifications will be made as new
threats become established or as existing threats have been abated.
TRCA has been working on numerous initiatives to improve forest health within our region. This
current report provides an update on the silvicultural forest health threats. These threats are
more dynamic than other threats and can change significantly from year to year and therefore
warrant more frequent reporting.
Staff will continue to bring reports forward to the Authority highlighting TRCA's ongoing
progress toward improved forest health.
145
2010 Silvicultural Forest Health Report
The silvicultural threats have been identified based on their potential for damage, the
importance of early detection and the likelihood of effective control.
An internal education program has been established to allow for staff from all departments to
be used for incidental monitoring of priority forest health threats. Representatives from the
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), Ministry of the Environment and the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) have been invited to assist with training and information
updates. By training staff to identify and monitor current forest threats, TRCA is able to collect
data on species distribution and population levels that would otherwise not be possible.
OMNR, the Canadian Forest Service (CFS), and CFIA all play a role in protecting forest
resources in Ontario. Under the Plant Protection Act it is the responsibility of CFIA to monitor for
the possible introduction of any new or potential pests, while OMNR and CFS continue to
monitor trends and population levels of established pests, both native and exotic. It is generally
acknowledged that any new forest pests will likely be very opportunistic and able to establish
without the threat of natural predation.
In general, 2010 was a year of maintained or decreased levels of forest insects and diseases
causing concern. In TRCA's region there were no significant new developments to report
related to emerald ash borer (EAB) or Asian long -horned beetle (ALHB) although EAB remains
a very significant long term concern. Gypsy moth populations and defoliation levels were low
in 2010 while populations of Eastern tent caterpillar remain high. Temperature extremes in
early May resulted in damage to young shoots and leaves and affected seed production in
several tree and shrub species.
Asian Lona -horned Beetle
ALHB was discovered in Vaughan in the fall of 2003. An active monitoring, regulation and
control program by CFIA and its partners (including TRCA) was established soon after.
Approximately 29,000 trees have been removed and destroyed to control insect spread from
the regulated area since 2004. Monitoring and sampling efforts did not detect any new infected
trees in 2009-2010. In fact no new finds have occurred since December 2007. Monitoring will
continue until 2013 when CFIA may declare this insect as eradicated from the regulated zone.
Emerald Ash Borer
EAB, an Asian species which was first detected in North America in 2002, remains a significant
concern in southern Ontario and the eastern United States. Its presence was first detected in
TRCA's watersheds in late 2007. In early 2010 the CFIA established an EAB regulated zone
throughout the GTA - the cities of Toronto and Hamilton and regional municipalities of Halton,
Peel, York, Durham and Niagara. Outside of TRCA watersheds new detections occurred in
2010 in several non-regulated areas in southern Ontario.
146
Several southern Ontario regional and municipal governments have begun to manage for EAB
to spread the financial impacts over several years. These agencies are primarily attempting to
limit public liability associated with the anticipated hazard potential of dead and dying ash
trees. Street trees and trees located within high use public areas are of the greatest concern.
TRCA's greatest level of potential liability is in areas of paid public use, including properties like
Black Creek Pioneer Village, Indian Line Campground, Kortright Centre for Conservation and
others. The TRCA Hazard Tree Policy dictates how hazardous trees will be managed and gives
specific direction for various types of property.
To date EAB has not been detected on TRCA-owned or managed lands. The closest known
infestation to TRCA property is located in the Regional Road 7 and Weston Road area.
Inventories to determine impacts have been completed at Black Creek Pioneer Village and
Indian Line Campground due to their proximity to this known EAB infestation, the high level of
public care associated with these facilities and the significant infrastructure investment. Tree
mortality and associated costs on TRCA rural properties will be primarily restricted to the
property boundaries and areas adjacent to public use, including forest trails. Individual ash
tree inventories are being completed to allow for a better understanding of the potential costs
associated with these areas of concern. The ash component of TRCA managed forest
properties is relatively small with the anticipated financial effect on forest resources expected to
be manageable. The Forest Health Working Group is developing a strategy to manage
anticipated tree mortality and potential ecological impacts.
Eastern Tent and Forest Tent Caterpillar
Large numbers of Eastern tent caterpillar tents were noted again in the spring of 2010. Eastern
tent caterpillars tend to defoliate cherry and apple trees but may also attack other hardwoods.
In general this species is of minor concern, however defoliation does stress affected trees.
Large populations of forest tent caterpillar (a species that does not actually construct a tent)
were observed in 2010 in many areas of southern Ontario outside of TRCA's watersheds. This
is a species whose populations tend to follow an 8 to 10 year cycle and staff will be watching its
populations in 2011.
Weather Damage
Temperature extremes in May of this year affected some trees. Extreme temperature swings
from very warm to well below freezing and back within very short time frames resulted in both
frost damage and scorch of young shoots, leaves and flowers. TRCA staff noted some
mortality of reforestation seedlings that was attributed to these temperature extremes. Partial
defoliation of some mature trees also occurred and seed crops of several tree species were
adversely affected.
Red Pine Decline
TRCA staff continue to monitor red pine forest stands for signs of decline. Most notably the Peel
Tract on Centreville Creek Road had a very large and several smaller decline pockets - pockets
in which most or all of the overstory pine trees were dead or dying. The pine plantations in this
stand were marked and thinned during 2010 to release existing hardwood tree saplings in the
understory and to hopefully limit future decline of the retained pine legacy trees.
147
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The TRCA Forest Health Working Group will provide to the Authority a report identifying any
advances in policy, new partnerships established and progress made toward achieving natural
heritage system objectives during the previous year. A current list of Forest Health Threats and
a comprehensive strategy to deal with the impacts and cost implications of EAB will be
included with that report.
The FHWG will continue to report back annually to the Authority on current and emerging
issues, immediate threats and their implications and recommendations on actions to be taken.
Report prepared by: Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379
Emails: thildebrand@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379
Emails: thildebrand@trca.on.ca
Date: March 08, 2011
RES.#A71/11 - WEST NILE VIRUS PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT
West Nile Virus Vector Mosquito Larval Monitoring and Surveillance -
2010 and Five Year Data Summary. Receipt of West Nile Virus program
reports: Annual Report on West Nile Virus Vector Mosquito Larval
Monitoring and Surveillance - 2010; The Effect of Water Quality and
Aquatic Vegetation on West Nile Virus Vector Larval Abundance in
Toronto and Region Wetlands and Stormwater Management Ponds.
Moved by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT the annual report'West Nile Virus Vector Mosquito Larval Monitoring and
Surveillance - 2010' be received;
THAT the five year data summary report'The Effect of Water Quality and Aquatic
Vegetation on West Nile Virus Vector Larval Abundance in Toronto and Region Wetlands
and Stormwater Management Ponds' be received;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to circulate
both the annual report and the five year data summary report to the Council committees
responsible for overseeing public health and the public health units of the regional
municipalities of Peel, Durham, York and the City of Toronto;
THAT TRCA 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 vector larval
mosquito monitoring in wetlands and stormwater management ponds on TRCA-owned
land during the 2011 summer season.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
West Nile virus (WNV) is a seasonal disease known in Canada since 2001. Two key mosquito
species, Culex pipiens and Culex restuans, are the primary species or "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 mosquito activity for a given year since their
population dynamics change from year to year, vary across jurisdictions and are influenced by
a number of environmental factors. WNV management is focused on prevention and control
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, 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 mosquito species, 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 #2/10, held on March 26, 2010, Resolution #A22/10 was approved, in part,
as follows:
THAT the Annual Report on West Nile Virus Vector Monitoring and Surveillance in Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) wetlands and stormwater management ponds
in 2009 be received;...
...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.
As per the Authority Resolution, the 2010 WNV surveillance and monitoring activities were
implemented. Data collected on aquatic vegetation and basic water quality (WQ) parameters
such as conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature and total dissolved solids (TDS) over
a five year period (2005 - 2009) were also analyzed to determine the effect of these factors on
the distribution, abundance and presence/absence of WNV vector larvae. The reason for this
additional analysis was that although the WQ and aquatic vegetation data had been collected
and summarized on an annual basis since 2005, the results were either inconclusive or not
significant owing to the nature of the small datasets. Hence, a combined data analysis was
carried out in 2010 with a goal to strengthen the results obtained from the annual summaries
and make WNV risk prevention management recommendations for wetlands and SWMPs.
Summary of WNV Program Activities for 2010
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 2010 focused on continued update and
distribution of WNV related information and addressing public and staff enquires on WNV and
standing water complaints. TRCA received a total of eight standing water complaints in 2010,
of which four were concerned with TRCA properties. Of the four complaint sites, three were on
lands directly managed by TRCA, and one site was under management agreement with the
City of Markham. None of the complaint sites required larvicide application. In addition, TRCA
also received a Health Order from the Medical Officer of Peel Regional Health under the Ontario
Regulation 199/03 in March, 2010 to assist with the implementation of vector mosquito larvae
control measures in the Heart Lake Wetland Complex in Brampton, when necessary (the Health
Order is given to TRCA in anticipation of potential Iarviciding each year). Accordingly, Peel
Regional Health staff had notified that Iarviciding was carried out at one site (between
Sandalwood Pkwy and Countryside Dr.) on two occasions in the Heart Lake Wetland Complex
during 2010 WNV season. Collaborations with regional heath units required TRCA staff attend
various Regional Health WNV committee meetings, provide information on sensitive areas and
train Regional Health staff from Halton Hamilton, and Durham in identifying vector larvae.
Summary of Results Obtained in 2010
WNV larval surveillance and monitoring was undertaken in 38 wetlands and nine SWMPs
across the Toronto region from May 31st to August 20th, 2010 to identify species distribution,
abundance and composition for mosquitos. Sampling yielded a record high number of larvae
(9,398 in total) from both wetlands and SWMPs, of which 8,261 alone were collected from the
wetlands. Of the larvae identified, 35.6% were non -vectors and 64.4% were vector larvae.
Culex territans (non -vector) and Aedes vexans (vector) were the most commonly collected (34%
each) mosquito species from the wetlands. Unlike the previous sampling years, the
percentages of vectors collected from the wetlands were higher in 2010, and the increase was
due to higher number of Aedes vexans from these areas. Aedes vexans is a floodwater species
and requires frequent flooding and drying for the eggs to hatch. During exceptionally wet
summers the populations of Aedes vexans can increase dramatically (due to frequent flooding),
and as a result this species is usually considered the worst pest in Canada during wet
summers. The preferred larval habitats for this species are open, shallow grass -filled
depressions in pastures, roadside ditches and temporary woodland pools that have the
tendency to get periodic flooding. The summer of 2010 was the wettest since 2005 (data
compiled from TRCA rain gauges located close to WNV monitoring sites). During the 2010
monitoring season, the majority of the Aedes vexans larvae were collected from four wetland
sites, of which three are temporary woodland pools that flood during heavy rainfall events.
Culex pipiens and Culex restuans, the two key species implicated with WNV, represented 19.70/c
and 3.8% of the larvae identified respectively, from the wetlands. This result was similar to the
previous findings of low occurrences of these key vectors in wetland habitats. WNV risk ranking
resulted in six sites being identified as "hotspots" for WNV vector larvae in the wetlands; only
one of which was larvicided (Claireville Conservation Area: Vectobac 200G) in 2010. "Hotspots"
are sites determined to have a high number of WNV vector species present during any of the
sampling visits and would be ranked as a high-risk site.
150
A total of 1,137 larvae were collected from the SWMPs representing only 12% of all larvae
collected during 2010. Among the identified larvae, WNV vector species comprised 88.7%
while the non -vectors made up the remaining 12.3%, clearly indicating that the mosquitoes
collected from SWMPs were predominantly those associated with the virus. Culex pipiens was
the most abundant vector species found in SWMPs, representing 77.8% of the total number of
larvae identified from the SWMPs and Culex restuans totalled only 7.7%. Culex territans, the
only non -vector from the SWMPs, comprised 11.4% of the identified species. Aedes vexans,
the most commonly collected vector species from the wetlands in 2010 was represented by
only one single individual in the SWMPs, suggesting that SWMPs do not provide appropriate
habitat to complete its life cycle. Risk ranking for the larvae collected from stormwater
management ponds resulted in one site "L'Amoreaux Park North Pond" being a "hotspot" for
Culex pipiens. This pond is under Management Agreement with the City of Toronto and
subsequently that pond was larvicided by a licensed contractor.
Overall, the results from 2010 monitoring and surveillance have indicated that localized WNV
"hotspots" continue to occur, although infrequently, and they vary from site to site and year to
year in TRCA's jurisdiction. Identifying these "hotspots" resulted in risk prevention and judicial
management of high vector numbers by making environmentally sound and objective
decisions.
A copy of the Annual Report: "West Nile Virus Vector Mosquito Larval Monitoring and
Surveillance - 2010" will be available on the corporate website (www.trca.on.ca; key word: West
Nile Virus) for reference.
Five Year Data Summary
Although monitoring the abundance, distribution and management of vector species is the
primary objective for TRCA's WNV Program activities, data on aquatic vegetation and water
quality parameters such as conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature and TDS were
collected during every field visit to ultimately assess if any of these factors influence the vector
mosquito abundance. Characterizing the waterbodies based on the factors contributing to
mosquito breeding will help determine which waterbodies are more conducive for mosquito
proliferation and also to determine the preventive measures for future mosquito management.
In this respect, monitoring data collected from 48 wetlands and 10 SWMPs during 2005 to 2009
were analyzed with the following objectives:
1. strengthen some of the conclusions about the influence of water quality on mosquito
abundance as suggested in previous reports by TRCA;
2. investigate the relationship between mosquito abundance, water quality measures and
aquatic vegetation, and predict what type of waterbodies in TRCA's jurisdiction pose a
threat in terms of WNV vector breeding; and
3. make recommendations that would help prevent potential vector breeding conditions.
Below is the summary of the 2005-2009 data analyses:
• Overall wetlands continue to produce higher numbers of mosquito larvae than SWMPs,
however wetlands support a greater species diversity and a higher percentage of
non -vector species.
• The majority of the larvae collected from wetlands (60% of 14,917 larvae) were non -vector
species. Culex territans (a non -vector) was the predominant species (59%) while the key
WNV vector species Culex pipiens represented about 18% of the total identified.
151
• Larval sampling in stormwater management ponds yielded primarily vector mosquito
species (92% of the 4,893 larvae), the majority of which were represented by Culex pipiens
(85%). Culex restuans, the species implicated in WNV along with Culex pipiens, only
occurred in a small proportion (3%) in wetlands as well as the SWMPs.
• Analysis of rainfall data indicated that while very heavy rainfall decreased the overall larval
abundance, moderate amounts of rainfall (wet years) increased the overall larval
abundance in the wetlands. On the contrary, rainfall had a negative impact on the number
of larvae collected from the SWMPs. Dry summers were found to have higher numbers of
larvae in the stormwater ponds.
• Although overall differences were noticed between the wetlands and SWMPs in all the five
water quality parameters examined, only the amount of dissolved oxygen was found to be
significantly different in the detailed temporal analysis. Conductivity and TDS were found to
be closely associated with the occurrence of vector species (Culex pipiens, Culex restuans
and Culex salinarius) in the stormwater ponds but results were also not significant. Smaller
sample size for the SWMPs, time and frequency of water quality data collection were
suggested as possible reasons for these non-significant results.
• Both marginal and total emergent vegetation were significantly higher in the wetlands than
the SWMPs. Higher vegetation coverage in the wetlands appears to provide good habitat
for larvae. Where vegetation coverage (in total or marginal areas) was greater than 75%,
there was a significantly higher probability that mosquito larvae (vector or otherwise) were
present. However, vector larvae did not occur more frequently at wetland sites; the
proportion of larval samples which included vector larvae was higher in SWMPs (93%) than
in wetlands (75%).
In conclusion the results found include:
1. wetlands support higher numbers of mosquito larvae and a higher species diversity
than stormwater management ponds, but overall the percentage of WNV vector species
in wetlands was lower compared to stormwater ponds;
2. since SWMPs predominantly harbor the WNV vector species, these need to be
monitored much more carefully;
3. mosquito and WNV vector management in the SWMPs should include proper
maintenance and vegetation control in order to prevent mosquito breeding since denser
vegetation seems to favor higher numbers of mosquito larvae in general.
A copy of the full report West Nile Virus program five year data summary: "The Effect of Water
Quality and Aquatic Vegetation on West Nile Virus Vector Larval Abundance in Toronto and
Region Wetlands and Stormwater Management Ponds" will be available on the corporate
website (www.trca.on.ca; key word: West Nile Virus, water quality, aquatic vegetation).
152
RATIONALE
The overarching rationale for undertaking vector larval monitoring is that a variety of wetland
habitats on TRCA properties such as marshes, woodland pools and ponds have the potential to
provide breeding habitats for mosquitoes because of the permanent availability of water. As
the largest landowner in the Toronto region, TRCA has used the WNV monitoring and
surveillance activities as a means of ensuring "due diligence" and to proactively manage the
WNV issue on their properties. The approach taken - to identify the presence of WNV vector
species has ensured that larvicide has only been applied to "hotspots" where high numbers of
vector species have been found. Based on the number of sites assessed by TRCA on an
annual basis, this approach has been found to be a cost effective alternative to wider scale
preventative larvicide application.
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 identification of isolated "hotspots" in wetlands and stormwater ponds during the
summer months warrants the ongoing annual monitoring and surveillance program.
Further, the data collected through the program has been received with interest from
researchers at York University who have been involved with modeling WNV occurrence with
respect to various factors including climate change.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will continue surveillance activities at approximately 38 sites on TRCA-owned lands and
will continue to liaise with regional health units and participate in WNV advisory committees
throughout the 2011 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 2011 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.
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 specifically within
SWMPs and their relationship, if any, to WNV vector mosquitoes. The results of this study are
expected by the summer of 2011.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the 2011 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 2011 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.
153
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 8, 2011
RES.#A72/11 - REGIONAL WATERSHED MONITORING PROGRAM
Annual Report of Activity. Update on the Regional Watershed Monitoring
Program and 2010 Progress Report.
Moved by: John Sprovieri
Seconded by: Chin Lee
WHEREAS the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Regional Watershed
Monitoring Program collects data that directly supports and informs many of the key
planning and reporting mechanisms of TRCA;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED 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;
THAT the 2010 Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (RWMP) progress report be
received;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to circulate the progress report to the
program's funding and network partners.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Regional Watershed Monitoring Program is a science -based, long-term monitoring initiative
developed by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Its purpose is to collect aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystem data at the watershed and subwatershed scale, and across the region as
a whole. The program provides the data and information that informs the key planning and
reporting mechanisms of TRCA. Further, the program has enhanced TRCA's planning and
coordination of monitoring activities, helped to standardize monitoring methods, and has
helped fill several key watershed data gaps that have been identified. It also facilitates the
communication of data availability and data sharing both internally and with external agencies.
The RWMP focuses on several key elements of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem, including:
• Stream Water Quality - assesses a variety of basic and enhanced water chemistry.
• Stream Water Quantity - stream gauges and in -stream measurements monitor changes in
the water levels of the region's watercourses.
• Aquatic Habitat and Species - including aquatic insects, fish populations, algae, stream
temperature and the physical shape of the stream.
154
• Terrestrial Habitat and Species - staff and trained volunteers monitor flora and fauna species
and communities through biological inventories and fixed plots.
• Meteorology - assesses the contribution of rain and snow to the hydrology of the region.
• Groundwater Quantity and Quality - assessed at a series of wells throughout the region.
The long-term annual data collected through the program has historically been shared with
partner municipalities and other agencies for use in their respective planning, implementation
and reporting activities, and can provide baseline data in support of "before and after" analysis
related to ecosystem and infrastructure assessments. Staff has been pursuing new
partnerships with academic institutions in order to further common research objectives as well
as share data in support of academic study. Data collected to date illustrate the effects of
urbanization on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, specifically showing a trend towards
declining water quality, fish communities, quality and quantity of terrestrial habitat, and the
representation of species in areas of increasing urban land use. Where restoration and
recovery plans are implemented, future monitoring will help track the progress of such
enhancement initiatives.
2010 Monitoring Activities
The 2010 progress report provides an overview of each component of the monitoring program,
presents highlights from the 2010 season, and describes the types of data available and how it
has been used. It also highlights the "network approach" to data collection and how data can
be collected and 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, the agencies involved in the network and the number of sites monitored in 2010.
155
Table 1 - Regional Watershed Monitoring Network
Mdnitoring'Cornpohent
# ofSites
Agonc /Partner
2010
Aquatic Habitat and
Species
Benthos
156
TRCA/MOE
Fish/Habitat
47
TRCA/MOE
Fluvial Geomorphology
50
TRCA
Stream Temperature
60
TRCA
West Nile Virus Monitoring
47
TRCA/MOE/Municipality
Water Quality
Surface Water
38
TRCA/MOE/City of
Toronto
Fish Biomonitoring
-
MOE
Lake Partner Program
-
MOE
Groundwater
21
TRCA/MOE
Water Quantity
Stream Flow Gauges
33
TRCA/Env. Canada
Base Flow/Low Flow
160
TRCA
Precipitation
31
TRCA/Municipalities
Snow Course
10
TRCA/MNR
Groundwater
21
TRCA/MOE
Terrestrial Natural Heritage
Terrestrial Fixed Plots
55
TRCA
Systematic Inventories
1,560 ha
TRCA
Terrestrial Volunteer Network
55
TRCA/Volunteers
2010 Results and Highlights:
Since the program's inception in 2001 data has been collected, summarized and analyzed, and
in this respect 2010 was no exception. However, 2010 was unique because of the development
of The Living City Report Card. Extensive analysis was conducted using multiple years of data
to look for spatial and temporal trends linking biological, physical, chemical and land -use data.
The result has been a deeper understanding of the stressors impacting the regions natural
resources. This analysis will become an ongoing initiative, building on the growing data set and
the analysis conducted to date. The following highlights some of the results obtained to date:
• Fish community and in -stream habitat data has been used to establish baseline aquatic
conditions at monitoring 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 goby.
156
In 2010, data from more than 150 sites was compared across nine years of sampling. Biotic
indices such as the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and native species richness (number of
native species) were calculated and compared to environmental and landscape variables
such as land -use. A significant relationship was identified between IBI, native species
richness and road density. Road density acts a surrogate for urbanization and incorporates
many factors associated with the urban landscape. It was found that as road density
increases there is a corresponding decrease in IBI score and native species richness. This
relationship can be used to assess the current conditions in the watershed but can also be
used to predict potential changes as a result of increased urbanization through
development. For The Living City Report Card a grade was given to each watershed based
on the number of native fish species found compared to the expected number of native fish
species in an undeveloped system. The grades for the watersheds range from an "A" in the
Rouge, to an "F" for the Mimico, Don and Highland Creek watersheds.
• Stream water quality has been assessed through ongoing monthly sampling at
approximately 38 sites since 2002. This work follows the Provincial Water Quality
Monitoring Protocol and contributes data to a provincial dataset in addition to providing
regional data on a long list of water parameters including basic water chemistry, nutrients,
heavy metals and bacteria. A water quality index was used to assess the water quality
conditions in each watershed and within the Toronto region as a whole for inclusion in The
Living City Report Card. The overall water quality grade for the TRCA jurisdiction was "C"
with the Duff ins Creek watershed receiving the highest rating (A) and the Don River and
Highland Creek watersheds receiving the lowest grade (D). Overall the analysis of the data
indicates that water quality in our streams and rivers varies widely. Some sites are close to
pristine, while others are more significantly impaired. Although there has been a decline in
some contaminants like lead and phosphorous over the last three decades, significant
increases in others like chloride have been observed. Overall there is a strong linkage
between the amount of urbanization in a watershed and the quality of the water sampled at
each monitoring site.
• Benthic invertebrates are bottom dwelling aquatic insects that are considered to be
sentinel species within watersheds. As a result changes in their diversity and abundance is
an indicator of environmental change. Data from 2002-2008 was used to calculate several
indexes to assess aquatic health. Results show that there has been a decline in the benthic
community since 2002 that is likely attributed to increased urbanization and changes in
water quality, particularly increases in chloride concentrations. Similar to the water quality
and fish species data, there is a strong linkage to road density indicating that urbanization is
a key driver of aquatic health.
157
• Terrestrial habitat and species were monitored in 2010 at a number of forest, wetland and
meadow plots and through 15 biological inventory sites that covered approximately 1,560
hectares within the TRCA jurisdiction. These assessments allow for detailed mapping and
identification of flora/fauna for land management and planning purposes and to document
changes in species abundance and distribution within the TRCA jurisdiction. One of the
key components of this monitoring is the development and maintenance of a scoring and
ranking system for the region's flora and fauna species. This ranking system is based on a
set of criteria that focus mainly on a species' sensitivity to development impacts, and is
designed to identify the conservation needs and priorities of the region's flora and fauna
before they disappear. This listing of "Species of Conservation Concern" has been an
important tool that has been used extensively in various planning, development application
and land management decisions, and has been used to support various modeling
exercises such as TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy.
• Low flow/baseflow monitoring provides an indication of amount of precipitation that is
"recharged" through the ground into the groundwater system and is available as baseflow in
the watercourses during the summer months. In spite of being one of the wettest summers
in recent record, 2010 low flows measured at the outlets of TRCA's watersheds decreased
from 4% (Rouge) to 46% (Etobicoke Creek) from 2009. This reduction is being attributed to
a 42% reduction in precipitation during the winter and spring seasons. This combined with
the distribution and intensity of rainfall during the summer months meant that more water
was flowing quickly through the system and not being "recharged". This has direct
implication to the climate change predictions of frequent and intense precipitation events,
and the resulting impact on the regions groundwater and baseflow resources.
• Groundwater quality and quantity monitoring has been conducted in partnership with the
Ministry of Environment since 2003 under the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network
(PGMN). Groundwater level measurements in PGMN wells are collected through hourly
water level measurements with electronic data loggers. The data is retrieved through either
installed telemetry systems or downloaded during field visits by a TRCA technician. The
water level data collected indicates that groundwater level fluctuations have been typically
less than one metre since 2003. These fluctuations are not considered significant and
indicate stable groundwater conditions. The only exceptions are rising water levels in two
PGMN wells in the Heart Lake Conservation Area in Brampton. Groundwater levels in these
two wells have risen two to four metres since 2005. TRCA staff is assessing this situation
with staff from the City of Brampton and the Region of Peel to determine if the rising
groundwater poses a risk to local infrastructure.
Baseline groundwater quality was assessed for a broad list of parameters including general
chemistry as well as a broad list of organic parameters and nutrients. In following years only
selected wells were assessed for a reduced set of parameters including general chemistry
and metals. In 2010, 15 of the 21 wells were assessed. Concentrations of all measured
parameters have been well below the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS) since the
program began. The only potential water quality concern is the detection of nitrate at 7
mg/L in a shallow PGMN well at Milne Park, in Markham. Although this concentration is
below the ODWS of 10 mg/L, the well is directly down gradient of a subdivision and is likely
effected by local application of lawn fertilizers. Another well in Caledon East is likely
impacted due to the same reason, but at a lower concentration of 3 mg/L.
158
• West Nile virus (WNV) monitoring is undertaken in selected natural wetlands and
stormwater management ponds throughout the TRCA jurisdiction. It provides a mechanism
for ensuring due diligence on the part of TRCA through the identification of sites considered
"high risk" for the transmission of WNV and to collect data that helps support the principles
of wetland protection and enhancement. Data collected between 2005 and 2009 was
summarized to look at differences between wetlands and stormwater ponds in terms of the
abundance and species of mosquito larvae found, and to examine the effect of water quality
and aquatic vegetation on the species of mosquitoes that are typically associated with
WNV. Data shows that although wetlands support a higher diversity of mosquitoes and
overall higher numbers than stormwater management ponds, the percentage of the typical
WNV species in wetlands was lower compared to stormwater ponds. Further it was
determined that a higher density of vegetation around the perimeter and centre of
stormwater ponds increased the chances of finding WNV mosquito larvae. A detailed
report on WNV is included in the agenda for this meeting.
Additional Highlights:
• Data collected within the last ten years of the RWMP was analysed for inclusion in The
Living City Report Card. Specifically data was used to assess the Water, Land Use and
Biodiversity indicators that were presented in this report.
• TRCA hosted a GTA Conservation Authorities Watershed Monitoring Forum designed to
highlight the monitoring programs that local conservation authorities (CA) use to monitor
and track their watersheds, facilitate networking among CAs and their various partners to
enhance data sharing and collaboration, and highlight the benefit and "value" of long-term
monitoring.
• Three additional historic Ministry of the Environment stations were included in monthly
sampling starting in October 2010, as part of the Duff ins Heights/Seaton Lands
Development Project.
• Results obtained through the program were presented at a number of scientific conferences
including the International Association of Great Lakes Research, Latornell Symposium and
the American Fisheries Society Ontario Chapter Annual Meeting.
• TRCA staff delivered several technical training courses designed to promote standardized
monitoring methods and to increase the comparability and accuracy of data collected in the
Toronto region, most notably the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol Training Course and
nd
the 2 Annual Streamflow Monitoring Techniques Course.
• Data from the RWMP was instrumental in TRCA's technical assessment under the Drinking
Water Source Protection Program.
2010 Products
To date there have been a number of reports that describe components of the Regional
Watershed Monitoring Program, along with applications of the data and information generated
by the network. In the past, 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 "State of the Environment" reporting
exercises conducted by TRCA's regional partners.
159
In 2010 the following reports were produced using data and or analysis obtained through the
RWMP:
• The Living City Report Card, 2011;
• Proposed Assessment Report: Toronto and Region Source Protection Area;
• Terrestrial Biological Inventory and Assessments: Maple Nature Reserve, Black Creek
Pioneer Village, Beechwood Wetland and Cottonwood Flats, Bartley Smith Greenway,
Teston/Pine Valley, Mimico Waterfront Park, East Duff ins Headwaters, Petticoat Creek CA,
West Gormley Lands and Caledon East;
• Ontario Power Generation: Terrestrial Long-term Monitoring Project (Year 1);
• Algae Bioassessment Summary Reports were completed for the following conservation
authorities participating in a 2009 partnership study: Ausable Bayfield, Cataraqui River,
Credit Valley, Nottawasaga Valley, Saugeen Valley. October 2010;
• Algae Biomonitoring Protocol developed in partnership with the Ministry of the Environment;
• Natural Channel Design: 5 Year Progress Report Terrestrial Biological Inventory and
Assessment. November 2010;
• West Nile Virus Vector Mosquito Larval Monitoring and Surveillance - 2009: Annual Report;
• The Effect of Water Quality and Aquatic Vegetation on West Nile Virus Vector Larval
Abundance in Toronto and Region Wetlands and Stormwater Management Ponds;
• 2009 Surface Water Quality Summary Report;
• Long-term Water Quality Monitoring: Trends in the Toronto and Region AOC. Poster for the
IAGLR Conference May 2010.
One of the key "products" of the RWMP is the data collected on an annual basis. As such, the
storage, security and retrieval of the data are extremely important. Ongoing efforts to
streamline the input, quality assessment/quality control and retrieval of datasets currently
stored in TRCA's relational database(s) include the development of a staff Database Working
Group and enhancements to the connection between central databases and TRCA Geographic
Information System software. Datasets have been shared with regional and provincial partners
in order to support broader reporting functions.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Planning for the 2011 field season has commenced and in some cases is well underway.
Aquatic habitat and species monitoring will be started in late May and will include fish, habitat
and stream temperature monitoring focused on the Don River, Highland Creek, Mimico Creek
and Petticoat Creek watersheds. Ongoing monthly data collection including surface water
quality monitoring, commenced in January.
A full roll -up of the data collected since 2001 is currently underway and will continue through
2011. 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.
Staff will continue to foster partnerships with community groups, academics and other agencies
involved in monitoring activities through the watershed monitoring network. This will include
looking for opportunities to share data and information through the publication of results and
presentation at suitable conferences and workshops.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the 2010 Regional Watershed Monitoring Program was made available through
capital grants from TRCA's regional partners and through the Remedial Action Plan. Funding
for the 2011 program has been identified from similar sources/partners as follows:
Source
2010
2011
City of Toronto
$300,000
$330,000
Region of Peel
$315,000
$330,000
Region of York
$315,000
$315,000
Region of Durham
$65,000
$65,000
RAP MOU
$50,100
$55,500
TOTAL
$1,045,100
$1,095,500
Other partners such as the Ministry of the Environment have provided approximately $2,500 in
funding annually for equipment purchase and maintenance under the Provincial Groundwater
Monitoring Network and in-kind support of approximately $20,000 annually for the laboratory
analysis of water samples collected under the PGMN and the Provincial Water Quality
Monitoring Network.
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 6, 2011
RES.#A73/11 - GLEN STEWART RAVINE MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Approval to enter into an Agreement with the City of Toronto to
implement the Glen Stewart Ravine Master Plan on their behalf.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: John Parker
THAT approval be granted to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto to
implement the Glen Stewart Ravine Master Plan;
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
161
BACKGROUND
Glen Stewart Ravine is located in the City of Toronto, south of Kingston Road and west of
Balsam Avenue. A small watercourse known as Ames Creek flows through the ravine which is
mainly fed by groundwater.
In 1981 Glen Stewart Ravine was designated as a protected area under the City of Toronto's
Ravine Protection By-law. The ravine area is owned by the City of Toronto and regulated by
both the City and TRCA. The City developed a trail system through the ravine to encourage
public use of the natural feature, however ongoing seepage from the ravine slopes, heavy foot
and bicycle traffic off of designated trail areas, and natural weathering of existing structures
(e.g., staircases, railings) has degraded the ravine, prompting the City of Toronto to develop a
master plan to address these deficiencies.
The scope of implementation includes replacement of aging wooden bridges and staircases,
trail surfacing, slope stabilization works, site furnishings, signs, fencing and overall site
restoration.
RATIONALE
Recognizing Restoration Services' experience in erosion control and site restoration, the City of
Toronto requested staff's assistance in the implementation of the Glen Stewart Ravine
Management Plan.
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
implementation and overall management (i.e. project management, permits and approvals)
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 budget is estimated at $801,330.20 plus HST, plus a 10% contingency to be expended by
TRCA with permission from the City of Toronto. The cost of the project is 100% recoverable
from the City of Toronto under account 185-33.
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: April 11, 2011
Attachments: 1
162
Attachment 1
Legend
Gien Stewart Raviiine
Appy+roxknateLiniitsof StudyArea
TRCA Property
onslehWion
for The living Cali+
75 37.5 ID 7E. eaters
163
aY i IAP
RES.#A74/11 - TORONTO HISTORICAL PARK
Node Construction and Signage Installation. Award of contract for the
construction/completion and installation of all site furnishings and
signage for the Shared Path/Sentier Partage-Toronto Historical Park.
Moved by: Pamela Gough
Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne
THAT the contract for the construction/completion and installation of all site furnishings
and signage for the Shared Path/Sentier Partage-Toronto Historical Park project be
awarded to Glenoaks Landscape Contractors at a total cost not to exceed $132,059.50
plus HST plus 10% contingency allowance, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Shared Path/Sentier Partage-Toronto Historical Park project is a joint partnership between
the City of Toronto, Heritage Toronto, La Societe d'histoire de Toronto and TRCA, and is
located in the Lower Humber valley, south of Dundas Street West to the mouth of the Humber
River, in the City of Toronto. The project was initiated in spring 2008 and the anticipated
completion date of Phase I will be early June 2011.
Phase I of the project includes the construction of pedestrian nodes, to be installed along the
existing trailway in the Lower Humber, as resting points with landscaping and interpretative
signage. The storyline of each respective node (13 in total) highlights the history and
development of Canada within the Lower Humber valley from the perspectives of the three
founding nations (First Nations, French and British).
RATIONALE
The following seven vendors were asked to provide quotes on the construction/completion of
nine nodes, the landscaping of 13 nodes, and the installation of 38 single -sided pedestal signs
measuring 30" x 24" with 38 pedestal mounts, four double -sided freestanding signs measuring
68" x 48" with four posts, four single -sided freestanding signs measuring 68" x 48" with four
posts, and four single -sided signs measuring 68" x 48" with four wall -mount frames at 13 nodes
and other specified trailhead locations:
• Gateman & Milloy;
• Glenoaks Landscape Contractors;
• Griffith Property Services;
• Hank Deenan Landscaping;
• Parkland Nurseries;
• The Beach Gardner;
• Salivan Landscape Ltd.
Quotations were opened by Finance and Business Services, Watershed Management and
Restoration Services staff (Jim Dillane, Gary Wilkins, Susan Robertson and Mark Lowe) on
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 with the following results:
164
BIDDERS
QUOTATION
(Plus HST)
Glenoaks Landscape Contractors
$92,009
Griffith Property Services
$123,022
Hank Deenan Landscaping
$125,404
No other tenders were received.
Further to the issuance of the above -referenced tender, the City of Toronto requested TRCA to
undertake additional work in association with this project, including the installation of a
stairwell, trail and landscape enhancements at one of the nodes. Based on this request, TRCA
staff requested Glenoak Landscape Contractors for a quote for the additional work. Glenoak
Landscape Contractors provided a quote within staff estimates with unit costs consistent to the
first quote.
Based on the bids received, staff recommends that the contract be awarded to Glenoaks
Landscape Contractors for the construction/completion and installation of all site furnishings
and signage for a total amount, including the additional work requested by the City of Toronto,
not to exceed $132,059.50 plus HST plus 10% contingency allowance.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds required to complete this project, totalling $132,059.50 plus HST plus 10% contingency
allowance, are available through the City of Toronto's Planning and Urban Design Civic
Improvement capital program and TD Friends of the Environment held by TRCA in the Toronto
Historical Park budget account 113-34.
Report prepared by: Susan Robertson, extension 5325
Emails: srobertson@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Susan Robertson, extension 5325
Emails: srobertson@trca.on.ca
Date: March 29, 2011
RES.#A75/11 - BOB HUNTER MEMORIAL PARK
Extension of Contract with Friends of the Rouge Valley for Forest
Planting. Extension of contract to implement parts of phase two of the
natural forest planting by non-governmental organizations in Bob Hunter
Memorial Park under the Southeast Collector agreement Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority has with York Region.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne
165
THAT the contract to complete phase two of the natural forest planting be extended to
Friends of the Rouge Watershed (FRW) at a total cost not to exceed an additional
$86,695.65, plus HST for a total contract cost not to exceed $198,000.00 plus HST.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #3/10, held on April 30, 2010, Resolution #A49/10 was approved, in part,
as follows:
...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;...
At Executive Committee Meeting #2/11, held on March 4, 2011, Resolution #835/11 was
approved, in part, as follows:
THAT the Friends of the Rouge Watershed (FRW) be retained to carry out the natural
forest planting of a 12.5 hectare area at the Bob Hunter Memorial Park for a total cost not
to exceed $111,304.35, plus HST;...
Subsequent to that initial contract with FRW, Rouge Park staff approached Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) to request that an additional seven hectares be provided to
FRW in the Bob Hunter Memorial Park (BHMP) area under the same terms as the first contract.
This new area is being proposed as a substitute for a similar sized area elsewhere in Rouge
Park that had previously been awarded to the FRW, under the Rouge Park Alliance (RPA)
project approvals process. It became unavailable because of an access permission issue with
Ontario Realty Corporation. This new area in Bob Hunter Memorial Park is the only area in
Rouge Park that is unencumbered by tenant leases and is large enough to substitute for the
unavailable area. This new area would have a contractual value of an additional $63,000, plus
HST, and the RPA will reduce their project funding to FRW accordingly.
In addition, previous negotiations with FRW for planting of a 30 metre roadside buffer similar to
the design that FRW planted in 2010 in BHMP were concluded following the March 4, 2011
Executive Committee meeting. In this instance, TRCA would provide FRW with $23,695.65,
plus HST to cover costs of planting material, under the same Southeast Collector
Environmental Enhancement agreement that TRCA has with York Region.
RATIONALE
TRCA staff recommend awarding the contract on a sole source basis as per Section 1. 14.5 of
the TRCA's Purchasing Policy as follows:
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.
166
There are only three NGOs (Friends of the Rouge Watershed, 10,000 Trees for the Rouge Valley
and Rouge Valley Naturalists) that have the capacity to undertake major plantings in the area
covered by the Southeast Collector agreement. All three were approached and given the
opportunity to participate and were offered areas that would suit their capacity. FRW and
10,000 Trees both accepted and selected areas, while the Rouge Valley Naturalists declined for
2011. The Rouge Park and TRCA have subsequently assigned an area of seven hectares and a
30 metre wide roadside buffer to Friends of the Rouge Watershed. Staff therefore recommends
award of a contract to FRW on a sole source basis as per Section 1. 14.5 of the TRCA's
Purchasing Policy.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Southeast Collector Environmental Enhancement at Bob Hunter Memorial Park is a
substantial investment in Rouge Park of $6,000,000. The habitat restoration components of
Phase One to Phase Three are a total of $3,600,000, and $1,200,000 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 code 111-74.
Report prepared by: Bob Clay, extension 5783
Emails: bclay@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Ron Dewell, extension 5245
Emails: rdewell@trca.on.ca
Date: April 12, 2011
Attachments: 1
167
Attachment 1
N
Alo n of pro po se d
2:011 Friands of the!ROLKI,e
Watershad Ranblilg', C-
adffib�onlal area
LocafiOn of proposed
20'1'1 Friends of thIRouge
Legend
Railw-,i,,y_yoirk
Railway
Roads
proposed Plantng&tes
on of proposed
Friends of the
dal ershecl PlIanfing
orv,:�(:I by
FORCWTO AND re'rGOON,
onsehWilon
iWr Tile 1.4411
,g City
,170 35 0 17CI, Meleqs
•
(EY IMAP
RES.#A76/11 - GREAT LAKES AND MISSISSIPPI RIVER INTERBASIN FEASIBILITY
STUDY
Invasive Asian Carp Species. Support for comments sent by Great Lakes
United to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River Interbasin Feasibility Study (GLMRIS) to prevent the
spread of the invasive Asian carp species between the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River.
Moved by: Colleen Jordan
Seconded by: John Sprovieri
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) objectives for Healthy Rivers and
Shorelines and Regional Biodiversity are supported by fisheries management plans that
strongly recommend actions to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive
species;
AND WHEREAS the Asian carp are aquatic invasive species that pose a threat to the
biodiversity and nearshore habitat structure of Lake Ontario and potentially the lower
reaches of relatively large river systems within the TRCA jurisdiction, such as the Humber
and Rouge Rivers and Duff ins Creek;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA endorse the comments contained in the
letter on the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Feasibility Study (GLMRIS),
dated March 31, 2011, sent by the Great Lakes United (GLU) to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to prevent the spread of Asian carp between the Great Lakes and Mississippi;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority with progress on GLMRIS.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
TRCA was approached by GLU, an international citizens coalition dedicated to protecting and
restoring the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River Ecosystem, and asked to consider endorse their
comment letter as a means of helping to prevent the spread of Asian carp into the Great Lakes
and St. Lawrence River. The membership of GLU spans a diverse spectrum of interests,
organizations and individuals, including citizens, environmentalists, conservationists, labour
unions, First Nations, hunters, anglers, academics, and progressive business and industry.
GLU is very concerned about an Asian carp invasion to the international waters of the Great
Lakes and St. Lawrence River. One of the most significant opportunities to help stop the Asian
carp from spreading is the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Feasibility Study. This
study was authorized by U.S. Congress in 2007 mandating that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (the Corps) determine how to prevent the two-way transfer of invasive fish species
through the Chicago area waterways, as well as all the hydrological connections between the
Great Lakes and Mississippi River watershed.
•
The Corps recently announced Chicago District's Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement; Initiate the Public Scoping Period; and host Public Scoping
Meetings for the GLMRIS. GLU submitted, in the form of a letter with support from various
groups (including TRCA), specific comments meant to improve the GLMRIS and ensure the
ecological and economic health of these waters and basins are protected from the impacts of
aquatic invasive species. The comments are summarized as:
• the need for the Corps to adhere to the U.S. Congressional authority to "prevent" the spread
of aquatic invasive species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins and not
just "reduce the risk";
• accelerate the timeline for completion of the GLMRIS;
• prioritize the Chicago Area Waterway System portion of the GLMRIS;
• provide for public comment as the study proceeds; and
• conduct a public hearing in Canada.
RATIONALE
The term "Asian carp" refers to four different species of fish: Bighead, Black, Grass and Silver
Carp. The Bighead and Silver Carp are the species closest to invading the Great Lakes from
the Chicago area waterways. In 2005, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR)
introduced legislation making it illegal to posses, sell or import live Asian carp. A risk
assessment study undertaken by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in 2009 concluded that
if Asian carp successfully colonized the Great Lakes there is a high probability they would
spread across the Great Lakes basin. The study stresses that such an invasion would have a
significant impact on the food web and trophic (community) structure of aquatic systems.
Furthermore, the Ontario government has stated that if Asian carp enters the Great Lakes there
will be serious adverse impacts on Ontario's recreational and commercial fisheries.
Environment Canada has made a similar assessment.
The various fisheries management plans (FMP) written for watersheds within the TRCA
jurisdiction all recognize that aquatic invasive species disrupt the balance of native aquatic
communities and are considered one of the most serious threats to biodiversity. The most
recently completed FMP, the Rouge River Watershed Fisheries Management Plan (TRCA and
OMNR, 2010), recommends that priority emphasis should be placed on monitoring and
preventing the spread of invasive and exotic fish species. To date, the Asian carp species of
concern have not been collected by the TRCA regional or waterfront monitoring programs but
field crews are alerted to the risk and know to bring such species to the attention of our partner
agencies with mandates for fisheries management (i.e. OMNR and DFO).
The Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has identified, as a first priority, the
protection of existing fish habitat with a focus on coastal wetlands and nearshore physical
habitat (e.g. reefs and spawning shoals). RAP states that protecting these existing habitats can
be through the firm and effective enforcement of policies and guidelines, which would include
legislation that speaks to preventing invasive species introductions. A secondary priority of
RAP is to rehabilitate waterfront areas where habitat potential is very high (e.g. Rouge Marshes
and Toronto Island wetlands), areas that are vulnerable to destruction should Asian carp enter
the system. Over the recent decades, significant funding has been provided through RAP for
extensive habitat rehabilitation along the Toronto waterfront with continued opportunities for
future work. In this context, failing to keep Asian carp out of Lake Ontario could be a major
setback to achieving RAP and TRCA priorities for fish habitat.
170
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff will request to be maintained on the GLU distribution list and be informed of any
progress with the GLMRIS and possible public hearings or meetings held in Ontario on the
subject of preventing Asian carp entering Lake Ontario and the other Great Lakes.
A copy of the GLU comment letter and list of supporters is 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: April 11, 2011
RES.#A77/11 - ONTARIO NATURE'S 20/20 VISION
Approval to sign the charter, developed by Ontario Nature, to prevent
further loss of biodiversity.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: John Sprovieri
WHEREAS Regional Biodiversity is an objective of Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority's (TRCA) vision for The Living City;
AND WHEREAS regional biodiversity is a cornerstone within the framework of many
TRCA natural heritage and watershed planning documents, including the Terrestrial
Natural Heritage System Strategy, fisheries management plans and watershed plans;
AND WHEREAS regional biodiversity was identified as the key metric for evaluating
natural heritage condition in The Living City Report Card;
AND WHEREAS regional biodiversity is an important contributor to the ecological
complexities that support biodiversity and associated ecosystem services at the broader,
provincial scale;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA be authorized to sign the charter titled
Ontario Nature's 20/20 Vision in order to see the federal, provincial and municipal
governments take specified actions to stop the further loss of Ontario's biological
diversity by 2020;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report back to the Authority with progress on this
initiative.
CARRIED
171
BACKGROUND
TRCA was contacted by Conservation Ontario (CO) and asked to consider signing Ontario
Nature's biodiversity charter which was described by CO as being consistent with the draft
renewal of the Ontario Biodiversity Strategy, a document that recently received input and
support from various agencies, including TRCA. Ontario Nature is a charitable organization,
established in 1931 as the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, which represents more than 30,000
members from diverse backgrounds and has been protecting biodiversity for close to 80 years.
The core mission of Ontario Nature is to protect wild species and wild spaces through
conservation, education and public engagement.
The close of 2010 marked the end of the International Year of Biodiversity but to maintain the
momentum and attention generated for this important topic, Ontario Nature created its 20/20
Vision for Biodiversity in Ontario and is moving it forward with this charter -signing campaign.
Ontario Nature is seeking to obtain 5,000 signatures by May 22, 2011 with the intention of
urging the provincial, federal and municipal governments to take the following actions:
• complete a system of protected areas that fully represent the biological diversity of Ontario's
land and water ecosystems;
• support the establishment of a network of natural areas on both public and private land
across southern and eastern Ontario, by creating incentives for farmers and landowners to
conserve and restore important wildlife habitats;
• develop and fully implement effective, science -based plans to recover endangered species
and ecosystems, and adopt a proactive approach to conserving plants and animals in
decline so that common species remain common;
• prevent the introduction and spread of non-native species by controlling high-risk entry
points such as ship ballast water and plant nurseries;
• drastically reduce the release of contaminants harmful to biodiversity through meaningful
implementation of the Toxics Reduction Act and Toxics Reduction Strategy;
• address habitat fragmentation and other negative impacts on the landscape caused by
roads and highways by implementing the principles of smart growth and investing in public
transit;
• allocate adequate funding, on an ongoing basis, for research, monitoring, and reporting on
the state of biodiversity in Ontario;
• support sustainable industrial development through policies, funding, and other incentives,
and ensure that government -purchased products and services come from sustainable,
independently -certified producers;
• integrate biodiversity conservation policies into the mandates of all Government of Ontario
ministries involved in land and water use and in environmental protection;
• develop a proactive plan for Ontario so that our landscapes can be more resilient to the
anticipated impacts of climate change.
RATIONALE
Ontario Nature is an organization that has a history of taking action in the name of conservation
and believes the loss of biodiversity is one of the most important issues facing Ontario today
and in the future. CO supports signing the charter and anticipates the charter will assist in
raising the profile of biodiversity protection within the Ontario government. The majority of the
actions proffered in the charter reflect TRCA policy, programs and approaches to
environmentally responsible land use planning and management.
172
Establishing a network/system of natural areas (Action #2) required to protect and enhance
terrestrial biodiversity is at the centre of the TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy
(2007); several municipalities have also demonstrated the importance of these greenspaces by
developing local natural heritage plans.
Science -based plans have been developed for much of the TRCA jurisdiction (watershed plans
(WP), fisheries management plans (FMP) and species recovery planning); the implementation
of these strategies (Action #3) is being delivered across the jurisdiction through wetland,
stream and upland restoration projects. TRCA staff actively participates on recovery teams for
species -at -risk and partners with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to implement the
Atlantic Salmon Reintroduction Program in the Duff ins watershed and soon within the Humber
watershed.
Preventing new introductions and controlling present invasive species (Action #4) are major
management themes in TRCA WPs and FMPs. TRCA's Volunteer Monitoring Program records
the location and types of vegetation at fixed plots; where this or similar surveys occur on TRCA
lands, invasive plants are identified and removed as a method of reducing the risk to native
plant communities.
Addressing issues of habitat fragmentation (Action #5) is a consistent and effective aspect of
how TRCA staff evaluates and improves land use planning applications to help achieve
ecosystem integrity. TRCA continues to be involved in furthering the science of "road ecology"
aimed at preventing or reducing incidences of wildlife mortality associated with road crossings.
Ongoing monitoring and reporting on the state of biodiversity (Action #7) and general
ecological conditions across our jurisdiction are at the core of the TRCA Regional Watershed
Monitoring Program (RWMP). This important program afforded the data needed to evaluate
regional biodiversity and provide sound management direction in The Living City Report Card
(launched in February 2011). Future updates to the report card and updates to similar targets
defined in WPs, will continue to be based on RWMP collected data.
Climate change planning (Action #10) has already been initiated at TRCA with a commitment to
undertaking both mitigative and adaptive actions, in the short term and long term, and
exemplifying leadership to support TRCA's communities and partners in dealing with the
climate crisis. Examples of projects related to climate change concerns include: The
Sustainability Management System, technologies to help achieve post -development water
balance, developing a risk assessment tool for natural systems and biodiversity, Greenlands
Acquisition Project, Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy, and partnerships with Canada
Green Building Council and World Green Building Council.
173
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff will provide support to Ontario Nature's 20/20 Vision by completing the on-line
signature form. Staff will request to be maintained on Ontario Nature's distribution list to be
kept informed of the Ontario government's response to the biodiversity charter.
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: April 12, 2011
RES.#A78/11 - COMMUNITY PROGRAM FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Completion of the Community Program for Stormwater Management.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT Irene Jones, Chair of the Community Program for Stormwater Management
Selection Committee, be thanked for chairing the Committee since the launch of the
program.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The City of Toronto's Community Program for Stormwater Management (CPSWM) was initiated
in 2004 to implement projects that support the City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management
Master Plan (WWFMMP). The goal of the WWFMMP is to reduce and ultimately eliminate the
adverse effects of wet weather flow (runoff that is generated when it rains or snows).
Each year, the City funds approximately $250,000 worth of projects to not-for-profit groups,
organizations and small -to -mid sized businesses. Projects within the range of $1,000 to $25,000
are considered for funding. Examples of projects that have been funded under this program in
the past include naturalization, stewardship activities and public outreach (i.e. tree and shrub
planting, asphalt removal, construction of raingardens and multicultural outreach). A Selection
Committee was set up to assist with project selection and is comprised of staff members from
City of Toronto Water, Parks Forestry and Recreation and Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA). The Committee Chair is Irene Jones, a former City of Toronto Councillor and
current Co -Chair of the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition.
Since 2004, TRCA has been responsible for administering the program on behalf of the City
under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). TRCA staff responsibilities include:
• coordinating the Call for Proposals;
• coordinating the CPSWM Selection Committee;
• reviewing and selecting proposals;
• developing project workplans;
• preparing agreements;
174
• processing invoices;
• reviewing project reports;
• conducting site visits; and
• administering the CPSWM website.
As presented in Table 1, to date, TRCA has administered nine funding cycles and has
successfully overseen the completion of 44 projects within a seven year timeframe (2004-2011).
In total, 56 community projects and $1,248,107.99 of funding dollars have been administered
by TRCA. Administrative funding support for this project has been provided to TRCA based on
a 10 percent per project cost formula. The total funding support that TRCA has received from
the City is $107,376.91 over five years. On average, each funding cycle has taken
approximately two years to complete.
Table 1: Summary of CPSWM Projects Administered by TRCA from September 2004 -
September 2009:
Funding cycle /year
Number of Community
Groups Funded
Total Funding
Awarded
Completion Date
September 2004
4
$61,114.00
July 2006
April 2005
7
$134,423.72
February 2008
March 2006
7
$139,657.05
October 2007
November 2006
7
$80,904.00
December 2008
April 2007
6
$119,629.00
March 2009
September 2007
6
$105,500.00
March 2010
March 2008
6
$136,401.00
February 2010
October 2008
5
$89,254.00
October 2010
September 2009
8
$185,675.50
Incomplete
Total
56
$1,052,558.27
CPSWM Accomplishments 2004 - 2008
Since its launch, the CPSWM has contributed to a long list of accomplishments, some of which
include:
• approximately 19,730 trees and shrubs and 112,000 wildflowers/herbaceous plants planted;
• approximately 22,800 people engaged;
• approximately 320 community events/forums/workshops held;
• approximately 2,465 square metres of asphalt removed;
• two greenroofs constructed; total of 1,450 square metres; and
• two rainwater harvesting cisterns constructed, retaining a total of 3,620 gallons of water.
Current Status of CPSWM
As of April, 2010, the City assumed responsibility for administering CPSWM under their current
Live Green Program. Since 2010, the City has initiated two new funding cycles in November,
2010 and April, 2011. TRCA staff will remain responsible for administering all outstanding
projects from the September 2009 funding cycle (six projects in total) until they are complete
(Table 2). TRCA will work closely with the City and provide them with assistance in transitioning,
as required. Completed CPSWM project information and records (i.e. contacts, reports,
contact directory, etc.) have been transferred to the City.
175
The status and value of all outstanding projects administered by TRCA, in addition to the
immediate action required for the project to be closed is summarized in the table below.
Table 2: Outstanding CPSWM Projects for September 2009:
Community Group
Funding
Funding
Status
Action
Awarded
Unspent
(prior to final
invoice being
processed)
Black Creek Conservation
$25,000
$18,750
Complete
Final invoice to be
Project
processed
Toronto Chinese for
$12,816.5
$9,612.38
Complete
Final invoice to be
Ecological Living
0
processed
Evergreen
$25,000
$4,678.46
Complete
Invoice to be processed
Indian Road Crescent
$25,000
$25,000
Incomplete: all funding
Send 25% advance
Junior Public School's
including 25% advance
payment once signed
Greening Committee
being held because
project agreement
signed project agreement
received
not received back.
Citizens for a Safe
$25,000
$11,948.30
Incomplete: project
Final reminder to be sent
Environment
experiencing delays,
May 2011
expected completion
June, 2011
Green Here
$25,000
$18,750
Complete
Final invoice to be
processed
TOTAL
$137,817
$88,739
Deadline for completion of all projects noted in Table 2 is February 12, 2011.
• TRCA staff to administer all outstanding projects identified in Table 2 to completion;
• TRCA staff to coordinate a final budget reconciliation with the City or Toronto; and
• TRCA staff to continue to the support the CPSWM program by participating on the CPSWM
Selection Committee.
Report prepared by: Sonia Dhir, extension 5291
Emails: sdhir@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Emails: afreeman@trca.on.ca
Date: April 12, 2011
RES.#A79/11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed
Susan Punter and Christine Bell, CFN 45481. Acquisition of a
conservation easement located west of The Gore Road, north of Old
Church Road, (rear of 16326 The Gore Road), Town of Caledon, Regional
Municipality of Peel.
(Executive Res. #652/11)
176
Moved by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
Seconded by: Jack Heath
THAT a conservation easement for the protection of the environmental features and
functions containing 9.52 hectares (23.54 acres), more or less, consisting of an irregular
shaped parcel of land being Part of Lot 22, Concession 3 (Albion) and designated as
Parts 16 and 17 on a Draft Plan of Survey prepared by Van Harten Surveying Inc., under
their Project No. 19248-10, dated February 15, 2011, Town of Caledon, Regional
Municipality of Peel, located west of The Gore Road, north of Old Church Road, (rear of
16326 The Gore Road), be purchased from Susan Punter and Christine Bell;
THAT the purchase price be $2.00;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) acquire the conservation
easement free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
THAT the firm 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
RES.#A80/11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Petticoat Creek Watershed
Hayes Line Group of Companies, CFN 45526. Acquisition of valleylands
located at 476 Toynevale Road, northeast corner of Rosebank road and
Toynevale Road, from Hayes Line Group of Companies, City of Pickering,
Regional Municipality of Durham.
(Executive Res. #653/11)
Moved by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
Seconded by: Jack Heath
THAT 0.3903 hectares (0.764 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Lot 118, Plan 350,
and designated Part 3 on a draft plan of survey prepared by Omari Mwinyi Surveying Ltd,
project no. 10-027-R1, located at 476 Toynevale Road, northeast corner of Rosebank
Road and Toynevale Road, City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, be
purchased from Haynes Line Group of companies;
THAT the purchase price be $2.00;
177
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 hereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the
signing and execution of any documents.
CARRIED
RES.#A81/11 - BRUCE'S MILL CONSERVATION AREA LEASE EXTENSION
Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville, CFN 31698. Request from the Town of
Whitch urch-StouffviIle to extend the existing lease for soccer fields
located within the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area, south of Stouffville
Sideroad, east of Warden Avenue, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River watershed.
(Executive Res. #654/11)
Moved by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
Seconded by: Jack Heath
WHEREAS the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville has requested an additional extension to
the lease for soccer fields within the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area, Regional
Municipality of York;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the lease with the Town of
Whitchurch-Stouffville for soccer fields at Bruce's Mill Conservation Area be extended
until December 31, 2011;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take whatever action is necessary
to finalize the lease extension, including the obtaining of any approvals and signing and
execution of documents.
CARRIED
RES.#A82/11 - SOUTHERN ONTARIO CUMULATIVE IMPACT RESEARCH
CONSORTIUM
Support for a project to develop a collaborative monitoring and research
strategy to support cumulative effects assessment in rivers.
(Executive Res. #655/11)
178
Moved by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
Seconded by: Jack Heath
THAT the Authority endorse the proposal being developed for the Canadian Water
Network on the establishment of a Southern Ontario Cumulative Impact Research
Consortium;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) participate as a project
collaborator and provide a letter of support that offers to annually contribute $300,000 of
in-kind support through data collected under the TRCA's Regional Watershed Monitoring
Program for the duration of the project which begins in 2012 and continues until 2015;
THAT TRCA identify opportunities to leverage and/or provide funding support in the
amount of $20,000 - $40,000 per year for duration of the project;
THAT the nature of TRCA's on-going support will be largely in-kind as part of the Regional
Watershed Monitoring Program and efforts to improve base GIS layers and routine
information management;
THAT the specific financial and in-kind resources committed to the project by TRCA will
be determined on an annual basis and will be based on the degree to which project
deliverables are consistent with the needs of TRCA, budgetary considerations, and can
be delivered more efficiently than if TRCA were to carry out the project in isolation;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to participate in the additional scoping and
planning of the consortium if the proposal is approved.
CARRIED
RES.#A83/11 - 2011 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET
2011 Operating and Capital Budget is recommended for approval.
(Budget/Audit Res. #C5/11)
Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti
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 2011 Operating Budget;
179
(ii) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) share of the cost of the
programs included in the 2011 Operating Budget shall be raised from all
participating municipalities as part of the General Levy;
(iii) the 2011 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 Total General Levy set forth in
the 2011 Operating Budget, including property tax adjustments and non -Current
Value Assessment (CVA) levy, and to levy the said municipalities the amount of the
Capital Levy set forth in the 2011 Capital Budget and in the approved projects of
TRCA;
THAT, subject to finalization of the participating municipalities' apportioned levy amounts,
the 2011 Operating and Capital Budget, and all projects therein, be adopted;
THAT staff be authorized to amend the 2011 Operating and Capital Budget to reflect
actual 2011 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, non-governmental
organizations or government agencies for the undertaking of projects which are of benefit
to TRCA and funded by the sponsoring organization or agency;
THAT the cost of property taxes imposed by municipalities on conservation lands owned
by TRCA be charged as additional levy to the respective participating municipalities;
THAT, as required by Ontario Regulations 139/96 and 231/97, this recommendation and
the accompanying budget documents, including the schedule of matching and
non-matching levies, be approved by recorded vote;
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
Maria Augimeri
Yea
Bryan Bertie
Yea
Laurie Bruce
Yea
Bob Callahan
Yea
Gay Cowbourne
Yea
Vincent Crisanti
Yea
Michael Di Biase
Yea
Chris Fonseca
Yea
•
RECORDED VOTE Cont'd
Pamela Gough
Yea
Lois Griffin
Yea
Jack Heath
Yea
Colleen Jordan
Yea
Chin Lee
Yea
Gloria Lindsay Luby
Yea
Peter Milczyn
Yea
Linda Pabst
Yea
John Parker
Yea
Anthony Perruzza
Yea
Dave Ryan
Yea
John Sprovieri
Yea
Jim Tovey
Yea
Richard Whitehead
Yea
THE MAIN MOTION WAS CARRIED
181
SECTION 3
2011 CAPITAL AND PROJECTS BUDGET
182
183
� 0
0 m
o m
°
o
T
v
0
.os
°-
m
00
°
O
C
N
LL
o
U
Y
N
Es
m v
-6
Q
N
:L
M O 0.
N_ i6
O N[
T
O
Q
O
-OE
i
C
O :Q
:O N
:L
: s'
O E
O
N
O
F
N [N v
Q N'0 N
°
m
O,O
4 N[
v
L O
°
:E '.,,0
N
O
pIS
T:
N
Y
U O� Q
om
m
O ''.
:6 c6O
� 63 O
N
NC:
N C Q O
'6 N
'O
>
>N
4
O
N
CC
N Q N O
N
O
>
N O NOx:
Q Y
Q
m
N N
N
w '.: -O
'~
N
3
0
D
N[ O O Q
U N O
.0
F
7
N
y
6
6
Q- N
m N°
O
0 1
>NO
C
OO
O W
C
E
N
O
OZ
O
>
I
4
N
U
S
Q
U
N O N
°
U
O
ol
0
C
U0
>
N
O
ED
W QN
N
y w4—
N .
N
O4
O
pON
°
°Q
°
Cd
N
-
Y
N
: N N
>
O
W
�
U
N
L
N
'C
�O
E
N
°—
,LLN~N
O
O.E m
°
3 U
O
QQ
N
N
�
Q
m
C
0O
0
°
E
1,
N
�
O
OO�
Y
J6C
O
a
Q
U
NNEm
�N
O
O
O
O
0NN
OS
XO
QN
O
0Cv3�
;
°
°��
O
E°
°
Q
E
N
O
3m
UO
�
O
°
W
�COE
2 6]0 a
r:
Q'
-2 NON °
OC
°
O
O
O
NN
y>
�O[
W
W
OWON3a
v
=
2
E
o
E
m'N0 N
p
N
6 6
ON
iQ6
MLO
1NN
16NO0
6U
°U
N
°o�
va
a°
0
4
:
.Evrs
WD
0
s
m
Z6 0
v
vO
N N O N
0
N
N
O
TLOyN
O
E
Q m
O O O
O
':
UNJmj
NO 00
N
0
2 E.
N
0
N
N N O
m
O:J
N
E,OU2
W.
Z
U2 LL
I.L
O
0.0
OO O
O O
O
O
O
.6
.0 O
O
O
O
OOO
2
O
O O
O O
00O
OO O
OO
O O
0
O
O
O
O OOO
O O
O
O
0 0
O O
0
O
0
O
O
OO
O
O
O
OO
. O
O
.O
.O0.0
.0 0
O
7[
(2
: N
r
7
cQc
C
U
7N ;
(
: 7
(�
mN
N
N
O
N
ON
-t N
7
N
N
Oh
N
N
.0 :V
a
�
.2tL
Z
N
O
0
0 0
00 00
0
0
F
OI
N
N N
:7;N :I
7
N
:O
m N
:7
:(�
h _
N
::h
:(O
:O :
N
:(O
N
w
O
.(O
N
7
(?
70
N
N
O
N
N
0
7 N
a
0
u
m
O
0.0
00 O
O O
O
O
0.0
O
O
0:0
0
0
O
O
'':0 '':
O
O
O
O 0
W
F
0�
0
O �O
O O0.0
O O O
O
O O
0 O
:O
O
O
O
O :O
O O
O
O
O
0
�O ':O
.0 0
�O
.0
�O
O
O
O
O
0
':O
:0 :
O
O
O
O
:O
.O
O :O
O O
N
U
LU
(7
N:
h .(o
N N
N,7 a
7;7 m
m 6
O N
.7
0
m
0
N 6
N
O
0
0
:N :0
a N
:(�
0
:0
h
N
N
h
O
N
N
Z
w
0
O
N :N
N O N
7
O
O
N h
N
7
:7 N
:N
N.
O
co
N
.N N
O
7
m
N
N
.7 N
.(o
m:
r
U
a
Z
it
h[
7
7[ h 7
N N
O 0
0
N
N a
O
0
a
0 (0
a
N
N
0
O
0
O
O
N
0 [ h
0
LU
N
N
h:h
7 O
:�
h
h
.7
O
7
:a :
N
0
O
O
7 O
.h
0
N N
0
N
:0 h
:7
0
N
N
h
N
:0
7 :0
R
(O.
N O
7
7 (�
N O
7
. 0
(O
h
7
N
N
N
7N
0 70
'':
h
(�
m
7
(� :
r
N
:(�
O : N
v
O
V
N:
N
� :(� (�
(�
N h
O
N
(�
: N
N
N
0 m
W
o
a
�
Z
a
J
':o
Z
F
o:
O
0.0
o o
o:o 0
O O o
0 0
o O
:0
O
0
O
0.0
o 0
0
o
0
O
:o o
O O
:o
O
:0
O
0
O
0
O
O
o
o
o
0
o
0
0 0
o O
a
F
w
O,
N
0.0
7 N
0.0 O
.0 .0 N
0 0
N N
o
N
O
7
0.0
N h
O
O
O
O
:0 :0
N
:0
N
.0
m
o
a
O
7
:0 :
O
'':O '':
O
h
O
O
:0
N
O :0
N N
a
U
0
0
h
h;7 O:7
N:7 7
O (�
N
:h
0
O N
N
h
.0 ':0
:(o ',7
(O
:N
:N
:h
a
N
N
N
r
N
N
N
N
N
6
LO
r
m
:N
:N
a
O
N
.0
h
N
a 0
N
0
h
'':N '':
m
0
0
m
LL
O
OA
d
ik
v
v v
v v v
v v
v
v
v v
v
:N
v
v v
v
v
v
v
v
N v
v
v
v v
N
m
mm
mm m
m mm
m
mm
m
mm
m
m
m
mm,w
m
m
m
m
.m
Z
v
�
o
�
a`
0
U
N
N
N
LU
v
z
a
0
o
v
Q
o
z
s
0
Q
2
0
a
°
a
z
m
z
N
U
LU
cc
E
w
v
N
N
W
p
z
g
E
W
x
N
v
Z
m
O
z
a
a
Q
z
v
a m
z0
aN°EN�°o
azw
OQ
O
0 E
2
LU
0
0
o
0
°
m
w
LU
i 0
w
vo
>
a
m
a
E E
o
2
m
N
.Eo
oC
¢m
N
LL
S
NQ
mm
CO)
N
E
E
N
U
O
m
>
>
U
6
N
U
0D
O
!3>UWU
N
O
O
W
m mU
0
z
N m
n
0O
m
a
Q
C
C
z
2m
o
o
°O
O
O
m�U
a
v
0
y
z
z
E
N
.
W_
2
EU
O
m
o
v
WSF
Ew
w
w a°
iLL
F
2
a°
Q >
o
Q
3:
S
?
: U)
w
NNa
U
183
li
.
6
.........
.........
0
O:
..
o
U
m m
i6
N
m
4
N
6
O
O
[ m
O
O Y
Q'.
N m 0
T E
.. 0
O O
E 0
LL m
O
O 5i i
U
Oi i
U[
ON
N°
C
N O Q
Q O
T N O
O0.
N
S
a
-
m m
01 1 1-6 O
LL
O. O:
Z
W
oO
o
00�
010
N
N
O°
UO LL
O
m
Q
O
pNmO
�-
E
O N O
p
C J O 1
101.1 Q C
-6
C
-O
E LL N N
m w
U
m
mi 2)im
U m
O N
0 m
m N
iEmt.
N
Q
O
O
0 'O
Em O
Mi— iSOm
0
`
Ti U
: - _ �1
E
°
W
°
N
UEm
W O
0
C0:46
v 0
It.y
vO
° m
0
am El
o
m N
05
�
3
-w
S.FN
�
OQ'EO -vO
NQO
N
CsDCL
O O N E
8,1 01 m E O
SFE
i4
OOEO
O�. O
v °
va v
O
0
o
m T
i 0i
o
E
o
oa
v
'o m0 mi mi vvmE
20 .0O
Em w: O O O O O
QO
Z6
0O v
O3
O
FDy�
O
.
m
p OO 0.0.0.0.
N
v NOO0
OC>>Z �Q LL>LLUU
JOv3
J
ZNN N N
U
O OOO
O O
0:00000 0
OO OOOOO:O O
O'. :0
O'' O
O
N
0
O
O '.0000'.00 .00
OOOO O0O0 :0O 0O
0
0'.N 0000
'N N:ON
m:N ~I�h
0h
00
0
O
p
h ON
0
C 0
OO
N
O
OOO
O
N
N 0: 0:
h
rl:
OO
7
N
L
O
O m
N' 0 7 m Nm
O OO
O
O
N' (� N' N' N' O (� N
O
7r
O h N m
7 Q N' O�
Oo
N 7 �VN
0
00O O
0 _0
n
O
(y
N
N
N
0 0
0C o
0 0 00
0
0 0
00
F
W
O p�
O
ON
O -o
0 7
h OOO OO OO7
O
h
O O O O0 ON
NO
N
N7.NN
m a ONO O
co O N O OhO OO Na
N
pO
7 O
N
OO
O
c
0
p
.07N O W N
N
S
O
m
O 0
0 0
0000 0 00:0 0
0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0 0
0V
O
0
0r
0 '.0000'.0.0...0 O
O 000000
00000
O
N7
0'.N N 0.O
000 N
O 0:000:'
000O
ON
00
O
Nn
O
OpM
O ON
,y^•
0 0
0 000 N 0 00 0
O OO
N
0
0 010 7 0 0101 OO
'
N
:0
N a
.
Pi
a °
OONOO7
N N
O7 OO0OhO mha h'
hm
(:5.(:5 N
N
m (15 O
m0N
OOO N
7
7 hOO
O 7 O co, N
ON N
7 p
mO N
O
W
OW
O N
OO
O Or
NO mO
pp
CID
U
O
m
n
M
M
N
M
C
a
O
r r
OhO 7: O O 0
O
(O
0 m m ONON.
.O
NON000
mN:m7N07O.7
N0n
;
W
7 O
O
0.m O0. O N
N 7 0 N O 0
N
n
OO
07hhm 0
Oa0
O m 0.O
O N O m
Opp
N
n
O7
=
N
7 N
O O O O m O m h O
O 7
n
7 O O 7 O O a O
TO
h N N
N 7
WpWp
O
ONm N
O
O O
O 0
O
O
ONm O 7OO
0 O N O N O
0 OmO
O
O mh0
N ON
O n
hN
Np
N
N
M
O O
(h
O
N
r
QNr
R
J
aFU
O 0
0
0. 0.00:0 00:0 0
0.0 0
O0
0
0 0000'01001
!O
0'0 hNO O
O O hO00p
70
OOOON
N(hV
O
yOCL.+
F
O
00000 0000
O O O O OO
0
O
O
OmNNrOM
O
OO000
O 018 OOO0 O0
O
O_
OhOO OO
NO77;N
O m
N O
N
OO
O �
m
OO
N O
ONOO
(
O a
m
MO
0 O 7
r
N
I
O O O
h O
N
N
O N N On
O O
Om pp
0
m
Co.
O nV
L
Z
m 0.N
N. N. N. N. N. N. N. O. O:O
. O:O'.: O:O
N
m m
mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi m
m m m m m m m m m m
m; m''i m; m
m m'', m m
a :a
a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a..
: a:a'.:a.
z.
. . . . . . . .
.
O
~
w
2
U
d
0
2
F
M
o
U
z
0
¢
a
O
F-
N
O
LL
Q
F
z
Z
Z
LU
?
7
N
(7
W
Z E
W m
v
U
O a a
N �[
Q
N N s T Y 0
W >, C)
i
D a°�0ma0a
am O
y
c
0
M v 3 0 0
2 m py
m
y
c
w
m �� O
v ° a
0 m M
W N
N o
a
_
LL Y U M O O T N
N N
(O
N
O._ to CO 15C) Ow
W.0
FLLI
v
2 2°. 0 � m. Q O
Z
o U
LCC
LL C O m
OTvN
W-YCCL
NmC
CmNLLJ
03
m C
N
O -m -
fl ° (aO N N O
w«c
p�EO
�U
a m
>
a6c
3NA
NUN m
.¢
0C N
0 0
m 0d6>AN
WLL
0
O G «
iLZ
O
0O
U
ii
c
Dv
K
O.
m mOO
Ol
O
> E O
N m>
Q
m
m
7 d1
%
0
m
st
C
m D
m m
°Nm(DL
LLL -
oO
S
«
O
OCOZ COC
QZC
Z
Z
OAC
}[FQ NJW
Q tlU
N FL�
li
M
a
O
J Z
�LL
C7
W Z
FZ :R
O =
LL
0
O
O
N
n
n
0
0
O
N
N
N
(n
0 0
O O
O O
Lo T
cc T
f0 N
N o
0 o
0 0
o O
V m
In m
O N
O
0 0 0 0
O O O O
O O O O
O M R n
O O aD R
n aD O
ao r- of
o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
O o o o
O m m (7
O In m (D
(O N N
r-
0 0 0
O O O
O O O
N S N
N M m
M aD M
Lo r
0 0 o
0 0 0
o o o
m V OO
(n V r
(O V
Cl)
0 0 0
O O O
O O O
R co
N O N
r n M
rS
0 0
0 0
o o
O (7
c0
r
N
0 0 0
O O O
O O O
N o (o
O co
(O co to
0 0
0 0
O o
00 (D
O In
In
0
O
O
R
ccl))
(h
0
0
o
O
r
0
O
O
n
N
0
(o
N
n
O
(o
0
0
o
m
r-
o0
V
0
O
O
n
n
�
0 0
O O
O O
R
aD n
T (O
o
o
o
In
N
N
m
N
N
C9
a;
n
O
O
O
r
M
p
O
n
O
n
m
O
O
O
M
h
M
O
O
O
O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
OO
O
O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O
O
O
O O
(p
O
F
O
O
O
O
R
O O
O R
O O O
T R
O O O
R aD (O
O O O
R R n
O
v
O
n
c%
N
ao
O
n
O O
v (O
N
O
J W
F 0
O
O
O
O
T
O
aD aD
O n
(O T O
co (h N
Lo N
T (O M
O O O
(O O
N
(h
N
M
n
Lo
w R
T R
n
N
n
n
Owl
_j
N
N
F-
m
Cl)
N
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
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 0
O o
(n
O
r-
In
o
Cl)
Cl)
o
N
(O
0 o
(n
00 N
o o_ o
0 V
V
o o o
V 0
N OD
o o o
V V r-
N O V
o
V
N
o
�
o
In
0
o o
00 (D
In m
O
V
N
OD
z Q
m
In
m (7
In C7
N
r
Cfl
W
J x
h
w
`JW
W
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
(p
(p
J
O
O
O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O
c%
N
O
O O
04
;,
�
J W
Q U
N
T
M
W
(O
(O
N O (7
m O (O
O (O R
O aD
O N
Lo O
O O O
aD T R
n aD N
O O O
aD O co
O O R
O
O
Ca
n
aD
O
O
O
R
(O O
N Lo
aD Ca
M
C)
aD
OD
rT
DW Q
J
N
co O r
O
M
W
~
Z
N
N
0 --)
0
(n
o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o
o
o
o
w
O
D cc ^m
Q
Y
Oo
N
o o
o o
o r
o o o
o o o
o (o
o o o
o o o
o (f) o
o o o
o o o
(o (o r--�
o
o
m
o
o
�
o
o
m
0
o
o
0)
0
li
t
(7
(c7 N (n
(n r- (D
N N
In
N
T
r -,N
C5
V
o6
O
0
°
N
M
Z
J
o
o
o o o
0 0 0
o o o
0 0 0
o o o
0 0 0
o o o
0 0 0
o
o
o
m
o
o
o
o
O
(p
O
p
o
m
o o o
o
o 0 0
V
0 0 o
o o o
o
o
V
N
o
o
o
N
O
LLI—
r
J
In
00
O I-
V O CO
(D (D
(n
OO 00 r
N V r
O
(7(7o
OO CO O-
N N(7
(o (7
N o0
CO(7
(D
m
(o
V
(o
N
r
(d
N
OD
N
a
`W
a
Lo
w
D
O
U Q
Z
0 r
z�
N
Lo
NO
(
M
m
r
w O
2
cc N
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 L
O
o
o
O o
o o o
o
o o o
m m
o o o
o o
o
o
o
o_ o
O
O
O
Z O
Q
Z fR
z
I-
o0
(7o
N
(n
I-
In In
N cl)
r- co
o O m
(7 (7
(o
(7 (7 o
(7 V
(o
(7 N O
(7
m
r
c
(D
N
(D (n
V (7
W
V
(O
O
2
m
O
w
T;
0 Z
x
Z W
v
m
o
o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o o
o o o
(n
v
cr)
co
co
NN
(D
OD
0 L
Q
x y3
m
(7
o
(n
V
o o
N o0
o o
N In
(O V
o o
(7 O
V N
o o o
(n (n O
(O N In
m
o0
m
r
co
O
N
N
c7
0 O
Q
r T
N
0)
H
g 6 0
0
co
o
`nn
(
v
�oz4.9
0
a~C:
a
a
a
Z!
o
W
U.
Z
O
UI
U
U
W
U
2
7 7 0 1
W j
W
LL H
0
Z
� Z;
7
F�
0
¢
a
g''I
a1
2` �i Q
2
'''� �i Yi
c7 ='''�
U
2
0 w
2
O
21
w; W
zi xi
a1
Z. x1
(7'w J
~
m
F
w
O
U;
p[
as
o'I
zi
Oi
w
Fr
m Oj a
�i 3 Z.
z ; ¢ QI,
a[
x
w
w
QI
w z
a[
(7j
Y ai w
C, (7;
zi
�j ai
a[ j,
O i F'
(�
Q
x1
Z
(n w
z'.
2; xi
ar O; Ui Q;
2;
Wr
a a.
o Q
''�
�i� ¢�,
2
��
z;
O
o
w
xi w.
A x; ��
(; w 2
a s
Ui z
z m z'.
O i
LL
z
U
U
-j
Oj
a
w'''
~'
''I 0
>:
o
wi z; z
'''
F -
m
Z
7 O
a
z i
a;
Q. Q=
°°; z;
Z' y z
a o o'I
m i x
QI a g.
- ; �'I
w
(n
o
�;
U w
a >
J
a
J
a
a
yI
LL;
V7
-j
2. Q. �i Q
w'
�; ¢ �''
z 3i ai
Q i o �'
zOIZ
o
v
a
w1
LL w
O
O
O
ZI
W
21
W. �7
W U.x
m7
Q Q'.QI
w; UI,
OjO;
WPI,
U
J
C71
W
F
2
O
¢
J7 JI 7;
a w ¢
$
a o'I,
�� OI OI
�; ° °
21
w i ¢ W
''I >
z�
>;
u-
>
iSI
$I F7
2. >7 a1 Z;
$7 w WI
01 u- u-
x a IFI
a
JI
O
z1
m
N
N
5
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Ecology
Page 31
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Regional Monitoring
Program
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Project Management
248,000
141,292
204,000
-18%
(44,000)
Aquatic
414,000
347,430
4695000
13%
55,000
Terrestrial
137,000
123,221
1385000
1%
1,000
Water Quality
175,000
179,513
1845000
5%
9,000
Flow & Precipitation
143,000
123,633
1395000
-3%
(4,000)
GIS & Database
20,000
13,390
215000
5%
1,000
West Nile Virus Monitoring
58,000
82,915
615000
5%
3,000
Fixed Plot Monitoring
40,000
41,200
405000
-
Other related Special Projects
SEATON MONITORING
-
-
Groundwater/Well Installations
39,000
41,684
385000
-3%
(1,000)
Moe West Nile Virus Monitoring
8,000
6,506
95000
13%
1,000
SP:VOLUNTEER AQUATIC MONITORNG
-
-
-
SP:MNR- StreamTraining
31,476
135000
-
13,000
SP: MOE Bethic Algal Assessment
69,000
53,112
825000
19%
13,000
SP: Duffins Heights Monitoring
20,944
795000
-
79,000
SP: Nobleton Phosphorous Offset
29,000
16,074
1005000
245%
71,000
SP:WaterQ MOE Biomonitoring
18,200
255000
-
25,000
SP: Caledon East Water Taking
21,618
105000
-
10,000
Unspecified 2010 adjustment
(12,000)
-
-100%
12,000
1,368,000
1,262,207
1,612,000
17.84%
244,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
-
-
-
Program/User fees
2,500
127,041
1135000
4420%
110,500
Reserves
-
-
-
Interest Earnings
-
-
CFGT- Flowthrough
15000
-
1,000
Other - Municipal
9,000
4,900
95000
-
Other - Provincial
164,500
78,297
2335000
42%
68,500
Other - Federal
53,000
12,198
625000
17%
9,000
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
-
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
61,000
(33,786)
905000
48%
29,000
290,000
188,650
508,000
75%
218,000
Capital levy
-
-
-
Peel
355,000
355,000
3705000
4%
15,000
York
315,000
315,000
3155000
-
Durham
65,000
65,000
655000
-
Toronto
300,000
300,000
3305000
10%
30,000
Adjala / Mono
-
-
-
Carryforward levy -Peel
15,000
2,694
65000
-60%
(9,000)
York
15,000
2,694
65000
-60%
(9,000)
Durham
4,000
30,474
65000
50%
2,000
Toronto
9,000
2,694
65000
-33%
(3,000)
Adjala / Mono
Deficit / (Surplus)
-
-
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA / VOLUME / PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
8.4
7.7
(0.1)
(0.7)
Non-F/T
6.4
7.8
0.2
1.3
# of Sites Monitored
645
627
645
% Completion
-
# of Acres/Ha Inventoried
1,000
1,047
1,000
% Completion
# of WNV Sites Monitored
45
45
45
% Completion
-
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Increased costs to staff, equipment and resources.
Additional data analysis and reporting required in 2011
Implementation of additional monitoring activities - more
fixed plots
Som CF from 2010 to support new work loads in 2011
Increase from municipal funders for higher work load and more monitoring opportunities
FTE Change: +.6 more Field staff
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Addition of new projects/partnerships with MOE (WNV and Sportfish Contaminant Research)
Some CF to support work extension into 2010 (data analysis, sample preparation and reporting activiites)
Update and maintenance of monitoring equipment and to facilitate additional monitoring sites.
Cost Increases for lab analysis, materials and equipment and contract services
•
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL
BUDGET
DIVISION:
Ecology
Page 32
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Peel Water Management
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET % CHG.
$ CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Planning/ Integration: Project Management - Subwatersheds
81,000
73,089
107,000
32%
26,000
Surface Flow: Fluvial Geomorphology
(24,000)
-100%
24,000
Aquatic: Aquatic Systems Priority Planning
51,000
43,465
45,000
-12%
(6,000)
Clmate Change
-
Regulation Line mapping Update Funding
148,000
113,161
196,000
32%
48,000
2011 out of Sust Tech: Sustainab le Neighbourhood Retrofit in Peel Regior
218,000
239,000
10%
21,000
474,000
229,714
587,000
24%
113,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
-
Reserves
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
Other - Municipal
Other - Provincial
Other - Federal
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Non -Government Grants
121,000
121,000
Internal
121,000
121,000
Capital levy
Peel
275,000
175,000
284,000
3%
9,000
York
-
Durham
Toronto
-
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
199,000
54,714
182,000
-9%
(17,000)
York
Durham
Toronto
-
Adjala / Mono
Deficit / (Surplus)
(0)
-
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA 1 VOLUME 1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
1.0
1.0
Non-F/T
# of Reg Maps under review
132
132
132
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excludina inflation/COLA)
More planning / integration.
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
187
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Ecology
Page 33
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
York Water Management
2010 2010
2011
BUDGET ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Clmate Change Adaptation/Research
52,000 35,460
62,000
19%
10,000
Planning/ Integration: Project Management
39,000 35,554
3,000
-92%
(36,000)
Groundwater Flow Model Deveolpment
-
Surface Flow: Regulation Lines
144,000 109,482
169,000
17%
25,000
Headwaters Drainage Study
40,000 28,565
51,000
28%
11,000
Sustainable Neighbourhood. Retrofit
194,000 150,729
223,000
15%
29,000
Sustainable Greenfields Development
-
Surface Water Q: Rural Water Q
13,000
-100%
(13,000)
Aquatic: All
36,000 42,011
45,000
25%
9,000
518,000 401,801
553,000
7%
35,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
-
Reserves
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
Other - Municipal
Other - Provincial
Other - Federal
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Non -Government Grants
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
Capital levy
Peel
York
368,000 368,000
338,000
-8%
-30,000
Durham
-
Toronto
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
-
York
150,000 33,738
115,000
-23%
(35,000)
Durham
-
Toronto
Adjala /Mono
-
Deficit / (Surplus)
63
-
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA / VOLUME / PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
0.8
1.0
0.2
0.2
Non-F/T
0.1
-1.0
-0.1
# of maps under revision
TBD
TBD
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding
inflation/COLA)
More Headwaters funding from other sources for additional research
and monitoring.
Additional funding from other sources for SNAP
NOTES: 2010 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.
100
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Ecology
Page 34
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Durham Water Manacierrient
2010 2010
2011
BUDGET ACTUALS
BUDGET % CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Other: Floodwarning Flood Control Capital (WAS STO
15,000 10,450
5,000
-67%
(10,000)
Report Cards & other projects
30,000 16,526
76,000
153%
46,000
Surface Flow: Stream Gauges
40,000 41,883
42,000
5%
2,000
Aquatic: Durham Fish Plan
12,000 10,859
25,000
108%
13,000
Flood Warning Systems & Flood Control Capital
7,000
-100%
(7,000)
Regulation Line Mapping Update
86,000 60,921
94,000
9%
8,000
Durham Waterfront & Watershed Water Quality Studies
30,000 3,095
-100%
(30,000)
Clmate Change
50,000
-100%
(50,000)
270,000 143,734
242,000
-10%
(28,000)
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
875
-
Reserves
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
Other - Municipal
Other - Provincial
Other - Federal
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Non -Government Grants
875
Capital Ievy
Peel
York
Durham
162,000 157,000
162,000
Toronto
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
-
York
-
Durham
108,000 (14,141)
80,000
-26%
(28,000)
Toronto
-
Adjala / Mono
Deficit / (Surplus)
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA /VOLUME / PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
0.2
-1.0
-0.2
Non-F/T
0.2
-
0.2
# of Reg Maps under review
132
132
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
2011 funding to go to continued flood mapping updates relative to regulation mapping requirements
Funding lower than 2010 due to cancellation of project 122-60
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Funding will be CF to pay for consultant for Surface Water
Funding to be spent on contracts for Surface Flow
:Jr__T_6_1
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION: Ecology
Page 34b
GROUP: Capital
ACTIVITY: Water Management portion of Toronto Remedial
Action Plan Project
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
WMan.: Planning & Integration
14,000
13,888
-100%
(14,000)
Water Balance
22,000
22,000
22,000
Sust. Neighbourhoods Retrofit Plan
139,000
122,830
249,000
79%
110,000
WMan.: Water Budgets
-
Highland Creek Valley & Stream Greening Program
105,000
43,482
128,000
22%
23,000
Reg Line Mapping, Growth Management
112,000
77,321
156,000
39%
44,000
WMan.: Riparian Zone Survey/Aquatic Priorities
26,000
18,765
45,000
73%
19,000
WMan.: Climate Change
30,000
13,460
44,000
47%
14,000
448,000
311,747
644,000
44%
196,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
-
Reserves
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
2,000
28,000
28,000
Other - Municipal
Other - Provincial
Other - Federal
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Non -Government Grants
112,000
112,000
2,000
140,000
140,000
Capital levy
Peel
York
Durham
Toronto
280,000
280,000
367,000
31%
87,000
Adjala / Mono
-
Carryforward levy -Peel
York
Durham
-
Toronto
168,000
29,747
137,000
-18%
(31,000)
Adjala / Mono
Deficit / (Surplus)
-
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA / VOLUME / PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
0.5
1.2
1.4
0.7
Non-F/T
-
# of Projects Initiated - SNAP
3
3
3
% Completion
# of Projects Complete - SNAP
2
2
% Completion
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Less watershed planning & more implementation like Sustainable Neighbourhoods retrofits with additional funding
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
The majority of the major over expenditures is offset by additional funding received during
the year.
Anticipated net expenditures will balance.
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Ecology
Page 35
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Water Cost Centres
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Watershed Plan/Integration Projects
288,500
167,814
258,400
-10%
(30,100)
Growth Management Policy Projects
401,000
337,147
768,000
92%
367,000
Flood / Groundwater Projects
340,000
286,743
369,000
9%
29,000
Aquatic Projects
155,000
143,606
287,000
85%
132,000
Climate Change Projects
69,000
72,506
399,000
478%
330,000
Other: Trail Plans
(10,000)
-100%
10,000
Other: Cultural Heritage Master Plan
52,000
49,951
52,000
Covered from Water Funding projects
(887,500)
(720,465)
(1,234,400)
39%
(346,900)
408,000
337,304
899,000
120%
491,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
209,500
166,668
240,000
15%
30,500
Reserves
-
Interest Earnings
-
CFGT - Flowthrough
4,000
379
-100%
(4,000)
Other - Municipal
36,000
10,397
40,000
11%
4,000
Other - Provincial
65,500
60,209
268,500
310%
203,000
Other - Federal
75,000
21,357
151,500
102%
76,500
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
18,000
23,529
195,000
983%
177,000
408,000
282,540
895,000
119%
487,000
Capital Ievy
Peel
5,000
-
York
55,000
Durham
Toronto
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
York
(4,414)
4,000
4,000
Durham
Toronto
Adjala /Mono
Deficit 1 (Surplus)
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA / VOLUME / PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
6.1
7.5
0.2
1.4
Non-F/T
2.1
1.8
(0.1)
(0.3)
# of Watershed Plans Complete
% Completion
# of Water Management Guidelines/Studies in Progress
4
4
% Completion
# of Water Management Guidelines/Studies Complete
3
% Completion
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Less Watershed Plan Integration work because nearing completion.
2011 funding to go to continued flood mapping updates relative to regulation mapping requirements
2011 aquatics will complete Rouge FMP and Don FMP.
2011 start for Stormwater Temperature Study, Etobicoke implementation.
FTE Chan e:+.8 New SNAP Pro'. AssistantFTE Change: +1 new Climate Change Pro' Man., +.75 Sediment ControlFTE Change: +.3 Planner
NOTES: 2010 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.
2010 Carryforward dollars for ongoing projects into 2011
-
191
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL
BUDGET
DIVISION:
Ecology
Page 35b
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
CTC Source Water Protection
Plan
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET % CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
SOURCE PROT:MNR/CO BASE FUNDS
112,000
136,414
478,000
327%
366,000
CTC - GIS Mapping
77,000
60,153
46,000
-40%
(31,000)
CTC Assessment Report
18,000
264,810
130,000
622%
112,000
CTC:SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN
122,000
20,585
115,000
-6%
(7,000)
CTC;CVC Transfer
212,000
465,590
432,000
104%
220,000
CTC:CLOCATransfer
289,000
69,483
258,000
-11%
(31,000)
CTC Communications
334,000
332,694
212,000
-37%
(122,000)
Water Budget Peer Review
44,781
-
Source Protection Committee
111,000
60,603
154,000
39%
43,000
SPP: L. Ontario Collaboration
18,000
34,774
20,000
11%
2,000
CTC Project Management
165,000
140,258
-100%
(165,000)
SPP:TRCA PROJ.MANGMENT
150
-
CTC Technical Support
123,000
102,479
14,000
-89%
(109,000)
CTC Admin. Support
65,000
63,700
51,000
-22%
(14,000)
TRCA Admin. Support
69,000
72,810
64,000
-7%
(5,000)
SPP: TRAINING COSTS
733
-
SWP:SW MONITORING
41
-
Data Management
27,000
26,891
28,000
4%
1,000
GIS/ Mapping
46,000
61,025
46,000
SPP: Preliminary Water Budget
150,000
71,287
150,000
TRCA Project Management
121,000
172,096
185,000
53%
64,000
TRCA Technical Support
23,000
7,380
20,000
-13%
(3,000)
CTC:CLOCA CONTINGENCY
215,726
-
2,082,000
2,424,462
2,403,000
15%
321,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
150
-
Reserves
Interest Earnings
20,696
-
CFGT - Flowthrough
Other - Municipal
Other - Provincial
2,082,000
2,403,616
2,403,000
15%
321,000
Other - Federal
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Private
-
2,082,000
2,424,462
2,403,000
15%
321,000
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
Staff FTEs- Full-time
5.6
2.0
6.3
0.1
0.7
Non-F/T
0.2
4.0
0.4
1.6
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
% Completion
1
0
1
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excludii
More Source Protection Planning workshops are anticipated to begin during
this period.
In previous years CVC & CLOCA portions of the budget
were not accounted
for within the CTC budget even though funds
are processed through TRCA.
+.1 more Coordinator FTE change: +.2 GIS FTE Change: +.4 more PlannerWM FTE Change: +.4 Policy manager to here
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Up due to anticipated completion of the 3 Assessment Reports and the corresponding public consultation.
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
Ecology
Page 36
GROUP: Capital
ACTIVITY: Floodplain Mapping Program
2010 2010
2011
BUDGET ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Project Management
Etobicoke-Mimico Flood Plain Mapping
-
Mimico: Hydraulics/Floodline Update 25,000 14,224
11,000
-56%
(14,000)
Frenchmans B: Hydrology Update
-
Core Flood Plain Mapping Program 350,000 285,874
315,000
-10%
(35,000)
375,000 300,098
326,000
-13%
(49,000)
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
Reserves
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
Other - Municipal
Other - Provincial
Other - Federal
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Non -Government Grants
Capital Ievy
Peel 165,000 165,000
100,000
-39%
(65,000)
York 60,000 60,000
60,000
Durham 20,000 20,000
20,000
Toronto 50,000 50,000
65,000
30%
15,000
Adjala / Mono
-
Carryforward levy -Peel 40,000 11,943
28,000
-30%
(12,000)
York 18,000 (2,282)
18,000
Durham 7,000 (2,282)
18,000
157%
11,000
Toronto 15,000 (2,282)
17,000
13%
2,000
Adjala / Mono
Deficit / (Surplus)
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA /VOLUME / PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time 0.3
0.8
2.1
0.5
Non-F/T
0.5
0.5
# of Flood Plain Maps Maintained 754 679
754
% Completion
# of Flood Plain Map Updates Complete 75 2
75
% Completion
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
2010 carry -forward for committed consultant projects that were delayed
2011 will have continued Flood Plain Mapping and Staff i
+.5 New Water Anala st,+.5 New Technician
NOTES: 2010 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.
193
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Ecology
Page 37
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
York/Peel/Durham/Toronto Groundwater
2010 2010
2011
BUDGET ACTUALS
BUDGET % CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Groundwater Studies
712,000 607,150
604,000
-15%
(108,000)
712,000 607,150
604,000
-15%
(108,000)
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
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
53,000 26,788
26,000
-51%
(27,000)
York
53,000 26,788
26,000
-51%
(27,000)
Durham
53,000 26,788
26,000
-51%
(27,000)
Toronto
53,000 26,788
26,000
-51%
(27,000)
Adjala / Mono
Deficit / (Surplus)
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
2 1
2
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Lower carry -forward from 2010 due to work being completed.
All municipal funding attached to 2011 deliverables
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Caryforward to 2010 for deliverables attached to model applications and peer review
194
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
c0 Ogy
Page 38
GROUP: Capital
ACTIVITY: Terrestrial Natural
Heritage
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
Actuals
BUDGET % CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program
582,000
472,796
554,000
-5%
(28,000)
Pickering Terrestrial Natural Heritage
-
Sp:Research Aqua/Terr. Study
12,000
600
12,000
New: Roads & Wildlife Analysis
50,000
2,930
97,000
94%
47,000
644,000
476,327
663,000
3%
19,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
3,500
-
Reserves
Interest Earnings
-
CFGT - Flowthrough
60,000
400
60,000
Other - Municipal
40,000
23,000
-43%
(17,000)
Other - Provincial
28,000
13,987
21,400
-24%
(6,600)
Other - Federal
28,000
31,387
24,600
-12%
(3,400)
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
21,000
9,600
27,000
29%
6,000
177,000
58,874
156,000 -12%
(21,000)
Capital levy
Peel
190,000
190,000
183,000
-4%
(7,000)
York
127,000
127,000
127,000
Durham
50,000
50,000
50,000
Toronto
100,000
100,000
100,000
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
(45,148)
47,000
-
47,000
York
-
Durham
-
Toronto
(4,400)
-
Adjala / Mono
Deficit/ (Surplus)
-
-
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA /VOLUME / PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
3.2
7.2
124%
4.0
Non-F/T
3.0
1.8
-41%
(1.2)
# of Reports Completed
8
-
% Completion
# of Reports in Progress
20
7
20
% Completion
% Completion
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Additional funding to complete deliverables for Roads and Wildlife project in 2011
NEW:+1 Green Infra Coord, +1 Water technician,.5 TNH Proj. Assistant,
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Roads and Wildlife initiative delayed.
195
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION: Restoration Services
Page 39
GROUP: Capital
ACTIVITY: Toronto Remedial Action Plan Project- Regeneration items
2010 2010
2011
BUDGET ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Etobicoke: Etobicoke Mimico HIP
29,000
29,000
32,000
10%
3,000
All Toronto Plant Projs
25,000
25,000
30,000
20%
5,000
Don: Don HIP Funds
66,000
65,993
55,000
-17%
(11,000)
Etobicoke: Reid Manor's Woodland Park
89,000
-100%
(89,000)
Humber: Eglinton Flats Pond
4,000
2,133
2,000
-50%
(2,000)
Humber: Claireville Trail TO
51,579
37,000
-
37,000
Etobicoke: South Mimico Barrier Mitigation
75,000
17,234
68,000
-9%
(7,000)
WF: Toronto Islands Beach Restoration Projects
7,000
2,718
4,000
-43%
(3,000)
Rouge Watershed Plan Implementation
43,000
81,412
47,000
9%
4,000
Project Management
21,000
-100%
(21,000)
Canada Goose Management
30,000
30,000
30,000
WF: Waterfront ORM Migratory Bird/Waterfowl
20,000
60,867
20,000
Waterfront: Habitat Implementation
82,000
75,550
91,000
11%
9,000
Humber: Habitat Implementation Plan
48,000
48,000
45,000
-6%
(3,000)
SP:T.O.HISTOR.PARK-SIGN/PLANTS
4,206
-
Etobicoke: Toronto Golf Club Barrier Mitigation
29,000
1,100
28,000
-3%
(1,000)
Humber: ILC/Claireville Reservoir
9,000
6,646
2,000
-78%
(7,000)
ETOB-MIM:RIPARIAN RESTOR.
13,000
-
Humber: Lower Humber Weir Mitigation
48,000
691
47,000
-2%
(1,000)
625,000
515,129
538,000
-14%
(87,000)
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
3,956
-
Reserves
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
41,346
-
Other - Municipal
7,000
2,718
4,000
-43%
(3,000)
Other - Provincial
-
Other - Federal
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Non -Government Grants
35,000
7,000
83,020
4,000
-43%
(3,000)
Capital levy
Peel
-
York
Durham
-
Toronto
350,000
350,000
357,000
2%
7,000
Adjala / Mono
-
Carryforward levy-Peel
York
Durham
-
Toronto
268,000
82,110
177,000
-34%
(91,000)
Adjala / Mono
-
Deficit 1 (Surplus)
(1)
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development
Staff FTEs- Full-time
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.3
Non-F/T
0.4
0.4
# of trees/shrubs planted
30,000
32,039
30,000
# of hectares wetlands restored/created
2
3
2
# of hectares riparian restoration
0.1
0.1
# of metres of stream restoration
90
100
0
10
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Less carry forward funds as more projects were completed on schedule in 2010
Less non capital funds for projects
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Toronto Golf Club & Lower Humber Barrier Mitigation will have carry forwards due design & approval
delays
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION: Restoration Services
Page 40
GROUP: Capital
ACTIVITY: Peel Natural Heritage
Pro'ect
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
BUDGET
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Regeneration:
HUMBER:PEEL COMM. E NVI RO. Projects
150
Humber:Claireville Restoration
63,000
58,731
48,000
-24%
(15,000)
Humber: Indian Line Claireville Reservoir Naturalization
9,000
8,881
-100%
(9,000)
Humber: Caledon East Community Action Site
9,000
8,755
-100%
(9,000)
Humber: HIP Funds
79,000
90,961
71,000
-10%
(8,000)
Etobicoke: Pratt & Whitney Renaturalization
141
Etobicoke: Heart Lake Naturalization
10,000
10,104
-100%
(10,000)
Etobicoke: Habitat Implementation Funds
86,000
65,482
78,000
-9%
(8,000)
Etobicoke: Snelgrove master Plan
8,000
8,972
-100%
(8,000)
Arsenal Lands Park Development
95,000
71,780
22,000
-77%
(73,000)
Etobicoke: Malton ESP
31
Mimico: Upper Mimico Crk Habitat Restoration
70,000
69,594
70,000
Humber: Oak Ridges Moraine CPA2
156,000
160,947
156,000
Multi W:Canada Goose Mngt.
39,000
39,000
33,000
-15%
(6,000)
Multi W: Managing Hazard Trees - Peel
28,000
20,474
17,000
-39%
(11,000)
Peel All Plant Projs Funding
185,000
138,728
221,000
19%
36,000
INTRNAL:EM-COURTNEY PARK TRAIL
2,462
-
837,000
755,193
716,000
-14.5%
(121,000)
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/Userfees
1,000
1,451
-100.0%
(1,000)
Reserves
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
141
Other - Municipal
Other- Provincial
-
Other - Federal
3,000
0
-100%
(3,000)
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
2,192
4,000
3,785
-100%
(4,000)
Capital levy
Peel
623,000
623,000
637,000
2%
14,000
York
Durham
Toronto
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy-Peel
210,000
128,371
79,000
-62%
(131,000)
York
Durham
Toronto
Adjala / Mono
Deficit 1(Surplus)
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development
Staff FTEs- Full-time
0.0
0.8
125.7
0.8
Non-F/T
1.3
1.2
-0.1
-0.1
# of trees/shrubs planted
10,000
11,830
10,000
# of hectares wetlands restored/created
1
0
1
# of hectares riparian restoration
2
2
2
# of metres of shoreline restoration
200
200
200
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Less carry forward funds than the previous year as projects were completed as scheduled
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Hazard Trees Mngt has carry forward funds for emergency tree removals
Etobicoke Mimico HIP project has carry forward to complete the work in 2011
197
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Restoration Services
Page 41
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
York Natural Heritage Project
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
$ CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Regeneration:
Canada Goose Management Funding
14,000
14,000
10,000
-29%
(4,000)
Humber: Lake Wilcox CAS
17,000
23,232
10,000
-41%
(7,000)
Humber: Humber HIP
40,000
40,000
50,000
25%
10,000
Humber: Eaton Hall Wetland
10,000
3,955
-100%
(10,000)
Humber: Woodbridge Expansion Area
18,000
18,000
Don: Richmond Hill Riparian
22,000
20,007
18,000
-18%
(4,000)
Humber: Richmond Hill Riparian
10,686
18,000
-
18,000
Don: Don HIP
28,000
28,000
30,000
7%
2,000
16TH AVE#11:LIABILITY INSURANC
7,411
-
SP: Rouge Park/Bob Clay Support
70,000
69,000
40,000
-43%
(30,000)
Rouge: Rouge Watershed Plan Implementation
42,000
71,282
72,000
71%
30,000
Rouge: R. Hill Riparian Planting
26,000
12,752
24,000
-8%
(2,000)
Reforestation/Plant Propagation
87,000
87,000
105,000
21%
18,000
Managing Hazard Trees - York
33,000
13,023
30,000
_9%
(3,000)
SP SE COLLCTR#17-ARCHAEOLOGY
16,750
-
Rouge: SE Collector - RP & BHP Signs
63,000
63,000
Rouge: SE Collector - Tenant Relocation
15,750
158,000
158,000
Rouge: SE Collector - Project Management
36,764
79,000
79,000
Rouge: SE Collector - Trail Planning & Construction
202,487
772,000
772,000
Rouge: SE Collector - Trails Land Securment
57,000
57,000
Rouge: SE Collector - Habitat Design & Wetland Planning
21,783
14,000
14,000
Rouge: SE Collector - Wetland Restoration
52,106
221,000
221,000
Rouge: SE Collector - Riparian Plantings
8,559
198,000
198,000
Rouge: SE Collector - Meadow Savannah
74,218
173,000
173,000
Rouge: SE Collector - Roadside Buffer
31,000
31,000
Rouge: SE Collector - NFC Site Preparation
573
116,000
116,000
Rouge: SE Collector - NGO Planting Support & Plant Supply
40,000
40,000
Rouge: SE Collector - Rouge Park Admin. & Staff Time
132,000
40,000
40,000
Rouge SE Collector - Trail Head Car Park, Kiosks
51,651
76,000
76,000
Rouge: SE Collector - Securement & Tenant Fencing
10,925
1,000
1,000
Rouge: SE Collector - TRCA Interim Park Mngt Fees
50,000
50,000
Rouge: SE Collector - Grading, Bridges, Lights
218,000
218,000
510,000
1,026,136
2,802,000
449% 2,292,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
44,175
2,317,000
-
2,317,000
Reserves
Interest Earnings
-
CFGT - Flowthrough
5,000
4,783
-100%
(5,000)
Other- Municipal
97,000
38,165
96,000
_1%
(1,000)
Other - Provincial
-
Other - Federal
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
70,000
671,274
40,000
-43%
(30,000)
172,000
758,396
2,453,000
1326% 2,281,000
Capital levy
Peel
-
York
311,000
303,800
311,000
Durham
Toronto
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
-
York
27,000
(11,666)
38,000
41%
11,000
Durham
-
Toronto
Adjala / Mono
-
Deficit / (Surplus)
(24,394)
-
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development
Staff FTEs- Full-time
0.9
1.9
1.0
1.0
Non-F/T
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
# of trees/shrubs planted
80,000
79,377
80,000
-
# of hectares wetlands restored/created
-
# of hectares riparian restoration
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Maintained 2010 level of capital funding from the Region of York
Year 2 of South East Collector Sewer Enhancements paid by Region York (non capital levy)
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
York Region special funding approved for South East Collector Sewer Enhancements
York Capital for Stouffville Greenway was reallocated & Whitchurch Stouffville funds carried forward to 2011
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Restoration Services
Page 42
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Durham Natural Heritage Project
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Watershed Trail Planning
-
Watershed Trail Implementation
55,000
66,479
78,000
42%
23,000
Duffins: Fish Plan Implementation
36,000
34,286
38,000
6%
2,000
TNH Implementation
42,000
39,605
42,000
Durham - Managing Hazard Trees
20,000
20,750
20,000
Durham Goose Management
7,000
7,000
7,000
Seaton Trail #1:Planning
22,000
26,211
-100%
(22,000)
Seaton - Green River Trailhead
6,000
7,875
-100%
(6,000)
Seaton Trail - Forestream Rd Trailhead
7,000
21,693
-100%
(7,000)
Seaton Trail - Whitevale Trailhead
4,000
-100%
(4,000)
Seaton Trail #5:lmprovements
159,000
133,514
243,000
53%
84,000
Seaton Trail #6:Site Securement
30,000
4,809
17,000
-43%
(13,000)
Seaton Trail #7:Nat. Heritage Regeneration
225,000
4,896
25,000
-89%
(200,000)
Seaton Trail - Signage
17,000
13,602
8,000
-53%
(9,000)
Seaton Trail - Community Outreach
28,000
7
5,000
-82%
(23,000)
Seaton Trail #10:Proj. Management
102,000
72,072
16,000
-84%
(86,000)
SP:Brock N & S Restoration Planning
-
760,000
452,799
499,000
-34%
(261,000)
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
2,000
8,930
-100%
(2,000)
Reserves
-
Interest Earnings
CFGT- Flowthrough
25,111
Other - Municipal
-
Other - Provincial
600,000
288,978
314,000
-48%
(286,000)
Other - Federal
-
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Non -Government Grants
-
602,000
323,019
314,000
-48%
(288,000)
Capital levy
Peel
York
Durham
158,000
158,000
158,000
Toronto
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy-Peel
York
Durham
(28,220)
27,000
27,000
Toronto
Adjala / Mono
Deficit / (Surplus)
-
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development
Staff FTEs- Full-time
1.3
1.1
-0.2
-0.2
Non-F/T
2.6
2.6
# of trees/shrubs planted
7000
7552
7000
# of hectares wetlands restored/created
0.1
0.0
-
0.0
# of hectares riparian restoration
1.0
0.8
1.0
# of metres of shoreline restoration
200.0
260.0
200.0
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding
inflation/COLA)
Less Seaton Trails Project work in 2011.
FTE change:-1 Technician moved from Seaton work
NOTES: 2010 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 Project
■ vv
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION: Restoration Services
Page 42b
GROUP: Capital
ACTIVITY: Regeneration Cost Centres
2010 2010
2011
BUDGET ACTUALS
BUDGET % CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Habitat Implementation Projects 486,000 501,658
466,000
-4%
(20,000)
Reforestation/ Planting Projects 292,000 249,595
364,000
25%
72,000
Special Habitat Restoration Projects 1,118,000 843,895
1,567,000
40%
449,000
Asian Longhorn Beetle Program 333,000 215,959
327,000
-2%
(6,000)
Environmental Services- Other 1,571,000 3,194,863
2,589,000
65%
1,018,000
Habitat / Monitoring Internal Cost Centres 3,000 32,666
15,000
400%
12,000
Covered by other Capital projects (782,000) (778,437)
(836,000)
7%
(54,000)
3,021,000 4,260,199
4,492,000
49%
1,471,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees 1,443,000 2,744,083
2,629,000
82%
1,186,000
Reserves 1,393
-
Interest Earnings 216
-
CFGT - Flowthrough 137,000 45,705
122,000
-11%
(15,000)
Other - Municipal 247,000 556,404
168,000
-32%
(79,000)
Other - Provincial 273,000 316,351
288,000
5%
15,000
Other - Federal 858,000 750,278
694,000
-19%
(164,000)
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other - Non -Government Grants 63,000 32,681
591,000
838%
528,000
3,021,000 4,447,111
4,492,000
49%
1,471,000
Capital levy
Peel
York 7,200
Durham
Toronto
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
York
Durham
Toronto
Adjala / Mono
Deficit / (Surplus) (194,113)
-
-
-
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development
Staff FTEs- Full-time 17.8
16.3
-0.1
-1.5
Non-F/T 6.3
9.8
0.6
3.6
# of trees/shrubs planted REM 20,000 21,490
20,000
# of hectares of wetlands restored/create, 6 6
6
# of hectares riparian restoration 5 5
5
# of metres of stream restoration 1,000 1,130
1,000
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excludina inflation/COLA)
More environmental special projects (non capital levy funded) from our municipal partners C
More projects funded from environmental compensations
+8.1 labourers for Regen Sp. ProjectsFTE Change: -1.9 to Stewardship projectsFTE Change: -1.6 Urban Canopy project finishedFTE change: -1 Technician moved from Seaton work
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
W. Etobicoke Crk will have carry forward funds to match City of Missisauga funds in 2010
Lower Humber Mitigation to carry forwards due to project delays in design & approvals
Stouffville Greenway Trail did not proceed, new project to be developed with T of Whitch- S'
Many projects are multi year and funds are carried forwarded
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION: Restoration Services
Page 42
GROUP: Capital
ACTIVITY: Valley
and Shoreline Regeneration
Projects
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
$CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Erosion : Planning & Design
115,000
105,923
94,000
-18%
(21,000)
Eastville Office
30,000
52,186
40,000
33%
10,000
Erosion Control Planning
40,000
21,397
59,000
48%
19,000
Erosion Control Major Maintenance
294,000
121,439
632,000
115%
338,000
Monitoring & Maintenance: WF
266,000
231,988
333,000
25%
67,000
EC: Troutbrook Dr. Slope Failure
79,532
1,250,000
-
1,250,000
EC: Denison Dr. Slope Stabilization
40,000
-
40,000
Highland CN Bridge Revetment
24,000
24,000
30-48 Royal Rouge Trail
300,000
132,862
147,000
-51%
(153,000)
Meadowcliffe Drive
508,000
331,200
3,924,000
672%
3,416,000
MEADOWCLIFFE-PROJ.MANAGEMENT
43,864
-
Springbank Ave.
2,000
2,000
Toronto Islands - Gilbraltor Point
380,000
185,557
110,000
-71%
(270,000)
Birkdale Ravine
9,000
9,000
Toronto Parks Sites
180,000
48,154
288,000
60%
108,000
EROSION: BRUCE FARM DRIVE
10,044
-
Toronto Emergency - 345 Riverview
8,000
8,000
SPECIAL T.O.EC-21 SUNNYBRAE CR
3,708
-
Military Trail
21,000
2,941
1,000
-95%
(20,000)
T.O. Works Funded:E/C Inventory
38,724
41,000
-
41,000
Black Creek Stabilization Keelesdale Park
376,553
84,000
-
84,000
Toronto Parks Storm Damage Program
263,000
16,995
118,000
-55%
(145,000)
Wilket Creek Restoration
288,000
310,144
1,000
-100%
(287,000)
SP:Wilket Crk. Geomorphology Study
94,540
292,000
-
292,000
T.O. Storm:City-Wide Bridges
156,395
SP: BLUFFER'S DOCK WALL REPAIR
2,961
-
T.O. Storm: 9-11 Copeland Ave.
42,000
42,214
-100%
(42,000)
Toronto Islands Marina Seawall Repairs
593,000
641,041
1,000
-100%
(592,000)
Toronto Nursery Relocation
300,000
869,296
50,000
-83%
(250,000)
T.O.PARKS:GLEN STEWART RAVINE
30,035
-
Chesteron Shores Outfall
122,000
88,265
65,000
-47%
(57,000)
Warden Woods Park Trails
135,777
10,000
-
10,000
Warden Woods Park Culvert Replacement
22,371
155,000
155,000
Rouge Beach Trail Improvements
25,000
25,000
Bluffers Park Dock Wall Repairs
114,000
114,000
ROUGE BEACH TRAIL IMPROVEMENT
55,616
-
TorontoParks- Additional Sites
238,000
15,653
272,000
14%
34,000
T.O. Parks EC#2: Brooks Park
18,000
228,077
-100%
(18,000)
Bluffer's Park Dredging
254,470
1,000
-
1,000
EROSION: GULLY DRIVE
61,445
EROSION:BURNVIEW CRESCENT
7,528
EROSION: ROYAL YORK ROAD
18,475
-
195 Hudson Drive Slope Repair
1,000
(0)
-100%
(1,000)
8 Lakeside Ave Slope Failure
9,740
Eastern Beaches Shore Stabilization Study
58,000
-
58,000
4,042,000
4,847,113
8,250,000
104%
4,208,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
2,227,000
3,668,152
1,397,000
-37%
(830,000)
Reserves
-
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
Other - Municipal
19,000
220
19,000
Other - Provincial
Other- Federal
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
63,000
27,000
-57%
(36,000)
2,309,000
3,668,373
1,443,000
-38%
(866,000)
Capital levy
Peel
-
York
Durham
-
Toronto
1,480,000
1,480,000
6,250,000
322%
4,770,000
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
-
York
Durham
Toronto
253,000
(301,023)
557,000
120%
304,000
Adjala / Mono
-
Deficit / (Surplus)
(237)
-
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development
Staff FTEs- Full-time
14.4
15.9
0.1
1.5
Non-F/T
3.7
3.7
# of metres of erosion work under way
160
160
900
# of erosion control studies
2 tbd
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Increased Toronto capital funding for Meadowcliffe and Troutbrooke projects
Special non capital funded erosion work paid by Toronto Works & Parks will continue
FTE Change: +1.2 construction staff for Toronto Works/ arks pro s.FTE Chan e: +.3 Clerk time
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Additional projects funded by the City of Toronto eg Bluffers Park Dredging
Major Maintenance, Meadowcliffe, Toronto Parks, Royal Rouge projects had scheduling delays.
20
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION: Restoration Services
Page 44
GROUP: Capital
ACTIVITY: Other Erosion Control
Projects
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG. CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
York Region Erosion Monitoring & Maintenance 131,000
70,160
136,000
4% 5,000
WEC109:HAYHOE AVE.SLOPE STUDY
45,767
-
WEC109:MCMICHAEL EROSION STUDY
29,240
-
SP: Ladies Golf Club (Markham)
24,660
216,000
- 216,000
Peel Region Erosion Monitoring & Maintenance 122,000
121,555
139,000
14% 17,000
Durham Region Erosion Monitoring & Maintenance 12,000
13,332
12,000
265,000
304,715
503,000
90%238,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
24,660
216,000
- 216,000
Reserves
-
Interest Earnings
-
CFGT - Flowthrough
-
Other - Municipal
-
Other - Provincial
20,000
-
Other - Federal
-
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
-
44,660
216,000
- 216,000
Capital levy
Peel 130,000
130,000
140,000
8% 10,000
York 130,000
130,000
130,000
Durham 12,000
12,000
12,000
Toronto
-
Adjala / Mono
-
Carryforward levy -Peel (8,000)
(7,597)
(1,000)
-88% 7,000
York 1,000
(4,832)
6,000
500% 5,000
Durham
-
Toronto
-
Adjala /Mono
-
Deficit / (Surplus)
484
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development
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 control protection in York Region 100
200
100
# of erosion control studies in York Region
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Continue work at the Toronto Ladies Golf Club paid by Town of Markham
Increased funding from the Regions of Peel and York
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Funding received from Town of Markham for TO Ladies Golf Club erosion control project
Carry forward York funding for ongoing monitoring & maintenance of erosion sites
909
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Restoration Services
Page 45
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
City of Toronto Waterfront Project
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
$CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Waterfront Administration
95,000
91,029
82,000
-14%
(13,000)
Eastville Office
16,000
24,286
10,000
-38%
(6,000)
Ashbridge's Bay Dredging
363,000
356,513
239,000
-34%
(124,000)
Scarborough Shoreline Protection & Public Access
51,000
8,495
141,000
176%
90,000
Long Range Waterfront Planning
174,000
189,279
164,000
-6%
(10,000)
Waterfront Parks Major Maintenance
90,000
-
90,000
Keating Channel Dredging
270,000
17,839
523,000
94%
253,000
Keating Channel #1 Env. Monitoring
36,000
29,064
36,000
Keating Channel #2 Auditing
5,000
780
8,000
60%
3,000
PEEL: MISSISS.WTRFRNT-PLANNING
24,575
-
TTP - Cell 1 Capping
200,000
71,425
203,000
2%
3,000
Tommy Thompson - Int. Mgt.
218,000
243,222
228,000
5%
10,000
Arsenal Lands Park Development
1,078,000
92,245
1,195,000
11%
117,000
Arsenal Long Term Monitoring
20,000
10,216
20,000
East Point Park
-
Environmental Monitoring
207,000
208,640
217,000
5%
10,000
MNR - Fish Community Toronto AOC
Waterfront G.I.S.
25,000
25,000
25,000
SP: HABT.ALTERATION ASSESS.TOOL
12,483
SP: BIOTIC INTEGRITY -FISHERIES
9,217
SP: SHORELINE LAND USE SURVEY
4,361
SP: Electro -fish Subcontracts
13,671
SP:DFO/MOE-L.ONT LOWR FOOD WEB
19,373
-
SP: DFO Sea Lamprey Control Proj.
25,000
10,350
12,000
-52%
(13,000)
SP: CAN. ENV.ASSES.AG.SECONDMENT
7,823
-
SP:FISHER IES -ACOUSTIC TAGGING
94,007
96,000
96,000
SP: T.O. Island Habitat Bank
8,187
14,000
14,000
SP: HUMBER BAY WETLAND CREATION
60
67,000
-
67,000
Covered from Other projects
(690)
2,783,000
1,571,451
3,370,000
21%
587,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
25,000
173,737
51,000
104%
26,000
Reserves
-
Interest Earnings
1,315
CFGT - Flowthrough
20,000
Other - Municipal
Other - Provincial
43,176
-
Other - Federal
25,000
105,216
163,000
552%
138,000
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
752,000
111,898
747,000
_1%
(5,000)
802,000
455,342
961,000
20%
159,000
Capital levy
Peel
-
York
Durham
Toronto
1,454,000
1,454,000
1,523,000
5%
69,000
Adjala/ Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
-
York
Durham
Toronto
527,000
(336,857)
886,000
68%
359,000
Adjala/Tos
-
Deficit / (Surplus)
(1,034)
-
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development
Staff FTEs- Full-time
6.8
6.1
-0.1
-0.7
Non-F/T
3.8
3.5
-0.1
-0.3
Facilities: # Buildings /Sq. footage
-
Keating Channel Dredging cubic metres
3,500
3,500
Ashbridges Bay Dredging cubic metres
4,250
5,750
4,250
TTP Event attendance
2,400
2,400
2,400
TTP Cleanup cubic metres
500
500
500
# of active projects
18
19
18
# of completed projects
2
2
2
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLAI
Mostly Keating Channel dreging carried forward.
New - Waterfront Parks Major Maintenance funded from
Toronto Capital
Increased funding from Environment Canada for Fisheries Research Acoustic Tagging
& Humber Bay Marshes
-1.3 RSS staff shifted re: smaller 2011 projsFTE Change: +.3 New Durham Waterfront Stew Coord.
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Arsenal Lands - started design work by consultants for Marie Curtis section
Keating Channel Dredging (1 day only) due to breaddown
of Cherry St lift bridge, carry forward funds to
2011
Tommy Thompson Park Cell 1&2 underspent but used in
2011 for continued planning,
monitoring and implementation
Scarborough Shoreline Protection & Access project has been delayed due to funding
There were 10 special funded projects in 2010 eg Sea Lamprey
work with DFO
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION: Restoration Services
Page 46
GROUP: Capital
ACTIVITY: Region Of Durham Waterfront Project
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Rouge Gateway
OPG Naturalization
30,000
16,705
27,000
-10.0%
(3,000)
Frenchman's Bay Restoration Management Plan
10,000
5,984
14,000
40.0%
4,000
SP: MOE Algae Cldphra Analysis
24,483
15,000
-
15,000
SP: Durham Wft Study Review
5,140
16,000
16,000
Frenchman's Bay Rehabilitation Project
69,000
67,689
55,000
-20.3%
(14,000)
Pickering Harbourfront Restoration
68,000
43,507
19,000
-72.1%
(49,000)
Pickering Waterfront Trail Securement
77,000
20,998
97,000
26.0%
20,000
Durham Waterfront Monitoring
15,000
18,550
12,000
-20.0%
(3,000)
Duffins Marsh Restoration
30,000
32,107
30,000
SP:DUFF-LAMPREY BARRIER FENCE
770
SP:AJAX ROTARY PRK:DRAINAGE
166
299,000
236,097
285,000
-4.7%
(14,000)
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
48,000
23,012
5,000
-89.6%
(43,000)
Reserves
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
Other - Municipal
40,000
58,954
36,000
-10.0%
(4,000)
Other - Provincial
24,483
15,000
15,000
Other - Federal
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Non -Government Grants
40,000
16,327
37,000
-7.5%
(3,000)
128,000
122,775
93,000
-27.3%
(35,000)
Capital levy
Peel
York
Durham
171,000
161,233
145,000
-15.2%
(26,000)
To ro nto
Adjala/ Mono
Carryforward levy-Peel
York
Durham
(47,911)
47,000
47,000
To ro nto
Adjala/Tos
Deficit / (Surplus)
-
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION:
Staff FTEs- Full-time
Under T.O. Waterfront
Under T.O. Waterfront
Non-F/T
Under T.O. Waterfront
Under T.O. Waterfront
# of Waterfront monitoring sites
# of active projects
12
12
12
# of completed projects
4
1
4
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Durham capital funding flatlined to 2010 level
FTE Change: +.3 New Durham Waterfront Stew Coord.
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Waterfront monitoring over spent due to additional completed work
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION: Watershed Management
Page 47
GROUP: Capital
ACTIVITY: Waterfront Revitilization Corporation Projects
2010 2010
2011
BUDGET ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG. CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project 3,111,000 2,331,710
1,589,000
-48.9% (1,522,000)
Mimico Waterfront Linear Park 4,773,000 2,241,499
4,186,000
-12.3% (587,000)
Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Implementation 3,748,000 888,234
3,737,000
-0.3% (11,000)
Western Beaches Watercourse Facility 96,000 34,010
55,000
-42.7% (41,000)
T.O. Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration 90,000
65,000
-27.8% (25,000)
CWF Monitoring 66,000 0
45,000
-31.8% (21,000)
11,884,000 5,495,452
9,677,000
-18.6% (2,207,000)
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
Reserves
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
Other - Municipal
Other - Provincial
Other - Federal
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Non -Government Grants 11,884,000 5,495,452
9,677,000
-18.6% (2,207,000)
11,884,000 5,495,452
9,677,000
-18.6% (2,207,000)
Capital levy
Peel
York
Durham
Toronto
Adjala/ Mono
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 12.1
13.1
0.1 1.0
Non-F/T 3.9
2.8
(0.3) (1.2)
# of metres of shoreline stregthened TBD
TBD
# hectares of land created TBD
TBD
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Remaining projects proceeding on schedule but no new projects yet confirmed.
FTE Change: -.5 less staff for smaller project
NOTES: 2010 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 2011
Port Union -Phase 2 in progress.
Variance of $2.3M for Waterfront Toronto projects is due to delays in land acquisition and reduction to the budget by TWRC.
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION: Finance and Business Development
Page 48
GROUP: Capital
ACTIVITY: Humber Bay Shores Waterfront Park
2010 2010 2011
BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET % CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Humber Bay Shores
Etobicoke Motel Strip Expropriation / Mediation
100,000 738,956 100,000
100,000 738,956 100,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
Reserves
(508,891)
Interest Earnings
2,907
CFGT - Flowthrough
-
Other - Municipal
50,000 (597,750) -100%
(50,000)
Other - Provincial
50,000 (611,766) -100%
(50,000)
Other - Federal
-
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Non -Government Grants
Land Sales proceeds
2,468,472 100,000
100,000
100,000 752,972 100,000
Capital levy
Peel
York
Durham
Toronto
Adjala/ Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
York
Durham
Toronto
Adjala/Tos
Deficit / (Surplus)
(14,016)
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
Non-F/T
# of Expropriations still pending
2 partial 2
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Continued mediation and expropriation costs
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Expropraiations not completed
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION: Watershed Management
Page 49
GROUP: Capital
ACTIVITY: Stewardship Community Programs
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Regeneration:
Community Environmental Projects
337,000
407,507
594,000
76%
257,000
Community Stewardship Projects
1,064,000
1,023,014
661,000
-38%
(403,000)
Internal
(13,000)
1,877,000
1,577,830
1,835,000
-2%
(42,000)
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
5,000
1,427
2,000
-60%
(3,000)
Reserves
2,250
-
Interest Earnings
-
CFGT- Flowthrough
52,000
34,216
38,000
-27%
(14,000)
Other - Municipal
11,142
-
Other - Provincial
141,500
634,144
379,000
168%
237,500
Other - Federal
508,500
17,554
14,000
-97%
(494,500)
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Non -Government Grants
5,000
30,064
11,000
120%
6,000
712,000
730,797
444,000
-38%
(268,000)
Capital levy
Peel
507,000
507,000
481,000
-5%
(26,000)
York
191,000
191,000
221,000
16%
30,000
Durham
45,000
50,000
45,000
Toronto
230,000
230,000
303,000
32%
73,000
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy-Peel
102,000
(119,218)
229,000
125%
127,000
York
15,000
(33,546)
50,000
233%
35,000
Durham
45,000
30,519
35,000
-22%
(10,000)
Toronto
30,000
(8,839)
27,000
-10%
(3,000)
Adjala / Mono
-
Deficit / (Surplus)
117
-
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on
Staff FTEs- Full-time
4.9
8.0
63%
3.1
Non-F/T
7.4
5.7
-23%
(1.7)
# workshops hosted
23
23
250
987%
227
# volunteers involved
2,500
2,500
11,700
368%
9,200
# restoration sites
9
9
-100%
(9)
# brochures and advertisements
23
23
100
335%
77
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Completion of the MOE Early Actions
program and the Oak Ridges Moraine Landowner program.
FTE Chan e:+2 NEW A uatic Plants,+1.45 Strats to Community Pros-.15 CFC vacant Pro Manager
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
207
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION
Watershed Management
Page 49b
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Education Programs
for Schools
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
$ CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Yellow Fish Road Program (JJ)
62,000
75,624
83,000
34%
21,000
EcoSchool Water Conservation Guide (DG)
8,000
5,946
-100%
(8,000)
Knowing Nature, Staying Safer (DG)
-
Educational Exploration of the Living City (DG)
2,000
1,523
-100%
(2,000)
Watershed on Wheels Program (JJ)
154,000
163,385
164,000
6%
10,000
Aquatic Plants Program (JJ)
54,000
78,829
85,000
57%
31,000
280,000
325,306
332,000
19%
52,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
4,661
4,000
-
4,000
Reserves
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
29,605
31,000
31,000
Other - Municipal
3,000
-
3,000
Other - Provincial
6,500
13,735
20,000
208%
13,500
Other - Federal
8,500
16,435
20,000
135%
11,500
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
4,000
-100%
(4,000)
19,000
64,436
78,000
311%
59,000
Capital levy
Peel
106,000
106,000
115,000
8%
9,000
York
55,000
55,000
55,000
Durham
-
Toronto
85,000
85,000
88,000
4%
3,000
Adjala / Mono
-
Carryforward levy -Peel
1,000
7,060
(4,000)
-500%
(5,000)
York
5,000
1,050
-100%
(5,000)
Durham
-
Toronto
9,000
8,202
-100%
(9,000)
Adjala / Mono
-
Deficit / (Surplus)
(1,442)
-
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on
Staff FTEs- Full-time
see stewardship
see stewardship
Non-F/T
see stewardship
see stewardship
# workshops hosted
22
18
1,170
5317%
1,148
# students involved
32,400
27,000
31,000
-4%
(1,400)
# restoration sites
20
17
10
-51%
(10)
# brochures and advertisements
12,000
10,000
12,000
# Citizenship ceremonies hosted
2
2
2
-17%
(0)
# people involved in ceremonies
1,440
1,200
1,440
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Grants received from Earth Day Canada, RBC, Sunny Days and the Town of Ajax.
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Watershed Management
Page 49c
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Community Transformation Partnerships
2010 2010
2011
BUDGET Actuals
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
Expenditures:
Energy Projects
749,000 3105820
4025000
-150%
3475000
Sustainable Community Projects
1575000 575158
1825000
-88%
255000
Partners in Project Green Projects
152625000 5825639
152475000
-1%
(155000)
Expenditure Total
2,168,000 950,617
1,831,000
-16%
(337,000)
Funding Sources:
Program/Userfees
54,000 194,763
245,000
354%
191,000
Reserves
-
Interest Earnings
-
CFGT- Flowthrough
14,000 3,089
26,000
86%
12,000
Other - Municipal
96,000 159,700
312,000
225%
216,000
Other - Provincial
39,000 21,435
42,000
8%
3,000
Other - Federal
136,075
3,000
-
3,000
Other - Donations/Fundraising
28,075
93,000
-
93,000
Other - Non -Government Grants
1,800,000 280,193
907,000
-50% (893,000)
Revenue Total
2,003,000 823,331
1,628,000
-19%
(375,000)
Capital levy
-
Peel
12,000 12,000
12,000
York
11,000 41,000
46,000
318%
35,000
Durham
-
Toronto
38,000 108,000
108,000
184%
70,000
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
4,000 624
3,000
-25%
(1,000)
Carryforward levy -York
30,000 (13,393)
13,000
-57%
(17,000)
Carryforward levy -Durham
-
Carryforward levy-T.O.
70,000 (20,945)
21,000
-70%
(49,000)
Adjala / Mono
-
Deficit / (Surplus)
(0)
-
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA / VOLUME / PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
4.2
5.7
36%
1.5
Non-F/T
1.4
-100%
(1.4)
# of Projects in Progress
21.0
20
0
(1.0)
Completion
25.0%
10.0%
-60.0%
(0.2)
# of Projects Complete
10
2
-80%
(8.0)
% Completion
-
GHC- # hospitals
40 0
55
0
15.0
MMC- number towns & cities
9 15
9
District Energy: # municiplaities & organizations
20 15
20
Corporate Social Responsibility:
TRCA Buildings and Facilities
-
Maior 2011 over 2010 Changes (in addition to economic factors):
Private funding for new Greening Retail Guidelines / shopping mall research not received so project
was put on hold
Total expenditures of energy projects will be reduced
by 46.17% in 2011 as there will be fewer number
of projects
FTE Chan e:+.3 KCC Mana erFTE Change: -.4 Energy staff moved
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Private funding for new Greening Retail Guidelines development was not received so project was put on hold
Private funding for shopping mall research was not received thus project was put on hold
1
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Watershed Management
Page 50
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
2011 moved to WM from Ecology: Sustainable Technologies
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
Actuals
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
2011 moved to Ecology Peel Water Man:Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrol
104,701
-
Living City Report Card
175,000
62,576
182,000
4%
7,000
Natural Channel Design
96,000
95,517
56,000
-42%
(40,000)
Black Creek Urban Farm
17,000
3,197
14,000
-18%
(3,000)
Urban Agriculture- Growing Local Food
50,000
43,811
165,000
230%
115,000
Spills Database Program
47,000
7,543
63,000
34%
16,000
Can. River System Publications
-
Humber 10th Anniversary
13,000
-
13,000
Lot Dev. Impact Cost Tool
13,145
44,000
-
44,000
Soakaway/Soil Amend. Evaluation
147,000
-
147,000
SP:INFILTRATION LITERATURE REV
16.898
Terraview Filtration
2.795
-
STEP: Roof Infiltration Tank
70,000
73,333
45,000
-35.7%
(25,000)
S.T.E.P. Air Quality Items
163,000
106,309
119,000
-27.0%
(44,000)
CSO Workshop
12,872
-
SUSTAINABLE COMM COSTS
Permeable Pavement
90,000
117,766
93,000
3.3%
3,000
Sustainable Technology Evaluation Program -Water
351,000
41,906
186,000
-47.0%
(165,000)
S.T.E.P.:Rain Water Harvesting
60,000
35,567
14,000
-76.7%
(46,000)
Greenroof Costs
10,000
2,666
9,000
-10.0%
(1,000)
Education: Web Based Learning
53
-
Tech:Water Man Practices Training
19,000
-
19,000
S. Tech:Bioretention Evaluation
5,759
35,000
-
35,000
SUSTNBLE COMMUNITS TECH.SERIES
Peel Sustainable Comm Funding
-
York Sust Tech/Community Funds
6,000
6,490
-100.0%
(6,000)
Toronto Sustainable Community/ Technology Funds
83,000
82,772
114,000
37.3%
31,000
Peel Funding for Sustainable Tech and extra Monitoring items
-
Internal Municipal
1,011
(25,000)
-
(25,000)
1,218,000
836,686
1,2935000
6.2%
75,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
15,000
31,650
42,000
180.0%
27,000
Reserves
-
Interest Earnings
-
CFGT - Flowthrough
5,994
-
Other - Municipal
20,000
11,988
16,000
-20.0%
(4,000)
Other -Provincial
42,000
59,084
50,500
20.2%
8,500
Other -Federal
116,000
90,701
148,500
28.0%
32,500
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other- Non -Government Grants
349,000
5,343
285,000
-18.3%
(64,000)
542,000
204,759
5425000
capital levy
Peel
189,000
284,000
271,000
43.4%
82,000
York
117,000
112,000
112,000
-4.3%
(5,000)
Durham
-
Toronto
223,000
223,000
231,000
3.6%
8,000
Adjala/ Mono
-
Carryforward levy -Peel
55,000
(8,781)
70,000
27.3%
15,000
York
38,000
3,068
35,000
-7.9%
(3,000)
Durham
Toronto
54,000
22,998
32,000
-40.7%
(22,000)
Adjala/ Mono
Deficit / (Surplus)
(45358)
-
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA / VOLUME / PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
0.0
5.6
15688.4%
5.5
Non-F/T
7.4
2.0
-73.1%
(5.4)
# of Projects in Progress
19.0
20
20
5.3%
1
Completion
-
# of Projects Complete
8
6
6
-25.0%
(2)
Completion
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Some projects were completed and new ones were initiated, but the total value remains similar.
Natural channel design: no report needed for another 4 years.
FTE Change: -.3 KCC permeable parking IotFTE Change: +.3 more Specialists time to Report Card and Urban Agricuture
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
There was no major variance in 2010. Most projects were completed on schedule.
Installation of the last 100 foot turbine tower at the Kortright Centre has delayed
implementation
of the monitoring evaluation on small wind turbine technologies.
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
All
Page 51
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Peel Climate Change Mitigation
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Ecology Division Flood / Water Management Projects
1,661,000
482,059
1,709,000
3%
48,000
IlSust. Neightbourhood Retrofits (ECOL)
200,000
176,963
273,000
37%
73,000
Restoration Services Division items:
Erosion Control Projects
738,000
387,210
1,171,000
59%
433,000
Natural Heritage Restoration Projects
1,171,000
1,129,053
1,286,000
10%
115,000
Watershed Management Division items:
Natural Heritage Stewardship Projects
676,000
516,289
685,000
1%
9,000
Environmental Education Projects
677,000
477,739
974,000
44%
297,000
Sust.Comm: Pearson Eco -Park (WM)
350,000
425,093
450,000
29%
100,000
Community Transformation Projects
815,000
511,805
690,000
-15%
(125,000)
Climate Consortium
105,000
-
105,000
Parks & Culture Division items:
F&BS Division items:
Claireville/ Sustainable House Projects
610,000
497,955
541,000
-11%
(69,000)
6,898,000
4,604,166
7,8845000
14%
986,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
64,000
69,423
95,000
48%
31,000
Reserves
Interest Earnings
-
CFGT - Flowthrough
66,000
73,000
11%
7,000
Other -Municipal
43,000
4,817
28,000
-35%
(15,000)
Other -Provincial
11,000
20,844
-100%
(11,000)
Other -Federal
11,000
663
20,000
82%
9,000
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
170,000
6,225
83,000
(87,000)
365,000
101,972
299,000
-18%
(66,000)
Capital levy
Peel
5,325,000
5,325,000
5,600,000
5%
275,000
York
-
Durham
Toronto
Adjala/Tos
Carryforward levy -Peel
1,208,000
(822,790)
1,985,000
64%
777,000
York
Durham
Toronto
Adjala/Tos
Deficit / (Surplus)
(16)
-
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION (2011 still under development)
Staff FTEs- Full-time
16.6
18.8
13%
2.2
Non-F/T
13.0
11.1
-14%
(1.9)
# of trees planted
# of aquatic/herbaceous planted in Peel Region
20,000
30,245
20,000
# of Flood worksunderway
2.0
2.0
# of Erosion sites underway
3
2
3
Hectares of Forest managed
300
320
300
# of public engaged
323
399
323
# metres of riparian habitat restored
3,090
600
3,090
# of private landowners given assistance on forest management
15
13
15
# of hectares wetlands restored/created
5
5
5
# of hectares riparian restoration
8
8
8
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Funding increased for erosion, floodworks.
Funding increased for Climate Consortium, Pearson Eco -Industrial
Park, Environmental Youth
Corps.
Balance of increase relates to work still in progress from 2010.
FTE Change: -1.7 mostly Headwaters Small tributaryFTE Changes: +.6 net re: New Humber Stewardship Coordinator FTE Change:+.4 mostly Natural Channel HIPFTE Change: +.4 Claireville
work
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Work in progress carried forward to 2011: $1.2 million for Floodworks
& Erosion,
$400k for Habitat Restoration & Claireville, $300k for Eco -Schools
roll-out
L I I
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011
CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Watershed Management
Page 52
GROUP:
Flood Control
ACTIVITY:
Lower Don
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
BUDGET
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Don Mouth: TRCA Proj. Man. -E.A.
173,000
150,025
93,000
-46%
(80,000)
Don Mouth:External/Public Cons.
21,000
10,575
15,000
-29%
(6,000)
Don Mouth: Facilitator
18,000
5,840
12,000
-33%
(6,000)
Don Mouth:Gartner Lee
842,000
734,251
157,000
-81%
(685,000)
Don Mouth:Gardiner Roberts
4,000
2,000
-50%
(2,000)
DON MOUTH R ESTO R:VAC/HOL I DAYS
19,833
-
Lower Don Imp: Detail Design
50,000
-100%
(50,000)
LDRW Phase 2: TRCA Internal
63,000
40,133
94,000
49%
31,000
Lower Don Imp: ORC/FPL Coordination
41,000
14,413
-100%
(41,000)
LDRW PH 2:Peer Review of Flood Landform
15,000
15,877
9,000
-40%
(6,000)
Lower Don Imp: TWRC/Park Coordination
20,000
13,760
99,000
395%
79,000
LDRW PH 2:Gardiner Roberts
12,000
10,932
43,000
258%
31,000
LDRW PH 2:Hydro One
31,000
31,000
LDRW PH 2:Acquisition/Agreement
200,000
174,252
67,000
-67%
(133,000)
LOWER DON:VAC/HOLIDAY TIME
7,577
-
Ashbridge's Bay TRCA PM
7,941
Ashbridge's Bay Coastal Engineering
3,760
Ashbridhe's Bay Vac/Holiday Time
536
CHERRY BEACH SAND PLACEMENT
12,600
EASTERN BCHS SHORE STAB STUDY
62,140
-
1,490,000
1,284,447
622,000
-58%
(868,000)
Program/User fees
74,740
Reserves
-
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
Other - Municipal
Other - Provincial
Other - Federal
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
1,490,000
1,209,707
622,000
-58%
(868,000)
1,490,000
1,284,447
622,000
-58%
(868,000)
Capital levy
Peel
York
Durham
Toronto
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
York
Durham
Toronto
Adjala / Mono
Deficit / (Surplus)
-
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on
Staff FTEs- Full-time
1.6
1.1
-32%
(0.5)
Non-F/T
0.3
-100%
(0.3)
# public meetings hosted
2
1
2
# stakeholder/advisory meetings
50
61
50
# technical studies
9
4
9
# plans implemented
4
4
# advisory members engaged
>200
> 200
>200
# of projects underway
3
4
3
# of Projects Involved with Project Partners
15
15
15
# participants at public events
150
153
150
# on distribution lists (including WT distributions)
11,000
11,000
11,000
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Don Mouth Phase 1:EA submitted in Dec 2010, and year
end completed, better sense of remaining costs and wor
Lower Don Phase 2: continuing delays and uncertainty with schedules to finish with HON easements
FPL/DRF
FTE Change: -.5 less staff for smaller promect
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
For 191-02 - Delays in final submission to address OPA and pre -submission concern:
For 191-06 - Delays in final submission to address OPA and pre -submission concern:
For 195-20 - (legal fees on FPL easements with ORC/City/TRCA/WT much more involved than anticipated
L I L
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Ecology
Page 53
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Flood Control
Projects
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Flood Warning Equipment & Models
317,000
226,094
291,000
-8%
(26,000)
Flood Protection & Remedial Capital Works
593,000
136,957
672,000
13%
79,000
Small Dams & Flood Control Facilities Capital Works
168,000
50,226
182,000
8%
14,000
Large Dams Capital Works
181,000
122,195
75,000
-59%
(106,000)
Black Creek Channel Maintenance
394,000
426,611
16,000
-96%
(378,000)
York Stormwater Management Program
100,000
9,179
190,000
90%
90,000
Claireville Dam - OMS Review
14,000
14,000
WEC109:G.RSS LORD TRNSF.SWITCH
18,533
-
WEC109: OSLER DAM DSR
10,608
WECI 09:Secord Dam DSR
55,623
WEC109:G.RSS LORD HYDROG.STUDY
72,924
-
WECI 08 - Milne Dam OMS Manual
14,000
2,453
-100%
(14,000)
WECI 08 - Claireville Dam Wingwall Repair - Phase 2
15,000
-100%
(15,000)
WECI 08 - Pickering Ajax Flood Control Dyke Repair
40,000
19,939
-100%
(40,000)
WECI 08 - Secord Dam Culvert Repair
4,000
-100%
(4,000)
WECI 08 - Stouffville Dam OMS Manual
15,000
7,981
11,000
-27%
(4,000)
WECI 08 - West Don Hoggs Hollow Channel Study
5,000
16,364
250,000
4900%
245,000
MNR DAM SURVEY
120,000
-100%
(120,000)
1,980,000
1,175,687
1,701,000
-14%
(279,000)
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
195,000
258,046
42,000
-78%
(153,000)
Reserves
-
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
Other - Municipal
-
Other - Provincial
309,000
165,176
41,000
-87%
(268,000)
Other - Federal
-
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Non -Government Grants
-
504,000
423,222
83,000
-84%
(421,000)
Capital Ievy
Peel
225,000
225,000
233,000
4%
8,000
York
175,000
175,000
175,000
Durham
43,000
43,000
43,000
Toronto
160,000
160,000
439,000
174%
279,000
Adjala / Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
217,000
4,433
213,000
-2%
(4,000)
York
199,000
(4,492)
203,000
2%
4,000
Durham
66,000
24,045
48,000
-27%
(18,000)
Toronto
391,000
125,480
264,000
-32%
(127,000)
Adjala / Mono
-
Deficit / (Surplus)
0
-
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA /VOLUME / PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
3.8
4.9
0.3
1.0
Non-F/T
1.6
0.6
(0.6)
(1.1)
# of Sudies in Progress
7.0
4.0
7.0
% Completion
# of Sutdies Complete
5.0
1.0
5.0
% Completion
# New Stream and Precipitation Gauges
1.0
2.0
1.0
% Completion
# Snow Course sites monitored and maintainec
% Completion
# Low Flood Indicator sites monitored
% Completion
# Flood Infrastructure sites repaired/maintained
Completion
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
2010 carry -forward for further work on Flood Protection projects
including a strategy for Brampton.
Continued hydrometrics program & maintenance on small dams,
flood control channels, sediment and vegitation removal
at Yonge and York Mill
2011 funding lower than 2010 as carryforward will be spent on major
project:
FTE Change: -.9 less construction staff to hereFTE Change:+1.0 New Flood Risk Proj. Manage
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
2010 will have completed studies and implementation of works will begir
CF to cover deliverables into 2010 and new contract staff hire
21 fa
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Parks & Culture
Page 54
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Public Use Infrastructure
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
Actuals
BUDGET
% CHG.
$ CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Retrofits/Construction
246,000
(7,411)
262,000
7%
16,000
PUB USE: NEW SIGNAGE
8,780
-
PUB USE:COMMUNICATION UPGRADES
10,285
-
LAKE ST.GEORGE CFC:DAVIES HALL
75,341
-
HEART LAKE:GATE HOUSE REPAIRS
8,948
-
HEART LK:INFRA STIMULUS ITEMS
110,080
-
BM:CHALET REPAIR/SUGAR SHACK
5,000
-
ALBION H: CHALET REPAIRS
9,350
-
CA Planning
62,000
63,423
62,000
SP:RICHMOND H.LAND MNGMNT.PLAN
2,403
-
CA PLAN:BRUCE'S MILL MAN PLAN
11,524
-
CA PLAN:GLEN MAJOR MNGMNT PLAN
5,815
-
CA Planning- Altona Forest
10,000
13,046
10,000
Humber Arboretum
-
-
318,000
316,583
334,000
5%
16,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
2,230
-
Reserves
-
Interest Earnings
-
CFGT - Flowthrough
24,193
-
Other - Municipal
1,000
1,000
Other - Provincial
27
-
Other - Federal
(1,933)
-
Other - Donations/Fundraising
625
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
9,000
7,766
9,000
10,000
32,908
10,000
Capital levy
Peel
41,000
41,000
34,000
-17%
(7,000)
York
59,000
59,037
59,000
-
Durham
8,950
8,956
8,951
0%
1
Toronto
198,000
198,000
198,000
-
Adjala/Mono
50
50
49
-2%
(1)
Carryforward levy -Peel
(3,282)
3,300
-
3,300
York
(4,726)
4,700
-
4,700
Durham
(717)
700
-
700
Toronto
1,000
(15,055)
15,300
1430%
14,300
Adjala/Mono
(1)
-
Deficit / (Surplus)
414
-
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA / VOLUME / PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
1.1
-1.0
(1.1)
Non-F/T
0.6
-
0.6
# of Roof & Other repairs
2
2
# of Pool Projects
2
2
# of Mnagement Plans underway
5
5
% Completion
TBD
TBD
-
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
No change.
Pub Use:+.2 Proj. Manager, +.4 Pool staff, -1.1 no longer going to KCC retrofit
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
L 1 _r
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL
BUDGET
DIVISION:
Parks & Culture
Page 55
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Other Facilities Retrofits
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
$
$
$
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Peel Campgrounds
63,000
241,600
283.5%
178,600
Peel Campground: Albion Hills
53,695
43,400
-
43,400
Peel Washroom Upgrades
100,000
101,449
105,000
5.0%
5,000
Peel Energy Efficiency Retrofitting
100,000
62,384
113,000
13.0%
13,000
Kortright Centre Campus Development
194,000
192,768
305,000
57.2%
111,000
457,000
410,297
808,000
76.8%
351,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
1,142
Reserves
Interest Earnings
CFGT - Flowthrough
Other - Municipal
Other - Provincial
Other - Federal
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Non -Government Grants
1,142
Capital IevV
Peel
600,000
600,000
630,000
5.0%
30,000
York
127,000
127,000
Durham
Toronto
Adjala/Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
(143,000)
(188,325)
51,000
-135.7%
194,000
York
Durham
Toronto
Adjala/Mono
Deficit / (Surplus)
(2,521)
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA / VOLUME / PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
06
-
0.6
Non-F/T
12
-
1.2
# of Energy retrofits underway
TBD
TBD
-
# of Washroom updrades underway
TBD
TBD
-
# of Campgound Sites
TBD
TBD
-
# of Water Play facilities
TBD
TBD
-
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA
Peel Campground Budget & Carryforward
- Albion Hills Aquatic Facility
-
-
FTE Change:+1.8 staff allocated to KCC Campus
-
-
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
-
-
-
-
Next Pa 7
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011
CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Parks & Culture
Page 57
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Other Building Projects
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
ACTUALS
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Kortright Retrofit
1,204,000
269,847
1,217,000
1%
13,000
KCC RETRO#2:URBAN AGRICULTURE
184
-
KCC Sustainable House Construction
3,143
KCC Sustainable House Landscaping
819
KORTRIGHT ENTRANCE LANDSCAPING
430
-
Petticoat Pool
3,000,000
1,759,678
3,000,000
Heart Lake Pool
1,600,000
678,790
1,600,000
Nursery Relocation RSC Construction
25,000
29,178
-100%
(25,000)
Boyd Centre Workshop /Storage Construction
(368)
-
BOYD WRKSHP:NON-CONSTRN.COSTS
368
5,829,000
2,770,650
6,147,260
5%
318,260
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
-
Reserves
1,559,000
1,534,000
-2%
(25,000)
Interest Earnings
-
CFGT - Flowthrough
(1,678)
Uther - Municipal
300,000
-
Other - Provincial
1,533,000
1,836,041
1,533,000
Other-Federal
1,533,000
361,183
1,533,000
Other - Donations/Fundraising
Other - Non -Government Grants
11,700
Lease revenue
280,952
4,625,000
2,788,198
4,600,000
-1%
(25,000)
Capital levy
Peel
28,582
330,260
-
330,260
York
250,000
250,000
-100%
(250,000)
Durham
9,347
-
Toronto
207,000
206,000
-100%
(207,000)
Adjala/Mono
50
50
-100%
(50)
Carryforward levy-Peel
31,000
(99)
31,000
York
379,000
(251,997)
631,000
66%
252,000
Durham
21,950
(9,446)
31,000
41%
9,050
Toronto
315,000
(208,656)
524,000
66%
209,000
Adjala/Mono
(50)
-
Deficit / (Surplus)
(41,278)
-
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA 1 VOLUME 1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
0.7
0.5
-0.3
(0.2)
Non-F/T
-
Sq. Footage under construction
TBD
TBD
# of Pool projects under construction
2.0
2.0
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding
inflation/COLA)
New Pan-Am Games Equestrian Facility project added.
FTE Change: -.2 no longer to KCC/LCC retro project
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Pool construction, Kortright Centre work carries into 2011
P e ......59
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011
CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Restoration Services
Page 59
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Oak Ridges Moraine Corridor Park
2010 2010
2011
BUDGET Actuals
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Park Management Plan (GW)
3,000
3,000
Terrestrial Field Inventories (SH)
Trail Construction (ML)
21,084
10,000
10,000
Park Legal Fees (MF)
4,244
Habitat Restoration (ML)
20,000 25,531
20,000
Park Reforestation (TH)
45,310
100,000
100,000
Developers Contribution Agreement (JD)
301,000
-100%
(301,000)
Park Restoration ORMF (GW)
129,000 4,046
146,000
13%
17,000
453,000 100,215
279,000
-38%
(174,000)
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
8,000 25,531
117,000
1363%
109,000
Reserves
-
Interest Earnings
-
CFGT - Flowthrough
68,000
90,000
32%
22,000
Other - Municipal
18,000
18,000
Other - Provincial
-
Other - Federal
20,000
20,000
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
339,000 101,657
34,000
-90%
-305,000
453,000 127,188
279,000
-38%
-174,000
Capital levy
Peel
-
York
Durham
Toronto
Adjala/Tos
Carryforward levy -Peel
York
Durham
Toronto
Adjala/Tos
Deficit / (Surplus)
(26,973)
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development
Staff FTEs- Full-time
0.1
0.1
Non-F/T
-
# of reforestation seedlings planted
23,800
90,000
2.8
66,200
# of hectares of buffer plantings
1.0
-1.0
(1.0)
# of trees/shrubs planted by Community groups
925
500
-0.5
(425)
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Carry forward funds from developer's agreement for
future park development
Continue to implement park development plans
Continue to receive developers funds as per agreemnt
NOTES: 2010 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
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011
CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Parks & Culture
Page 60
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
BCPV Retrofit and Attraction
2010
2010
2,011
BUDGET
Actuals
BUDGET % CHG. $ CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
BCPV RETROF.CAP:VISITOR CENTRE
49,382
_
BCPV Attraction development
4,527
-
BCPV North OPA 6210 MP
225,000
186,480
225,000
BCPV Retrofit
407,000
121,391
446,000 9.58% 39,000
BCPV:DALZIEL BARN WORK
7,770
-
BCPV:JAMES DALZIEL(AGNEW)WORK
12,082
-
FALL FROLIC FUNDED PROJECTS
3,305
-
BC RETRO: ROOF PROJECTS
12,990
-
CHURCH DRIVESHED
-
-
09:BREWERY RETROFIT
21,317
-
09:RESTAURANT RETROFIT
449
-
BURWICK#2:CONSTRUCTION
-
-
632,000
499,566
671,000 6% 39,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
-
Reserves
-
Interest Earnings
-
CFGT - Flowthrough
2,200
-
Other - Municipal
225,000
186,480
225,000
Other - Provincial
-
Other - Federal
-
Other - Donations/Fundraising
-
Other - Non -Government Grants
-
225,000
188,680
225,000
Capital levy
Peel
York
Durham
Toronto
350,000
350,000
350,000
Adjala/Mono
Carryforward levy -Peel
-
York
Durham
Toronto
57,000
(39,114)
96,000
Adjala/Mono
-
Deficit / (Surplus)
-
-
- -
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA / VOLUME / PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time
0.4
1.0
0.4
Non-F/T
-
-
Facilities: # Buildings
50.0
50.0
50
Sq. Footage
170,000
170,000
170,000
Site Hectares
31
31
31
Sq. Footage under repair
TBD
TBD
TBD -
# of items to be repalced
TBD
TBD
TBD -
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
More carryforward in 2011
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
L 10
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Finance and Business
Development
Page 61
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Information Technology
Project
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
Actuals
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
IT Project
605,000
427,850
577,000
-4.6%
-28,000
605,000
427,850
577,000
-4.6%
(28,000)
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
46,000
46,000
46,000
York
78,716
78,716
79,000
0.4%
284
Durham
11,941
11,941
11,934
-0.1%
(7)
Toronto
264,000
264,000
263,000
-0.4%
(1,000)
Adjala/Mono
66
66
66
Carryforward levy -Peel
23,722
3,272
20,000
-15.7%
(3,722)
York
39,645
4,929
35,000
-11.7%
(4,645)
Durham
6,415
1,031
5,000
-22.1%
(1,415)
Toronto
134,495
17,888
117,000
-13.0%
(17,495)
Adjala/Mono
9
Deficit / (Surplus)
(2)
-
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
2.3%
10
# of Accounting / GIS System Servers
8?
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Accounting system to be replaced in 2011.
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Some funds held for replacing Accounting System in 2011+
219
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Finance and Business
Development
Page 62
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Major Facilities Retrofits
2010
2010
2011
BUDGET
Actuals
BUDGET
% CHG.
CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Administrative Office Retrofits
700,767
35,699
700,000
-0.1%
(767)
996,233
-100.0%
(996,233)
Relocation To Boyd CFC
13,741
Downsview Office
18,399
New Administrative Office Design/Build
196,000
37,764
284,000
44.9%
88,000
Swan Lake Management Costs
7,622
Asbestos Assessments
66,554
INDIAN LINE WATER LINE BREAK
50,236
1,893,000
230,015
984,000
-48.0%
(909,000)
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
80,000
80,000
126,000
57.5%
46,000
York
333,754
413,478
218,000
-34.7%
(115,754)
Durham
20,896
20,896
20,883
-0.1%
(13)
Toronto
462,000
462,000
461,000
-0.2%
(1,000)
Adjala/Mono
117
117
117
Carryforward levy -Peel
113,899
(225,375)
158,000
38.7%
44,101
Carryforward levy -York
192,343
(115,859)
-100.0%
(192,343)
Carryforward levy -Durham
31,176
(17,442)
-100.0%
(31,176)
Carryforward levy -Toronto
658,652
(387,701)
-100.0%
(658,652)
Carryforward levy-Adjala/Mono
163
(98)
-100.0%
(163)
Deficit / (Surplus)
-
-
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on
Staff FTEs- Full-time
0.25
0.25
Non-F/T
Facilities: # Buildings
4
4
4
Sq. Footage
54,000
54,000
54,000
$ Retrofit / Sq. Footage
12.98
0.66
12.96
-0.1%
-0.01
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Carryforward $ not budgeted in 2011 pending decision on office accomodation.
FTE Change: Project Manager time added
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Only York approves 10 funding for new Administrative Office Design/Build.
Accumulating funds for new administration office
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERCATION AUTHORITY
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
DIVISION:
Finance and Business Development
Page 63
GROUP:
Capital
ACTIVITY:
Land Acquisition
2010
2010
2011
Budget
Actuals
Budget
% Chg.
Chg.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Waterfront Open Space
500,000
63,266
500,000
Acquisition - Greenspace Strategy
4,750,000
8,881,134
4,500,000
-5.3%
(250,000)
Natural Areas Protection
ORC Repairs
16,000
24,297
-100.0%
(16,000)
Peel Land Care
1,788,000
1,654,039
2,035,000
13.8%
247,000
York Land Care
548,000
406,341
437,000
-20.3%
(111,000)
7,602,000
11,029,077
7,472,000
-1.7%
(130,000)
FUNDING SOURCES:
Program/User fees
27,550
Reserves
(559,554)
Interest Earnings
3,006
CFGT - Flowthrough
65,626
Other - Municipal
3,878,000
7,845,955
3,853,000
-0.6%
(25,000)
Other - Provincial
549,000
470,639
250,000
-54.5%
(299,000)
Other - Federal
33,000
19,587
-100.0%
(33,000)
Other - Donations/Fundraising
500,000
21,000
520,000
4.0%
20,000
Other - Non -Government Grants
912
Other - Internal
Land Sales proceeds
850,000
1,337,553
599,000
-29.5%
(251,000)
5,810,000
9,232,274
5,222,000
-10.1%
(588,000)
Capital levy
Peel
1,684,000
1,684,000
1,859,000
10.4%
175,000
York
571,600
441,615
442,985
-22.5%
(128,615)
Durham
3,600
3,582
3,994
10.9%
394
Toronto
80,000
80,000
87,000
8.8%
7,000
Adjala/Mono
20
20
21
5.0%
1
Carryforward levy -Peel
53,000
(84,542)
138,000
160.4%
85,000
York
(19,209)
19,000
-
19,000
Durham
Toronto
Adjala/ Mono
(220)
-100.0%
220
Deficit / (Surplus)
(600,000)
(308,662)
(300,000)
-50.0%
300,000
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on
Staff FTEs- Full-time
4.7
6.3
34.1%
1.6
Non-F/T
5.7
5.7
# Hecatares Land in ownership
41,000
41,079
41,300
0.7%
300
# Hecatares estimated to be acquired
79
221
179.7%
142
# Hecatares of and for Peel Land Care project
TBD
TBD
-
# Hecatares of and for York Land Care project
TBD
TBD
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
One time extra York Land Care funding removed. Unfinished 2010 Peel goes to 2011.
Land purchase projection adjusted.
Budget based on surplus land sale revenue of $300,000
to cover TRCA
deficit.
FTE Change: +.5 more construction staffFTE Change: +.1 proj. ManagerFTE change:+1 Land technician
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
More acquisitions: Runnymede and Rouge Park
RES.#A84/11 - APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS
The Conservation Authorities Act requires each conservation authority to
undergo an external audit of its accounts and transactions each year.
(Budget/Audit Res. #C6/11)
Moved by: Jim Tovey
Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THAT Grant Thornton LLP be appointed auditors of Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) for the year 2011, in accordance with section 38 of the Conservation
Authorities Act.
CARRIED
SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
RES.#A85/11 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
Moved by: Linda Pabst
Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne
THAT Section II items EX8.1 - EX8.6, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes
#3/11, held on April 8, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
Section II Items EX8.1 - EX8.6, Inclusive
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING
(Executive Res. #B56/11)
REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION
AUTHORITY -OWNED LAND
(Executive Res. #B57/11)
WATER QUALITY LABORATORY ANALYTICAL SERVICES
(Executive Res. #B58/11)
REGIONAL WATERSHED MONITORING NETWORK
(Executive Res. #B59/11)
SUPPLY OF RENTAL RATES FOR AN OPERATED HYDRAULC BACKHOE
(Executive Res. #B60/11)
APPOINTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
(Executive Res. #B61 /11)
222
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES.#A86/11 - FLOOD MANAGEMENT SERVICE
2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan. Annual update on the status of
the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Flood Management
Service and highlights of current initiatives.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Chin Lee
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the presentation by Laurian Farrell, Manager, Flood Risk
Management and Infrastructure, in regard to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
(TRCA) Flood Management Service be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the TRCA Flood Management Service 2010 annual report and the
2011 work plan be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Several severe flood events were experienced around the globe in 2010, resulting in
devastating social and environmental impacts. The tragedies experienced in Pakistan, Australia
and closer to home on Canada's east coast (during Hurricane Earl), remind us of the power of
water and the need for everyone to be prepared. In Ontario, we have taken the lessons learned
from 1954's Hurricane Hazel, and implemented policies to greatly reduce the risk to life and
property due to flooding. However, we are not immune to flood risk in TRCA's jurisdiction, and
TRCA is taking further steps to ensure community safety and resilience to flooding.
The Flood Management Service
The core function of TRCA's Flood Management Service is to protect the public from loss of life
and property due to riverine flooding. We are continually advancing the program to meet the
needs of TRCA's unique urbanized jurisdiction. Currently, there are close to 8,000 structures at
risk due to flooding across TRCA's nine watersheds. This translates to over 35,000 people at
risk and an estimated $3.1 billion dollars in potential flood damages, not including potential
damage to public infrastructure. For the past few years, TRCA's Flood Forecasting and
Warning Program has been paying particular attention to the fact that we need to better serve
the needs of our client groups, namely, our municipal partners and the public. The Flood
Management Service (FMS) was created to reinforce this approach and included the Flood
Forecasting and Warning Program along with several new initiatives such as public outreach
and municipal outreach programs. In January 2011, the function of the FMS was strengthened
by integrating all of the core flood related programs under one manager. These unique, yet
interrelated programs include: Flood Risk Management, Flood Infrastructure, Hydrometrics and
Data Management. The goals of each program are described below.
223
a) The Flood Risk Management Program is responsible for producing long term plans
for the sustainable management of flood risk in TRCA's jurisdiction. Reaching this goal
will involve collaboration with local and provincial governments, GTA conservation
authorities, private sector companies and others, to test our plans and to coordinate our
response to floods in order to minimize impact due to flooding on life and property. The
team is also responsible for managing the Flood Forecasting and Warning Centre which
involves the coordination and training of Flood Duty Officers with a unique set of
technical expertise including: hydrology, hydraulics, emergency management and crisis
communications. The timely and accurate prediction of flood risk and dissemination of
flood risk to our municipal partners (through planning initiatives) and the public (through
public awareness initiatives) is the corner stone of the Flood Risk Management Group.
Hydraulic research, modelling and forecasting can influence the planning and design of
existing or redeveloping communities. The FMS works with TRCA's Planning and
Development Division to relay this information to key stakeholders. Reduction of flood
risk through the Flood Protection and Remedial Capital Works program is also a key
priority of this group.
b) The Flood Infrastructure Program is responsible for maintaining TRCA-owned flood
infrastructure. These assets include large flood control dams, channels, floodwalls,
berms/dykes etc. and represents millions of dollars of liability to TRCA if not maintained.
As such, asset management is the main priority of this group. Asset management
consists of delivering an annual program of work that involves long term planning,
inspection and maintenance on the ground. All work must be carried out in an efficient,
cost effective, safe and environmentally friendly manner. Another responsibility of the
team is to react to non -planned and emergency asset maintenance work. The team
also works with the flood management group in the planning, programming and
building of future improvement schemes (flood protection and capital works projects).
c) The Hydrometrics Program ensures the collection, interpretation and dissemination of
water quantity, water quality and meteorological data that is vital to meet flood and
watershed management needs. Affiliated with both Flood Management Services and
the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program, hydrometrics staff members maintain and
operate over 120 gauging stations for five flood management networks measuring
stream flow, precipitation, snow pack, baseflow and climate. Water quality networks are
also maintained and operated for Toronto Water and the Regional Watershed
Monitoring Network. While internal and external clients rely on the program's data
collection services, they regularly utilize the monitoring expertise of hydrometrics staff
for training and mentoring in many government and NGO projects. The program also
manages several specialty projects including the Toronto Wet Weather Flow Study (a 25
year initiative). The information collected by the hydrometrics program is regularly used
for a variety of projects including flood warning, flood infrastructure operations, water
budget modelling, and various natural heritage and climate change studies.
224
d) The Data Management Program team is responsible for the management, analysis
and distribution of TRCA hydrometric and flood related data. The network of
meteorological and stream flow monitoring, described above, produces more than
5,000 individual measurements on a daily basis. The chief objective of the data
management team is to provide staff, the public and stakeholders easy and timely
access to accurate information, analysis and data. This is achieved by utilizing modern
relational databases and other tools to review, store and retrieve TRCA monitoring data.
The advancement of web -based technologies within the Flood Services Group is also a
key objective for the data management team. The flagship of this being TRCA's Real
Time Gauging and Flood Monitoring website (www.trca au in ,ca) which provides
stream flow and precipitation data in near real-time for public consumption. The day to
day management and optimization of this system is a key function of the data
management team.
Highlights of the 2010 Program and 2011 Work Plan
A summary of the 2010 Program and 2011 Workplan is provided in the attached two tables and
summarized below. Table 1 provides information on 2010 achievements and 2011 goals for the
Flood Management Service. Table 2 speaks specifically to the components of the Flood F
orecasting and Warning program (which is a part of flood risk management) and how they meet
the requirements presented in the "Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning Implementation
Guidelines", Ministry of Natural Resources, August 2008.
In 2010, a number of significant goals were realized and are highlighted below:
1. In contrast to global events, 2010 was a quiet year in TRCA's jurisdiction in terms of
flooding. Although we experienced many rainfall events, they generally did not cause the
rivers to overtop their banks and cause flooding. We issued only seven high water safety
bulletins, 0 flood advisories and 0 flood warnings in 2010 - during an average year TRCA
issues approximately 20 flood messages. June was a month of particular interest as we
measured precipitation amounts that were 150% above climate normals.
2. The "Floods Happen: are you ready?" municipal workshop was conducted for its' second
year, following positive feedback from attendees who expressed an interest in continuing
the workshop as an annual event. The workshop was geared toward presenting
municipalities with information about our flood forecasting and warning program and the
roles and responsibilities of various agencies. The workshop also provided a forum for
feedback from municipal staff involved in "response" to flood events.
3. TRCA owns and operates flood control infrastructure, such as large and small scale dams,
flood control channels and dykes. In 2010 channel inspections were conducted and a
number of maintenance projects were undertaken. At G. Ross Lord Dam, dredging of both
the low flow and emergency spillways was completed. The transfer switch at G. Ross Lord
Dam, which is a critical component of the emergency electrical system, was also replaced.
These projects were part of the ongoing maintenance of G. Ross Lord Dam, one of two
major dams in TRCA's jurisdiction. An assessment of the Yonge/York Mills Flood Control
Channel was completed in 2010. The report documents the condition of the existing
channel and outlines work required to restore the channel to its' original capacity
(construction will begin in 2011).
225
4. The chief objective of the data management team is to provide staff, the public and
stakeholders easy and timely access to accurate information, analysis and data. In 2010,
this group contributed to the surface water hydrology assessment and analysis for source
water protection, modelling for Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plan projects, and the
development of data management tracking systems for various initiatives. Of note, a
collaborative project with the GTA Flood Group was initiated in 2010 to develop a state of
the art system for documenting flood events.
5. In addition to conducting annual maintenance and operation of our extensive gauging
network, the hydrometric group increased TRCA's ability to collect precipitation data year
round through the installation of three new four -season precipitation gauges. Several other
technologies were employed in 2010 to enhance our current knowledge and flood
forecasting and warning capabilities, including: installation of a new real-time video camera
on the lower Don River; real-time water temperature sensors at McFall Dam (Bolton); and a
water quality conductivity sensor at the mouth of Lake Ontario.
6. TRCA expertise was also extended to other jurisdictions, and in 2010 TRCA assisted the
Credit Valley Conservation Authority in establishing real-time gauging networks in their area
(Fletcher's Creek and Cooksville Creek). This group also reached out to the academic
community and continued to provide technical assistance to Guelph University and York
University with respect to their meteorological programs.
7. TRCA has one of the most advanced floodline mapping programs in Ontario. However
within TRCA's jurisdiction there are many areas where there have been significant increases
in flows or new information has become available, and subsequently changes to the
floodlines have been identified.
Major goals for 2011 include:
1. Continued advancement of flood forecasting and warning tools, and enhancements to the
flood warning operations (flood duty officer activities).
2. Implementation of TRCA's public outreach campaign with a focus on creating awareness of
the flood susceptible areas within the TRCA jurisdiction and what steps can be taken by the
public to minimize flood related risks.
3. Capital asset management planning for TRCA's large dams and flood control channels.
4. Completion of the baseline monitoring program (three year program) for Toronto's Wet
Weather Flow Study.
5. Improve TRCA's ability to provide quality data, in a timely fashion, by advancing work on
web -accessible data management systems.
6. Continued work on a comprehensive program that includes accurate identification of flood
risk, communication with TRCA's municipal partners and implementation of the Flood
Protection and Remedial Works Strategy.
226
The Flood Management Service and Community Development
While emergency management is one of the cornerstone roles of the Flood Management
Service, the program also plays an important role in community development. As we see an
increasing number of infill developments within TRCA's jurisdiction, there is an increasing need
to provide municipal planners with the tools and information required to make informed
decisions about growth areas and to safeguard existing communities. Major goal #6, listed
above, speaks to this need and essentially requires input from all FMS groups. The success of
our work will require a strong communications plan - to disseminate new information about
floodplains in a timely manner, and which allows for the integration of this information into
municipal planning documents. The FMS group also provides critical data from our extensive
gauging networks; to inform the work of MESPs and other planning initiatives (for example,
targets for erosion controls may be determined based on measured values from the field). The
flood vulnerable areas database, which is maintained by the FMS, is an important tool that
shows where the priority risk areas are and where remedial works are required, to reduce
existing risk. Flood remedial works are not small projects, and will require the coordination of
many agencies along with a long term capital budget planning program that integrates multiple
objectives.
The weather systems of 2010 did not present any extraordinary conditions with respect to
riverine flooding within the GTA. Once again, the systems that were in place for TRCA's
forecasting and warning system functioned as expected and staff was able to confidently carry
out their duties during all of the severe weather events. The new Flood Management Service
structure will allow for greater capacity to implement core projects and improved efficiency in
program delivery and use of limited resources.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds have been identified in the 2011 operating budgets (account 115-60 and 108-01) for
general program operations. Municipal capital funds for 2011 are identified to undertake any
project activities identified in the 2011 work plan.
Report prepared by: Laurian Farrell, extension 5601
Emails: Ifarrell@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Laurian Farrell, extension 5601
Emails: Ifarrell@trca.on.ca
Date: April 14, 2011
Attachments: 2
227
Attachment 1
Table 1: TRCA Flood Management Service 2010/2011
Flood Management Service
TRCA's flood management service (FMS) involves Risk Management, Data Management, Hydrometrics and
Flood Infrastructure
I I Work Completed in 2010 1 Work Proposed for 2011 1
Flood Risk
Management
Flood
Infrastructure
• Planning and Administration for TRCA's Flood
Forecasting and Warning Program (full details
provided in separate table below)
• Operation of the Flood Forecasting and Warning
Program (flood duty officers on call 24
hours/day,365 days per year)
• Ongoing updates to TRCA's Flood Vulnerable Area
Database
• Initiated TRCA's Municipal Outreach Program
• Annual field inventory for all flood control facilities
completed
• Followed all safety and operating procedures in
accordance with Dam Operations Manuals and
Dam Safety Reviews
• Final report on Pickering/Ajax Dyke complete
• Monitoring program for Claireville Dam Wing Wall
installed
• Secord Dam Safety Review complete
• Tours and training conducted for G. Ross Lord
Dam and Claireville Dam
• Debris removed at G. Ross Lord Dam
• Safety booms installed at Palgrave Dam
• Milne Dam and Stouffville Dam Operations,
Maintenance, and Surveillance Manuals complete
• G. Ross Lord dam transfer switch replaced
• G. Ross Lord Dam emergency spillway and low
level gate outlet dredged to restore drainage
function
228
• Ongoing Planning and Administration for TRCA'
s Flood Forecasting and Warning Program (full
details provided in separate table below,
Section 1)
• Ongoing Operation of the Flood Forecasting
and Warning Program (full details provided in
separate table below, Section 2)
• Ongoing updates to TRCA's Flood Vulnerable
Area Database
• Completion on the Flood Protection and
Remedial Capital Works Strategy
• Project management of flood risk reduction
projects (e.g., Downtown Brampton,
Pickering/Ajax Dyke, Black Creek at Alliance
channel cleanout)
• Continue work on the Municipal Outreach
Program
• Development of TRCA's Public Outreach
Program and corporate identity/imaging for the
FMS
• Disseminate new regulation information (e.g.,
updated floodlines) to our municipal partners
and the public in coordination with TRCA
Development Services Staff and the Generic
Regulation Public Information process
• 10 year Strategic Plan to be developed based
on a risk assessment and asset management
approach
• Procedures to be followed in accordance with
Dam Operations Manuals and Dam Safety
Reviews
• Albion Hills Dam Safety Review to be completed
• G. Ross Lord Dam Safety Review to be
completed
• Topographic/bathymetric survey for Black
Creek Dam to be completed
• Phase I and II recommendations for Yonge York
Mills Channel to be completed
• Pickering/Ajax Channel repair design to be
completed
• Installation of pedestrian guardrail at G. Ross
Lord Dam
229
Work Completed in 2010
Work Proposed for 2011
• The FMS maintains and operates 5 hydrometric
• Continue to maintain and operate the 5 FMS
Hydrometric
networks including: baseflow, streamflow,
hydrometric networks.
Networks
precipitation, meteorological and snow course.
• Develop a long-term strategic plan for hydrometric
networks
In 2010 the following key projects were competed:
• Complete the 3r, year of monitoring for the Toronto
• Installed three new real-time precipitation gauges
Wet Weather Flow Monitoring Network project
(all season) in Caledon, Toronto and Vaughan
(achieving a robust set of baseline data for future
• Installed one new precipitation gauge (not
assessment of WWFMMP initiatives)
real-time) in Vaughan
• Continue to expand and streamline TRCA's
• Installed one new streamflow gauge in Toronto
real-time hydrometrics networks (e.g., one real-time
• Incorporated a live camera feed of the lower Don
streamflow gauge proposed for Spring Creek in
River into the Flood Centre website
Brampton, Rouge River in Markham and German
• Supported work of TRCA fisheries staff with the
Mills Creek in Toronto)
installation of two new real-time water quality
• Upgrade selected stations to World Meteorological
sensors in Bolton and Toronto
Organization (WMO) standards
• Completed the 2ntl year of the Toronto Wet Weather
• Develop web-based data portal for external clients
Flow Monitoring Network project
• Complete documentation of Ontario Hydrometrics
• Provided technical expertise and support to the
procedures
Credit Valley Conservation through the installation
of two new real-time stream gauges on Fletcher's
Creek (Brampton and Mississauga)
• Initiated plans to transfer Ontario Hydrometrics
activities to TRCA staff in 2012
Data
• Develop web-based data portal for external clients
• Publish legacy hydrometrics data to a web-based
Management
• Created new decision making tools for Flood Duty
data portal
Officers on the www.trcao agauu q_ca website
• Migrate all databases onto TRCA's intranet service
• TRCA is participating in a subcommittee of the GTA
to improve data management and access
Flood group and in 2010 initiated a joint project to
• Develop a system to track Flood Control
create a Flood Event Documentation Database.
Infrastructure inspections and to assist in asset
This database will document daily operations, flood
management
events, historical events, communications, and will
• Increase staff expertise in technical systems (e.g.,
have the ability to search and report on events.
SQL, ASP etc)
This new database is currently under development
• Overhaul TRCA's Flood Centre on the main website
and testing within the GTA Flood Group is
• Complete the development of the GTA Flood Group
scheduled for 2011.
FED Database
229
Attachment 2
Table 2: Flood Forecasting and Warning Program
Section 1: Planning and Administration
To develop and maintain an administrative framework to facilitate and support flood forecasting and warning.
MNR Implementation
Work Completed in 2010
Work Proposed for 2011
Guideline Component
Maintain Adequate Flood
• Completed Etobicoke Creek Floodline Mapping
• Ongoing updates to TRCA's digital
Plain Mapping in
Update
Floodline Mapping Program (including an
Accordance with FDRP
• Several areas received updated digital elevation
update to the Mimico Creek watershed and
Technical Standards
mapping to facilitate future updates to floodlines
select mapsheet updates for the Humber,
(including three special policy areas within the
Rouge, Highland, Lower Don)
Humber River watershed, and select areas of the
• 2-D modeling to be completed for two
Mimico Creek, Don River, Highland Creek,
areas (Spring Creek at Queen Street and
Adams Creek and Rouge River watersheds
Dixie/Dundas SPA in Mississauga)
• Formed a GTA Flood Group committee to
• Complete development of the GTA Flood
Documentation
develop a standardized Flood Event
Group FED database
Documentation database and presented results
at the Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning
Conference (October 2010)
• Maintained and operated TRCA's 5 hydrometric
• Ongoing planning, updating, maintenance
Monitoring Network and
networks
and operation of TRCA's 5 hydrometric
Data Collection System
• Maintained and operated TRCA's data
networks
management system
• Ongoing planning, updating, maintenance
and operation of TRCA's data
management system
Training completed by staff in 2010 (including new
Annual Training Modules to be provided in
Training for staff, partners
staff included:
2011 to staff as required:
and clients
1. Program Overview
1. Program Overview
2. Daily Planning Cycle
2. Daily Planning Cycle
3. Dam Tours and Dam Operations
3• Dam Tours and Dam Operations
4. Major Event Operations
4. Major Event Operations
5. Safety Training
5. Safety Training
6. First Aid Training
6. First Aid Training
7. Toronto Office of Emergency Management
7. Toronto Office of Emergency Management
8. Ice Jam and River Watch Tours
Courses (equivalent to Provincial Certification
9. River Watch
Levels)
10. Media Training
8. River Watch
11. Security and Communications
9. Media Training
12. Watershed Response
10. Security and Communications
13. Real Time Gauging and Website Updates
11. Real Time Gauging and Website Updates
In addition, an emergency operations exercise
will be conducted for all Flood Warning and
Essential Staff.
• Data collection of all hydrometrics networks was
• Complete Flood Event Documentation
Document Historical Flow
completed for all events (including 7 events
Database and integrate its use into routine
Events
where flood messages were issued)
flood warning procedures
• Data collection through the NexFlood Radar data
• Continue routine data collection (over
acquisition tool was completed
5,000 measurements per day) and data
management
• Continue data collection through the
NexFlood Radar data acquisition tool
230
MNR Implementation
Work Completed in 2010
Work Proposed for 2011
Guideline Component
• The NexFlood system (watershed response
• Continue use of the Daily Planning Cycle tool
Develop and Maintain
project) has been expanded to include the Don
for forecasting purposes
Flood Forecast Models
watershed. The work is nearing completion, and
• Advance testing of the NexFlood System as a
was driven during 2010 by the availability and
second tool for forecasting purposes
extensive nature of the data required for finer
scale discretization, and continuous modeling
and calibration
• The Daily Planning Cycle (DPC) was utilized to
forecast the potential for flood events
• 2010 manual update completed and distributed
• Annual update for 2011 will be completed in
Procedures
to partners
early 2012
Manuals/Flood
• Milne and Stouffville Dam Operation and
• Ongoing updates to the Flood Warning
Contingency Operations
Surveillance Manual completed
Manual
Prepare for Emergency
• Weekly Flood Forecasting and Warning meetings
• Monthly FDO meetings will be conducted in
Operations
were held in 2010 to recap the events of the week
2011 with weekly meetings if required
and to alert all personnel of imminent flood
• An exercise will be undertaken with all TRCA
events
Flood Duty staff and Essential staff during
• Annual training of key operational components
2011
was stressed as an important factor for
• Continue monthly inspection of Claireville, G.
emergency preparedness
Ross, Milne, and Stouffville Dams
• New staff were trained prior to being placed in
• Install back-up sensor at G. Ross Lord Dam
on-call rotation and shadowed seasoned staff
• Install remote surveillance equipment at
• Monthly inspections of Claireville, G. Ross, Milne,
Claireville and G. Ross Lord Dam
and Stouffville Dams were conducted
• Install remote access camera at Bayview Ave.
• Secord Dam Safety Review completed
flood site
• Continue Municipal outreach program to
enhance communications during emergency
operations
• 2nd Annual "Floods Happen: are you ready?"
• 3rd Annual "Floods Happen: are you ready?
Maintain and Improve
Municipal Workshop on flood forecasting and
Workshop" for municipal partners was held in
Liaison with Municipalities
warning was held for municipal staff in
February 2011
and Local Emergency
coordination with Halton Region Conservation
• Ongoing municipal outreach program will be
Response Groups
Authority (HRCA), Credit Valley Conservation
extended to all interested
(CVC) and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
municipalities/divisions to improve
(LSRCA) in February 2010. The workshop
communications and identify potential for
provided our shared municipalities with
partnerships
information about our respective program
• Identify opportunities to partner with
operations. The workshop format allowed for
Environment Canada and the Weather
discussions to determine what our municipal
Network to disseminate weather related
partners are interested in for 2011
information
• Initiated municipal outreach program to improve
• Continue to work with the GTA Flood
communications and identify potential for
Forecasting and Warning Group and the
partnerships, included presentations to Toronto
Provincial Flood Warning Group to deliver and
Parks, Toronto Transportation Services, Toronto
effective flood forecasting and warning
Office of Emergency Management
program
• Continued and improved interaction with City of
• Establish strong relationship with Emergency
Toronto Emergency Management Office,
Management Ontario
Strategic Communications and Toronto Police
• Assist with delivery of the City of Toronto's
Service
Emergency Management Office "Introduction
• Coordinated with TRCA Education Team to train
to Emergency Management" course
School Boards on protocols for disseminating
information in Messages
231
Section 2: Operations
To understand and quantify the response and potential impacts within watersheds to specific events
MNR Implementation
Work Completed in 2010
Work Proposed for 2011
Guideline Component
Follow Daily Planning
• Ongoing on a daily basis with
• Ongoing on a daily basis with
Cycle
improvements/modifications as needed
improvements/modifications as needed
Define Watershed
• Ongoing
• Ongoing
Conditions
Communicate Flood
• 7 High Water Safety Bulletins, 0 Flood Advisories
• Ongoing
Potential or Flood Status
and 0 Flood Warnings were issued in 2011
Maintain an Emergency
• Operation of the EOC at Head Office continued
• Continue to operate EOC at Head Office
Operations Centre
with a focus on providing technologies for the
and upgrade equipment as required
NexFlood system and on maintaining the
Metronet Radio System
• Ongoing as needed
• Ongoing as needed
Staff Safety
• Prepare staff safety manuals (tailored to
the specialized activities of our field
personnel)
• Ongoing as needed
• Ongoing as needed
Document Flood Events
• In 2010, the Flood Management Service began
• ongoing as needed
Support Internal and
the strategic planning to begin a targeted
External Clients
municipal and public outreach campaign.
• Flood Management Service began work with
Planning and Development staff to coordinate the
updates of the Generic Regulation
Effective Communication
• ongoing as needed
• ongoing as needed
(Debriefs)
• Continued to follow media communications
• Complete the Flood Management logo and
Establish Internal and
protocols
branding, audience profiling for both the
External Communications
• Continued to improve relationships with local
public and our municipal partners, and
Protocol
media resulting in consistent messaging and
marketing materials (brochures, postcards,
increased media coverage
etc.)
• Provided on-going information and advice to
• Continue enhancements to the Flood
municipal clients and CA staff
Forecasting and Warning Centre pages on
• Continued weekly checks of the Metronet backup
TRCA's corporate website, including a
radio system with Toronto Police
web-based system for identifying flood
• Enhancement of the Flood Forecasting and
susceptible areas
Warning Centre pages on TRCA's corporate
• Continue to provide information and advice
website, was initiated in 2010
to municipal clients with targeted meetings
• TRCA Flood Management and Marketing staff
and presentations (Municipal Outreach
worked together to begin audience profiling,
Program)
creation of the Flood Management Service brand,
• Develop a protocol in cooperation with the
and brainstorming of modes of delivery for
Weather Network to provide automated
information.
Flood Messages to media outlets
• A coordinated effort to identify changes to the
• Continue to develop partnership with
Generic Regulation between Flood Management
Environment Canada and establish new
staff and Planning and Development began in
partnership with Emergency Management
2010, with a focused on Etobicoke Creek
Ontario
watershed.
• Disseminate new regulation information
(e.g., updated floodlines) to our municipal
partners and the public in coordination
with TRCA Development Services Staff and
the Generic Regulation Public Information
process
232
RES.#A87/11 - 3 OLD GEORGE PLACE
Reporting back to the Authority on the issues raised in the April 7, 2011
correspondence from Amber Stewart, Solicitor, Davies Howe Partners.
Moved by: Lois Griffin
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report dated April 20, 2011 in regard to 3 Old
George Place be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Executive Meeting #3/11, held on April 8, 2011, Resolution #B66/11 was approved as
follows:
THAT a permit be granted in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 for the
application EX10.32 - 3 Old George Place, that had been scheduled on the agenda as
errata applications, for which all the required information was received and finalized,
AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the Authority on the issues raised in the April 7, 2011
correspondence from Amber Stewart, Solicitor, Davies Howe Partners.
The purpose of the approved permit is to construct a second storey addition to the existing
dwelling at 3 Old George Place in the City of Toronto (Toronto and East York Community
Council Area). Also approved was an addition to the front of the existing dwelling towards the
road. The proposed works will not extend beyond the existing limits of development and are
located well away from the long-term stable top of bank, the existing top of bank and the
natural heritage feature.
At Executive Meeting #3/11, held on April 8, 2011, the following two delegations were made in
support of item EX10.32 - 3 Old George Place:
• A delegation by Ralph Giannone, Principal, Giannone Petricone Associates Inc. and Stan
Makuch, Principal, Makuch & Associates.
• A delegation by Jan Ruby, Chair, North Rosedale Ratepayers' Association Development
Committee and Chair, North Rosedale Heritage District Advisory Committee.
A third delegation was made in opposition of item EX10.32 - 3 Old George Place.
• A delegation by Amber Stewart, Solicitor, Davies Howe Partners, on behalf of neighbors
Stephen Smith and Jane Smith the owners of 4 Old George Place.
Amber Stewart of Davies Howe Partners provided correspondence, dated April 7, 2011, which
was received by the Executive Committee and included on page 112 of the Executive
Committee Minutes #3/11 included with the agenda package for Authority Meeting #4/11.
The Executive Committee requested Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff to
report back to the Authority in response to this correspondence which maintained the following
primary arguments:
1. That TRCA inaccurately determined the top of bank feature;
233
2. That TRCA inaccurately determined the development as a "minor" versus "major" addition.
The following is TRCA staff's response to the Authority based on our review of the
correspondence received by the Executive Committee:
The Regulation Limit in TRCA's mapping which supports the implementation of Ontario
Regulation 166/06 was prepared through a GIS -based exercise that delineated on aerial
photography, the estimated limits of the various criteria and features of the Regulation (top of
bank, long-term stable top of bank, floodplain, meander belt, etc.). The establishment of the
various features (in this case, the top of bank and long-term stable top of bank) is confirmed or
refined on a site by site basis as a starting point for determining a viable building envelope. This
is consistent with Section 2(2) of Ontario Regulation 166/06 wherein the legal basis for defining
regulated areas remains within the written text. The City of Toronto's Conservation Overlay
Mapping (By-law 1156-2010) is also based on the Regulation Limit in TRCA's mapping.
The procedures TRCA staff follow when staking natural heritage features and/or the top -of -bank
are outlined in TRCA's Natural Feature and Top -of -Bank Staking Procedures (September 2007).
The extent of the defined valley corridor and the development limit is identified through an
evaluation of the staked limit of features, additional technical assessments and the
characteristics of the subject property in question. A refined top of bank and long-term stable
top of bank was determined at 3 Old George Place through field checking and two
geotechnical studies and is entirely consistent with TRCA practice.
3 Old George Place was historically developed prior to Ontario Regulation 166/06 and is a
highly modified site. TRCA policies allow for minor additions to existing development already
located within the valley corridor if hazard areas are protected and/or appropriate buffers are
provided to natural features. In these scenarios, TRCA's review of the applications is limited to
issues pertaining to natural hazards and natural heritage, while ensuring that the tests of the
Regulation are met. There are no such issues related to the proposed additions at 3 Old
George Place as the addition has no impact on the five tests of the Regulation.
The two geotechnical reports prepared to the satisfaction of TRCA technical staff confirm there
are no hazards of erosion and slope stability resulting from existing and approved development
on the subject property. The existing and proposed development is in fact located entirely
outside of the defined hazard limit.
Further to this, there are no negative impacts on existing natural heritage features resulting from
the approved development as the proposed works will not extend beyond the existing limits of
development towards the natural feature.
The proposed works are located well outside the refined hazard limit and is not considered
`major' development or `new development' under TRCA's policies.
234
The approach of assessment for this application is consistent with TRCA's standard practice in
historically developed neighborhoods such as Rosedale and throughout the rest of our
jurisdiction.
Report prepared by: Nicole Moxley, extension 5284
Emails: nmoxley@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Nicole Moxley, extension 5284
Emails: nmoxley@trca.on.ca
Date: April 20, 2011
RES.#A88/11 - BLACK CREEK HISTORIC BREWERY
Status Report. Summary report on the Black Creek Historic Brewery after
completion of the second season of operation.
Moved by: Lois Griffin
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the report dated April 13, 2011, on the second year of
operation of Black Creek Historic Brewery at Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) be
received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Executive Committee Meeting #10/08, held on December 12, 2008, Resolution #B168/08
was approved, in part, as follows:
THAT a contract with Trafalgar Ales and Meads to establish and operate a pioneer
brewery and museum at Black Creek Pioneer Village be approved, at a cost not to
exceed $92,000 annually, plus applicable taxes and reasonable inflationary
adjustments;...
The purpose of the brewery initiative is to help rejuvenate Black Creek Pioneer Village through
entrepreneurial partnership, brand development for broader audience appeal, and increased
revenue generation for BCPV to become more financially stable. Specifically, the brewery
initiative was developed to:
• provide new revenue streams;
• appeal to previously unengaged audiences;
• create a visitor experience unique to Canada;
• leverage and strengthen the Black Creek brand;
• offer revenue -generating marketing outreach through the distribution and sale of Black
Creek branded beer;
• leverage a currently underutilized income earning asset - the Half Way House Restaurant;
• integrate other parts of BCPV to create a rich, multifaceted visitor experience;
• offer opportunities to showcase self-sufficient, sustainable food production.
235
Results
In its second year in operation, the Black Creek Historic Brewery (BCHB) continued to add to
the Village experience while attracting a new market for Black Creek - the adult market. Visitors
continued to give the brewery tours solid reviews - consistently scoring it 4 or 5 out of 5 on all
comment cards. In 2010, Black Creek Pioneer Village had over 100,000 visitors, many of whom
had exposure to the brewery. We offered 360 tours throughout the season and had over 1,200
people take the one hour tour which offered a taste of the past. There were also a growing
number of repeat visitors to the brewery, including a group that drove in all the way from Owen
Sound to attend our BrewsFest event. In short, we were becoming a destination for the
purchase of historically brewed beer as this is the only place you can buy it locally.
Some key highlights for the brewery in 2010 included:
• BCHB was voted one of the Top 10 Craft Brewers in the GTA by www.blogto.com, an
influential local blog;
• hosted the BrewsFest event in September along with five other craft brewers;
• the successful launch of Black Creek Porter Ale in the LCBO in November; and
• growler sales increased by 67% over 2009.
The brewery has had a positive effect on Black Creek Pioneer Village's paid admission. In 2010,
BCPV had an increase of 1,000 paying customers versus 2009. This was an increase of $25,200
in attendance revenue.
The original business plan assumed that a large portion of sales would be generated through
corporate programs. After two years of operating the Brewery, BCPV has shifted the focus to
on-site visits by the public and social groups as well as beer sales, as staff deem them to be a
more viable and lucrative market.
Marketing and Public Relations
The marketing plan for the brewery focused on media vehicles that targeted the adult market
and craft beer enthusiasts. The plan included television spots on CP24, ads in the Wine and
Beer Guide, Canadian History magazine website, and participation in various Ontario Craft
Brewers Association promotions. The Brewery also posted frequently to our beer blog
throughout 2010 and saw traffic increase to 30 unique visits per day.
Press releases, followed by pitches to journalists, were issued around the Brewery Tours (late
June/early July), BrewsFest (September) and the launch of Black Creek Porter Ale in the LCBO
(November).
Special Events - On-site and Outreach
BCPV received a grant for $16,200 from Canadian Heritage through the Building Communities
through Arts and Heritage program that enabled BCPV to run BrewsFest. BrewsFest was a
celebration of craft beers, food and entertainment that took place September 28 and 29, 2010.
Over 1,600 people attended over the two day period, with participation from five other local
craft breweries: Railway City, Trafalgar, Cameron's Brewing, Lake of Bays and Black Oak
Brewery. The Brewery hosted three sold out specialty evenings and three corporate events.
236
BCHB also participated in a number of off-site events to help promote the Brewery. These
events included the Hamilton Food and Drink Show, Queen's Park Speaker's Invitational,
Ontario Museums Day at Queen's Park and Ontario Craft Brewer's Week.
LCBO Sales
In the year ending February 26, 2011, the LCBO's sales of Ontario craft beer rose 46%
compared with just a 4% overall increase in regular beer sales for the same period. BCHB is
very well positioned in this market. Black Creek Porter, which officially launched in November
2010, has proven to be a sales success. The Porter Ale was listed in 159 LCBO "A" and "B" tier
stores. "A" tier stores are the largest volume stores in each city (i.e. Yonge and Summerhill
store in Toronto) and "B" tier stores (Yorkgate Mall store at Jane and Finch). But an even
greater sign of the success of the beer was not just how many stores the beer was listed in, but
if a second order was placed. Not only was the beer re -ordered in 90% of all the "A" and "B"
stores it was listed in, it sold three times the number of cases that is considered a successful
launch by the LCBO.
As a result, the LCBO has listed BCHB's Pale Ale, which launched on April 8, 2011 and has
been receiving great constructive feedback on beer blogs in the GTA. The LCBO has also
accepted Black Creek Stout as a seasonal offering from October 2011 to March 2012. This is in
addition to the Porter Ale which will re -list from September 2011 to March 2011 as well as the
Pale Ale which, if it sells well, should be accepted as a permanent listing in late summer 2011.
In a span of 12 months, Black Creek Historic Brewery has been successful in getting not one
but three products listed in the LCBO.
On-site Sales
Growler sales were up 67% over 2009, from 833 growlers sold in 2009 to 1,392 in 2010. The
reason for the significant increase in sales was due to the fact that a lot of the quality and
consistency issues that were experienced in BCHB's first year were worked out. The Brewery
installed an air handling system which helped to maintain a constant temperature which
resulted in better quality beer. Given the growing demand for the beer brewed on-site, BCHB
will be adding a second fridge so that we can brew and sell more growlers.
BCHB also brewed and sold out of a number of specialty ales in 2010. The specialty ales
included: Lemon Balm Pale Ale, Oatmeal Stout, Raspberry Porter, Pumpkin Ale, Wet Hop Ale
and Winter Warmer Ale.
The Brewery and Local Food Connection
The opening of the BCHB has also helped BCPV to revive its on-site restaurant. The restaurant,
located on the ground floor next to the BCHB, is intrinsically tied with the operation of the
BCHB. When TRCA decided to move ahead with the BCHB, the restaurant was renovated and
the focus of the menu changed. The focus of the restaurant is on local sustainable meals
prepared fresh on-site. The result has been that the restaurant has now become a destination
for the public, businesses surrounding Black Creek as well as staff and more importantly has
become financially sustainable.
237
Sustainable Practices
The BCHB is generating zero waste. The Brewery composting 100% of the mash in our
gardens at BCPV. Staff is also using BCPV gardens to demonstrate how to grow barley and
hops used in beer as well as promote local, sustainable agriculture. There was a plan to use the
barley and hops to make a 1 km beer, but unfortunately the plants were damage by wildlife.
This 1 km beer is in our production plan for 2011.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds for the operation and marketing of the Black Creek Historic Brewery were reallocated
from within the 2010 operating budget.
Brewery Income Statement
Year 1 Budget (2009)
Year 1 Actuals (2009)
Total Revenue
$122,000
$74,000
Total Expenditure
($132,000)
($147,000)
Net
($10,000)
($73,000)
Brewery Income Statement Year 2 Budget (2010)
Year 2 Actuals (2010)
Total Revenue $128,100
$71,350
Total Expenditure ($96,000)
($112,486)
Net $32,000
($41,136)
Income Statement
Year 1
(2009)
Year 2 (2010)
Year 3 (2011)
Year 4 (2012)
Year 5 (2013)
Total Revenue
$74,000
$71,350
$134,000
$141,230
$148,291
Total Expenditure
($147,000)
($112,486)
($98,800)
($101,846)
($104,901)
Operating Profit
($73,000)
($41,136)
$35,625
$39,383
$43,389
In 2010, revenue for the brewery as well as BCPV and Food Services fell short of the budgeted
target. The effects of the recession still lingered which had a negative effect on attendance,
corporate sales and tourism.
With the launch of the beer in the LCBO, the Brewery and Black Creek Pioneer Village are being
exposed to an adult audience that may not have thought of us as a destination. The beer,
coupled with our other initiatives targeting the adult market, will help Black Creek Pioneer
Village build new audiences in 2011 and beyond.
Report prepared by: Nick Foglia, extension 5275
Emails: nfoglia@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Nick Foglia, extension 5275
Emails: nfoglia@trca.on.ca
Date: April 13, 2011
238
RES.#A89/11 - MEMBERS REMUNERATION
Overview of policy for remuneration to Members of the Authority.
Moved by: Lois Griffin
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report dated April 12, 2011 in regard to Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Members Remuneration be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Members of the Authority requested that staff report on members remuneration and the
options for declining payment.
Section 37 of the Conservation Authorities Act (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter 27 as amended) (CA Act)
provides that the Authority has the power to determine salary, expenses and allowances for
Members of the Authority subject to approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has adopted policies for remuneration of Members and
secured the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. The most recent Ontario Municipal Board
(OMB) order is dated 2008 and states that the Members and Vice Chair of TRCA shall receive a
per diem allowance of $86.62 and that the Chair of TRCA (and the Vice Chair when acting for
the Chair) shall receive an allowance of two times the regular per diem for attendance at
conservation authority meetings if an elected official, or an honorarium of $38,037 if not an
elected official. Members receive 50% per diem if participating in meetings by conference call.
A Member of an Authority can choose to waive payment of all or part of remuneration. This
allows for Members who are appointed by municipalities which have established policies on
receipt of remuneration outside of their municipal salaries and benefits, to honour the policies
of those jurisdictions without impacting those without such policies or citizen appointees.
TRCA has representation from six participating municipalities: City of Toronto - 14 members;
Region of Peel - 5 members; Region of York - 5 members; Region of Durham 3 members and
Town of Mono/Township of Adjala-Tosorontio - 1 member. Of the current membership, six
members are citizen appointees who do not receive any form of remuneration from their
appointing municipality. Citizen members frequently attend meetings during their personal
time, often having taken time away from their regular employment.
All 36 Conservation Authorities in Ontario pay remuneration in the form of per diems or
honorariums. A summary of remuneration paid by the conservation authorities in the Greater
Golden Horseshoe is outlined in Attachment 1. Hamilton Region Conservation Authority
approved as part of the their board procedures that elected officials and Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR) staff appointed to their Authority are not eligible to receive per diem
payments or mileage. Other Members are given the option to waive or donate back all or a
portion of their per diem and/or mileage.
TRCA Members are advised of the options at the start of every calendar year and are provided
with a waiver and release which authorizes TRCA to cease making per diem and/or mileage
payments. Members are also given the option to donate all or a portion of per diem and/or
mileage received to The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto. It is at the Members
discretion as to whether or not they accept all or part of their remuneration.
239
Also, TRCA is authorized to reimburse Members for travel to Authority meetings at the same
rate as that of staff of TRCA using their personal vehicles on TRCA business. The current rate
is:
• up to 4,000 km/calendar year - 50 cents/km;
• from 4,001 to 10,000 km/calendar year - 45 cents/km;
and
• over 10,000 km/calendar year - 40 cents/km.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Section 247 (1) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. (1990) requires municipal treasurers to submit to
Council a statement of remuneration and expenses paid in the proceeding year to each
member of Council with respect to his/her services as an official of the municipality on a local
board or other body. TRCA staff provides this information to municipal treasurers each year
and this information is made public at municipal council meetings.
The following is a summary of the number of Members eligible to receive per diem and mileage
payments in 2010 who accepted all remuneration, waived all or a portion of their remuneration
or donated all or a portion of their remuneration to CFGT:
Accepted Remuneration
Waived All or a Portion of
Remuneration
Donated All or a Portion of
Remuneration
Per Diem
Mileage
Per Diem
Mileage
Per Diem
Mileage
20
20
4
5
4
3
Total salary, per diem and mileage payments remitted to Members in 2010 was approximately
$66,200. Of this total payment approximately $4,700 was donated back to the Conservation
Foundation. An undetermined amount was waived as indicated above, as mileage is not
tracked for members who have indicated they wish to waive it.
Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264; Jim Dillane, extension 6292
Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca; jdillane@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca
Date: April 12, 2011
Attachments: 1
i
Attachment 1
Conservation
Honorarium
Meeting Payment
Additional Information
Authority
Toronto and Region
$38,,,037.60 - Chair
$86,6 per diem
Chair recelyes
honorarium if
non -elected official and
2 tunes per diem if
elected official ($173,24)
Nottawasaga Valley
$2,500 - Chair
$79.62 (up to 3.5 hrs.,
Chair and Vice Chair
$1,000 - Vice Chair
then additional
receive honorarium plus
payment received)
per diem.
Niagara Peninsula
$4,682 - Chair
$69.09 per diem
Grand River
$39,891 - Chair
$79.00 (committee
meeting per diem)
$132.00 (committee of
the whole per diem)
Credit Valley
$11,957 - Chair
$71.55 per diem
Chair and Vice Chair
$5,464 - Vice Chair
receive honorarium plus
per diem.
Conservation Halton
$10,000 - Chair
$50.00 per diem
$3,000 - Vice Chair
Hamilton Region
$9,000 - Chair
$60.00 per diem
Elected officials & MNR
$1,700 - Vice Chair
staff are not eligible to
receive per diem.
Lake Simcoe
$10,000 - Chair
$100.00 per diem
$3,000 - Vice Chair
Central Lake Ontario
$1,875 - Chair,
$50.00 per meeting
241
RES.#A90/11 - IN THE NEWS
Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities and
news stories from January - March, 2011.
Moved by: Lois Griffin
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the summary of media coverage and Good News Stories
from January - March, 2011 be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
As per Authority direction during 2006, a consolidated report covering highlights of Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities and news coverage for the preceding few
months is provided to the Authority every few months. The stories for January to March, 2011
are as follows:
Healthy Rivers and Shorelines
Water News - Early March brings wet weather and media stories about high water safety.
Media stories appeared in CTV, Toronto Sun, Brampton Guardian, CBC,
InsideToronto.com and CP24.
• Ajax News Advertiser story reports on the TRCA and Town of Ajax clean up event
along the waterfront.
• $15,000 in funding received from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for a water
quality study.
Partnerships - The Ministry of the Environment is providing initial funding of $50,000 for
TRCA to develop a risk management catalogue for threats to drinking water quantity.
Research and Innovation - On Friday, February 25, 2011, TRCA, in collaboration with
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA), hosted a one -day workshop on
headwater streams in Ottawa. A number of experts, including TRCA Ecology and
Restoration Services staff presented the results of research, monitoring,
policy/guidelines and restoration initiatives that they have been leading with regard
to headwaters. There were over 120 participants from the public and private
sectors, including representatives from seven conservation authorities, several
federal, provincial and municipal agencies, and 19 consulting firms. The work was
well-received, and there was a lot of good discussion around new partnerships and
future directions to address headwater issues. One idea that RVCA and TRCA will
pursue is to undertake a conservation authority survey to determine the potential for
TRCA's Interim Headwater Guideline to be adopted/recommended by Conservation
Ontario.
Regional Biodiversity
Land Acquisition - Completed the transfer of the 969 acre Brock North and South properties
from City of Toronto for nominal consideration of $2.00. TRCA is developing
restoration and management plans for the site.
• Received approval from the Minister of Natural Resources to expropriate land
required to allow construction of Phase 2 of the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park to
proceed.
242
Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants and Wildlife - TRCA experts help Toronto Star writer in a
March 20th feature story about plants and animals in High Park's Grenadier Pond.
• Tommy Thompson Park (TTP) Bird Research Station has recaptured a warbling
vireo a total of nine times since it was first banded at TTP in 2004. This makes him
six years old, and he has survived 12 migrations to and from the tropics, clocking up
to 46,000 kilometres. We hope he returns again this spring.
• Started hydro acoustic fish tagging in Toronto harbour which allows us to determine
in a 3-D manner how fish relate to habitat and weather.
Restoration - Soil placement was completed at Kleinburg New Forest North in December
3
2010. More than 300,000 m has been placed and shaped to create the landform. A
small amount of fine grading and seeding is scheduled for May 2011. Staff is
currently preparing a detailed site restoration plan and phasing schedule based on
the approved concept plan. To date initial restoration works, including creation of
ephemeral wetland/wet meadow habitat areas, installation of landscape screen
plantings and implementation of drainage improvements, have been completed.
Further trail development and restoration works are proposed for 2011 and beyond.
• In February, TRCA secured over $500,000 from York Region for habitat
improvements in the Rouge Park.
• TRCA's Restoration Services has reconnected the Cell 1 wetland capping project at
Tommy Thompson Park back to Lake Ontario. Cell 1 is the largest wetland creation
project (10.1 hectares) on the Toronto waterfront to date, and now provides fish
passage to one of Toronto's most significant coastal marshes.
• Kortright Centre for Conservation (KCC) marsh's water level is back to its original
level of five years ago which gives us buffer capacity to draw from in the summer.
• Growing out of TRCA's aggregate pit restoration work and partnership project in
Uxbridge, we are a Collaborating Partner with Ontario Nature, Township of Uxbridge,
Township of Scugog, Ministry of Natural Resources and the aggregate industry to
recommend best restoration practices and policies.
Infrastructure - Terrestrial natural heritage datasets (flora, fauna and ecological land
classification vegetation type) have over 100,000 records.
Education and Stewardship - March 23rd story in the Brampton Guardian looks for
volunteers to assist with first -of -its -kind wildlife monitoring project on Heart Lake
Road, organized by the Ontario Road Ecology Group (GREG) at the Toronto Zoo.
TRCA supplied the equipment needed for monitoring and trained volunteers.
• The York Region branch of TD Friends of the Environment Foundation contributed
$20,000 to our "Winged Migration" program at Kortright.
Partnerships - Collaborating/in kind partner with the Toronto District School Board, Valley
Park Middle School and the community in the Don watershed to establish a $1.4
million Go Green Project at Valley Park Middle School, which includes cricket pitch,
downspout disconnects, stormwater management, wetland creation and
naturalization.
Sustainable Communities
Research and Innovation - Partners in Project Green is half way to sourcing 1 % of the
Pearson Eco -Business Zone's electricity needs (58,000 MWh) from Bullfrog Power
through its Green Power Challenge.
• TRCA signed on as a founding partner in Bullfrog Power's green natural gas supply
program.
243
Infrastructure - Successfully completed public consultation for Oak Ridges Corridor Park
East Management Plan.
Education and Stewardship - UNESCO, recognizing TRCA's role in advancing the
sustainability agenda, has asked for a chapter submission in a new book on
Schooling for Sustainable Development in Canada. The chapter will illustrate the
importance of non-formal education organizations supporting schools to teach the
mandated curriculum.
• 50 people attended the Rainwater Harvesting Course, resulting in $7,500 dollars
profit.
• TRCA signs MOU with CISEC Inc. to develop and deliver a Canadian Certified
Inspector of Sediment and Erosion Control Program. $20,000 in funding raised from
Ministry of the Environment, Aquatech and Groundwater Environmental
Management Systems to launch the program.
Partnerships - Met with Markham Sustainability Office and they are interested in launching a
Markham SNAP (Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plan).
• Met with Mississauga's Environmental Network team about the SNAP program and
they would like development of a SNAP project in Mississauga.
• World Green Building Council Board agreed to keep Secretariat based at TRCA
indefinitely.
Development Planning - In February 22nd story "Battle Lines Drawn" in the Toronto Sun,
writer discusses the communities resistance to development being proposed in the
Carruthers Creek watershed in Durham Region (Highway 7, Westney Road,
Concession Road 8 and Kinsale Road).
• In February 24th story "Fuel spill prompts call for auto wrecker to move from Rouge
Park" InsideToronto.com reports on possible next steps for land affected by car
recycling plant fuel spill in Rouge Park. Article includes mention of TRCA's interest
to transfer that land into TRCA ownership.
• In February 10th Yorkregion.com story "Emotions flare at Observatory" writer
discusses a meeting that took place after the release of a Town of Markham staff
report, which included comments from TRCA staff, regarding the landowner's
application and environmental plan for the David Dunlap Observatory.
Business Excellence
Development Planning - In a January 25th story "Public critiques increases and Debenture"
the Caledon Enterprise reports on public budget meetings including a mention of
the Caledon Equestrian Park for the impending Pan Am games which sits on a
mixture of Town of Caledon and TRCA lands.
Education and Stewardship - TRCA is receiving a total of $200,000 over two years from The
W. Garfield Weston Foundation to support the expansion of the Monarch Teacher
Network of Canada.
• TRCA and CivicAction's Greening Greater Toronto released The Living City Report
Card, a comprehensive and innovative assessment of the environmental health of
the Greater Toronto Area. The media event for the launch of The Living City Report
Card resulted in 23 media hits including stories in all four of the major dailies: Globe
and Mail, Toronto Star, National Post and the Toronto Sun.
• TRCA staff has been invited to be experts and team leaders as part of the Toronto
Office of Emergency Management training program.
244
• Met with Vaughan Fire Department about issues of fighting fires where solar panels
are present. TRCA will be conducting training workshops and will be collaborating
in their province -wide fire conference. We will be sending someone to San Francisco
for training on PV systems, and look at options for having a conference here.
Infrastructure - Restoration Services has completed a new workshop that is partially heated
by biofuels and sawdust waste.
• Authority approved the development of a lease agreement with City of Toronto for
TRCA to operate Glen Rouge Campground and its 124 campsites.
Celebrations and Events - Sugarbush Maple Syrup Festival media coverage include hits in
The Weather Network, Ming Pao, Rogers Daytime York Region, Global TV, CTV
News, CP24 Breakfast Show, Epoch Times, TVO Kids, Toronto Star, National Post,
Metroland Papers, Globe and Mail, and York Region Living.
• Black Creek Pioneer Village's (BCPV) March Break Fun received several media
stories including: CJIQ FM, Global TV, CTV, CP24, North York Mirror, and South
Asian Focus.
• Conservation Foundation (CFGT) is having events with major companies getting
their employees into the field doing environmental work. By combining our
greenspace, our already planned activities and our staff at TRCA and CFGT, we can
offer an inspiring day or half day to groups of employees. As companies learn that
employes who volunteer are their most loyal and most productive, they welcome
opportunities to participate in meaningful events.
Partnerships - BCPV has a new partnership with Minwax and Thompson's WaterSeal,
bringing together exceptional heritage buildings and artifacts and quality wood care
products that help to protect them.
Financial Capacity - 30 people attended a stormwater management training course,
resulting in a net profit of $3,000.
• BCPV has been awarded $10,000 from Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Fund
from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to install seven electronic
doors in the Visitors Centre.
• Great year for the cross country ski program at Albion Hills Conservation Area,
generating $127,000 in revenue.
• New on-line reservation system for TRCA campgrounds is now available at
www.reservations.trca.on.ca
Human Interest - 55th Annual meeting held. Gerri Lynn O'Connor and Maria Augimeri were
re-elected Chair and Vice Chair, respectively.
• FP Infomart media tracking identified that 95 media hits in print, broadcast and
online stories about TRCA and BCPV for January- March 2011. The TRCA website
was visited more than 334,000 times during that period, up 11 % from in the same
period last year.
• InsideToronto.com, CTV, National Post, Toronto Sun and 24 Hours reported stories
regarding TRCA's request to the City of Toronto for a loan to build a new head office.
• Brampton Guardian story on March 15th reported on progress on diversion channel
in downtown Brampton.
• In January 8 St. Catherine's Standard "Mountain biker makes history on park board"
includes mention of Albion Hills Conservation Area calling it a "mountain biking
heaven".
• TV Show Being Erica ran an episode that was shot at BCPV. The New York Times
listed the episode details in their "What's on Today" section.
245
• With more than 4,000 views in March, Living City TV on YouTube (where we post
TRCA videos) was, temporarily, the number one most viewed not-for-profit YouTube
channel in Canada.
• TRCA staff teams won both the conservation authorities curling bonspiel and hockey
tournament.
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: April 8, 2011
RES.#A91/11 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Moved by: Lois Griffin
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT Section IV Item AUTH8.6.1 in regard to Watershed Committee Minutes, be received.
CARRIED
Section IV Item AUTH8.6.1
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #2/11, held on February 10, 2011
Minutes of Meeting #3/11, held on March 10, 2011
RES.#A92/11 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
THAT Section IV item EX9.1 - Lowest Bid Not Accepted, contained in Executive Committee
Minutes #3/11, held on April 11, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
RES.#A93/11 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
Moved by: Vincent Crisanti
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
246
THAT Section IV items BAAB8.1 and BAAB8.2, contained in Budget/Audit Advisory Board
Minutes #1 /11, held on April 11, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
Section IV Items BAAB8.1 & BAAB8.2
2010 YEAR END FINANCIAL PROGRESS REPORT
(Budget/Audit Res. #C7/11)
PURCHASING POLICY
(Budget/Audit Res. #C8/11)
RES.#A94/11 - APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO
REGULATION 166/06
Moved by: Richard Whitehead
Seconded by: Bryan Bertie
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.1 - EX10.71, inclusive, contained in Executive
Committee Minutes #3/11, held on April 8, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
NEW BUSINESS
RES.#A95/11 - MEMBERS' ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS
Moved by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
Seconded by: John Parker
THAT Resolution #A30/11 in regard to Members' Attendance at Meetings be reopened.
CARRIED
MEMBERS' ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS
Moved by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
Seconded by: John Parker
THAT Resolution #A30/11 in regard to Members' Attendance at Meetings be rescinded
NOT CARRIED
RES.#A96/11 - MEMBERS' ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS
Moved by: John Sprovieri
Seconded by: Jim Tovey
247
THAT the current practice of recording attendance of Members at approved meetings of
the Authority be amended such that arrival and departure time of Members be recorded.
RECORDED VOTE
Maria Augimeri
Bryan Bertie
Laurie Bruce
Bob Callahan
Gay Cowbourne
Michael Di Biase
Chris Fonseca
Lois Griffin
Colleen Jordan
Chin Lee
Gloria Lindsay Luby
Peter Milczyn
Linda Pabst
John Parker
Dave Ryan
John Sprovieri
Jim Tovey
Richard Whitehead
THE MOTION WAS
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:45 p.m., on Friday, April 29, 2011.
Maria Augimeri
Vice Chair
/ks
•
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Nay
Yea
Yea
Nay
Nay
Yea
Yea
Yea
Nay
Yea
Nay
Yea
Yea
Yea
CARRIED
Brian Denney
Secretary -Treasurer
kk,
01FTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #5/11
May 27, 2011
The Authority Meeting #5/11, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village,
on Friday, May 27, 2011. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at
9:41 a.m.
PRESENT
Arrival Time
Departure Time
Member
Maria Augimeri
9:41 a.m.
10:25 a.m.
Vice Chair
Bryan Bertie
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Laurie Bruce
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Bob Callahan
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Gay Cowbourne
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Vincent Crisanti
9:45 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Glenn De Baeremaeker
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Chris Fonseca
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Pamela Gough
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Lois Griffin
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Jack Heath
10:15 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Colleen Jordan
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Chin Lee
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Gloria Lindsay Luby
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Glenn Mason
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Peter Milczyn
10:15 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Chair
Linda Pabst
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
John Parker
9:45 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Anthony Perruzza
9:50 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Dave Ryan
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
John Sprovieri
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Jim Tovey
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Richard Whitehead
9:41 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
ABSENT
Paul Ainslie
Member
David Barrow
Member
Michael Di Biase
Member
Gino Rosati
Member
RES.#A97/11 - MINUTES
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/11, held on April 29, 2011, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Bryan Hill, Planning Manager, Region of Peel, in regard to item
AUTH7.1 - Draft Peel Climate Strategy.
(b) A presentation by Sonya Meek, Manager, Watershed Planning, TRCA, in regard to item
AUTH7.2 - SNAP Progress Report.
RES.#A98/11 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Pamela Gough
Seconded by: Lois Griffin
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
RES.#A99/11 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Laurie Bruce
Seconded by: Jim Tovey
THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received.
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) An email dated May 11, 2011 from Keith McNenly, CAO/Clerk, Town of Mono, in regard
to Acquisition of Land in Credit Valley Conservation Jurisdiction.
(b) An email dated May 26, 2011 from Mayor Susan Fennell, City of Brampton, in regard to
item AUTH7.3 - Claireville Conservation Area.
RES.#A100/11 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne
THAT above -noted correspondence (a) and (b) be received.
CARRIED
250
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
From: Keith McNenly
Sent: May 11, 20119:51 AM
To: CVC; NVCA; TRCA
Subject: FW: Press Release
Please find attached a press release for your CAO and board.
Keith J McNenly
CAOICIerk
Town of Mono
251
Press Release
Town of Mono, may 10, 2011
Council is pleased to announice, that the Town of Mono has entered
into a Purchase agreement, to be completed ttiis summer, toloquire
a significant property on IHockley Rioad adjacent to the Island ILake
Clonsiervation wires and adjacent to the County of Dufferin Forest,
Hiockl1ey Valley tract. The 60acre property has mature forest,
wetlanids and a cold water stream
The Town of Mono is fdHowing the (lead of other Ipubllic organizations
such as the Nottawasaga 'galley Conservation Authority. The VCA,
based on goalsset by the United Nations, jhas a target of 12% of laird
to bia hold as Publikic open space, Mono council andorses that goal
and befievesithat protected publiic lands, contribute to a sustainablle
commiun4 for the present and future generations.
Within Councils origoirig pin I ority setting exercise, one of the identified
gc,61s, is to increase IpUblic sector green space. This goal serves to
preserve natural habitat for plants & an'mals,,, thie headwaters of our
rivers, and streams, and our ground water sourole irecharg�e areas,, It
p 'des a buffer to iprotected County Forest lands to the west side of
rov�
the (property and Island Lake Cons,lervation area, to the siouth,
This property will allow a confinulous jpreservatior area at the,
headwaters of the Nottawasaga Rver and Island Lake, the
headwaters of the Credit River.
A future management plan to be developed with the, assistance Of the
two conservation authorities could permit passive ireecreatiion, and
additional trail development in conjunction with the widely used trails
recently dev6loped by the'Town in partnership with the County and
Credit Valley Conservation, which our residents and visitiors ,access
from the, parking lot across ftom(Mono-A!,ffialrainth schooll.
We are, excited and pleased that this contribution to the plubIlic trust
from our current generation, will build upon, the efforts of past
generations of Mono residents, to ensure protected(lands and a
sustainable envilronment forfuture generations.
252
253
CORRESPONDENCE (B)
"Fennell, Susan Mayor" <>
05/26/2011 09:52 AM Subject Re: Derferral request CLAIREVILLE INTER -REGIONAL
TRAIL
I, too, would request a deferral. I have requested a meeting be arranged with Brian Denney, John
Corbett and myself.
We have an extraordinary opportunity here...
Susan Fennell
Mayor
From: John Willetts []
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 201109:43 AM
To: 'Kathy Stranks' ; 'Lia Lappano'
Cc: Fennell, Susan Mayor; Halls, Michael; 'Lois & Tony'
Subject: FW: Derferral request CLAIREVILLE INTER -REGIONAL TRAIL
I am unable to attend or speak at this meeting on Friday. Nor am I scheduled as a delegation
Councilor Sproviari committed to me at a public meeting, I would have an opportunity to again address
the Board regarding this issue and report.
Please defer this item from the May 27 meeting.
John Willetts
President
Friends of Claireville
From: Lia Lappano [mailto:] On Behalf Of Gary Wilkins
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 20112:36 PM
To:
Subject: CLAIREVILLE INTER -REGIONAL TRAIL
TRCA considered the three inter -regional trail route alternatives proposed at the site walk and will be
recommending to the Board on May 27th that staff proceed with the alignment originally proposed on
March 25 in the updated Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan .... since it is the route that best
satisfies the selection criteria. Attached is the relevant trail map.
Attached is the summary of discussion held at the Claireville Inter -regional Trail Site Visit held on
Saturday, April 30th.
Gary Wilkins B.Sc., MCI P, RPP I Humber Watershed Specialist
Toronto and Region Conservation
70 Canuck Avenue, Toronto ON M3K 2C5
Phone: 416-661-6600 x 5211
Fax: 416-667-6278
Email:
Join us on Facebook!
254
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#A101/11 - DRAFT PEEL CLIMATE STRATEGY
Endorsement of Draft Peel Climate Strategy.
Moved by: Pamela Gough
Seconded by: Lois Griffin
WHEREAS "Moving Toward The Living City", Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
(TRCA's) strategic plan identified the integration of climate change as a critical
component in achieving the objectives and goals of a healthy, sustainable urban region
extending into the 22nd century;
WHEREAS in April 2008, TRCA approved "Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change:
TRCA Action Plan for The Living City", that calls for TRCA's continued commitment and
leadership to support communities and partners in dealing with the climate change issue;
WHEREAS TRCA with Credit Valley Conservation and Peel Region developed a Service
Strategy Business Plan (SSBP) to align our respective conservation work from which the
action item to develop a Peel Climate Change Strategy evolved;
WHEREAS TRCA staff has been engaged with the Region of Peel and area municipality
staff in developing the Peel Climate Change Strategy for over two years;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the final draft of the "Peel Climate Change
Strategy" be endorsed in advance to the approval anticipated by Peel Regional Council on
June 23, 2011;
THAT TRCA staff continue to work with the Region of Peel to develop a Peel Climate
Change Strategy Implementation Plan and assist with implementation;
AND FURTHER THAT the Peel Climate Strategy be referenced in TRCA's formal response
to the Minister of the Environment, in support of the Ontario Climate Change Adaptation
Action Plan, titled, "Climate Ready: Ontario's Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan",
recently released on April 26, 2011.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 2008, the Region of Peel, Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) and TRCA developed a Service
Strategy Business Plan that identified climate change as an emerging trend that needed to be
addressed. In partnership with TRCA, CVC, cities of Brampton, Mississauga and the Town of
Caledon, the Region developed a Peel Climate Change Strategy (Strategy) that addresses the
issue of climate change through both mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation are actions and
activities that reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted to our atmosphere. Adaptation
are actions, initiatives and measures that reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems
against actual or expected climate change effects.
255
Input received throughout the Strategy development process helped shape the Strategy to
transition Peel towards a low carbon future, where communities embrace greener lifestyles and
where natural systems are protected and enhanced. The final draft Peel Climate Change
Strategy supports and complements a number of the partners' corporate strategic plans and
initiatives.
Project Deliverables
Work on the Peel Climate Change Strategy began in October 2009. There are three main
deliverables for this project. The first is an Adaptation Background Summary Report that
summarizes current climate change science relevant to the Region of Peel and highlights the
potential impacts and risks expected for the area; includes an inventory of the partners' climate
change work and where more work is needed; identifies best practices from other jurisdictions
for developing adaptation plans; and makes recommendations for future adaptation actions.
The second deliverable is a Mitigation Strategies Report that analyzes the greenhouse gas
(GHG) inventories that have been completed for the partners; highlights best practices from
other jurisdictions for creating mitigation strategies; identifies where work is needed to improve
GHG inventories in Peel; and recommends a baseline and targets for the partners to consider
for the Peel Climate Change Strategy.
The final deliverable is the Peel Climate Change Strategy (including a background report) which
contains a vision, mission, a set of guiding principles, goals and actions for implementation, an
overview of next steps including priority setting and implementation.
The final draft of the concise version of Peel Climate Change Strategy is being circulated with
the agenda and all background reports are available for download at
www.peelregion.ca/climatechang e.
Highlights of Key Actions
A series of 6 draft actions (listed below), to be initiated over the next five years, are outlined in
the Strategy. Each draft action is associated with a goal and includes a suggested timeframe
for initiation and an indication of the focus area.
1. Responsive Planning and Leadership - Effectively address climate change impacts on our
communities, infrastructure, economy and natural heritage through existing and future
plans, policies, procedures and technologies.
2. Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigations - By 2050, reduce the partners'
corporate and community net emissions by 80% below 1990 levels through a range of
mitigation and carbon sequestration actions. Progress will be tracked via a greenhouse gas
monitoring program.
3. Targeted and Proactive Adaptation Actions - Improve Peel's resilience to the local impacts
of climate change with a specific focus on elements of our communities, infrastructure, and
natural heritage considered most at risk.
256
4. Making the Shift to a Green Economy - Build on and support the numerous initiatives
underway by the partners and the community that provide economic opportunities derived
from reducing GHG emissions, adopting renewable energy and innovative technologies,
while adapting to climate change.
5. Increasing Awareness throughout Peel - Increase community awareness about climate
change and local actions that can be taken to reduce GHG emissions and improve our
ability to adapt and mitigate climate change.
6. Ongoing Research and Adaptive Risk Management - Continue to expand our
understanding of emerging climate change strategies, science and technologies for GHG
reduction and climate adaptation so that Peel's Climate Change Strategy is current.
Alignment with Provincial Initiatives
In April 2011, the Province of Ontario released a formal response to the Expert Panel on Climate
Change Adaptation's advice to the Minister of the Environment. "Climate Ready: Ontario's
Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan" provides a framework for current actions needed to better
manage the risks of a changing climate and a vision for future actions that may be considered
to 2014 and beyond (report is available for download at
www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/resources).
Over the past several years, Region of Peel, in partnership with the cities of Brampton,
Mississauga, Town of Caledon, CVC and TRCA, have made significant investments that
support the Goals and Actions of the Ontario Action Plan:
• Action 3 - Promote Water Conservation;
• Action 16 - Conserve Biodiversity and Support Resilient Ecosystems;
• Action 17 - Undertake Forest Adaptation Assessment;
• Action 28 - Community Outreach and Training;
• Action 30 - Incorporate Climate Change into Curriculum;
• Action 31 - Enhance Climate Related Monitoring;
• Action 33 - Undertake Research Partnerships for Climate Modelling.
The "Peel Climate Change Strategy" is a proactive initiative that is ready to deliver on Ontario's
Action Plan through collaboration with other levels of the government including the provincial
and federal governments, the community and institutions.
Stakeholder Consultation
Since the start of this project, a total of three key consultations were held. Two stakeholder
workshops were held on December 1, 2009, and subsequently on September 1, 2010, to gain
an understanding of what stakeholders are currently doing to address climate change in Peel,
to share information between and among sectors about priorities for potential climate change
responses, and to request input and direction on components of the draft Peel Climate Change
Strategy.
257
A third workshop geared towards elected officials and decision -makers was held on March 31,
2011, which informed and provided opportunity for input on the draft Strategy. On March 24,
2011, Regional staff delivered a delegation at Regional Council to advise Council of this
opportunity for input prior to bringing the Strategy to Regional Council for adoption. A total of
11 Regional Councillors attended the workshop along with senior officials from partner
organizations. Those in attendance were generally supportive of the Strategy. Input received at
the delegation and at the workshop has been incorporated into the final Draft of the Peel
Climate Change Strategy.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
TRCA receives funding from the Region of Peel to implement climate change projects within the
Region. A summary of accomplishments to date will be presented to the Region of Peel Council
on June 23, 2011. A climate change implementation plan will be developed, and will be a
shared responsibility that will be carried out as agreed to by the partners. Details of a budget to
implement the Strategy is being led by Peel staff and will be presented to Peel Council upon
completion of the Climate Change Strategy Implementation Plan.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Final draft of the Strategy to be presented to respective partners' Board and Councils for
information and endorsement.
• Approval of Peel Climate Strategy by Region of Peel Council on June 23, 2011.
• Development of a Climate Change Implementation Plan following adoption of the Strategy.
The Plan will address issues such as prioritizing actions, ways to implement actions and
costs associated with implementation, which will be a shared responsibility that will be
carried out as agreed to by the partners.
• Continued staff participation on the Steering and Technical Advisory Committees.
Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
Emails: csharma@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Deborah Martin Downs, extension 5706, Chandra Sharma,
extension 5237, Ryan Ness, extension 5615
Emails: dmartin-downs@trca.on.ca, csharma@trca.on.ca, rness@trca.on.ca
Date: April 24, 2011
Attachments: Circulated with the Agenda as a separate document
RES.#A102/11 - SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD RETROFIT ACTION PLAN
Progress Report. Progress on three pilot sustainable neighbourhood
retrofit action plan projects.
Moved by: Laurie Bruce
Seconded by: Jim Tovey
258
THAT staff continue to work with the Region of Peel and City of Mississauga on
development of a Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) project in
Mississauga and with the Region of York and Town of Markham on a SNAP project in
Markham;
THAT Mark Schollen (Schollen & Company), Ron Bisaillon (Filtrexx Canada), Dave Wood
and Randy Miles (Tri -Land Environmental), Percy Ford -Smith (Dufferin Aggregates) and
Dave Laurie (Unilock Ltd.) be thanked for their generous donations of time, expertise and
products for the Green Change Centre demonstration projects installed in April 2011 at
2999 Jane Street in the Black Creek SNAP, Toronto;
AND FURTHER THAT Larry Brydon (Reliance Home Comfort), Len Hart (GreenSaver),
Melissa Jacobs (Sears), Bill Chihata (Enbridge) and all other sponsors and partners be
thanked for their efforts in making possible the generous donations in support of the
Green Home Makeover demonstration project underway in the County Court SNAP,
Brampton.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan projects develop an environmental
improvement plan for existing urban neighbourhoods. The projects aim to accelerate
implementation of sustainable practices though: (1) an integrated approach to urban retrofits
that addresses a broad range of objectives; and (2) innovative stakeholder engagement and
social marketing to increase the rate of private landowner uptake and secure local partnerships
for implementation.
At Authority Meeting #2/10, held on March 26, 2010, Resolution #A25/10 was approved, in
part, as follows:
...AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority in January 2011 on progress of
the SNAP projects, potential new sites and preliminary lessons learned for increased
neighbourhood sustainability.
This progress report was postponed to enable timely reporting on significant milestones
achieved over the winter, including details of public events planned in spring 2011. The focus
of work since the previous Authority report has been on bringing the technical analysis together
with the community insights to produce the emerging action plans, along with advancing
demonstration projects in each pilot SNAP. This report summarizes the highlights of activities
and findings in each of the three pilots underway in Brampton, Richmond Hill and Toronto, and
indicates next steps for the pilots and the overall program.
County Court SNAP, Brampton
Bounded by Hurontario Street to the west, Steeles Avenue and Etobicoke Creek to the north,
Kennedy Road to the east and Highway 407 to the south (Attachment 1). 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 of the City of Brampton, and
improve community engagement.
259
Lead Partners
Major Landowners
Local Groups
Toronto and Region
Brampton Golf Club
Water Smart Peel
Conservation Authority (TRCA)
Peel Village Golf Club
Hydro One Brampton
City of Brampton
City of Brampton
Enbridge
Region of Peel
Ontario Realty Corporation
LINC Centre
407 ETR
Private sector partners
Homeowners/Businesses
Property Management
Companies
What we are finding:
• Residents are already acting at home - energy conservation, recycling, green bin, etc.
• Want to meet their neighbours - build a stronger sense of community.
• Want more information on green technologies and eco -friendly gardening.
• Not familiar with how rainwater is managed.
• Local conditions to consider: aging Brampton stormwater facility, clay soils, trees need
attention (many ash that may be subject to lost due to emerald ash borer pest), lack of
community gathering space.
Emerging Plan for County Court:
Creating a sense of community - This plan aims to create community destinations and meeting
spaces through regeneration initiatives, as well as engaging homeowner participation in lot
level eco -action by building on their identified interest in eco -friendly landscaping. Key
elements of the SNAP include:
• Improving County Court Park - renovated pavilion, community garden, rain garden, splash
pad, more trees.
• Transforming Upper Nine stormwater facility - lookouts of naturalized pond, low -impact trail,
shrubs and meadow.
• Reusing rainwater from the neighbourhood to irrigate the nearby golf course(s).
• Home and street - Bundle of eco -friendly actions at home, greener streets.
• Coordinated restoration and naturalization in valleylands, golf courses and across the
neighbourhood.
Preliminary analysis indicates that implementation of the recommended SNAP retrofit options
will achieve the stormwater management targets, exceed natural cover targets, increase urban
forest and associated ecoservices. Water and energy consumption will be reduced. Rainwater
from the northern portion of the neighbourhood will be collected and re -used to irrigate the two
golf courses, thus presenting a cost effective alternative to the current municipal water supply.
Green Home Makeover Demonstration Project:
This project will showcase indoor and outdoor eco -friendly home retrofit options for
homeowners and the renovation industry. It will also serve as a catalyst for further local
stakeholder engagement, promotion of the SNAP and monitoring of innovative technology.
The project is led by TRCA in partnership with the City of Brampton and Region of Peel and a
host of private sector businesses and associations, including Larry Brydon (Reliance Home
Comfort), Len Hart (Greensaver), Melissa Jacobs (Sears), Bill Chihata (Enbridge) and other
private sector industry association sponsors.
Ten applications from the public are being evaluated by a selection jury for award in June. A
Design Charette will be held in June with renovations taking place over July and August, and a
ribbon -cutting in September.
Lake Wilcox SNAP, Richmond Hill
Bounded roughly by Yonge Street to the west, Bloomington Road to the north, Bayview Avenue
to the east and Old Colony Road to the south (Attachment 1). This SNAP project is
complementing the Town of Richmond Hill's Lake Wilcox remediation strategy initiatives, by
investigating additional measures that could further reduce phosphorus loads to the lake. A
related objective is to foster stewardship of the unique natural heritage features and partner
with well established local environmental groups.
Lead Partners
Major Landowners
Local Groups
TRCA
Homeowners/Businesses
Water for Tomorrow
Town of Richmond Hill
Town of Richmond Hill
Healthy Yards
Region of York
Oak Ridges Friends of the Environment
Oak Ridges Trail Association
York Region Environmental Alliance
PowerStream
Enbridge
LEAF
Transition York
What we are finding:
• Neighbourhood has had a large influx of new residents, commuters.
• Biggest opportunities in outdoor practices (water, natural heritage).
• Residents want what is best for the environment, but want "the numbers" (i.e. what to do,
how much) and convenient implementation.
• Local considerations to consider: older areas lack stormwater management (SWM), shallow
water table, flood vulnerability, newer urban areas lack plantings.
Emerging Plan for Lake Wilcox:
Bringing nature into the community - This plan builds on the shared interest in the Lake and
local nature by both new and long-time residents. It encourages residents to take action at
home as a first step toward protecting local nature. Key elements of this plan include:
• Older residential areas with no SWM - eco -landscaping with a focus on lot level SWM to
protect lake water quality.
• Newer residential areas with SWM - eco -landscaping with a focus on naturalization to buffer
and enhance local natural heritage.
• Shoreline stewardship - restoration actions.
• Commercial properties, schools and community centres - focus on short-term
demonstrations ("no regrets" in commercial areas) to profile key practices and technologies
(e.g. permeable pavers or bioswales in parking lots, solar power installations).
Preliminary analysis indicates that phosphorus reduction targets can be met by implementing
the recommended low impact development (LID) stormwater management options on
residential lots currently lacking SWM. These measures will also result in water conservation
savings through re -use of stormwater for outdoor garden irrigation.
261
Front Yard Makeover Demonstration Proiect:
This project will showcase eco -landscaping on new residential front -yards, with a particular
focus on water efficient plants and reduction in stormwater runoff including monitoring of
outdoor water use and stormwater infiltration. The project is led by TRCA in partnership with
York Region's Water for Tomorrow Program, the Town of Richmond Hill's Healthy Yards
Program and Local Enhancement and Appreciation for Forests (LEAF). A public process to
solicit and select up to two front -yards will occur in summer 2011, with final design and
implementation in the fall.
Black Creek SNAP, Toronto
Bounded roughly by Highway 400 to the west, Steeles Avenue to the north, Black Creek to the
east and just south of Finch Avenue to the south (Attachment 1). This SNAP aims to promote
stormwater source controls to complement the City of Toronto's basement flood remediation
initiatives in the public right-of-way and regenerate the health of Black Creek. Community
engagement is being facilitated through the Green Change Agents of the Jane Finch
Community Family Centre's (JFCFC) Green Change program.
Lead Partners
Major Landowners
Local Groups
TRCA
Toronto Community Housing
JFCFC — Green Change Agents
City of Toronto
Corporation
Toronto Hydro
Jane Finch Community Family
Jane Finch Mall
Enbridge
Centre
Yorkgate Mall
African Food Basket
Black Creek Conservation
Shoreham Plaza
Live Green Animators
Project
Single detached homeowners
ACORN
Multi -unit residential owners
Yorkwoods Library
Churches/Schools
Driftwood Community Centre
City of Toronto (parks, roads)
Reaching Up Homework Club
Hydro
Signs of Science
What we are finding:
• Only 17% of homes have disconnected downspouts.
• 26% urban forest, but sparse on tablelands.
• Lots of NGOs support tenants; homeowners less engaged.
• Job training, income and food security are top of mind issues for local residents.
Emerging Plan for Black Creek:
Growing food and green opportunities - This plan aims to satisfy local demand for vegetable
gardens, while addressing water management and urban forest objectives through creative
rainwater harvesting designs and planting choices. Opportunities for job skills training and local
employment will be promoted through implementation of regeneration initiatives. Key elements
in this SNAP include:
• Private and community garden designs that incorporate rainwater harvesting systems.
• Solar power installations - partnerships for cost and revenue sharing for neighbourhood.
• Urban canopy - consider edible fruit trees, planting locations to optimize building shading.
• Bundle of LID/SWM for private and public properties - eg. permeable pavement, parking lot
bioswales and planted medians, street plantings etc..
• Naturalized buffer plantings on private and public lands directly abutting the Black Creek
ravine.
262
Preliminary analysis indicates there is the potential to produce a significant proportion of the
community's total annual vegetable supply needs using only a portion of the suitable lands
available on private and public property. Implementation of LID SWM retrofit measures on lots
and road right of ways can achieve the City's lot level target and contribute to reduced
basement flooding. There are opportunities to increase urban forest and the associated
ecoservices it provides. A local revenue stream may be generated through renewable solar
installations. Refined analysis of the numbers is underway.
Centre for Green Change Demonstration Project:
This project will create a local job training and social enterprise development centre at a
Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) apartment tower site located at 2999 Jane
Street. The centre will serve as an operating base for Green Change Agents, and the site will
demonstrate a number of green practices including rainwater harvesting, local food production,
energy and water use efficiency. This project is led by the Jane Finch Community Family
Centre in partnership with TCHC and TRCA among others.
A major groundbreaking event occurred on April 16, 2011 with the help of over 750 volunteers,
organized by Starbucks Corporation and Volunteer Canada. TRCA led the design, solicitation
of donations and oversight of implementation of several naturalized landscaping gardens,
which included edible plants, permeable walkways and raingardens to treat driveway runoff.
Significant private sector partners donated time, expertise and materials in support of this work,
including: Mark Schollen (Schollen & Company), Ron Bisaillon (Filtrexx Canada), Dave Wood
and Randy Miles (Tri -Land Environmental), Percy Ford -Smith (Dufferin Aggregates) and Dave
Laurie (Unilock Ltd.).
SNAP Pilot Projects - Next Steps
Stakeholder input is being sought to confirm each emerging SNAP plan. Then a more detailed
implementation plan will be developed, including refined technical analysis (as needed),
marketing strategy and business case development, delivery plan, monitoring plan and
financing strategy.
New SNAPs
The City of Mississauga staff has been working with TRCA to identify a SNAP site in
Mississauga. Region of Peel staff early in 2011 indicated their support for TRCA to pursue the
next SNAP site in Mississauga. Following a review of candidate sites, in consultation with
Mississauga's Environmental Network Team, the "Applewood" site was recommended. This
site is bounded by Dixie Road on the west, the main Etobicoke Creek on the east, Eastgate
Parkway to the north and Burnamthorpe Road to the south. A meeting with local Councillor
Chris Fonseca and a report to Mississauga's Environmental Advisory Committee confirmed
their support to move forward on this site. In the coming months a workplan will be developed
in cooperation with local partners and potential funding opportunities pursued.
263
As part of their endorsement of the Don River Watershed Plan, the Town of Markham Council
directed staff to work with TRCA to identify a SNAP project in the Thornhill area of the Don River
watershed. TRCA and Markham staff have been discussing candidate sites, including one east
of Bayview Avenue and north of Steeles Avenue that also appears to be of interest to York
Region due to sanitary sewer infiltration/inflow issues and water efficiency objectives. Further
meetings with Markham staff and Councillors are underway to confirm a site. Following site
selection, a workplan will be developed and funding pursued in cooperation with local partners.
SNAP Program - Activities and Next Steps
Evaluation of the SNAP Program and development of additional implementation tools are being
advanced through partnerships with universities, colleges and private businesses. SNAPs are
being profiled by TRCA staff and their municipal partners at numerous events, conferences,
webinars and in publications, as a way to facilitate information exchange and seek additional
partners. In several cases, TRCA has been invited to present SNAPs at national and
international conferences.
Summary and Observations
The SNAP project approach appears to be a positive model for renewing older urban
neighbourhoods. It is particularly effective in areas having multiple watershed regeneration and
infrastructure renewal needs. TRCA has assisted in bringing together diverse private and
public sector partners, who have enabled more innovative design solutions and the realization
of greater net benefits than may otherwise have been explored by individual groups. We
believe this approach is necessary in determining the most efficient use of limited land in
already urbanized areas and in sharing our limited dollars. The opportunity to showcase
innovative practices has attracted non-traditional partners and created a positive, creative
setting for these projects. A more formal evaluation of the lessons learned from the SNAPs is
planned, in coordination with local and university partners.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the County Court SNAP is from the Region of Peel Climate Change and capital
budgets (129-94 and 122-10). These funds were used to lever a grant of $86,000 from the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund. Enbridge has contributed
$30,000 to support the Green Home Makeover (GHM), monitoring of the GHM and the SNAP
project. Several private sector sponsors have donated home retrofit products valued over
$50,000 and in-kind assistance to support the GHM Demonstration project. CMHC (Canadian
Mortgage and Housing Corporation) has contributed $5,000 for the GHM Design Charette.
Funding for the Lake Wilcox SNAP in Richmond Hill has been provided in the Region of York
capital budget (122-85). A portion of these funds were used to lever a grant of $100,000 from
the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund. The Region of York's Water
Efficiency Program (Water for Tomorrow) is providing $15,000 to support the Front Yard
Makeover demonstration project. LEAF will contribute tree materials. The Town of Richmond
Hill is providing in kind support via their Healthy Yards Program.
264
Funding for the Black Creek SNAP in Toronto is from the City of Toronto capital budget
(113-95). These funds were used to lever a grant of $140,000 from the Metcalf Foundation.
In-kind support is provided by the Green Change Program of the JFCFC and other local
groups, particularly with respect to cross -promotion of initiatives at joint community meetings
and events . A variety of private sector sponsors have donated time, expertise and products to
landscaping and stormwater management demonstration projects as part of the Green Change
Centre groundbreaking in April 2011.
The SNAP program has been shortlisted in the Shell Canada Environment Fund competition,
representing a grant of a minimum of $10,000 with the chance to be awarded up to $25,000.
On-line voting in support of the SNAP project proposal is underway until October 2011 at
http://www.fuellingchange.com/main/project/136/Sustainable-Neighbourhood-Action-Toolkit-for
-Change.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Emails: smeek@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253; Shannon Logan, extension 5708
(County Court SNAP); Janet Ivey, extension 5729 (Lake Wilcox
SNAP); Julie Hordowick, extension 5780 (Black Creek SNAP)
Emails: smeek@trca.on.ca; slogan@trca.on.ca; jivey@trca.on.ca; jhordowick@trca.on.ca
Date: May 12, 2011
Attachments: 1
265
Attachment 1
County Court SNAP, Brampton
Study Area Boundary
Black Creek SNAP, Toronto
�1qi E! Ii c=?= ■ -1.•§! I I L! V%1
r�
Key Map
srva
0
ack Creek
c: iroir"h'to
Lake Wilcox SNAP, Richmond Hill
Study Area Boundary
266
RES.#A103/11 - CLAIREVILLE CONSERVATION AREA
Delegation
Moved by: John Sprovieri
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
THAT Mr. Tony Morraci of 38 Valleyside Trail, Brampton, be added to the agenda to speak
in regard to item AUTH7.3 - Claireville Conservation Area.
CARRIED
RES.#A104/11 - CLAIREVILLE CONSERVATION AREA
Inter -Regional Trail Alignment. Report of the site visit held on Saturday,
April 30, 2011.
Moved by: John Sprovieri
Seconded by: Bob Callahan
THAT item AUTH7.3 - Claireville Conservation Area be deferred to Authority Meeting
#7/11, scheduled to be held on July 29, 2011.
CARRIED
RES.#A105/11 - TROUTBROOKE SLOPE STABILIZATION PROJECT
Completion of planning and design process and direction to proceed
with construction.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff initiate construction of the
Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization Project;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In May 2009, 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 follow-up inspection by TRCA and Terraprobe Inc. on
May 12th, 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.
267
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 poses an ongoing safety issue for the homeowners.
Based on the results of the geotechnical and slope stability assessment, the Troutbrooke Drive
site was identified as a priority area for remedial works under TRCA's Erosion Control
Monitoring and Maintenance Program. This program was developed in 1980, as part of the
Watershed Plan, to minimize the aggravation or creation of control problems through a
combination of preventative and protective measures. The program's primary goal is to
minimize risk to life and property as a result of the erosion of riverbanks, valley walls and
shorelines while protecting and enhancing the natural attributes of the riverine valleys and Lake
Ontario shoreline within the TRCA jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Erosion Control Monitoring and
Maintenance program addresses any historical planning decisions that caused residential and
commercial structures, including public infrastructure, to be developed in erosion prone areas
in the jurisdiction.
The adoption of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program in 1994 marked a
significant step forward by TRCA to reduce the amount of new development occurring within
the erosion prone areas in TRCA's jurisdiction. This document represents the amalgamation of
a number of updated planning polices, including the introduction of designated valleyland
corridors from which setbacks be required and adhered to, and creating greenspace between
developed parcels of land and environmentally significant areas. This program specifically
promoted the establishment of a standard 10 metre (m) buffer between long term stable slope
crests and the proposed development areas, thereby ensuring that new residential and
commercial structures, as well as public infrastructure, are protected from natural erosion
processes.
Presently, the Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program is responsible for the
annual monitoring of over 350 erosion control structures and 40 erosion sites on public and
private valley lands, approximately 42 kilometres of Lake Ontario shoreline, and over 250
residential dwellings on the Scarborough Bluffs. The annual monitoring is designed to prioritize
erosion control works to be undertaken the following year as municipality and provincial
funding levels permit, due to overall program funding constraints.
• •
For unprotected erosion sites where a hazard has been identified, TRCA staff monitor the
erosion activity on an annual basis or more frequently as needed to prioritize sites for remedial
intervention, utilizing a numerical ranking model developed specifically for this purpose. To
ensure that the most hazardous sites are addressed first, top ranking sites in the initial
prioritization are subject to a detailed risk assessment to determine the cause(s) of the hazard,
and the extent of risk to existing features over the short and long term. The results of the
detailed risk assessments are used to support the order in which the remedial works for these
sites are initiated under the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Erosion and Flood
Control Projects (Class EA). In the event of emergency situations this process is expedited. It
should be noted that remedial works must be congruent with TRCA's objective to minimize risk
to life and property with minimal environmental impacts. Therefore, it is not TRCA's objective to
restore all lost tableland, only to remediate property to eliminate the risk to infrastructure and
ensure the safety of the public.
At Authority Meeting #8/10, held on October 29, 2010, Resolution #A177/10 directed staff to
commence a Class Environmental Assessment for the Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization Project,
City of Toronto. On November 5, 2010, TRCA commenced the Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization
Class Environmental Assessment to provide long term protection against erosion by protecting
the Black Creek valley wall from erosion, stabilizing slopes and enhancing natural processes.
RATIONALE
As part of the Class EA process, TRCA retained Terraprobe to continue the slope stability
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 and interest groups, the CLC became an integral part of the Class EA
process.
Through a series of CLC meetings, a range of alternative options were considered, including
the re -grading of the slope, a geo-grid reinforcement and an engineered mechanically
stabilized earth (MSE) wall. 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 an engineered MSE wall consisting of a
vegetated face which will protect the nine affected residential properties from Nos. 35 to 51
Troutbrooke Drive from future erosion, and provide a long term stable slope. The facing of the
MSE wall would vary in height across the entire site, from about 5 -12 m, while the width would
not vary and be a standard 5 m across the entire site.
The existing tableland in each of the nine affected properties varies in size; generally the west
side of the site has minimal rear yards, while the east side has approximately 6 - 8 m of useable
tableland. Therefore, the tableland will be remediated to either 5 m or the position of the slope
crest in 2009 to ensure the property owners have not lost any useable space in their rear yards.
•
Upon identifying the preferred solution, TRCA completed a detailed environmental analysis to
determine any required mitigation measures. Furthermore, TRCA identified a construction
access route, which would provide access to the site from the parkette in Downsview Dells
Park, located at the northwest corner of the Jane Street and Troutbrooke Drive intersection. The
access road will be extended from the Black Creek Dam to the project site along the base of
the valley wall. TRCA will take measures to ensure that all environmental impacts are mitigated
during the use of the access road and will restore the impacted area following construction.
TRCA completed a project plan for the Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization Project, which met the
requirements of section 5(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act by following the planning,
consultation and design process of the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood
and Erosion Control Projects (2002). As per section 3.7.2.2 of the Class EA document, the
project plan was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for a 30 -day public review
period. The Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization Project was approved under the Environmental
Assessment Acton May 14, 2011.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA will need to acquire internal approvals for the detailed design of the Troutbrooke Slope
Stabilization Project. Upon receipt of all approvals, initiation of construction will commence in
summer 2011. Work will be initiated from east to west to ensure minimal disturbance to
completed sections of the project.
In August 2011, TRCA proposes to commence construction on the extension of the existing
service road from the Black Creek Dam to the project site along the base of the valley wall.
Following construction of the access road, TRCA will proceed with the removal of the existing
fill material and have a licensed contractor complete the construction of the MSE wall (retaining
wall structure) and restoration of the site.
The retaining wall structure is anticipated to be constructed by the end of October 2011, and
site restoration will be completed in November 2011, pending weather conditions.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
It should be noted that TRCA developed a funding policy for works carried out on private lands
in 1981, whereby benefiting landowners are required to contribute to the cost of the project,
either financially, or through the transfer of lands. Following this funding policy each of the
affected landowners are required to either contribute funds or land towards the cost of the
Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization Project. As part of this funding policy, a funding formula was
developed for all works to be carried out on private lands.
Funding for the implementation of this project has been identified in the TRCA's 2011 Toronto
Capital Budget under account code 136-05. The total pre -tender project costs, including
planning and construction, are conservatively estimated at approximately $1.9 million.
Report prepared by: Lindsay Prihoda, extension 5787
Emails: Iprihoda@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296
Emails: Istephenson@trca.on.ca
Date: April 19, 2011
Attachments: 1
270
Attachment 1
Pve.
5
G4d6rP� k�
m
as
x
R7N�D.A'ii7 AiVd7 R�fY�N i^ -
VT -
Legend i35+°ryr
for The Living City
Subject Prop erty {may Vau an
TR CA Property { ■ 1 TrE
Roads -'
To 0
100 0 100 zoo Meters
Lake Ontario
N
KEY MAP A
271
RES.#A106/11 - REGION OF DURHAM PARTNERSHIP MEMORANDUM
Planning Services. Recommends approval of the update to the 1996
Partnership Memorandum between the Regional Municipality of Durham
and its five constituent conservation authorities for the provision of
planning services.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has had a Partnership
Memorandum with the Regional Municipality of Durham for the provision of planning
services since 1996;
AND WHEREAS staff of the Regional Municipality of Durham and staff of the five
constituent conservation authorities, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
(CLOCA), Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA), Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authority (GRCA), Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (KRCA) and
TRCA, have collectively agreed to the updated Partnership Memorandum;
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 delivery and implementation of TRCA's planning and regulatory
programs, including opportunities to increase procedural transparency;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Partnership Memorandum dated April 18,
2011, with the Regional Municipality of Durham and the constituent conservation
authorities, be approved;
THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the
Partnership Memorandum, including the signing and execution of documents;
AND FURTHER THAT the Regional Municipality of Durham, the Town of Ajax, the City of
Pickering and the Township of Uxbridge be so advised by the CAO's Office.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1996, the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region) was delegated the Municipal Plan
Review function by the Province of Ontario through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
In order to implement the provincially delegated responsibilities, the Region entered into a
Partnership Memorandum (PM) with its five constituent conservation authorities, CLOCA,
LSRCA, GRCA, KRCA and TRCA, to provide a technical advisory role to the Region related to
natural hazard, natural heritage and stormwater management issues. This PM has been in
effect since 1996 and has resulted in a close working relationship between the Region and the
conservation authorities.
While the PM has been reviewed on a periodic basis to monitor its effectiveness, it was
determined last fall that a more formal update was warranted to more clearly define roles and
responsibilities and reflect legislative changes and planning initiatives that have occurred in
recent years.
272
Scope of Partnership Memorandum
Staff of the five conservation authorities have worked with regional staff to revise and update the
existing PM. The key revisions made include:
• recognition of conservation authority (CA) expertise in watershed management, natural
heritage and natural hazard planning;
• recognition of the CA role in the review of policy documents as well as planning
applications;
• importance of CA involvement in pre -consultation meetings;
• recognition of the CA role in determining requisite technical studies and complete
application requirements;
• clarification of the scope of applicable legislation that CAs will provide comment and advice
on, including applicable watershed plan recommendations and conservation authority
policy documents;
• clarification on the scope of CA comments related to natural hazards, flood plain
management and stormwater management;
• that CAs may assist the Region in the technical aspects of applying innovative and
sustainable development standards as a best management practice; and
• acknowledgement that where appropriate, the Region and the CAs will work together to
ensure efficient use of resources when participating in Ontario Municipal Board Hearings.
Program Implementation
The proposed updated Durham Partnership Memorandum is consistent with TRCA's Planning
and Development Program, as well as the Province's direction in the "Policies and Procedures
for Conservation Authorities Plan Review and Permitting Activities" chapter of the MNR Policies
and Procedures for Conservation Authorities Manual. TRCA has entered into similar MOUs with
the regional municipalities of Peel and York. As part of our approved program service, TRCA
provides similar planning and technical advisory services to the Town of Ajax, City of Pickering
and the Township of Uxbridge within the Region of Durham. However, this service is not
formalized in an agreement.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The requirements of the PM are consistent with TRCA's mandate under the Conservation
Authorities Act and the Planning Act. This PM has no direct cost implications. The services to
be provided are part of the regular operating budget levy and fee recovery process. Staff has
initiated a process with Region of Durham finance staff to create an updated multi-year budget
with funding from Durham that is better able to meet the growth requirements of the Region.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
The updated Partnership Memorandum will provide for a continued partnership approach with
the Regional Municipality of Durham, reflecting current planning requirements and clarity of the
CA role in ensuring that provincial and regional planning interests are addressed. Once the
updated PM has been endorsed by the Authority boards of the five conservation authorities
having jurisdiction within the Region, regional staff will prepare a report to their Council seeking
endorsement. Once endorsed by Regional Council, the Partnership Memorandum will be
executed by signature of authorized officials from the five constituent CAs and the Chair and
Clerk of the Region of Durham.
273
Report prepared by: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281
Emails: (nelson@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281
Emails: (nelson@trca.on.ca
Date: May 16, 2011
RES.#A107/11 - WATERSHED COMMITTEES 2010-2012
Revised Membership of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, the
Humber Watershed Alliance and the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds
Coalition. The municipal appointments to the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, the Humber Watershed Alliance and the
Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition as a result of the October 2010
election and the notice of resignations and replacements which have
occurred since the beginning of the 2010 term.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne
THAT the revised membership of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, the Humber
Watershed Alliance and the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition be approved.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, the Humber Watershed
Alliance and the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition, dated November 2009, were
approved at Authority Meeting #9/09, held on November 27, 2009. Section 5 of the Terms of
Reference sets out that the membership will be reviewed on an annual basis and that any
resignations or recommendations for new members will be presented to the Authority for
approval.
Over the normal course of the watershed committees' terms, priorities may shift, members may
move outside of the watershed or, in some cases, municipal elections may occur. Due to these
factors, members may submit their resignations and new members are brought on board.
In October 2010, a municipal election was held which resulted in local and regional
municipalities appointing or reappointing members to our watershed committees to represent
them. In addition, the Terms of Reference make provision to have 15 watershed residents on
the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, 20 watershed residents on the Humber Watershed
Alliance and 15 watershed residents on the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition. Several
resignations have occurred since the beginning of the term and new members have expressed
an interest in joining the memberships.
The following tables identifies the new appointments to the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council, the Humber Watershed Alliance and the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition
which have been confirmed to date:
274
Don Watershed Regeneration Council - New Appointments
Member
Representing
Councillor Brenda Hogg
Town of Richmond Hill, Region of York
Councillor Chin Lee
City of Toronto
Valerie Burke
Councillor, Town of Markham
Howard Shore
Councillor, Town of Markham (alternate)
Jessica Piskorowski
Local Enhancement & Appreciation of Forests
Kim Statham -Bray
City of Toronto Staff Representative
Humber Watershed Alliance - New Appointments
Member
Representing
Councillor Patti Foley
Region of Peel
Councillor Debbie Schaefer
Township of King
Councillor Maria Augimeri
City of Toronto
Councillor Doug Ford
City of Toronto
Councillor Sam Keenan
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
Lory Capoccia
Vaughan Resident
Brian Pittman
Vaughan Resident
Chris Svirklys
Bolton Mountain Bike Club
Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition - New Appointments
Member Representing
Cleve Battick Lincoln Alexander Secondary School
Rosemary Keenan Sierra Club - Peel Region (Alternate)
Kim Sellers Evergreen
The following individuals have submitted their resignations:
Don Watershed Regeneration Council
• Mike Halferty, Toronto Resident
• Janet McKay, Local Enhancement & Appreciation of Forests (LEAF)
• Jana Levison, Toronto Resident
• Wessel Lammers, Toronto Resident
Humber Watershed Alliance
• Jason Stabler, Toronto Resident
• Jane Underhill, Councillor, King Township
• Suzan Hall, Councillor, City of Toronto
• John Parker, Councillor, City of Toronto
• Joy Webster, Councillor, Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
275
Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition
• Korice Moir, Toronto Resident
• Tim Sturgeon, Brampton Scouts
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
Emails: Ilappano@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
Emails: Ilappano@trca.on.ca
Date: April 26, 2011
RES.#A108/11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed
Jasamax Holdings Limited, CFN 45608. Purchase of property and
conservation easement located west of Bayview Avenue, north of Pottery
Road (rear of 2 True Davidson Drive), City of Toronto (Toronto and East
York Community Council Area), under the "Greenlands Acquisition
Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don
River watershed.
(Executive Res. #672/11)
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Bryan Bertie
THAT 0.30 hectares (0.75 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Block 63, Plan
66M-2374 and designated as Part 3 on Plan 66R-21079, City of Toronto (Toronto and East
York Community Council Area), located west of Bayview Avenue, north of Pottery Road
(rear of 2 True Davidson Drive), be purchased from Jasamax Holdings Limited;
THAT a conservation easement for the protection of the environmental features and
functions containing 0.03 hectares (0.06 acres), more or less, consisting of an irregular
shaped parcel of land being Part of Block 63, Plan 66M-2374 and designated as Parts 2
and 4 on a Draft Plan of Survey prepared by J. D. Barnes Ltd., under their Reference No.
98-21-086-20, dated March 3, 2011, City of Toronto (Toronto and East York Community
Council Area), located west of Bayview Avenue, north of Pottery Road (rear of 2 True
Davidson Drive), be purchased from Jasamax 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;
276
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.#A109/11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duff ins Creek Watershed
Chieftan Development Corporation, CFN 45687. Purchase of property
located east of Brock Road, south of Rossland Road, City of Pickering,
Regional Municipality of Durham, under the "Greenlands Acquisition
Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duff ins
Creek watershed.
(Executive Res. #673/11)
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Chin Lee
THAT 9.64 hectares (23.82 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 18,
Concession 2 and designated as Part 2 on Plan 40R-20062, City of Pickering, Regional
Municipality of Durham, located east of Brock Road, south of Rossland Road, be
purchased from Chieftan 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 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.#A110/11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed
Allto Holdings Inc., CFN 35709. Donation of land located on the east side
of 6th Line East and north of Highway No. 9, Township of Mono, Dufferin
County, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2010-2015", Flood
Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed.
(Executive Res. #674/11)
277
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Chin Lee
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) accept the donation from Allto
Holdings Inc. of 16.6 hectares, (41 acres), more or less, consisting of an irregular shaped
parcel of vacant, ecologically sensitive land being Part of Lot 1, Concession 7, Township
of Mono, Dufferin County;
THAT an income tax receipt is to be made available to Allto Holdings Inc. for the
appraised value of the donated lands in accordance with the guidelines set out by the
Canada Revenue Agency;
THAT TRCA be responsible for the reasonable cost associated with completion of this
transaction;
THAT TRCA receive conveyance of the land required free from encumbrance subject to
existing service easements;
THAT TRCA extend their appreciation and thanks to Allto Holdings for their generous
donation;
THAT Gardiner, Roberts, 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 authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the action necessary
to complete the transaction including obtaining any needed approvals and the signing
and execution of documents.
CARRIED
RES.#A111/11 - THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK
Conveyance of Land for the Reconstruction and Realignment of 16th
Avenue West and East of Reesor Road, Town of Markham, Regional
Municipality of York, Rouge River Watershed, CFN 45363. Receipt of a
request from The Regional Municipality of York for conveyance of land for
the reconstruction and realignment of 16th Avenue west and east of
Reesor Road, in the Town of Markham, Regional Municipality of York.
(Executive Res. #672/11)
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Chin Lee
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request
from The Regional Municipality of York to convey certain lands for the reconstruction and
realignment of 16th Avenue west and east of Reesor Road, in the Town of Markham,
Regional Municipality of York;
278
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 Regional Municipality of York in this instance;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT parcels of TRCA-owned land containing a total
of 0.62 hectares (1.54 acres), more or less, required for the reconstruction and
realignment of 16th Avenue west and east of Reesor Road, said land being Part of Lots 15
and 16, Concession 9 and 10, Town of Markham, Regional Municipality of York,
designated as Parts 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 on a draft Plan of Survey prepared by
Donevan Fleischmann Petrich Ltd., Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No.
2010-211, dated December 24, 2010, be conveyed to The Regional Municipality of York;
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 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 the conveyance of land be subject to a landscaping plan, subject to the approval of
TRCA staff;
THAT, as part of this conveyance, The Regional Municipality of York is to provide
compensation in the form of new fences, services, correction of localized drainage
problems, etc., as required and deemed appropriate by TRCA staff on TRCA rental /
leased lands impacted by the proposed works;
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 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;
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
SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
RES.#A112/11 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
Moved by: Colleen Jordan
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
279
THAT Section II items EX8.1 - EX8.3, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes
#4/11, held on May 6, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
Section II Items EX8.1 - EX8.3, Inclusive
PRIVATE SEWAGE (SEPTIC) SYSTEMS
(Executive Res. #676/11 & Res. #677/11)
REQUEST FOR A FIVE YEAR LEASE AND RESTORATION AGREEMENT
(Executive Res. #678/11)
RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN REPORTS RELATING TO THE DISPOSAL OF LAND OR
AN INTEREST IN LAND
(Executive Res. #679/11)
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES.#A113/11 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK JOINT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Toronto and Region Conservation and City of Toronto. Receipt of staff
report on the Tommy Thompson Park Joint Management Plan between
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto.
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Dave Ryan
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and
City of Toronto Joint Management Plan for Tommy Thompson Park (TTP) be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Under the 1972 Management Agreement between the City of Toronto and TRCA, the City of
Toronto is responsible for the management of TRCA-owned lands within the City of Toronto,
with the exception of Black Creek Pioneer Village. The Tommy Thompson Park Joint
Management Plan sets out a management framework of co -management in order to meet the
unique needs of an urban wilderness park.
In 1989, TRCA completed an extensive provincial environmental assessment and planning
process, which resulted in the creation of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan. Due to
outstanding issues not resolved in the Master Plan preparation, an Addendum to the Master
Plan was prepared in 1992.
On February 22, 1995, TRCA received Approval to Proceed with the Tommy Thompson Park
Master Plan from the Ministry of the Environment under subsection 7(1) of the Environmental
Assessment Act. The main objectives of the Master Plan are to: preserve significant species;
protect environmentally significant areas; enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat; and enhance
public recreational opportunities.
•
As part of the master planning process, TRCA established a Natural Area Advisory Committee,
with representation from a variety of government and nongovernment groups, local universities,
naturalist groups and Friends of the Spit. Its mandate was to prepare detailed implementation
and management recommendations for the natural resource area of TTP. Upon completion
and approval of the Master Plan, the Committee mandate was completed. The group
continued to meet with TRCA staff in an ad hoc manner to assist in administering the Interim
Management Program, as well as to address current issues related to the park. In 2002, TRCA
was directed by the Authority to establish the Tommy Thompson Park Advisory Committee with
broad representation of park users, interests groups and the City of Toronto. Since 2002, the
Advisory Committee has provided valuable input to TRCA staff in the development and
implementation of various Park Master Plan components.
In 2005, TRCA and Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) entered into a
funding partnership to undertake key components of the Master Plan. On August 14, 2006, the
federal responsible authorities made a determination that TRCA could proceed with the
implementation of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Implementation Project. Since
2006, TRCA has implemented key components of the Master Plan, including trail construction,
embayment enhancement, critical habitat installation, shorebird habitat creation and trail
signage.
By July 1, 2011, key components of the Master Plan Implementation Project will be near
completion, including: Park Entrance, Staff Booth and Interpretive Area, Environmental Shelter
and Washroom Facility, Ecological Research Station, Nature Viewing and Park Amenities, Trails
Master Plan, Terrestrial Habitat Enhancement Plan, and Aquatic Habitat Enhancement Plan.
Currently, TRCA operates Tommy Thompson Park under the Interim Management Program in
accordance with the delegated responsibilities assigned to TRCA by the Province of Ontario.
Under the Interim Management Program, TRCA opens the park to visitors on Saturdays,
Sundays and Statutory Holidays, generally 9:00 - 4:30 pm year-round. Public transportation is
provided by means of a shuttle van operating during public hours from early May until
mid-October. The Aquatic Park Sailing Club, which leases space in Embayment C, also use
the shuttle van service and contribute toward its operation. Nature interpretation programs are
operated on weekends from June to September. Guided walks are conducted on holidays
focusing on different aspects of the Park's natural history. TRCA staff offer interpretive talks on
weekends and holidays throughout the summer. The TTP Bird Research Station is open to the
public on weekends and holidays during the spring and fall migratory windows. In addition to
the regularly scheduled programs, TRCA staff host the annual Spring Bird Festival and
numerous guided tours with various special interest groups. The annual operating program is
in keeping with the 1972 Agreement with the City of Toronto which states that TRCA continue to
operate the site until such time that the Master Plan is implemented, and a management plan
developed.
281
Based on the existing Memorandum of Agreement (1972) between TRCA and the former
Metropolitan Toronto, once TRCA has prepared and implemented Master Plan work, it is the
obligation of City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation (PF&R) to maintain the land for
park, recreation and conservation purposes with the necessary administration and supervisory
accommodation as required. Given the uniqueness of Tommy Thompson Park, TRCA and City
of Toronto PF&R developed a Joint Management Plan that defines roles and responsibilities for
each agency for the future operation of the park. The proposed management model identifies
that TRCA will continue to lead natural heritage management and environmental programming,
including wildlife management. Parks, Forestry and Recreation will provide day-to-day
operations and maintenance through the Parks branch, including by-law enforcement and
permitting, maintenance of buildings, trails and the parking lot, and general public inquiries
through Toronto 311. City of Toronto Urban Forestry will provide expertise and resources as
required from Natural Environment and Community Programs.
RATIONALE
Tommy Thompson Park is Toronto's public urban wilderness - a place to experience and
appreciate nature in the heart of Toronto. A joint management strategy for the park will help
realize the full educational, recreational and health benefits of this valuable resource for visitors.
In the development of the joint management strategy, TRCA and City of Toronto articulated a
shared vision for the park. The vision for the park is to provide for the protection and
conservation of TTP as a unique urban wilderness within the City of Toronto parks system and
to provide opportunities for community involvement and enjoyment of the park while continuing
to develop the park, recognizing the principles of urban wilderness management.
The purpose of the Joint Management Plan is to describe the philosophy and direction of the
management of TTP. The Plan enables management to proceed in an orderly way, identifies
priorities for the allocation of available resources, and defines roles and expectations of TRCA
and the City of Toronto, and sets out principles and practices for park management.
Parks, Forestry and Recreation staff met with TRCA staff to optimize the involvement of those
who will be responsible for the on-going care and management of the park once the new
Master Plan elements are complete. Site visits were also conducted to examine the specific
conditions across the site. TRCA and PF&R staff have met to draft a Joint Management Plan
that will be effective July 1, 2011.
Part of TRCA's commitment to continue to engage park stakeholders will include the
preparation of a terms of reference for a new Tommy Thompson Park User Group. TRCA staff
met with the TTP Advisory Committee to discuss the Joint Management Plan and the future
Park User Group representation. The new Park User Group, including TRCA, City of Toronto,
and a broad representation of park stakeholders, will provide a forum for discussion of park
operations, resource management activities and events.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
TRCA operates the park under the Interim Management Program, with funding from the City of
Toronto, in accordance with the delegated responsibilities assigned to TRCA by the Province of
Ontario. TRCA will continue to share park operations responsibilities with City of Toronto, as
described in the Joint Management Plan. City of Toronto has confirmed that there are
operating funds to support the joint management plan.
282
Report prepared by: Connie Pinto, extension 5387
Emails: cpinto@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313
Emails: ngaffney@trca.on.ca
Date: May 13, 2011
RES.#A114/11 - PROPOSED QUARRY, MELANCTHON TOWNSHIP
Receipt of staff report on potential for hydrogeological effects on Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority watersheds from the proposed
quarry.
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Dave Ryan
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on Proposed Quarry, Melancthon Township,
be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/11, held on April 29, 2011, the Members requested a staff report on the
potential hydrogeological effects on the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
watersheds from the proposed quarry.
The Highland Group is proposing the creation of a limestone quarry on 937 hectares of land in
the Pine River watershed. The site is in Melancthon Township, in the northern part of Dufferin
County, near the Town of Shelburne, in the Nottawasaga Conservation Authority (NVCA)
jurisdiction. The proposed extraction area comprises 765 hectares, which is about twice the
size of the Kortright Centre for Conservation. This bedrock quarry is planned to extend to
approximately 60 m below ground, which would be well below the local groundwater table.
A series of technical documents have been prepared for this proposed quarry in accordance
with provincial regulations under the Aggregate Resources Act. NVCA staff is currently
reviewing the technical documentation for the site, including a hydrogeologic impact
assessment which was prepared by Genivar Inc. in January, 2011. The preliminary technical
evaluation by NVCA staff identified 12 broad areas of concern regarding potential impacts to
surface water, groundwater, as well as aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in the Pine River
watershed. NVCA staff has requested a 120 -day extension to the commenting period to
thoroughly review the large volume of technical documentation prepared by the proponent.
RATIONALE
The distance from the proposed site to the headwaters of the Humber River is approximately 25
kilometres (Attachment 1). Based on the available groundwater monitoring data and
groundwater model outputs, groundwater in the Melancthon area flows southeast toward the
Pine River. This watershed is located well north of the surface water and groundwater divides
for the TRCA watersheds, and therefore no surface or groundwater from the subject property
enters into the TRCA jurisdiction.
283
The hydrogeologic impact assessment report confirms that the quarry will have an effect on the
local ecosystems, but NVCA staff has confirmed that these impacts are not shown to extend
into the TRCA watersheds.
Report prepared by: Donald Ford, extension 5369
Emails: dford@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Don Ford, extension 5369
Emails: dford@trca.on.ca
Date: May 04, 2011
Attachments: 1
•
Attachment 1
285
RES.#A115/11 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Dave Ryan
THAT Section IV item AUTH8.3.1 in regard to Watershed Committee Minutes, be received.
CARRIED
Section IV Item AUTH8.3.1
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #4/11, held on April 14, 2011
ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
RES.#A116/11 - APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO
REGULATION 166/06
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.1 - EX10.79, inclusive, contained in Executive
Committee Minutes #4/11, held on May 6, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:10 a.m., on Friday, May 27, 2011.
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Chair
/ks
• •
Brian Denney
Secretary -treasurer
k++0111k
6 or
* THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #6/1
June 24, 2011 1
The Authority Meeting #6/1,1 , was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village,
on Friday, June 24, 2011. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at
9:35 a.m.
PRESENT
Arrival Time
Departure Time
Member
Maria Augimeri
9:35 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Vice Chair
Bryan Bertie
9:35 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Member
Laurie Bruce
9:35 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Member
Bob Callahan
9:35 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Member
Gay Cowbourne
9:35 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Member
Vince Crisanti
9:35 a.m.
11:22 a.m.
Member
Glenn De Baeremaeker
9:39 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Member
Michael Di Biala
9:43 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Member
Chris Fonseca
9:35 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Member
Pamela Gough
9:35 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Member
Jack Heath
9:35 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Member
Gloria Lindsay-Lu:by
9:37 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Member
Glenn Mason
9:40 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Member
Peter Milczyn
100.01 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
9:35 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Chair
Linda Pabst
9:35 a.m.
11:42 a.m.
Member
Anthony Perruzza
9:35 a.m.
10:30 a.m.
Member
John Sprovieri
9035 a.m.
11042 a.m.
Member;
Jim Tovey
9.35 am.
11:22 a.m.
Member
Richard Whitehead
9:35 a.m.,
11:42 a.m.
Member
". .w b�k I
Paul Ainslie
Member
David Barrow
Member
Lois Griffin
Member
Colleen Jordan
Member
Chin Lee
Member
John Parker
Member
Gino Rosati
Member
Dave Ryan
Member
•
RES.#A1 MINUTES
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT the M'linutes of Meeting #5/11, held on May 27, 201:1 , be approved,
(a) A presentation of the Manulife Cup to the Manulifie Paddle the Don Corporate Challengs-A
Winners.
(b) A presentation by Brian Kelly, Interim Advi'sor, Climate Change, Durham Region, in
regard World Business Council For Sustainable Development Climate Change Strategy
"Vision 2050".
RES.#A1
Moved by:
Seconded by:
A
Linda Pabst
Gloria Lindsay-L,uby
M
(a) A letter dated May 20i, 20,11 from Raymond Benns, Chair, Ganaraska Conservation, in
regard to Large Commercial Fill Operations.
(b) A letter dated June 8, 2011 to Minister Peter Kent from Minister Linda Jeffrey, in regaris
to Federal Park Designation for Rouge Park.,
RES.#A1 CORRESPONDENCE I
Moved by.-: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
0 1 0
AND F21,14TIAER T'AAT staff report back to the Authority on any actolon taken b
Conservation Ontario i'n regard to large commercial filill operations. I
0 0
91 0
I U*191 SO I R0,11 '', ��I 1111,
Moved by: Pamela Goug
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce I
•
ASIMOISM1141*1OU 111 11 � Ila
Toronto and Reg[on Conse
fion,Aut, orifty
S ShoreihamDrive
Downsview, ON
M1314 1 S4
G "anatraska Regibin
Comervation Authonlity,
22,16 Co'ummy Road 28
PQ. Box 323
P6rt Hope, 0 N1 L I
Plhonc. 905 8 8 5 -S 17 3
Fax: M -M-91014
H.Mot'.-A,of
NIMMAIVAT 0NM,,0W,`AA1 0
At the Ganaraska R�1! FMNI Board meefing of, Thurs,
T�
0 J, 11�n, ( onservation Authorl day
f6 mng
9
rsolut,,iibri:
May 1m 201 1 thie� Bloard of"Directors p�asssedffie
e llo�
WHEREAS Conservation Authority regulations 'in Ontado, apply to other
a[re.as.'- ('with,, in 111 20 metres) of weflands', and'
0
WHEREAS, 'other areas" are, only, regulaateld If dlevefopment In thessee areas
ClOuld i"�erferei 'with the hyds ro,10,9tic furictlo,nt WfffiI the,", wetland,-" and
11"A"ERE" the Secbon 142(8
of thle.- Ulunicipa] A,,ct,, exxmpts 01 landowner
"i's s alterabon by-law a C:onse,rvat'101
the mquirements of aii Mu1mcipalit
A
Auth,onty blas, a reggWafim �in OfOct
8 11
IIS q Gt 1, q�, r 0, ia I Fill ........... 2911 2
...... . ............. . . . ...........
lift
I A&L ..........
............. ............
11
III IIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII 1, 11111111111 Irl III I I! !Ill 11
on, 'm
Yo,:urs truly
Raymoad Benns
Chair"
CIIRESPONDENGE (B)
iMinis," of Ntattursl
Minl4tI des Rlchewws
P"'motorce's,
olffilm of th"41 m RII i Made
Bureau du rnhistra
Room 6B.Sm', VOtaney B.,Ivk
lLdffice Man ey, bu re -a '3 0
I 'elf S Ere et West
W, elesley Ouesl Ontario
"Forwo ON MIA 1W3
TorovidD (IlM)l MIA, 1'VV3
Ttl 416-3 14 -ZaW "I
TO:- 4111o'&314-211301
F; goc 4 "t &114-.2216
TO � ",� 11 IS I
Ift 4 -3 4
8 th
June, t 201,1
The ''llono'Urable Peter Kent
Minister of thae Environment
and Minister responsible f6r Parks, Canad'a
a d ere
Les, Ter"Ir sses [a Charudi
F1 oor
10 Wellington Streelit, 28
Gat."llneau QC KIA 0IH3
Dear Mfinjster Kent,
o
o
I look forward to working with aill partners. It would be appreciated if yo
-n Chano, myIi Ch"ef of Staff",,, at 44 6-314
I ask yl,our officials to contact Ke
C1101
ont,ario.ca to initlate discussi"onsi
2,,210 or ken.c. an
You,rs truly,
Ll nd a Jeffrey
Minister of Natu'ral Resources
RES.#A1 VISION 2050
The New Agenda for Business., World Business Council for Sustainable
Development Vision 2050i report.
ITTloved by.-� Linda Pabst
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay-Lub,j
THAT Brian Kelly, Interim Advisor, Climate Change for the Region of Durham, be thank0J.'
for his presentation;
AND FURTHER THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be
directed to consider the Vision 2050 report On theimplementation of projects and
programs while continuing to address regionally and locally rellevant issues.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is a CEO -led, global
assoiciation of some 200 companies dealing exclusively with business and sustainable
development. Member companies in North America, include: 3M; Accenture; AECOM; CH2M
Hill; Chevron Corporation- Dow Chemica,l; Duke Energy; Dupont; General' Electric; IBM -
PepsiCo; Pricewaterihouse Coopers; Procter & Gamble; UPS,- and Weyerhaeuser, to name a
few.
The Council provides a platform for companies to explore sustainable development,, share
knowledge, experiences and best practices, and to advocate business position's on these
issues in a variety of forums, working with governments, nongovernmen, tal and
intergovernmental organizations. Members are drawn from more than, 30 countries and 20
major 'Industrial sectors. The Council also benefits from a global network of some 60 nationa'
and regional business councils and regiona,l partners.
The Vision 21050 report was, released at the 2010 World CEO Forum in New Delhi, India in early
201 Oi. The report was developed by twenty-nine companies, led �y Alcoa, PrIcewaterhouse
Coopers, Storebriand and Syngenta, in order to rethink the roles that business must play over
the next few decades to enable society to move toward being sustainable., The Vision 2�050
study lays out a pathway leading to a global population of some nine billion people living well,
within the resource limits of the planet by 205iO.
In, the report,the authors recognize that the business as usual approach of continued growth in
population and consumption with inadequate governance and policy responses will only lead
to continued degradation of the environment and increased social stress.
In order to deal with these issues and achieve the vision, the report outlines a set of nine
pathways that connect,the present day with a sustainable world in 2050. The nine pathways
0
Including their vision for 20501 and explanation are outlined below:
NM
W Aftok
.0 do 0 0 0 W 10 do V
M
As AVA Ah Ah
Alk 0 A� ft Ah AVA Ab M, Ah Ah
40 Aft Ak 40 AS Ah AM AN
dk Ah
Ak
W 16
;0
so W to .0
40 a Iwo do W 0 0 1900 0 V so 9 W E 00V 0 W V
The report outlines a series of critical outcomes or, "must haves" that need to be in place if we
are to achieve the 20501 vision and recognizes the current decade, the "'turbulent teens,"' as a
critical period of change. The more than thirty "must haves"' are too many to mention here bu-)
there are seven that they note as being particularly crit:ical.-
A
M IRS 0 0 0 0 we 0 go a 0
0 Ak
Amb Ab
40 dr 0 so
Aft
ws 40 40 a 41V
0
Ah AM
die
For the full report,, go to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development websit�e at
www.wbcsd.org
Making these changes, along with others are meant to reduce resource consumption to jusl
over one plIanet's worth, instead of the 2.3 planets under the Business -As -Usual scenario.
8
The Vision 2050 report recognizes that to achieve the necessary changes, a, radical new
landscape for business is required. However it also identifies that the transformation includes
vast opportunitlies in a broad range of business segments, as the global challenges of growth,
urbanization, , scarcity and environmental change become the key strategic drivers, for biusiness,
Opportunities will include developing and maintaining low -carbon, zero -waste cities and
infrastructure to improving and managing biocapacity, ecosystems, lifestyles, and livelihoods.
These changes will also create opportunities for finance,, information/communication
technology and new partnerships.
The transformation envisioned by ",
markets, consumer preferences, the pricing of inpiuts,, and the measurement of profits and loss;
all of which will impact business. The key however!, is that business must lead th�is
transformation rather than follow it, by doing what business does best, cost-effectively creating
solutions that people need and want. The key difference is that in this transformation the new
solutions will be based on a global and local marketplace with true values and costs being
established by the: limits of the planet and what it takes to live well and within them.
In, concluding the report,the authors note that "the participating companies strongly believe
that the world a,lready has the knowledge, science, technologies, skills and financial resources
needed to achieve Vision 2050 but the foundations for much of what is required will need to be
laid at speed and scale in the next decade."
RATIONALE
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Vision 2050, boildly recognizes t ' he
need to break the unsustainable model of growth-by-deplet�ion and replace it with a mode,l of
growth based on the balanced use of renewabile resources and recycling those that are not.
The study refers to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment which found that 15 of 24
ecosystem services they valued, had been degraded over the past half century. In addition,
use of fossil fuel -based energy and accelerating use of natural resources are continuing to
affect key ecosystem service, threatening supplies of food, freshwater, wood fiber +N, fish.
The Authors recognize that business must take the lead in achieving-'Y"ision 2050, however,, they
also recognize that business can not do it alone. Government, civil society and the public at
large must be engaged and committed to achieve what needs to be done in the next decade.
To that end, the TRCA with its vision for The Living City and the many sustainable community
programs, and in partlicular its business outreach through Partners in Project Green, is well
positioned to work with business, government and civil society to raise awareness, facilitate
support and action toward the Vision 20507 while continuing to address the regional context
and locally relevant issues.
7_1'eport prepared by: Bernie McIntyre, extensioin 5326
.Emaiills: bmcintyreC@trca.oln.ca
For Information contact: Bernole, McIntyre, extension 532f
bm&1intyreC@trca.on.ca
Tate: May 03, 2011
RES.#A1 GTA WEST' CORRIDOR INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
Status update, on Toronto and Region Conservation: Authority staff inpul-
into the individual Environmental Assessment for the proposed Greater
Toronto Area West Corridor'.
Moved by: John Spro:vieri
At
Seconded by: Michael Di Biaslzor
No 0
WHEREAS the Provi nce of Ontario has determined that existing provincial transportatior
networks will not be able to support projected transportation demands that correspond
w '"th the I projected growth approved unde I r the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe (GGH) to the year 203,1 ;
WHEREAS the Ministry of Transportation has initiated an Individual Environmental
Assessment (IEA) for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) West to determine appropriate
$I
solutions and alternatives to address transportationissues associated with the GGH
growth area;
WHEREAS a Draft Transportation Development Strategy Report (Stage 1) for the GTA
0
West is being reviewed and establishes a draft Preliminary Route Planning Study Area
that will be a basis of Stage 2i of the IEA (Route Planning and Preliminary Design);
WHEREAS the draft preliminary route planning study area is located between Highway
400in the general location of King -Vaughan Road ending west of Milton at Highway 401
with connections to highways 410 and 4,27, as well as other roads at various segments
along the corridor!, to be determined as the IEA proceeds -
WHEREAS the draft preliminary route planning study area will traverse the municipalities
of Halton Region, Peel Region (City of Brampton, Town of Calledon) and York Region (City
of Vaughan);
WHEREASin T R CA's Ju risd ictio n , the draft prelliminary route planning study area requires
numerous river crossings in the Etobicoke Creek watershed and major river crossings in
the Humber River watershed, including the Nashville Resource Management Tract;
WHEREAS Stage 2 of the IEA will examineidentified planning alternatives, such as the
inclusion of transit alternatives, as well as alternative alignments of the highway through
the proposed study area and across the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek watershed�s--
.0
THEREFORE LET ITBE RESOLVED THAT the Ministry of Transportation be advised that
TRCA staff understands the provincial need for! the new corridor, and that, staff is
committed to working with the Province to ensure the environmental impacts to the
natural heritage system within the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek watersheds are
either avoided, gated or compensated as the IEA is developed;
or—ReEffi—quor-1-1
60181VA
rl"
a
TH�AT the Ministry of Transportation be requested to further: consider mod"ifications to the
draft preliminary route planning study area to minimize fragmentation of the natural
heritage system, particu�larly in the area of the Nashville Resource Management Tract
which compr!ises not only a major valley contag the Humber River, but, also other
significant natural heritage features, and the Ministry of Transportation be requested to
provide TRCA with the details of such modifications prior to finallization by the Ministry;
THAT the Iflinistry of Transportation be requested to provide an extensive review of
existing natural features, impacts of crossings, on the natural features and their functions -
Y
and provide a comprehensive mitigation and compensation strategy,for those areas that
will be impacted;
THAT the Ministry of Transportation be requested to establish a working group with TRCA
staff to examine the alternatives at a site specific leivel, to identify and scope the true
implications to valleyland corridors and, large tracts of natural heritage system within the
Humber River watershed and impacts to the Nashville Resource Management Tract
(landsin TRCA ownership),
THAT the Ministry of Transportation be requested to work with the Ontario Road Ecology
Group (OREG) to inform the planning and design of the GTA West Corridor in terms of
priority areas for wildlife crossing gation;
THAT the Ministry of Transportation be requested, due to the historical significance of the
Humber River (designated a Canad�ian Heritage River in 1999) to involve First Nations,,,
local heritage groups, municipalities and TRCA earlyin the planning proicess, as the
potential for significant archaeological findings within this watershed is extremely high;
F1
rr
40
&V tv 0 0
At this time, T'RCA staff is providing input to the study team through both the Regulatory
Agency Advisory Group (RAAG), and through internal review processes with technical and
planning staff. When providing input on a transportation focused study of this size and scale,
staff has regard for the foil�lowing TRCA policy and program areas of interest:
•
9 watershed plans (Humber, Etobicoke/Mimico)i;
0 managing natural hazards;
TRCA land management objectives;
water management objectives including both surface and groundwater resources and their
contribution to the natural heritage system.
AN Am a' a
IL a ddk
wr
W
40 W W All ft dh 4111,
d1h r r Ah
lop dh
W A
Ah
46
A A
40
190
AN
i
All of these options will be pursued'ini some form as near-term (0 to 5 years), medium-term (5 to
15 years) and long-term (15 to 25 years) solutioins in efforts to alleviate traffic cong�estion. Of
these options, it was found that Groups 1 and 2 will not fully address the long-term future
transportation needs for the area, and that planning for additional roadway capacity is requireid.
However, many of the options presented in Groups 1 and 2 will bie pursued in the near-terim,
while it is anticipated that the Group 3 activities will be undertaken in the medium-term.
AN AN A A
Aft 'Afth iffi
so0 AN M Ah Ah M, dV AM Ah M do do
AN
am A In
Ak
IN
IS
'WV 0
40 40
L Idk SOUR
Alternative alignments within the proposed corridor will be examined during Stage 2 of the EA
process. The overall recommended solution will consist of an alignment with a right-of-wa,y in
the range of 110 m (for a highway/truckway without a transitway) and 170 m (with a transitway).
The alignment will include six lanes (three in each direction) between Highway 400 and the
Highway 427 extension, and four lanes (two in each direction) between Hiighway 427 and its
connect�ion at Highway 401/407 ETR. The alignment will be pursued in combination with
widening of existing highways such as highways 401, 400, 407 ETR and 4101.
The Draft Transportation Development Strategy Report acknowledges that there are several key
natural environmental features/systems located within the GTA West preliminary study area
(corr!idor), including many river valley crossings and designated natural areas, such as the
Greenbelt Plan area. The Province provides a commitment to working with conservation
authorities during Stage 2 of the lEA process to minimize impacts and to enhance cuiltural and
heritage features (e.g., underpasses for animals and rural road cross-sectioins). The Province
also commits to completing comprehensive environmental field work as part of this next stage
of work.
'V
W 40 'OV
Ah Ak
Ab M a
Ah AO, oft d1h Ak
a
Ah r AFA MIk
Ak Ab
Ak Alb
M AL Ah ft IV do
Ab
Ak a Ah 40 00 Ak A& 40 Ak Ah
Mr' do
ww
Ab a 4P
40
Alk Ah M Ah
11A
dP err
dr
W W
WW W
....... ....
W W W W
Discussions have also takein place between the Ontario Road Ecology Group and MTO
regarding a comprehensive wildlife crossing study. TRCA staff has also consulted with OREG
representatives during the review of the Stage 1 assessment. TRCA staff strongly supports the
need for this level of research and Vii`sts that this corridor is an opportunity to implement
some of the strategiesinto the design. TRCA staff is also conducting a connectivity and road
ecology study within Peel Region (with the support of Peel Region and in partnership with
Crediit Valley Conservation, ORE,G and EcoKa,re International).The results of this study should
help to inform the plannin�g and design of the GTA West project in terms, of the priority areas for
wildlife crossing mitigation.
A
0 0 0 see 9
0 0 0 , 0 see 0
INI 0
A%
Ak A A, Ak
do
AR JAMM Ah M M
OM
4F
Ab
4P Ar
4F
40
Ah Alk
40 40 4P do W
4P Ah A% Ak 4F Ah
IMML
1W TRCA staff will report back to the Authority once alternative alignments, within thi.;;
transiportation corridor have been .i `i through Stage 2 of the lEA.
Report prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 521'7, Sharon Lingertat, extension 5717
For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217,
Sharon Lingertat, extension 5717
Emails: bwOIIIiston@trca.on.ca, slingertat@trca.on.ca
Date: June 06, 2011
Attachments: 1
Aftachment 1
I
RES.#A1 SCARBOROUGH WATERFRONT CYCLING TRAIL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS
Approval of an agreement with the City of Toronto to complete
improvements to informal multi -use trails located in several communities
along the Scarborough waterfront.
Moved by: Bryan Bertie
Seconded by: Laurie Brucit,
THAT approval be granted, to enter Into an agreement with the City of Toronto for the
M
planning and implementation of three (3) trail improvement projects within Grey Abbey
Ravine, Bluffer's Park and Harrison Estates;
SRI 0 on;r rL-V
M
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA, officials be directed to take such action, as is
necessary to implement the approved projects, including obtaining necessary approvals,
tendering work, signiing of contracts and execution of documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
TRCA has partnered with the City of Toronto for many years to provide project des,ig�n,
coordination of approvals and implementation services in support of City -led natural
environment projects throughout the City and across the Toronto waterfront.
In 2006, the City formalized the process and requested TRCA to enter into an agreement which
stipulated terms and conditions for the supply and delivery of projects and services in
accordance with an approved list of projects., The agreement also provided a mechanism by
which TRCA could, invoice the City to recover costs for the services and material supplied.
In April 2011, TRCA was approached by the City of Toronto Parks, Recreation and Forestry
Department and Transportation Services to complete improvements to three (3) multi -use trails
within several communities along the Scarborough waterfront, as part of the City's Cycling and
Infrastructure Program. T'RCA's understanding of the current conditions and proposed works of
the three (3) proposed multi -use trails is as follows:
a I
111141
Project
Description
A formal multi-us,e trail (paved) has been proposed within
Grey Abbey Park. The trail would be accessed from an
existing park laneway located on the east side of Grey
Abbey Trail (between 112 and 114 Grey Abbey Trail), which
Grey Abbey Ravine Trail
would be extended to the north through the Grey Abbey
Ravine to the CN Ra,il right-of-way, and travel: east
immediately adjacent to the CN rall line towards Manse
Road. The new trail would be approximately 600 metres (m)
in length.
A formal multi-usie trail (paved) has been proposed within
Bluffer's Park. The tra,il would be accessed from an existing
Bluffer's Park Trail
formal path just south of Chine Drive, and travel northeast to
the Brimley Road and Barkene Drive intersection. The new
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
trail wou:ld be approximately 9010 m in length.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Improvements to an existing informa,l pedestrian trail
Harrison Estates Trail
between Springbank Avenue and Lakehurst Crescent have
been proposed to upgrade to a formal multi -use trail (paved).
The new tra,il would be approximately 200 m in length.
TRCA staff submitted a proposal to the City outlining i approach to the agreement
that T'RCA would undertake, and was approved by both the City of Toronto's Parks, Recreation
Mnd Forestry Department and Transportation Services in Ju�ne 2011.
SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed scope of work to be undertaken by TRCA to complete the improvements at the
three project sites noted above will be separated into the following four (4) project phases:
Phase I - Topographic Survey and Base Mapping
ei Attend site meetings to discuss the scope of work.
ei Undertake detailed site survey including the collection of topographic data as requireu
including the locations of any known underground utilities in the vicinity of the proposed
works.
0 Collect all requibaseline information for the area (e.g., tree inventory, property
mapping).
Produce base mapping of the existing conditions, including a tree inventory (e.g.,
species, condition, DBH and location of trees), property information, �landmar!ks (e.g.
structures, top -of -bank) and known utties, within the area of the project.
■ hase 11 - Preliminary Concept: and Public Consultation
Review the existing conditions, and develop a preliminary concept design, with guidancr.
from the City of Toronto.
0 Provide a preliminary schedule and cost estimate for the completion of i
9 Assist the City of Toronto with the public consultation process, including the preparatio
of presentation boards and attending all required pubc meetings.
K I
1111 W�J
Detailed Design, Approvals and Tender Management
0 Complete modificat�ions to the preliminary design to reflect the results and feedback of
public consultation completed by the City of Toronto.
ei Coordinate the receipt of all necessary internal/e,xternal permits and approvals, (e.g.,
archaeology clearance, TRCA planning, City of Toronto Park Access Agreement).
e Preparation of detailed design and construction specifications, with revisions as
required to obtain approvals.
ei Preparation and issuance of tender documents.
0 General procurement management.
Oi Development of a detailed cost estimate for the implementation of works.
Phase IV - Implementation
0 Coordinate all underground utility locates, both public and private, in the vicinity of the
proposed works.
0 Pre -construction site meetings with City of Toronto.
0 Site survey layout as required.
0 Site preparation and mobilization of labour, equipment and materials (including tree
removal').
0 Implementation of detailed design.
Supervision and administration of contracts as required.
0 Site restoration.
0 Final site inspections with City of Toronto.
0 Provide as -built drawings to the City of Toronto.
RATIONALE
TRCA involvement ini, the planning and implementation of' this project was req, uested based on
the history of cooperative project management between the City of Toronto and TRCA and
TRCA's specia,l�ized expertise in works of this type.
TRCA is recognized by the City of Toronto as being able to provide cost-effective managementi
of watershed related projects due to highly specialized expertise,, the ability to expedite
required approvals and permits,'facilitate community involvement and meet tight timelines. As
such, the City has requested that TRCA enter into an agreement to implement the project.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for this proj i ect will be approved in phases, as outlined in the scope of work.
TRCA staff will not proceed with phased works prior to approval of the proposed Phase
budget by City of Toronto staff. The full costs of the project are 100% recoverable from the
City of'Toronto.
The tendering and purchases of goods and services will be conducted in accordance with
TRCA's Purchasing Policy.
The approved funding for! Phase 1, Topographic Survey and Base Mapping is $24,860 including
HST. The total estimated value of work based on preliminary information is $715,000. Account
cVii" 203-05 has been setup for this project.
.1-leporti prepared by: Lindsay Prihoda, extension 5787
Emaills: 1prihoda@trca.on.,ca
IM
oInfrmation contct- Lindsay Prihoda, extension 5787
-•r oaN
Emaills: I PH hold a@trca.:on.ca
Ltate.w June,10, 2011
RES.#A1 PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN: PARSON EC -BUSINESS ZONE
2010 Annual, Report. Overview of Partners in Project Green's 2010
accomplishments.
Moved by: Bryan Bertie
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
11 MM F.1w, 7 10 MPTS "I = "s : =.1 I T -T -W STIT-3 4 11 "1 A TITIT r M I a =0 =4=- • ;
AND FURTHER THAT a copy of the Pearson Eco -Business Zone 2010 Annual Report be
presented to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (T'RCA) local and regional
municipal partners involved in Partners in Project Green.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The second year ofthe 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 Partners in Project Green 2010
Annual Report.
The Partners in Project Green 2010 Annual Report captures the achievements of our partners,
including impressive reductions in energy and watelr use, innovative susitainability projects, an
protection of natural heritage within the Pearson Eco -Business Zone. I
The following are higlhlights from the annual reporl
Partners, in Project Green was honoured with the Econom, ic Developers of Canada
Marketing Award for the Partners in Project Green Program Guide and received an,
Honourable Mention for the Pearson Eco -Business Zone Strategy from the Canadian
Institute of Planners.
The Pearson E,co-Business Zone was showcased at six conferences and highlighted in 19
news features articles.
Partners in Project Green hosted 1,213 participants at training events, networking sessions
and community tree plantings. Overall, 480 businesses were engaged in Partners in Projec)
Green programs.
9111h
Ah Ah ANIw 1A go A A&
Ah
Ah Ah Alk M Ah Ah 2
Ah
0 0
Ah Ah AFA Alk Alk Ah
d1k
R tTdR IM 0 E 1k-_1b7X-eJ 0 0! RUILWMA LTVATLY
40
01171
Ah Ah
A A% 40
wjLvi V limp
MIN
Working with funding from Woodbine Entertainment, the City of Toronto, the Region of Peel
and, E,nbridge Gas, Partners in Project Green developed several green jobs programs to
help create job opportunities for local youth and post -secondary students. These jobs
ranged from internships installing wh�ite roofs and' solar panels, to assisting companies in
reducing their energy and resource costs. In total, 78 companies utilized Partners in Project
Green Green Job Programming.
A digital copy of the annual report can be found on-line at
A
www.partnersinproj,ectgreen.,com/background/``an�nual-report. A hard copy is also encloseit'
within your agenda package.
Report prepared by: Chri"s R'lickett, extension, 5316
Emaills: crickett@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Chris Rickett, extension 5316
Ernamills: crickett@trca-on.ca
Date: May 31, 2011
Attachments 1: (Annual Report was available at the meeting)
I
RES.#A1 AGREEMENT WITH ONTARIO MINISTRY OF INFRASTRUCTURE
Operation and Development of Provincial Uxbridge lands, Township of
Uxbridge, Regional Municipality of Durham, CF'N 41112. Recommend i n1g,
entering Into an agreement with Ontario Ministry of infrastructure for the
operation and development of the provincial Uxbridge �lands,, in the
Township of Uxbridge.,
Moved by: Glenn Mason
Seconded by: Bob Callahar
THAT Toronto and Reg, ion Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into an agreement with
Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure, for the Province of Ontario, to operate and develop th
0 "
provincial Uxbr'l'dge lands, be'ling Lot,14 and Part of Lot 15, Concessi"on 6, conta"In'ling 12
hectares (308.8 acres) located 'lin the Township of Uxbridge, Regional Municipality of
Du,rhiam; I
THAT the agreement be based substantlially on the pri'lincmiples set out 11"n this staff report
I
dated June 15, 20
THAT the final terms and conditions of the agreement be satisfactory to TRCA staff and
s o 11"I cift o r s a,
AND FURTHER THAT the authorized T:RCA officials be directed totake whatever actions
may be required' to give effect thereto including the obtaining of necessary approvals and
the sign'i'ng and execution of any documents.
CAPRIED—
BACKGROUND
The Province of Ontario owns approximately 540 hectares (1 333 acres) of land on the Oak
Ridges, Moraine, in the southern portion of the Township of Uxbridge. The land is separated
into six parcels,. One pariceil is I i ocated south of Durham Road 21 and five parcels are locate4"
north of Durham Road 21. The Province has approached TRCA to manage the south parcel
and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) to manage the north parcels.
The parcel to be managed by TRCA is 125 hectares (3,08.8 acres,) in size and is designated as
Natural Core Area under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plani. There is one farmland
rental and one house rental on the property. The Province will not convey the lands to TRCA
but has agreed to enter into a Ground Lease for a period of 20 years less a day similar to the
lease in place for the management and operation of the Oak Ridges Corridor Park in Richmonli
Hill.
The subject property Is on the border between TRCA and LSRCA. TRCA staff has had
discussions with L,SRCA staff and has given TRCA"s ownership west of the subject propertl�
LSRCA staff support for TRCA managing these lands. i
The subject property f'a,lls within the criteria for acquisition under the Greeniands Acquisitior
Project for; 2011-2015.
a 1•
TV Alk
W 1P V
V
W W W
AMM
a oft go A d11
RATIONALE
Provincial staff has indicated that they would e to finaliz,e this lease at the earliest poss,ible
datAMM. Entering into the lease would allow for a connection between'TRCAs, North Walker Woods
propAIM,cated west of the subject property and the Durham Regional Forest located east of
the subject property. The local community is also very supportive of creating this important trail
cotnectio-i.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will seek to negotiate an agreement that addresses the principles as ouned above.
F i
INANCIAL DETAILS
As noted, T'RCA will only complete the lease on terms and conditions that ensure TRCA has no
significant direct costs related to the operation of the leased lands. Any net revenues from the
operation of the lands, under the lease wil 1 1 be used for devel opment of the prioperty, including
trails. There will be TRCA staff costs to finalize the lease as well as reasonable legal costs
relNted to lease negotiations all of which are provided for in the TRCA land acquisition capital
account from TRCA's municipal partners.
Report prepared by: Mike Fenning, extens'lion 5223
Emamills: mfenning@tlrca.on.ca
For Information contact: JI"m Di"Illane, extensi"on 6292, Ron Dewell, extens'l'on 5245 or
Miike Fenniing, extensiion 5223
Emaills: jdi1IIane@trca.on.ca, rdeweI1@trca.on.ca or mfenniing@trca.on.ca
Date.- June 15, 2011
Attachments: 1
t
r
».r��rurc tlW
9
0IMIll
SUBW CT
r �
r
Ol�N
u !Il-
h400�.,oie•u.'"i�rrq
op
loop
0vop
�
,ado" i.ui�"i �' ,M dr N 'I�;..•+"r uv
011,
op
10
1.0
w
�w µ
I{
kh'�Yyp Ij�,�
Lu J %,,
ry
"m
wwww www wwww wwww ��µm
���n -, ��� L
Ifo 6 a tll ,uurn � � V� rty
r"'k j "!fin t Pro
fla,
� m man,ro„x„'
k�
rmm i
ll
R,, o a v��� `�
'l rr 1 i t_�uu1 �
o m"� ramr p , � p� II44 a� [
' DG, lVele aar ,m r r GLV enrdun
� �� uus ` I� Of
T r
R, A F,
N
;R
RES.#A1 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2010
The 2010 audited financial statements are presented for Authority
approval.
Moved by.- Chris, Fonseca
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
THAT the transfer of funds to reserves in the amount of $1 3,89,5915 dur:ing 2010, as
outlined in the schedule to the financial statements entitled, "Continuity of Reserves", be
approved-,
AND FURTHER THAT the 2010 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 municipallity and the Minister of
0
Natural Resourcesin accordance wit�h subsection 38 (3) of the Conservation Authorities
Act.
CARRIED
RATIONALE
20101 Financial Statements-
The financial statements of TRCA for 21010 are presented for approval. The accounting firm of
Grant Thornton �LLP, has completed its audit and has included with the financial statements an
i
unqualified auditor's report. The audited financial statements are presented as Attachment 1 to
the report.
Grant Thornton LLP has also provided a report to the board, entitled, "; Report to the Audit
Committee - Communication of Audit Strategy and Results", which is included as Attachment
This report addresses various matters, including overall audit strategy, auditor responsibilities
during the audit, financial statement misstatements and other matters of 'Interest to the
members,. As noted on page 8 of the report, under Reportable Matters, there were no internal
control findings for 2010. 1
A representative from Grant Thornton, L:LP will be in attendance to present the auditor"s report
on the 2010 financial statements.
q 11111q A
M tv do M Ah V M W Ab W
NM dr do
Ak 1k
do
GOP
40
Ask Ah Ak Ab
do fav dV 40 do
Alk Alk AN
As at December 31, 2010, the total book value of the tangible capita,l assets is $518.2 million of
which $116.0 million has been amortized. Th e unamortized balance of $402.2 million is
reported in the statement of financial posit ' ion as the net book value of tangible capital assets.
Also included is a schedule for tangible capital assets itemizing the various categion ! es of TCA
eros_ 24.)
0 0
milli AMR
49
All,
w.
AS M M Ak Ah M ZI
W V 40
9,10 RVAJ a] Lola 9140110 WIts 00101 2ATI-A IR MAN 110 11 Alrat] 194101601111 ]IM
Financial Statement Structure
0
The standards regarding the content and structure of the f inancial statements have changed
starting in 200i9, mainly in order to accommodate tangible capital asset accounting. The
changes have moved the financial statements from a ( modified accrua,l" basis to a virtual "full
accrual" basis. The new standards require the following financial statements: Financial Position,
Operations, Changes in Net Debt and Cash Flows.
The Statement of Operations measuires the revenues, expenses and surplus (deficit) for the
period Including the, impact of the assets during the year. The Statement of Financial Position
disc�losies the financial assets less liabilities to create the net assets (debt)i and discloses
non-financial assets and accumulated surplus. The 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 Statement of Cash Flows discloses the cash inflows
and outflows during the year which are classified by financial activities of operating, 'Investing
and capital.
iiiiiIIIIIIq
The 11cash-basis" analysis presented below looks at available funding as compared to actual
expenditures, the same basis upon which the annual budget is developed. With the
introduction oif TCA to the financial statements it is fairly easy to lose sight of this very important
concept. Below is an analysis of TRCA's "cash -basis" deficit, which excludes the impacts on the
accounts introduced by TCA.
Aft Alk A% Aft oft A Oft 0 46
W W M A
Ab
Ak a all,
I—
The chiart Delow is a summary of the main elements oJ the cumulative cash deficit poson of
TRCA as of Decemfir, 31, 2010,00
Deficit - general operatAi
ions
........................... .................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .
Portion of operating deif'icit attributable to RSC NOM
Portion of operating deficit re: Petticoat Creek Pool
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .
Cash -basis deficit, end! of year $2,388,493
ah da M A Ah
Alk
Ah M Ah Ab M
dMM
so fill# 0 ele- -6 0 A
oil Ab W Mh OOM
4F Ab W A I Ak a -a a 1 4P M! I
As deimonstrated in the "'Statement of Financial Position" TRCA cash flows are sufficient to
ensure no borrowing is required to f'inance the deficit.
PA.qtnr\/P_q-
The status, of TRCA reserves is presented on page 22 of the financial statements in a schedule
titled, "Continuity oif Reserves."' Some of the moire significant reserve transactions that occurre#'
in 2010 are as follows:
Vehicle and Equipment (V&E) reserve: The cost of acquisitions and operations exceed rental or
usage charges by an amount of $145,58,0., The acquisition of three equipment pieces not
previously part of the "pool" costing $167,071 (crawler carrier, loader tractor and skid steer with
hydraulic auger) is the cause of this shortfall. The equipment is required to facilitate, the
increasing volume of work and financially justified' when compared to the cost of renting.
Restoration Services staff had anticipated the requirement and had set the funds aside in
reserves for this purpose, which also explains the transfer into the V&E reserve, as outlined in
the Continuity of Reserves schedule.
Operating Contingency: An amount of $490,000 has been, transferred to this reserve from
surplus representing the amount of net revenues generated from a fill contract in Kleinburg
(Vaughan) on property initially acquired from the City of Vaughan., TRCA has committed to usg
the proceeds to develop greenspace concept site, as per; an agreement with Vaughan and the
Kleinbuirg Rate Payers Association, key stakeholders in the project. The filling activity is
com, plete and the restoration work will continue over the next several years, with the reserye
funds available to finance the project, as required.
Funds Held Under Provincial Revenue Sharing Policy Reserve.- As explained in note 5 to the
financial statements (page 10) the Province of Ontario reserves the riigh,t, to direct the use of
funds derived from the sale of land, originally acquired with provincial funds. Durin�g the year
property (including subsurface rights and easements) were disposed of for an amount of
approximately $3.8 million. Consistent with the provincial approval, disposal proceeds were
used to pay for expropriation costs associated with the Etobicoke Motel Strip ($1.96 million)
and for general acquisition ($781 000), with the balance of'thesie funds ($1.1 million) remaining
in the reserve for future acquisitions.
At Authority Meeting #9/03i, 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 $1,719,869. Staff is of
the opinion that this amount is insufficient to meet sign�ificant, unforeseen economic hardship
which could negatively impact admission and retail revenues. Given the current economic
climatei and the task of wg out the accumulated deficit, 'it not likely that much progress will
III made in improving reserve balances sufficient to provide an adequate margin of safety over
the next sevel 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 opinlion that it is, more prudent to fund
repayment of the deficit as part of the annual budget cycle rather than apply limited reserve
funds.
V-1440mr-low—
Summary:
TRCA managed to weather substantial, pressure on revenues and was able to make necessary
adjustments to expenditures to minimize the operating deficit for the year. The in -year surplus
that occurred was, mainly the result of a few significant capital 'transactions, including the
availability of the municipal share of land sale proceeds. TRCA continues to maintain a strong
cash flow position and will pursue efforts to reduce its cash basis deficit position and improve
reserve ballances in 2011 and future years.
Report prepared by: Rocco Sgambel�luri, extension 52i32
Emails: rsgambelluri@trca.oln.ca
For information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 523'.2
Emails: rsgambeIIuri@trca,.on,.ca
Date: June,1'4, 2011
Attachments: 2
r__IqMMW_MMr__I
5WO
Attachment
tachment 1
GrantThornton
KGF
Attachment 1
Toronto and Region Consorrvation Authority
Now AM,
Page
I
Independent Auditor's Report,
1 -2
Statement of Financial Posittion
3
Statement of Operations
4
Statement of Changes in, Net Debt
5
Statement of Cashy Flows
6
Notes, to, the Financial Statements
7-14
Schedule of Financial Activittes, —Watershed Ma'nagementand Health Mo'n, itoring
15
Schediule ofFinancial Activlt'fe"'s — ErMironmental A.�dvis 'o''ii y',S,erv"tces,,
16
Schedule of 'Fin anc'iaIA,,ctISN t,,I"esi —Watershed Stewardship
17"
Schedule of Finaticial Activitles'l— Cion`�erv` AtTion Land, Mah agemeilt,
D,eve,lopmen,,t,,,afnd!A,cq,y's,'t'o,(n
'18
caton Programm' i
SchedILJ,,P,,,,,pf` Fin andal Activit'les, — Consprvation and Edui ng
19
�,c,hedu!1,6,,-of'Fi';,naililclal,Acti'vlt*es,.�-Coli,",Po�rate,,Set-ices
,Sv'
20
Schedule bf' Financial Activities—. Vehicle and Equipmeat
21
Continuity of Reserves
22,
Schedule of Accumulated Surplus
23
Scheduleof Tangible Capital Asset's
24,
Attachment
tachment 1
ran rnn
Independent Auditor's Report (DRAFT)
Grant Thornton LLF
Suite 200
15 Allstate Parkway
Markham. ON
UR 5134
T +1416 366 0100
F +1905 475 8906
a,o.i,v-GcatJbki ei#j-ra
To the Members of the
Toronto and Re r on Conservation Authonity
We have audited Y1 the accompan ing financial f oronto olid, Re io, n,,, -9
inprise W 101" 01
ta, I p os, itio,,ri� 41 S 11 CM111 *�� 1
Authority O'TRCA"), which co the staternent D 1,) 3",1 1
and the statements of operations, changes iji, net debt, andnlfor the year then ended, and a
summary of significant accounting 1"X), a-,
Management's responsibility for the fil'"tanctal statements
A,
Management is res ponsiblefog tot v 11 , aI
s, of these financial statements -in
accordance %qth
®. and For such internal control as
management of financial statements that are free
f
whether d�ie,ilo fraud or,crror. rom material
Auditor's responsibit Y,
I fithanciat statements based on our audit. We
Our ontli,est
con(kict, *4,,,1,,t Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those
NVI, C�l It
that we q>11.1
ply 't ''th""cal, req*ements and plan and perform the audit to obtain
1,111C Itt ment.
reasonable assurance about'N e''th, r dInc-fit"iie, i I statements are Free from material miss tate
A
auclittl,v)edures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures n i,,v,ot,"e,,s''l,,
7 '17 r,f,6rmI 11 oce
P
in the financial ifMitblcnvs. fxrl r s selected depend on a-te auditoes jud menti including the
ass esst-yient of J',',04,terial misstatement of the financial staterrients, whether due to flaud or.
error. In making those rik',K", assessments., the auditor considers internal. control relevant to the entity >s
preparation and fair presentation of d -ie financial statements in order to design audit procedures that
are appropriate in die circumstances., but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also Includes evaluating the appropriateness of
accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management,:as
well as evaluating the overall pres entatlion- of the financial statements.
AudR -Tax - Advisory
Grant Thunlon L LR, A C anadian M Fmbei of Grant T hoinlon In ternafi on.4 Lid
t 1 m
GrantThorntoo,
'd,c-;a basis
0A "I ave obtai,ned is s�mi fficien t' and a, )I
Wel-,xIieve dt, t thc* ao.dit, C"VICIC1111ce We 1 '1 Pt""I114tte pr(")
A, .
f'(,")r our audit optn.tot'i.
T r the financial st;aemctit I I 'On of
'11 ("),L)"I 0 S in, 1 im tenal respects, t -I e 11nat-icia positi
as eat TI em 1xv 3 111 2010 11k,xtl(I 11,111st'l I t'S" of i tsopera, tion,s , cl-ra ri,gcts I'll, "t"), e t' det)'t� a''t d ts (-.a s h
S tall datids,
flof\vsk'. ("'or d"ie, yeat tht,-n, ncled in accottliMice xv-1111 G�tnach"an' 1-mblic Sectot .1
Oth, er r in atte r
tc "'I. rc
With,ou, tn,, Oi.
t.'>ur dl-'wa', t(,c,n on dtt:) g' "'t 'WIU :1, 1.) wide
'i ''pt,,ocedut C
C( III v es only., 1,'ven, s.t.1,L)ject to, attdt '�OS,. A we do
xptarati, epntrpx).S-
"1Ac'bL.i,dgct vres,
1101t, ex'Press M1 OP1,111,011 011, it.,
Mat-lcham, C'Aattachl' Ch.-irterett.] Accotm ta, n. I's
A cco't''rlt.-,vr ts,
jt.",tnc24., 2011 'I"ce't x,,, i I
AuIdfit - Tax - Advisory
I 11P, A
1 32,0
Attachment
tachment 1
Toronto and Rqgion Conservation Authority
Statement of Financial Position
December 31 2010 2009
..... . . . . ............................
Financial Assets
Cash and cash equivalents (Note 3)
Marketable securities
Receivables (Note 4)
Liabilities
Payables and accruals
Deferred revenue
Municipal levies
Capital, special projects and other
Vacation pay and sick leave entitlements
11� MUl
Non -Financial Assets
93680s564 412"19,064
133809,3132 14*199,489
122.4 0.449 12.450,884
Accumulated surpt'Us"(Page 23,) 40111191563, 38315281880
Contingent filabilities an;d"11c 7),
On bqh' If", o,fc TROk-1
Id
Chair Secretary -Treasurer
See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
M
Attachment
tachment 1
iiiiiiiiii� IN III 111111111111 11 lig I I I I I I � I I
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Statement of Operations
Year Ended December 31
Annual surplus (deficit) for the year (Page 23) $1�1(6405400) $M"1795905683 $ 6,232,227
r0fim
Pr- -Iqw- -'w- -4
LA K -A X -A 1
16-
Ed!
2010
2010
2009
Budget
Actual
Actual
(unaudited)
.Revenue
Municipal
Levies Operating $
11,5665000
$ 11,532,985
$ 11,382,338
Capital
28,261,000
1191023,309
19,0975021
Other
65183,000
%5129054
3,880,867
Government grants
M N R transfer payments
846,000
845,753
8453753
Provincial - other
61,8791,00Q
61276,121
Federal
3',171,0
3,796
1,599,741
User fees, sales and admissions
114532i'400,
13183406611
1357255756
Investment income
' 000,
321i ��42,',
283,385
Proceeds from sale of properties
1,000
3,8061025,
40,002
The Conservation Foundation of
Greater Toronto
110713600
1,233,689
1,3603669
Donations and fundrai8ing
1" 983100()"
478,058
758,441
Facility and property rentals$37614001
297875019
2,553,572
Canada Post Corporation agreement
6,65 000
8,868
9,486
Waterfront Toronto
131,, 461
6,796,768
5,221,064
Corporate and Community Groups
"0188"006
191459918
776,598
Contract services
5t13320W
991343950
41300,480
Sales and property tax refunds
120
x,00
289,272
559,645
Compensation agreements
0, 0
6745440
925,216
Sundry
h
'300
16,779
132.217
90,078,650
73,728,372
Less: cost of tangible sales of capital assets
included above
(3639653,)
134.98 1)
- ...... . ..... -
&M 106
899714.j997
-733593
Expenditures
Watershed management and health
monitoring
14,126,000
1125273,577
12,197, 995
Environmental,advis,ory services
43633,000
4,525,335
4,539,058
Watershed stewardship
19,939,000
189902,434
16)163,407
Conservation land management,
development and acquisition
343091,300
28,141,902
185223,117
Conservation and education programming
193372,800
17,745,867
1753313878
Corporate services
8,108,000
6,428,272
61065,781
Vehicle and equipment, net.of usage charged
-
145 589
41,713
100,270,100
8831629967
74,562,949
Less: expenditures on capital assets
included above
-
1 0 817)
(13,122,4Q71
Expenditures before amortization
100,2703100
6615222,050
611440,462
Amortization
5,190,22164
�702
5u920 �
100,270,100
72j 249314
671361,164
Annual surplus (deficit) for the year (Page 23) $1�1(6405400) $M"1795905683 $ 6,232,227
r0fim
Pr- -Iqw- -'w- -4
LA K -A X -A 1
16-
Ed!
Attachment
tachment 1
1
Tor -onto and Region Conservation Authority
0
Statement of Changes in Net Debt
December 31 2010, 2009
"I
Annual surplus for the year
Acquisition of tangible capital assets
Net proceeds on disposal of tangible capital assets
Arnortizaton
Change in inventory
Changeir! prepaids
Decrease (increase) in net debt in the year
1112111�!I�Ml
See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
$ 6,2321,1227
(1 3, 122,1487)
1341,98, 1,
5,920,702,
3191108
M384
'41
Attachment
tachment 1
Toronto and -Region Conservation Authority
Statement of Cash Flows
01
Year Ended December 31 2010 21.0
Operafing
AnnuM surplus for the year
Noh-cash 0 harge to operations
Amorliz-ation
Gain on disposal
W r'l - te off of tangible capital assets
Decrease in receivables
Increase In interest receivable
Increase In inventory
Increase in prepaids
Decrease in payables, and accruals
Increase in deferred revenue
e
Decrease in vacation pay and sick leave
eittitlements I
$ 17r590,1683 $ 6,1,2321,227
51,90217,164
51,920,702
(71,664)
48�0117
11-0,435
272,145,0
010 1,59,8)
(125,1229)
39,108
P5,1997)
761384
11,998,822
(1,4471,673)
11,2461110,29,,
2, 7311,076
26.,§ZI962
Proceeds on maturities of marketable securities 121,500,000 91998�51 3
Purchase of marketable secu ritie1')
440jq,,5,5 i9
J7'14, 61527),
Capital
Proceed on of disposal. o'f't'P'0g.J'bl1e capital a"S'sets 3871,300 134,981
Purchase of tangi ble�,c,zaasset's Ral
pt _C21_,9401�81,7)
l 55
_(12
,4_987,5,06,
Net [ixidease (decreawo)Jitip cash, a"116 -cash equilvalent's 51461 1500 (6,t,595 320
Cash i t gib4 nning of,year I'll 4,384
Cash,,;And cash equiv''6161s, endbfypar 916801564 41219,064
See, ciccomparriy,irtg wtes to the, .[iiti,ancial,,cj,,tall, e�,t,,iiei.s,.
100IJ
WUZA I
r5!,r A%M
Attachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the year ended December 31, 2010
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 acc-brdance with Canadian
generally accepted accounting principles for organizations operating in the local government
sector as recommended by the Public Sector Acco'u'nting Board of The Canadian Institute of
Chartered Accountants. Significant aspects of ,the 'aecounting policies adopted by TRCA are as
follows:
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 'earhe' ' and incurred, respectively, whether or not
such transactions have been settled by the receipt or payment of money.
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 life for all assets except Land which is not
amortl;ed."IJVork1np gress assets are not amortized until the asset is put into service.
, ro
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 buildings not included as a part of the tangible capital
asset balance.
Service life of tangible capital assets is as follows:
Land improvements 20-40 years
Buildings and building Improvements 10-55 years
Machinery and equipment 5-12 years
Vehicles 5-25 years
Infrastructure 10-50 years
K
Attachment
tachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the year ended December 31, 2010
2. Summary of significant accounting policies (continued)
Cash and cash equivalents
TRCA considers deposits in banks, certificates of deposit and short term investments with
original maturities of 90 days or less as cash and cash equivalents.
'Marketable Securities
Marketable securities consist of Guaranteed Investment Certific''aties,Find Government of Canada
bonds. These investments are carried at cost. Investment income is recognized when earned.
Reserves
Reserves f or future expenditures and contingencies are established as required at- the discretion
of the members of the Authority. Increases or decreases -in these reserves are, made by
appropriations to or from operations.
Revenue recognition
Government transfers are recognized in, the financial statements, as revenue in the period in
which events giving rise to 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.
Deferred revenue
TRCA receives certain: amounts principally from other public sector bodies, the proceeds of
which may only be used in th-e 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 net realizable value. Nursery
inventory is valued at the lower of cost and replacement value. Cost is determined on a first -in,
first out basis.
1 8
V A6J
5L1J
Attachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the year ended December 31, 2010
2. Summary of significant accounting policies (continued)
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 of 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 entitlements
Vacation credits earned but not taken and sick leave entitlements are accrued as earned
Donated capital assets, materials and services
Donated capital assets are recorded at fair Value hen fir, v l - �� be reasonably'' b'stilmated.
Donated materials and services are not recorded.
Contributed services
Volunteers contribute significant time t0l"�rthe govril�c an� °li' of Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority programs. e�� t�o Ahe� di�f � � `etc � 1�i��ngthe fair due of these
contributions, contributed services are not ree g nizbdih h''i't ancial staternents,
I Cash and cash equivalents
Cash and cash equivalc� ��f
�
20 2009
Cad $ 75467,651 $ 270033247
� � �itt�ed Cash Eo 6' Water" ° ofect 2 733 744 3 371 202,
10,201, 395 51374,449
Trust funds:
Rouge Park Alliance (3323112) (804, 624)
Greater Toronto Area Agric lfbral Action Committee188119 1761w1
$ 93680,564 $ 412193064
The trust funds are funds administered by TRCA on behalf of the organizations above. 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.
0'
The restricted cash is related to the funds set aside to fund a specific program.
01
K�
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the year ended December 31, 2010
4. Receivables
2010
2009
Waterfront Toronto
$ 195383059
$ 217705890
City of Toronto
357125245
352463006
Regional Municipality of York
739,436
7149074
Regional Municipality of Peel
925708
8,760
Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto
38%995 ` �
1339827
Government of Canada2,1:0,1655
. `u
509,592
Province of Ontario
281
889,295
Interest receivable
5=544
Municipal levies
13, 640
8142000
Trade and other 89G
12$440,144,9 12,14,50,884
5. Reserve funds held under provincial revenue-sharipg policy
Revenue generated from the sale of properties may be held in a reserve created under the
Ministry of Natural 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 p rop'e rti-es are attributed to the province and
the member 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.
The changes of the reserve in 2010 and 2009 are based upon the following transactions
recorded in operations:
2010 2009
Reserve balance, beginning of year $ 215173 $ 149,623
Net proceeds from sale of properties 358069025 40,002
Interest 55914 21053
A
pp-ications:
Greenspace acquisition project (7819005) (1709515)
Revised Project for the Etobicoke Motel Strip (1,962,489) -
Reserve balance, end of year $ 190893618 $ 211173
11100
10
Attachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the year ended December 31, 2010
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 the employees based on the length of service and rates of pay.
Contributions made by TRCA to OMERS for 2010 were $1,916,166,(2009 - $138189638).
i. 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,,rrclaims. 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 posts associated with these activities have not been reflected in
these financial statement& as any costs would be reimbursed through contributions as
required under the agreements
(c) The TRCA has completed the acquisition of lands required to undertake various projects.
There are 3 recent projects where:TRCA has acquired lands under the Expropriations Act.
The first project is thio Revised Project for the Etobicoke Motel Strip. Properties required
for this project,, ,,,obtained through expropriation from five owners. Funding was
%'obtained from the, City'� ofiEtobicoke and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto know
collectively known as the 'City of Toronto) and the Province of Ontario. To date four of the
expropriations have been settled.
The, second project is the Port Union Improvement Project. This project is funded by the
Toronto'' waterfront Revitalization Corporation. one property was expropriated for this
project and one property was acquired under Section 30 of the Expropriations Act which
allows the owner to consent to the acquisition but still arbitrate the compensation. The
expropriation has been settled. The compensation for the property acquired under Section
30 is still outstanding.
The third project is the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Project. This project is funded by
the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation. One property was expropriated for this
project and one property was acquired under Section 30 of the Expropriations Act. Both
the expropriation and compensation for the property acquired under Section 30 are still
outstandi ng.
�7t�J
Attachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the year ended December 31, 2010
7. Contingent liabilities and commitments (continued)
(d) Lease commitments
TRCA has entered into agreements to lease premises and equipment for various periods
until 2015. Minimum lease payments in aggregate for each of the next five years are as
follows:
2011
2012
2013 '; 7
2014
2015
(e) Loan guarantee
TRCA and City of Toronto have jointly and,.severally provided a loan guarantee in the
amount of $7.5 million to the Evergreen FQdndatioan for the Don Valley Brick Works
restoration project. 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 Everoree n, red0ce the maximum price of construction
contracts and authorized TRCA staff to negotiate, orsettle terms of financing
arrangements, incliuding'the requirement fbr�a $500,000 deposit to be held by the City of
Toronto, on behalf of the City and TRCA. This resolution was approved by the Authority
on January 9, 2009. As of December 31 2010, Evergreen had received advances in the
amount of $8.7 million from its financing institutional lender.
(f) Letters of guarantee
TRCA has outstanding Ibtters of guarantee in the amount of $442,248 and $221,124
respectively which expire on May 27, 2011 as a result of entering into a contract with the
City of Brampton for a restoration project.
12
Attachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the year ended December 31, 2010
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 vVh'ch are reported in the
accompanying supplementary schedules to the financial stafe=gents.
Watershed management and health monitoring program
Watershed management and health monitoring program costs and revenues are th6se required
to develop the framework and management strategy to provide a rational approach 'to natural
systems protection, restoration and use. The main' activities included in this segment are
watershed and sub watershed plans, resource inventory, and environmental monitoring, flood
protection services and source water, protection.
Environmental advisory services
Environmental advisory services includes' ,costs and revenues associated with the approval of
development applications or rendering of opinions on the impact of development applications on
natural hazards, natural heritage resources, afd water resources as provided under provincial
legislation which includes the Planning Act, Conservation Authorities Act and the Environmental
Assessment Act.
Watershed stewardship program
The Wra#ershed stelwardship 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.
13
MJ
Attachment
tachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the Lear ended December 31., 2010
8. Segmented InformatIQn (continued), a
ILYA Lli;+711
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
is finandial servilces,, human resources information technology and corporate
serves,'
communications.
9. Budget figures
a I dod, by "RCA
The 2,010 budget figUres 'ncl uded n the:s,e�, �f inanc al st, 'ornents are tI vse, pteTon
April 30, 21,1010.
-----------
10. Comparafive f igutes
Certain comparative figures have bee,a r1eclassified to ,00wform with the financial statement
presentation adopted in the year.
14
K�
Attachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Schedule of Financial Activities — Watershed Management and
Health Monitoring
Year Ended December 31
Less: cost of tangible sales of capital assets
included above
2010
2010
2009
Watershed strategies'
Budget
Actual
Actual
monitoring
(unaudited)
Flood forecasting and warning
3461,000
Revenue
4183384
and maintenance
3119 0
Municipal
3,575,000
Capital and other projects and studies
Levies - Operating
$ 21196,000 $
291983000
$ 25306,000
- Capital
5,6003000
4,290,367
3,357,623
Other
110,000
153297
603849
Government grants
375,000
Groundwater strategies
7123000
M N R transfer paym e nts
6343000,11, 1,
634,000
6345000
Provincial — other
2754100&' '
;2,761,889
333363294
Federal
2213000
1 f15,743
270,551
User fees, sales and admissions
42,(]00
715526
1065973
Contract services
380,000
582,704
2915127
Interest
205686
26,678
The Conservation Foundation of
G reater Toro nto
314, 000
925285
85,193
Waterfront Toronto
1,490,000
'1,199,037
1,172,765
Compensation agreements
1 01000:
Attachment
Attachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
Schedule of Financial Activities,- Environmental Advisory S - rvices
e
Year Ended December 31
Kms!
2010 2009
Actual
2010
Expenditures
Bu
Municipal/public plan input and review
(ut'i,audited)
Revenue
21,549"',000
Municipal
Levies - Operating
$ 3161,000
- Qapftal
28OtOOO
Other
799,000
Government grates
MNR transfer p a-yments
1 05,1Y000
Federal
Development services fees
3,133,000,
SUndry
Kms!
2010 2009
Actual
Expenditures
Municipal/public plan input and review
2,084,000
Development plan input - and review
21,549"',000
Increase (decrease) in vacation pad
and sick leave entitlements
,4"633, 000
Less: ex" -en ditures on capiltal, assets,
Includeld above,
Expenditures before-� am, ortiz at, Ion
I
41 63,3$000
Amortizatioll
Kms!
2010 2009
Actual
121870) 111553
4,525,335 4153
—9,058,
4,1520,340 4,53%058
3,L85 8 3017'
4,5471365;
$ 356116,521: (201 659)
ONTO
121870) 111553
4,525,335 4153
—9,058,
4,1520,340 4,53%058
3,L85 8 3017'
4,5471365;
$ 356116,521: (201 659)
Attachment 1
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 fees, sales and admissions
Compensation Agreements
Interest
The Conservation Foundation of
Greater Toronto
Donations and fundraising
Corporate and community groups
Sundry
Less: cost of tangible sales of capital assets
included above
Expenditures
Watershed stewardship
Capita! and ether "oJe
Eros'ton control ai al
2010
2010
2009
Budget
Actual
Actual
(unaudited)
8363686
787,164
$ 289,000
$ 2895000 $
1011000
11,3723000
892215658
95705,977
961,000
953,061
2931896
110161000
7063872
9433843
808"'000
8463076
881,919
4,692,000 ,
833189362
316375173
15,7$0041
389339
171,649
145833
235195
216
277
1. 0
1309121;,
2425692
500
741;000
1971200
240,935
5,618
20�?49,00,0,01
''11 "3
16,248,674
-
(144)
20.249.GOO
19,811,594
16.248.674
'0
192515090 1,1609173
studies
included
498479113 234141751
265:000
3045715
2453756
,5,,9,29,OoO
750123893
51608,327
X4361,000
8363686
787,164
2"5,1,000
573759
513055
6,8198,000
436043167
59855,042
W
, "11 989
.L.
41.1 39
19,939, 000
''
—
1839029434
163163,407
(1,094989„) ---(?&21.j760)
195939,000 173807,445 135541,647
- 630,525 602 991
19,939,000 18,437,970 143144,638
$ 310,000 $ 1,373,624 $ 2,1045036
mwftftftw�
K�
17
Attachment
tachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Schedule of Financial Activities - Conservation Land Management,
Development and Acquisition
Year Ended December 31
2010 2010 2009
Budget Actual Actual
(unaudited)
Revenue
Municipal
Levies Operating $ 1,0965000 $ 1,096,000 $ 1,095,000
Capital 6,920,000 49336,902 47290,070
Other 43212)000 7,523,074 2,627,858
Government grants
Provincial - other
23132,000
968,657
940,926
Federal
1,611,000
153133494
112)100
Contracted services
56,000
223,667
350,033
Rental properties
213579000
2'97359339
C-,526,591
Interest
-
7,229
39696
User fees, sales and admissions
13,000'
21,525
24,146
Proceeds from sale of properties
850,000
3,806,025
40,002
The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto
138,000
221,018
298,949
Waterfront Toronto
11,19719000
555979731
4,048,300
Donations and fundraising
500,000
21,625
302,340
Canada Post Corporation agreement
665,000
89868
9,486
Compensation agreements
-
543,711
837,076
Sales and property tax refunds
30,000,
38,672
334,043
Corporate and community groups
388,000
5499876
77,818
Sundry
-
-
89-1000
Less: cost of tangible sales of capital assets
included above
Expenditures
Conservation land management
Property services
CA land management
Rental properties
Ca�ital and other projects and studies
reenspace acquisition
Waterfront development
waterfront Toronto
Etobi coke Motel Strip waterfront project
'Conservation area development
Living City Centre at Kortright - infrastructu,r
Peel campground improvements
'Washroom upgrades ,
Petticoat Creek and Heart Lake CA pools
Black Creek Pioneer Village
retrofit/ attractions project
Greater Toronto Region trail
Land Care Projects,
®RC housing stock repairs
(-)PNA (nrrirAr-tr PnrVr1,n%in1r-%nmnnt
%-F i L i W i %-.F -%J i i i 6�A �-v i & �-� i k, -�4 -%.0 W %� i %,f r -,r & I I \.O 0 1 U
Increase in vacation pay and sick leave
entitlements
Less: expenditures on capital assets
included above
Expenditures before amortization
Amortization
Annual surplus (deficit) for the year
32t939,900 2951135413 18,007,434
(61,143} (9,340)
�L32,000
29,052,270
17,998,094
1,672,000
157389273
11715,357
218,300
124,799
252,009
14.869,000
2,1082,809no
2.107,154
3,759,300
3,945,881
41074,520
4750,000
9,983,720
3,188,223
3,582,000
1,870,814
1,619,838
11,884,000
594955453
3,940,348
100,000
7383956
11250,435
318,000
316,583
398,305
13204,000
274,423
478,477
357,000
3085847
13063,662
100,000
1019449
108,057
4,600N0
214383468
85,987
632,000
4995566
331,179
2,336,000
2,0605380
1,083,898
16,000
241297
290,772
A rQ nr)r)
inn 71 m
b W %W 3 &- 1 40
OCZQ nQr7,
1" Nla %-10 3 I -o %J %a
17,150)
461381
34,091,300
28,141,902
18,223,117
.11
(19.,338,314)
f8,8!a5,2.52,2
34,091,300
858039588
9,327,595
-
3,488, 70
3,561,760
34,091,306
12..292,458
12.889.355
-91or- -19
(1,152,300) $ 16975%812 $ 5,108,73S
Attachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Schedule of Financial Activities — Conservation and Education
Programming
Year En.......... . .......d........ . .ed D. .ecember 31, , -
.., "I'll - .........
Conservation Field Centres
Education Outreach
Conservation Education Management
Program' support and marketing
Increase (decrease) in vacation pay and
sick leave entitlements
Less: expenditures on capital assets
included above
Expenditures before amortization
Amortization
Net deficit for the year
2,48U,U00
2010
2010
2009
159035136
Budget
Actual
Actual
326,554
(unaudited)
8459066
7333420
Revenue
11 254
44 ,113
1933723800
Municipal
173331,878
Levies - Operating
310805000
$ 350469738
$ 2,922,091
- Capital
115915000
132365515
888,159
Other
101,000
1853241
545959
Government grants
Provincial — other
588,000
130849818
7183450
Federal
517,000
242,623
302,156
Contracted services
53000
39367
205307
Conservation areas
332543800
2,9343872
311203634
Black Creek Pioneer Village
3,2491300
29825,525
239245739
Kortright Centre
1,52%300
1,756,993;
13479,252
ORM Park Operation
1,52901000
151293308-1-"
112599833
Conservation Field Centres
11801,000
193683275',
' 11442,061
Community Transformation Partnerships
43000
1933646
1221749
Corporate Education Outreach
63088
51490
Rentals
19,4€0
229246
The Conservation Foundation of
Greater Toronto
406;600
7 5
708,835
Donations and fundraising
0
31 3
30,575
Sundry
71 130 ;
41940
343878
Corporate and community groups
. ,
3 60 3
387 597
` J
17,20
16,422,765
Less: cost of tangible sales oftapital assets
included above
0,921 }
1 0 9r 951
19 324,700
179206575
162312,814
Expenditures
Conservation land programming",
Conservation areas
23990,500
299279411
312215157
ORM Park 0 eration ,
1,470,000
133315081
114472731
Cg nservationlHritage education
Black Creek Pidh' r Village",,,r,
5,219,000
591533169
553783229
Kortrig ht Centre farConservation
116933300
290075074
15707,952
C.ommunity Transformation Partnership
23168,000
9503617
8123057
Conservation Field Centres
Education Outreach
Conservation Education Management
Program' support and marketing
Increase (decrease) in vacation pay and
sick leave entitlements
Less: expenditures on capital assets
included above
Expenditures before amortization
Amortization
Net deficit for the year
2,48U,U00
2,271,853
2,371,389
251573000
159035136
112895256
381,000
3673714
326,554
8141000
8459066
7333420
11 254
44 ,113
1933723800
1757453867
173331,878
(220,164) gO4.283)
1913725800 1755253703 16,527,595
644,127 611,75
19,372,800 18,169,830 17 139,355
$ (485100) $ (9635255) $ (8263541)
Kul
im
Attachment
tachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Schedule of Financial Activities - Corporate Services
Year Ended December 31
2010
2010
2009
Budget
Actual
Actual
(unaudited)
Revenue
Municipal:
Levies - Operating
45589,000
$ 4,589,000
$ 4,605,000
- Capital
25498,000
657,867
635,653
Other
8,825
Government grants
M N R transfer payments
107,000
107,000
107,000
Provincial — other
3893000
5801728,
336,609
Federal
14,000
25�8,60
33,01, 6
Intet',est
2601,000,
2,93111201
2521,734
Retail Sales
59,000
5,31542
Contracted Services
11840
Rentfals
20'1434,
26,981
The Q,,onservafion Foundation ,of
Greater Toronto
3,10,00'
25,0001
Sales and property, tax rebate
192,000
251,0)6,00
2259602
Sundry,
Z 21,
''8111, 0 10101
6,15,841,277,
61314t523
Less-,' costof tangible, sales, ofoci0a),
asset's Included above
(296,,942')
-
108 1000
817335
6,31i, 23
E.xpen,,ditures,
Corporate ma,nagem ent
320"�'; 0'
113421,683
11'12181243
Office, services,
1
1 1,419,1925
113231602,
Financial services,
11,172,000
1 1188,12,127
1 0,1350,792
,H mzn res,ource's
489,000i
51171571
529,213
I nfor m,,,, atil'on techrl""01'ogy'
1 t, 188 t000'
111144,1532
1 1166,1382
Corporate comMunications
173,351000
1 $2,301618
'1122,,415821
P rafessio nal AccOss,,,, Prog ra,,m,
450,000
618,093
337,197
Increase'-preaseiin,,''va�cat,'t,,o�n� pay and
SO,` e'ave',,,e'nti'fl eme, nis"
(41077)
15j,438,
R, gram
rePro 's,
",s f romv, ,
0',,000)
.(1§871116
29147)
51�610$000
51
,113,02
Qapital and other pro'jects and tIrtid�iesl
'Admi 'tiistrafive office,
1,1�8931,0,00
23031017
2,34,878
Te gy
Ichnolo''
a rol' qquisition p refect
Goy 000
427 850
409,601
8,108,000
6,428,272
65065,781
Less- expendi f tures or clapital assets included
above
Expenditures before amortization
Amortization
Net (deficit) surplus for the year
�s.Q!1%896) (118.774)
81108,000 6,087,376 5,9473007
- 24 272,1224
8,108,000 6 6:2192231
hi 13342829
$ $ (473494) $ 95,292
co
Attachment
tachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Schedule of Financial Activities — Vehicle and Equipment
Year Ended December 31
Revenue
Recovery of expenditures by charges
Based on usage
Expenditures
Opera ons
Fuel, maintenance and repairs
Other overhead
Capital 0
Purchase of equipment and machinery
Purchase of vehicles
Proceeds on disposals or trade-in
2010 2010 2009,
,169dw A_CtuaI Aotuaf,
(unaudifted')
(1453$80) (41,713)
Add: expenditures on capital assets
553,211
'
included above 708,712 5
Less-. proceeds of disp"Ps''al ofca"
assets, inclvde'hove (3 3) (6$6,82)
Less: a,mor t'lzatin (4�410,40) ('441,9618)
V,
dr, firth year" $ 955589 $ 64
Annfuaj,$ w Wsi $ 1,848
21
W2
(1453$80) (41,713)
Add: expenditures on capital assets
553,211
'
included above 708,712 5
Less-. proceeds of disp"Ps''al ofca"
assets, inclvde'hove (3 3) (6$6,82)
Less: a,mor t'lzatin (4�410,40) ('441,9618)
V,
dr, firth year" $ 955589 $ 64
Annfuaj,$ w Wsi $ 1,848
21
Attachment 1
------ 11111pi III IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Iililiiiiiiiiiiill
T r nt nd Region ono r tion Authority
Corti n u its! of ry OSS
Year E nded Dece m ber 31,, 20101
Balance
Biftnronin g
A -'ropriations-
PP-'
Inters -'reserve
Balance
0t Y r
fry
Tran sf 0 Ps-
End of Year
Vehilcle and equipment $
311 �4,45,16,71,071
$ 332,936
Tree, donation program
13,673,
(11393)
-
12$280
Operating contlingeticy
1 14,181,817
4,68% 123
(1 67'tO71),
111711%8,69
Funds held under, provinci-
m v ring poli
(Note 5),
21J73
110 45111,
8
L1, 10 9 618
$
1x,76 ,1
$ '113,$9,1,595
3115,41703
ia
Attachment
tachment 1
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Schedule of Accumulated Surplus
Year Ended December 31., 2010
. . .... - -- — ---------------------------- - - I
Accumulated surplus., beginning of year
Annual surplus for the, year
2010
Actual 'A
17 590 683 6 L23 2122
$ 40,111 11,19"563 $ 383,528118,80
T -a h g- i No capital Assets $ 4021,23,31964, 386,1558,964
Reserves (Page 22)11 11,7651 1,08
3154JO3,
'(2�388,493)
Operating deficit
(2�85%4561)
Amount to be funded in future pertod""",,:'
401 x,1191,563 $ 3,83,1528,
880
w
'An
Attachment
tachment 1
0
mc
4W
0
NINON
CD III
co
m
0 1
El
0 -MENEM
0. w
0
ca
66
I
pow
C",
col
iW
0:>
Z
(10
T-
C4
kn,
C�
LO C
oj
�00
'co
*1
41"
0)
ol W
611
N't
"1
(0 (C
40
w
00
(0
ol
0),
Ol
to,
cq
Z5,
CL
76
2 91
2
>
10
cl:31
�3
E
0
P-1
C%j
0,
E
Ul)
E
V
5
V -
CIC,
Cj
to
AD
>
col
co
LO
ca
Cl
co
00
m
m
0'
'1�01
40
co
C)
let
co
E
C
Lo
E
01
0
tn
C.
E
66
I
pow
iW
0:>
Z
(10
to
LO C
oj
�00
41"
0)
ol W
N't
(0 (C
0),
66
I
pow
(10
to
�00
Ol
(A�
76
2 91
2
>
10
cl:31
E
0
0,
E
E
V
5
<r"
Cj
66
I
pow
Attachment 2
ji
r
GrantThornton
fel
Irr u��l � Hsi
w
Report to the Audit Committee -
Communication of audit strategy
and results
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 201o
KT!Rl
Attache 2
0,,
brantThornton
Grant Thornton LLP
Suite 200
15 Allstate Parkway
Markham, ON
L3R 5134
T +1416 366 0100
F +1905 475 8906
p1c j_u
To the members of the Audit Conunittee of Toronto and Region Conservation Authoritj
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.-
2010. We enclose our Report to the audit commiltee — communkation o audit strate
,gy and results as a
meatis to engage in effective two way communication with youregarding our financial
statement audit. This communication will assist the com-mittee in understanding our overall
audit strategy and results of :audit procedures and includes comments on misstatements,,
significant accounting policies, sensitive estti-nates and other matters.
This communication has been pre -pared to comply with the requirements outlined in CAS 260
C,ommunication witb thare 03aqed with Governance. The information in this document is intended
solely for the information -and use -of the audit committee, board of directors and management.
-It is not intended to be distributed or -used by anyone other than these specified parties.
�We express our appreciation for the cooperation and assistance received from the managemen-1
and staff of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority during the course of our audit.
If you have any particular comments or con �erns, please do' not hesitate to raise them at our
sched-ciled -meeting.
Yours sincerely,
Grant Thornton. LLP
�,�,�,—�+c._ LLP
Joanne Rogers, C.A.
Partner
cc: Brian Denney, Chief Administration Officer
James Dillane, Director Finance and Business Services
Rocco Sgambelluri, Controller
Audit � Tax � Advisory
@ Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved.
344
Attach
ment 2
Co n"tents
Achl'eving effective governance ,
1
Quality assurance and independence
2
Our audit approach
3
Status of the A ud It
6
Aud It results
7
Reportable matters
8
Technical updates
9
Appendix A — Draft Independent auditors report
10
Appendix B — Draft Management representation letter
13
Appendix C — Letter of independence
19
Appendix D — PSAB Accounting developments
22
Appendix E — Auditing developments
25
Appendix F — Engagement letter
30
A -4
0 G ran t T I to r r1i o Irt It L K A Ca n 41 d 6 rt M 111 T1 1) 01 of Griint;Tbar o3,45, ti All rig, h(s oved. CON' 1"'ID11'a'N"1"'TALA
Attachment
tachment 2
Report to the Audit Committee — Communication of audit strategy and results
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
Achievi*-ng effecti"ve governance
Ihere are seve'ral fundamental components of effective governance. Ilie audit committee plays a key
role in achieving strong governance, particularly with respect to financial reporting.
Roles in, ensuring strongi financial reporting
gigitig, =— 11gillwo,
Recommiend the nominahon'and cbn!'en$at;on ol� external auditor� to, the board
P
ling reviewing,
* Directly overseethe-work of' the, extenm! audiltors, includ" d, iscu ingi and
appy ovin,g'audit, plan
# Rlevj6w and a,pprove ,annual,ri,nanc-,,i�allsl,,O,te,meiits,
. ...... . . ..... . ................. . .............................................. . . . . . .......... . ......................
old
Pt6, r6linawi I,`Mb,te` v j,,, "'I i ("C ddl, P b0c,,S ctorh' "'anit" 9
u
r", c, e,, an e C�;O 'if')
PP Qaru
manao'emont" Standa
rdt
over-finazi cial, Op"rfill"g,"'Pf"'O
ippipin U, rig, pri nelo
critcA 6p,
r,even
Provild',rqpr 41 '�.s to,"
r oh ex
J, tvo-m dt i `V'Obu, 'It'd,
-6W d t d I
an , � U, - - " ' 'h: ' , ' "iti" tati
Vp,p ;,. _q a V we" c'u,,r J! d rl
fa,ir,p,r,,''es'ent,a,ti,6�'n,o,f,t tie Il X1 1
Audit - Tax,- Advisory
t r
COP14FI,DEI4N'T I A 1.0
@ GranThonto n LLP. A Cana dia n Member of -Grant Tho rntonj All rights rF-Kemd.
AtA &
tachment 2
Report to the Audit Committee — Communication of audit strategy and results 2
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Forth& year -ended December -31, 2010
Quality assurance and independence
Quality assurance
Grant Thornton LLP Grant Thornton LLP has a robust quality control program that forms a core part of our client service.
has a robust quality
control program We combine internationally developed audit methodology, advanced technology, rigorous review
procedures, mandatory professional development requirements, and the use of specialists to deliver
bigh 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. We are
required by Canadian independence requirements to communicate this annually- to the audit committee
of Toronto and Region Conservation Auffiority in writing and have attached our letter of independence
as Appendix C. The process of maintairiing 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 RgiC
eon onservation Authority; and
• Confirming the independence of our engagement team members.
Audit c, Tax,- Advisory
�$,Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornlo3417al. All rights reserved. CONTIDENITA 11,
Attachment
tachment 2
Report to the Audit Committee — Communication of audit strategy and results
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31,, 2010
ji
Lair, T_W4 0- wm -9 31-111111 1 limel
An understanding of your organization and your business drives the Grant Thornton LLP audit
approach. The audit methodology is risk based and specifically 'tailored -to Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority as depicted below:
hf , �, ru "µ ,, � ��k, ;r hi Jig "i�r � �fi, �f AJ 9. ,. r�rry�ie Vv ���� ,,;./r J / �;
�ii� ,/��f �i1J� i �, ��,�i � " ,�i�i,, w (� r �i;/�„” ,,, �� s �,���� ,; r�%,����.��� rl�� ����� �%1�
N-0 LAI I-00redl audit- appWilt-il _LCZ1U1Lb Ili P-LUL-CUL41C6 LiCtAg1leci Lo lu LO an Ictenu'lle-cl risk. "I he greater
rcspoi I -
the risk of material misstatement associated with the account, transaction or balance, the greater audit
em- phasis placed in terms of audit verification and analysis.
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 statementrisk areas (see below). The audit te-ain used this understanding to detert-nine the
naturel) extent and timing of our audit procedures.
See the Reportable matters section for our internal control findings.
Audit - Tax - Advisory 1 "' - 1. ALI
Q Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thort o 149' All rights reEerved,
3
.......................... . . . . . . . . . . . .
Risk assessment process
hf , �, ru "µ ,, � ��k, ;r hi Jig "i�r � �fi, �f AJ 9. ,. r�rry�ie Vv ���� ,,;./r J / �;
�ii� ,/��f �i1J� i �, ��,�i � " ,�i�i,, w (� r �i;/�„” ,,, �� s �,���� ,; r�%,����.��� rl�� ����� �%1�
N-0 LAI I-00redl audit- appWilt-il _LCZ1U1Lb Ili P-LUL-CUL41C6 LiCtAg1leci Lo lu LO an Ictenu'lle-cl risk. "I he greater
rcspoi I -
the risk of material misstatement associated with the account, transaction or balance, the greater audit
em- phasis placed in terms of audit verification and analysis.
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 statementrisk areas (see below). The audit te-ain used this understanding to detert-nine the
naturel) extent and timing of our audit procedures.
See the Reportable matters section for our internal control findings.
Audit - Tax - Advisory 1 "' - 1. ALI
Q Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thort o 149' All rights reEerved,
3
Attachment 2
Report to the Audit Committee — Communication of audit strategy and results
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010 -
Risk assessment
Our ri-sk assessment pfoces s identified the following areas where we focused our attention: I
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 for public sector entities as of December 31, 2010. Therefore,
mateilality 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 made a preliminary assess -ment of materiality for purposes of
developing our audit strategy, including the determination of the extent of our audit procedures. During
the completion stage, we consider not only the quantitafive assessment of materiality, but also
qualitative factors, in assessing -the impact on the financial statements, our it opinion and the
matters reported to the audit conimirtee.
Fraud considerations
Fraud can occur in We are responsible for planning and performing the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether
any organization, at
any time, and can be the, financial statements are free of material misstatement use by error or by fraud. Our audit
perpetrated by procedures consider the requirements of CAS 240 Auditor'Suin of
Reiponsibilio Relatiii to ' d " an Audil
anyone. 'g Fra
Finannial Statements, CAS 240 was issued to heighten the awareness of the potential for fraud when
pla.-rimi-igand executing audits and it emphasizes the need for professional skepticism during the audit.
Audit,- Tax - Advisory
ID Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornto3t413 1, All rights reserved,
Attachment 2
Report to the Aud-It Gommittee — ComMunicalion of audit strategy and res-ults 5
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
Th"C' 1""61,10witig plr�ovicllcs a sr(,�),tne of trhe proced,tires j,',,),erforri-ted durl"tig tl',ric at.tdit.
le efllgag stat-etiieius b(,, sttsiceptible to
to ldc-,-.,n6,.fy thc! rll,,s,-k,,s,- of j,111-atell"I'al, nvlllsstatel due, t,"or fra,ttd OU"r
utres toof
(,)iera
f ittsil c(,,)nt,:,,vol, it -i -q both
t'lle atidit cottiiti-litt"ce",
0 Usi'll"gt"ll't't gath.cred, ir,n rissk
Acidit - T;,,ix -, Adviwry
Grant t liornton L W A Ciuiadjan', Membetof Graol Tbon"Au All right's CONFIDEN',,IlAi,,.,
Attachment
tachment 2
Report to the Audit Committee — Communication of audit strategy and results 6
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
Stgaus of the -7,..uoffi*t
We have stibstaxidially coti,,,i,pleted our attd.1tof flae fiiaa,rwial sta nte '11
,, nts, Ofl, 0,0111to 1,11d, Rqwri,,
2010 axid tive result.s,', oh",�,Ii,a t atidit arc, iticlude
At ,(,h(:)rity I`5(':')r fl -,w year ended Decemlxr 3,,,1,, 1
III "I"S' report.,,
IW'.aI"he fc)"I'loNVI"'.1"T iternts, were otitstas"14"I't1gy, as "at t.'he date 4 LI'lis report.-
(Cc'CIP1170
,Heg;aI lteac*A- a,,n,d,tupdates [","roni,
Aird
Steward & SollicitoI-S;
Rece.,ip t' of stgpie(,'I ti,,-i-arA'agge mej,:'it lettex (Oxaft ltas twen ;tttached as Akp'Ixiidiher
Inq.tAr"ws., regairding SUbs'eq,tite'sit eNreri:ts; atid
App'r(lval oftl,'ie finatic,"I"Id .staterlietits- by -the Board,, of
I
A it AtIvi sor AML
al, All 691as fem" rnved
0 GraniThornifan It I.P� A Canailfan, Member of Grant'Thpfoto CONFIDENTIA1,
"I
A
Altachment 2
Report to the Audit ComrWittee - Communication of audit strategy and results 7
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the y-6a'r ended Decem ber 31, 2010
VII nc,')ted 1elow.
Oux, tl:x adivisted at-ld
Suminar,y of misstatements
Ider"InIfied a.,tnd adjtis'ted, 1'.0 t.be* fi.n.a,.nclial. st,,i,,,t.'ements by, "','I 01"C"'U"Ito, 'a"'Ild Itegioll (],otise.t-vatiOn,
ik'Ltibotity as a, restilt of avidi't'
0
Mxi-trivial miss"tateiiictIts dt.ir"j, (111-
i ig f[w c,(,,)'urse,(),f our attht b'vi,t,tt(.xt adjt'js�rvdiri i:he
Stafell"Acrits Werlle AS fo"HOWS:
........
. ................................. . . . . . . . ..................... .. .. .. ............................ . . . . . ....... ..........
---""-7` ................ ................
OV001(0, ...............................
. . . . . . . . ...... . ......... --
. . . . .. . ...................
. ............
Unadjusted mis,stateirents
Lila bi 11tie's
O,pening
Annual sutplus
Purp"JUS
To adjutI oversuatement of"'benefit
i�xpencses and under -accrual of
betiefits fdr riscal 2010.,
. ..... . . . ...... . . ....... .
$
......... . ........... . .... . . .. . ..........................
$ (147,137)
. ................
"187. 1681
. .. . . . . . . ......... . .......... . .. ....
(40o,021)
Reve rsaf of prior yea. r tmadjLj.sted
,i,n s: b ern
To Unadjusted, , js "t t'' viorits
''a
$ 141f, -0
. ..
$ 3, 2, 2", '6'
. ....... . ........
. . . ...... .. . ........ . . ...... — — --------
2' 9)
"POcentagle''of financial',stratement
Amounts
0' 3910/0 11
20.77 3 %
f.34%,
t
0
Wit',li rnanap �nient atrid, ideritif',","te(I
ari�',iot,vnts, be "I"he -an-loutu"'Is IUVe T"1110t bc,,(,�n 'adjustec"I 'L,)i.ria(.Ijt.'I,sted,
(:4 -o',tito and Rq on, Gxis,ervati 0 "
not, tiiateriiffl to t1w fitif ��i tic, cia"I "s-l"O t"Y'
Summary of diesellosure �matters
(")or at'idit ("'lid riot i(llel'ictif.Y any ""Sclo'strr
Avidi I,,/ Tax - AdviSory
Giant Pitanton, UP. A OlrfiaAan Mefolur of Gran.1, Tfiorriftvifrighis, res erved. C ONF "I.D E NT I Ailj
1, an, Al
Attachment
tachment 2
Report to the Audit Committee — Communication of audit strategy and results 8
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
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 informationand safeguards the assets of the entity.
The audit is designed toexpress an opinion on die financial statements. Our understanding of internal
control is sufficient to enable us to plan the audit,and to determine the nature, timing and extent of
tests to be performed. However, if we become aware of a deficiency in your internal controls systems,
auditing standards requires us to communicate to the audit committee those deficiencies we consider
Isigrnificant or material. A financial statement it is not designed to provide assurance on -internal
control.
During the course of performing our audit, we did not identi_ � any such reportable weaknesses in
internal control.
Significant new accounting policies
There were no significant new accounting policies notedin the year.
Significant transactions
There were no significant transactions during the course of the audit.
Sensitive accounting estimates and disclosures
During the course of our audit, we did not note any sensitive accounting estimates or disclosures.
Cooperation during the audit
We report that we received full cooperation from management and the employees of Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority. To our knowledge, we were provided access to all necessary records
o - dit we e Esc sed wit
and other documentation and any issues that arose as a result f oui au r s h
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 illegalacts
Audory [A.]
ID Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornto3t!5t3 1. All rights reserved, CON]"'IDEN 1.
Attachment 2
Report to the Audit Committee — Communication of audit strategy and results 9
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
Technical updates
Canadian standards in transition
Accounting standards
Details of the changes to accounting standards are included in Appendix D. If you have any questions
0
about these changes we invite you to raise them during our next meeting.
Auditing standards
The
® and Assurance Standard Board (AASB) has adopted the International Standards on
Auditing (ISAs) as Canadian Auditing Standards (CASs). These CASs arein effect for Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority for the year ended December 31., 2010. Our audit plan and resulting
audit strategy comply with the new CASs and as a result you may have noted a change in our audit
procedures related to group audits, auditing estimates, use of experts and communications with those
charged with governance. The most significant change is the wording of our standard report and When
we date the it report.
Details of the changes to auditing standards are included in -L-\-ppendix E. If you have any questions
about these changes we invite you -to raise them during our next meeting.
Audit, Tax - Advisory
c
rata Th orn to n LLP. A Cara d is n Me rnber of Grant Thornto njg4 All rig hts reE er d. C () NFIJ
E"N'1171AL
Attachment
tachment 2
Report to the Audit Committee — Communication of audit strategy and results 10
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
Appendix A —Draft Independent Auditor's
Report
Audit ,,, Advisiory
Grant Thorlitoo LI. ACanadian Mentber tharnto All rfgilits rv-mm,eivedw CONFIDENTIAL
Attachment
tachment 2
GrantThornton
Tndependent Auditor's Repo -rt
Grant Thornton LLP
Suite 200
15 Allstate Parkway
Markham, ON
UR 5134
T (416) 366--0100
F (905) 475 -
rant hr t .,a
To the Members of the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority ('711CA"), wl-tich comprise the statement of financial position as at December 31, 2010,
and. -the statements of operations, changes in net debt, and cash flows for the year then ended, and
a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory informadon.
Management's responsibility for the financial statements
Management is responsible for -the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements
in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards, and for such internal control as
management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free
from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor's responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial- statements based on our audit. We
conducted our audit in accordance -\vith Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those
standards require -that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free ftorn material.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and
disclos-u,ires in the fitiancial statements. Tlie procedures selected depend on 'the auditor -s Judgment,
including -the assessment of the risks of material rmsstatement of the financi-al statements, -%vhether
due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control
relevant to the entity's preparafi.on and fair presentation of th.e financial statements in order -to
design audit procedures diat are appropriate -in the Circumstances,, but not for the purpose of
expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity7s internal control. An audit also includes
evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the fu`iancial
Audit - Tax , Advisory
@ Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant ThorntonAke—li 15 All rights reserved.
;35
Attachment
tachment 2
Tk- 0,rnt
urant D..
Dr,
W"c" eve th.at t�ll'tc auxht eviden,ce wM�,, h -ave isut"ficient ;uid �',ipproprji;lft!' to a basis
ft,'.)r our
E=111
in 'all resPects 1"W: fit"I'atic"j"A" 1
11, the t7itl4ancia' ), tj 91 1 )OSIC"'I"Ol"I
fri ot',vr I pric"'s"enx Ifiatirly,
Alrt"ts at, Dec-c',nAx 31, 20"10, and, t-lic results of.,tt's Inls.,l chtttiges 'Iti tiet" debt,', its
I'llows 'ft -)'r yelax tfwn, ended, E' accord-aticc.4 with� pt',lblic sector accounting
standards.
ill 'C 'I
'S
we draw 21-clention, to fli�c budgct w 11-1, 11 RrOV"I'dield f (,,),r
I
a)parative pt ir,poses Ot"lly. "p"I"'hey havei-lot, been stib'jec't to 'alldit pmcc, v'tres. i"Ncc(,M)1rct'll, 'igly, we do
1101t, exprCSS, al, '1111111011(") tll("t bt,'idgc
-c s
a ClIa.rtered Ac
ju,ne '74- 2011, LIJ iccii sled
Graraxdvy0%int Tharrilan Ll.R, A Canadian MemOmm, of GrattlThountoI lright, C
s renervedONFiDENTIAL,
*107 - All
Attachment
tachment 2
Report to the audit committee — commu nication of audit strategy a n d res U Its 13
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended Dec, ember 31,, 2010
Appenclix B Draft Managemen,
representation I.etter
Audit , Tax, - Advisory
110, Gratit I lux, Mo,ri, U,,P. A On,adia, a Meaibei of Gral 'I hatnto j A14 fighl's rv�ed, CONFIIIIIE,11.1.7 N'll"TIAl
AtA &
tachment 2
Report to the audit committee — communication of audit strategy and results
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
June 241 2018
Grant Thornton LLP
15 Alls ta tc P ark -way,
Suite 200
Markham, Ontario
UR 5B4
14
We are providing this letter in connection with your audit of the financial statements of Toronto and
Region Conservation -Authority as of December 31-, 2010, and for the year then ended, for the purpose
of expressing an opinion -cis to whether the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects,
the financial position, results of operations, changes in net debt and cash flows of Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles.
We acknowledge that we have fulfilled our responsibilities for die preparation 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 (GAAS) so as to enable you to express
an opinion on the financial statements. W`e understand that while your work includes an exarmination
of the accounting system, internal controls and related data to die 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 24, 2011, the following repres entaftons
made to you during your audit.
Financial statements
rae financial statements referred -to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
posillon of the entity as at December 31, 2010 and the results of its operations, changes in net debt
and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting
standards, as agreed to in the terms of the audit engagement.
Audit - Tax , Advisory 5AW I "' ( "NI.
Q Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornto MAIL All rights reEerved. I,, ) -N 1 I - Fj JAt..,,
3V
Attache 2
Report to the audit committee — communication of audit strategy and results
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 201 0
Completeness of informatioll
2 We have made available to you all- financial records and related data and all minutes of the meetings
of directors, and committees of directors, as agreed in the terms of the audit engagement.
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 reclassification entries which have been proposed by you
are approved by us and Neill be recorded on the books of the entity.'
4 There were no restatements made to correct a material misstatement in the prior period financial
statements that affect the comparative information.
5 We are unaware of any known or probable instances of non-compliance with the requirements o
regulatory or governmental authorities, including -their financial reporting requirements.
6 We are unaware of any violations or possible violations of laws or regulations the effects of wl-iich
should be considered for disclosure in. the financial. statements or as the basis of recording a
contingent loss.
7 We have disclosed to you all known deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting of which we are aware.
8 We have identified to you all known related parties -and related party tiansactions, includin
revenues,, purchases, loans, transfers of assets, liabih- ties and services, leasing arrangements
guarantees, non. -monetary transactions and transactions for no consideration.
9 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 aU management functions, have the knowledge to evaluate the accuracy
and completeness of the financial statements, and accept responsibility for such financial
statements.
Traud and error
10 We have no knowledge of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the entity imanaeent
nvolvin gm
9 1;
employees who have significant roles in internal control; or others, where the fraud could have a
non -trivial effect on the financial statements.
11 We have no knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the entit�T`s financial
st,ate-ments communicated by employ& -s, former employees, analysts, regulators or ot�hers.
12 We acknowledge our responsibility for the design-, implementation and inaintenance. of internal
control to preventand detect fraud.
13 \,Ve believe that the effects of the uncorrected financial statement misstatements summarlZed in the
accompanying schedule are immaterial, both its dividuallyand in the aggregate, to the financial
statements taken as a whole.
Audit � Tax -Advisory
@ Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved.
360
AtA &
tachment 2
Report to the audit committee — communication of audit strategy and results
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
01
14- 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.
15 All related party -transactions have been appropriately measured and disclosed in the fnaancial
statements.
16 The nature of all material measurement uncertainties has been appropriately disclosed in the
financial statements including all estimates where it is reasonablir possible that the estimate will
change in the near term and the effect of the change could be material to the financial statements.
17 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.
16
18 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.
19 Witli 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 disclosedl as appropriate, in. the
financial statements; and
C) commitments have been measured and disclosed', as appropriate, in the financial statements -
20 The entity has satisfactory dtle to or lease interest in) all assets, and there are no liens or
encumbrances on the entitys assets nor bas any been pledged as collateral except under the
Evergreen Loan Guarantee.
21 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 stateme'nts in the event of non-compliance,
includix4- all covenants, conditions or other requirements of all. outstanding debt.
22 The Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Harmonized Sales Tax (FISl) 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.
23 Employee future benefit costs,, assets, and obligations have been determined, accounted for and
disclosed in accordance with the requirements of P 5 Post -em plqyment-Benefiti-I Compensated
Absences and Termination Benefils of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA)
Handbook.
24 There have been no events subsequent to the date of the statement of financial position up to the
date hereof that -%vould 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
1W.M
Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton it 1, A I I rights reE awed., C, ON fIl 1. D ENT LAI_,
Attachment
tachment 2
-Report, to the audit committee — communication of audit strategy and results
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the Near ended December 31, 2010
U
Other
25 We bave cotisicl"fir t -ed wbterlier or ti'or cotidit tons existwhich tmty c-ast
+ tio t,,."o cotuintte
t" 9 )ing Cofice''I'll ICIIIi,ld ba've coridtided
sigt,fificatitl' do,vidit oto the ol"'j, IlIzAe''i i�, s, abilit:,y
thm,',' no ssLwl'i) evetits or, co[Idftiotu iftre: (.,nadet'lt.
Br'I',q,n,'Den,n,ey, Officer
ICCISI
J!"ariles . .'xe,Dector
WDI*JIaj, ir, I;- tj,.i,,.oL'ttwe atld" BmSttiess Se v'
AU,dit - Tax - Advisoily
d CONFIDL?�,"NT,r.AL
i1h
Attachment
tachment 2
Report to s committee — communication of audit strategy and result,*
Torionto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31., 2010
Summary of Uncorrected Misstatements
1, W
Audit - Tax - Adviso-ry
0 Grant Thornton L L.P. A Ca ria dia n Member of Gra nt Tftorrito3fat3l. Al I rights reserved. (.',ONFIDEN`-,Cl:,AL.
Attachment
tachment 2
Report to the audit committee - communication of audit strategy and results 19
Toronto and Region C6ftservation Authority
For the year endod December 313 2010
Appendix C — Letter of dependenciow
Avdit - Taw,oy Advisory
10 Giant Thon'ItO LIT'. A Canadian Mernbcor ofG rant'llwirnim All right rc�eryod. CONFIDENT. IAJ
' 64'
Attachment
tachment 2
rnton
Members of the Audit Committee
Toronto and Region ConseryMiro Authority
5 Shorchani Drive
D ownsview) *n tar'*
M3N 1S4
Dear Audit Comrnittee Members:
Grant Thornton LLP
Suite 200
15 Allstate Parkway
Markham, ON
BR 5134
T +1416 366 0100
F +1905 475 8906
to] I
We have been engaged to audit the financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(the Organization) for the year ended December 31, 2010.
Canadian generally accepted auditing standards -require that we communicate at least annully with you
regarding all relationships between the Organization and affiliates, and Grant Thornton LLP that,, in
our professional judgment, may reasonably be thought to bear on our independence.
In determining which relationships to report, these standards require us to consider relevant rules and
related interpretations prescribed by die appropriate provincialinstit-Lite / order and applicable
legislation, covering such matters as:
1 holding a financial interest, either directly or indirectly, in a client';
2 holding a position, either directly or indirectly, that gives the right or responsibility to exert
significant influence over the financial or accounting policies of a client.;
3 personal or business relationships of immediate family, close relatives, part -tiers or retired partners,
either directly or indirectly, with a client;
4 economic dependence on a client.; and
5 provision of services in addition to the a -Licht engagement.
We have prepared the following comments to facilitate our discussion with you regarding independence
matters arising since December 14, 2009, the date of our last letter.
Weare nota re of any relationships between the Organization and Grant Thornton LLP that, in our
professional judgment, may reasonably be thou lit to bear on our independence, that have occurred
from December 14, 2009 to the date of this letter.
We confirm that we are in -dependent with respect to the Organization within the meaning of the Rules
of Professional Conduct of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario as of the date of this
letter.
Audit - T'ax - Advisory
ID Grant Thornton LIP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornto3t6t5l. All rights reserved,
Attachment
tachment 2
GrantThomton
ni ti,ag,cr ttit
DIS 11C.11,,)ortis intended solcly fi-w ti -le use oftt audit C01171,111ittec, tlae
a
and, withit'l, dic Org''a"t'lization a-rW I'Shou.1d not betursed fi,:)rxi:i,y purj:.)(,,,),se.%,,.
Yovirs since, ly,
17"lo.rnton, Ll-ol)'
joatin.c, "Itt,",%ers
plartfiff
Audit - Tax,,,,, Advissory
III'. A, Canadi ii Membrn, of Grant "Tho; iatAll Pights., reterved.
1616' Cf F"I'DENnIAL
Attachment
tachment 2
Report to the audit committfae. — commu hication of sudit strategy and resufts
Toronto and Region Conservaflon Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
4
Appendix D — PSAB Accounting
developments
Atidit -,'Tax - Advisor
zo y MML 'Oak
'IA
Witt fhorriIvri LLP �, A C.'iisiodiari MIORIbV'r, of' Grant llwtnto 1�,A] riq,,hts, re ei CONFIDE 'I I
13t,10to ,
Attachment
tachment 2
Report to the audit committee — communication of audit strategy and results 23
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
4
The revised introduction to PSA Handbook directs the frameworks applicable to
governments, government business enterprises (DBEs), other government organizations
(OGOs) and government not-for-profit organizations (GNFPOs).
GREs should apply the standards applicable to publicly accountable enterprises (PAEs).
OGOs are presumed to apply PSA Handbook but where these standards do not meet the
needs of the users OGO's should whether IFRS would be a more appropriate framework.
GNFPOs have the option to apply either the CICA PSA Handbook including s ct! ns PS
4200 to PS 4270 or the CICA PSA Handbook without sections PS 4200 to PS 4270.
choice is effective, for
fisca I, periolds, boiinnirizq
on" C ah6r,j r uary
201,
to,rlyad'dpO' J
on., "'s'
p el, rr I
Accounting standards that apply to GNFPOs
Effective for fiscal periods beginning on or after January 1, 2012, GFNPOs will have the
Fls'Oal p'erfod,!�
option to use either the LICA PSA Handbook with sections PS 4200 to PS 4270 or without
begin'ninfter'
gvn a
oIr
those sections. The new sections are as follows and apply only to GFNPOs:
• PS 4200 Financial statement presentation by not-for-profit organizations;
FE'ja r I ,aado o nf,, I
PS 4210 Contributions — revenue recognition;
p0r" n'
• PS 4220 Contributions receivable;
• PS 4230 Capital assets held by not-for-profit organizations;
PS 4240 Collections held by not-for-profit organizations;
PS 4250 Reporting controlled and related entities by not-for-profit organizations;
• PS 4260 Disclosure of related party transactions by not-for-profit organizations; and
PS 4270 Disclosure of allocated expenses by not-for-profit organizations.
Withdrawal of Government assistance --Application of CICA Handbook—
AU) Of
Accounting Section PS 3800
The section will be removed as I FIRS standard IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants
Withdrawal of section is
and Disclosure of Government Assistance will be applicable to government business
effective for fiscal years
enterprises and other government entities who choose to apply IFRS. For those other
beginning on or after
government organizations following the PSA Handbook, there is sufficient guidance on
January 1, 2011.
this matter elsewhere in the Handbook.
PSA B Section 2125 First-time adoption by government organizations
This Section provides guidance for organizations adopting the PSA Handbook for the first
ti Arinntinn of thp- PSA Hqnrfhnnk i -q nP_nP_r;;IIv;;nnliP_ri rPtm_-qnPr_tivPlv with the
V __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ':;3 - - ' J - V_ F- - - - - -r- - - -1 ' __j - I '
Thiq oast nn will qnniv M
_" - - -, - -, - - - - - _ - .1 -_
exception of certain optional exemptions. Certain disclosures are required on adoption.
government organization
applying PSA Handbook
for the first time and is
effective for fiscal years
beginning on or after
........... . .
January 1, 2011.
PSAB Section 3260 Liability for contaminated sites
This Section establishes the recognition criteria, measurement and disclosure This section applies to
requirements for reporting liabilities associated with remediation of contaminated sites fiscal years beginning on or
that either are not in use or resulted from unexpected environmental events (such as a after April 1, 2014.
toxic spill or natural disaster). Earlier adoption is
encouraged.
. . ............ ...... . . . .. ..... . . . . .. ....
AuditTax r Advisory
®r Grant Thornton LLP., Canadian Member of Grant Thornton ler All rights res med,, Ilk
AtA &
tachment 2
Report to the audit committee — communication of audit strategy and results
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
MZ!
PSAB Section 3510 Tax Re -venue
This Section establishes standards for the recognition, measurement and disclosure of
tax revenue in government financial statements.
PSAB Section 3410 Government Transfers, revised
This Section replaces the existing Section PS 3410-, Government Transfers. This Section
establishes standards for recognition, presentation and disclosure for government
transfers to individuals, organizations and other governments from both a transferring
government and a recipient gGvern m-ent perspective.
Audit - Tax - Advisory HII P I
@ Grant Thornton LI -P. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornto3t691. All rights reE erved. C () N F'I F-,-J.N 11. I.A.1.6
A AL
Aftachm e"nt 2
Report to the mudit committee - communication off' amiditstrategy and results 25
Toronto and Reqiw Conservation Authority
For the year e n d ed Dece m ber 3 1. 20 10
A-ppendix E — A.,-uditing developmentl
A,odit,, Tax,, Advisory 'I'll on All sights rct�,eived. P111 [M
4"), Gorilt"n't ffliotsiton LLP. A CarwdUul m(al"Ibet of Gumil flum C.'VONFIDIL, ljN"
Attachment
tachment 2
Report to the audit committee - communication of audit strategy and results
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
pqrfll
CAS 210 - Agreeing the Terms of Audit Engagements
This CAS will replace Section 5110, Terms of the Engagement. Changes from the current
Applies to audit of
standard are as follows.
financial statements for
9 the auditor must establish whether the preconditions for an audit are present and if they
periods commencing on or
are not present the auditor is required to discuss the matter with management
after December 15, 2009.
9 the engagement letter will include the identification of the applicable financial reporting
after December 15, 2009.
framework
0 the engagement letter will include the expected form and content of any reports to be
issued and a statement that there may be circumstances in which the report may differ
from its expected form and content
0 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
A pI1eis,,t'a'fu t of
whether:
financial statements for
(a) the ,additional requirements can be met through additional disclosures in the
periods commencing on or
financial statements; or
after December 15, 2009.
(b) the description of the applicable financial reporting framework in the financial
statements can be amended accordingly.
. . .. ............. .... . ..................... . . ..... .
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
Applies to audit of
Applies
would be required to:
financial statements for
a Obtain an understanding of the legal and regulatory framework and how the entity
'periods commencing on or
complies with that framework
after December 15, 2009.
0 Perform further audit procedures to identify non-compliance with other laws and
regulations that may have a material effect on the financial statements
8 When the auditor becomes aware of a possible instance of non-compliance, the
auditor is required to obtain an understanding and evaluate the possible effect on the
financial statements. Also, any such matters 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
A pI1eis,,t'a'fu t of
existing standard are as follows:
financial statements for
• communications regarding fees for audit and non -audit services would be required
periods commencing on or
only of auditors of listed entities
after December 15, 2009.
• the auditor is required to identify the appropriate persons with whom to communicate
• establish a communication process (form, timing, and expected general communication)
• communicate on a timely basis
• the auditor is required to assess the adequacy of communication with those charged with
governance
CAS 450 - Evaluation of Misstatements Identified During the Audit
This CAS, combined with CAS 320, replaces Section 5142, Materiality. The significant
changes from the existing standard are as follows: Applies to audit of
• the auditor is required to request that management correct ail the misstatements financial statements for
accumulated during the audit in all cases, regardless of whether the financial periods commencing on or
statements are materially misstated. This differs from the current guidance in Section after December 15, 2009,
5142 in that auditors previously encouraged management to correct all non -trivial
misstatements.
• if management refused to correct known misstatements, the auditor is required to
obtain an understanding of management's reasons for not making the corrections.
• the auditor is also required to request to those charged with governance that
uncorrected misstatements be corrected.
Audit n Tax Advisory
C Grant Thornton LLP, A Canadian Member of Grant Thornto3e7tiI. All right s re_ erved, COA1.1)'NILVIIA
i
Attachment 2
Report to the audit committee — communication of audit strategy and results 27
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 311, 2010
CAS 501 — Audit Evidence Regarding Specific Financial Statement Account
Balances and Disclosures
This CAS will replace Sections 6030, Inventories, and 6560, Communications with Law
Applies to audits of
Firms. Under the new requirements, there are litigation related differences as follows:
financial statements for
• Expands the auditor's requirement to send legal letters to where the auditor "believes a
periods commencing on or
claim may exist"
after December 15, 2009.
• Decreased guidance in respect to dispute resolution between an entity's legal counsel
and the entity.
• Explicit requirements when management refuses to give the auditor permission to
communicate or meet with the entity's legal counsel. The explicit requirements extend to
when the entities legal counsel refuses to respond to the letter of inquiry.
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
Applies to audits of
obtained in electronic or "other" medium.
financial statements for
periods commencing on or
after, December 15, 2009.
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
Applies to audits of
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures. The significant changes from the existing
financial statements for
standards are as follows:
periods commencing on or
* the auditor is required to obtain an understanding of the processes, including relevant
after December 15, 2009,
internal controls, used by management to make accounting estimates
* the auditor must understand the assumptions underlying the estimate and how
management has assessed the effect of estimation uncertainty
* management must adequately address 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.
CAS 560 — Subsequent Events
This Canadian Auditing Standard (CAS) deals with the auditor's responsibilities relating to
Applies to audits of
subsequent events in an audit of financial statements.
financial statements for
This CAS will replace Section 6550, Subsequent Events. The significant change from the
periods commencing on or
existing standard is as follows:
after December 151, 2009,
Canadian standards previously described the audit report date as the date the auditor
idea[ ed and souyhi aii 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.
0 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
.................................uutiiiii u ....................... .
Audit , Tax , Advisory I
Grant Thornton L LR, A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton Internab 2 All rights re_erved. 1
At uachment 2
Report to the audit committee — communication of audit strategy and results 28
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
1I Ll IG I %—P U I IL; U I I I %Z -p I I U K -j U U I LIU I 1 460- 1 IU CA %7 La I L I a4 qLA %.M %.J J L%J I I 7 I %s 4 U I I •®V LW I L, V I `. V V L° a%.1 I -P %.%-, F/ -0 L%A I X %.19 1 -W Y
management to inform anyone who received the previous statements.
Additional options for dual dating reports that are not available in the current
standards.
CAS 570 — Going Concern
No standard has been replaced, but components of Section 5510, Reservation in the Applies to audits of
Auditor's Report have been replaced. New requirements include: financial statements for
• Detailed analysis of management's assessment of the entity's ability to continue as a F%,l %~I °" 1 lkrl 1,%al lu we I %.
after December 15, 2009.
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 to continue as a going concern
CAS 580 — Written Representations
4, eswd
ppi� 't a it
This Canadian Auditing Standard (CAS) deals with the auditor's responsibility to obtain A
Ili
n ,
written representations korn management and, where appropriate, those charged with 'a,nl�Jst,
governance. periods, com'riiten
00,
ib
I [its CAS will replace %3 cu n 53I -U, lvtd aufc:111 [it Re pre Z:0 LCILI "s- a sign/ LAI" L
changes from the existing standard are as follows:
Subject
Requirements of LICA
Revised requirements of
5370
CAS 580
Applicaiti6n
All representations
Only written
provided by
representations that have
management (written or
been provided in response
oral, explicit or implicit,
to the auditor's request
solicited or unsolicited)
Distinction
N/A
Written representations
Gan be either "general" or
"specific" based on their
subject matter.
If a general written
Elt, o rr."
Discl'aim, On opinion
representation is not obtained
issue a'qu'aliflbd
opinion
Who provides the written
..........
Management
. .. . . ........
Determine who the
representations?
relevant party is, i.e., chief
executive officer, chief
financial officer, other
equivalent person
. ..... ... . ............
Matters to obtairi
. ........
items material to the
Obtaining specific written
refpresentati�ons about
financial statements
representations is a
items that are
matter of professional
significant to the
judgment*.
engagement
items relevant to
*Exception: CAS 540
management's
requires written
judgments and
representation from
estimates that are
management regarding
material to the
the reasonableness of
financial statements
significant assumptions
used in making estimates.
Audit,! Tax , Advisory . ...... .
ID Grant Thornton LLP., A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton 713 I. All rights reserved;, C J
Attachment 2
Report to the audit committee — communication of audit strategy and results
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year -ended December 31, 2010
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 Applie,s,.: tp,audits''of
21, 40 & 45.
pe,66ds "e6i0nie'nd, n-9 0 A:or,
There are significant differences on content and structure of the audit report. The main
afte�r Dece mo,'er 115 9.,
difference is that the accounting 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 the 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.
CAS 705 — Modifications to the Opinion in the Independent Auditor's Report
This CAS will 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 the report
when modifications of the opinion are present will change. Specific guidance is provided
in the CAS with regard to this format.
CAS now reguires that circumstances leading to modification of opinion be communicated
with those charged with governance.
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.
Applies to audits of
It
The new concepts of an emphasis of matter" and other matters paragraph have been
financial statements for
periods commencing on or
introduced to the audit report.
after December 15, 2009.
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 a n d appropriate audit evidence must have been obtained about the matter.
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 Comparative
FinanGial Siaiemenis
This CAS will replace Section 5701, Other Reporting Matters and Auditing Guideline 8, Applies to audits of
Auditor's Report on Comparative Financial Statements. financial statements for
The auditor must determine whether the financial statements include comparative periods commencing on or
information required by the applicable reporting framework and whether the information after December 15, 2009.
has been classified appropriately.,
.... ....... ihi ............ ..... . .... """.......
. . . . . ...... .......
1udit - Tax - Advisory
Q Grant Thornton LLR. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton All rights re� erved. N F 11) E N -i- i -A-1
A &
Attachment'2
RePort to the audit committee — communication of audit strategy and results 30
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
For the year ended December 31, 2010
Appendix F — Engagement letteA
Audift -Tax - Advisory
'0 Grant'Thorrolan LtY. A Catladian Mem6ef OfGrant L All fborlt(1
'0 755, FigIAres e-svrved�, CONFID.E.'N"FIAT-Ij
z
Attachment
tachment 2
VIr 'hornton
Grant
Mr. Btian Denney, Chief Administrative Officer
Grant Thornton ILLP
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Suite 200
5 Shoreham Drive
15 Allstate Parkway
Markham, ON
Downsview, Ontario
UR 5134
M3N 1S4
T +1416 366 0100
F +1905 475 8906
www.GranlThornton.ca
Thank you for reappointing Grant Thornton LLP ("'Grant Thornton",, "we". ccour") as auditors
of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ("the Authority�'. "you" or "your") for the year
ended Decernbicr 31, 2010.
illillill IIIIIIIIIIIJ Jill
111713,M4,731 T 111111 1 11
You have -requested that we audit the financial statements of the Authority which comprise the
statement of financial position as at December 31, 2010, and the statements of operations-,
changes in net financial assets and cash flows for the year then ended, and a summary of
significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. We are pleased to confirm
our acceptance and our understanding of this audit engagement by means of this letter. Our
audit will be conductedwith the objective of our expressing an opinion on the financial
statements.
The, audit will not be Planned- or conducted in contemplation of reliance by any third party or
with respect to any specific txansaction. 'Fherefore, items of possible interest to a third party
will. not be specifically addressed and matters may exist that would be assessed differently by a
d -did party, possibly in connection with a specific transaction.
We wil perform the audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards.
These standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the
audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whetlier the financial statements are free fi-om
material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence
-�Ilrl ii-% fl -1c,
on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of niaterial misstatement of tITis
financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. An audit also includes evaluating the
appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall. presentation of the financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of an audit, together with the in'tierent lim.1'tations of internal
control there is an unavoidable risk that some rnaterial -misstatements may not be detected,
even though the audit is properly planned and performed in accordance with Canadil.11-1
generally -accepted auditing standards.
Audi� - Tax - Advisory
GranI I hininkin L LP A C.anadian Membim of GrainJI Thornton WeuiAanA LAd we
A &
AltaCh t 2
4 0 MMIMM3
,fool',
urant I hornton
In makinour risk assessments, we consider internal contro
gl relevant to ffie Authority's
preparation of the financial statements in order to design audit -procedures that are appropriate
in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of
the Authority's internal control. However, we will communicate to you in writing concerning
any significant deficiencies in internal control relevant to the audit of the financial statements
that we have identified during the audit.
Man2gement's responsibilities
Our audit will be conducted on the basis that management and those charged with governance
acknowledge and understand that they have responsibility:
a) For the preparation and fi-dr presentation of the financial statements in accordance with
Canadian public sector accounting standards.
b) For such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation
of financial statements that are free from material misstatement., whether due to fraud or
error- and
9
1. Access to all information of -which management is aware, that is relevant to the
preparation of the financial statements such as records, documentation and other
matters'
ii. Additional information that we may, request from management for the purpose of the
audit; and
®® Unrestricted access to persons within the Authority from whom we determine it
necessary to obtain audit evidence.
As part of our audit process, we will request from management and those charged with
governance written confirmation concerming representations made to us in connection with ilie
audit. Those representations will include:
Financial statements
a communicating that all responsibilities, as set out in the terms of this engagement letter, for
the preparation of the financial statements in accordance -with Canadian public sector
accounting standards, in particular, -the financial statements are fairly presented;
b communicating belief that significant assumptions used in making accounting estimates,
including those measured at fair value are res onablel;
c acknowledging that all events subsequent to the date of the financial statements and for
which Canadian public sector accounting standards require adjustment or disclosure have
been adjusted or disclosed;
Completeness of information
d providing us with and making available complete financi-al records and related data., and
copies of all rninutes of meetings of Directors and committees of the Board of Directors';
e acknowledging thatall transactions have been recorded and are reflected in -the financial
statements;
f providing Lis with information relating to any known or probable instances of no n -
compliance with legislative or regulatory requirements, including financial reporting
requirements .-
Audit - Tax - Advisory 377
G,T,'3r)t FhOrnion LLP A Cm-md�an Miegnbpr a� GriaM Thc)inlon kitronahonall Id
A jL
AltaC Vt&rantThornton
g providing us with information relating to any illegal or possibly illegal acts, and all facts
related thereto;
h acknowledging that all related party relationships and related party transactions have been
appropriately accounted for and disclosed in accordance with the requirements of Canadian
public sector accounting standards.;
Fraud and error
i the. design and -implementation of internal controls to prevent and detect fraud and error.;
an assessment of the -risk that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a
result of fraud;
k providing us with information relating to fraud or suspected fraud affecting the Authority
involving:
i. management.,
ii. employees who have significant roles in internal control; or
iii. others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements,
1 3
I providing us with information relating to any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud
affecting the Authority's financial statements communicated by employees, former
employees, analysts, regulators, or others -
10
m communicating its belief that the effects of any uncorrected financial statement
misstatements aggregated during the. audit are immaterial, both individually and in the
aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole;
Recognition, measurement and disclosure
n providing us with its assessment of the reasonableness of significant assumptions
underlying fair value measurements and disclosures in the fi-nancial statements;
o providing us with any plans or intentions that may affect the carrying -value or classification
of assets or liabilities -
10
p, providing us with an assessment of all areas of measurement uncertainty known to
management that are required to be disclosed in accordance with Measurement
Uncertainty, CICA Handbook — Accounting Section PS 2130.;
q providing us Nvith information relating -to claims and possible claims, whether or not they
have been discussed with the Authority's legal counsel.;
r providing us With information relating to other liabilities and contingent gains or losses,,
including those associated -with guarantees, whether written or oral,, under which the
Authority is contingently liable;
S providing us with information on whether or not the Authority has satisfactory title to
assets, liens or encumbrances on assets and assets pledged as co;llateral
1 1
t providing us with information relating to compliance with aspects of contractual
agreements that may affect the financial statements;
U providing -us with information concerning subsequent events- and
51
Written confirmation of significant representations
V providing us with written confirmation of significant representations provided to Lis during
the engagement on. matters that are:
Audi[ - -lax - Advisory 0
Grain'I Thornton L LP A C�.,ini.i(.fian Mcrnbc,,,ir of Grain I ThimN� mi �nk,,onakcr,O LkI VIIIW�e j
A &
AltaCh, 2
Urant I nornton
i directly related to items that are material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the
financial statements; and
ii not
® related to it that are material to the financial statements but are
significant, either individually or in the aggregate, to the engagement.
Management agrees to make available draft financial statements, including appropriate note
disclosures and any accompanying other information in time to allow for the it to be
completed within the proposed timefrarne. In addition, management agrees to inform us of any
factors or circumstances that come to their attention during the period from the too the
auditor's report to the date financial statements are issued that may impact the financial
statements; including their disclosures.
It is agreed that for any electronic distribution of your financial statements and our report
thereonmanagement is solely responsible for the accurate and complete reproduction of the
financial statements and our report thereon.
While the report may be sent to the Authority electrorlically by us for your convenience, on.11%
the signed (electronically or manually) report constitutes the -Aud-tority's record copy. I
If management intends to publish or otherwise -reproduce our report (or otherwise make
reference to Grant Thornton LLP) in a document that contains other information,
management agrees to (a) provide Grant Thornton with a draft of such document to read, and
(b) obtain our approval for inclusion of our report, before the document is finalized and
distributed. Management also agrees that if our name is to be used in connection with the
financial statements,, it will attach our auditors" report when distributing the financial statements
to third parties.
We look for -ward to full cooperation from your staff during our audit.
Reporting
Unless unanticipated difficulties are encountered, our report will be substantially in the
following form:
NOUN
To the Members of the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority ("TRCA"), which comprise the statement of financial position
as at December 311, 2010, and the statements of operations, changes in net debt, and cash
flow for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other
explanatory information.
i1i I *ga= responsibility for the financial statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial
statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards, and for such
internal control as management determi-ies is necessary to enable the preparation of
Audit - Tax - Advisory
371,7
(3rard Thornian LLF11 A Camadian Member of (3raW Thorrflon UftrnafionA 0
t 2 E
GrantThorntoi
financial statements that are free from material miss tatement, whether due to fraud or
error.
Auditor's responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our
audit. We conducted our audit ® accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require thatwe comply with ethical requirements and plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements
are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor -s
judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial
statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessm- ents, the auditor
considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the
financial statements in order to design audit procedures that -are appropriate in the
circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of
the entity's internal control. -An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of
accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and. appropriate to
provide a basis for our audit opinion.
Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements present fiairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of TRCA as at December 31, 2010, and -the results of its operations, changes in
net debt, and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public
sector accounting standards.
Other matter
Without _r report we draw attention to the budget figures which are provided
for comparative purposes only. They have not been subject to audit procedures.
Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the budget figures.
Mark -ham, Canada
Date
Chartered Accountants
Lice -&-sed Public Accountants
The form and content of our report may need to be amended in the li,�ht of our audit findi-ifM,
Other services
Any additional services that you may request and we agree to provide will be -the subject of
separate written arrangements.
Audit - Tax-AdOsnfy
Gran� T hrm rdon 1 1. P A Cart,,AN,.in Mernbe� d GTanIT11nornk.)n Inlarinakinial LId
W11 I
A &
AltaCh t 2
GrantThornton
LAIR L"Mllll.M
Privacy and confidentiality
Grant Thornton is committed to the protection of personal information. During the course of
planning, performing and reporting on the results of our audit of the Authority's financial
statements, partners and employees assigned to this engagement will need to obtai n.5 use and
disclose personal information in the possession of, or under the control of, the Authority. The
Authority is responsible for obtaining, when required under law or regulation, consent from
those parties that provided the Authority with their personal information for Grant Thornton
to obtain, use and disclose it for its required purposes.
When a provincial institute is entitled to access to our working papers or other work -product
relating to your affairs, we will use all reasonable for to refuse access to any document over
® you have expressly informed us that you -assert privilege, except where production is
required by law or requested by a provincial Institute of Chartered. Accountants pursuant to its
statutory authority. You must mark any document over which you ass-ert privilege as
privileged. Any legal or other out-of-pocket expense incurred by us ® asserting privilege on
your behalf will be for your account.
We may also be -required to provide information relating to our fees for audit services and you
also consent to us providing �his information'.
Use of electronic communications
r® the course of our engagement(s), -we may need to electronically transmit confidential
information to each other and to outside specialists or other entities engaged by either Grant
Thornton or the Authority. Electronic methods include telephone, cell phones, e-mail and fax.
These technologies provide a fast and convenient -way to communicate. However, all forms of
cominunications have inherent security weaknesses and the risk of compromised confidentiality
cannot be eliminated. The Authority agrees to the use of electronic methods to transmit and
receive information.
Working papers/reports
All materials, reports and work created, developed or performed by Grant Thornton, including
its working papers during the course of the audit are the property of Grant Thornton.
Fees and expenses
Any fee estimates by Grant Thornton LLP take into account the agreed-upon level of
preparation and assistance from your personnel and others (such as specialists, internal auditors
and secondary auditors upon whom we plan to rely), if any. Grant Thornton undertakes to
advise management on a timely basis should this preparation and assistance not be provided or
should any other circumstances arise which cause fees to exceed our estimates. Bills will be
rendered on a regular basis as -the engagement progresses. Accounts are due when rendered..
Our fees are determined on. the basis of hourly rates in effect at that time for the personnel
participating in the engagement, plus out-of-pocket expenses and a technology & adn-lu'lis trative
fee, The technology & administrative fee is 5% of the fees and covers our professional costs
and normal administrative expenses -which include items such as computer and technology
usage, software licensing, telephone, research and library databases, photocopying, postage
supplies and delivery, fax charges, printing of statements and reports, and similar expense
items. Incidental disbursements for direct expenses such as traveland. courier are in addition to
Audit - Tax , Advisory � Lld 381
Grant Thornion LL.P. A Ganahaii� t0emb,-r, cA Giant 11Vr)mk)1) h4wnaLK"111a
Attacit I t6rantThorntor
the fees to above and will be billed separately as out-of-pocket expenses. Bills including
out-of-pocket expenses are due when rendered. Interest on overdue accounts is calculated at
11/2% per month (18% per annum) commencing 30 days following the to of the invoice. All
fees and other charges do not include any applicable federal, provincial or other goods and
services or sales taxes, or any other taxes or duties whether presently in force or imposed in the
future.
We rctqffi the right to suspend or terminate our service in the event of non-payment, and you
will be obligated to compensate us for all timc expended and to reimburse us for out-of-pocket
expenses through die date oft __ ti .
Interest on overdue accounts
All accounts outstanding over 30 days will be charged interest at the rate of 1.5% per month
(1 89/o per annum) until paid.
Taxes 01
All fees and other charges do not include any applicable federal, provincial, or other goods and
services or sales taxes!, or any other taxes or duties whether presently in force or imposed in. the
future. Any such taxes or duties shall be identified and charged separately on our billings.
Other
If, ® our. opinion our professional obligations require it, we may resign from the engagement
prior to completion. Should the. Authority not fulfill. its obligations set out herein and in the
absence of rectification by the Authority- within 10 days, Grant Thornton upon written notice
to you, may terminate its performance and will not be responsible for any loss, cost or expense
resulting from such early termination.
Limitation of liability
In any action, claim, loss or darnage arising out of the engagement, the -Authority agrees d-iat
Grant Thornton"s liability willbe several and not joint and several and the Authority may only
claim payment from Grant Thornton of Grant Thornton's proportionate share of the total
liability based on degree of fault. Any action against Grant Thornton must be commenced on
or before the date which is the earlier of: i) eighteen months from the date on which our audit
report is provided to you and, ii) the date by which an action must be commenced -under any
applicable legislation other than ®t legislation. In no event shall Grant Thornton be
liable to the Authority whether the clairn be in tort, contract or othe-rwase, for an amount in
excess of the professional fees paid by the Authority for this engagement. In. no eve -fit shall
Grant Thornton be liable to the Authority, whether a claim be in tort, contract or otherwise for
2 -% _,� 4 N -%4 -1 _#
I + r4+ f, ; 4�N" ; 1 r% It- A Z% 4-V% ru .0 - 17, ;1.1 h e --Fr e%,w Y; 411 fIr Cl
I 3,,r
Y LICU 3 JAI %-L.1-Ltae L3 IkJOL FA_"1_IL kj.k 0_kij_A_"CJ__L %1_1aX_LACL616_0 !) L. k4uia"-L-0.1 Lkjr fA V -,1.L,50
ALRUI - Twor- Advismy 420
Grant 1-borrim L. LF1 A C , mn,,�,dw s Mei nber of Gr ain � Morn Ion lin Wirn allion A L Id *ju2
A &
Alt Vftnt 2
&O%bl
urantThornton
Grant Thorntonwill use all reasonable efforts to complete within any agreed -upon time -frame
the performAnce of the services described above. However, Grant Thomton shall not be liable
for fi&utes or delays in performance that arise from causes beyond its conttol, including the
untftnely performance ot non-performance bir the Authority of its obligations.
Governing law
This engagement xvill be governed by the laws of Ontario. Jhe Authority and Grant Thornton
LLP agree to subnit any unresolved dispute or any litigation arising as a result of ot in relation
to this tetter to r jurisdiction of the Cnurts of Ontario.
Survival of terms
This engagement letter -%vill continuie in fofce for subsequent audits unless terminated by ciflier
k
party by written notice prior to the con=encement of the subsequent ynt's audit. The
Authority and Grant Thornton LLP agree that the limitation of liability paragraph shall survivll
the termination of this engagement-� contract.
We are pro -Lid to serve as your au<htors -and we appreciate your confidence in our work. If you
have- any questions about the contents of this letter, please raise them with us. Please sign and
return the attached copy of this letter to indicate your acknowledgement of, and agteement
with, the arrangements for our audit of the financial statements including out respective
responsibilities.
Yours sitice-rely,
Gratit Th ornton 1I
A.
�,, "'/k ms SLA
joannc Rogers, C.A.
Partner
'The sCITICes and terms as set fotth in this letter are agreeM
Toronto and Region Consavation Autholity
M
Aud1t - Tax v Ad�Awrj 1 383
(--;ra M, Itno-O n I I -P. adj an Meru ter 00 an's Titumlon In Lid
RES.#A1 AGREEMENT WITH ONTARIO UKISTRY OF INFRASTRUCTURE
Operation and Park Development of Rouge East Lands, Town of
Markham, Regional Municipality of York
CFN 38971. Recommends entering Into a lease agreement with Ontario
Ministry of Infrastructure for the operation and development of Rouge
East Lands for Rouge Park purposes, in the Town of Markham, Regional
Municipality of York.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by.0 Glenn De Baeremaekel
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authormity (TRCA) has been approached by
the Ontario Klin"Istry of Infrastructure to enter 'linto, a lease agreement for the Ontar'lio
owned Rouge East lands in the Town of Markham;
AND WHEREAS TRCA and the other Rouge Park Alliance partners support the creation of
the Rouge Nationa1l Park as recently announced by the Government of Canada;
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT (TRCA) enter into an agreement with the Ontario
Ministry of Infrastructure to operate and develop, for Rouge Park purposes, the Rouge
East Lands, being Part of Lots 7 and 8, Concession 9,1 Part of Lots 2 to 16 inclusive,
Concess'll'on 10, Part of Lots'l to 8'linclusilve, Concess'lion 11 , conta'linming 632.13 hectares
(1 acreis) located in the Town of Markham, Regional Municipality of York;
THAT authorized TRCA offilicials be directed to take whatever actions mav be requmired to
a
impilement the lease agreement minclud'ling obta'linolng of necessary approvals and the
signing and execution of any documents;
•
T
11.ill ILI 1111111 mat lug& 0 1 r M 171747 T. TOT
BACKGROUND
On February 13, 2007 the Province of Ontario announced that 1,500 acres known as the Rouge
East Lands were to be added to the Rouge Park. This is a key ecological linkage between the
Rouge River, Duff ins Creek and Petticoat Creek watersheds. The lands are part of the provincial
Greenbelt designation and include approximately 17 residences, six farms with reisidencesi 22
farmland rentals, one barn renta,l, one commercial rental and two land rentals. At mASM nig
#3/08, April ; 257 2008, the Authority approved resolution #178/08 which endorsed the Little
Rouge Corridor Management Plan and recommendations for the integration of the planning
and management of the newly announced Rouge East lands.
TRCA and Rouge Park sta-it and the Rouge Park Chair have had ongoing discussions with the
Province since the announcement. It has been the intent of the Province to have TRCA manag
the lands on behalf of the Province. The Province will not convey the lands to TRCA as it did
with the 2004 Rouge Park transfer and the recent Bob Hunter! Memorial Park transfer because
provincial financial policies would require the Province to record the original acquisition, cost as
a loss to the Province, there being no offsetting revenue. Infrastructure Ontario officials have
agreed to enter into a Ground Lease for a period of 20 years similar to the lease in place for the
management and operation of the Oak Ridges Corridor: Park in Richmond Hill.
The subject property falls within the criteria for acquisition under the Greenlands Acquisition
Project for! 2011-2015.
9 - 0 0 m
W W
tv Aav
10
as A& Ab a IS a A% Alk
Ah
11 1W 01, 1W
Ak Ab Ab 10
Ak Ab Ah AIN Ah Ah d1h Ah
d1k M 5WW Alk Ak M
AIL
Alsoi, terms and conditions will be reviewed with the Chair, Rouge Park, and Chair, TRCA, prior
to finalization of the lease agreement.
•
RATIONALE
Provincial staff h as indicated that they would like to finalize this lease at the earliest possible
date. The Rouge Park has undertaken a management planning process for the Markham East
lands but has not finalized the plan because there is no agreement in place with the Province
for the management and operation of these lands. Entering into the lease would allow the
Rouge Park to finalize the management plan and proceed with implementation.,
The Government of Canada has announced the creation of the Rouge National Park and
advised that the time frame for implementation will be determined in the next few months.
TRCA and the other partners of the Rouge Park Alliance have supported the creation of the
Rouge National Park and will work cooperatively with the federal government and the Province
of Ontario to implement the National Park. In the interiit isimportant to continue to
implement the Rouge Park Alliance's vision for the Rouge Park. Appropriate clauses will be
included in the proposed lease document will enable the Province and TRCA to deal
successfully with the federal government in the creation of the National Park.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will seek to negotiate an agreement that addresses the principles as outlined above. A
key part of the negotiation is to work jointly with the Province, both sides acting in good faith, to
develop a plan to eliminate the revenue shortfall over a reasonable, period of time. The
Province appears willing to continue to fund the eixisting revenue shortfall and recognizes it is ir
our mutual interest to el,iminate these costs over time.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
As noted, T'RCA will only complete the lease on terms and conditions that ensure TRCA has no
direct costs related to the operation of the leased lands. Any net revenues from the operation
of the lands under the lease will be used for Rouge Park purposes. There wil�l be TRCA staff
costs to finalize the lease as well as reasonable legal costs related to lease negotiations, all of
which are provided for in the TRCA land acquisition capital accounts.
Report prepared by:
Emaills: mfenning@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: J'im Dillane, extension 6292; Ron Dewell, extension 5245;
Mike F'enning, extension 5223
Emails: jdiI1ane@trca.on.ca; rdeweI1@trca.on.ca; mfenning@trca.on,.ca
Date.a June 21 � 2011
Attachments: 2
111R0
0, 6
t
•
4V
�r!
Ili f ¢ u
m ar
Ydfo"
q! rTn
M
A„1v6�^d
y A�°
s^! IV ,y„ NWpI&nM�' VUp y� /?°r
1f✓ '�tl�Y "WIPo'
d
r
I
ri
,i nU Ni•0 ”
s,M
rSV.4
�
U,
e 4
/
n, PRj"WERTY `a
,z r
n.
UN
yy mu,
tVl
w v l� N�
r�rr
�
YI! t} GF>1
J /r dYw"
(�'
,� � J
W q'✓ Yfl�wr,
r1��I Jtl
��� r
VIPa � rt.
0"
rDf�
w
"
k yl
�L
t
X� nit% y y�YDT
u'^t
l VI 1
o.
I'
e
rfV.
((55
Y
I
y t -
A
44A,
011
e -9 ✓"
A
p
aw t
f r .
b �Ivk
"1}V ...... UfV cif
^/ .j
lk
CIO
1}
16 �
6
°i
! � d
Iwur J
(r �
Legend
1
�l
I Property
-Living,
IIII�nnIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIYIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRAllllllllllllllllllllllllln
"9tl' +Subject
') r k , L i fir" i n , � l
-ej,�
✓.ay llA ��W�"'" t� ar I �"°Wpu� "
Ai" � �� ,.
TRCA Property
� Ali^V/(fnlf���,^
�
ORIA
Rai 11mayII
�e��
dIA '� /JJ''d'`"
', "'�, „iYu. t"SAN v, 11 „41V: I�i�"IUB 1� °W� 'E,
LAS pry ! IMJiI, y,VA
� kl
d M✓ A
J tN �����Ybm. �AA!!Ad Y!
.,., ...
Wu
y
'
7"@:375, 0
NIY^ ",YW
4 �,Bi) A as IN �WisYP
r„ 1 � lP+2,mN4G
Roads,
f I
SII �a
Ire'
'N KEY MAP
���^'/
•
Attachment 2
F
I �l dlh,.d h11
Jaruairy 1; 1, 2C)1l 1
I --da: n. IBBb G,Aareflk
Miniver of Infrasin.ic'.ture
9,00 Bay stv'let
Y'' Hoor, Movval '31k.xk
I aivinto, ON NV A FCC
Dear Mini5tur Chi,arelh;
RRoUgeParkEas,ULandJL
. 'I— 1 1111111- ---- . ... .. ........ . ................... ... (Land
A=v oi ubl uu ( ai I ,k ,Ag�
P I cn 9 1 P, , 7 1 h( F 90 1
V,l- I "I Q, I I,Wk I MIT,
Wild in role C ft�l �
'Y
ll,,iard< you for taking the drne io meet. vvfth u.,is on Novlernjl)er 29, 2010, regairdlog i'll)(,,,, ProvjlndaII
or, February V3, &w Rouge Park East Lands to IRouge Park., You
hd SAKjrYDS1,F2d thdt yr' LL wouk.] likti W YCt dliS Wnh,Aeted by May 210"r 1 aind, wkh flhil, flirr"we IN m,.,a
in rr'dnd, a tearn has been establisl,led acrd -j VIOW Hulka r1MN?JrXj Widl David Mack and BRIc'e
Sil"lghUSh vr&s hcdcl orr, Decen,iber 2.1, 2010. At this, nwe,Ong, it vvzis agreed t.hat vve shoulcl
clariry our posiLion rfegarding makku") the has ,irjr;-, Park East Ljnds ava0able for Rouge flark
purposes, fek it wouk"I be 11'elpff"d Icl OUldine Ll,w relal honship belweH'ii the Florlonlo
aMi C"Onservation Aud-ilority JRCIA) ancl the ROUge 1�cirk Mi'Ince,,
I hr first Roul(je Park Han, knad by the f0ini�,try of Natural Re.S0LVrcesvvas corT)pIelx,,,d fL)jr rJ-1p rm'I-C,j
in Torlonto, sol-ith of steeles ir'1994, H"le R(-WUC Pcark (Wiance, as cozdifiorr of stakel-aAders, to
form as pavtnersliip),was created tun acivo(:ate, q'ivdirecdon, and provide deal(,Jersl,Ap for fl -le,
Park. It san LH*m)iqix,,j,ratled "Alhxrrcc" and nc)ta ieyA eraity arid as a resuR, an agreement
beLvveen "I"HCA, Rouge Park and the Minktiy of Nawra� Resourc.es was crt.,aLed setting OUL thr"
vanous roles of the par6es fiur opt�ra6rrq the Park,
Ma riy of die seii,vices fCA provicles are as an [he factthat the ROUge Park AlHarum e is
noL a Irarpal enl:ily. As a resuft, tfnrun faaff of Rrm,19e Park are 'TRCA eirnp[oyees� The ffindiate for
FhOW J10 h,lark isadministowd by h RCIA under the direction, of the AHicince, Sonie funding
,is (,A,)lidine,d throL,i g h TR( ,A's I'll Lin id p','fl hjuciget process, JIRCA provides real eslaLe s(,brvices iFoi
the acqiiii-sitlon and acirninistratiori of, lar,Ws for ROUge Park. Sc)me of" the larid^a within the Park
aire in the tithe alf THCA, soirne aire in the vtl(.,,, f,,,Yf7RC.A spedficaHy for Rouge P, -ark pw poses,
in,duching t1 R. 1.JHJk.' RO'nuYv Cvrlidol IMnd, Uansfer-r :d 1,,)y QR(� in 2004, (1,315 hectares), and fll,re,
E3ob HJUIMW NICNII(Dliaf Park hands Uanafern,,xd in 200E.), ('193 i,ieciares), -rr-tCA adrninister's leases
frau' urrnkad l'eCITTV.1-5,(arras .,3nd oilrer "Athin Urp Park, uinderd1wc1tioni of dhe Alliano.,,.
TRCA, its rok,-,� irl thp rnunkJPA iriput and roeview process, secks to richiew, the
ciLl")jeolives, c'4 01(", varic.:u,jis Parrk pians, rn cioperatic)III, Wfth tfr� respective initinic.ilpaHties. -uKA
in°)plemient5 s(,)me oftl ncTM P,.,irk e I onve, nts &nc: I ip i d in g h a bit a t featurcs and 'I raIs,
T
I ted
'e,re i'i t"I y ca rh ed," o ul: �,t n, r4 ma �n ce mv'i w a, ri�c .s a rt I i c i, 1,',,�a
Ii as r
RIC) ,19 e P ii.'i r k Al I ia ri cl_ e,
thaL gove,r �r i a n c e i5 S U e s IqI be a c! (:Ir P..;, s,s d 1 r-ri, 2 011
F'oI,,IowirI'ig ',is', our ,,',t�"ecjardii,'�ic �the rnnar)age,rr"i,( n't oft["), Rimige Pa�rk, East Lands.
"ouge Park pk,irposes I I
-the P,',Ad< Ea,,st lan�ds rligj; rr"Idde �Eivi,-,Iila,ble 1"or R w"11 fikelly b,e
tlirougfi of a Jeaw._�, thalt, is�� �atftlnljls�tiered byTorarit'l.,ari�d
Region, (TR A)
tfiesulr.)Ject lar-ids, will bcn�lanage'
dac,cor(,lar",c(, Ma plari, being de..'ve.1oped I�by
R 0 U g � e,F" a r k. - a c a py tli,� e dr a p �j, a r�� s e, n,(1-1,1. I o sed fc�o, r yo u r j ni'fo r rnat i fo] I ow �i ri g t h e
g d"' n qj p ir !'n, c -i p I e s of t 171
N'a t u ra 11,�' H� e r 'I'ta ge
r'(,) t t, Itt") i -I f -ii_'] I -I C'(W.. at r'l and provi'de a i-nosaic of
, "') �� r) e.",ct cl ('1111) re �:'i. aw ira I a
a p I'Dr o p r i' a t e I-il, zi b i t at t o s e,,r v Ea v ar'ii e t y w 11 d 1, if e, 's', p d S
t iarice aqt,.tatic jr)fvtf,'a_,qrity and ffie
p rc.) t,c,,,, c: a n, d e nI 'I
Rotx e ffir�is)%, a',itid ds)
Agriculture
e c o �,"i (") III I ("" "'I I y- v i a b I e a,,g r i C L. I It tj re., w,,,h, 1111c., h S LI, s t a i n s f" -,i rt - i ") i ngC.) r"71 TTI L,,j ri, 'lit i e, s' C"'Ii d
t ii a ,j i Ca
C"'Ll I t U ra a�, ri d' s ca p es j n t he �,'F-Ia rk (c u r Aly the East larid's a ire actively farmed)
rt i
0
15
"Asten t Ad"I CO'n i d' etri�ic o u ra u: ri ab 1 i� r i o' v a v e a, r, i i g ri; t
the Par,k,"'s rr"iatlura�`heritagL Iu a eTnI, age nd visitor exper�'),wncie, object"i've,s
Cultural
ildeinfify,„ I ricl celebrate ctdtt,iral a., ge 'f e, atut-es
-1 heritage-, str t._j, t,,).,r,e
coinse)'),rve b'Uil' C u 5
id(,.ntif # Umderstaridand conserve archawi-�Aogical resource.,s
Y
V"Is,itor,Use
lnterp; wid Rec reafion
pr
11'x� . , - Lin dersta "cwid,rz,, vis'Itors wit!"t qppofrt'kt,,njtJ`eS t0i P ])10�
parlicipatie wardsl'i'lp Of t['Ilc� Park, ,5 natural atcliltural IIS ,eritage
Tr 'I Ma st%(t.,,�r Ph, tudy for "lia irk cli i rr"p- i,1I)tI y t,,,i ridet"'way', has id tif'��'.iecl cUlf-111 ca I
, a, a 1
Lrad connections thruijgl-,,� these, lands, a',nd i,tis (-%,,ssei1'itia,I t"h(i�;"lit” rig Ii� t-of-wa ys be
esI,','."aI)t['sI',iI'd to develojz) th,(:
tti, e.uW,ro u n d [,,, e a s e mILA 5, t a I 10 w 11 i'T R, iC A t c-) -:1 cl,1 n �'e i, n,
a-�e, ' I s u b- I ea e srIn pI e m nt,t h en 'r-.),� n
tf'iie temm of,UIu ,sc, r-teeds -,to ret]ect a briq term Roug(.,� Park
wil[,, requirict,�, t1o, I'_')e pa:max re„�� a,�r � ;; „r • r I '; mmr . Frig. �. ,. "�' „ ” ��.'J),,,'rough reco,v'eries fro'm leas,e�
i,*c,',1,,veri,ues, and tort-J"i r F,)'r,wJnce pay TRCA ain ad-ni"I.1i"! - itri"ifior), net," re et,, �_tes (,,':-'(,')fl'e,cted
nag4,,'-),q larids
to irnproving '11::he prope,,i-tic s atl"id wo
w
t+ie Provi'ine will" pay ttle rel'ate tnd' to'Lratr"Iide%rthe leamrt
P -,i�dit is essential td,').ere a
1 1:51, C 0 11 $
b. u 11 t le gym, [d e r le d,,,, ca n i., n, po r -t, Ica, n, t f� czi,, b, r � c. o f t h le P a rk a i, r
suffidet--ri, avvalla'�'ble, "Lo e1`151UP'le 0-tat [,iistoric elenlents are, andthatti-ie
terl"n. I't been,, uur expi,,,_1Hei',i,ce will'i 2004 Rouge
b,LiflI"',,( fi),gs (:.an bt S U sta I nie', d f, ir tl'it
g e i n
It t 1,i� le r e I Is a w i'd rtl riz,,i
a s fe r, n d �t h e re c eri, �t B o b H u n '1:, r Me rn ori a Park t P -11a. r.11 S
tr k 't i,,� fia r t
iv� -1 ir "
111m, m, c d "I ill
U
--he t-et"Aa] pr pe ft i e,5 a n d llasi pa r�.. 'A -.i t_j r d o
tr,e s p e c", "t, t L I c: c) r, I d, i n o f 0
a -, e 5, s n t enj, t be c a r""ri cid o u t. M t h Llr-,i (a b H u n't le r, M ern.* r la 11,f'
req Lit i re t h �iit � b t i i, I d i n g con �d. it
U ,,, s,,,s
P a r k, [, ratl F,��f er, TR CA o, bt%;i'i d (,,,j ot en a �i d h [i re d the b t.i i I d i rtg a i,,� se s s rn,,er vt coi���isu[tarrt 5d,:),ject to
as'-drecovered the fi,jrids,, from ORC
and We WOUld reIla weloleH low a
ild'kng cot
h b LJ I d" i, t i lo., n a 5 � s e
t f, c), r t,
i 1-;,i r p 1 oc es,s, wit t: IIli e,� E a st I a, n d s. r[iie estirna-lecll
51 1; 1' 1 Kf r
"I's $25000014
1W WU U I c, ,r eq U, ii, ry 0--i e f o 1:,(,)w,j n g i nf(.,,) r rn, at'i (.),n (1, kel y awzI,' labl,
All, s o P, as% pja:r�I, co) �f o r, d iia, ( d 'i 1 "1'19 0 C
z,.a,the appit"opril�'ILe', tirne:
cc)pyof ex�5sbng leases
"ll: S A a, p ro va 1,"s of a I I ASS,, Fs.,
1p
water well reg ,ords
wa,i,".1ert.1e:5,dng res(,dts
1111-Aj Of a"A eat tneri t eqw, ment
P
c'D r'C"I 5 f0fr las't 5 yea,r's
i,'i Lenai')�cere,
legal sdliedule or� fl," -le sluk:.p ct
I aud,ihble
le- n,vironm(1_,iivits, f av
i.
hi"Stior"Icad 'I', n'fb r- at ic.:� t"i, if aval."'lla-ble
J t, r u s t ft h i Is a c (: k malely re,fliectls,OLir di 4
ISCUSSIOns. Ppr1vaps,,vAri(�_n.,, you have reviewe3d", th,is letter,
vva,rd witli( d-lese
--i i -i ove fo i
ym,ican auranget
nee ir :x), d i s c u s s h ic) w, w c, c a il 111
t
M&71
, I 6,K,
A I a n W I Is B ri,,at-ii D ie n t) e ly,
Chair C IiAef A d rri I ri I s t r, a t. i v It ,A1U,
I , r lid a rer
R o u g e, P a. r k A I I I To rori tc,) a n d Reg i o n C.' . o I i,setivatlmo,n Au'Lhorit"y
C C �Ilp Davd B I a ck t, -
n, c� r Po I i cy A d vi s o r, M il n is- te� rs",, Of fil " i s t Iy o If n fra , s, re
t
Eiruce S'ilei igbush, r)"t-ector, Read Pollc-,Y Brarl,
D,awc,l] Hat-vely
RES.#A1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-:2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed
Lorie Anderson and Wayne Anderson, CFN 44705. Purchase of a partial
taking from a residential property located at 19191 St. Andrews Road,
south of Beechgrove Side Road, Town, of Caledon, Region of Peel, under
the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015," Flood Plain and
Conservation Component, Humber River watershed.
(Executive Res. #B8511 1)
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT 2.428 hectares (6.0 acres) more or less, being part of Lot 19, Concession 5 East of
Hurontarmlo Street, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel and being a partial
taking from a property municipally known as 19191 St. Andrews Road be purchased from
Lorie Anderson and Wayne Anderson;
THAT the purchase price be $3,6,0100, together with the vend�or's legal fees to a maximum
of $1 5000;
THAT acquisition by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is conditional on
all necessary funding being available;
TAAT TRCA receive conveyance of the land required free from encumbrance, subject tif
existing service easement&,
I
THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers and Solicitors, be instructed to
complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurrelf
incidental to the closing for land transfer tax,, legal costs and disbursements are to be
paid-,
AAD KIRTHER TAAT the authorized T:RC�A 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.#A1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011 -i201 5
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Waterfront Watershed
Joyce Andrews and Phyllis Brown, CFN 44i653. Purchase of property
located north of Beachpoi nt Promenade, east of West Shore Boulevard
(municipally known as 932 Beachpoint Promenade), City of Pickering,
Regional Municipality of Durham, under the "Greenlands Acquisition
Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation Component,
Waterfront watershed.
(Executive Res. #B8611 1)
Moved by., Gay Cowbo�urne
SecondedLinda Pabst
THAT 0.06 hectares (01.14 acres), more or leiss,, of vacant land being Part of Lot 26, Range
3, Broken Front Concession and designated as Lot 96 on P'lan 345, City of Pickering,
Regional Municipality Dlocated north of Beachpoint Promenade, east of West
Shore Boulevard (municipally known as 932 Beachpoiint Promenade)i, be purchased from
Joyce Andrews and Phyllis Broww
5
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the Ian,*'
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. Alli, reasonable expenses incurred incidenta--
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.#A1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011 -2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Petticoat Creek Watershed
Cosima Daniell, CFN 45860. Purchase of property located east of
Woodview Avenue, south of Finch Avenue (rear of 1979 Woodview
Avenue), City of Pickering) Regional Municipality of Durham, under thd
"Greeniands Acquisition Project for 2011-201511 , Flood Plain and
Conservation Component, Petticoat Creek watershed.
(Executive Res. #B8 7/11)
Moved by: Gay Cowboiurne
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT 0.32 hectares (0i.78 acres), more or lesisi, of vacant land being Part of Lot, 11,8,
Registered Plan No. 329 and designated as Part 5i on a draft Plan of Survey prepared by
J.D. Barnes Limited, under theiir Reference No. 00-25-042-03, dated March 9, 20119 City of
Pickering, Regional Municipality of Duriham, located east of Woodview Avenue, south of
Finch Avenue (rear of 1979 Woodview Avenue), be purchased f: rom Cosima Daniell;
=5M
THAT Toronto and Reg, ion Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the lani-'
E
free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete
ithe i t,ransact,ion at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidenta
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.
[ ll
RES.#A1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011 -2015
Flood Pil�ain and Conservation Component, Humber River; Watershed
City of Toronto, CFN 4581'8. Purchase of property located east of Albion
Road, south of Finch Avenue (rear of 4, 5i and 6 Attercliff Court), City of
Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), unde,r the
"Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and
Conservation Component, Humber Riveir watershed.
(Executive Res. #B8,811 1)
Moved by: Gay Cowboiurne
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT 0.02 hectares (0.06 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Block B,
Registered Plan M-723 and designated as Parts 1, 21 3 and 4 on Plan 6613-14444, City of
Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), located east of Albion Road, south of
Finch Avenue (rear of 4, 5 and 6, Attercliff Courtbi be purchased from the City of Toronto;
THAT Toronto and Regiion Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the lmt
free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts, LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete
a
the transactiion 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 the
vendor;
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.#A1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-:2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed
Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, CFN 45858.
Acquisition of property located west of jefferson Forest Drive, on the
north side of 1'9th Avenue in the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional
Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for
2011-20151 , Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River
(Executive Res. #B8911 1)
Moved by: Gay Cowbo,urne
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
A 0.47
hectares (1.16 . or less,ofvacantland, being Part ofSouthHalf of
MunicipalityLot 56, Concession I , designated as Block 43 on draft M -Plan prepared by Holding Jones
Vanderveen Inc. OLS under job no. 061 -17127I -M PLAN!, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional
9II York, arfrom Royal Pine Homes-,
THAT Toronto and Regiion Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance • IIfree from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
A / e firm Roberts
,. rr Barristers d11 I! be • 1i complete
IN GardinerIIV •r
the t�ransact�ion at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidentam-
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 act�ion may
be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the
signing riexecution of anydocuments.
PurchaseCARRIED
RES.#A1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011 -12015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins, Creek Watershed
Town of Ajax, CFN 35,075. of property located south of
Bayly
Street, west of Westney Road (unopen�ed Montgomery Park Road and
Church Street South road allowances), Town of, Ajax, Regional
Municipality Durham,Project
2011-20,15", Flood Plain d Conservation Component,
watershed.
Moved(Executive Res. #B9011 1)
.r ."
SecondedLinda Pabst
THAT 2.62 hectares (6-48 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of the Road
Allowance Between Range 2 and Range 3, Broken Front Concession and Part ofthe Road
Allowance Between Lots 14 and 15, Range 3, Broken Front Concession; designated as
1
Parts and 4, on Plan 4013-26750, Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham,
located south of Bayly Street,: west of Westney Road (unopened Montgomery Park Road
and Church Street South road allowances), be purchased from the Town of Ajax;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the lanf-
free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, beinstructed to complete
the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidentam-
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.#A1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component,, Etobicoke Creek Watershed
Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited, CFN 45772. Purchase of
property located west of Kennedy Road, north of Mayfield Road, Town of
Caledon,, Regional Municipality of Peel, under the, "Greenlands
Acquisition Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation
Component, Etob,icoke Creek watershed.
(Executive Res. #B9 1 /11)
Moved by., Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by,-. Linda Pabst
THAT 0.67 hectares (1 -66i acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 18,
Concession 1 EHS and designated as Block 286 on a Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared:
by Schaeffer Dzaldov Bennett Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No.
10-1028-Oi6, dated, April 18, 2011 , Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peeil�, located
west of Kennedy Road,: north of Mayfield Road�, be purchased from Fernbrook Homes
(Etobicoke Creek) Limited;
1111111q�
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive; conveyance of the Iani
free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete
the t,ransact,ion at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidenta
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.
[ ll
RES.#A1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011 -2015
Flood Pil�ain and Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed
Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, CFN 45771.
Acquisition of property located on the west side of Bayvieiw Avenue and
north of 19th Avenue in the Town of Richmond Hilil, Regional Municipality
of York, under the'Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015', Flood
Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River watershed.
(Executive Res. #B9211 1)
Moved by: ars Cowboiurne
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT 0.8106 hectares (2.003 acres), more or less, of vacant land, being Part of Lot 57,
Concession 1, EYS , designated as Block 180 on draft M -Plan prepared by Schaeffer
Dzaldov Bennett Ltd. OLS under job no. 04-030-1 OOC, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional
Municipality of York, be purchased from Richmond Hill Jefferson Forest Inc.,;
THAT Toronto and Regiion Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the lmt
free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts, LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete
M
the transactiion at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidenta--
to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized T'RCA officials be directed to take whatever action may
0
be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the
signing and execution of any documents.
CARRIED
RES.#A1 EASEMENT AGREEMENT
Lakeridge Farms Limited. Entering into an easement agreement for a fiv
yearterm with automatic extensions until terminated for the purpose of
constructing and permitting a public trail system on L,akeridge Farms
Limited -owned lands in Township of Uxbridge, Regional Municipality of
Durham.
(Executive Res. #B9311 1)
Moved by: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by,-. Linda Pabst
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into an easement
agreement with Lakeridge Farms Limited for the purpose of constructing, and permitting
the public use of a triail system, said land being Part of Lot 7, Concession 8,1 Township oi
Uxbridge, Regional Municipality of Durham;
THAT the term of the easement agreement be five years with automatic extensions untiol
terminated;
THAT the total payment to Lakeridge Farms Limited be the nominaI sum of $2.00, for the
term of the agreement,
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.#A1 REQUEST FOR LIMITING DISTANCE AGREEMENT
South side of Fairglen Crescent, west of Weston Road (immediately west
of 17 Fairglen Crescent)l, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community
Council Area), CF'N 44948. Toronto and Region: Conservation Authority
(TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Mandy and Stephen Mabee to
enter a Limiting Distance Agreement relating to a 1 Oi metre strip of
TRCA-owned land located on the south side of Fairglen Crescent, west of
Weston Road (immediately west of 17 Fairglen Crescent�), City of Toronto
(Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Humber River, watershed.
(Executive Res. #B9411 1)
Moved by: Gay Cowbo,urne
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority enter into a Limng Distance
Agreement with Mandy and Stephen Mabee relating to a 10 metre strip R
land containing a total of 0.04 hectares (0.10 acres), more or less,, of vacant land
described as Lot 21 on Plan 1945, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council
Area), on the following basis:
IIIII liq 11 !j �IIIIIII�
ILI
(b) Mandy and Stephen Mabee are to be responsible r legal, survey, and other
im
costs associated with completing the transaction,, including any fees required for
municipal approvals (such as minor variance application, Site Plan Control
application, etc.) as deemed necessary by the City of Toronto;
(c) TRICA lands affected by the agreement are to be 10 metres "in width and the depth 'i's
to be 42.0 metres (Le. the same depth as the lot at 17 Fairglen Crescent);
W
(d) The building restrictions on the 10 metre strip of TRCA land are to be satisfactorily
defined to ensure that normal park operation, paths, trails, are guaranteed
without restriction;
(e) This agreement does not restrict City of Toronto or T'RCA staff from exercising their
a
normal planning review and, commenting responsibilities;
(f) The agreement is to continue and be binding upon TRCA so long as the new
0 go
construction / renovation remains in pla
(g) The agreement will be revoked or terminated upon receipt of written notice from the
City of Toronto that the new construction / renovation has been removed or no
longer exists;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action
to finalize r including obtaining needed approvals and signing and
execution of documentation.
CAPRIM
RES.#A1 MEADOWCLIFFE DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Contracts RSD1 1-26 and RSD11-2 . Award of Tenders RSD1 1-26 and
11- 1-29 for the supply and delivery of approximately 1, 0,000 tonnes of
4-6 tonne armour stone and approximately 5,000 tonnes of
300mm-600mm rip -rap stone.
(Executive Res. #B9511 1)
Moved by.: Gay Cowbourne
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
;WT,
•
THAT Contract �RSD1 1-26 for the supply and delivery of approximately 10,000 tonnes of
4-i6 tonne armour stone to the Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project, in the City of
Toronto, be awarded to J.C. Rock Limited for a total unit pr!ice of $39.50 per! tonne and a
total cost not to exceed $395,000.,00, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff cost estimates and specifications,,
5
AND FURTHER THAT Contract RSD1'1 -29 for the supply and delivery of approximately
5,iOOO tonnes of 300mm-600mm rip -rap stone to the Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Controil
Project,in the City of Toronto, be awarded to J.C. Rock Limited for a total unit price of
$23.25, per tonne and i a total cost not to exceed $1 16i,250.00, plus HST, it, being the lowes
bid that meets TRCA staff cost estimates and specifications. CARRIEDI
SECTION 11 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
RES.#A1 W SECTION 11 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
ffloved by: Laurie Bruct
Seconded by: Bryan Bertie
THAT Section 11 item EX8.1 - Request for Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority -owned Land, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #5/11, held on June
1 oq2011 i be received.
CARRIED
RES.#A1 BROCK NORTH AND SOUTH LANDS
Restoration Plan Update. Update on the restoration plan, financing
strMtegy, and details on the pending master plan for the Brock North an,i_
South Lands.
Moved by.- Vincent Crisanti
Seconded by: Richard Whiteheai
THAT the staff report dated June 8, 2011 in regard to, the outcome of the restoration plan,
financing strategy and details on the pending master plan for the Brock North and South
Lands located north and south of the 5th Concession, in the City of Pickering and the
0 i
Town of Ajax,, Regional Municipality of Durham, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #1 /11, held on January 28, 2011, Resolution #A1 3/11 was approved as
follows:
FVHEREAS the City of Toronto has conveyed its 392 ha (969 acire) Brock North and South
lands to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for nominal consideration of
Y
WHEREAS TRCA staff have initiated planning and discussions with City of Pickering and
Town of Ajax related to the restoration and recreational potential of the property;
THEREFORE LET IT'BE RESOLVED THAT staff continue required consultation and
planning activities and proceed with restoration of the property;
THAT TRCA staff pursue all available funding opportunities to finance the requireI
restration of the property;
o
0
TAAT TRCA staff be authorized to enter into necessary agreements with our municipal
0 0
.?nid regi nal partners to facilitate restorati n of the property,
THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement any
,,?.greements including the signing and execution of documents;
%.0
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA, staff report back on the outcome of the restoration plannin
financing strategy, management plan and agreements. i
In earily 2011 JRCA acquired the former Brock North and South Landfill sites from the City of
Toronto after the lands were declared surplus in 2008. The Brock North and South lands are
adjacent to two major natural corridors that offer critical wildlife habitat and connectivity to the
Greenwood Conservation Area., Historic aggregate extraction, agriicultural and landfi:ll
operations have left much of the property in an altered condition. The location, the overall size
of the property and rema,ining intact habitats however present a great opportunity to transform
the property into one of the most significant natural heritage parcels and recreational
destinations in Durhami, Region.
RATIONALE
Previous agricultural, quarry and landfill operations have severely altered the natural function of
the Brock property. Modifications on the site have led to habitat loss, soil degradation,
landform changes and loss of' native vegetation, increased erosion and sedimentation of
watercourses, and altered hydrology (drainage). However, some of the undisturbed natural
areas that remain on the property provide excellent quality habitat and corridor connections to
adjacent natural: systems.,
Through a planning process involving TRCA and key staff representatives from the Town of
Ajax an, d the City of Pickering, TRCA has prepared a restoration plan to achieve a
i
self-sustaining natural system that contribiut�es to the overall health of the Duffins, Creek
watershed. The goal of the restoration plan is to protect and restore ecological function and
reence to both aquatic and terrestria;l systems. To achieve this goa,l the restoration plan
focuses on the following objectives:
restore and enhance altered hydrology and sensitive groundwater zones,
enhance landform and soil conditions to promote self-sustaining natural communities;
I
restore natural cover and provide connectivity at both the local'and regional scale; and
create and enhance optima,l fish and wildlife habitat.
0 0 so W a 0 0 0
Ah M W W W do Ah do 0 a Ah AM
Wr W GOP
40
do
do do # # r r # OF
dM
P
l11W . - 0
ow4i
.. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Descript"ion
No restorative work required. Small scale ha,biitat features will be
Protection
insta,lled as required. Generally, natural succession areas will be
monitored regularly for in�vasive species and for overall health.,
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Passive restoration techniques will be applied. Generally these are
areas where successional communities are being estabilished but
require addit�ional support to promote ecosystem growth and
Enhancement
health. Enhancements will work to increase diversity, density and
connectivity, manage invasive sp�ecies, and remove instream
debris and barriers.
Active restoration techniques will be utilized., These areas are
i
those that have undergone major alterations and req�uirie
restoration to reinstate natural processes and ecosystem
Rehabation
functions. Rehabation work could include land regrading,
invasiive species removal', infrastructure removal, installation of
critical habitats and natura,l channel design.
Very active restoration techniques wil,l be utilized. These areas
include severely altered landforms, site hydrology and limited
Creation
natural cover. Infilling to modify slop�es, drainage and alter soil
conditions will, be required to restore native vegetation, and
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem function.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .
Restoration opportunities fall into three broad categoriies: terrestrial, drainage and aquatic.
These restoration op,portunit�ies address the need for improving natural cover such as forest
habitats, recreating natural surface flows and infiltration over the landscape to support wetlan
and stream function and protect groundwater, and improving instream habitat. During the
planning process, terrestrial and drainage opportunities were classified by the appropriate
restoration strategy that will be applied (e.g. protection, enhancement, rehabilitation or
creation). Aquatic restoration areas were delineated in a, s,imilar manner, however were first
subdivided into stream reaches and then strategies were identified for each reach.
Implementation of the restoration planis, expected to achieve the following deliverables:
Ak
139 ha of improved terrestrial habitat;
26 ha of created or enhanced wetland habitat;
14 sub -catchments restored to capture flow of water generated by 1,035 ha of land;
AL
142 ha of improved stream edge habitat,
14.,7 km of improved headwater streams that support coldwater fisheries;
138 ha, of improved landform and soil conditions that, protect groundwater,, support natural
site drainage and promote self-sustaining natural cover; and
0 installation of essential structures such as nest boxes and loig tangles to promote creation of
wildlife habitat.
Due to the extensive amount of previous site alteration, this, priority restoration area, will be able
to accommodate a significant amount of fill material., Partnering with York Region, staff has
been abl�e to secure a suff icien�t supply of material that will not only enable the site restoration to,
proceed but will have the added benefit of generating funds required to complete future
planning and implementation of the restoration plan.,
1
Ah
Alik Ab
AN As 1P 9
Ah so
Ak Ah
DETAILS I WORK TO BE DONE
The Brock Nortih and South lands will be restored to support functioning, diverse and
self-!sustlaininIg communities of native plantsi, fish and wildlife. Through careful planning,
ongoing monitoring and site management, these lands will become a public destination,
offering a variety of recreational and cultural experiences that are appropriately integrated on
the landscape to ensure natural and human heritage resources are protected. These lands will
also facilitate important regional trail linkages and provide connectivity to the planned Seaton
Natural Heritage System west of the property, and the Greenwood Conservation Area to the
east, resulting in 3,313 ha (8,187 acres) of connected natural greenspiace.
The restoration plan will help guide the preparation of a master plan to ensure that integration
of planned recreational facilities and public ui,se areas are in harmony wit 'h the ecosystems of
the property. The master plan will expIlore the potential of this property to provide numerous
recreational opportunes, trail connections and interpretation of natural and cultural heritage
features. During the master pilan process, TRCA will work with the City of Pickering, Town of
Ajax, Durham Region, stakeholder groups and the public to identify and evaluate a range of
public amenities that support municipal recreational and cultural objectives. City of Toronto
representatives will also be consulted to ensure that any financial implications tied to the
purchase agreements are defined and understooid by TRCA and its partners.
The Brock Lands Master Pilan will be completed in four phases. Phase One includes the
project start-up, committee establlsh�rinent, compiletion of a background report and the
development of management zones. Phase Two will include the completion of a site protection
and securement plan and the deveIlopment of property management recommendations. In
Phase Three, the public use and recreation plan, as well as the trail plan will be completed.
Phase Four will conclude with the completion of the final report which will include all plan
comments and recommendations, as well as implementation strategies, schedules and:
preliminary costs.
"hase One (May 2011 - September 2011)
complete background report;
0 establish internal and external committees;
I
determine draft management zones,,
0 establ!ish and circulate a study newsletter,
host one advisory committee meeting;
Oi host one public information sess,ion.
hase Two (October 2011 -January 2012)
complete site protection and securem�ent plan;
ei develop draft management recommendations;
0 host additional advisory committee meetings-,
ei circulate a study newsletter update.
71hase Three (February 2012 - June 2012)
0 develop recreation and public use concepts;
ei develop an overall draft trail plan for the property;
0 host additional advisory committee meetings;
0 host public meeting to review draft material;
ei finalize public use and recreation plan, trail plan and restoration plang,
ei circulate a study newsletter update.
!",hase; Four (July 2012 - December 21012)
develop an implementation plan with strategies, schedules and costsi;
write final plan and recommendations,
obtain partners and TRCA approval/endorsement of plan;
e circulate study newsletter;
0 establish public stewardship committee for imiplementation.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Confirmed 2011 funding revenues include $450,000 generated in tipping fees for, the import of
clean fill. Future revenues in the order of an addonal $4,50,000 at minimum per year over the
next three years are anticipated as additional fill and topsoil is received at the site to restore site
drainage, natural vegetation cover and landscape features damaged through previous land
uses. TRCA staff continue to pursue other potentia,l partnerships and seek avalla,bile funding
opportunities to advance implementation of work at this property.
TRCA staff estimate the total cost to implement TRCAs restoration plan at approximately $9
million in 2011 dollarsi. Staff'has prepared a five year workplan and cost estimate of $2 million
to implement TRCA's five priority sites as identified in the restoration plan. Funding is currently
avai:lable in account 109-701 to complete planning and initiate implementation of the restoration
plan in 2011.
Staff is also currently �preparing a two year workplan and cost estimate to develop the maste
plan for this property. Staff estimate the cost to prepare the master plan is approximately
$2001,000 over two yearsi. Account code 109-72 has been setup to fund the master plan. I
Neport prepared by: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296
Smaills: lstephensoin@trca.on.ca
7or Informatmion contact: Laura Stephenson, extension 529f
I
.r.7rnaills: 1stephenson@trca.on.ca
Lkate: June 8, 2011
all I
11A
Moved by: Michael Di Biasvi
Seconded by: Gay Coiwbourne
THAT Section lVitems AUTH8.2.1 & AUTH8.2.2 in regard to Watershed Committee Minutes, bs
received.
Section 11V Items AUTH8.2.1 & AUTH8.2.2
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #5/11, held on May 12, 2011
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE,
Minutes of Meeting #1held on February 11 1 201 ii
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX110.11 - EX10.126,i inclusive, contained in
Executive Committee Minutes #5/11 , held: on June 10, 2011 , be recei: ved.
CARR1ED
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:42 a.m., on Friday, June 24, 20111.
Gerri Lynn O"Connor
C hq- ir
/ks
n1w
Brian Denney
Secretary-Treasur!er
kk,
01FTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #7/11
July 29, 2011
The Authority Meeting #7/11, was held in the Weston Theatres, Black Creek Pioneer
Village, on Friday, July 29, 2011. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to
order at 9:35 a.m.
PRESENT
Maria Augimeri
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Vice Chair
David Barrow
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Bryan Bertie
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Laurie Bruce
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Vince Crisanti
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Glenn De Baeremaeker
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Michael Di Biase
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Chris Fonseca
10:15 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Pamela Gough
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Lois Griffin
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Jack Heath
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Colleen Jordan
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Chin Lee
9:35 a.m.
12:27 p.m.
Member
Gloria Lindsay Luby
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Glenn Mason
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Chair
Linda Pabst
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
John Parker
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Dave Ryan
1:00 P.M.
1:52 p.m.
Member
John Sprovieri
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Jim Tovey
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
Richard Whitehead
9:35 a.m.
1:52 p.m.
Member
ABSENT
Paul Ainslie
Member
Bob Callahan
Member
Gay Cowbourne
Member
Peter Milczyn
Member
Anthony Perruzza
Member
Gino Rosati
Member
RES.#A143/11 - MINUTES
Moved by: Linda Pabst
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #6/11, held on June 24, 2011, be approved.
CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
(a) A delegation by Ms. Patricia Pollack of 67 Valleycreek Drive, Brampton, in regard to item
AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area.
(b) A delegation by Mr. Peter VandenBurg of 84 Valleycreek Drive, Brampton, in regard to
item AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area.
(c) A delegation by Ms. Amy Cheng of 15 Upper Ridge Crescent, Brampton, in regard to
item AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area.
(d) A delegation by Mr. Tony Morraci of 38 Valleyside Trail, Brampton, in regard to item
AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area.
(e) A delegation by Mr. Dev Sharma of 48 Valleyside Trail, Brampton, in regard to item
AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area.
(f) A delegation by Mr. Joe Mota of 8 Valleyside Trail, Brampton, in regard to item AUTH7.1
- Claireville Conservation Area.
(g) A delegation by Mr. Bill Johnston of 10 Lynnvalley Crescent, Brampton, in regard to item
AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area..
(h) A delegation by Mr. Tushar Kumar of 49 Ballyshire Drive, Brampton, in regard to item
AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area.
(i) A delegation by Mr. Mike Mattos of 55 Cordella Avenue, Toronto, in regard to item
AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area.
(j) A delegation by Ms. Rosemary Keenan, Vice Chair, Sierra Club of Peel Region, in regard
to item AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area.
(k) A delegation by Mr. John Willetts, President, Friends of Claireville, in regard to item
AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area.
407
RES.#A144/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ADJOURNMENT
Linda Pabst
David Barrow
THAT Authority Meeting #7/11 adjourn at 12:00 p.m. for lunch.
RES.#A145/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
RECONVENE
Jack Heath
David Barrow
THAT Authority Meeting #7/11 reconvene at 12:27 p.m.
RES.#A146/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DELEGATIONS
John Sprovieri
Linda Pabst
THAT above -noted delegations (a) - (k) be heard and received.
CARRIED
CARRIED
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Heather Broadbent, Co -Chair, Humber Watershed Alliance Heritage
Subcommittee, and Susan Robertson, Project Manager, Watershed Planning, TRCA in
regard to item AUTH7.2 - Humber River Heritage Bridge Inventory.
(b) A presentation by Lisa Turnbull, Program Manager, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, in
regard to item AUTH7.3 - Measuring Success on the Oak Ridges Moraine..
RES.#A147/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
PRESENTATIONS
Pamela Gough
Lois Griffin
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
•
RES.#A148/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
PRESENTATIONS
Maria Augimeri
Pamela Gough
THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received.
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) An email dated July 7, 2011 from Ms. Audrey Partington of 32 Bonnieview Court,
Brampton, in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area.
(b) A letter dated July 18, 2011 from Her Worship Susan Fennell, Mayor, City of Brampton,
in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area.
(c) An email dated June 17, 2011 from Mr. Adnan Khan of 100 Valleycreek Drive, Brampton,
in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area..
(d) An email dated July 22, 2011 from Paul and Tuula Redditt of 7 Watchman Road,
Brampton, in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area.
(e) An email dated July 25, 2011 from Robert Tulley, in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Claireville
Conservation Area.
(f) An email string dated July 26, 2011 from Lynn Short, Past Chair, Claireville Stewardship
Committee, July 25, 2011 from Iain Craig, Chair, Humber Watershed Alliance, and July
24, 2011 from Mike Mattos of 55 Cordella Avenue, Toronto, in regard to item AUTH7.1 -
Claireville Conservation Area.
(g) A letter dated July 28, 2011 from Rita, Danny, Peter Petrunti of 86 Valleycreek Drive,
Brampton, and Irene, Leonardo Monopoli and family of 19 Upper Ridge Crescent in
regard to item AUTH7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area.
RES.#A149/11 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Pamela Gough
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
THAT above -noted correspondence (a) - (g) be received.
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE (A)
Audrey <>
07/07/2011 03:28 PM To kstranks@trca.on.ca
cc Winnie Cheng <>
Subject Claireville inter -regional trail
Hello Katlii-,
I just heard that the TRCA will be meeting to discuss and approve the plan for the Claireville inter -regional
trail at 9:30am on July 29th at Black Creek Pioneer Village. I would have liked to be at the meeting to
voice my concerns, however, I have a 1-1/2 year old son and hauling him to this meeting and having him
sit quietly through it is not possible. The prior meetings that took place in Brampton to discuss the trail
were in the evenings and my husband was able to attend on our behalf.
Instead, please accept this email as my say in the meeting.
We bought our property because of the natural beauty of the conservation land. It is upsetting that trails
may be put in at the cost of environmentally damaging one of the last, large ecologically diverse areas in
the city and surrounding areas. This conservation land is a refuge for these animals. I am not aware of
any area within a 30 minute radius which is as ecologically diverse and sensitive as this one with regards
to the total number and species of wildlife -- deer, coyotes, wild turkeys, etc. -- animals that would be
greatly affected by an increase in the number of people walking and cycling through their home.
Kathy, there are many other concerned residents that are not able to attend the meeting because they
have to work. Can they also email you to voice their opinion?
Regards,
Audrey Partington
32 Bonnieview Court,
Brampton, L6P 2G1,
410
CORRESPONDENCE (B)
The Corporation of the City of Brampton
Susan Fennell
Mayor
Monday. July 18. 2011
Torolito and Rezional Conservation Authority
5 " horeliam Drive
Downsvicw, Ontario
M32N IS4
Canada,
Attention: Gerri Lyun O'Connor. Chair
Members of the Board
ReLarclilla: Trail. Claireville Conservation Area
I amwflitM2 to tharlic you for dcfcrrl'lla this matter and tlicrcforc prcnidiiia additional tiluc ill
consideration of this sutiject.
It is my understanding that after the final p: oJun
ublic meeting n e 9 held to present the trail route
and address issues that residents were raising about the trail possibly causing safety aild Security
protilerin in the re,,idefitial area ad�jacent to Valley Creek Drive and Cottrelle BvId. the final
recommendation for the proposed trail route nortla of Queen Street will be presented to the Board
on July -29 asking, for approvalof the alignment and associated specificatioms. Furthermore, it is my
under"t,all dill,, the trail aIL-lillielit is the same as proposed illi May, with the addition of a. new 500 ill
-,pill, that aill end at Goreway Road to facilitate parkinIg and help keep re4ioljal fr(JIll PLnflljj�"
in the residential arcils. I understand arld Support tile Position of the TRCA staff in their proposal to
reduce the iw-icfth of X00 ill of trail from 3 miters wldc to 1.9 meters wide before it exits the Valley
to Valley Creek 131"I've to favour local users only.
T-Taving attended the fir,,t public meeting, and having had the opportunity to meet with the local
,area Councillor and IRC A staff. I aill llolk colifidelit that the recommendation for tile Claireville
path desiall. materials and alignment represciat the best option to achieve the trail installation. I
117 ould also like to express my thanks to you for your supportof using to '"nature first"' lens through
wvhicli to view decisions that ivill affect Claireville Conservation Area.
2 Wellington Street West, Brampton- Ontario L6Y 4F2 Tel (90'i) 874-2600 Fax: (9,05) 874-2620
Iyu.-W. cltlybra rilptell. oll.ca
411
I am grateful for the v7ork of your staff in their effcmts to reach out. to the residents near
time conse.rvation area and Farticularly those near,est to the proposed inter-regiolial trail I
renialnzrateful to ReZional Councillor Jolui Spro-vieri for his tireless work oil behalf of
Ilk constitucnts and the TRCA on this ni,atter.
Once a_caln. I tharIc you for the Opportunity for niore ti.nie to allow the City of Brampton.
your ovm TRCA staff and the Councillors to further engage the community While it
may have delayed the ultimate decision,. I feel it �u,7as impoilant in this case to elisure the
local residents fully understood the proJect and that the facts were. once agpin. clearly
presented and undti-stood by all.
sillcerely
Susan Fennell
N'layor
412
CORRESPONDENCE (C)
From: Adnan Khan
Sent: 2011/06/17 1:11 AM
To: Sprovieri, John Councillor
Subject: Re: Adnan Khan 100 Valleycreek dr.
Hey John, I was at the meeting tonight, but couldnt stay after to talk to you because of previous
engagements. Again I live at 100 Valleycreek dr. (right where the trail will be behind). I have to say the
meeting changed my mind about the trail. I was only initially told about the trail by the gentleman with the
mustache who was adamantly opposed to the trail. From his short visit, i didnt know all the info about the
trail, and I thought i would go right beside my backyard fence. I did not know it would be located on the
valley. I actually yearn to go into the valley much, and go there in the fall and spring when theres not so
much vegetation and sit by the river. I actually WANT the trail there now that I know where it will be. I
definitely dont see it as being a security risk now. I know there are kids who use the vista corners right at
the corner of valleycreek and the other ones on highvalley cir and upper ridge cres. I think maybe just a
simple patrol once a day at night by security IF there are more problems because of the trail.
So I am FOR the trail.
But i still think there are other REAL problems, one being the train whistle, two being the air traffic. its
always on and off, but when its on, its extremely bothersome and embarrassing when company is over. its
been like that since we moved in. Are there others with this same concern , or is it only me with this
problem?
anyways, nice seeing you guys tonight, and sorry we couldnt meet.
thanks,
Adnan
413
CORRESPONDENCE (D)
From: Tuula []
Sent: 2011/07/22 12:32 PM
To: Sprovieri, John Councillor; Gary Wilkins
Subject: Valleycreek Rd Claireville Valley Trail
Dear John and Gary,
There was a public meeting notice on Thursday June 16th that I was not able to attend, but I did
keep the notification of the meeting with the intention of contacting various people regarding
the Claireville Valley Trail.
I do live in the general area where the trail will be (Watchman Rd and Huntspoint) and my wife
and I have been waiting for nearly 6 years for some sort of trail system in this area. From
information I have gathered it is clear that we, the property owners in this area have already
paid for this improvement to our neighbourhood, but have nothing to show for it. As part of
the cost of our house, though the builder/developer we have already paid for these trails and
the money collected for these trails can only be used for these trails. We have been waiting a
long time to see any of the results of the money collected by the municipality for this purpose.
I understand that some people that back onto the Claireville conservation lands are concerned
about having a trail behind there land, but the fact is they do not own that land and the trail
was already planned before they moved in.
I have walked along the areas where those trails are proposed and in most cases they are a long
way from the houses, and in most cases it is a long steep slope up to the back of the houses.
The home owners that think (because there will be a trail back there) that some criminal
element are going to be climbing up those large hills to break into their homes and carry away
large stolen property back down those same steep hills is ridiculous. I've climbed those hills
while walking our dog, to access the observation points scattered around our neighbourhood,
and I can tell you most crooks would prefer to, and usually do just kick in the front door to
break into someone's house.
My work will prevent me from making it to the meeting that is scheduled on Friday July 29th,
but I would appreciate it if you would seriously consider this letter during any debate and be
assured that even though the people that want the trail are not as vocal as the ones against,
there are many more of us (especially if they have the real facts about this trail) and have been
waiting 6 years for something to be done about it.
414
In closing I would like to share the answer that I get from my wife when I ask her what she
misses most about the area in Brampton (Wexford & Kennedy Road) where we used to live.
Her answer is always "I miss the trails".
Paul & Tuula Redditt
7 Watchman Road
Brampton, Ont.
L6P 2E9
415
CORRESPONDENCE (E)
07/25/2011 03:56 PM To KStranks@TRCA.on.ca
cc Gary Wilkins, John Sprovieri
Subject Authority Board Meeting 7/11 - July 29, 2011
For: Gerri Lynn O'Connor, Chair TRCA Authority Board
RE: Inter Regional Trail Alignment, Authority Item 7.1
I wish to add my support and endorsement for the proposal to establish a portion of the Inter
Regional Trail System in the Claireville Conservation Area, which I understand will be
discussed at the upcoming meeting of the TRCA Board.
In recent years, as President of the Credit -Humber Branch of the Architectural Conservancy of
Ontario, and a Member of the Heritage Sub -Committee of the Humber Watershed Alliance, I
have been involved in sponsoring and conducting three heritage hikes in the Claireville
Conservation Area.
All three have been tremendously successful, as reports in the Brampton Guardian will attest,
and have attracted from 75 to 85 participants at each event. The last two were also listed as part
of the Ontario Heritage Trust's `Doors Open%Trails Open' Program.
One of the consistent problems we encountered in conducting hikes in the CCA was the lack of
an organised trail system, parking and sanitary facilities. It is for this reason that I lend my
wholehearted support and endorsement to the TRCA to proceed with its Inter Regional Trail
System. In addition, for the benefit of all those who wish to enjoy and participate in the historical
and natural beauty of the CCA it should be implemented at the earliest possible date.
Over the years, there have been some who were opposed to the CCA being accessible to the
public and wished to prevent hikes or entry of any kind. Curiously, those objecting seemed to be
people who were very familiar with the CCA and used it for their personal use and enjoyment
such as exercising their dogs, hiking, deer watching and other family outings. I have, and
continue to find this attitude very derisive and short-sighted since there has been a literal
explosion of population particularly in the vicinity of the north eastern section of the CCA.
People will continue to enter the land and without some form of planning and supervision to
protect the sensitive areas, heritage strictures and natural flora and fauna they will inadvertently
be depleted or destroyed.
It is for these reasons that I would encourage the TRCA to move ahead with their trail system
program with haste and purpose.
Yours Sincerely,
Robert B. Hulley
416
CORRESPONDENCE (F)
"Lynn Short" G'
07/26/2011 07:03 To Iain Craig, Mike Mattos, Alison Arshad, A Hazlett, Franka
AM Cautillo, Dianne Douglas, Gary Wilkins, Deb Schulte
cc
Subject RE: Claireville Trail
Well said, Iain!
There is a trail through the Humber Arboretum that allows bikes and walkers to travel alongside the
Humber River through the Humber Arboretum. Families and individuals bike, walk, jog and sightsee long
this trail. It is an asset to the community to have access to this beautiful area and people stay on the
trail.
I, too, walked the trail route back in the spring and I, too, am in favour of this trail through Claireville.
Sincerely,
Lynn Short
From: Iain Craig
Sent: 3uly-25-11 7:46 AM
To: Mike Mattos; Alison Arshad; Lynn Short; A Hazlett; Franka Cautillo; Dianne Douglas; Gary Wilkins;
Deb Schulte
Subject: Re: Claireville Trail
Hello Mike and members of the Claireville Sub -watershed Committee.
I went on the walk back in the Spring with Gary, John W, local politicians, concerned citizens
etc. I listened carefully to what would appear to be two sides - people in favour of a
multi-purpose trail, and people opposed to it. Both sides have convincing arguements. I
understand and appreciate the tenacity of the group that are opposed to the TRCA's
recommended route.
I have for a long time now felt that Claireville is a wonderfully diverse Conservation Area - an
area that belongs to the public, an area that can support public activities, and an area that can
maintain an extensive wildlife habitat. The public must have reasonable and safe access to
much of Claireville.
Years ago the TRCA came to Kleinburg to outline plans for a multi-purpose trail from Kleinburg
south to Boyd Park in Woodbridge. Naturally we were opposed to this proposal - we liked our
numerous trails that allowed people and dogs to venture into wildlife habitat areas. The
mulit-purpose trail has been in place now for at least 15 years, and it was the best thing that
could happen to this section of the East Humber River Valley. The old trails have grown over,
erosion problems on these old trails have been solved, wildlife habitats are not disturbed
because people and dogs on leashes stay on the multi-purpose trail. Thousands of people
annually walk on this trail because it is safe, clean and accessible. Most of these people would
never have ventured into the valley on the old trails. In otherwords, the multi-purpose trail has
allowed people to enjoy the valley. There have never been muggings or robberies on this trail.
There are bikers, but this has not been a problem. Keep in mind that studies have shown that a
bike, or a group of bikes, passing through a wildlife habitat, will create less of a disturbance than
walkers or hikers.
It is quite common to walk along the William Granger Greenway (the multi-purpose trail from
Kleinburg to Boyd) and see deer. Wildlife in the valley adjusts very quickly to the changes that a
multi-purpose trail will bring. Speaking of deer, I imagine the poaching might reduce if a
multi-purpose trail was in place.
417
I do not like the concept of crossing #7 at McVean, nor biking along McVean. I believe the
TRCA and the City of Brampton have done their homework, and I am in favour of the TRCA's
proposed route and the creation of the multi-purpose trail.
Iain.
From: Mike Mattos <>
To: Alison Arsha; Iain Craig; Lynn Short; A Hazlett; Franka Cautillo; Dianne Douglas
Sent: Sun, July 24, 20114:53:37 PM
Subject: Claireville Trail
I feel the present trail alignment is a bad design.
1. It needlessly destroys natural habitat and may become dangerous
bad sight lines in woods, assault risk )
2. It costs too much, up to a million dollars now
3. It makes a bike ride from Brampton to Humber College an endurance
event, up and down the valley twice, around and across the river twice. Also
multi -function trails are hazardous for pedestrians and bike riders .
Better a shorter straight line bike path on the McVean/Gorewood road
allowances plus a winding hiking trail in the valley.
Please let me know if you agree with my position, I may speak to the board
about it on Friday, given that the committee meetings were cancelled and we
cannot submit a committee report.
Mike Mattos
•
CORRESPONDENCE (G)
July 28, 2011
Mr. John Sprovieri
2260 Bovaird Drive.East a:aaiat :#202
Bra ii pto i, Oii tario
L,6.R 3J5
Dear Mr. Sprovieri and Fellow Council Members:
We have been residents of Valleycreek Estates for 6 years and we would like to express
our support for the trail in the Claireville Valley as we unequivocally feel that it will
further enhance the area and promote a healthy lifestyle. Many of the neighbours on
Valleycreek Drive support the creation of the Claireville trail and we want to ensure
that you have our full and unwavering support for such an amazing and worthwhile
initiative that will only enhance the area.
My family and I, along with many neighbours, applaud your involvement for the
development of the trail in the Claireville valley and I hope that you and the board
members continue to strive for excellence in promoting this trail as it will offer an
abundance of amenities to the Valleycreek residents and to the residents of Brampton as
a whole.
It is our opinion, that the proposed trail in the Claireville valley will offer protection,
enhancement and regeneration of natural resources on a continued basis and it also
promotes healthy living by offering pedestrian walkways, bike trails etc.
This proposed trail has been planned out with due diligence and it undoubtedly, will
promote good land management practices. It will also offer recreational opportunities
to the residents of Brampton, promoting a healthy lifestyle as the open space, forest
lands and the Conservation Areas will promote wellness and good living.
I agree with the platform in educating the residents of this initiative, I applaud you for
the Conservation education programs and your continuing efforts to provide education
to the community members and our stakeholders.
The trail impact will not impact the interior forest habitat and we wanted to convey that
the plan has been executed properly ensuring that the habitat, vegetation and natural is
not negatively impacted.
419
This has been clearly illustrated in the maps we have reviewed on the TRCA website.
In summary, my family applauds the creation and the effective management of the trail
in the Claireville Valley as it will continue to ensure that:
The Claireoille Corisero«tiori Arca is treated as «ri Urban Forest;
We believe that the TRCA ensures the iritegr«tiori of Claireoille into the enviroriifient«l,
social «rid cultural fabric of the City of Br«ifiptori - this has been clearly
illustrated;
We applaut] the TRCA for creating a strategic vision anrd iriissiorr'iii partnership zoith the
City of Brzririptorr as it reflects the needs zzrrd wzzrrts of the residents of Brzririptorr.
We f filly support the crezztiorr, deoelopiuent zzrrd errluzrrccirient of the trail irr the
ClaireoillcXalleycreek zzrezz as it also ensures Mat the interests of the residents are tzzkerr
into zzccouiff, zzrrd we are confident Mat the frzririework luzs beery done zoith the utirrost
care to ensure successful coiripletiorr of this proposed trail.
The residents of Valleycreek Estates support the development of the trail in the
Claireville area and we are very satisfied with your commitment to keep the
community engaged in a worthwhile initiative that will only better the area. We believe
the creation of this trail will restore and enhance the environmental sustainability of the
local and regional ecosystem and it will not compromise it, in fact, it will enhance the
area.
The development and land use activities, specifically the development of this trail, will
affect the ecological health and diversity of Claireville's natural heritage system. This
has been taken into consideration already and there is no negative impact at all. This
must be emphasized to any member that opposes the trail.
The residents of Valleycreek Estates and my family also support the Pathways
Campaigns in Brampton as it ensures customer -driven pathways, a commitment to
beautiful pathways and a campaign for valued pathways encouraging pathway use and
educating pathway users about proper trail etiquette. We also applaud you for
promoting stewardship and fostering positive partnerships within our Community and
with the TRCA.
You been a supporter of the residents of Valleycreek and we cannot reiterate how much
we stand behind the City of Brampton and Council members for the development and
creation of the trail in the Claireville area.
420
If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact Danny, Rita or
Peter Petrunti at (905) 913-2285 who reside at 86 Valleycreek Drive. You may also
contact Irene and Leonardo Monopoli from 19 Upper Ridge Crescent.
You may reach me at (905) 794 7578 or on my cellular phone at (416) 996 5772.
Please also ensure that we are notified of the next meeting so that we can attend in
person to give our unwavering support to the development of the trail in the Claireville
area.
Sincerely,
Rita, Danny, Peter Petrunti
86 Valleycreek Drive,
Brampton, Ontario
L6P 2C9
Tel: (905) 913-2285
Irene, Leonardo Monopoli and family
19 Upper Ridge Crescent
Brampton, Ontario
Tel: (905) 794-7578, Cell Phone: (416) 996-5772
421
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#A150/11 - CLAIREVILLE CONSERVATION AREA
Inter -Regional Trail Alignment. Report on the site visit held on Saturday,
April 30, 2011 and Public Meeting on Thursday, June 9, 2011.
Moved by: John Sprovieri
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to proceed
with the construction of the inter -regional trail in accordance with the approved Claireville
Conservation Area Management Plan and identified as TRCA's preferred alignment in the
drawing included as Attachment 1, dated July 19, 2011;
THAT the construction of the trail be subject to the availability of funding from the City of
Brampton;
THAT TRCA staff maximize environmental enhancements such as forest establishment,
meadow protection, streambank planting, wetland creation and interpretive signs in
association with the trail construction to improve public awareness and the overall health
and diversity of the property;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action is
necessary to implement the trail construction including obtaining necessary approvals
and the signing and execution of documents.
AMENDMENT
RES.#A151 /11
Moved by: Lois Griffin
Seconded by: Bryan Bertie
THAT the following be inserted before the last paragraph of the main motion:
THAT staff investigate with stakeholders other appropriate secondary walking trails that
will link to neighbouring residential areas (i.e. Dunegrass Gate and McVean Drive) and
points of interest within the Claireville Conservation Area;
RECORDED VOTE
Maria Augimeri
Yea
David Barrow
Yea
Bryan Bertie
Yea
Laurie Bruce
Yea
Vince Crisanti
Yea
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Yea
Michael Di Biase
Yea
Chris Fonseca
Yea
422
RECORDED VOTE Cont'd
Pamela Gough
Yea
Lois Griffin
Yea
Jack Heath
Yea
Colleen Jordan
Yea
Gloria Lindsay Luby
Yea
Glenn Mason
Yea
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Yea
Linda Pabst
Yea
John Parker
Yea
Dave Ryan
Yea
John Sprovieri
Yea
Jim Tovey
Yea
Richard Whitehead
Yea
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED
THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS:
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to proceed
with the construction of the inter -regional trail in accordance with the approved Claireville
Conservation Area Management Plan and identified as TRCA's preferred alignment in the
drawing included as Attachment 1, dated July 19, 2011;
THAT the construction of the trail be subject to the availability of funding from the City of
Brampton;
THAT TRCA staff maximize environmental enhancements such as forest establishment,
meadow protection, streambank planting, wetland creation and interpretive signs in
association with the trail construction to improve public awareness and the overall health
and diversity of the property;
THAT staff investigate with stakeholders other appropriate secondary walking trails that
will link to neighbouring residential areas (i.e. Dunegrass Gate and McVean Drive) and
points of interest within the Claireville Conservation Area;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action is
necessary to implement the trail construction including obtaining necessary approvals
and the signing and execution of documents.
BACKGROUND
On March 25, 2011, TRCA staff provided a report and presentation to the Authority regarding
the updates to the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan. The new management plan
included a preferred alignment for the inter -regional trail which links the City of Toronto trail
system to the City of Brampton and ultimately, to the Town of Caledon. The proposed
inter -regional trail alignment was also included in the City of Brampton Trail Master Plan which
followed a thorough public consultation process. A conceptual location of the inter -regional trail
north of the Claireville Conservation Area is illustrated in Attachment 2.
423
The proposed inter -regional trail is three metres wide with a crushed limestone tread. This
construction detail is considered an appropriate dimension that permits quiet enjoyment by the
public, minimizes user conflicts, provides access for emergency services, if needed, reduces
personal liability and avoids costly upgrades and maintenance by having to increase the size of
the trail as more people discover and want to access public land. It is generally agreed that a
properly sized and sited trail will lead users in an orderly and respectful fashion through a
property; hence contributing to the protection of its natural features and functions.
TRCA staff has done a thorough assessment of the inter -regional trail alignment alternatives.
Primary considerations are as follows:
• terrestrial and aquatic species and habitats;
• human heritage resources;
• floodlines;
• topography;
• user experience;
• adjacent land uses;
• safety;
• site disturbance;
• costs;
• restoration opportunities.
TRCA and City of Brampton staff support the inter -regional trail alignment as illustrated on
Attachment 1. Neither agency note any concerns that would compromise the existing or
potential quality of the property.
Two delegations were heard by the Authority on March 25, 2011 questioning the need, route
and width of the inter -regional trail north of Queen Street.
At Authority Meeting #3/11, held on March 25, 2011, Resolution #A47/11 was approved, in
part, as follows:
THAT the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan, dated March 2011, including
updates described herein, be approved;...
...AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff continue to work with local community groups on trail
options for the alignment in the vicinity of Queen Street and staff invite Authority members
to attend a site visit.
On April 30, 2011, TRCA and the City of Brampton hosted a site visit to discuss concerns and
alternate trail alignments. All TRCA board members were invited. Attendees included:
• 11 local residents;
• John Willetts, Friends of Claireville;
• Peter Orphanos, Sierra Club of Peel Region;
• Iain Craig, Humber Watershed Alliance;
• three TRCA staff;
• three City of Brampton staff;
424
• John Sprovieri, Regional Councillor and TRCA board member;
• Lois Griffin, TRCA board member.
There were opinions expressed both in favour and opposing the proposed inter -regional trail
alignment. The main environmental concerns expressed by individuals opposed to the trail
alignment were the removal of trees and the bridge crossing over the West Humber River. The
trail can avoid most trees because they are scattered and few in number. The number of trees
to be removed is small and are mostly hawthorn, apple, common buckthorn, shrub willow and
Manitoba maple. These species are not of conservation concern. Buckthorn is an invasive
non-native species and Manitoba maple is considered an undesirable invasive species, and as
such, the best management practice is to remove both species. The trail plan also proposes
additional planting of trees and shrubs indigenous to the site, as part of the restoration work
following the trail implementation. Promoting public trails at Claireville requires serious
consideration be given to personal safety as well. The location of the bridge crossing was
pointed out on the site visit. The bridge location was chosen because it involved very little
impact on vegetation and aquatic habitat. An engineering study will be completed to select the
exact river crossing based on flow, erosion potential, access, slopes, soil conditions, flood
depths and width of floodplain. A technical consulting team will be hired to look at the site
conditions and confirm the exact location of the bridge crossing.
Mr. John Willetts, proposed three trail alternatives north of Queen Street as follows (see
Attachment 1).
1. No inter -regional trail north of Queen Street. Visitors can use a primitive foot path in the
valley (0.5m wide, earth tread).
2. Extend the inter -regional trail north of Queen Street using the stop light to cross eight lanes
of traffic, then use the sidewalk next to the four -lane McVean Drive for several kilometres
before entering the Claireville property adjacent to a new subdivision.
3. Route the inter -regional trail from the Queen Street bridge, across open fields and
TRCA-owned land rented for farm use, north along TRCA land adjacent to McVean Drive,
adjacent to a residential subdivision and through the McVean farm again, back to the valley
to join the trail alignment in the valley.
Option 1 does not meet the TRCA and City of Brampton objective for an uninterrupted
inter -regional trail linking the City of Toronto to the City of Brampton and, eventually, the Town
of Caledon.
Option 2 introduces unnecessary safety risks and an unpleasant trail experience by having to
follow the sidewalk adjacent to McVean Drive. Experience shows that people resist walking
adjacent to busy highways.
Option 3 encroaches on sensitive habitats; requires a bridge crossing where the West Humber
River's floodplain width and height of banks make it impractical for a bridge; requires a second
bridge introducing more cost; encroaches on an existing farm operation; increases the risk of
vandalism and theft at the farm; increases the cost of the project due to a longer trail length;
and introduces conflicts with the adjacent residential area.
425
On May 27, 2011 the Authority deferred the decision on the inter -regional trail alignment at the
request of the Mayor of Brampton and Councillor John Sprovieri. More time was being sought
to address concerns that the trail might introduce more theft and safety problems to the nearby
neighbourhood. Some residents also felt that exiting the inter -regional trail in the Valleycreek
subdivision may attract more traffic and unauthorized parking on local streets.
On June 16, 2011 a public meeting was hosted by TRCA and the City of Brampton.
Approximately 100 residents attended in addition to the Mayor of Brampton, Councillor
Sprovieri and Councillor Dhillon. The trail alignment and design specifications were described
to those in attendance. Crime statistics were not available from Peel Regional Police. However,
in a telephone conversation, it was the opinion of crime prevention police officers that the trail
being proposed would not directly contribute to increased crime rates in the surrounding
residential areas. Crime statistic maps provided by Toronto Police Services for the Jane/Finch
community were illustrated. They also did not show any correlation between public trails in
valleyland and the incidence of crime close to valleyland trails.The strongest opposition to the
inter -regional trail was from approximately ten homeowners whose properties back onto TRCA
land.
After listening to the comments provided by those who attended the public meeting, several
changes to the original inter -regional trail alignment are recommended. Firstly, the width of the
trail for 630 m before exiting at Valleycreek Drive be narrowed from 3 m wide to 1.8 m wide.
Granular limestone or wood chips will be used on the tread surface. Reducing the trail width at
this location will help facilitate an access point that caters to the local community. Secondly, a
new 540 m segment of trail will cross the river and end at a trailhead and parking area along
Goreway Drive. This access point will favour regional users and help prevent people from out of
the area from parking on local streets to access the trail. These trail segments are illustrated on
Attachment 1.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The City of Brampton has approved a capital budget to fund the construction of the
inter -regional trail north of Queen Street. The estimated cost for three kilometres of trail and two
bridges is $1.5 million.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Include the inter -regional trail alignment, as illustrated in Attachment 1, in the approved
Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan dated March 2011.
• TRCA and City of Brampton staff to finalize construction details and obtain all necessary
permits.
• TRCA and City of Brampton enter a memorandum of understanding whereby Brampton will
pay for the trail construction and its long term maintenance, and TRCA will manage the
day-to-day construction of the work.
426
• Staff will investigate with stakeholders other appropriate secondary walking trails that will
link to neighbouring residential areas (i.e. Dunegrass Gate and McVean Drive) and points of
interest within the Claireville Conservation Area.
Report prepared by: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Emails: gwilkins@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Emails: gwilkins@trca.on.ca
Date: July 10, 2011
Attachments: 2
427
Attachment 1
I �
•
Attachment 2
429
RES.#A152/11 - HUMBER RIVER HERITAGE BRIDGE INVENTORY
To present the final results of the Humber River Heritage Bridge
Inventory. Copies of the entire report will be available at the meeting.
Moved by: Pamela Gough
Seconded by: Lois Griffin
WHEREAS the Humber River was designated a Canadian Heritage River in 1999 based on
its outstanding human heritage and recreational values;
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) identifies, documents,
protects and celebrates the diverse heritage resources of the Humber River watershed;
WHEREAS the Humber Watershed Alliance Heritage Sub -Committee (HSC) has the
expertise for identifying and promoting heritage values along the Humber River
watershed in partnership with municipalities and other stakeholders;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Humber River Heritage Bridge Inventory
(HRBI) report be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT the HRHBI report be sent to the municipal heritage departments
within the Humber River watershed to guide them towards the preservation and
protection of the remaining heritage bridge structures along the Humber.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Spanning waterways from headwaters to mouth, heritage bridges in the Humber watershed
have played a fundamental role in the development of Canada. By connecting communities
and their economies, they have promoted growth and progress throughout the ages. Serving
as definitive community landmarks and contributing to our cultural character, heritage bridges
link us to our shared past.
The proposal to conduct the Humber River Bridge Inventory came from the Heritage
Sub -Committee of the Humber Watershed Alliance in 2008. The goal of this study is to promote
the Humber's Canadian Heritage River designation with its associated heritage and recreational
values; to guide the listing or designation of heritage bridges by local municipalities under the
Ontario Heritage Act; and to educate and raise public awareness of these unique features
through heritage tourism and conservation planning. Members of the Humber Heritage
Sub -Committee include:
• Heather Broadbent, Co -Chair: Long time Caledon resident and member of the Humber
Watershed Alliance. She is the former Heritage Resource Officer for the Town of Caledon.
• Madeleine McDowell, Co -Chair: Toronto historian, heritage advocate and long-standing
member of the Humber Watershed Alliance. She is active with Heritage York, the West
Toronto Junction Historical Society and the Etobicoke York Community Heritage
Preservation Panel.
430
• Mary Louise Ashbourne: Lifelong resident of the former Town of Weston. Currently
President of the Weston Historical Society and Chair, Etobicoke York Community Heritage
Preservation Panel, and member of Heritage York.
• Roger Dorton: Professional engineer with 50 years of experience in bridge engineering and
in the fields of planning, design, research, evaluation, rehabilitation and code writing, across
Canada. He has a PhD in engineering and, in 2004, received membership in the Order of
Canada. Dr. Dorton acts as an expert advisor and consultant to the Heritage Subcommittee
through his association with the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario.
• Bert Duclos: Heritage Outreach Consultant at the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture
responsible for providing advice to municipal heritage committees. He is a past member on
the Board of Directors of the King Township Historical Society and the King Township
Museum Board of Management.
• Robert (Bob) Hulley: Former member of the Brampton Heritage Board and former President
of Credit -Humber Watershed Branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO). He
is presently Agent to the ACO Board of Directors for special projects. Mr. Hulley originally
proposed and continues to mentor the bridge inventory program for the Humber River
watershed.
• Lisette Mallet: An active member of La Societe d'histoire de Toronto since 1992. She is
currently its coordinator responsible for raising awareness about Toronto's history. This role,
amongst other things, has enabled her to work at the creation of a historical park along the
Humber River.
• Janet Berton: Editor and wife of the late Pierre Berton.
• Susan Robertson: Humber Watershed Project Planner who provided project management
and coordination.
Copies of the Humber River Heritage Bridge Inventory Report will be available at the meeting.
Methodology
The methodology of the Humber River Bridge Inventory (HRHBI) contains three -phases:
1. quantitative primary data collection;
2. qualitative secondary data collection;
3. data analysis and review;
4. identification of bridges with heritage values.
In Stage 1, all of the identified 1,250 watercourse crossings or potential heritage bridge
locations were site assessed through on-site inspection. While it seemed likely that the majority
of the sites would be culverts, the HSC wanted to ensure that no potential heritage bridge
would be overlooked. Upon completion of initial site assessments for the 1,250 potential
heritage bridges sites, 340 sites (27.2%) could not be assessed for the following reasons:
• 158 sites (46.5%) were located on private property for which permission to enter had not
been obtained for assessment of the structure;
• 146 sites (43%) were inaccessible due to construction, weather or were located on or near a
highway making it too dangerous to investigate;
• 36 sites (10%) did not contain any visible watercourse crossing.
431
In order to reduce the number of inaccessible sites from the data set, a second site visit was
conducted to the 36 sites that did not contain any visible watercourse crossing as well as the
146 inaccessible sites, after collecting additional information. Finally, a landowner contact
program was initiated to gain permission to enter for the 158 sites situated on private property.
In total, upon completion of Stage 1, 63% of the sites were in fact culverts, 31 % were bridges of
various types (Attachment 2) and 6% were not found.
In Stage 2, HSC members approached municipal heritage committees for information related to
potential heritage bridge sites, municipal reports and documentation including historical
photos. Delegations were conducted to all the active municipal heritage committees within the
Humber River watershed, including: Toronto, Vaughan, King, Caledon, and Brampton and were
well received with unanimous support. However, the majority of committees were unable to
assist with identifying new potential heritage bridge sites. It was at this stage that the local
expertise, knowledge and community networks of HSC members were called upon. Through
contacting colleagues and following potential leads, HSC members conducted several
additional site visits to properties were heritage bridges were believed to be located and
discovered an additional eight heritage bridges, all of which made the final list of heritage
bridges in the Humber.
Upon completion of Stages 1 and 2, there are 33 bridges that cross a watercourse in the
Humber watershed that are considered to heritage values. They are listed in Attachment 1 by
municipality. Examples of the different bridge designs are illustrated in Attachment 2.
In Stage 3, the identified list of 33 heritage bridges generated from Stages 1 & 2 were evaluated
by criteria adapted from Ontario Regulation 9/06:
1) Design/Physical Value
I. It is rare, unique, or representative of an early example of a style, type
expression, material or construction method.
II. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit.
III. Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
2) Historic/Associative Value
I. Has direct association with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization,
or institution that is significant to the community.
II. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an
understanding of the community or culture.
III. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an engineer, builder, or designer
who is significant to the nation or community.
3) Contextual Value
I. Is important in defining or supporting the character of the area.
II. Is physically or historically linked to its surroundings.
III. Is a landmark.
432
The evaluation of each of the 33 identified heritage bridges, based on the above criteria, are
referenced in the final report via a checklist. The expertise of the HSC members was utilized in
determining which of the above criteria applied, with some bridges scoring high in all
categories and others with only a few areas of distinction. The scoring methodology is simply
meant to act as a guide for municipalities and heritage groups interested in pursuing heritage
designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The HRHBI report will be made available at the
meeting.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The majority of support for this initiative came through in-kind contributions from the Heritage
Sub -Committee volunteer members. Provincial funding permitted the hiring of three seasonal
university students who assisted with site assessments and data compilation. In total, with
minimal expenditure for seasonal hiring, editing and printing, the budget for this project came
to approximately $15,000.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Present the results of the HRHBI to watershed municipalities.
• Encourage municipalities to continue to further evaluate the bridges of heritage significance
identified in their jurisdiction and pursue, where possible, official recognition and protection
under Section 27 and/or Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, or other legislation
that may apply. The heritage designation application must originate from the municipality in
which the bridge is located. Municipal designation would not apply to federal or provincial
crown properties as well as active railway bridges regulated under the Canada
Transportation Act. Nevertheless, these bridges should be listed as cultural heritage
properties of interest on their respective municipal registers and representations to the
railways or provincial authorities involved should be undertaken where appropriate to
encourage their preservation.
• Develop an interactive GIS map indicating the 33 bridges of heritage significance along the
Humber with corresponding evaluation material and photos available to encourage public
education and heritage awareness for the watershed. This map could be linked to other
forms of social media through community partners thereby providing a forum for heritage
conservation.
• Locate interpretive signage at each bridge of heritage significance to increase heritage
awareness for tourists, trail users and the general public.
• Distribute the HRHBI report to individuals or groups interested in heritage protection within
the watershed for capacity building and potential partnership development.
• Create a walking program, with pamphlets and with podcasts related to each bridge of
heritage significance where situated on public lands.
Report prepared by: Susan Robertson, extension 5325
Email: srobertson@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Susan Robertson, extension 5325
Email: srobertson@trca.on.ca
Date: May 16, 2010
Attachments: 2
433
F,NtaChmeii J 11,111i II
City of Toronto
IMap & y NamoorstrooINloarest Major orita
Photo 111) * ctLocation Typo ofStru Matoriallatorsoction Statu
s
434
Humber
Palace Pier Ct
TO I
Toronto (TI)
Ri'vef Bi(.-p.I,e-
Dou ble-ri bbed Arcli
Steel
and Lakeshore
Pedestrian
steel Br[clge
Blvd
Bridge (1996)
Lakediore CNIR
Uniform, depth, ph"
Toronto
Bridge (19111),
girders ra,illwaiy steel
Palace Pier Ct
T02
(T2B)
Ad acentiBiridge
bridge with, concrete
Steel, concrete
aindi Lakesliore
Abutments �Ciircai
I
founclIation
1890)
Moor St West
Deck steel truss arch
Moor St West
T03
Toronto (T3)
Br[clge (19.2 6)
biicl,ge
Steel
and Huml:ef
Ri'vef
Old Kill Subway
Uniform, depth,
Bloor Stalest
T04
Toronto
Station Bridge
Concrete bI bridge
Concrete
aindi Humber
(11968)
River
Old Mill Bridge
Concrete triple arcli
Catherine St and
Designated
T05
Toronto II
(1916)
bAd,ge
Concrete
Old Mill
under O.H A.
Lambton
Dundas St West
MililIs Bridge
TO
Toronto
Abutmentw circa
Concrete abutments
Concrete
aindi Old Duinclas
St
1880)
Lambton, Br[clgel
Pre -stressed concrete
uniform depth beams
Dunclas Street
T07
Toronto
Dunclas Street
with reinforced
Concrete
West
Br[clge (19.2 9)
concrete piers
Old Guelph
Concrete fiootings fiar
Humber I
Raclail Une
former raillway steel
aindi II St
T08
Toronto
pylon suppoit towers
Concrete
Bridge TI
supporting(modern
West (Laimbton,
Footings (11917)
Pedestrian bridge
Park)
Uniform depth plate
Humber River
T09
Toronto J1.2)
Lambton, CPR
girders railway bridge
Concrete, steel
and Dundas St
Br[clge (1874)
with concretelstone
West (Lamblon
Piers
Park)
Uniform, depth, ph"
1fO110
Toronto (T29)
Weston CNIR
girders ra,illwaiy steel
Steetconcrete
Weston Rd aindi
lBridge (1850
bridge with, concrete/
St. Phillips Rd
stone piers
TOO I
Toronto
Musson Bridge
Iron truss bAdge
Iron
Weston Road
(circa 1910)
and Albion Road
434
City of Brampton
bag
11 MiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Uniform depth plate
BRI
Brampton (B.2)
Indian Line CNR
gi rders ra ilway steel
Steel
Regional lid 50
Unifbnn depth plate
Bflcl,ge ( 1965)
Uidge with concrete
'Vaughan (V'l 54)
Y0,rk CCR Bridge
and Steeles Ave
Steel, concrete
[slington and
priers
(1962)
M,
bridge th concrete
Hwy 407
Willey Bridge
Goncrete bowstrling(
piers
a
Gonserydon Rd
IBR2
Brampton (136)Goncirete
(1924)
arch, bridge
Gorewoodi Dr
Listed
Vaulglian, V200)
Yo,rkCPR Bridge
girders raillway steell
Steell, concrete
Ildington, andi
and Steeles Ave
�circai 1910)
bridge With concreteHwy
Cou ntrysucle Dr
Uniform depth
Cou ntrysi�cle Dr
8R3
Brampton (1341)
Bflcl,ge
concrete slab, metal rail
Concrete
and Airport Rd
Langstaff Rd and
bridge
Vaughan ll
Langstaff Bfldge
Concrete lxbwstrung
Concrete
City of Vaughan
11 MiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Unifbnn depth plate
VAI
'Vaughan (V'l 54)
Y0,rk CCR Bridge
girders rai I,way steel
Steel, concrete
[slington and
(1962)
M,
bridge th concrete
Hwy 407
piers
Uniform depth plate
VA2
Vaulglian, V200)
Yo,rkCPR Bridge
girders raillway steell
Steell, concrete
Ildington, andi
�circai 1910)
bridge With concreteHwy
4,07
pliers
Langstaff Rd and
VA3
Vaughan ll
Langstaff Bfldge
Concrete lxbwstrung
Concrete
Islington Ave.
Listed
arch bridge
HumberValley
Heritage Tail..
YIrl iReglionial Rd
Old Major
C clncn� bowstring(
27 and Humber
V
Vaulglian, V46)
Mackenzie Drairc�hb6dge
,
Concjn�
Nidge Trailli Rd.,
Listed
Nidge �119114)
HuniberValliley
Heritage Traill
Kirby Rd
Huntington Rd
VA5
Vaughan ll
(McEwen) Bridge
Concrete bowstring
Concrete
and Kirby Rd.
Listed
(1923)
arch bridge
HumberValley
Heritage Tail..
Hunflingwn, Rd
Reinforced concne
HL'Infington, Rd
VA6
Vaulglian, V66)
Nidge
rilgilid frainrie, metal
Concrete, Meta, 11
and Kirby Rd
bridge raill
'Vaughan
King -Vaughan
Varila He depth
King -Vaughan
VA7
l
Vl
Rd Bfldge
reinforced concrete
Concrete
Rd and Kipling
arch
Ave
435
Town of Caledon
436
Sneatli Rd and
Designated
CAI
Ca leclon (C 147)Steel
Sneath Rd
Bridge (1915)
truss bridge
Steel
Old King St,
under
Bolton,
OHk
Hickman St andi
CA2
Caledon, K1611)
Hickman, St
Reinforced concrete
Concrete
Qasgow Rd
Bridge
rigid frame bridge
Bolton
Steel truss bridge on
Glasgow Rd and
CA3
Caleclon
Abutments of
Old l3ick's Dam
concrete abutments cf
Conciete, Steel
Deer Valley Dr,
old Dick's Darn
Bolton
Qasgow Rd
Designatedi
CA4
Caledon, K167)
Gliaisgow Rd
Bridge (11915)
Steell truss bridge
Steell
and Hickmain St,
Linder
Bolton
O.)H A.,
Abutments of
CA5
C a led o n ( C 17 1
CAd Duffys Lane
Concr�ete a butments of
Conciete
Duffys Lane
Bridge
old bridge
Abutments >f
CAA
Caled6n,
old Castliederg
Concrete abutments of
Concirm--te
Castlederg Rd
Rdi Bridge
old bridge
Nli III Lane and
CA7
Caledion (C.277)
H(xkl,e,y Mill
Reinf6rced concrete
Concrete
H umber Station
Bridge
fig id frame biid,ge
Rd,Caledion
Buried wooden, raillway
Regionall Rdi 50
CA8
Called6n,
Cediar Mills CIPR
trestle bridge (with,
we dl
and Old Cliurch,
BuflediTrestlie
steell culvert)
Rd
CA9
Caledion
Craib Bridge
Steel truss bridge
',Steel
Old Chinch and
,,aunt Pleasant
Called6nilira ilway
Duffy's Lane an dl
...Desi gnatedi
CAlo
Called6n,
Ea,st Culivert
Railway stone culvert
Stone
Patterson Sdrdiunder
feastihalf Lot 6.
18 89)
one.5)
O.)Hk
Ca ledion Tra ilway
Duffy's Lane and
Designated
CAI I
Caledion
- West C Li Ive rt
Railway stone culvert
Stone
Pattemn Sdrd
under
('1889)
(west half Lot .26,
OHk
Con,c,6)
Variable depth concrete
Finnerty Sdrdi
CA112
CaliedbniX3011)
Fininerty
idler a�dl Bridge
figid frame bridge,
Concim-teimetall
and Regilonall
metall raill
Rd 50
436
Attachment 2: Image Examples of Watershed Crossings in the inventory
437
Stone abutments
%
J 1J111J%
Concrete -underairch bridge
Wooden bTidge
/
Concrete -overairch, bridge
u.
%1
depth, beam, bridge,
;► M - m ;1 iv -
concreteUniform,
or steel
Railway steel girder d g .,
Steel 1poiny truiss arch, brIdge
437
RES.#A153/11 - MEASURING SUCCESS ON THE OAK RIDGES MORAINE
Highlights of eight reports prepared by the Oak Ridges Moraine
Foundation.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Pamela Gough
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) congratulate the Oak Ridges
Moraine Foundation (ORMF) for undertaking the "Measuring Success" reports;
THAT the ORMF's request to the Province of Ontario for a recapitalization of $11 million
for the continuation of land stewardship and restoration, land securement, policy
development and monitoring, and education and outreach programs on the Oak Ridges
Moraine be supported by TRCA;
THAT the continued work of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition as one of
ORMF's partners in preparing for the 2015 review of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan by supported by TRCA;
AND FURTHER THAT this report be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario, the Ministers of
Correctional Services and Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the leaders of the other
provincial parties, for their consideration of a funding commitment to the ORMF during
the upcoming provincial election, as well as to the ORMF, Conservation Ontario and the
General Managers/CAOs of the members of the Conservation Authorities Moraine
Coalition.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan was enacted by the Province in April 2002. The
Province also created the ORMF in the same year and endowed it with $15 million to fund
environmental initiatives on the ORM. The granting criteria of the ORMF leveraged additional
funds by requiring a 2 to 1 partner contribution to ORMF grant, resulting in more than $50
million spent on environmental projects on the ORM from 2002 to 2010. The Conservation
Foundation of Greater Toronto has been a major recipient of grants from the ORMF to fund
land securement, stewardship, research, education and outreach projects on the ORM in the
headwaters of the Duffins Creek, Humber, Don and Rouge rivers watersheds. Currently the
ORMF has only sufficient funds from their original provincial grant to continue their operations
until the end of 2012. Consequently, the ORMF has changed their priorities from being a
funding partner to the projects of external organizations to undertaking their own studies to
help partners prepare for the provincially mandated review of the ORM Conservation Plan in
2015. This report provides a summary of those studies and provides the context for the
presentation by Ms. Lisa Turnbull, Program Manager, of the ORMF.
•
Measuring Success on the Oak Ridges Moraine
A series of eight reports were prepared by the ORMF and Enviroscape Consulting, as directed
by a steering committee of ORMF partners, including TRCA staff representing the nine ORM
conservation authorities of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition. The purpose of the
reports was to document successes and deficiencies in the implementation of the ORM
Conservation Plan (ORMCP), as well as of the ORM Foundation itself. It is important to note that
when the ORMCP was passed in 2002 a baseline of ecological health was not
available/established. The ecological -based reports of Measuring Success attempt to do this by
utilizing readily available data sets to establish indicators that can be further refined in the
future.The reports are also intended to assess and develop indicators for measuring ORMCP
implementation as part of the 2015 provincial review of the Plan and identify opportunities for
future improvement to the Plan and the ecological health of the moraine. The key findings of
each report are highlighted below and the full reports are available at the ORMF's website:
www.ormf.com.
1) Assessing the Health of the ORM within a Watershed Context
The nine members of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition played a major role in this
report by providing watershed data and input to defining the most useful indicators to measure
the ecological and hydrological health of the ORM. Key findings were that the amount and
distribution of natural terrestrial cover on the ORM is generally good, but restoration is needed
for under -represented habitat types such as forest interior, wetlands and prairie/grasslands.
Some portions of most streams on the ORM are in a degraded state and require restoration of
riparian lands to improve water quality and the health of aquatic plant, animal and fish
communities. 21 potential terrestrial, hydrological and monitoring indicators and performance
targets have been identified as being commonly collected data. However, further funding is
required to ensure consistent data collection protocols are implemented and the number of
monitoring stations expanded to ensure adequate and representative coverage across all parts
of the moraine.
2) An Assessment of Stakeholder Awareness, Support and Concerns for the
Implementation of the ORMCP
This report summarizes the results from a series of interviews and workshops held with
stakeholders such as municipalities, conservation authorities, provincial ministries and
non-governmental organizations (NGO) that have an interest in ORMCP implementation.
Generally, there was found to be a high level of awareness of and support for the ORMCP, but
also a number of areas where policy revisions would make the Plan more effective. Many
respondents felt the ORMF provided a positive contribution to the moraine, but could do a
better job of promoting its achievements.
3) Assessing the Health of the ORM in a Landscape and Municipal Context
This report is similar to the first report described above except that it measures the ecological,
hydrological and land use indicators at the municipal scale rather than a watershed scale. The
majority of this data came from provincial mapping, rather than from conservation authorities.
Conclusions from report #1 were confirmed as they relate to a deficit in certain habitat types,
including early successional/open field habitats, as evidenced by a decline in certain bird
species dependent on these habitat types.
439
4) Improvements to the ORM Trail since the adoption of the ORMCP
This report documented improvements to the trail over the last decade including: the
establishment of four trail gateways; completion of the main east -west trail across the moraine
with numerous smaller side trails totaling about 104 km; improvements to trail signage and trail
quality, including moving portions off-road; and the doubling of parking areas at trail access
points. A significant proportion of these works have taken place on TRCA lands in Uxbridge,
Caledon and at the Oak Ridges Corridor Park in Richmond Hill. The limited financial resources
of the volunteer organization ORTA (Oak Ridges Trail Association) is identified as a potential
barrier to further trail improvements going forward.
5) Achievements in Land Securement since the adoption of the ORMCP
The land securement program of the ORMF, including fee simple purchase, donations or
conservation easements has been one of their most successful programs. A total of 2,259 ha
(5,582 acres) has been secured, much of that into public ownership. ORMF funding to land
securement projects totalled over $5.7 million, leveraging another $15.8 million from other
partners. Again, The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto (CFGT) has been a major
beneficiary of ORMF funding for land securement totalling over $2.1 million to help secure 677
acres of environmentally significant lands in TRCA watersheds, including the 50 acre Swan
Lake property and other lands in the Oak Ridges Corridor Park East block of lands. Absent
further provincial funding, the ORMF report concludes that an overall land securement strategy
for the ORM, linked to significant lands in the Greenbelt and Niagara Escarpment is required.
6) Achievements in Land Stewardship since the adoption of the ORMCP
This report highlighted some of the major improvements in stewardship delivery across the
ORM by multiple organizations, including better coordination, elimination of duplication and
filling identified gaps. The ORMF collaborated with many partners to formulate a stewardship
strategy and implement their signature "Caring for the Moraine" project. This resulted in over
405 ha (1,000 acres) of enhancements to primarily private lands through stewardship projects
such as tree planting, wetland creation and restoration, habitat management and stream bank
restoration, as well as more than 40 workshops for private landowners on the moraine. The
ORMF provided grants totalling over $5.3 million to stewardship projects while leveraging an
additional $9.7 million in funds from partners and landowners. Included in the total 405 ha of
stewardship enhancements, members of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition led
325 individual stewardship projects resulting in over 500,000 trees planted through the
reforestation of 285 ha of land, the creation or enhancement of 16.6 ha of wetlands and the
restoration of 16.8 km of riparian (stream) corridors.
7) Achievements in Education and Research since the adoption of the ORMCP
The ORMF funded 18 projects in these two categories, contributing over $360,000 to research
projects and leveraging an additional $1.2 million, while contributing over $1.5 million to
education projects, which in turn leveraged an additional $5.5 million. Education products
included the funding of stewardship and pond management handbooks for landowners,
contributions to various eco -centres with an ORM component, and supporting an ORM-focused
"Well -Aware" program to help rural landowners understand and protect their
groundwater -dependent private wells. Projects with specific TRCA involvement included
funding support for the children's groundwater festivals in York, Peel and Durham that educated
an estimated 22,000 students, parents and teachers about the water resources of the ORM. A
homeowners green information toolkit was also funded for distribution to residents in the area
of the Oak Ridges Corridor Park. Additionally, CFGT was awarded two research grants - for a
permeable pavement/bioretention swale demonstration project plus a project to evaluate the
natural function of headwater streams.
8) Assessing Compliance of Policy and Regulatory Agencies to the Requirements of the
ORMCP
The final report in the series assesses the compliance of planning and other regulatory and
implementing agencies with the requirements of the ORMCP. The report notes that virtually all
municipalities have now completed their official plan and zoning conformity amendments.
Partnerships among municipalities and conservation authorities are ongoing to complete
watershed plans and water budgets, particularly in the west and central ORM, less so in the
east due to less development pressure. The report identified that the Province has met many,
but not all, of its obligations under the Plan. In particular, a monitoring network and a stronger
role in monitoring compliance with the ORMCP are two areas where improvement is needed by
the Province. The report notes that large-scale fill operations are an increasing problem area for
municipalities on the ORM due to nuisance impacts of dust and noise, fiscal impacts of road
deterioration and environmental impacts from fill of suspect quality.
Lastly the report notes that conservation authorities have not been assigned in the Act any
specific responsibilities in the implementation of the ORMCP, but have never -the -less,
"assumed major roles that profoundly affect how the ORMCP is implemented." These roles
include:
• provision of technical services to municipalities in the review of environmental and
hydrogeological impact studies;
• ORMCP conformity reviews;
• collaboration with municipalities in the development of watershed plans and a major
groundwater research program and database;
• ongoing management of monitoring networks and data collection;
• acquisition and management of large tracts of land on the ORM for conservation and
recreation purposes;
• implementation of its regulatory responsibilities under Section 28 of the Conservation
Authorities Act; and
• the provision of stewardship services to rural landowners.
441
Summary
The "Measuring Success on the Oak Ridges Moraine" reports produced by the ORMF provide a
very comprehensive and one -of -a -kind look at the current state of the ORM and the
implementation of the ORMCP. As an initial baseline product leading up to the 2015 provincial
review of the ORMCP, the ORMF should be congratulated for this initiative. TRCA should
support the ORMF in its request for additional provincial funding to enable the ORMPs survival
as a valuable partner in both the 2015 review and as a funder of environmental improvements
on the ORM. As a partner in the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition, TRCA should also
provide its support to continuing to work with the ORMF and other moraine partners to
advocate for an improved monitoring network to enable further analysis and reporting prior to
the 2015 Plan review, to ensure the utmost long term protection for the Oak Ridges Moraine.
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 06, 2011
RES.#A154/11 - MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMIC VALUATION
Rouge River Watershed Plan Case Study. Release of study providing
economic rationale for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
watershed management directions.
Moved by: Colleen Jordan
Seconded by: Bryan Bertie
THAT notice of the release of the Ministry of the Environment's study Assessing the
Economic Value of Protecting the Great Lakes be circulated to all municipalities in the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) jurisdiction;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to pursue support for further recommended
studies, including monetization of benefits related to erosion and flood risk reduction.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In support of forthcoming updates to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), the
Great Lakes Office of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) commissioned a set of
economic valuation studies. These studies provided a cost benefit analysis of various
Canadian Great Lakes restoration initiatives, similar to a study completed for the US Great
Lakes Region. Results may be used to guide Great Lakes policy and program development.
This work was conducted by Marbek consultants during 2010.
442
The study "Assessing the Economic Value of Protecting the Great Lakes" consisted of three
components:
1. Rouge River Case Study for Nutrient Reduction and Nearshore Health Protection;
2. A Cost -Benefit Analysis of Habitat Protection and Restoration;
3. Invasive Species Prevention and Mitigation.
TRCA was most actively involved in the Rouge River case study. Overall, results of these
studies provide economic rationale and thus further support for implementation of TRCA's
watershed management plans. A brief summary of the findings is as follows:
Rouge River Case Study
Recognizing the strong link between watershed management and nearshore health, this study
used the Rouge River Watershed Plan (TRCA, 2007) as a case study for analysis of the costs
and benefits of intervention strategies and relative land cover changes. The economic results
from this case study were then extrapolated to other watersheds in the Golden Horseshoe
region of Ontario and benefits for Lake Ontario were also discussed.
The cost benefit analysis approach compared the total economic value of the Rouge River
watershed between the Sustainable Community scenario and Full Build Out scenario as
defined in the Rouge watershed study. The consultants estimated costs per hectare for each
intervention strategy and costs of land cover changes between the two scenarios. The benefits
that were monetized were those pertaining to: surface water quality, nature -based recreation
(wildlife viewing), aesthetic and amenity value of natural cover, beaches and lakefront
recreational use, heat island reduction and energy use reductions, air quality, carbon regulation
and some aspects of disturbance prevention. Benefits which could not be quantified
ecologically or valued monetarily were identified. Notably, erosion reduction benefits and full
benefits of flood risk reduction could not be monetized, therefore the results are likely to be
conservative.
The results of this study indicate an economic return on investment of close to two dollars for
every dollar spent on implementing the Rouge "sustainable communities" management
strategies (i.e. benefit cost ratio ranging from 1.3 to 1.7). These strategies include the
expansion of natural cover as per the targeted terrestrial natural heritage system and green
infrastructure and low impact development (LID) type stormwater management practices in
greenfield and urban retrofit settings. These intervention strategies form the basis of the Rouge
River Watershed Plan's strategic management directions, and are similar to directions of TRCA'
s other watershed plans.
Delaying implementation of these strategies in association with greenfield development was
shown to result in lost opportunities, because the cost of retrofits is more expensive than
incorporating the interventions into developments from the start and they do not yield the same
benefits.
The overall benefit -cost ratio ranges from 1.6 to 2.4 when extrapolated to other Lake Ontario
watersheds in the Golden Horseshoe. The report provides further valuations for improved
nearshore health of the Great Lakes.
443
Habitat Protection
Study results indicate an economic return of up to 35 dollars for every dollar invested in wetland
protection and restoration in the Toronto area. Returns were shown to be greater in the
Toronto area as compared to less densely populated areas, due to the relative value of
wetlands and costs of restoration in these areas.
This study used the 2001 Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ministry of Natural Resources
report "Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Aquatic Biodiversity" to provide detailed
recommendations for habitat conservation scenarios, while the 2009 "Bi -national Biodiversity
Conservation Strategy for Lake Ontario", prepared by the Lake Ontario Biodiversity Strategy
Working Group, was used to identify the highest priority watersheds. Three watershed
groupings were used as case studies: Toronto Area, Credit River -16 Mile Creek and Prince
Edward Bay. Two intervention strategies were analyzed, including land securement and
restoration. Habitat services were valued, including flood control, water quality improvements,
amenity and aesthetic benefits and biodiversity.
Invasive Species Prevention
This study demonstrated the cost effectiveness of preventing invasive species from entering the
Great lakes. The study assessed the costs of the zebra mussel invasion (estimated at $75
million to $91 million) in comparison to the prevention costs associated with Asian carp
(estimated at $20.5 million).
Summary
The study suggests that investments in interventions that protect and restore the Great Lakes
and their watersheds will benefit the environment as well as the economy. More information
about the Great Lakes Economic Study and copies of the report can be found at
www.ontario.ca/health reatlakes (click "Learn More").
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Notice of the report will be shared with watershed municipalities.
• TRCA staff will pursue opportunities to disseminate these findings and secure support for
undertaking further investigation of erosion and flood risk reduction benefits.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Costs of this Ministry of the Environment (MOE) led study were covered by the MOE. TRCA
staff provided input and advice in-kind.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Emails: smeek@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Emails: smeek@trca.on.ca
Date: July 12, 2011
RES.#A155/11 - EAST HUMBER RIVER AT LANGSTAFF ROAD CLASS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Initiation of the Class Environmental Assessment process for the East
Humber River at Langstaff Road, Humber River watershed, City of
Vaughan.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to commence
a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for the East Humber River at Langstaff Road,
City of Vaughan.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The area of concern is located on TRCA-owned land, located on the East Humber River north of
Langstaff Road and east of Islington Avenue in the City of Vaughan, where a 45 metre long
erosion scar has formed immediately adjacent to the City's Public Works Yard. At the top of the
bank there is also a pedestrian trail leading from Boyd Conservation Area which has been
severely impacted by the erosion, placing trail users at risk as they pass between the erosion
scar and a chain-link fence which is less than 0.3 m wide at some locations. A location map of
the study area is shown in Attachment 1.
The erosion problem along this section of the East Humber was first identified to TRCA in 2004
when the City of Vaughan staff expressed concern over the close proximity of the erosion scar
to their property. Following a visual inspection by TRCA staff it was recommended that remedial
works be undertaken to repair the scar, however no funding was secured and the erosion
continued. In January 2006, staff at the City of Vaughan again contacted TRCA, indicating that
the erosion had rapidly accelerated since the August 19th, 2005 storm event. An additional
inspection carried out by TRCA staff on January 13, 2006 reported that the bank had receded
approximately 2 m since the 2004 inspection and that a gully approximately 4.2 m wide had
formed at the midpoint of the erosion scar. The gully was approximately 0.6 m from the
property line at the time of inspection.
In 2006, TRCA carried out emergency works at this location to prevent the erosion from
encroaching into the parking lot of the Works Yard, as this area is actively used to store
vehicles, equipment and materials. The emergency works involved placing rip rap within the
gully to the existing top of bank elevation, and sloped to match the existing bank upstream and
downstream of the gully.
445
More than four years have passed since the emergency rip rap was installed. During that time,
the erosion scar has expanded both upstream and downstream of the interim protection,
increasing the risk to the Works Yard and further impacting the pedestrian trail. Given the risks
to municipal property and public safety, a geomorphic assessment and erosion risk analysis of
the study area was undertaken by Geomorphic Solutions on behalf of TRCA in late 2010. The
report, expected to be finalized in July 2011, indicates that further loss of property is anticipated
and recommends that remedial channel stabilization works be undertaken in the near future to
prevent further damage to the built and natural environments.
RATIONALE
Protection of life and property from the hazards of flooding and erosion is a key mandate of
TRCA. The East Humber River at Langstaff Road has been identified as a priority area for
remedial erosion control works based on TRCA's annual monitoring data for the site and the
results of the recent geomorphic assessment.
As a public body, erosion control projects proposed by conservation authorities (CAs) are
subject to approval under the Environmental Assessment Act. The purpose of the Act is to
ensure that possible environmental effects of a project are considered early in the planning
stages and to select a preferred alternative that seeks to avoid or mitigate adverse effects to the
environment.
Recognizing that erosion control works generally have a predictable range of solutions, and
that significant adverse environmental impacts are generally avoidable or can be mitigated
through careful planning and design, CA -led remedial erosion control projects are able to follow
a streamlined environmental assessment process called the Class Environmental Assessment
for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (2002) or Class EA.
TRCA recommends that a study be initiated to determine the preferred solution for the affected
area, and recommend that this study be initiated as a Class EA being the approved process for
projects of this type.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The planning and design process of the Class EA 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
requirements.
The Class EA process for this project will include the retention of a consulting firm specializing
in fluvial geomorphology and/or water resources engineering to assist staff in the development
of alternative options and in the detailed design of the preferred alternative.
The Class EA process also involves public and agency consultation including affected
landowners, interest groups, First Nations' groups, government review agencies and any
person with an interest in the project, to ensure that all concerns regarding a proposed
undertaking are taken into consideration during the development of alternative options and the
selection of the preferred alternative.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The cost of the study is estimated at approximately $70,000 including consulting services.
Funding is available in TRCA's Erosion Monitoring and Maintenance Program - York Region,
within account 189-01.
Report prepared by: Andrew Jules, 416-393-6394
Emails: ajules@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725
Emails: mmcdonnell@trca.on.ca
Date: July 04, 2011
Attachments: 1
447
Attachment 1
Area �a"i
Interest
ve
fir,✓ � rraaxr�tta,n�,r��raxxu�r-�. .�i ��'f III
Leiginend
y
for The iivrrl Csl�
apo t
h"'rC�4AJlf
Roads
,,area of Ilntei��tl 75 37.5 b, 7�5
SII Lid
KEY MAP
RES.#A156/11 - REMOVAL OF TOPSOIL
Response to Madeleine McDowell's correspondence dated November
12, 2010 regarding the removal of topsoil.
Moved by: Lois Griffin
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
WHEREAS removal of topsoil and alteration of grades is currently regulated by
municipalities and conservation authorities under the Municipal Act and Conservation
Authorities Act;
WHEREAS under the regulations, municipalities and conservation authorities have the
legal authority to prohibit or regulate the placing of fill, removal of topsoil and the
alteration of the grade of the land;
WHEREAS municipalities and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) have
developed tools such as tracking systems and by-laws to monitor and inspect the
removal of topsoil, ensure proper placement and use of clean topsoil, protect natural
areas and trees and ensure effective erosion and sediment control;
WHEREAS TRCA and municipalities have policies in place that require land development
to mitigate the environmental impacts of urbanization through the implementation of
stormwater management practices, water balance controls (groundwater recharge and
discharge) and erosion and sediment controls;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff continue to work with TRCA's
municipal partners to ensure the environmental impacts associated with topsoil removal
and urbanization are mitigated through the development, review and approvals process.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #9/10, held on November 26, 2010, staff was directed to report back on
correspondence from Madeleine McDowell dated November 12, 2010 regarding the request for
TRCA to develop an accumulative record of topsoil removal (Attachment 1).
Topsoil removal is generally regulated under the Municipal Act, with the exception of
conservation authority regulated areas under the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act). These
regulations give both TRCA and its municipal partners the authority to prohibit or regulate the
placing or dumping of fill, the removal of topsoil and the alteration of the grade of the land. All
municipalities in TRCA's area of jurisdiction have developed various policies, tools and
mechanisms (such as permitting, by-law, enforcement, tree preservation etc.) to ensure
environmental impacts associated with topsoil stripping and land development are mitigated.
Through its Planning and Development Division, TRCA regulates development under Section
28 of the CA Act in valley and stream corridors, wetlands and along the Lake Ontario shoreline
and reviews and comments on development proposals and applications within or adjacent to
these natural areas. Through this process, TRCA works closely with municipalities and land
developers to ensure effective controls are in place to mitigate the environmental impacts
associated with topsoil removal and land development prior to approval. This coordination
between TRCA and the municipality is necessary since under Section 142(8) of the Municipal
Act, a municipal fill by-law cannot overlap with an area regulated by a conservation authority.
The following is a summary outlining how specific issues raised in Ms. McDowell's letter are
already currently being addressed.
Site Alteration and Topsoil Disturbance
Prior to undertaking any topsoil removal or fill placement, a permit is required from either the
municipality or conservation authority which establishes the conditions under which work may
be undertaken. TRCA discourages topsoil removal and grading within valley and stream
corridors. For large sites (typically greater than one acre), obtaining a permit requires detailed
engineering calculations and modeling demonstrating that natural grades are respected to the
extent possible and that the environmental impacts associated with topsoil stripping are
mitigated. This includes the development and implementation of detailed erosion and
sediment control plans which require both municipal and TRCA approval. The erosion and
sediment control plans must be in compliance with TRCA's Erosion and Sediment Control
Guidelines for Urban Construction which require land developers to provide details on site
stabilization practices, topsoil removal phasing and design details for erosion and sediment
control practices such as silt fence, buffers and sediment basins.
TRCA does not track or maintain an accumulative list of the hectares of land, by watershed,
being stripped of topsoil, for which approval is granted. However, TRCA's approach is to
ensure natural features are protected and the loss of arable land is mitigated through the
development process. To set up such a tracking database would be very difficult for TRCA to
complete as topsoil stripping is a shared responsibility with the municipality and TRCA's data
would be incomplete as the majority of topsoil stripping occurs outside of TRCA's regulated
area. The municipalities would see all applications and would be in a better position to track
topsoil stripping.
Comprehensive Strategies:
In light of the current growth planning regime, TRCA and municipalities have begun working
together to develop Official Plan policies that require overall comprehensive erosion and
sediment and topsoil management control strategies for major development blocks. These
strategies are intended to address the required timing and phasing for site stripping, and
grading within and between neighborhoods in order to minimize collective site disturbance and
to avoid construction sediments entering watercourses and environmentally sensitive areas
prior to any stripping taking place.
450
Environmental, Land Use and Stormwater Management Planning
All new development must satisfy municipal and TRCA environmental, land use and stormwater
management planning requirements which require protection of natural features (trees,
wetlands) and stormwater controls for: water quantity, water quality, erosion and water balance
(groundwater recharge). Obtaining stormwater approvals from municipalities and TRCA
requires detailed engineering calculations and pre and post development modeling on a
catchment or subwatershed basis to demonstrate how the environmental impacts associated
with a reduction in pervious cover (arable land) will be mitigated. Stormwater management and
environmental protection practices that are typically incorporated into development include
tree/wetland protection, environmental buffers, canopy regeneration, greenroofs, rainwater
harvesting, bioretention, infiltration facilities and end of pipe detention ponds.
Removal and Redistribution of Topsoil
As part of the land development process, developers complete a detailed topsoil cut and fill
balance using sophisticated computer modelling software. The intent of the analysis is to
minimize the amount of topsoil that is taken off site. This is important from both a financial and
environmental perspective. During construction, topsoil is tested and stockpiled on site. Once
construction is completed, the clean topsoil is redistributed on lawns, parks and landscaped
areas. Increasing the depth of topsoil on lots is becoming a popular way of improving water
management and the preservation of topsoil. TRCA recommends that roof leader downspouts
be directed to pervious areas that drain away from the buildings to reduce stormwater runoff
associated with urbanization and to promote groundwater recharge.
Other Related Monitoring
In addition to the monitoring tools noted above, TRCA is also monitoring through The Living
City Report Card, the amount of farmland within its jurisdiction, a related topsoil issue noted in
Ms. McDowell's letter. In 2006, there were 239,000 hectares of farmland in TRCA's jurisdiction.
Between 2001 and 2006, the area of farmland in TRCA's jurisdiction declined by 8,749 hectares
or 3.5 percent. This is slower than the 9.4 per cent of decline experienced between 1996 and
2001 (The Living City Report Card, 2011).
Summary
A number of tools, policies and mechanisms are already in place by TRCA and municipalities to
control, track, monitor and mitigate the effects of topsoil stripping. Moving forward, TRCA will
continue to work with our municipal partners to ensure environmental impacts associated with
topsoil removal is mitigated and managed effectively. Furthermore, TRCA will promote that
municipalities embed comprehensive topsoil stripping strategies, which include phasing and
compliance monitoring, within the municipal planning and land development process.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
There are no financial implications with respect to this report.
Report prepared by: Sameer Dhalla, extension 5350; Laurie Nelson, extension 5281
Email: sdhalla@trca.on.ca; (nelson@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Sameer Dhalla, extension 5350; Laurie Nelson, extension 5281
Email: sdhalla@trca.on.ca; (nelson@trca.on.ca
Date: June 3, 2011
Attachments: 1
Attachment 1
451
November 12th, 2010
The Chair and Board Members
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive,
Downsview, Ontario M3N I 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
452
RES.#A157/11 - DON VALLEY BRICK WORKS WESTON FAMILY QUARRY GARDEN
ENTRANCE FEATURE AND MID -POINT ACCESS TRAIL
Award of Tender - RSD11-49
City of Toronto. Award of contract for the construction of the Weston
Family Quarry Garden entrance feature and mid -point access trail at the
Don Valley Brick Works.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT the contract for the supply and installation of the Don Valley Brick Works (DVB)
Quarry Garden entrance feature and mid -point access trail be awarded to Hobden
Construction Co. Ltd. at a cost not to exceed $416,256.50, plus HST, 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 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
Over the past two years, the City of Toronto has worked closely with TRCA to plan and
implement a number of site initiatives aimed at improving the Quarry Garden habitat function
/feature interpretation, site accessibility and user experience and safety.
Accessibility improvements are an important component of the site initiatives as the recent
Evergreen redevelopment at the Don Valley Brick Works site is expected to create a
considerable increase in visitation by pedestrians. TRCA has recently completed a southern
trail access paralleling Bayview Avenue to the front of the DVB site. This work is to be
complemented by the construction of a mid -point "at -grade" pedestrian trail to facilitate safe
movement around and through the site. The proposed connection will serve pedestrian users
entering the DVB site from the north via the existing Toronto Beltline Trail.
With the installation of a water chamber for the Evergreen development at the main entrance to
the Quarry Garden, an opportunity arose to reconfigure the space into an improved entrance
feature. The proposed feature will become a gathering place and organizing element for the
2
public as they enter the Weston Family Quarry Garden. The feature is a 285m wood and steel
deck structure that includes interpretive signage, seating, shade trees and provides the
opportunity to impart key environmental messages about the quarry and natural environment
lands.
The W. Garfield Weston Foundation is a key financial supporter of these improvements.
453
RATIONALE
Request for Tenders (RSD 11-49) were sent to the following nine (9) contractors/suppliers, who
were selected based on their area of business expertise and past experience on TRCA projects:
• Aldershot Landscape Contractors Inc.;
• Dynex Construction;
• Hawkins Contracting;
• Hobden Construction Ltd.:
• Lisgar Construction;
• R&M Construction;
• Rutherford Contracting Ltd
• Salivan Landscape Ltd.;
• Serve Construction.
The tender packages requested bids for the following work:
2 2
• PART A - construction of the entrance feature - a 155 m wood and 130m steel deck, stairs
and railings with concrete, limestone and granite elements and associated grading and
landscape finishing;
• PART B - construction of a 2.5 m wide asphalt surfaced mid -point trail connection, linking
the DVB Quarry Garden with the Toronto Belt Line trail.
Seven potential bidders attended the mandatory site inspection meeting held on July 5, 2011.
Five (5) sealed tenders were received on or before bid closing at 4:00 pm on July 14, 2011.
One (1) additional bid was received late and was therefore disqualified.
Qualified bids were opened at 11:00 am on July 15, 2011, at Tender Opening Committee
Meeting #7/11 in accordance with TRCA's procurement and tendering practices. The bid
results are as follows:
Company
Bid Price
(Plus HST)
Aldershot Landscape Contractors Inc.
$669,595.80
Dynex Construction
$891,110.00
Hawkins Contracting
$615,540.60
Hobden Construction Ltd.
$416,256.50
Lisgar Construction
Disqualified
R&M Construction
No Bid
Rutherford Contracting Ltd.
No Bid
Serve Construction
No Bid
Salivan Landscape Ltd.
$485,093.29
Staff recommends that the contract RSD 11-49 DVB Quarry Garden Entrance Feature and
Mid -Point Access Trail be awarded to Hobden Construction Co. Ltd., it being the lowest bidder
meeting TRCA specifications and requirements.
454
FINANCIAL DETAILS
All expenditures that pertain to this contract will be assigned to the Don Valley Brick Works
Enhancements project budget account 117-66.
These expenses are fully recoverable from the City of Toronto, with financial assistance
provided by the W. Garfield Weston Foundation.
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: July 08, 2011
RES.#A158/11 - BLUFFER'S PARK ENTRANCE CHANNEL MAINTENANCE
DREDGING
Approval to undertake maintenance dredging in the Bluffer's Park
Entrance Channel on behalf of the City of Toronto as required.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT approval be granted to undertake maintenance dredging in the Entrance Channel at
Bluffer's Park on behalf of the City of Toronto as required;
THAT the work be subject to availability of funding from the City of Toronto and such
other terms and conditions as Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff
may require;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary
to undertake the work including obtaining any required approvals required and signing
and execution of documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1981, Bluffer's Park opened at the foot of Brimley Road as a waterfront park in the City of
Toronto. Included within the park is a commercial marina as well as four boating clubs which
access Lake Ontario by way of the Entrance Channel.
455
In early 2008, concerns of insufficient water depths in the entrance channel were brought to
TRCA's attention by members of the boating clubs. TRCA notified the City of Toronto (Parks,
Forestry & Recreation) of the hazard, who in turn retained TRCA to undertake maintenance
dredging later that summer. Upon completion of the 2008 dredging project, approximately
1,700 cubic metres of sediment was removed from the entrance channel; a relatively minor
amount compared to the more than 70,000 cubic metres of sediment which is estimated to
have accumulated over the past 29 years since the entrance channel was constructed.
Recognizing that the maintenance work restored only the minimum depth required for safe
passage through the channel, with no allowance provided for ongoing siltation, it was
communicated by TRCA staff to the City of Toronto that future maintenance dredging would
likely be required.
In early 2010, insufficient water depths in the entrance channel were again brought to TRCA's
attention. In response, TRCA completed a hydrographic survey of the entrance channel in April
2010 to provide updated information to the City of Toronto and determine the appropriate
course of action. The survey showed that a large sand bar was forming laterally across the
entrance channel, reducing water depths to approximately 1.5 m and posing a risk to the
members of the boating community who require a minimum draft of 1.8 m below chart datum
for safe passage. As a result of shallow water in the entrance channel, a member of the
Cathedral Bluffs Yacht Club got stranded on the sand bar on the evening of April 26, 2010,
requiring rescue. Although no injuries were reported, it is noted that the draft on the stranded
boat was reported at 1.4 m. Hence, if larger boats with increased draft requirements attempted
to enter the channel, it was anticipated that additional groundings would occur, increasing the
likelihood of injury to person or property. As a result of this risk, emergency dredging of the
Bluffer's Park Entrance Channel took place in spring 2010 in order to increase water depths to
acceptable levels.
In light of the active siltation observed over the past few years, it is understood that the City of
Toronto has recognized the need to fund annual maintenance dredging. Given TRCA's
previous assistance with the 2008 and 2010 dredging projects, the City has again requested
TRCA's assistance with the 2011 dredging project.
RATIONALE
Given TRCA's long standing relationship with the City of Toronto in providing specialized
expertise in the management of erosion and sedimentation problems, and staff's understanding
of the project scope of work based on previous involvement, it is recommended that TRCA
manage the planning and implementation of the 2011 maintenance dredging of the Bluffer's
Park Entrance Channel on behalf of the City of Toronto, and in the future as requested by the
City.
456
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Based on staff's experience managing dredging projects at Bluffer's Park and other locations
along the Toronto waterfront, it is estimated that 3,500 m3 can be removed in 2011 in keeping
within the available budget, using typical costs for removal and assuming on site disposal. The
removal of this volume of materials is expected to provide sufficient depth in the channel such
that subsequent maintenance dredging should not be required until the summer or fall of 2012,
however as it is recognized that channel depth is reduced when water levels drop, monitoring
between scheduled maintenance dredging is strongly recommended. TRCA is prepared to
assist the City with this monitoring under its existing Valley and Shoreline Erosion Monitoring
and Maintenance Program.
Sediment will be removed using mechanical dredging, by way of a backhoe mounted on a
barge, with temporary stockpiling to take place on the adjacent hardpoint for dewatering, until
such time that the material can be hauled to its permanent disposal location which will be
determined once sediment samples have been collected and analysed. As it is expected that
the sampling results will be comparable to the 2010 sampling results, on-site disposal along the
backshore of the East Beach is anticipated.
Dredging is tentatively scheduled to commence in early October 2011 pending award of the
contract scheduled for the September 30, 2011 Authority Meeting, and the receipt of all
necessary approvals. Work is anticipated to take approximately four weeks to complete,
weather permitting.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The available budget for the 2011 maintenance dredging project is $280,000.00 including HST,
which includes the value of the dredging contract, plus all project administration costs to
secure the required approvals to undertake the work. The cost of the project is 100%
recoverable from the City of Toronto under account 186-10.
Report prepared by: Andrew Jules, 416-393-6394
Emails: ajules@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725
Emails: mmcdonnell@trca.on.ca
Date: July 04, 2011
RES.#A159/11 - ASHBRIDGE'S BAY WEST PROJECT
Tender RSD10-43, Addendum Report. Award of Tender RSD10-43 for the
supply of materials, equipment and labour necessary for the removal and
replacement of the existing boardwalk, timber retaining walls, stairs and
ramps, including site restoration at Ashbridge's Bay Park West, in the
City of Toronto.
457
Moved by: Bryan Bertie
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
THAT Contract RSD10-43 for Ashbridge's Bay Park West be awarded to DDR Landscape
Contractors Ltd. for the total cost not to exceed $313,000.00, plus a contingency amount
of $40,000.00 to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA staff cost
estimates and 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.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Ashbridge's Bay Park entrance is located at the intersection of Coxwell Avenue and
Lakeshore Boulevard in the City of Toronto. The day mooring docks and boardwalks are key
features of the park and are well used by the public, local boat clubs and visiting boaters. The
wood boardwalks and docks have exceeded their life expectancy and are in need of repair and
replacement. The City of Toronto has authorized TRCA to assume a leadership role in
managing the implementation of the removal and replacement of the existing day mooring
docks and boardwalk. The improvements to the Day Mooring Docks will improve public safety
and provide for continued use of these features as recreational opportunities within Ashbridge's
Bay Park.
RATIONALE
Tender RSD11-43 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo
http://www.biddingo.com/) on June 24, 2011 with a mandatory site information meeting held on
June 28, 2011. Tender packages were sent to thirteen (13) contractors as follows:
• Somerville Construction;
• Aplus General Contractors;
• DDR Landscape Contractors Ltd.;
• Silver Birch Contracting Ltd.;
• Taylor Wakefield General Contractors;
• Clearwater Structures Inc.;
• Hobden Construction;
• McPherson -Andrews Contracting Limited;
• The Ontario Construction Company Limited;
• CSL GROUP;
• Greco Construction;
• Seaco Marine; and
• MTM Landscaping Contractors Inc.
The Tender Opening Committee opened the tenders on July 15, 2011 with the following results:
•
Contract RSD11-43, Ashbridges Bay West Project
BIDDERS
TOTAL
(Plus HST & Contingency)
Hobden Construction Ltd.
$271,200.00 but disqualified
DDR Landscape Contractors Ltd.
$313,000.00
CSL Group
$372,480.00
Taylor Wakefield General Contractors
$448,272.22
Clearwater Structures Inc.
$530,000.00
Silver Birch Contracting Ltd.
$560,000.00
McPherson -Andrews Contracting Ltd.
$592,103.00
Aplus General Contractors
$602,876.00
MTM Landscaping Contractors
$698,000.00
Hobden Construction Ltd. provided the lowest bid but is disqualified as the tender was to
include acknowledgement of two addendums and Hobden failed to acknowledge Addendum 2.
As a result the bid is considered incomplete. TRCA staff did not discover this omission until
second review of the tender documents, after the initial report was circulated to the Authority.
As a result of the incomplete submission, their tender submission is therefore automatically
rejected as per Section 1.8 of TRCA's Purchasing Policy as follows:
The following irregularities contained in a Tender or publicly opened Proposal received
by the TRCA shall result in the following actions to be taken by the Authorized Buyer.
IRREGULARITY ACTION
Submission not signed in ink or Automatic rejection unless, in the opinion of the
incomplete submission Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or
his/her designate, the incomplete nature is trivial
or insignificant
Based on the bids received, staff recommends that Contract RSD11-43 be awarded to DDR
Landscape Contractors Ltd. for the total cost not to exceed $313,000.00 , plus a contingency
amount of $40,000.00 to be expended if required as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it
being the lowest bid that meets the consultant's cost estimates and specifications. The bids
provided by both Hobden Construction and DDR Landscape Contractors are within the staff
estimates for the contract.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The cost of the project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto Parks Forestry and
Recreation Budget within Account #211-20.
Report prepared by: James Dickie, 416-392-9702
Emails: jdickie@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Mark Preston, 416-392-9722
Emails: mpreston@trca.on.ca
Date: July 08, 2011
459
RES.#A160/11 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LAND
Northeast Corner of Bathurst Street and Gamble Road, Town of
Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, CFN 45389. Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority is in receipt of a request from Mr. Amin
Akhlaghi to consider a sale of a parcel of TRCA-owned land located at
the northeast corner of Bathurst Street and Gamble Road, Town of
Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, Don River watershed.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) land located at the northeast
corner of Bathurst Street and Gamble Road, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality
of York, be retained for conservation purposes.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
A letter has been received from Mr. Amin Akhlaghi, requesting that the subject parcel of
TRCA-owned land situated at the northeast corner of Bathurst Street and Gamble Road be sold
for professional medical building development.
At Executive Committee Meeting #2/11, held on March 4, 2011, Resolution #B27/11 was
approved as follows:
THAT the potential disposal of a parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Bathurst
Street and Gamble Road, Town of Richmond Hill, be referred to Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff for review and discussion in accordance with
established TRCA policies;
AND FURTHER THAT a report be brought forward to the Executive Committee at a future
date recommending further action.
This request was circulated to TRCA, Town of Richmond Hill and Regional Municipality of York
staff for review and comment. The following comments have been received:
TRCA Staff Comments
Planning and Development staff does not support the request for disposal of TRCA lands at this
location for the following reasons:
The subject TRCA land (i.e. Block 184 on Plan 65M-3829), which was purchased from Duke of
Richmond Development Inc. (Duke) for nominal consideration (i.e. $2.00) on June 2, 2005 as
part of the approval of residential subdivision 19T-99014, consists of rolling Oak Ridges
Moraine topography and is not considered as a natural hazard / natural feature as defined in
the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. However, following lengthy discussions
with Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) staff related to Planning Act approvals to permit
development of the Duke lands, an interim agreement was reached whereby a series of
valleyland and tableland Blocks were designated for open space corridor purposes. Block 184,
being tableland, had been originally proposed for development as a highway commercial
Block. As a result of the agreement with MNR staff, dated June 14, 2000, the development
plans for Duke were revised to show Block 184 as Open Space Corridor (OSC). The purpose of
the Block was to provide for a natural connection from the open space and Area of Natural and
Scientific Interest lands located within the City of Vaughan to the west of Bathurst Street
through the subject land into Duke's valleylands. This arrangement ultimately served as the
component for a Land Exchange Agreement between the Crown and Oak Ridges Moraine
developers and a subsequent agreement between the Attorney General and Duke. Based on
this agreement, the land uses proposed within the Duke subdivision were incorporated into the
Town of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 138 and approved by the Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB); through that approval, Block 184 was designated OSC.
In addition, a stormwater outfall is proposed within Block 184 and the Town of Richmond Hill
has initiated discussions with TRCA staff with respect to securing a permanent easement in
favour of the Town. The remainder of Block 184 will need to be kept free of any further
development and structures which will also preclude private development of the site.
Town of Richmond Hill Comments
The disposal of these lands to a non-government purchaser would be problematic for the Town
as a stormwater management pond is being built on the adjacent (i.e. north abutting)
Town -owned lands, being Block 183 on Plan 65M-3829. TRCA, as the owner of Block 184 on
Plan 65M-3829 (to the south), has issued Permit C-10428 which will allow for the construction,
operation and maintenance of storm drainage works related to the stormwater management
pond on Block 183. The Town is currently securing an easement (through a subdivision
agreement) over TRCA lands (i.e. on Block 184 on Plan 65M-3829), allowing for the storm
drainage works and outflow to discharge on these lands. This would effectively eliminate any
development potential.
Regional Municipality of York Comments
No comments have been received from York Region staff to date.
A plan illustrating the location of the subject lands is attached.
461
CONCLUSION
Based on the OMB decision designating the TRCA property as OSC as noted above and the
Town of Richmond Hill request for a permanent easement on the site, which is included as a
separate report on this agenda, staff is recommending that the subject parcel be retained.
Report prepared by: George Leja, extension 5342
Emails: gleja@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: George Leja, extension 5342 or Mike Ferning, extension 5223
Emails: gleja@trca.on.ca or rdewell@trca.on.ca
Date: July 18, 2011
Attachments: 1
462
Attachment 1
463
RES.#A161/11 - TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL
Request for a Permanent Easement for a Stormwater Outlet and Overflow
Maintenance Area
Don River Watershed, Town of Richmond Hill, Region of York, CFN
44070. Receipt of a request from the Town of Richmond Hill to provide a
permanent easement for a stormwater outlet and overflow maintenance
area, north of Gamble Road and east of Bathurst Street, Town of
Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, Don River watershed.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request
from the Town of Richmond Hill to provide a permanent easement for a stormwater outlet
and overflow maintenance area, north of Gamble Road and east of Bathurst Street, Don
River watershed;
AND 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 Richmond Hill in this instance;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing 1.53
hectares (3.78 acres), more or less, be granted to Town of Richmond Hill for a stormwater
outlet and overflow maintenance area, said lands being Block 184, Plan 65M-3829;
THAT consideration is to be the nominal sum of $2.00, plus all legal, survey and other
costs be paid by the Town of Richmond Hill;
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 the Town of
Richmond Hill;
THAT all permits pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06 be obtained by the Town of
Richmond Hill 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 Town of Richmond Hill 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 the granting of these easements 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 give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the
signing and execution of any documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Town of Richmond Hill has formally requested a permanent easement across TRCA
property (i.e. Block 184 on Plan 65M-3829) for a stormwater outlet and overflow maintenance
area north of Gamble Road and east of Bathurst Street. The outlet will receive flows from an
existing stormwater management pond located on the abutting Town of Richmond Hill land to
the north (i.e. Block 183 on Plan 65M-3829). The permanent easement is required across the
entire area of Block 184 since storm drainage from the pond is intended to spread out as sheet
flow and a large area is required for potential repairs / maintenance due to possible erosion,
washouts, etc.
The subject TRCA land consists of rolling Oak Ridges Moraine topography and is not
considered as a natural hazard / natural feature as defined in the Valley and Stream Corridor
Management Program. However, following lengthy discussions with Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR) staff related to Planning Act approvals to permit development of residential
subdivision 19T-99014, an interim agreement was reached whereby a series of valleyland and
tableland Blocks were designated for open space corridor purposes. Block 184, being
tableland, had been originally proposed for development as a highway commercial Block. As a
result of the agreement with MNR staff, dated June 14, 2000, the development plans for this
subdivision were revised to designate Block 184 as Open Space Corridor (OSC). The purpose
of the Block was to provide for a natural connection from the open space and Area of Natural
and Scientific Interest lands located within the City of Vaughan to the west of Bathurst Street
through the subject land into this development's valleylands. This arrangement ultimately
served as the component for a Land Exchange Agreement between the Crown and Oak Ridges
Moraine developers and a subsequent agreement between the Attorney General and the owner
of this development, Duke of Richmond Development Inc. Based on this agreement, the land
uses proposed within subdivision 19T-99014 were incorporated into the Town of Richmond
Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 138 and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB);
through that approval, Block 184 was designated OSC.
In order to adhere to the intent of keeping Block 184 as an open space corridor as per the
previous OMB decision for subdivision 19T-99014, TRCA and Town of Richmond Hill staff will
work together to ensure the maintenance of the subject property will meet the objectives of the
original MNR agreement.
465
The subject lands form part of a larger acreage originally acquired from Duke of Richmond
Development Inc. for a nominal consideration of $2.00 on June 2, 2005 under the Natural
Heritage Lands Protection and Acquisition Project, 2001-2005, Flood Plain and Conservation
Component / Don River watershed.
A plan illustrating the permanent easements location is attached.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Town of Richmond Hill. has agreed to assume all legal, survey, archaeology and other
costs involved in completing these transactions.
Report prepared by: Edlyn Wong, extension 5711
Emails: ewong@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Edlyn Wong, extension 5711, Mike Ferning, extension 5223
Emails: ewong@trca.on.ca, mfenning@trca.on.ca
Date: July 12, 2011
Attachments: 1
Attachment 1
467
WILD WATER KINGDOM
Request For Approval of Driving Range on Leased Land. Pursuant to the
lease agreement with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Wild
Water Kingdom is seeking approval for construction of a driving range on
the leased lands.
THAT pursuant to the lease agreement between Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) and Wild Water Kingdom Inc. (WWK), construction and operation of a
driving range at WWK be approved;
THAT the driving range shall be constructed in accordance with regulatory and permit
requirements of the City of Brampton and TRCA;
THAT WWK shall satisfy all terms and conditions as may be required by TRCA staff;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to the action necessary to
implement the lease amendment including obtained needed approvals and signing and
execution of documents.
AMENDMENT
RES.#A162/11
Moved by: John Parker
Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti
THAT the main motion be replaced with the following:
THAT pursuant to the lease agreement between Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) and Wild Water Kingdom Inc. (WWK), construction and operation of a
driving range at WWK be approved, subject to review and approval by the Executive
Committee of the tree removal and replacement plan.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Wild Water Kingdom leases land in the former Claireville Conservation Area adjacent to the
Claireville reservoir and immediately north of Indian Line Campground for purposes of
operating a water park and ancillary facilities. Under the terms of the lease, major capital
development must be approved by the Authority. Wild Water Kingdom is requesting approval
of a driving range facility on lands immediately north of the existing WWK parking lot. These
lands include the former parking area used by the former Claireville Conservation Area which is
presently being used by WWK as overflow parking.
RATIONALE
Staff has met with the proponent on site and reviewed with representatives of WWK the location
of the proposed driving range and the work required to implement the project. The project
involves changes to the existing site:
• the former parking lot will be leveled to remove the original parking lot dividers (small
mounds of earth);
• the fill will be retained on site;
• a majority of the area to be leveled is tableland and outside the flood plain, however a small
portion of the east end is fill regulated area;
• some netting will be required but will be at modest heights since the configuration of the
site is away from traffic and pedestrian areas;
• the driving range itself is built on concrete pads which will require minimal excavation;
• two small prefab structures will be located on the site, one for storage and one for sales and
office use;
• water and electricity are available adjacent to the site;
• an aborists report has been prepared concerning removal of trees and shrubs from the site;
• there are three areas that WWK has used in the past for additional overflow parking. Minor
work will be done to these areas so that they can be used by WWK to replace the overflow
parking lost in construction of the driving range.
Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to all terms and conditions of TRCA
being satisfied. The site where the driving range is located is disturbed and has been used
previously as a parking lot. It appears that tree removal can be minimized, certainly the
proponent is anxious to minimize tree removal to reduce the costs of preparation. There
appear to be no significant regulatory or flood plain issues but TRCA planning staff will advise.
The project is complementary to the existing uses on the site. The project is consistent with the
Claireville Master Plan designation for the area to the south of Steeles Avenue.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The project cost is entirely the responsibility of WWK. Revenue from the driving range will be
included in the revenue of WWK. TRCA receives both a base rent and percentage rent from
WWK, the latter based on total gross revenue of all activities at WWK.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff has not received detailed plans and specifications for this work. When received, the plans
and specifications will be reviewed and all TRCA requirements will be identified and met prior to
TRCA staff granting approval to proceed.
Wild Water Kingdom is anxious to have the driving range in place for the fall. This matter is
before the Authority on July 29th because no meeting is held in August.
The driving range is being constructed by AGT Systems Inc. The President of AGT Systems
Inc. will be available at the meeting to make a presentation or answer questions if desired by
Members.
Report prepared by: Jim Dillane, 416-667-6292
Emails: jdillane@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Jim Dillane, 416-667-6292
Emails: jdillane@trca.on.ca
Date: July 20, 2011
Attachment: 2
•
Attachment 1
" .-
��� „.,�✓ � ., � � it ��
�� w ✓ ✓ � �" �/ rrr � h,
,r
4
e
p
Irking ark
4
r � 4
4
l
CO I
� to
w
(Iff �7
Legend
oY onse va" � IC n
Railways
for The living ("ily
Roads •r ��'m
uuuuuuuuuum� uuuum � Leaseld Area
TRC.A Rroperty
.,
Overflow Parking 200 100 0 200 rJelers � �F,r
a �
Driving Range
V(EF PAP
470
Attachment 2
NR
✓ q /r f �f ✓ f frr / f�/ £ ui r�%/ rr G
%
4,
f� / / 1 ✓ �� iI �r / f �r
r
VI
/
r r>F .r .,✓ , f r
a i/ % � q✓J6�' / / r'/ ig��
a >r
f/
/ �jq � r / r ��i/ / / ;N �r � f r p� ` � w�� �1f a�� ✓ "r
i rR1 h rr p," /4
//i /1.
/ '�, %�/r fir/ �l 'N i f / // /i /✓i
rii/
L
U q
JA
.i I
ifK
r
f n�
✓ � �f� /7 '" ��� �� liu f d'R r / "" 111/M 1
!� ✓`; ?�i���Y/ i("✓"%r�hf/'`, �i ��✓ l r /,p��iy l e 11 %��! 'r 'Ffi �� '
/ irf "-
'�
CI CF
0 i<
£�
f rn fToll
%/r r r f GM f y✓ r
Z2a �" /Ja /r ✓ Iri `��
,'`Gigar vv ,� .,,✓ �
�f r �riJ /� s gI i r ✓7 � �°� 'U
V
"r/
���
Afill rryxr I P �/ I
�»r f
l/r / r r
n
471
RES.#A163/11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Troutbrooke Drive Slope Stabilization Project
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed
Partial Takings or Financial Contribution - Multiple Owners, CFN 45032.
Partial Takings or financial contribution from multiple property owners on
the north side of Troutbooke Drive, City of Toronto, to facilitate the
construction of Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization Project.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) acquire the following partial
takings to facilitate the construction of the Troutbrooke Drive Slope Stabilization Project:
Parcel 'A'
THAT a parcel of land containing 75.6 square metres (813.76 square feet) being part of
Lot 20 on Registered Plan 66M-799, PIN 10262-0519, designated as Part 1 and Part 2 on a
plan of survey prepared by Ivan B Wallace dated July 19, 2011 and referenced as DWG
5-9440-R together with an easement and restrictive covenant over Part 3, City of Toronto
and municipally known as 51 Troutbrooke Drive, be purchased from Carmelo Tropiano
and Silvia Tropiano;
Parcel 'B'
THAT a parcel of land containing 231.7 square metres (2,494.02 square feet) being part of
Lot 21 on Registered Plan 66M-799, PIN 10262-0520, designated as Part 5 and Part 6 on a
plan of survey prepared by Ivan B Wallace dated July 19, 2011 and referenced as DWG
5-9440-R together with an easement and restrictive covenant over Part 7, City of Toronto
and municipally known as 49 Troutbrooke Drive, be purchased from Pierangelo Busca
and Alda Busca Carmelo;
Parcel 'C'
THAT a parcel of land containing 256.8 square metres (2,764.20 square feet) being part of
Lot 22 on Registered Plan 66M-799, PIN 10262-0521, designated as Part 9 and Part 10 on
a plan of survey prepared by Ivan B Wallace dated July 19, 2011 and referenced as DWG
5-9440-R together with an easement and restrictive covenant over Part 11, City of Toronto
and municipally known as 47 Troutbrooke Drive, be purchased from Carmela Volpini and
Leandro Volpini (Estate);
Parcel 'D'
THAT a parcel of land containing 178.4 square metres (1,920.30 square feet) being part of
Lot 23 on Registered Plan 66M-799, PIN 10262-0522, designated as Part 13 and Part 14
on a plan of survey prepared by Ivan B Wallace dated July 19, 2011 and referenced as
DWG 5-9440-R together with an easement and restrictive covenant over Part 15, City of
Toronto and municipally known as 45 Troutbrooke Drive, be purchased from Dung Quang
Le;
472
Parcel 'E'
THAT a parcel of land containing 147.4 square metres (1,586.61 square feet) being part of
Lot 24 on Registered Plan 66M-799, PIN 10262-0523, designated as Part 17 and Part 18
on a plan of survey prepared by Ivan B Wallace dated July 19, 2011 and referenced as
DWG 5-9440-R together with an easement and restrictive covenant over Part 19, City of
Toronto and municipally known as 43 Troutbrooke Drive, be purchased from Abdul Sattar
Gulban;
Parcel 'F'
THAT a parcel of land containing 132.4 square metres (1,425.15 square feet) being part of
Lot 25 on Registered Plan 66M-799, PIN 10262-0524, designated as Part 21 and Part 22
on a plan of survey prepared by Ivan B Wallace dated July 19, 2011 and referenced as
DWG 5-9440-R together with an easement and restrictive covenant over Part 23, City of
Toronto and municipally known as 41 Troutbrooke Drive, be purchased from Renato
Lucent and Filomen Lucente;
Parcel 'G'
THAT a parcel of land containing 124.7 square metres (1,342.27 square feet) being part of
Lot 26 on Registered Plan 66M-799, PIN 10262-0525, designated as Part 25 and Part 26
on a plan of survey prepared by Ivan B Wallace dated July 19, 2011 and referenced as
DWG 5-9440-R together with an easement and restrictive covenant over Part 27, City of
Toronto and municipally known as 39 Troutbrooke Drive, be purchased from Maria Busca;
Parcel 'H'
THAT a parcel of land containing 106.4 square metres (1,145.29 square feet) being part of
Lot 27 on Registered Plan 66M-799, PIN 10262-0526, designated as Part 29 and Part 30
on a plan of survey prepared by Ivan B Wallace dated July 19, 2011 and referenced as
DWG 5-9440-R together with an easement and restrictive covenant over Part 31, City of
Toronto and municipally known as 37 Troutbrooke Drive, be purchased from Juan Segura
and Martha Patricia Meza;
Parcel 'I'
THAT a parcel of land containing 82 square metres (882.65 square feet) being part of Lot
28 on Registered Plan 66M-799, PIN 10262-0527, designated as Part 33 and Part 34 on a
plan of survey prepared by Ivan B Wallace dated July 19, 2011 and referenced as DWG
5-9440-R together with an easement and restrictive covenant over Part 35, City of Toronto
and municipally known as 35 Troutbrooke Drive, be purchased from Assunta Monastero;
THAT the purchase price for each of the land Parcels `A' to `I` inclusive be $2.00 plus each
vendor's reasonable legal costs and survey costs, if any;
THAT TRCA receive conveyance of the land Parcels `A' to `I' inclusive free from
encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
473
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;
THAT TRCA, in lieu of the purchase of any of these parcels, provide to each of the
landowners the option of making a financial contribution to TRCA for the Troutbrooke
Slope Stabilization Project in an amount to be determined by TRCA, and providing an
easement and restrictive covenant over the parcel with terms and conditions satisfactory
to TRCA;
AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary
action to implement the agreements including sigining and executing all necessary
documentation required.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Resolution #A94/10 at Authority Meeting #5/10, held on June 25, 2010, approved the
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015.
The Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization Project began in 2009, at the request of several
homeowners concerned over the loss of property and the potential long term risk to their
houses. After Terraprobe completed a geotechnical investigation and determined the position
of the long term stable slope crest (LTSSC), in April 2011 TRCA submitted the Project Plan for
the Project to the Ministry of the Environment per the Environmental Assessment Act. The
preferred solution determined through the Environmental Assessment process is a
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall which will protect the nine residential dwellings located
at 35 to 51 Troutbrooke Drive. Construction activities for this Project are anticipated to
commence in the summer of 2011.
35 to 51 Troutbrooke Drive are nine properties which front onto the north side of Troutbrooke
Drive between Sheppard Avenue West and Wilson Avenue, east of Jane Street. The subject
properties to be transferred to TRCA, consists of nine parcels described in this report as
Parcels `A' to `I' inclusive and are strips of land that run northward from the north end of the
level top of the MSE wall, down into the Humber ravine. The lands to be retained by the owners
include the remaining southerly land from the north end of the level top of the MSE wall, with
houses and other improvements.
In lieu of the land transfer of any of the Parcels `A' to `I' inclusive, landowners have the option to
pay to TRCA a financial contribution and provide a permanent easement and restrictive
covenant over the parcel of land on terms and conditions consistent with TRCA policy. It is
estimated that the financial contribution will be about $23,000 per property. The TRCA funding
policy for works carried out on private lands, stipulates that benefiting landowners are required
to contribute to the cost of the project, either financially, or through the transfer of lands.
Resolution #A159/09 adopted at Authority Meeting #7/09 on September 25, 2009 sets out this
funding policy.
474
Negotiations are being completed with the nine homeowners. Three of the nine have indicated
that they wish to consider a financial contribution in lieu of a land transfer, one of which has
indicated a preference for the financial contribution option.
RATIONALE
The subject properties are required for the construction of the Troutbrooke Drive Slope
Stabilization Project.
TAXES AND MAINTENANCE
Those Parcels `A' to `I' inclusive which are acquired will be turned over to the City of Toronto
under the terms of the existing management agreement.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds for the costs related to this purchase are available in the Troutbrooke Drive Slope
Stabilization Project, a project included in the 2011 capital program approved by the City of
Toronto.
Report prepared by: Dan O'Donohue, extension; Mike Ferning, extension 5223
Emails: do'donohue@trca.on.ca; mfenning@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Dan O'Donohue, extension 5767;
Mike Fenning, extension 5223
Emails: do'donohue@trca.on.ca; mfenning@trca.on.ca
Date: July 18, 2011
Attachments: 1
475
Attachment 1
I ?Otcoa partM C
47'
419
�Legend
Roads
F—I SUbject R-opelly
= TRCA IPnoperty
Parco 0 Parcel P.,rcep F I Parcel G , pAr';el H
" 1 43 1 411 1 39 1 37 1 35
TROUTOROOKE I)RIvr
R)RONIO AND REGION
onser�Wjon
for The Living City
10 5 0 hO Meters
476
'IS
KEY IMAP'
RES.#A164/11 - TROUTBROOKE SLOPE STABILIZATION PROJECT
Contract RSD11-46. Award of Contract RSD11-46 for the supply of
materials, equipment and labour necessary for the installation of an
Engineered Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall, and site restoration
from 35 to 51 Troutbrooke Drive, in the City of Toronto.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT Contract RSD11-46 be awarded to DDR Landscape Contractors Ltd. for the total
cost not to exceed $787,390.00, plus a contingency amount of $79,000.00 to be expended
as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff, plus HST, it
being the lowest bid that meets TRCA staff cost estimates and 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.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In May 2009, 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 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 poses an ongoing safety issue for the homeowners. Based on the
results of the geotechnical and slope stability assessment, the Troutbrooke Drive site was
identified as a priority area for remedial works under TRCA's Erosion Control Monitoring and
Maintenance Program.
Presently, the Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program is responsible for the
annual monitoring of over 350 erosion control structures and 40 erosion sites on public and
private valleylands, approximately 42 kilometres of Lake Ontario shoreline, and over 250
residential dwellings on the Scarborough Bluffs. The annual monitoring is designed to prioritize
erosion control works to be undertaken the following year as municipal and provincial funding
levels permit, due to overall program funding constraints.
477
For unprotected erosion sites where a hazard has been identified, TRCA staff monitor the
erosion activity on an annual basis or more frequently as needed to prioritize sites for remedial
intervention, utilizing a numerical ranking model developed specifically for this purpose. To
ensure that the most hazardous sites are addressed first, top ranking sites in the initial
prioritization are subject to a detailed risk assessment to determine the cause(s) of the hazard,
and the extent of risk to existing features over the short and long term. The results of the
detailed risk assessments are used to support the order in which the remedial works for these
sites are initiated under the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Erosion and Flood
Control Projects (Class EA). In the event of emergency situations this process is expedited. It
should be noted that remedial works must be congruent with TRCA's objective to minimize risk
to life and property with minimal environmental impacts. Therefore, it is not TRCA's objective to
restore all lost tableland, only to remediate property to eliminate the risk to infrastructure and
ensure the safety of the public.
At Authority Meeting #8/10, held on October 29, 2010, Resolution #A177/10 directed staff to
commence a Class Environmental Assessment for the Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization Project,
City of Toronto. On November 5, 2010, TRCA commenced the Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization
Class Environmental Assessment to provide long term protection against erosion by protecting
the Black Creek valley wall from erosion, stabilizing slopes and enhancing natural processes.
RATIONALE
At Authority Meeting #5/11, held on May 27, 2011, Resolution #A105/11 directed staff to
proceed with the construction of the Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization Project. The construction
of this project is critical, as the slope is in jeopardy of further failures and approximately 2
metres of a residential foundation has been exposed since the spring of 2009.
Tender RSD11-46 for a licensed contractor to complete the construction of the Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall (retaining wall structure) and restoration of the site was publicly
advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com/) on
June 30, 2011 with a site information meeting held on July 7, 2011. Tender packages were
sent to fourteen (14) contractors as follows:
• MTM Landscaping Contractors;
• Lomco;
• Clearwater Structures Inc.;
• Speedside Construction;
• R -Chad General Contractors;
• Ontario Construction;
• Pine Valley Enterprises Inc.;
• JMJ Construction;
• CSL Group;
• The Beach Gardener;
• Iron Trio Inc.;
• DDR Landscape Contractors Ltd.;
• RTD Construction;
• McPherson -Andrews Contracting Ltd.
•
The Tender Opening Committee opened the tenders on July 15, 2011 with the following results:
Contract RSD11-46, Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization Project
BIDDERS
TOTAL
(Plus HST
& Contingency)
MTM Landscaping Contractors
$463,220.00
DDR Landscape Contractors Ltd.
$787,390.00
Iron Trio Inc.
$817,222.00
Speedside Construction
$838,550.00
Dynex Construction Inc.
$868,628.00
The Beach Gardener
$1,181,737.71
JMJ Construction
$1,209,207.00
TRCA staff and Terraprobe estimated the contract value to be approximately $740,000.
Based on staff's review of the bids, it was determined that MTM Landscaping Contractors
clearly did not understand the scope or complexity of the work, and therefore recommends that
their bid be considered invalid and rejected. It should be noted that TRCA recommended that
all bidders attend a product demonstration with the supplier of the designed MSE wall, Nilex.
The bidders were recommended to participate in this demonstration due to the intricacy of the
project, as the MSE wall will be installed in close proximity to nine residential structures. MTM
Landscaping Contractors was the sole bidder that did not attend the product demonstration.
The staff review of DDR Landscape Contractors bid determined that they understand the scope
and complexity with the installation of the MSE wall. Therefore staff recommends that Contract
RSD11-46 be awarded to DDR Landscape Contractors Ltd. for the total cost not to exceed
$787,390.00, plus a contingency amount of $79,000.00 to be expended if required as
authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA staff cost
estimates and specifications.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the implementation of this project has been identified in the TRCA's 2011 Toronto
Capital Budget under account code 136-05. The total final tender project costs, including
planning and construction, are conservatively estimated at approximately $1.85 million.
Report prepared by: Lindsay Prihoda, extension 5787
Emails: Iprihoda@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Mark Preston, 416-392-9722
Emails: mpreston@trca.on.ca
Date: July 19, 2011
479
RES.#A165/11 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
Contract RSD11-58. Award of Contract RSD11-58 to construct a staff
booth facility and interpretive area, an environmental shelter and an
ecological research station at Tommy Thompson Park.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT Contract RSD11-58 for construction of a staff booth facility and interpretive area, an
environmental shelter and an ecological research station at Tommy Thompson Park be
awarded to Martinway Contracting Ltd. at a cost not to exceed $1,860,075.00, plus a 10%
contingency plus HST, 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 TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is
necessary to implement the contract, including the signing and execution of documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Tommy Thompson Park (TTP) (also known as the Leslie Street Spit) has been under
construction using materials from development operations in the Greater Toronto Area since
the early 1950's. TRCA currently owns 247 hectares of this peninsula, which extends five
kilometres into Lake Ontario. Other areas still under construction will be transferred to TRCA
upon the completion of lake filling activities. TTP is a unique natural area which has been
formally designated as an "Important Bird Area" (IBA) of global significance by Birdlife
International. It comprises a large portion of the North Shore Environmentally Significant Area
(ESA) .
Tommy Thompson Park has also established itself as a unique place for a variety of human
activities, attracting an estimated 250,000 visitors a year. Public access to the park is only
accommodated on weekends and holidays, and represent a very broad range of park users
including birdwatchers, naturalists, cyclists, in-line skaters, pleasure walkers, joggers,
researchers and students.
The Master Plan for Tommy Thompson Park was completed in 1989 and then revised in 1992
through the Minister of the Environment's approval under the Environmental Assessment Act.
The park is operated under the Interim Management Program in accordance with the delegated
responsibilities given to TRCA by the Province of Ontario.
•
Until recently, very limited funding has been provided toward the implementation of the Master
Plan. Instead, the vision for the park has been partially realized through funds directed to the
Interim Management Program and through partnered habitat creation and enhancement
projects. In 2006, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) agreed to provide the
funding necessary to implement the first phase of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan,
including the design and construction of TTP infrastructure. While adhering to its primary goal
of preserving and creating a unique, car free urban wilderness, Tommy Thompson Park has the
potential to better accommodate its users, and to provide a more attractive and inviting fagade
to the arriving public, as well as encouraging the public to better understand the uniqueness of
this urban wilderness park. To accomplish this goal, TRCA retained Montgomery Sisam
Architects Inc. to design three (3) building structures consisting of a staff booth and interpretive
area, an environmental shelter and an ecological research (bird banding) station. The design
of these structures, ranging from approximately 300-1,000 sq. ft., are predominately concrete
and will be constructed of corten steel plate siding panels with all interior and exterior finishes.
The layout consists of office space, interpretive space and offline/online washroom facilities.
RATIONALE
Request for Pre -Qualification (RFPQ) for general contractors to construct these facilities was
advertised on-line with MERX on June 15, 2011 and closed on June 22, 2011. The work
includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the supply of labour, material, supervision and
equipment to construct the building structures. The general contractor will coordinate all
construction activities which will comprise of concrete forming; structural; mechanical;
electrical; millwork and site servicing installation.
Interested general contractors in pre -qualifying were advised that the criteria for evaluation will
include:
• completeness of submission;
• past experience in the construction of buildings of similar size;
• past experience with similar buildings;
• extensive site servicing installations including off grid energy (photovoltaic panels);
• ability to meet construction schedule milestones;
• ability to coordinate work by others; and
• experience dealing with projects with construction budgets of $1,000,000.00 to
$2,000,000.00.
All interested general contractors will need to be bondable and a bid bond of 10% of the
contract price will be required at the time of the tender submission. Pre -qualification information
was submitted by the following eight (8) firms:
• Al Langman Construction Inc.;
• DeFaveri Group Contracting Inc.;
• Elite Construction Inc.;
• Euro Group Ltd.;
• M.J. Dixon Construction Ltd.;
• Martinway Contracting Ltd.;
• Somerville Construction;
• Quad Pro Construction Inc.
•
The pre -qualifying documents were reviewed by the selection committee made up of TRCA and
TWRC management and supervisory staff that are responsible for TTP Master Plan
implementation and Lake Ontario Park planning. The proposals were evaluated on June 23
and 24, 2011 using the following criteria in order to receive a tender package:
• CCDC 11 (Canadian Construction Documents Committee) requirements and completion;
• company experience and background in similar works;
• experience of suggested personnel for this project;
• project record over the past five years; and
• references focusing on firms history of project control and experience.
Based on the evaluation process, Tender documents were made available to the following six
(6) general contractors:
• Al Langman Construction Inc.;
• DeFaveri Group Contracting Inc.;
• Elite Construction Inc.;
• M.J. Dixon Construction Ltd.;
• Martinway Contracting Ltd.;
• Somerville Construction.
All pre -qualified companies attended a mandatory site meeting on June 30, 2011.
Tenders closed on July 25, 2011 at 12:OOpm and were opened by the Tender Opening
Committee on July 25, 2011 at 2:OOpm with the following results:
BIDDERS
TOTAL
(Plus HST)
Martinway Contracting Ltd.
$1,860,075.00
DeFaveri Group Contracting Inc.
$1,875,000.00
Elite Construction Inc.
$2,010,712.00
M.J. Dixon Construction Ltd.
$2,109,000.00
Having previously pre-qualifed the bidders qualifications, TRCA staff evaluated the tenders on
the bid prices and the ability to complete the project as specified. TRCA reviewed the bids
against its own cost estimates and has determined that the bids are of reasonable value.
Based on evaluation of the bids received, staff recommends that Contract RSD11-58 be
awarded to Martinway Contracting Ltd. for the total cost not to exceed $1,860,075.00, plus a
10% contingency and HST, as they are the lowest bidder that meets TRCA specifications.
•
FINANCIAL DETAILS
TWRC is providing the funding necessary to implement the first phase of the Tommy
Thompson Park Master Plan. Funding has been allocated in TRCA's 2011 Tommy Thompson
Park Master Plan Implementation budget (accounts 216-22 and 216-32).
Report prepared by: Aaron D'Souza, extension 5775
Emails: ajdsouza@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366, Aaron D'Souza, extension 5775
Emails: rtoninger@trca.on.ca, ajdsouza@trca.on.ca
Date: June 24, 2011
RES.#A166/11 - GLEN STEWART RAVINE MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT
Contracts RSD11-34 and RSD11-45. Award of Contracts RSD11-34 and
RSD11-45 for Glen Stewart Ravine Project, design and construction of a
pedestrian boardwalk, three steel bridges, a steel staircase and the
construction of nine EnvirolokT" retaining walls, in the City of Toronto.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT Contract RSD11-34 for the design and installation of one (1) 98 metre long
boardwalk, one (1) 14 metre span pedestrian bridge, two (2) 5 metre span pedestrian
bridges, and one (1) 61 metre long staircase, be awarded to DDR Landscape Contractors
Ltd. for a total cost not to exceed $869,000.00, plus a contingency amount of $87,000.00
to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA staff cost estimates and
specifications;
THAT Contract RSD11-45 for the construction of nine (9) Envirolok'" retaining walls, be
awarded to The Beach Gardener Inc. for the total cost not to exceed $127,435.32, plus a
contingency amount of $13,000.00 to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST,
it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA staff cost estimates and 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.
CARRIED
•
BACKGROUND
Glen Stewart Ravine is located in the City of Toronto in the Beach community, bordered by
Kingston Road to the north, and Queen Street to the south, and surrounded by residential
streets to the east and west (Beech Avenue, Balsam Avenue, Pine Crescent and Glen Major
Drive).
A small watercourse known as Ames Creek flows through the ravine, and is primarily fed by
groundwater. In 1981 Glen Stewart Ravine was designated as a protected area under the City
of Toronto's Ravine Protection By-law. The ravine area is owned by the City of Toronto and
regulated by both the City and TRCA. The City developed a trail system through the ravine to
encourage public use of the natural feature, however ongoing seepage from the ravine slopes,
heavy foot and bicycle traffic off of designated trail areas, and natural weathering of existing
structures (e.g. staircases, railings) has degraded the ravine, prompting the Parks, Forestry and
Recreation department (PF&R) of the City to develop a management plan to address these
deficiencies.
The Glen Stewart Ravine Management Plan (the Plan) was prepared for the purpose of
providing strategic direction to the City to aid in the management and use of Glen Stewart
Ravine, with the goal of developing a long-term management strategy to protect, enhance and
restore the ecological, hydrological, geological and recreational functions of the ravine in an
environmentally sensitive and economically sound manner. The key management objectives
are identified in the Glen Stewart Ravine Management Plan Executive Summary, and
discussed in detail in the Glen Steward Ravine Management Plan Technical Report.
The recommendations of the report identify a strategy for the City to provide long-term
maintenance objectives to improve the safety and access, ensure slope stability and improved
ecological integrity of the ravine, while allowing passive recreational use.
In 2009 PF&R approached TRCA about working in partnership to complete additional
geotechnical investigative works within Glen Stewart Ravine to establish the long-term stable
slope crest, and in the assessment of failing retaining structures within the ravine, in support of
the development of an implementation plan for the recommendations of the report. The
implementation of the proposed works is anticipated to be in 2011, pending availability of
funding.
As a result of the existing partnership TRCA was asked to aid in the implementation of the first
phase of the management plan including:
• replacement of the existing staircase from Balsam Avenue with a steel staircase with
anti -slip self weathering steel treads;
• replacement of three bridge crossings;
• replacement of failing retaining walls within the ravine with vegetated retaining wall
systems called EnvirolokTM.
• installation of a boardwalk over trail areas affected by groundwater movement;
• installation of fencing to minimize access to the non -formalized areas of the ravine;
• general trail improvements including signage and benches.
TRCA issued tenders for all of the structural components of the project including RSD11-34 for
the design and construction of bridges, boardwalk and staircase components, and RSD11-45
for the Envirolok vegetated retaining wall system.
RATIONALE
Tenders RSD11-34 and RSD11-45 were publicly advertised on the web site Biddingo
http://www.biddingo.com/) on June 30, 2011 with mandatory site information meetings held on
July 11, 2011. Tender package RSD11-34 was sent to 28 potential bidders as follows:
• R&M Construction;
• Somerville Construction;
• Aplus General Contractors;
• DDR Landscape Contractors Ltd.;
• Victor Ford and Associates Inc.;
• Silver Birch Contracting Ltd.;
• Taylor Wakefield General Contractors;
• Clearwater Structures Inc.;
• Hobden Construction;
• Dynex Construction Ltd.;
• Timmerman Timber Works;
• McPherson -Andrews Contracting Limited;
• The Ontario Construction Company Limited;
• PCL Constructors Canada Inc.;
• Halcrow Yolles;
• Kasian Architecture Ontario Incorporated;
• Turner & Townsend CM2R Inc.;
• AECOM;
• CSL GROUP;
• Sanchez Engineering Inc.;
• Halsall Associates Ltd.;
• Iron Bridge Fabrication Inc.;
• FTD Construction Inc.;
• Trade Mark Industrial Inc.;
• MTM Landscaping Contractors Inc;
• Collavino Group;
• Serve Construction Ltd.; and
• Resource Industrial Group.
Tender package RSD11-45 was sent to 15 contractors as follows:
• R&M Construction;
• Aplus General Contractors;
• DDR Landscape Contractors Ltd.;
• Silver Birch Contracting Ltd.;
• Clearwater Structures Inc.;
• Dynex Construction Ltd.;
• McPherson -Andrews Contracting Limited;
• The Ontario Construction Company Limited;
• PCL Constructors Canada Inc.;
• CSL GROUP;
• FTD Construction Inc.;
• MTM Landscaping Contractors Inc;
• Lomco landscaping:
• Serve Construction Ltd.; and
• The Beach Gardener Inc.
The Tender Opening Committee opened the tenders on July 22, 2011 with the following results:
Contract RSD11-34, Design and Construct a Pedestrian Boardwalk, Three Steel Bridges
and a Steel Staircase
BIDDERS
TOTAL
(Plus HST
and Contingency)
D.D.R. Landscape Contractors Ltd.
$869,000.00
Silver Birch Contracting Ltd.
$944,324.00
McPherson -Andrews Contracting Ltd.
$1,096,349.00
•
CONTRACT RSD11-45, for the construction of nine (9) Envirolok'" retaining walls
Based on the bids received, staff recommends that Contract RSD11-34 be awarded to D.D.R.
Landscape Contractors Ltd. for the total cost not to exceed $869,000.00, plus a contingency
amount of $87,000.00 to be expended as authorized by the TRCA, plus HST; and that Contract
RSD11-45 be awarded to The Beach Gardener Inc. for the total cost not to exceed $127,435.32,
plus a contingency amount of $13,000.00 to be expended as authorized by the TRCA, plus
HST, as they are the lowest bidders for their respective contracts that meet TRCA staff cost
estimates and specifications.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds are 100 % recoverable from the City of Toronto within account 185-33.
Report prepared by: James Dickie, 416-392-9702
Emails: jdickie@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Mark Preston, 416-392-9722
Emails: mpreston@trca.on.ca
Date: July 08, 2011
RES.#A167/11 - WILKET CREEK PARK SITE 6/7 EMERGENCY WORKS PROJECT
Contract RSD11-56. Award of Contract RSD11-56 for the supply and
installation of two 30 metre long corten steel pedestrian bridges and one
40 metre long boardwalk, at Wilket Creek Park Site 6/7 Emergency Works
Project, in the City of Toronto.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT Contract RSD11-56 for the supply and installation of two (2) 30 metre long steel
pedestrian bridges and one (1) 40 metre long elevated boardwalk at the Wilket Creek
Park, in the City of Toronto, be awarded to McPherson -Andrews Contracting Ltd. for the
total cost not to exceed $615,414.00, plus a contingency amount of $60,000.00 to be
expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff, plus
HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA staff cost estimates and specifications;
TOTAL
BIDDERS
(Plus HST
and Contingency)
The Beach Gardener Inc.
$127,435.32
D.D.R. Landscape Contractors Ltd.
$200,000.00
Based on the bids received, staff recommends that Contract RSD11-34 be awarded to D.D.R.
Landscape Contractors Ltd. for the total cost not to exceed $869,000.00, plus a contingency
amount of $87,000.00 to be expended as authorized by the TRCA, plus HST; and that Contract
RSD11-45 be awarded to The Beach Gardener Inc. for the total cost not to exceed $127,435.32,
plus a contingency amount of $13,000.00 to be expended as authorized by the TRCA, plus
HST, as they are the lowest bidders for their respective contracts that meet TRCA staff cost
estimates and specifications.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds are 100 % recoverable from the City of Toronto within account 185-33.
Report prepared by: James Dickie, 416-392-9702
Emails: jdickie@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Mark Preston, 416-392-9722
Emails: mpreston@trca.on.ca
Date: July 08, 2011
RES.#A167/11 - WILKET CREEK PARK SITE 6/7 EMERGENCY WORKS PROJECT
Contract RSD11-56. Award of Contract RSD11-56 for the supply and
installation of two 30 metre long corten steel pedestrian bridges and one
40 metre long boardwalk, at Wilket Creek Park Site 6/7 Emergency Works
Project, in the City of Toronto.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT Contract RSD11-56 for the supply and installation of two (2) 30 metre long steel
pedestrian bridges and one (1) 40 metre long elevated boardwalk at the Wilket Creek
Park, in the City of Toronto, be awarded to McPherson -Andrews Contracting Ltd. for the
total cost not to exceed $615,414.00, plus a contingency amount of $60,000.00 to be
expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff, plus
HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA staff cost estimates and 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.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Wilket Creek tributary of the East Don River was one of the watercourses that suffered a
significant amount of damage as the result of the August 19, 2005 storm event. The City of
Toronto subsequently retained TRCA in 2007 to manage, design and implement large-scale
restoration works within Edwards Gardens, and 10 repair projects focused on infrastructure
protection and public safety within Wilket Creek Park, to return the park system to a state of
good repair.
Shortly following completion of the aforementioned restoration work, another severe storm
event hit the Toronto area on June 23, 2008, damaging three of the sites in Wilket Creek Park
recently repaired by TRCA. It was evident by this point that a comprehensive study and
rehabilitation plan was required to provide long-term protection for municipal infrastructure and
public safety within Wilket Creek Park.
The City of Toronto authorized TRCA to assume a leadership role in the planning, design and
implementation of large-scale restoration of Wilket Creek within Wilket Creek Park. During the
collection of background information for the rehabilitation project, three priority areas were
identified as needing emergency repairs due to the risk to municipal infrastructure and public
safety. These sites are referred to as Site 3, Site 6 and Site 7. Recognizing that one of the
objectives of the rehabilitation project is to identify a preferred stable alignment and geometry
for the watercourse, the scope of work for the emergency repair sites will include
implementation of the preferred channel planform at these locations.
The proposed scope of work for Site 6 and Site 7, which collectively forms one large repair site
(Site 6/7), involves widening and realigning the channel, which in turn requires two existing
bridges to be replaced with bridges with a wider span. As a result of the channel being
realigned at Site 6/7, the adjacent pedestrian trail also requires realignment. On the west side of
the existing trail is an extensive seepage wetland that provides high quality habitat for local
fauna.
Although great care has been taken to select a new alignment that avoids disturbance to
sensitive areas and existing vegetation as much as possible, portions of the trail are required to
extend through the wetland. Following an internal analysis of the potential impacts of the
proposed realignment on the wetland, it was recommended that this portion of the trail be
elevated above grade as an elevated boardwalk feature, which minimizes the impacts to the
wetland while providing safe access through the park for pedestrians and maintenance
vehicles.
As a result, TRCA issued a Tender for the supply and installation of two (2) 30 metre long by
3.5 metre wide corten steel pedestrian bridges including abutments, railings and precast
concrete deck, and the supply and installation of one (1) 40 metre long by 3.5 metre wide
elevated boardwalk supported on helical piles including, abutments, railings and precast
concrete deck.
•
RATIONALE
Tender RSD11-56 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo
http://www.biddingo.com/) on June 30, 2011 with a site information meeting held on July 7,
2011. Tender packages were sent to 26 contractors as follows:
• R&M Construction;
• Somerville Construction;
• Aplus General Contractors;
• DDR Landscape Contractors Ltd.;
• Silver Birch Contracting Ltd.;
• Taylor Wakefield General Contractors;
• Clearwater Structures Inc.;
• Hobden Construction;
• Dynex Construction Ltd.;
• McPherson -Andrews Contracting Limited;
• The Ontario Construction Company Limited;
• PCL Constructors Canada Inc.;
• CSL GROUP;
• Lomco Landscaping;
• Iron Bridge Fabrication Inc.;
• R- Chad General Contractors;
• FTD Construction Inc.;
• Postech North;
• Trade Mark Industrial Inc.;
• MTM Landscaping Contractors Inc;
• Collavino Group;
• Hawkins Contracting;
• TMP Foundations;
• Pine Valley Enterprises Inc.;
• Serve Construction Ltd.; and
• Resource Industrial Group.
The Tender Opening Committee opened the tenders on July 22, 2011 with the following results:
Contract RSD11-56, Wilket Creek Park Site 6/7 Emergency Works Project
BIDDERS
TOTAL
(Plus HST
and Contingency)
McPherson -Andrews Contracting Ltd.
$615,414.00
Silver Birch Contracting Ltd.
$658,376.00
Taylor Wakefield General Contractors Ltd.
$660,495.66
Clearwater Structures Inc.
$683,500.00
DDR Landscape Contractors Ltd.
$719,500.00
PCR Contractors Inc.
$737,680.00
MTM Landscaping Contractors Ltd.
$952,200.00
Based on the bids received, staff recommends that Contract RSD11-56 be awarded to
McPherson -Andrews Contracting Ltd. for the total cost of $615,414.00, plus a contingency
amount of $60,000.00 to be expended as authorized by the TRCA, plus HST, it being the lowest
bid that meets TRCA staff cost estimates and specifications.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The cost of the project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto within account #185-08
Report prepared by: James Dickie, 416-392-9702
Emails: jdickie@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Mark Preston, 416-392-9722
Emails: mpreston@trca.on.ca
Date: July 08, 2011
RES.#A168/11 - SUPPLY OF RENTAL RATES FOR OPERATED HEAVY
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND DUMP TRUCKS
Tender RSD11-25. Award of Contract RSD11-25 for the supply of
operated heavy construction equipment and dump trucks.
(Executive Res. #B 102/11)
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
THAT the Restoration Services Division utilize, as required, the services of Sartor and
Susin for the supply of operated heavy construction equipment and dump trucks for the
period August 1, 2011 to July 31, 2012, be awarded to Sartor and Susin Limited, it being
the tender that bests meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA's)
requirements at a competitive cost;
THAT staff be authorized to use the second tender for the supply of operated heavy
construction equipment and dump trucks (D.D.R. Landscape Contractors Ltd.) that next
best meets TRCA's requirements, as 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.
CARRIED
RES.#A169/11 - CITY OF TORONTO AND THE RIVERHOUSE AT THE OLD MILL
LIMITED
Request for a permanent easement for a 300mm stormwater outfall
located north of Bloor Street West and east of Jane Street, City of
Toronto, CFN 45942. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto
and The Riverhouse at the Old Mill Limited to provide a permanent
easement for a stormwater outfall, north of Bloor Street West and east
of Jane Street, City of Toronto, Humber River watershed.
(Executive Res. #B 103/11)
•
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request
from the City of Toronto for a stormwater outfall which will assist The Riverhouse at the
Old Mill Limited with their developments in this vicinity;
AND 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 City of Toronto, and The Riverhouse at the Old Mill Limited in this
instance;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing 0.00241
hectares (0.00595 acres), more or less, be granted to The Riverhouse at the Old Mill
Limited for a 300mm stormwater outfall to facilitate the development of adjacent lands
owned by The Riverhouse at the Old Mill Limited, said land being part of Block C and
Registered Plan M-385 and Part of Lot 1, Registered Plan M-416, designated as Part 5 on
draft R -Plan, City of Toronto, subject to the following terms and conditions:
(a) the easement price is $10,000 which is to be paid by The Riverhouse at the Old Mill
Limited to TRCA, plus all legal and survey costs incurred to complete the
transaction;
(b) all disturbed areas are to be restored to the satisfaction of TRCA and the City of
Toronto as soon as possible after completion of construction;
(c) sediment control measures in a manner satisfactory to TRCA are to be practiced
during construction;
(d) The Riverhouse at the Old Mill Limited is to be responsible for all repairs and/or
maintenance of the stormwater outfall which may be required in perpetuity and for
indemnifying TRCA from any and all claims arising from the construction;
(e) an archaeological investigation is to be conducted before any site disturbance, with
any mitigative measures required being carried out all at the expense of The
Riverhouse at the Old Mill Limited to the satisfaction of TRCA;
(f) any additional considerations as deemed appropriate by TRCA staff or its solicitor;
THAT The Riverhouse at the Old Mill Limited 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 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;
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.#A170/11 - CITY OF TORONTO
Request for a Permanent Easement for a 400 mm Diameter Watermain
Rouge River Watershed, City of Toronto (Scarborough Community
Council Area), CFN 45938. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto
to provide a permanent easement for a 400 mm diameter watermain, east
side of Kirkhams Road, north of the Meadowvale Road intersection,
Rouge River watershed, City of Toronto (Scarborough Community
Council Area).
(Executive Res. #B 104/11)
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request
from the City of Toronto to provide a permanent easement for a 400 mm diameter
watermain, east side of Kirkhams Road, north of the Meadowvale Road intersection,
Rouge River watershed, City of Toronto (Scarborough 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 a permanent easement containing a total of
0.17 hectares (0.41 acres), more or less, be granted to the City of Toronto for a 400 mm
watermain, said land being Part of Lot 5, Concession 3, City of Toronto (Scarborough
Community Council Area), as shown on a plan prepared by City of Toronto - Technical
Services;
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;
491
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
RES.#A171/11 - DUKE OF RICHMOND DEVELOPMENT INC., TOWN OF
RICHMOND HILL AND REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK
Request for Permanent Easements for a Watermain, and Stormwater
Drainage Culverts
Rouge River Watershed, Town of Richmond Hill, Region of York, CFN
44070. Receipt of a request from the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional
Municipality of York and Duke of Richmond Development Inc. to
provide permanent easements for a watermain, and stormwater
drainage culverts, north of Gamble Road and east of Bathurst Street,
Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River
watershed.
(Executive Res. #B 105/11)
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request
from the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York and Duke of Richmond
Development Inc. for permanent easements for a watermain, and stormwater drainage
culverts which will assist Duke of Richmond with their developments in this vicinity;
AND 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 Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York and Duke of
Richmond Development Inc., in this instance;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT permanent easements containing 0.018
hectares (0.046 acres), more or less, be granted to Town of Richmond Hill for a watermain
for the Bathurst Intersection Improvement Project to facilitate the development of
adjacent lands owned by Duke of Richmond Development Inc., said lands being part of
Block 181, Plan 65M-3829 and designated as Part 4 on draft R -Plan prepared by
Rady-Pentek & Edward Survey Ltd., CAD File 07138r03A;
492
THAT permanent easements containing 0.171 hectares (0.422 acres), more or less, be
granted to Regional Municipality of York for stormwater drainage culverts for the Bathurst
Intersection Improvement Project, said land being part of Part of Block 184 and Block
190, Plan 65M-3829 and designated as Part 1 and 2 on draft R -Plan prepared by
Rady-Pentek & Edward Survey Ltd. CAD File 07138R06; Plan of Block 181, Plan 65M-3829
and designated as Part 3 and 4 on draft R -Plan prepared by Rady-Pentek & Edward
Survey Ltd., CAD File 07138r03A; and Part of Block 287, Plan 65M-3825 designated as
Part 1 and 2 on draft R -Plan prepared by Rady-Pentek & Edward Survey Ltd., CAD File
07138R05, subject to the following terms and conditions:
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 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., Town of Richmond Hill and Regional
Municipality of York 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 the granting of these easements 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
SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
RES.#A172/11 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
Moved by: Colleen Jordan
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
493
THAT Section II items EX8.1 - EX8.4, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes
#6/11, held on July 8, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
Section II Items EX8.1 - EX8.4, Inclusive
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING
(Executive Res. #B 106/11)
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING
(Executive Res. #B 107/11)
PORT UNION WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE 2)
(Executive Res. #B 108/11)
REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION
AUTHORITY -OWNED LAND
(Executive Res. #B 109/11)
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES.#A173/11 - CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES MORAINE COALITION
Receipt of the 2010 accomplishments brochure.
Moved by: Richard Whitehead
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
THAT the report and brochure on the 2010 summary of accomplishments of the
Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The nine conservation authorities with watersheds on the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) partnered
together in late 2000 as the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC).
The mission of the CAMC is to:
• advance the science and understanding of the Oak Ridges Moraine; and
• work toward government, agency and community support for the form, function and
linkages of the ORM.
The newly revised goals of the CAMC are to:
• work in partnership to protect and restore an integrated natural heritage, land form and
water resource system on the Oak Ridges Moraine;
• undertake science -based research and monitoring through an integrated watershed
management approach;
• promote healthy communities and provide opportunities for public use, enjoyment and
outdoor recreation by contributing to an accessible, linked public green space and trail
system across the ORM;
• advocate for and take action to protect and restore the ORM through stewardship, land
securement and education; and
• provide expert advice on environmental planning and policy matters to support a robust
and resilient natural environment as the foundation for sustainable community planning on
the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Brian Denney, Chief Administrative Officer of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA), served as Chair of CAMC for 2010. David Burnett, Manager, Provincial and Regional
Policy, TRCA, has been the coordinator/senior planner for the CAMC since mid -2001.
2010 Accomplishments
The 2010 version of the annual accomplishments brochure is a summary of the decade of
accomplishments by the CAMC on the ORM, from 2001 to 2010. Details are found in the
brochure included as Attachment 1. A colour hard copy will also be distributed to Authority
Members at the meeting.
The brochure is being distributed across the Oak Ridges Moraine to municipal councils and
senior staff, Members of Parliament and Provincial Parliament, CAMC member boards and
partners and ORM stakeholders. It will also be posted on the CAMC page of the TRCA website.
Some of the highlights detailed in the brochure include:
• the recent profiling of CAMC's signature project, the YPDT-CAMC Groundwater Study,
initiated in 2001 in partnership with the regions of York, Peel, Durham and the City of
Toronto, in the 2009 report of the Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on
Groundwater, as a case study that demonstrated a sustainable approach to groundwater
management;
• the securement into public ownership of more than 2100 ha of environmentally significant
lands on the ORM by CAMC members since 2002, bringing the total amount of public lands
on the ORM owned and managed by conservation authorities to more than 14,000 ha;
• The completion of 325 stewardship projects on the ORM that resulted in:
• planting of 500,000 trees to reforest 285 ha;
• creation or enhancement of 16.5 ha of wetlands;
• prairie restoration on 34.6 ha; and
• riparian (stream corridor) restoration of 16.8 km.
The brochure also includes a pull-out "tourism" map to help people explore and appreciate the
ORM, which identifies several hiking trails, 15 points of interest, eight historical or cultural sites
and 15 conservation areas. The brochure also summarizes CAMC accomplishments and
partnerships in the areas of environmental education, watershed studies and monitoring,
ORM-related policy development and implementation plus CAMC member work in helping to
complete the Oak Ridges Trail.
495
One of the most important accomplishments of 10 years of conservation work on the ORM has
been the creation of the many partnerships to undertake these projects. The brochure lists
some 36 groups that CAMC has partnered with to undertake research, education, citizen
science and monitoring, landowner contact and land securement.
Lastly, the brochure identifies several challenges and opportunities ahead on the ORM:
• finding the time and resources to conduct research and monitoring to participate effectively
in the upcoming 2015 provincial review of the ORM Conservation Plan;
• capitalizing on new opportunities which may emerge from the potential designation of the
ORM and Greenbelt as a UNESCO Biosphere Region (as the Niagara Escarpment is
already so designated) to bring to the ORM a missing focus on cultural heritage resources
and promoting sustainable livelihoods; and
• sustaining the momentum and partnerships built for land securement and stewardship on
the ORM in the absence of the ORM Foundation, if it is not able to secure new grant funding
from the Province of Ontario.
This last point is particularly important, as TRCA has been the recipient of approximately $3.7
million from the ORM Foundation (ORMF) from 2002 to 2010. Given the ORMF requirement for
a 2:1 (recipient : ORMF) funding ratio for grants, this has leveraged double that amount from
partnership funding, resulting in roughly $10 million dollars in funding for stewardship, land
securement, education, trails development and research on the TRCA portion of the ORM over
the last 10 years.
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: June 03, 2011
Attachments: 1
Attachment 1
•
497
i,
17,
V d
14,
Y I
is
'6
I J
Ty
-9
ali
I
SIJ,
s S 'A
v o
Id Y
VI
rr
T E
71
Vf
1p
IP
o,
'If
0
500
501
4Z
t,
Ira
iia
IC
Cl
501
I
ro
I
I
502
RES.#A174/11 - SUMMARY OF REQUESTS FOR QUOTATIONS AND REQUESTS FOR
PROPOSALS
January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011. Receipt of the 2011 mid -year summary
of procurements approved by the Chief Administrative Officer or his
designate.
Moved by: Richard Whitehead
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
THAT the summary of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) procurements
approved by the Chief Administrative Officer or his designate for the January 1, 2011 to
June 30, 2011 period, be received.
Moved by:
Richard Whitehead
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #5/05, held on June 24, 2005, Resolution #A124/05 approved the
Purchasing Policy, and resolved, in part, as follows:
...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 summaries of Requests for Quotations and
Requests for Proposals from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011, are found in Attachments 2 and
3, respectively. The report includes approvals of $10,000 or greater, to the maximum allowable
limit under the policy, falling within the purview of the Chief Administrative Officer or his
designate.
Attachment 1 includes the criteria as to why non-competitive procurement was appropriate for
the particular goods or services procured, as per Section 1.14 of TRCA's Purchasing Policy.
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 HST not recoverable by TRCA).
The total purchases (including contingencies) approved by the Chief Administrative
Officer/designate from January 1 to June 30, 2011 was as follows:
503
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: July 4, 2011
Attachments: 3
504
Procurements
(Plus HST)
Sole Source
320,898.74
Lowest Bid/Competitive
2,830,642.94
Not Lowest Bid 1
45,804.28
TOTAL 1
3,197,345.96
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: July 4, 2011
Attachments: 3
504
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:
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'.
505
Attachment 2
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Lowest Bid (up to $100,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable Taxes
Requested/
Complete Bids
Received
Kew Gardens Park
Roma Fence Limited
13,339.45
3/3
Supply and Installation of Fencing
+ 2,500.00 contingency
Former CN Property
Atlas Fence Toronto Ltd.
10,400.00
3/2
Fencing Related to Land Acquisition
ACQUISITION OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
New 2011 Midsize Pickup Truck
Brimell Toyota
31,961.75
15/3
Two New 4X4 Extend Cab Trucks
Leggat Chevrolet
57,402.00
12/2
One New 2011 Hybrid SUV
Fines Ford Lincoln Sales
34,736.00
14/4
One 4X4 Chassis Crew Cab with Hydraulic
East Court Ford Lincoln Sales
56,818.00
14/5
Dump Box
One 4X4 Crew Cab Hybrid Truck
Leggat Chevrolet Buick GMC
36,675.00
14/5
Limited
One New Loader/Tractor
Nobleton Farm Service Ltd.
50,350.00
7/2
One New Loader/Tractor
Nobleton Farm Service Ltd.
57,600.00
7/2
Kubota KC120H Tracked Carrier
Kooy Brothers Lawn
16,800.00
3/3
Equipment Ltd.
295 UNWIN AVENUE NURSERY RELOCATION PROJECT
Supply and Install New 150mm Watermain
Sam Rabito Construction
93,800.00
8/3
Limited
+ 4,000.00 contingency
Supply and Install New Hydro Service
Dilisado Enterprises Electrical
38,050.00
4/1
Contractors Limited
+ 4,000.00 contingency
Contract Extension - Supply and Delivery of
Strada Aggregates Inc.
51,625.00 increasing
4/2
Approximately 5,900 Tonnes of Recycled 50
total project cost to
mm Crusher Run
99,750.00
Supply and Installation of Irrigation and Site
AWS Irrigation Management
$59,876.00
8/3
Drainage System
Inc.
+3,000.00
contingency
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 4,700
Vicdom Sand & Gravel
58,750.00
8/4
Tonnes of Granular B Type 1 Material
Limited
PORT UNION WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,500
Glenn Windrem Trucking
65,700.00
8/2
Tonnes of 4 to 6 Tonne Armour Stone
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,000
Glenn Windrem Trucking
23,350.00
8/3
Tonnes of 225mm-450mm Riprap Stone
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 750
Glenn Windrem Trucking
22,237.50
10/3
Tonnes of 150mm-300mm Cobble Stone
Limited
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,000
Glenn Windrem Trucking
29,650.00
10/4
Tonnes of 75mm-200mm Cobble Stone
Limited
Supply and Installation of 1,100 m of Black
Leone Fence Company
61,380.00
6/3
Chain Link Fence
Limited
+$5,000.00
contingency,
506
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Lowest Bid (up to $100,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable Taxes
Requested/
Complete Bids
Received
TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
Supply and Delivery of 3600 mm L x 2300 mm
Anchor Concrete Products
18,590.00
3/2
H x 2000 mm W Monolithic Concrete Water
Limited
+ 10% contingency
Control Structure
Steel Fabrication to Produce Fish and Water
Rio Welding Limited
16,000.00
3/2
Level Control Structure
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION
CTC Source Protection Committee Workshop
Hockley Valley Resort
25,400.00
3/3
Facility
+ 10% contingency &
15% gratuity
Mailing Services
Troi Mailing Services
80,000.00
7/4
Workshop Facilitation
Ogilvie, Ogilvie and Company
11,814.50
3/1
+4,000.00 contingency,
BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE
Supply and Delivery of Fuel
Armstrong Petroleum Ltd.
12,000.00
3/3
Golf Carts Rental
Bennett Golf Carts
19,000.00
3/2
+ 10% contingency
Course Hardware and Accessories
AIITurf Ltd.
15,000.00
3/3
+ 10% contingency
Paper Purchases
Spicers
30,000.00
Competitive
process
undertaken by
City of Toronto
MEADOWCLIFFE DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Supply and Delivery of Two Concrete Box
Hanson Pipe & Precast
29,443.00
3/3
Culverts
Limited
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 3,000
Glenn Windrem Trucking
76,500.00
12/6
Tonnes of 0.5-1 Tonne Armour Stone
Limited
Sugarbush Maple Syrup Festival
A & A Farmyard Friends
17,000.00
10/2
Horse Drawn Wagon Rides
+ 10% contingency,
KORTRIGHT CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION
Replacement of Plumbing System
Pipeline Mechanical Services
18,750.00
3/3
Ltd.
+ 10% contingency
Geothermal Test Well and Thermal Response
GeoEnergy Solutions Inc.
16,000.00
4/4
Test
+ 10% contingency
Claireville Ranch
Post Farm Structures
24,900.00
5/4
Construct Manure Storage Facility
+ permit fees
BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE
Victoria Green Unit Paving Project Servcon Inc. 21,389.50 8/4
+ 10% contingency
Front Entrance Retrofit Dardan Contractors Ltd. 11,800.00 6/3
507
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Lowest Bid (up to $100,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable Taxes
Requested/
Complete Bids
Received
Seedling Planting and Tending Services at
Bartram Woodlands
35,197.79
4/3
Claireville property & Oak Ridges Corridor Park
Claireville Conservation Area
Trisan Construction
42,494.00
5/4
Removal of Existing & Installation of New Water
Metre & Chamber
Pickering Beach Debris Removal
IA Disposal Service Co Ltd.
22,000.00
3/2
+ 10% contingency
Beaucourt Road Retaining Wall Replacement
Glenn Windrem Trucking
42,750.00
8/2
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 900
Tonnes of 3 to 5 Tonne Armour Stone
Courtney Park Trail Project
Glenn Windrem Trucking
16,576.00
8/3
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 370
Limited
Tonnes of 250mm-600mm Boulders
East Don Parkland Bank Stabilization Project
Glenn Windrem Trucking
16,967.50
8/4
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 550
Limited
Tonnes of 75mm-300mm Boulders
ROUGE PARK PROPERTIES
Replacement of Hydro Line Feeding at 7 and 9
York Power & Lighting Inc.
22,200.00
5/3
Reesor Road
Replacement of Kitchen for 2267 Meadowvale
Nova Decor Construction Ltd.
13,500.00
3/3
Road
Partners in Project Green
Powerline Films
10,090.00
4/4
Filming and Editing of Video Case Studies
WILLOWBANK TRAIL CHANNEL RESTORATION PROJECT
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 325
Fowler Construction Company
9,831.25
6/5
Tonnes of 250mm-350mm River Stone
Limited
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 700
Nelson Aggregates Co.
18,550.00
6/5
Tonnes of 50mm-200mm River Stone
Supply and Delivery of Uniforms for Restoration
Grant Custom Products
30,000/year for 2 years
4/3
Services Division Staff
+ 10% contingency
Contract Extension - Nashville Property
National Waste Services Inc.
5,866.70, increasing
3/3
Clean-up
total project cost to
Waste Disposal Services for Demolition of Site
14,191.70
Buildings and Site Clean-up
Building Condition Survey, Phase 1
Trow Associates Inc.
18,875.00
3/3
Environmental Site Assessment and Designated
Substance Survey at 1235 Ormont Drive
Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action
Delta Meadowvale Hotel,
8,580.00
3/3
Committee
Mississauga
+ gratuity
Facility for Summit for Food and Farming
Strategy and Action Plan
•
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Lowest Bid (up to $100,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable Taxes
Requested/
Complete Bids
Received
WILKET CREEK SANITARY SEWER ENCASEMENT
Supply and Install 28 metres of Concrete Sewer
McPherson -Andrews
66,934.00
10/3
Encasement
Contracting Limited
+ 5,000.00 contingency
Contract Extension for Additional Works
McPherson -Andrews
26,266.00
n/a - contract
Contracting Limited
extension
Drill New Well and Decommissioning Old Well
Roger Boadway Ent. Ltd.
17,772.90
5/3
at Swan Lake
2011 Toronto Dog Off Leash Park
Roma Fence Limited
40,785.00
3/2
Installation of Chainlink Fencing Pedestrian
+ 10,000.00
Entry Enclosures and Service Gates
contingency
ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA
Retrofit of Albion Hills Beach Centre Kitchen
Robertson Construction
52,359.00
6/4
Ventilation and Fire Suppression
Services
+ 10% contingency
Caledon Canada Day Pyrotechnics Display
North Star Fireworks
11,504.43
5/1
Entertainment Inc.
Milne House Structural Stabilization
Schuster Contracting
13,242.40
4/3
+ 10% contingency,
SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING REMOVAL SERVICES
- June 2011 - June 2013
Kortright Centre; Boyd, Albion Hills, Glenn
BFI Canada
90,266.00
biddingo.com
Haffy, Bruce's Mill and Petticoat Creek
+ 10% contingency
/10
Conservation Areas; Claremont, Lake St.
George and Albion Hills Field Centres; Indian
Line and Glen Rouge Campgrounds;
Restoration Services Centre; Black Creek
Pioneer Village; Downsview Office; and Head
Office
Heart Lake Conservation Area and Bathurst
Wasteco
8,248.00
biddingo.com
Glen Golf Course
+ 10% contingency
/10
Boyd Office
Turtle Island Recycling
5,120.44
biddingo.com
+ 10% contingency
/10
Landscape & Site Improvements at Hanlan's
Ferdom Construction
1
54,416.00
9/3
Point Phase 2
+ 15% contingency
CROTHERS WOODS SUNVALLEY TRAIL
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,200
Nelson Aggregate
23,364.00
4/4
Tonnes of 19mm Crushed Limestone Aggregate
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 500
Nelson Aggregate
8,535.00
4/4
Tonnes of Limestone Screenings Aggregate
BOB HUNTER MEMORIAL PARK
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,800
Glenn Windrem Trucking
31,626.00
5/5
Tonnes of 19mm Crushed Limestone Aggregate
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 800
Glenn Windrem Trucking
12,776.00
5/4
Tonnes of Limestone Screenings Aggregate
TOTAL
2,210,490.04
509
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Lowest Bid Not Accepted (up to $25,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable
Requested/
Taxes
Complete Bids
Received
Glen Haffy Conservation Area
Martin Mills Inc.
20,000, plus 10%
2/2
Fish Food
Shoreplan Engineering Ltd.
contingency
5
Acquisition of Equipment
Yamaha Motor Canada Ltd.
14,054.28
3/3
One New 150 HP Four Stroke Outboard Marine
Imagewear by Mark's Work
15,000.00
3
Motor
Wearhouse
Partners in Project Green
Images Made Real
9,750.00
4/4
Filming and Editing Services for Training and
Networking Events
G. Raymond Chang School at
25,000.00
5
TOTAL
45,804.28
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Sole Source (up to $50,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Sole Source
($)
Criteria
Plus Applicable
(Section 1.14
Taxes
of TRCA's
Purchasing
Policy)
Mimico Waterfront Park
Shoreplan Engineering Ltd.
9,650.00
5
Phase 2 Shoreline Modification
Safety Footwear Purchases
Imagewear by Mark's Work
15,000.00
3
Wearhouse
Lake St. George Field Centre
Patti -Lynn Interiors
10,522.85
4
Dorm 2 - Carpet Replacement
PAIE Participants Communication Training
G. Raymond Chang School at
25,000.00
5
Ryerson University
East Don Trail Master Plan Update
R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd.
41,800.00
5
Sunny Days for Conservation Fundraiser
Deer Creek Golf and
10,400.00
4
Event Venue and Catering
Banquet Facility
+ gratuity
Bob Hunter Memorial Park
Kayanase Nursery
21,330.00
5
Acquisition of Planting Material
Telemetry Fish Tags
VEMCO
17,225.00
5
including shipping
Office Supply Purchases
Staples
25,000.00
3
Development of Design for Centre for Green
Schollen and Company Ltd.
14,067.59
5
Change Ecolandscaping and Greenroof
Demonstration Project
Post and Paddle Fencing Materials
Lanark Cedar
30,000.00
5
Wilket Creek Park Site 6/7 Structural Steel
Ganawa Bridge Products and
29,200.00
5
Portable Bridge
Services
TOTAL
249,195.44
510
Attachment 3
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL
Sole Source (up to $50,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Sole Source
($)
Criteria
Plus Applicable Taxes
Sales Tax Recovery
Hobb & Company, Chartered
15,000.00
5
Accountants
Little Etobicoke Creek at Willowbank Trail
Greck and Associates Limited
20,650.00
5
Channel Restoration
+ 10% contingency
Professional Engineering Services for
Restoration Work
Highland Creek at Brunview Crescent Bank
Aquafor Beech Limited
13,853.00
5
Stabilization Project
+ 10% contingency
Detailed Design of Bank Stabilization Works
Partners in Project Green
Agviro Inc.
18,750.00, increasing
3
Contract Extension - Delivery of Training and
total project cost to
Mentorship for Energy Management Co-op
83,750.00
Program
TOTAL
71,703.30
511
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL
Competitive Bid (up to $100,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable
Requested/
Taxes
Complete Bids
Received
Heart Lake Conservation Area Administration
Montgomery Sisam Architects
29,500.00
8/5
and Operation Centre
Inc.
+ 10% contingency
Conceptual Plan and Budget Development
Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project
AECOM Canada Limited
26,120.00
6/3
(Phase 2)
+ 3,100.00 contingency
Detailed Design and Specifications for
Construction of Steel Pedestrian Bridge
Website and Application Support and
Three Wise Men Inc.
46,000.00
biddingo.com/4
Development Services
Financial System Consultant Services
180Systems
24,000.00
5/3
Albion Hills Conservation Area Visitor Services
Paul Didur Architect Inc.
37,210.00
6/3
Gatehouse Construction Project
+ 10% contingency
Consulting Services
Seaton Improvement Project
Morrison -Hershfield
26,650.00
7/1
Structural Engineering Services
+ 10% contingency
Black Creek Pioneer Village
CHUM Radio
26,400.00
4/4
Radio Advertising Services
South Mimico Trail Link
AECOM
85,031.00
5/3
Detailed Design Drawings and Cost Estimates
+10% contingency
for Pedestrian Bridges
Flood Modelling and Digital Floodline Mapping
Baird & Associates
63,982.00
5/2
within the Spring Creek Subwatershed
+10% contingency
(Etobicoke Creek)
2011 Laboratory Analytical Services
AGAT Laboratories
75,730.00
3/2
The Living City Campus at Kortright Website
Cooper Web Design
29,400.00
biddingo.com/
Development Services
14
Partners in Project Green Website Maintenance
WirelessLinx Inc.
14,500.00
bidinggo.com/1
Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Project (Phase 2)
Halcrow Yolles
57,420.00
8/1
Detailed Design and Specifications for the
+6,000.00 contingency
Construction of 3 boardwalks and Relocation of
Existing Gazebo
Floodline Maps within Don and Humber River
R.J. Burnside & Associates
I
13,066.00
I
3/3
Watersheds
+ 10% contingency
WILKET CREEK PARK SITE 6/7
Detailed Design and Specifications for
Brown & Company
22,500.00
10/6
Fabrication and Installation of Two Steel
Engineering Limited
+ 3,000.00 contingency
Pedestrian Bridges
Contract Extension for Boardwalk Design
Brown & Company
5,000.00, increasing
n/a - contract
Engineering Limited
total project cost to
extension
27,500.00
TOTAL
620,152.90
512
RES.#A175/11 - IN THE NEWS
Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities and
news stories from April - June, 2011.
Moved by: Richard Whitehead
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
THAT the summary of media coverage and Good News Stories from April - June, 2011 be
received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
As per Authority direction during 2006, a consolidated report covering highlights of Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities and news coverage for the preceding few
months is provided to the Authority every few months. The stories for April to June, 2011 are as
follows:
Healthy Rivers and Shorelines
Water News - Received approval from Director of Source Protection Branch for Assessment
Report. Will be posted on the EBR shortly.
• Successful workshop with Source Protection Committee held on source protection
plan.
Restoration - Secured $120,000 from Sithe Global Goreway Power Station to continue
restoration along Mimico Creek.
Education and Stewardship - Stewardship staff completed the Don Water Wise Stewardship
Project. This two years of EcoAction funding allowed TRCA to work with the Don
Council, Don Parkland partners and 43 classes in the City of Toronto to grow and
plant 2,700 aquatic plants. In addition, a teacher extension guide, and podcast were
created.
• Canadian Geographic's July issue included a feature story titled "Death and Rebirth
of the Don River". TRCA, Paddle the Don and the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council are mentioned in the story. The feature includes extras such as a timeline
(an abridged history of the Don), maps and a photo gallery of the Don during the
four seasons.
Celebrations and Events - Manulife Paddle the Don was a huge success with nearly 730
participants (paddlers and volunteers) and over $85,000 raised. This years' event,
held on Sunday May 1, 2011 saw 259 canoes and kayaks travel down the Don, a
great turn -out of paddlers despite the cold and wet weather. Among the participants
was celebrity paddler, Bob MacDonald from CBC's Quirks and Quarks and a
number of elected officials. The event generated 11 pieces of media coverage
including CBC's Metro Morning and Here and Now programs, a video piece on
Yonge Street Media and photos in the Toronto Star's photo gallery.
513
• 2011 Mill Pond Splash was a huge success, with nearly 2,000 people attending.
Over 40 environmental exhibitors and vendors were on hand to talk about local
issues, initiatives and ways to get involved. Event highlights include a high energy
musical performance by EnviroDrum, over 300 children participating in the
eco -scavenger hunt, the assembly of 100 birdhouses, and the diversion of e -waste
from the landfill through Ontario Electronic Stewardship's drop-off centre. Metroland
publications: York Region writes about the event in story "Make s splash at
eco -festival" on May 23.
• Hosted 15 events from June 8 -11th as part of the second annual Rouge Days
celebrations. Snap Pickering and Pickering News Advertiser wrote stories about the
events.
• York Guardian story "Black Creek Duck Race and Fish Stocking this weekend" is
about an annual conservation event in the Humber watershed. The event is
co-sponsored by the Ministry of Natural Resources and TRCA.
• Metroland Publications: InsideToronto, June 10 story "Port Union Waterfront Festival
set for June 11 " reports on the waterfront festival and the activities that will take
place, including interactive tables from TRCA.
• Scarborough Mirror, June 3 story "Rouge Valley open for eco exploration on
weekend" mentions TRCA experts will be participating in the annual Rouge Valley
Exploration.
Development Planning - TRCA Planning and Development staff concluded Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB) settlement negotiations on an estate residential
development at a site on the headwaters of the Rouge and Duff ins watersheds at the
top of the Oak Ridges Moraine in Whitchurch-Stouffville. The negotiated agreement
concludes over five years of work by staff and resulted in the permanent protection
and conveyance into public ownership of two headwater stream corridors and large
tracts of land forming part of the Goodwood -Glasgow Provincially Significant
Wetland Complex, while avoiding a costly OMB hearing.
• The City of Vaughan, in partnership with TRCA, completed the Black Creek
Stormwater Optimization Study Environmental Assessment. This project is
significant for future greenspace, water conservation and flood protection in the City
of Vaughan.
• Ajax News Advertiser, June 22 story "Ajax solution for homes in flood plain" reports
on the solution for dozens of South Ajax homeowners impacted by a flood plain
designation from TRCA. The paper reports the preferred solution is an earth berm
built near the Carruthers Creek shore.
Regional Biodiversity
Land Acquisition - Received possession of last property needed to begin work on Mimico
Waterfront Park Phase 2.
Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants and Wildlife - The Great Blue Heron rookery in the north end
of Heart Lake Conservation Area is currently being re -settled after two years of being
abandoned. At least two pairs of Herons have been seen at their nests and there has
been increased activity in April. Originally this was one of the larger rookeries in the
GTA with as many as 80 nests at the site, but it is believed they were displaced due
to local construction activity.
514
• At Oak Ridges Corridor Park (ORCP), Trees Ontario, TRCA and St. Ambrose
Catholic School recognized the planting of 8 million trees to date under the 50
Million Tree Program - a provincial commitment to help fight climate change and
grow a greener, cleaner province. For more than 10 years TRCA and the Toronto
District Catholic School Board (TDCSB) have participated as partners in tree
planting. This year, more than 450 school children from across the TDCSB will
participate to plant approximately 12,000 reforestation seedlings. A total of 93,550
seedlings are to be planted at the ORCP site in Spring 2011.
• Endangered Acadian Flycatcher returned to TRCA lands in Happy Valley.
• On May 17, The Honourable Linda Jeffrey, Ontario Minister of Natural Resources,
joined TRCA, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and sponsors, Ontario
Power Generation (OPG), LCBO and Banrock Station Wines, on the banks of Duff ins
Creek to release the three millionth Atlantic salmon into a tributary to Lake Ontario.
The program is working to restore a wild, self-sustaining population of Atlantic
salmon to Lake Ontario and its tributaries, where the fish once thrived. OPG will
contribute $250,000 to the program annually over the next five years. Through the
four R's of biodiversity conservation, Retaining, Restoring, Replacing habitat and
Recovering a species of historic significance, OPG will support the stocking of more
than 3.5 million young fish, the completion of more than 40 habitat projects in six
watersheds, including Duff ins Creek and the Humber River, as well as the delivery of
hands-on environmental education to youth.
• Bring Back the Salmon program generated media coverage in the Etobicoke
Guardian "Atlantic Salmon being reintroduced to the Humber" and the Globe and
Mail "Atlantic Salmon fry make history"
• TRCA and MNR are using GPS tags on coyotes at TTP which can capture an
incredible amount of data using this technology.
• Updated Ontario Biodiversity Strategy was launched. TRCA provided comments.
Took some significant steps forward in protecting urban biodiversity.
• In Toronto Sun May 23 story " T.O. corrals and ships out 2,500 Canadian Geese",
TRCA is mentioned as working with different GTA municipalities to hammer out an
all -in -one strategy to deal with rising populations of geese. Durham Business Times
July 1 story "Ajax roundup a mild goose chase" reports on the process of the
roundup and information about the relocation program.
• May 20 Toronto Star story "For mute swans, parenthood ends in lake of tears"; TRCA
representative is interviewed regarding a program to control the invasive species.
Research and Innovation -
Restoration - Agreement approved with York Region which will result in over $1 million in
restoration work being done at the recently acquired 392 ha (969 acres) Brock North
and South property.
• Transport Canada committed an additional $70,000 for restoration works on their
lands in Pickering. To date this totals a $550,000 investment since 2008.
• TRCA staff is undertaking a feasibility study to explore creation of a new waterfront
greenspace connection between Etobicoke Creek and Port Credit in cooperation
with Credit Valley Conservation, City of Mississauga and Peel Region.
515
• Globe and Mail story "a landmark in the landscape" on April 2, is about Toronto's
ravines and answers the question why Toronto should focus on its ravines. The story
mentions how the City develops a ravine strategy with TRCA, Evergreen Brick Works
and City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation department.
• Marie Curtis Park revitalization has begun. In Metroland Publications: Inside Toronto
June 14 story "City to begin revamping Marie Curtis Park" TRCA spokesperson is
interviewed regarding preparation work on the west side of Etobicoke Creek. The
article also mentions what improvements residents will see.
Infrastructure - Metroland Publications: York Region News section discusses new Oak
Ridges hiking trail unveiling and hike on May 16. A follow up story "Fund needed to
finish trail" is published on May 24 and discusses funding needed for the Jefferson
Forest Tract, and plans for the trails to provide natural greenspace for the
surrounding community.
• Metroland Publications: York Region publishes story "Pierre and Janet Berton trail
opens" on May 26.
Education and Stewardship - Despite fog and drizzle, the Tommy Thompson Park bird
festival attracted a good crowd and more importantly, lots of birds. CP24 morning
show crew helped to promote the festival the week leading up to it. The Beach
Riverdale Mirror also did a news story about the event on May 12. Posted Toronto
"Spring Bird Festival a wonderful opportunity for watches"; National Post "Leslie
Spit's cacophony of birds" and Beach-Riverdale Mirror "Leslie Spit hosts Bird
Festival" published stories about the annual Tommy Thompson Park Spring Bird
Festival.
• TRCA hosted five technical training workshops including; Backpack Electrofishing
Certification, Sedge, Fish and Benthic Invertebrate Identification workshops and the
Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol training. These workshops combined
provided more than $10,000 in revenue and support to TRCA.
• The Ajax News Advertiser's May 12 story "Ajax kids paint yellow fish to preserve the
lake" talks about the Yellow Fish Road program conducted by TRCA.
• The Brampton Guardian May 17 story "Friends of Wetlands" is about the spring
cleaning the wetlands along Heart Lake Road received from volunteers through the
Heart Lake Road Ecology Monitoring Program.
• Torontoist "Urban planner" includes brief on TRCA lecture "Growing Beautiful
Gardens and Native Plants" as part of the Green Programs with the Toronto Public
Library.
Celebrations and Events - Over 300 business and community members participated in the
annual Partners in Project Green and West Deanne Park, Mimico Creek planting
event on April 16. Approximately 1,300 trees were planted in partnership with the
City of Toronto.
Development Planning - Recent OMB decision on Westhill golf course in Aurora supported
TRCA position that ORM conformity was achieved, hydrogeological impacts were
negligible and planning and environmental assessment issues for water taking were
properly integrated. The Board was complimentary of TRCA's role throughout the
planning process.
Partnerships - Launched the Shared Path with the City of Toronto, Heritage Toronto and La
Societe d'histoire de Toronto, creating a new generation of Discovery Walks in the
City.
516
• The Etobicoke Guardian publishes story "History in the spotlight along Humber
River Trail" on June 10 with regards to opening of the Humber River Shared Path
Discovery Trail.
Human Interest - June 1 Canada.com/Post Media story "Canadian Environment Week pays
tribute to our forests" includes interview with TRCA spokesperson regarding benefits
forests can bring and tax incentive programs.
Sustainable Communities
Research and Innovation - Peel Climate Change Strategy, a joint effort with CVC, TRCA and
local municipalities was approved at Peel Council.
• TRCA is working with 12 Ontario universities, government and private sector on a
Climate Change Consortium. The Ontario Climate Change Consortium Strategy was
finalized this month.
Education and Stewardship - Invited to present SNAP at Portland Sustainability Institute's
urban retrofit summit.
• Introduction to solar course was held with the Building Industry and Land
Development Association. They would like to partner with us on an ongoing basis.
• The Living City Campus at Kortright was approved by the US Green Building
Council for a tour at the Greenbuild Conference.
• In May 9 National Post story "Deliver for Sustainability" includes mention of Partners
in Project Green.
• Global TV News did a story on unique summer camps including the Nature Day
Camp at Kortright Centre for Conservation on June 2.
Development Planning - 140 people attended the Erosion and Sediment Control workshop
at The Living City Campus at Kortright, netting about $25,000 profit.
Celebrations and Events - Over 750 people attended Starbucks 40th Anniversary Event on
April 16, transforming the landscape of 2999 Jane Street to initiate Centre for Green
Change in the Black Creek Sustainable Neigbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP).
TRCA partnered on this event.
• Brampton Guardian's June 20 story "Environment gains prominence" is about how
Peel school boards are beginning to make the environment a more prominent issue
in their schools. It also includes information on Ecofest, a free public outdoor festival
sponsored and organized by the two school boards in collaboration with Region of
Peel and TRCA.
• In Mississauga News June 20 article "Schools recognized", TRCA spokesperson is
interviewed regarding Ecofest and EcoSchool programs. Brampton Guardian story
"Environment celebrated at festival" is about Ecofest, which is organized by Dufferin
Peel Catholic and Peel District School Boards, TRCA and Region of Peel.
• The Brampton Guardian published a story called "Youth Care for Environment"
about the Peel Environmental Youth Alliance, Stewardship Day that included events
at Heart Lake Conservation Area and the partnership with TRCA.
• Metroland Publications mentioned TRCA's involvement in the first annual
Scarborough Green Fair.
• Vaughan Citizen publishes story "Vaughan everything green show has you covered"
about TRCA's Our Greener Side celebration. TRCA event organizers did an interview
on Rogers Daytime Peel Region to help promote the event.
517
Partnerships - Province released "Climate Ready: Ontario's Adaptation Strategy and Action
Plan". TRCA has been recognized as a partner in the Regional Adaptation
Collaborative.
• The Green Power Challenge engaged 42 companies to realize its goal of sourcing
58,000 MWh of renewable energy from Bullfrog Power for the Pearson Eco -Business
Zone.
• Ontario Trillium Foundation donated $300,000 to launch the Community Farm at
Albion Hills Conservation Area, to promote local food production, training and
education.
Human Interest - Chair of CFGT won Green Toronto Award for Green Home at Green Living
Show.
• In Mississauga News June 28 story "Peel Tackles climate change", Peel Region's
new strategy to fight climate change is discussed. The strategy was developed with
TRCA, Credit Valley Conservation, Peel and its member municipalities.
Business Excellence
Education and Stewardship - TRCA shortlisted for Shell Canada Environment Fund grant
toward SNAP implementation.
• The first ever Train the Trainer event for the Monarch Teacher Network of Canada
was held at the Lake St. George Field Centre, April 8 - 10, 2011. Teachers and other
educators from across Canada and the United States came together to share their
knowledge and experiences in working with monarch butterflies, as well as to
strengthen their technical and leadership skills in program delivery. This year marks
the 10th anniversary of the Monarch Teacher Network, which has the potential to
educate 1,000 teachers this summer alone. In Canada, there will be seven
workshops, stretching from Saint John, New Brunswick to Regina, Saskatchewan.
• Toronto Envirothon Competition held at Humber Arboretum. The Ontario Envirothon
is an opportunity to take what you have learned in books and in the classroom
out-of-doors, using your smarts and your senses along with like-minded peers, and
interact with nature directly.
• Stewardship staff completed Healthy Lands for Healthy Horses, a successful three
year outreach program to the equine community through funding received from the
Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA). In addition to the core
deliverables of three workshops in three years (one in each of Peel, York and
Durham), TRCA also hosted a second workshop in Durham and produced a
facilitation tool kit for others to use when implementing an equine stewardship
workshop.
• Invited by Weston Foundation to submit proposal to role out our Environmental
Leaders for Tomorrow program across Canada.
Development Planning - Hosted a meeting on District Energy for GTA municipalities in
partnership with the Canadian District Energy Association (CDEA) and the Danish
Board of District Heating. CDEA is interested in hosting future meetings with TRCA.
518
Celebrations and Events - The official opening of the Terry Carr Memorial Trail was held at
•
•
Albion Hills Conservation Area (ANCA) on April 26, 2011. The event was well
attended by members of Terry's family, TRCA staff (past and present), as well as
school board officials, naturalists and birding enthusiasts. The trail is a reflection of
Terry's passion for birding, with 12 signed stops weaving through approximately two
km of AHCA's trail system. Each trail marker depicts a bird that may be found in the
habitat, and will be available for use by the students at the Albion Hills Field Centre,
as well as the general public.
TRCA builds a green infrastructure display at OCE Discovery 2011 that the Premier
thought was awesome.
Loblaw environmental event with Scouts Canada held at Glen Haffy, with 200
attendees building 20 picnic tables for TRCA, planting 1,800 trees and learning
about local environmental issues.
• Employees from Price Waterhouse Coopers had a great outing in the first of many
corporate employee events planned by the foundation this summer.
• Ran three successful Foundation events with HSBC, TD and RBC. Has potential to
raise substantial general revenue in future.
• Hosted an interpretive canoe trip and other activities on the Humber River with RBC
Blue Water ambassadors.
Partnerships - Greening Greater Toronto, of which TRCA is a partner, received the Green
Toronto Leadership Award for several of their initiatives, including The Living City
Report Card, Green Procurement, Green Canada Fund and building retrofit
program.
Financial Capacity - Authority approves largest budget in its history, $108 million.
• The W. Garfield Weston Foundation has confirmed support of the nation-wide
Monarch Teacher Network of Canada (MTN of C) program for another year.
$100,000.00 has been pledged to the maintenance and expansion efforts of the
MTN of C program planned for 2012.
• On April 28th we held the second annual Sunny Days for Conservation fundraiser,
with an excellent musical performance by Ian Thomas. Funds raised will help to
ensure that students, of differing abilities and family economic status, will be able to
experience outdoor education programs at Claremont Outdoor Education Centre,
and to keep the amazing 140 kilometres of interconnected natural system recreation
trails on TRCA property safe, educational and enjoyable.
• Partners in Project Green Kids in Nature Corporate Challenge raised over $65,000 in
support of Earth Rangers and Kortright Centre programs for schools within high
priority communities.
• Metroland publication on May 13 published story called "Woodbine helps bring the
great outdoors to kids at North Kipling". The story talks about Partners in Project
Greens Kids in Nature Corporate Challenge.
• Received $12,500 grant from Toronto Field Naturalists to bus kids to Kortright.
• In May 8 Toronto Star story "Will Toronto conservation efforts survive budget talks",
Josh Matlow in the City Hall Diary, writes about Paddle the Don and the work that
TRCA does.
Human Interest - Two TRCA teams participated in the 5th Annual ORM End to End Relay.
Our competitive team came in 2nd and recreational team 20th out of 30 teams.
519
• TRCA Public Relations distributed 25 news announcements to media from
April -June. Using FP Infomart media research tool, more than 58 media hits
mentioned and/or included stories about TRCA (does not include event listings or
coverage from high water safety bulletins).
• Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) starts the season with stories on interesting
things to do at the Village on Radio 96.3, Online Journal. Summer events information
at the Village is promoted via Metro Morning, Toronto Star, The Little Paper,
Where.ca, Toronto.com, 680 news, Now Toronto, InsideToronto and Today's Parent.
• Alice in Wonderland at Black Creek Pioneer Village garners more than 12 media hits
including mentions in CBC Metro Morning and Today's Parent. Alice in Wonderland
was a 3 -day special event at the Village held over Victoria Day weekend. The event
transformed the Village into Wonderland, complete with characters from the stories,
a Mad Hatter Tea Party and Wonderland games and crafts.
• Black Creek Historic Brewery introduced Black Creek Pale Ale at LCBO stores and
hosts a media tour of the brewery. Coverage includes, Snap North York, Canadian
Beer News, Beer in Canada, The Bar Towel, Taps Magazine, Homemaker's
Magazine Blog and North York Mirror. The new offering received positive feedback
in social media channels and discussion forums.
• In the Toronto Star, on May 28 "Black Creek Festival" includes a brief on activities to
do in the area and information on Black Creek Pioneer Village.
• On June 28, City TV's Breakfast Television crew visit the Villages gardens.
• Toronto Star story "Canada Day events around the GTA" includes information about
Caledon Canada Day at Albion Hills Conservation Area. Canada Day at the Village
garners more than 20 pieces of media hits including events listings.
• Through online Google research, more than 116 mentions of Black Creek Pioneer
Village was received from April -June, The research includes stories as well as events
listings.
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: July 11, 2011
RES.#A176/11 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Moved by: Richard Whitehead
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
THAT Section IV items AUTH8.4.1 - AUTH8.4.4 in regard to Watershed Committee
Minutes, be received.
CARRIED
520
Section IV Items AUTH8.4.1 - AUTH8.4.4, Inclusive
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #6/11, held on June 19, 2011
ETOBICOKE-MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION
Minutes of Meeting #2/10, held on November 18, 2010
Minutes of Meeting #1/11, held on February 17, 2011
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #1/11, held on March 8, 2011
PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN STEERING COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting #1/11, held on January 13, 2011.
ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
RES.#A177/11 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
Moved by: Linda Pabst
Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.1 - EX10.104, inclusive, contained in
Executive Committee Minutes #6/11, held on July 8, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1:52 p.m., on Friday, July 29, 2011.
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Chair
/ks
521
Brian Denney
Secretary -Treasurer
k++0111k
6 or
* THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
.r
MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #8/1.
September 30, 2011
The Authority Meeting #8/1,1 , was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village,
on Friday, September 301, 2011. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to
order at 9:32 a.m.
Maria Augimeri
9:32, a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Vice Chair
David Barrow
9:32, a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Bryan Bertie
9:32 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Laurie Bruce
9:32 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Bob Callahan
9:32 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Vince Crisanti
9:32 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Glenn De Baeremaeker
9:32 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Michael Di Biase
9:32 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Chris Fonseca
9:32 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Lois Griffin
9:32, a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Jack Heath
9:32 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Colleen Jordan
9:37' a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Chin Lee
9:32 a.m.
11.51 a.m.
Member
Gloria Lindsay Luby
9:32, a.m.,
10:51 a.m.
Member
Glenn Mason
9:32 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
9:32 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Chair
Linda, Pabst
9#36 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
John Parker
10:00 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Anthony Perruzza
19.22 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Gino Rosati
9:32 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Dave Ryan
9:32 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
Member
Richard Whitehead
9:32 a.m.
100.51 a.m.
Member
Paul Ainslie
Member
Gay Cowbourne
Member
Pamela Gough
Member
Peter Milczyn
Member,
John Sprolvieri
Member
Jim Tovey
Member
rm;�Mal
101 NINE
Jul
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Michael Di Biast
�-ois Griffin
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Mike Bender, Manager, Conservation Lands in regard to item
AUTH7.1 _Cali Ridges Corridor Park East Management Plan.
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
r
Akk
14 ?'i"a -son
RES.#A1 OAK RIDGES CORRIDOR PARK EAST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Approval in principle of the Oak Ridges Corridor Park East Management
Plan.
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
THAT the draft Oak Ridges Corridor Park East Management Plan dated August 2011 be
approved in principle;
THAT the draft Plan be circulated to the Town of Richmond Hill and the! Regional
0
Municipality of York requesting endorsement of the Plan,
THAT following circulation, staff report to the Authority to confirm approval of the final
Plan;
THAT the lands referred to as "Oak Ridges Corridor Park East" and "Oak Ridges Corridor
Park" respectively, be renamed and collectively referred to as the "Oak Ridges Corridor
1,
Conservation Reserve,
THAT Province of Ontario approval of the use of the name "Oak Ridges Corridor
Conservation Reserve" for! the provi : ncial lands under management agreement be
4
requested,1
RW-
AND FURTHER THAT the relevant stakeholders associated with the Oak Ridges Corridor
Park and Corridor Park East lands be advised of Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority's (TRCA) decision to use the name "'Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation
Reserve
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Oak Ridges Corridor Park East (ORCPE), is a 175, hectare (432 acre) parcel of land owned by
TRCA and located on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
The ORCPE property straddles the boundary between the Humber River and Rouge River
watersheds. It is located in the Town of Richmond Hill, in the Regional Municipality of York., Its
boundaries are Bethesda Sideroad to the north ; and Stouftille Road to the south and it is
located between Bayview Avenue and Leslie Street to the west and east, respectively. The
property was acquired in pieces between 2�001 and 2�009.
At Authority Meeting #3/07, held on, April 27, 200i7, the process to create a management plar
for Oak Ridges Corridor Park East (formerly known as the Jefferson's Forest Management
Tract) was approved via Resolution #A1 00/07 as follows:
MAT staff be directed to establish an advisory committee, which would include
members of the Humber Watershed Alliance, Rouge Park Alliance, interested communi
groups, business representatives, community residents, agency staff, municipal staff an,
,.2rea councillors, to assist with the development of the Jefferson 's Forest Management 71
Plan and to facilitate the opportunity for public input; I
r i
A',/TD MIRTAER TAAT the management plan be brought to the Authority for approval once
completed.
RATIONALE
The Oak Ridges Moraine is one of Ontario's most significant landforms, stretching 160 km an#
provng clean, safe drinking water to over a quarter of a million people. It also provides an
essential natural corridor for hundreds of plant and wildlife species that call the Oak Ridges
Moraine home. As part of its strategy to protect these envi ron mental �ly sensitive lands, the
Province of Ontario reached an, agreement in the early part of this decade to create the Oak
Ridges Corridor Park, a 42�8 hectare nature sanctuary that stretches from Bathurst Street to
Bayvie,w Avenue and includes a, 5 km spine tr!all.
The Oak Ridges Corridor Park is enhanced by over 175 hectares of greenspace owned by
TRCA to the east, of Ba,yview Avenue. Referred to as the Oak Ridges Corridor Park East lands
(ORCPE), these lands were acquired by TRCA between 2001 and 20019. ORCPE is dominated
by forests and wetlands, and consists of many unique and sensitive natural areas. Within the
e are over 80 vegetation communities,, 471 plant species and 81 wildlife species.
However, this site is under pressure. The population of Richmond Hill is projeicted to increase
from approxim�at,ely 170,000 in 2006 to over 240,000 by 2031. Rising urban populations will
I
place increased pressure on the lands in a variety of ways, including increasing demand for
access and recreation. Pending development to the east and west has the potential to impact
the hydrology and natural systems of the site. These potential impacts underscore the need for
careful planning, responsible management, and above all, restoration of the disturbed lands.
ry'r A%M
This management plan lays out a series of management recommendations and actions tha),
seek to protect the natural heritage system while also proivid,ing for enjoyable nature -based::
recreation opportunities for the local community and residents of Richmond Hill.
Plan Process and Consultation
Past experience has shown that residents and community groups have grown more concerne
with the impact of land use change on the remaining natural landscapes within the Greater
Toronto Area. At the same time, user groups, businesses and municipalities have expressed
growing interest in a variety of uses for public lands, inc�luding nature -based recreation,
ecological restoration and community stewardshipi. The provision of public uses on
TRCA-owned land must consider economic factors and the recreational : needs of the
community, whiiile ensuring the natural landscape is protected and properly stewarded.
The objective of the management planning process is to develop a plan for the ORCPE
property that protects its, natural environment while exploring Its potential for nature -based
recreation. The management plan will gu:ide future development and management of the area.
The planning process was undertaken in three phases, as outlined below. Phase one included
the establishment of technical and advisory committees, and the development of the site
securement and protection plan. Phase two included project start-up and the completion of the
i
background report. Phase three included the development of the management plan document,
including property management zones, identification of existing habitat restoration priorities
and development of a, trail plan.
esta;bl:ish technical committee;
develop site securemeint and protection plan,.
0 natural and cultural heritage inventories of the property;
0 establish technical steering and public advisory committees and hoist meetings;
develop values and management principles that will guide management plan proces
complete management plan background report-,
establ:ish, and circulate a study newsletter;
6i host public meetings to review material. I
Phase Three
0 develop management zones;
0 review habitat restoration plans;
9 develop trail plan;
develop management recommendations that integrate watershed management
recommendations;
0 host advisory committee meetings;
0 circulate a study newsletter update;
0 host public meetings to review draft material,
e, finalize all materials;
0 obtain partners and TRCA board endorsement and/or approval of the plan.
r mv�_'W maj
For the ORCPE Management Pilan, TRCA established two committees,.; a Technical Steering
Committee and a Public Advisory Committee. The Technical Steering Committee was
comprised of representatives from the Town of' Richmond Hill, the Regional Municipality of
York, the Ontario Realty Corporation, Rouge Park and the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation.
The Public Advisory Committee was made up of representatives from community groups,
agencies, local stakeholders, and area residents and landowners. The committees were
provided with a terms of reference document that was used to guide the con, tributions of' the
two committees throughout the development of the management plan. TRCA staff prepared the
management plan with guidance from the steering and advisory committees as well as input
from a public consultation process.
Vis0ion and Maagement Principles
It is important that the vision and values for the ORCPE lands be integrated with those of TRC,A,
the Humber River and Rouge River watersheds, and the management plan for the adjacent Oak
Ridges, Corridor Park. The visions,, goals and objectiives of the following plans and strategies
were reviewed and incorporated as part of the process for developing the ORCPE management
plan;
The Living City vision and objectives;
TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy;
9 Humber River Watershed Plan-. Pathways to a Healthy Humber (20018),
Rouge River Watershed Plan: Towards a Healthy and Sustainable Future (2007);
o Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan (2006).
Vision and Values
During the management planning process for the Oak Ridges Corridor Park, a vision, goals and
objectives were developed through an extensive consultation process. Given the intent to
integrate the management of thetwo properties, it is logical that the management planning
framework for the two documents be closely aligned.
However, it is also essential to note that the ORCPE lands conta,i�n important natural heritage
features that are unique to those lands. Additionally, the management plan framework shoull't
recoignize that the ORCPE lands are currently surrounded by a predominantly agricultural
i!
matrix that is, slated to be developed to medium density residential communities, that will
include approximately 2,020 residentia,l units.
Through consultation with the various committees, It was determined that the ORCPE
Management Plan would follow the on laid out in the Oak Ridges Corridor Park
Management Plan, which reads as follows:
The Oak Ridges Corridor Park will be a sanctuary for nature and an essential ecological
linkage on the Oak Ridges Moraine where visitors can learn about ecosystem features and
functions, wildlife and human influences, and enjoy activities that are compatible with the
natural and cultural values of the park.
Given the importance of recoignizing the unique features of the RCIPE lands, the committees
felt it was worthwhile to develop a series of value statements for the ORCPE Management Plan.
These are titled the "Values for Sustainability"', and are as follows:
M �6
Ecological - Recognize that protected natural heritage is essential to the health and future of
the watershed and must be protected and enhanced so it can be used, and enjoyed by
future generations.
0 Cultural - Value and protect linkages to the history and past uses of an area and use their
lessons to hell p guide present and future actions.
o Social - Fo,ster development, and engagement of community members as a key to building
a stewardship ethic. Recognize and value; people s connections to land and provide
recreation and experiieintial learning that is compatible with the natural and cultural values of
the land.
o Economic - Encourage long-term economic vitality through strategic planning and
partnership development.,
in addition, the following goals, exist for the management and use of all TRCA and
-tartner-owned lands, and will guide the management planning process for the ORCPE lands:
To conserve, protect and manage Authoirity lands in consultation with the public in a
manner that values, respects and enhances the natural, cultural and heritage resources;
and,
ei To encourage uses that are compatible with healthy watersheds, respectful of the
unique character of the lands and sustainable in environmental, physical and economic
terms.
Management Relcommendatmions
Management recommendations proivi i de actions to achieve the vision and values. The key
management recommendations include the following:
7cological
Conduct regular inventory and monitoring of flora, fauna and overall condition of both
the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
ei Protect groundwater resources including seepage and recharge zones.
0 Monitor and manage invasive species.
0 Protect species of concern and enhance habitat opportunities for these spieci i es.,
0 Restore habitat through wetland creation, habitat enhancements and reforestation.,
0 Resolve longstanding sediment control issue in the southwest corner of the property.
Cultural
Protect and conserve archaeological sites and expilore opportunities to interpret thes6
s ;
i'tes.
Social
ei Establish a formal trail system that will protect the natural system while providing
nature -based recreation opportunities.
Oi Conduct regular property inventory and audit surveys to identify encroachments,
unauthorized activities and safety concerns.
0 Establish a stewardship committee and trail captain program to engage local residents
in the care of the property.,
Oi Maintain the fields south of Bethesda Sidleroad for active agriculture or similar use (e.g.
community gardens).
RM
Integration
0 Rename Oak Ridges Corridor Park East and Oak Ridges Corridor Park under a singl
overarching name, "Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve".
ei Deivelop an integrated plan for implementation projects proposed for the former Oak
Ridges Corridor Park and Oak Ridges Corridor Park East.
e Establish one stewardship committee for entire complex. I
Recent Initiatives
Since 2010, TRCA has invested roughly $152,000 Into priority projects at ORCPE that include
s,ite securement (fencing and gates), informal trail closures, dumping clean-up, restoration of
forest habitat, wetland construction and community newsletter distribution. These projects
have heilped to secure the property from unauthorized and harmful uses, and have helped to
lay the groundwork for implementation of the GRGPE Management Plan.
Copies of the complete Oak Ridges Corridor Park East Management Plan will be made
,?.vailable at the Authority meeting.
tOF WORK TO BE DONE -1
The successful implementation of the management plan for the ORCPE will require the effort,
of T'RCA and p i
40
410% AMR M 10 M M F, M M
W .0
Ah �ft a a Ah
40
40 Ak rw oft r Ak AM 40 Ak Ah Ab rr 40
Mik
The total cost to implement the Oak Ridges Corridor Park East Management Plan is est�imated
at $1 607,0100 over five years. A summarized implementation budget for the management plan
is shown on Table 1 (attached). These are preliminary estimates subject to discussion with the
pot�entia,l funding partners and refinement of project requirements. The five; year time frame
may also need to change. Thi's estimated cost considers work recommended only for the
ORCPE lands and does not include the Oak Ridges Corridor Park lands. An existing
management plan was created for Oak Ridges Corridor Park in 2006. This 2006 plan, has its
own dedicated implementation budget, and T'RCA is currently working to complete the
implementation of this plan.
•
Staff will be approaching the Tiown of Richmond Hill, the Regional Municipality of York, local
com, munity groups and other interested stakeholders to, share in the cost of Plan
implementation over the next five years.
Report prepared by: Steve Joudrey, extension 5573
Emails: sjoudrey@trca.on.ca
For Information contact-. Mike Bender, extension 528i7
mbender@tircaon.ca
Date.- August 31, 2011
• 3
0
RM
t . IM -11 ile
i
Forestrr Erosion mitigation
Natural Heritage
strategy, Aquatic s,urvey, Invasive species
1611500-001
management and mon,
d ba en ma ` arr r
■ ..daroHabitat
Erosion .r remediation,
.o ar
Restoration
a aI o
.rf Wetland
implementation,
1731500.00
Reforestation, Planting maintenance
areg
Archaeology
arrwgar andreports
M 25,000-00
Prirrry trai Seco ndary a
aw Development
Property line surveys,
00
Pa rki ng lot construct on, a aw
construction, Lookouts
ar Management
Decomissi onrr +rr d
$�� .00
rutingarr
i rr I, Trail �` �
Trail Signage
Trai lhead, Wayfi nd ing , Post markers,
$ 291000.00
�_Regulatory,
Interpretive
Property audit ng, Fencing, Access
Site Securement,
gates, Encroachment removal,
r 7,4)5OiO.00
Homeiownerinformation package,
Property identification si'gnage
Community Outreach and
Stewardship committee, Trail captain
Engagement
program, Community newsletter, Trail
$ 58,500-010i
map d guide
Environmental Partnership
Necessary structural repairs/ upgrades to
Centre
ce" o p""" ."" Septic$
Swan Lake Property
80 000 00
system replacement
Co nti nge
1467000.00
Aftachment J'"6
zi
, A/m/111
"M yIIPIAw?1e1MIIy1M�I A .........................
............. /*
dpor",
a
.. . ..... .
...........
A
7
A
a
N
alr/16
0
ARMN
I P NO
10
F
svm�(
"s
V
Mn
gk 12y,
py
VA,
ar
YO
0
Ow
adlel
)0
gg/1"IF/l/
MIR/
M
100,
AIV®R
IF
P';wk Fast Trail Plan
J . . .... . /
I A� " 1)
&.%-.'gen U-'
Property Boundary
Environmental Partnership Can re
Trailhead
gg,
P -ng Lot
arki
Lookoult Point
141,
Primary Trad
co ark, Trail
fo ROO 25 4DO
Melres For, jell". fivlrd^,O, Ulry
I
11 KEY rEATuREsOF''TRAIL PLAN
T64M Length of Rimary Tkafll: 4 krn
Tolad Langth of Secondary Ttafk,, R km
Numbet OF POWing Spacwq- 2 LO-,% (354 5 Spacev TO 1r
Number of Loakout PoInts, 3
w,
t � ,
RES.#A1 REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION
CONSERVATION AWNED LAND
West side of Weston Road, north of Highway No. 401, City of Toronto
(Et�obicoke York Community Council Area), CFN 43289., Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority is in receipt of a request for a 11 and
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.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) land located on the west
side of Weston Road, north of Highway No. 401, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York
Community Council Area), be retained for conservation purposes.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
A letter has been received from Mri. Guill�aume Lavictoire of Rueter Scarigall Bennett LLP, who is
acting on behalf of Dula,ne Construction Company Ltd., Torch investments Ltd. and Hillhurst
Acres Ltd., requesting that the subject, parcel of'TRCA-owned land situated on the west side of
Weston Road, north of Highway No. 401 be exchanged for the valleyland portion of his clients'
neighbouring; property to the north.
At Executive Committee Meeting #10/09, held on December 11, 20109, Resolution #B1 80/01,61
'ZI
was approved as, follows:
MAT the potential disposal of a parcel of land located on the west side of
north of Highway No. 40 1 y City of Toronto - Etobicoke York Community Council Area, be
referred to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff for review and
discussion in accordance with established TRCA policies
AND FURTHER THAT a report be brought forward to the Executive Committee, at a future
date recommending further action.
RATIONALE
This request was circulated to City of Toronto staff and T'RCA staff for review and comment. The
following comments have been received:
City of'Toronto Staff Comments
The City is not allowed to sell parkla,nd; however, the City can exchange pa,rk�land provided that
the exchange meets Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department (PF&R) objectives and meets
pal Plan.
M
7 7 i
"arkland Cannot Be Sold: The policy prohibits the sale of city-ownied land (not just park�land
but any city lands) that are part of the, Green Space System whi&
means des,ignated Parks and Open Space (POS).
W
out it Can, Be Exchanged: The policy recognizes that in some cases it would be acceptable to
exchange City-o,wned P01S land if the land to be exchanged
nearby (i.e. within normal walking distance),
0 equivalent or larger in area; and
0 comparable or superior green space utility (i.e. does the exchange
make the park the same or better).
PF&R staff has said that this land, exchange would comply with the Official Plan policies for land
exchange involving areas designated as open space.
TRCA Staff Comments
Planning and Development staff does not support the request for disposal of TRCA lands at this
loor the following reasons:
The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) sets out the policy Framework
for TRCA. The VSCMP defines the l�imits of stream/valley corridors to include a m,inimum of 10
metres inland from the top of valley bank�, provided that the stream or valley is in a stable
condition. In the case of the subject lands, the top of valley bank is located on the far eastern
portion of the property near the road, placing the entire property wn the valley and its 10
metre buffer.,
In addition, one of the principles in the TSCMP states: "the successful management of valley
,2nd stream corridors is dependent on good tableland management". Removing lands that ar
considered to be buffers from ®' ownership does not meet the notion of good tableland
management. Finally, as part of day-to-day negotiations with the development industry and
pr;ivate property owners, staff always endeavors to obtain a buffer for the protection of
ecological features/stream and valley corridors as well as to protect prlivate lands. I
Executive Committee Referral September 9, 2011
Staff has had regular contact with the proponents since their initial request was rieceilved in
Novem�ber of 2009. The proponents were scheduled to appear before the Executive e Committ
on several occasions, however withdrew prior to each meeting. I
Staff submitted a report to the, Executive Committee at its meeting held on September 9, 2011
recommending that the lands be retained for conservation purposes,. At the Executive
Committee, Mr. Dennis Seward, a representative of the proponent, appeared as a Delegation
9.nd requested that this matter be deferred until he and other representatives of the owners
have been provided the opportunity to have another meeting with TRCA staff to discuss
potential alternatives to staffs recommendation. After hearing the deputation by r the
Executive Committee granted a referral of the report to Authority Meetingscheduled to
be held on Sept,emiber 30, 201: 1 , so that Mr. Seward and his colleagues could meet with TRCA
stAff .,
RE
On September 21 2011, a meeting between the proponents, TRCA's Conservation Lands and
Property Services staff, and Planning and Development Division staff took place. Mr. Harvey
Kalles and Mr. Dennis Seward presented various scenarios for acquiring the TRCA land,
however, Planning and Development staff reiterated that, in accordance with the VSCMP,the
TRCA lands are comprised of the Humber River valley corridor. Accordingly, the staff
recommendation as originally submitted to the Executive Committee remains unchanged; Mr.
Kalles and Mr. Seward were satisfi ; ed with staff's position in this regard.
- — — - = M E 0-3 row. Vol me I I sTA M BM No ws M MV, uma R -To I
CONCLUSION
While the City of Toronto's Official Plan policies do allow exchanges of park landin certain
circumstances, the disposal of the subject parcel of land is contrary to TRCA's VSCMP policies
as we;ll as TRCA's mandate to conserve natural areas and protect: adjacent land from natural
hazards. Therefore, staff is recommending that the subject parcel be retained in TRCA
ownership for conservation purposes.
Report prepared by: George LeJa, extension 5342
Emaills: gleia@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: George Leja, extension 5342 or Mike Fenning, extension: 5223
Emaills: gleja@trca.on.c�a or rnf;enni0ng@trca.on.ca
Date: September 21,, 2011
Attachments: 2
F M�ff M W mow
Ew
=, M-11 ils
m
Legend
ED Crast'af Slope
RegUab i Limi,
SLiNie I P,ropefly
Adocent Property*
TRCA Property
ff)"RIC)"IN, TO ol"v''I')
onv i
, on sat
er
75, 37.5 0 715, t,, eters,
mtwam'la
t a "6
�W ti
NAN
Alpf
ww
w
wwN„ h
A1,'^'wi.i��� .gym � r�°"e.m-�°^'�°;�•�ww�n'r i.�� ��
iu w�
• ,. � � � �
Nx� it w.
%
WI• '°5 �Ik' � '��1
m lox
.� "v
�"u A .
wo =ti "�.
"w
y
i
,. �
9 w
.w �wSu c5J E
CT
PTT
"
OP
10
�r-'w'w. - li ; rw'i�'"
'?
��
Legan
u
UAV
W�1y
onserv
i N tt,
r
f
i
t. to"'ArMy
1,11)
11111111,11)) Or te rfigo MC'1,
If
wk '�N 1i�/Ul as
r
/OgWjph,�,
nbvr"'rc�myi.%
war
0-ir
0
Adjeu iia/- rPr
P
,�''+ ( Jm
,. Propeit,
efrrJ � r
n - ' ikr��fll %/
r/
%
°� // °111 'G1
i / a i/ / me/a war r
�PRCA I � � r �' 1,
wiu e' r,,. ra U
RES.#A1 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
Legislative Conformity Exercise. Request for the Authority to adopt
proposed amendment 's to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
Section 28 regulation to conform with updated legislation and to facilitat
streamlining opportunities, including the ability to delegate pos,itive
permit approval authority to staff. I
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by'. Linda Pabst
WHEREAS a local Conservation Authorities Act Section 28'Devellopment, Interference
with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation' has been
a a
prepared 'in conformity with the provisions outlined in Section 28 of the Conservation
Authorities Act and the amended Ontario Regulation 97/04, and as per the eligible
amendments identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto andRegion Conservation Authority
adopt the proposed amendments to the subject regulation;
AND FURTHER THAT the said regulat�ion proposal with eligible amendments be submitted
0
to the Ministry of Natural Resources for review, posting on the Regulatory Registrv., and
depending on the results of the registry post�aing, for: subsequent considerationi: for
approval by the Minister of Natural Reisources.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has issued 'Procedures for Amending Conservation
Authorities Act Section 28: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to
Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations. This document outlines the procedures for
conservation authorities (CAs) to amend their individual Section 28 regulations to conform to
recent amendments to Ontario Regulation 97/04, the content regulation for all conservation
authority Section 28 regulations, as well as some administrative and housekeeping
amendments. These amendments do not extend the area that is currently regulated nor do
they broaden the considerations used to make a decision on a permit. The proposed
amendments deal principally with the permitting process and streamlining decision making.
A
Ak Ah 'a Ah .90 Ah del �ft Ak
4ft
A& Alb Agh
Am
do dol W V do
Oft
it
•
In order to advance to the next stage of the legislative amendment approval process, whictL
invo,lves posting of the draft amended regulation on the Ontario Regulatory Registry, MNR
requires a resoilution from the Authority adopting the proposed amendments,, as per the
recommendation of this report.
RATIONALE
The proposed amendments will result in streamlining opportunes for the implementation of
TRCA's regulatory program. Staff will bring forward a report to the Executive Committee later
this, year outlining the administrative process to implement the proposed amendments. This
will include the criteria and type of permit applications, (scale, complexity, compliance with
poilicy, etc.), that staff would recommend to the Executive Committee be delegated to staff for
approval. This would be an update and enhancement to TRCNs current minor works and
routine infrastructure works streamlining protocols. Staff will also recommend the criteria and
type of permits that should remain subject to the approval of the Executive Committee.
Similarly, the report will also outline the criteria and administrative process for permit
extensions. In general, a maximum period of 24 months for! the validity of a permit is an
appropriate time frame to accommodate most permits. However, it has been our exper!ience
that this time frame is not suff icien't for large scale inf rastructur!e permits associated with
Environmental Assessment Act applications undertaken by our municipal partners. The
construction timelines for these types of projects often: exceed 24 months and can be
constrained by the construct�ion season or delayed by other regulatory requirements. In these
exceptional situations,, the ability,to extend the validity of a permit approval up to 60 months
would resuilt in improved client service with our municipal partners.,
10,
Ah
a 40
Ah 0 Ah 0 0 M A1,6 0
so do all
Ak
IV 40
me low Ak oft 0
'Aftb
0
d1h
Ah Ab
wr
Ok■
do 10
Ak 4
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The proposed regulation amendments are required as part of TRCA's mandate under Section
28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. The services to be provided are part of the regular
operating budget levy and fee recovery �process.
A
M Ab In M
A
Ab Ab &V w
kv Ak Ah Ab M 'V
oft
sees
Ab M 0 Ab Ah Alk M a 0 0 of Ab 0 Ow
oft dik
4ft
is
Report prepared by: Laurie Nelson, extension 5,281
Emails: Iniellson@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281
Emawills: IneIson@trca-on-ca
Date-, September 14, 2011
Attachments: 1
1110 MIN 111
ONTARIO REGULATION 14&'06
MOMM "
zMV a CMMIN 8 91101141IIIc
oxmX011
TORONT0,.X-N-D RE GION'C,""0,-NSERN,,.,-iTION.11,TTHORIlTli7 1: REGIAL ATION OF"
DEVELOPIVIENT, INTERIFERENCE, NY, IT H Nl,,,TTL.XNDS,.�.,4iL'TE R...kTIO'NS
TO SHORELINESAND I ERC"OURSES
IM
1. Intl-iis Regulation'.
"Authority" niezuis, the, ToTonto and e
,R gion, .Authoflt,'YIII-
Dcv,elbpment pir.,o'hibited
2. (1) subi: e,,,,,.,c t tose cti oin.3 no per.son s h,-dI, undert'aakedev, el oppinetit, of penm,' 't
w, lothef pers-on''to, underuike in""''017 0111 the liale"clas -�%:iflma, oftlie
Authoriv
�- t1hat wne,
(,'zla a,,4j�,Lw:cent Or Close to the, sliorelff-le of the,,Gireat River
System oTto irda.nd lakes, flizat may be, affected by flooding.11 erosill,cc, or d�malllu.,Ic,
beac.hes, U"Icluding the axeztfiom the farthest offsslicce, ext,,entof""th,eAuth,o,,rity""S
botunidzi,iry to, the, fint'liesst of" the aggregamte-, of the, following
distnt,ncels,-.1
(I he 1100 Ye� fiood levcl, pilirs -w-zive ii'ppnish
an,d otherwa,,,ter relate,d haz,�xrds, such as siii ,lilp-g,e.),Ue",Itll,a,ed wa,ves,,, ice
pfliiin g an d i c e a mnuin cr, the a me imn't o fta Ow"a"n c e t o b e
determ.J.'ried Vy, the Au tbont'N",
the predit tiedion, gteermstabale, slope 113roJected fro"In, the em's -ting
st,kaible toe of tlie slop" e orr, fromthepmed"','icted location of thetoe, of the
Inve, s"I'lifted a U1111e, 111,011,
sl oppe as, thrit lo ca.,t L s a result of shorel erfos'
over a, 100,-yeai,!- 'od,
p"Iffil,
(ni) where a, d,,,,yii,,Lllrlm"c,,,be,,,ac,,,h,, IS IISS)IO"Clazted with the w-,aterfroast Lninds7
an, 3 Q fnetFe, kall owan—ce, of 3 G nwwtre, s U`11 -and tow conunoda,te, dy, mutniic
bea.c,h and
()I
an allowance of 15'', ineft, -es, indamid;�
N ia,,�"er or sr"tre.am''a, valleyss, that have as,soocla,ted wilth
fiver,of, sitrezun-,, whethe.,r, or, not they contiain a,�, W",atercourse,.T "t'lle li ts of -%xhich
U 's.,
aredet d 1 U11,9
M
NArh,e.Te, the,,, ri,,Tver or streama, valley,,,,is, liit pp, -,trent a,:lid! has s table
slopes, the vafley extend,.s, &onthe Ist.-ible topof bmmk , plus, 15 me"tres," to
pom""t on the opposite "de.71
where, die i.iver Iorstream lley i�sa, ani: °t u:nsstable
� 11, Al ppmeilt. r"
S I lopes., ffie va,"Hey-F, elIxtends, from -a the re, ,d,d','Iterm stable slope,
p �,cted fio, stable, slqpe, Of, 1% if flie toe of the slope is
uils,-tab-le, fiom the predicted, locatillon, of flie toe of tlie, slope a,s a, reml,","t, of
sytre� erosion, o:v,,er a prqjected I 00-yearpe, n'"',od., pluss I S melres", to a
s r point (m, the opp<)s,iteS11,11de,
livile're, the" ri,,veror streaim valley i.s,not ap
the vii"lley,
y
ex"telld"s, Itlie, g,
greater
the, ak pom"t outslde, the ,�e, of the
l3lixummi extent of 'the, flood plain mder the, aipphc.Ale floodervent
slt,andard, determam''ed. unde'r subsection (4), plus 15 metres, to. a
& ar poult oin, fileoppost"'te sidte mid
(B) the dist.ance frollill, the prlctedi nxi,&,muder belt of za
w.qteTcourse,, e:�pmideld kas,, required toconvey tile flood flows -Lui&r
the vvph;cable f1lood. leveilt sty ilard. determ.luedunder subsectiion
plus 15 metres, to, a, sin arpom'"'ton the opposite side-
hauardous, ha,,nds;
'wetIM&I; or
(e'll oth, ff" axeass w'"'I'lere, could interf�,,re with, die h�vdirolog"I'','C',
mr,tion of" a. wedzuid, 111,11cluding aireas xv i'th, 1, 120 metres of all Prov"llic:1"zilly
ls"igllullfic,.,,�-,,u,it,ive,tla,ii,ds -eu'id wetlands on ffie Oak ali,&-%virthin 30
i4l r- I I I A a
111'etres'' of. 0"therwetlands'. Lese,
13C k"
1-- a f -A fw�j 1" tip" olla jj:wj,"+44A
Ipp VULWhI F F,".' J6
;p L -%.r �1.'W.L.& %*YP
%-F 191 %.V 1.1 11--
"g-ua
.4F
GAVI AS: 4:4144LIZ., 4:4:1-44i:mg E)4; f'ELg 41;1484��,y PT;eemes.
LLAA-,& 'LMPJLlLNlLl'WJIA
kg ILMAr JLJL-%- WL.MLAAJLJ�.L Lt, -9
("2), The arem, desefibye dn,l subsection (1) that are within the of the
me
Authot'it)"7,,, includincr-the -ifl.mvs oe auceassated "w"th e thareas, are del' aed a,s the
"i"Reg-u.1ation LinuiI shown on a, serillesol ma,ps, fillied. a th�e head,, office of'the
Authorl, tly-imder the ma,p fille"'Ontanio, Regubt-ion 9,17�(04 Regiiilatlon for
De-vellop.ment, lntevi,,,-,.fereuc* Wlth, NANT to, Sho'lThUnEus, a U d
P= Pl I I%-, wv %-, -L,-�l
W'4tercourses, afellals, f,el, E��RSEL
+U,p A @ j@,F, 'gq gii:w,pg "ApA j4,j -1) Q PA"lar- 00a'I AICL
r ,
(3) If' there is, a 'coufliclbe' een the description of areas 'in sx.lbsectiOn (1)
aud the, area shoNvn on the selles ofmapsireferred to, in stifiou (2), the
Idesscription of" are, as in sittbsETtion(1), rev affs.,
I P
NEW—
(4) The applicable, flood eventstindumds, ��used to deteIne, th,e nuamnum
susce, 111, e""Iq'iOf
putib, di-ty to floodi-ngof lands, or artas within tfi, e woatersheds, 11-1 the. a , "
r,
j I ur"Isockc-tion, ofthe Al uthoxhirt..y are the Huirricanne, Hazel Flood Event Stimuickar d. t1le 100 Yea,,r
11,food, Event, S On&rd ariii the I GO yt ar 'fl,o oJ le, ve 1phis, wa,,,v, c uppmsh, ,, de, secrib, e,d M-,, t 'he
S ,o cI
ne t1us
du 1 e t gulan
Per iSS11011 to -develop
1. (1) The Autliori,:'ty IM-311SIloon for ddie-�.,relo dent or on the areas
�pen pn
d,,e,iscribed 2 (1) 1"'f, M', i "op"U'U"'.0a, the "control offlboding, erom",on., d�mmm -,fl
bheziclies, pollutionor t','he consenv ,-,ati'011 of land will not be, aff�cted, by the ciev-elopment.
(�,l T11e, rnum,m.,onoof"the Authority &Lzill be,pem iNn'tuli"g, with, cT wil"thout , gi
condil''I"0111s".
1, Tmay dess�'gnate the, Authorit-v`s e3wmfive colnMittee Or
(21" The Authoril-)
OHEE OT U101'e, Of ICS, e,, Mlplof, r-ees as, a Officei.- and tha,t the
or emplio,yee or emp"Ib"ye'es may emerclill.,sethe PURTFS, 4and dutiles
L' W W,
of the Atitlolity under sub,section (1) and (.1.) with respect, to, the gryantmig of
"i
pei.7EUSSIOns for de-velo,ment in or on the ai,,eias described gin, subsection 22(1).
pel.-M-1511IS10113,
Applica,tiiioin, for
4. An,, �qtpp,bc tion to, gum de,,,rtake a, development in, oi- on an
area descilbed'in subsection 27(,B shiiffl, be SImed, bfN,,- tb� m:-ner of the la,:nd on. which
the develropmen't is proposedw,111 his ot, heritgent and shal.1 be fil.edwiltli the Aufli,ority-
.mdsshafl, con -tam'", thefolloiAling UIfommiationi-
dex,,elopmen,ft.
2- The pro poss;ed use, of 'the, buildings and structure's Bollowff'lg cc nllwletion Of
he
3- The and con.T.Ietlo,'n &-ites of,'the develfopnwent.
4. Tlie, elev.-,aions of emsting bull,dings, if any, ztnd the propfose'd,
elevatilons, of build s ,-,tnfd,, graode,,,, & aft er, d, ",eve) lopiment'.
5. Dmi�nae, deta 1, ,, be an de
g Is foi, e , ,d ei, n , lopment
6- A coniplete descri"ption oIe qrpe, of fill,, propose,d to be placed or dimmiped.
7. Suchother techniCal sitwhies or plan s requested by
kvmmmn=� M,
5. S ii ; e ct, to se, ct ion 6 no: peso strzu�,,g " � t
jite,,n,- cli.ange, U"i
xiy way wiffithe, tin, jai. of a, river, creek- stream or,xv-aterco'Llyse Ior change, or
i�terfere 111 any Wiy it ' , a .1ve"'tham' d.
Per"nulks"1111"On to, al
6. (1) 'The, Aiiahori'ty, maygraint, a, perss,,,on, pemussicni, dive�t
of intederexivil"th the le"Xistu-Ig cluinnel of a, ri"Velf cfe,Ielk, m, , for wzaercowrse mil or On
the area.scllescribvid M' sub,section 2,(1) or ge OT Mterfiere. with, a, we flannd. or on,
a,ir'easde'sctibed in subseclion 2(.1)
(22), The, pertms,si.011 of" the Authonity sha,,,fl be given i'll Wri 11 tulg,,%vith eTwithout
con dlticvns-
(3' The.Atithority may desligdate the Authorit-y"s eiecutive com"Huttee or
ORE 0,1, mo,,t-e,,,ofAit,9i, employees as a, Regtilation.Approval. Officei- aud tha:t the
exectitil"',"Ie Committee or emplot Te or employees mil eyL'erciise the pomx,,ersi, and duties
of the Authot"itil- under subsection (1) and (2) with respect, to, the granting of
PerEnisisions for alteil-at,ions in 0i.- on the areas described in subsectillon 6 151 11
1 11
Apph,calilou for Perimsissto"n
7'. AA n, appliclation, for pe'Mi'S's"lo'n to St"favilghten, cha divert cT interfere
Wl,th tl e exis tni,, g chzumie 1. of" a, jr,1111"elf cre ek streLW
am eTwatercourse, or duqnge orn'""i'terfere,
g
with a,ixet'lanid-, 1'b sit by the unvne't, of the land on ilii ;h the affectedriver�,
ciree, -,,strvam or watercourw orwe-tla,nd Is sittiilte'du r his or her agent, and filed
with the Authority and sluall, c-font-ain the followmg
detail',s of the proposed ahie
211. ,A d"'escript'lon of di,e methods t be ii,ws,,cl U`1, cqxr al Alicql..
Ynigo'll"t the te-n
3,. The stiart, air d coniple"tion &ques Of the alt"cration,,
stiAenwi,'it of tlic pim,
, poust,, of the altei.ati".on.
® Suchother techni.clal. studiins or plans iequested by the Authol-it N'..
S
Cancellation of"
S. (1) T,,, he A", iith-ori,'t, m,ay,,,c,,,,,,,,c,, ,, At penmSs'sicu, if, �- �t, , S of " the op u"u, on," that the",
y � zM t4z I I
co nAl,", t- OM of th, e, I
per11',U'S,'S,,1cvn ua,,i;reno-t mel.
("'2) Before cancefl�,Igzi,, peln''lu"S'sion- the AudicTity shAall gi've a, notice of Mi tlo
g
cztncelto,'the holdei-, of,the u"ridicatm".9 that t,'he p S51,111on will. bx, cxice11eI
shoxvscziuse atiit, a, h&-,Ui` why the, 'hoti
149 Pelfillin"S'Sion, s , id not be cancelled.
REV
I,e he S L- ot,
(3) "Follown'lIg the,, t A, uthounty, 11 ttlie hol &,, r, at lcaszt
V4
five, lays "llatice, of the &-tteof the heam''"'ig.,
117 " d exte, ns'
tafildity of perlm"SSI"OUS an. illons
W
A.L&Z I&A.LA-YAL ALIV AnJ 116M%AWAAA�,,J'&X LL &mJ mill,
9. (1) 'The llh Pellnod,,.', ehf%,:2WI, fi,'lkersflkt�
MIS,te -aute
4 Rx 4ate4ncluding au'v extens-i'lous f "or N,% tich a per swn gi, d
19' a4 AR a I
undel"t, srect-jou 3, orl 6may- "be, valid. is,
(
F a) 24, mont'li's, in the ca,se of a peruuiss,'Lllon gra ntedfbi,17 ProjecIt other thau
pr 'ed:s desciibed clituse n
0] 111 �): a,, d
(b) 60 months, in thecase of'petmissons gran'ted, for,
1, pmto'n
J)
ct,,,,,s tha,t, "n the o of th, e, authoirl hN7-, cau,not, vesonic be
colm,, leted wiftluili .2.'4, months from the day he per mi"" I io'll 'is glLr,zl.,nAe,,d�,
p
0
iii pro "ects tharequire permits or approvalsifi-om other regg, ula,tory
j &I
be
�7'
[Ile 1111,
bod,"i thmi the opi ibij, of th,,@Autholl
,obta,lened mx-ithm" 24 Months, fkomt�he Idd-li'v ffie, ''M
is 1".911, granted.,
W, Pe
e "be g,:rauted for an R` I per "od
tha,t', J.'s less thanthe mm:Wium period specified 'in subsection (1), where, in, the
opill,ion ofthe Authorl""t,%-, the pt,'ecicau "be co� Hip, leted mil less 'th,an 2114 moltiths.
01
(3', A permissio"In. grrated for lessth,au the maximum perl"'Od of valid, ih7,
be in d� the maximum perliod
'b ;i `,� teu
(a) the person who was te
gran'd piJ
the erm's S."011 Sll Ull Us ivrIt
U
appliClation for the, exten:slou to the Authorit-y l dai,,N,-.s, before the'empir"N'll of
W W
the Petrlmislslion,w�
(b), "the applKillati-on sel:,s out the rva'sons, w, hly, the ext-ensiou i's reqmred and
Idem,ousitrate,,s thaircum,scam es b eyond. th:e control of the person. gr,anted the
W
permisi.sionpre'v,,,ented complefiI ofthe theillinitia,"I period.
Appoint,mment of offilcers
10.,) The appronnl't Offilcen". "to, eliforce
Hazel nw.,,ans a, stonn that � roduces over"
,P
a48-hourperio'd,
a u
raa d, " 'I""On I th uage -tre. of 25 s L
juare, U letres, or less, ra" fal at luas the
distributioun set out -nil Tztble.,, I CT
(b)TM
mmiber of nufflinletres of rl ul, referred"' to M' each case in Ttable I shall be,
modifiedb
the sl"i'z,,e. ofr se"T" out", op m 0
posite', thereto "' C lmml, I of Table 2.,
73 milhhimezes,of :raim, in the. fzsll,36 hours
16 M, lu"Lmetres af'mm -ia the 37th haur
4 m s of m, "in in th,e 3 9th hoiu
116 MMMMereg Off" in in dle 3 hlomm
13 in the4,'Outh, h =,,
17 f r 41 st
13miHimelres,ofr Anthe.44' dhouz
23 mflhhmetresof rain, in, the 43rd bottz
1of r , in the 44th, hour
13 milhumelresof rai'm, in the 45"th hmmr
,53 milhumelyes-of :r46th h =
8 milhmeqns, o f r iu the 47ffi h =
13 mflhmelres,of rai48'thh=w
Jul, III U
46 to, 65 both biclusive
MIMI
MI'm M.,
166 to 195 -both imdustl;e
94.2
196 to 220 boffi �ncluusive
-93.5
21271, to 245bMh inclusive
92-7
246 to 270 bclk :hclu,&h,-,e
9,,2,.G,,
71, to 4,50bclhm—,,clu,sll7.,e
8 P. 4°
45], to 5 75 both m— clusix-,,e
8,6.7-
576 to 700 -both inclus"I"VE,
84.G,
701 to 8,50 both indus:h7e
92-4
851, to IGOD bc4h iaclmsive
80.8
1001 to 12,00 both inclusive
7-P.3
127,01 'to 1,500 bath indu,sn.',e
76.6
1,501, 'to 1700 bath.iardt,snee
74.4
1701, 'to 200,0 buth inc-I'maswe
7 3.3
2,001, to 2 2.0-0 both iwzduaswe
71.7
'22201 "to 2500 both iutllisrive
70.2
2,501 to 2700 both inclushwe
619.Gl
-11701 to 4,500 badi ind'uswe
64.4
4501 'to 6,0500 both induske
61.4
60,01, 'to 70,00 bath iardt,snee
5:91.9
70,01, 'to 8,000 bath incl,"unwe
-5fifj]
2,,,. The 100 Yeatr Flowod El vent,:Standaid iarwwans, rau'-,IfauIll for 5snowmelt, CT iql,
., , c-,re,,ek,,,
combitmair
on of au''ILfall, wsn
id owine-It', prodilaazuiy oc-
ucg t 1pation n'i a , riire:r, Stream
Orwaterc,ours'e-h a peak, fl,,,,,,,owtluat, "Irt s a, probabill"lity, of acrim-remce, of one per centAtru'lg
3,,. Tlie, 1000 year flood IeTvTel poeak'", in.,sctmitaneours still wzafter le-Tvel, plus
an allox vance forwave uprush zuid offier water -related hazards for L.;i,,ke,,! Chit.ulo ul, the
Gre,a,'t, Lakes -St. Laxwlelare Faver -.Systeni that has a p'llrobiabillhty of occum e of" one. per
cent ally g i:v fell Y,
Revocation
@ a
ll., Ontario, Regulation 1,66/06 1,58 of the, Reiais,
is, r oked.,
ev
C"O'Mmencement,
11". ThIs Rippi'liat-tion camnes into f6t,ce the daty- it, I's Med.
RIM
RES.#A1 GREAT LAKES AND ST. LAWRENCE CITIES INITIATIVE
Call for Additional Great Lakes Funding. Response to Town of Ajax
resolution regarding Great Lakes, funding levels and support for the Great
Lakes and St. Lawrence es Initiative call for increased Canadian
federal Great Lakes funding.
Moved by: Jack Reath
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) advise the Prime M11"n"Ist er of
Canada and federal Minister of the Environment of TRCA's support of the Great Lakes,
Arnd St. Lawrence Cities Initiative and the Town of Ajax's request for $285 million per year
of non -infrastructure Great Lakes funding;
A to 0 0
do r. r do Ah Ah Ak 40 Ah
A Aft dh Ah fib Ak a Ah "I 1k
Ah dP Am 4F do dr V Ah
Ah Ah r Ah 40 Ah Ak r Ah Ak
M
do VV do
dIL 1P W dr
40 W W V 40
Ah Ah Ah A® M dF All a A® AM MR AN
Ah go 40 Am V Ab Ah 4V dr
Aft AM do a
Ak tv M
On June 27, 2011, the Town of Ajax passed a resolution supporting the GLSLCI call for
additional fun: ding for Canadian Great Lakes projects, and further called for the requested $285
million of Great Lakes, non -infrastructure and restoration funding to be maintained for each of
the next 10 years. Also included in the resolution was the clause that a copy of the motion be
sent, with a request for reply,, to a list of recipients among which was the'Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA).
On July 14, 2011, T'RCA was copied on a letter from the Town of Ajax to Canadian Prime
Minister Stephen Harper., This letter included, a copy of the June 27, 2011 resolution and thd
request for a TRCA response therein (Attachment 2).
•
As NO Ak a A 4F dip dr Alk W V A^ d"9 go
49 W 40
Ah Ah Ak
40 40 5
40 V
so do w 1r
40 40 49
In
40 0 W
AhAh 0 G r1as
111 w AN M M Ah M
A^b 4 a
W � a
It is anticipated that Great Lakes resourcing and priores will remain similar in the forthcoming
revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreementthe amendments to which are
currently being negotiated by the Parties to the Agreement (Canadian and United States
Parties) ; the al amended agreement is anticipated in 2012. Similarly,, it is anticipated that
new and continued priorities contained within the updated GLWQA will be reflected in the
renewal of the Canada,-Ontario Agreement (COA); the renewal of the COA is, anticipated
following the completion of' the GLWQA negotiations,.
The Town of Ajax resolution appropriately notes that an increase in the quant�ity and
consistency of Great Lakes resources would benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem and, in turn, its
inhabitants. In recognition of these needs TRCA has previously advanced resolutions -
Funding for large-scale remedial actions in the next Cianada-Ontario Agreement" and "
Supporting Green Infrastructure" through the Great Lakes United 2010 Annual meeting; these
resolutions requested increased federal and/or provincial support to remediate, maintain, and
increase the s,ustainability of urban and Area of Concern locations around the Great Lakes.
0
: 0 ^0i^ db Ah Aft
Ak do
V
Ak Ak
Ah
dF Alb a dP a Aft Ah A db
"`i d1l Ahii i Ak M dP
Alk Ab 0 i Amalk dF 0 AN
40
.«'0 Ak W 0
dP
Ak IM Ah ,9 dk 0 Ah 0 0 �. dkV Ak
Ah M Ah M Ah
The above -noted economic study findings, in combination with measured ecological outcomes
from TRCA'si successful ecological protect�ion and restoration initiatives, lends support to the
premise underlying the GLSLCl and Town of Ajax call for additional resourcing of Great Lakes
protection and restoration programs. That is, that such additional funding would be of benefit tit
the Great Lakes region.
0 W i W
1W
W W
M/ do 0 WWW
DETAILS 01F WORK TO BE DONE
Correspondence in support of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative and Town of
Ajax'si request for $285 million per year of non -infrastructure Great Lakes funding, to include a
copy of this report, will be prepared and provided to the Prim�e Minister of Canada and federal
Minister of Environment. Copies of this correspondence will be provided to the Pof
Ontario, Ontario Minister of'the Environment, Town of Ajax and Conservation Ontario.
I
No unique costs will be associated with responding to the Town of Ajax resolution of june 27,
2011.
Report prepared �bym. Stephanie Hawkins, extension 5576
Emaills: shawkins@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Stephanie Hawkins, extension 557f
Emaills: shawkins@trca.on,.ca
Date: August 04,, 2011
Attachments: 2
W
=, M-11 ile
News Release,
Embargoed unfil 1,30 EDTJunie 16, 2011
New 81 -National I �Com m Itment, I nvestment Urgently N eeded to Protiect,,Glreat Lakest
anud St. Lwtirr-wfce
Mayorll on ,Canada,, U.S. to build on local in"vestments tio protect 'greatest siourcie off, v w, 00., h"
10 , re hi a ter Fart
Niagara Falls, Ontarila June 16, 201 11, — Today, mayors of the Great La
kes and St. Ia, wren it.ieItr itialtive called on the
American and Canadian Federal GoVernments tia build on the U,5. Great Lakes, Restoration Iniflative, and local
inve,!ftments IIb'y m,aklng a bi-niatimal sustainable commi
the, region, supported by longterm funding.
"'Protecting and restoring the world' largest freshwater resource and source of drinking water for 40 mlifion people
mu,st be a priority for Gur two countries', I* said Mayor Brian McMullan of 5t. Catharines and chair oft r itie5 initiative.
U.S. Great Lakes storation Initiative should serve as a rnodel at the binational level and creati'e, a shared
cornmitment which will r,equj're support through sign WcRnt inve,,s-trnents from both Canada and the LLS,, to becorne a
rea lity."'
Mlayors welcorned the U.S. Great, Lakes Restoration Initiative,, under which the, iU.S. Federal Government committed
$475 m Illion In 21,010 for nor-infrastruictuire proteclflo,n am d restoration projects in the Great Lakes region. On a per capita
basis th, at represents a bout $ 15 per year fuer e. a ch of tine 32 rn ill ion Am eric ans livin g in the G r Lake Iba sign
4 -rhe, m8yors of the, 6reiat Lakes, and St, Lawrence appreciate the US federal governmenfs, commiltment to local
irive.stmen't in Great Lakies, prateoCtrion through "'the,, Great Lakes Restoration Initlative,,' said Mayor Tom Barrett of
Mllwaukeep, vice chair oftyre Cities Iniii at[Ve. 'We hope to continue to streng"Iffien this partnersNp and coil a borafl on for
the betterment afthe Lalkeshl
Investments are needed to respond to th�e enoirrn,o1us,,,chaRen9e5 facing the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence and local.
communities. Thesile fnelude the eutrophication of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario., adapting citfes', to climate change
protecting shorelines, and preserving wetlands and other coastal habitat areas, This 1"nfusion into horn -intim struct(Are.
prqjects andI prograrns would, he complementary to rna,jor investyre at, that are needed to addr@is the rnultiillion
doilar deficit for water inbra struicture in both countries.
41"e uciall oin'the Canadian Governrnent to match UI.S. Great Lakes investments on a per capita biasis, ', cilloirn m i tti ng, ,$ 15 p er
year for every, one ofthe,'19 m�illion Great Lakes and ,St, Lawrence Canadian citizens, or $mill-ir year, for, non -
infrastructure, local protection and riestoratibn projects.." said Mayar R6& Labeaume of QwebecCity,, priesidentoftrue
Quebec Metropolitan Community and Cities Initiative secretary/treasurer.
Great Lakes and St,. Lawrence citles on b,oth sides of the blord'er are rea.lizing significant, return� frorn, their investmeLnts in
efforts, to protect and restore the Greiiat Lakes and St. Lawrenc.e Riiven, Cities invest moire, than $15 biiRiun anriivally'to
protect a'nd restore the G r Lakes and St. irence.
I
'Gur Protectand restoration i
ion ,nv est r in't sill yield high positive returns for, our -communit[es,0#1 said GairV Burroughs,
Chair of the Niagara Region and host of the 2011 Cillbes �llnilit�i�a,tli,ve,,An��n�iu,,,31 Veeflng, "Today we are highl[ghting 'these
h C-91.
returns to demonstrate �why all oriders- of government must continue to inves"It" in t it globall resour, , '
The riefturns from Great Lakes -St., Lawrenoe irivestmwrit s are re,1111 and brow d -rear hingi, The Brookings Institution found
thalt for a, $26 billjon 'Investment In the Great La- kels,l there wmild be over a $50 biltilion return in economic blene%5- In
addition,, the National Associattlon of Clean Water ncIie. stimates Itfia"t 47,000 'obs are oreated frIISiIII ljon,
dollars invesitelid in clean water infrastructure.-Murill pa"I investments have also shown great" rete ns, in terrins.,04,
economic and environmental development and quality of life.
d revilitahz'ing an old industrial ,corridor located along the Menomonee River, now
mliwaukee is redeveliop''Ing an
known as the Menomonee Valle[ndus`tri al, Cente"r and Community..The $54 million praj�d, of which
lee and the Milwaukee Metre politan.,Sewerage District are Investing more than $24, m0 to will
ultimately r."relate an estimated 1.075 jobs by 2012,
The City of an the banks of the St. Lawrence Riven `bras adopted a goal of' preserving one
a lic re of ka nd, fn r ell ry acre d eve I op ed, i n o rd e r to p rot ect t h e, b j6d ive rsity of tll regio n.I n just ove r a ye4 r a n d a
Ih alf, th e city', h as, a I re a d y p rese rveld 3 16 a cres wit h irl ch e co 5yst em a n d b i o d ive rsity p otenti a I
the City of Racine' t h, Ble, a& re stora tion a n d r�e It a 4,zat ibn work, N o rt' Bea ch ha,5 mot posted a
As a result of s, Nor V
beach lic losu re ernes 2007 a n d th e city can in et a Ir los"t 2 rr"i i I I [on per s u m rn e r just from (wern I , s1talys associated
Wijth,,,two,rnallfor sporting events that makle usse of the beach..
1111the IM u n i ci pa I Ity of Ch, a th am 1-Ken't and the Lowe ir, i a rn es Va, Hey C o n se ration -Au thority wo r k to t' er 0-n t h e,
tolGrelefling m Annual Tree Program. As. part of the rnunici'palitYs,
,/Refore�tatlon Plartnership" which ind'udes !a
J'nvestmentand other fun ding siourcias, three full time and twig to three seasonal poslitions, have been created.,
Over 146 acr,land has been naturally restored.
More information on Great Oakes and St. Lawrence cities" "in" investments can be found at WwAk1,sWUes,,ojrjLa,,nn ual
meetiggslIZO11 m
Th,e Great Lakes and St. tow, rence Cit,;es in itia t1ve is 0, bin at;onal, cao)ition Pf ovej- 80 ma rsondoll"herlocalof
YO ficials "Mat
F
C rvety, with f6deral st tribiol - firlistniation and provind I'goviernments and other stakeholdliers roadivancle the
works,, a, ty ate,
protection, restoimtion and promotion of the'Grellat Lakes aind St—Lowren,ice, River basin.
Media CoWlactsiji,
David U11rich
Exec,.utive Director
cell a 12)41-80-6501
david.ull rich 29'h516tie$,,OrR,
Nicola Crawhall,
Deputy Director
ce 11 -, (6 13),298-3 178
0,11111
A&
Robert Masson,,
Director (Que"bec)
cell:(418)930-43,02
Legis'llative &
Information Slerv['035
The Right" Honourable Stephen Harper
Firime Minister of Canada
House of' Commons
Otta", Ontario
lilic 110"
July 14, 2011
Re; �GLeat, Mkes, &, St., Lawrence Gifies Initill IS
q_ YE.
9 am
TOWN OF AJAX
65, Harwood Avenuile Siouth
Ajax ON LIS 2,H9,
WWWAOM, ofajaxiloom
0 fig.
if 'M 9-1 oil 11 i
Whereas, 'In 2,010,. Sgovernment cornr
nitted to sting, $475 ion for
fif&-su porting and resturation projects in the Great ��Lakes" Region, represenfih�'$15.00, per,
a "Lakes a,,sin
year, for W11 ch of the, 32, million Ame cans Hvingin the re
-rr r���. Tb,wn o supports the Great Lakes w
,
and � n Ces° �la 's
.. ov �
recent� S Federal, g ve� r a
i est o ,, per c i basis,y committing `
year for every one of 'the' 19
mil.fi6n Great IIIIIIIIakes'and SL Lawrence Basin citizens, f6r ,a total of'$285 million per yew for
the n Zvi a a sustained,, reliable,source,, of funding',
n that this, motion be, sent� , i � � for reply the P ane in��ister � �� � ��
-Ontario,,ri the ��e l Provincial Ministers i�� �� � ��the
Environment the, IOppositionand Environmental Cfltks,, 0-te
A�socAmfipn of Munielpalitle's of Ontario, the Great Lakes and St., Lawrenbedices
Clon'seirvation Ontario, the Toronto e in Conservation Authority,, ,, the Central Lake
OtY� ri Conservation Authorityl, -thetounclll of Canadian&, Great Lakes �ake Ont
Waterke'eper aria
n other ve smallorganizations, �� �U.S,� ion s � � �� n . .
'of
C 11
Aiion Durham area
e
.
municipaHties � . a
We trustthis matter Wil receive your office's i l aftent"1016 and took, for
response.
If require :r r infIbn-natiolin please contact Barb Hodginsat 905-619-72.529, 2
COM
Mar"11[in da Rond,
Director fte g sis . liffrotmaltion Se sffoWn Clerk
905-6,19-2529 ext 333
Copy: D. MqGminiy, premier of Ohtado,
Flatiertyrf Minister of Finanice, Federal
Minister liolf Flinanim,Provincial,
Fed rl
Jeffrey,,,
P. Kent,, Minister of the Env rou, Federal
I on
J. Wilk'ns, Minister of t'he Environment Proviincial
B. , Interim Leader of the. Li l
T. Hudak, Loader of the Opposition Pady Ontario
A
Ontario . Horwath,, I eader of the New Democrat Party
Association bf Municipaliftes of Ontario
Great Lakes iland St Lawre n-ce C'Mes In [tiative
Conservalion'Ontario
Toronto zatlid Region Conservabion Authority
Central Lake Ontario Comp>ervation Authority,
Coiincil ofi Canadians
6reat Lakes Unite�
La 0 o Walerkeeper
ke nta
u.s. Nationa 1, Assiarion of Clean Water Agencies
Lake Ontario Collaborative
Region, of" Duram
All Durham Region MunicAl"palities
B.,
Hod gins, Senior Poticy Plannr
Regional Councillor C- Jordan,, Wards 3 4
RES.#A1 SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY
Town of Ajax. Approval of the Town of' Ajax Shoreline Improvemenli
Strategy.
Moved by.- Jack Heath
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
miaar
n
W 40 40 W W W
40
410 dr
W goo W 40 W
4P W
Ak Ak
The development of the Shoreline Improvement Strategy was based on a series of stakeholder
and public consultation workshops/presentations. This Strategy was developed using a
consultation process that included:
1 stakeholder charette (to develop context, site visit opportu�nities, held on November 18,
201 Oi) 1
2. second stakeholder charette (development of options, held on December 9, 2010
3. public workshop (roundtable discussion of options, held on February 26, 2011); and
4. public presentation (preferred strategies, held on May 107 2011).
The Shoreline improvement Strategy was approved by the Town of Ajax, Community Aftairs
and Planning Committee on June 20, 2�01 11.
The Shoreline Improvement Strategy provides a number of key recommendations including:
0 Preferred Beach Location and Related Amenities,
Habitat and Ecological Enhancements-,
Addonal Recreation Opportunities; and
0 Implementation Framework.
�l
IN
Preferred Beach Location and Related Amenities
The strategy included the development and application of beach planning criteria to delineate
potential beach locatiions along the Ajax waterfront!. The criteria, included a review and
assessment of beach cleanliness, water quality and temperature, potential programming, pubIlic
safety, accessibility and parking, and ecological enhancements. Through this technical review,
in conjunction with input received through the stakeholder and public consultation process, it
was clear that the beach location that best satisfied the above -noted criteria was in the
Pickering Beach Neighbourhood, in the vicinity of Paradise Park.
A, concept plan for this area was developed and included measures to enhance the beach
cleanliness, improve access to the water's edge, provide amees that support the
recreational use of the beach, and improve the ecologica,l integrity of the beach and ba,ckshore
as
Aabitat and Ecological Enhancements
Specc areas of the Ajax shoreline have been identified as areas for restoration of wetlands,
native treeis, shrubs and beach grasses. The purpose of this restoration is to direct beach
,?.ccess, improve water quality, enhance wildlife areas and restore unique coastal habitats
associated with the Great Lakes. The restoration works outlined within the strategy will also
pa/ a number of educational and interpret" I i ic areas that have been
ive opportunities. Spec"f*
identified for habitat and ecological enhancements include the beachfront located at Rotary
Park, Carruthers Marsh and the beach at Paradise Park.
Ah M
fop w w�IN
40 V W w w 40
Ah
M do W a. 0 see W V W V V 0 V do 40 gap wdo'
lo or
Additional Recreation Opportunities
While the focus of the Shoreline Improvement Strategy was to identify opportunities for beach
development and recreational swimming, other shoreline recreational opportunes have a,lso
been identified. These opportunities include the introduction of floating docks, or access
nodes, into the Duffins, and Carruthers marsh for the purposes of launching canoes/kayaks and
provide fishing opportunities. The strategy detailed:
the introduction of beach volleyball courts just east of Lion )I s Point;
AOL
Waterfront Trail lookout nodes; boardwalk trails (in Rotary Park, Carruthers Marsh and
Paradise Park); and
the placement of addona,l amees (drinking fountains, bike rIacks, shade structu,res,
public art, seating areas and gardens).
•
see
as
0 wr 0 w
mv a, a Ab IV do 4kv Ah 0 do
Amb a Ab
40
lop 9 a 9 —
a 0 4 0 a
4v 40 61 9
0 0 do
dF 40 do T tv do do
low do
IV
d1b
4r 4v dF
4ft
Ab Ift Ah Ah
46
Alk
0
Support for this project and TRCA's activities to date are found in the Durham Waterfront Budget
228-70.
Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
Emaills: gmacpiherson@trca.on-ca
For Information contact-. Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
Emalls: gmacpherson@trca.on.ca
Date.- September 06, 2011
Attachments: 1
I
t
JJ � tlkw yy
v
wF
wo
r " _
r� �ik
N�
µ
BNq, d
p
r
Ile�
R ...
tl °lm w N
e ld'
e
�1
oe
LAKE
13
NNS Wer �N �
ruP �
f
;. � iifir . l µPy s
L t µ�
In9 NNYd
�.o
u
Roads
N � b
r pa111 Y gN
,gyp
TRCA
Paradise Pyre e�)
R
KEY MAP
" fry
mnr° �r � w•.o
RES.#A1w TOMMY THOMMIN SON PARK INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT
Award of Sole Source Contract. Award of sole source contract for
consulting services related to construction, and contract managemeoi
I
services for the Tommy Thompson Park Infrastructure Construction
Project.
®+ by: Jack Heath
Seconded by'. Laurie Bruct
THAT the contract for Construction Management Services for the Tommy Thompson Park
Infrastructure Construction Project be awarded to Montgomery Sisam Architects at a total
cost not to exceed $68,000.00, plus HST;
AND FURTHER THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be
directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the extension, including the
g
t"'on of documents.
signinand execu ii
CARRIED
Tommy Thompson Park (also known as the Lesilie Street,Spit) is one of the single most
si ! gnificant park spaces on the Toronto waterfront. On May 2,0, 2004, Human Resources and
Skills, Development Canada, as the agency through which Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Corporation (TWRC) project funds flow, announced that $8,000,000 would be allocated to
implement the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan, achieving its goal of an "Urban Wilderness
Park .
Tommy Thompson Park (TTP) is also one of the most significant features within TWRC's
concept of Lake Ontario Park. Therefore, TRCA and TWRC deivelopMMM d the TTP Infrastructure
Design Project to ensure integration of the Lake Ontario Park planning process into the
discussion and design of TTP infrastructure.
At Executive Committee Meeting #2/08,, held on April 11 1 2008, Resolution #B31/08, was
approved as follows:
THAT the consulting firm of Montgomery Sisam be retained to complete the Tommy
Thompson Park (TTP) Infrastructure Design Project at a total cost not to exceed
$148,150 plus applicable taxes,
y
AND FURTHER THAT authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to Implement the contract,
0
including the signing and execution of documents.
TRCA retained Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc. to design three (3) building structures
consisting of'a staff booth and interpretive area, an environmental shelter and an ecological
research (birid banding) station. The design of these structu �res, ranging from approximately
300-1 000 sq., ft., are predominately concrete and will be constructed of corten steel plate siding
panels with all interior and exterior finishes. The layout consists of office space, interpretive
space and offline/online washroom facilities.
The conceptual designs were presented to TWRCs Design Review Panel a total of four times
prior: to receiving approval to proceed to detailed design at the meeting on July 8, 2009. To
complete the design process, the contract to Montgomery Sisam Architects was extended as
per Resolution #A205/09 at Authority Meeting #9/09 held on November 27, 2009, as follows.:
THAT a contract extension be awarded to the consulting firm of Montgomery Sisam
Architects in the amount of $77,627.87 plus applicable taxes to cover the increased
costs above the original upset limit of $148,150 plus applicable taxes;
A 11 FURT?�ER TAAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be
directed to take such action as is necessary to Implement the extension, including the
signing and execution of documents.
The deta,iled designs for the TTP infrastructure projects were approved by TWRC in March
2011, and preceded to tendering, and the building permit submission in the fal ' I of 2011.
Request for Pre -Qualification (RFPQ) for general contractors, to construct these facilities was
advertised on-line with MERX on June 15, 2011 and closed on June 22, 2011. The work
includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the supply of labour, material, supervision and
equipment to construct the bui'lding structures. Following the pre-qualificat,ion process, Tender
documents were made available to six (6) general contractors, and subsequently at Authority
Meeting #7/11 , held on July 29, 2011, Resolution #A1 65/11 was approved as follows;
THAT Contract RSD1 1-58 for construction of a staff booth facility and interpretive area, an
environmental shelter and an ecological research station at Tommy Thompson Park be
,?.warded to Martinway Contracting Ltd. at a cost not to exceed $1,8i6OO75.00, plus a
10% contingency plus HST, subject to rece't of all necessary approvals and funding, it
1p
being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
specifications;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is
necessary to implement the contract, including the signing and execution of documents.
TRCA has retained Martinway Contracting Ltd., and construction staging, scheduling and
planning is currently underway. TRCA staff has been managing the project since its inception,
however staff require additional construction and contract management support to ensure that
the building practices and materials meet quality, safety and performance standards, and that
the structures are constructed on time and on budget. TRCA staff will continue to manage the
entire project, but will focus its attention on the project partners.
RATIONALE
The current infrastructure project consists of three separate serviced and non -serviced
buildings. The project is being funded by TWRC, and the resulting infrastructure will be
operated by the City of Toronto. The area however is also part of many initiatives including;
the Port Lands Beautification, Leslie Street Greening and Unwin Avenue Improvements, La,ke
Ontario Park planing, and is stlill currently owned and managed in partnership with the Ministry
of Natural Resources, the Toronto Port Authority, Toronto Port Lands Company and the City of
Toronto. As a result, TRCA requires additional support to manage the construction portion of
the infrastructure projects.
W 0 0 go 0 W 0 0 0
rM a do Ar .arc see
a a 0 Ak Aft
dft Ah do 0 M do tv AN AV 0,
ah Ak M
of AM
0
of
AM ak 4P Gy AM
9 My_
—1
Staff therefore recommends, awar -' of the contract on a sole source to Montgomery Sisam
Architects for construction management services as per Section 1. 1 4.5i of TRCA's Purchasing
Policy as follows:
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.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
TWRC is providing the funding necessary to implement the Tommy Thompson Park Master
Plan Project. Funding has been allocated in the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan
Implementation budgets (accounts 216-42 and 21 ' 6-32). Funding is available to address the
construction management costs in the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Implementation
proje%.L.
-0-leporti prepared by: Ralph Tonoinger, extension 5366
aollls: rton'1inger@trca.on..ca
For Information contact: Ralph Tlon�minger, extension 5361
Emails: rtonminger@trca.on.ca
Xate:, September 01 5 2011
0
RES.#A1r •
NURSERY PERIMETER FENCE REPLACEMENT
Award of Tender RSD1 1-60. Award of'cont�ract for the supply and
instal'lation of chainlink fencing and gates.
Moved by.- Jack Heath
Seconded by: Laurie Bru�ce
THAT the contract for the supply and installation of perimeter chainlink fenci:ng and gates
be awarded to Leone Fence Co. Ltd. at a total cost not to exceed $106,810.00, plus HST, it
being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
spec�if ications;
THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum Of ter
percent (10%) of the total cost of the contract as a contingency allowan�ce, 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 the early 1990's the TRCA Nursery consolidated propagation and production operations to i ts
current location on the west side of the East Humber River valley, north of Rutherford Road in
the City of Vaughan. The Nursery produces a wide variety of native trees, shrubs,
aquatic/herbaceous and bioengineering plant materials to supply the TRCA's planting
programs and restoration and stewardship initiatives.
At that time, traditional wood post/paige wire farm fencing was installed to enclose the nursery
lands in an effort to control wildlife from entering and damag , ing or destroying nursery trees and
shrubs under cultivation. The fence also serves to maintain a safety buffer by keeping
pedestrian and other trail users outside of the operational area.
Since that time,, many of the fence posts have deteriorated to the point where they no longer
provide adequate support to ensure the fencing serves its intended purpose of excluding
wildlife and other public users from entering into an operational area.
As a result, staV has planned for perimeter fence replacement as part of a plan of nursery
infr!astructu:re upgrade with a more robust 2.,5m galvanized chai nlink fence and lockable
security gates. Cha,inlink fencing will meet the security and safety requirements and provide
many more years of serviceability.
RATIONALE
Request for Tenders (RSD'1 1-60) were sent to the following five (5) contractors/suppliers, who
were selected based on their area of business expertise and past experience on TRCA projects:
1. Atlas Fence West;
2. Leone Fence Co Ltd-,
3. McGowan Fence & Supply Ltd;
4. Roma Fence Ltd;
5. Urban Fence Inc (PFS Fence Inc).
The tender packages requested bidsfor the supply and installation of chainlink fencing and
associated gates to replace the existing perimeter farm fencing and gates.,
7our potential bidders attended the site inspection meeting held on September 1, 2011.
Three (3) sealed tenders were received on or before bid closiinig at 4-.0 0 pm on September
2011.
Qualified bids were opened on September 9, 2011, at Tender Opening Committee Meeting
#13/11 in accordance with TRCA's Purchasing Pol'icy. The biid results are as follows:;,
0 - Go
Bid Price
........ .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .
(Plus HST)
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Atlas Fence West
$1477812.00
L,eone Fence Co. Ltd.
$1067810-00
.......................... ......................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................ . .
McGowan Fence & Supply Ltd.
0 1
Roma Fence Ltd.
91 7 39i9.75
........................... ..................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................
Urban Fence Inc.
Staff recommends that the contract RSD1 1-60 TRCA Nursery Perimeter Fence Replacement be
-?.warded to Leione Fence Co. Ltd., it beiing the lowest bidder meeting TRCA speations and
requirements.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
All expenditures that pertain to this contract will be assigned to the Nursery Infrastructure
Improvements project budget account 129-50. Funding is provided by the Region of Peel a.,
part of the approved 2011 Peel Climate Change capital allocation. I
FrIeporti prepared by: Dave Rogalsky, extension 5378
drogalsky@trca.on.ca -
For Information contact: Dave Rogalsky, extension 5371
.Emaiils: drogalsky@trca.on.ca
Lkate: September 16, 2011
RES.#A1 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, 129111)
a
Moved by,-, DaV`id Barrow M
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
TAAT item EX7.1 - Request for �Disposal of Toronto and Region, Conservation
Authority -owned land be received.
RES.#A1 8 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed
Giuseppe DiMillo, CFN 46094. Purchase of property located on the eas!
siide of Coleraine Drive, south of Healey Road (1 2�805 Coleraine Drive -
Bolton), Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, under the
"Greenlands Acquisition Project for 201, 1-2015", Flood Plain and
Conservation Component, Humber River watershed.
(Executive Resi. #B 130111)
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
T?,AT 0.61 hectares (1.50 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 4,
Concession 6 (ALBION) and designated as Block 8, on a Draft Plan of Subdivision
prepared by J D. Barnes Limited, under their Reference Nol. 08-30-751-02, dated June 6,
2011, Town of Caledon�, Regional Municipality of Peel, located on the east side of
Coleraine Drive, south of Healey Road (128iO5 Coleraine Drive - Boltoin), be purchased
from Giuseppe DiMillo;
•
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the lanill,
free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easemenLQ,
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.#A1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-:2015
Flood Plain ConservationRiver Watershed
Gatieview Investments Inc.,, CFN 460195. Purchase of ope+ o
Acquisitionthe east side of Coleraine Drive, south of Healey Roaa ti 2805 Coleraine
Drive - Bolton), Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, under the
Project! Flood Plain and
Conservation Component,River
Moved(Executive Res. #Bi 13 1 /11)
David Barrow
SecondedbGloria
THAT 0.85 hectares (2-10 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Block 6,
Registered Plan 43M-968 and designated as Part 10 on a Draft Plan of Survey prepareti;
by J D. Barnes Limited, er their Reference No., 08m3O-751 -01 -A,
January 25,
0 _ a ! 4N rr 'RIIIMunicipalityrr" located: li east •
Coleraine Drive, south of Healey Road (12805 Coleraine Drive - Bolton), be purchased
from Gateview Investments Inc.;
=5M
THAT Toronto and Reg,ion Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the lani-90
free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts P Barristers a► Solicitors,
the transaction at the earliest possible date. AII reasonable expenses in�curred 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.
RES.#A,1 C 1' 1 - GI EEN AN ,S ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Etobicoke Creek Watershed
Moscoerp VII Developments Inc., CFN 46104. Purchase of property
located west of Kennedy Cad, north of Layfield Road, Town of Caleden,
Regional Municipality of Peel, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project
for 2011-2015", Flood Plein and, Conservation Component, Etobiceke
Creek watershed.
(Executive Res. #B 132111)
Moved err Barrow
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
•
THAT 7.43 hectares (18.36i acres)I, more or less,, of vacant land being Part of Lot 20,
Concession 1 EHS and designated as Part 1 on a Draft Plan of Survey prepared by
Rady-Pient�ek & Edward Surveying Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No.
08-096, dated May 10, 2010, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, located wesl-
of Kennedy Road, north of Mayfield Road, be purchased from M'oscorp V11 Developments
Inc.;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the Ian,,.,-tm
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 incidenta-.
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 finaliz,e the transaction including obtaining needed approvals and signing and
execution of documentation.
CARRIED
RES.#A19 GREENLAND,S ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed
Molise Kleinburg Estates Inc., CFN 46118. Purchase of property locatel-i
west of Stevenson Avenue, south of Nashville Road (115 Putting Green
Crescent - Kleinburg)i, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of'York,
under the "Gr:eenlands Acquisition Project for 2011 Flood Plain
and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed.
(Execufive Res. #B 133111)
Moved by., David Barrow
Seconded a Lindsay Lub�
TAAT 26.47 hectares (65.40 acres), more or lessi of vacant land being Part of Lots 22, 23
and 24, Concession 9 and designated as Parts 1, 2i 411 51i 611 71 81 91101111129149 159 169
1991 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 289 2991 327 331 34, 35, 36, 38, 40 and 41 on Plan 65R-32941, City
of Vaughlan�, Regional Municipality of York, located west of Stevenson Avenue, south of
Nashville Road (1,15 Putting Green Crescent - Kleinburg), be purchased from Molise
Kleinburg Estates Inc.
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the Ianl'.'
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.
10T, i"a -no 11
RES.#A1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-12015
Flood P'l�ain and Conservation Component, on River Watershed
Grindelwald Developments Limited, CFN 46178. Purchase of property
located south of Major Mackenzie Drive, east of Dufferin Street, City of
Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands
Acquisition Project for 2011-2015"', Flood Plain and Conservation
Component, Don River watershed.
(Executive Res. #B 134111)
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by.- Gloria Lindsay Luby
THAT 0.003 hectares (0-0017 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 20i,
Concession 2 and designated as Part 12 on Plan 65R-29603, City of Vaughan, Regional
Municipality of York, located south of Major Mackenzie Drive, east of Dufferin Street, be -
purchased from Grindelwald Developments Limited;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the Ian1
free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts, LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete
0
the transact�ion 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
documientation.
CARRIED
RMIJ
RES.#A1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION �PROjECT FOR 2011-:2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Mimico Creek Watershed
Amexon Holdings Incorporated
City of Toronto, CFN 46227. Acquisition of property located at 60-80 Park
Lawn Road, north I of Lakeshoire Boulevard in the City of Toronto (foIrmerly
the City of EtobIicok�e), under the'GreenIlands Acquisition Project for
2011-20151 , Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Mimico Creek
watershed.
(Executive Res. #B 135111)
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
THAT 0.213 hectares (01.526 acres), more or less, of vacant land, being Part of Lot 7 and
Part of Sydenham Street (closed by By -Law 14978,,, Instrument Noi. EB8303,033) on
Registered Plan 83, designated as Part 2 on Plan 66R-25043, City of Toronto (former:ly the
0
City of Etobicoke), be purchased from Amexon Holdings Incorporated,
•I t6i i IM 111
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the Ian3---
free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
TAAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete
the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurredincidenta"-
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.#A1 EXCHANGE OF LANDS
Vicinity of 1681 Concession Road 7
Part Lot 4, Concession 7, Township of Uxbridge,
Regional Municipality of Durham
Gordon and Valerie Pilley
Muffins Creek Watershed, CF'N 30662. Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority is in receipt of a request frorn, Gordon and Valerie Pilley to enter
into an exchange of lands to resolve an encroachment.
(Executive Res. #B 136111)
Moved err Barrow
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
RM
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request
from Gordon and Valerie Pilley, the owners of 1681 Concession Road 7, Township of
i
Uxbridge, Regional Municipality of: Durham, to enter into an exchange of lands to resolve
an encroachment;
AND WHEREAS it is 'in the opinion of TRCA that itis in the best interest of TRCA in
furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authoesto
IN
proceed with an exchange of land in this instance, :
THEREFORE, LET IT' BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into an exchange of lands r
following basis:
(a) Gordon and'Valerile Pilley will convey to TRCA a parcel of land containing 01.60
hectares (1 .48 acres), more or less, being Part of Lot 4, Concession 7 and
designated as Part 2 on Reference Plan 4013-23947, Township of Uxbridge, Regiona'.
Municipality of Durham-,
(b) TRCA will convey to Gordon and Valerie Pilley a parcel of land containing Oi.15
hectares (0.37 acres), more or less, being Part of Lot 4, Concession 7 and
designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 40IR-23947, Township of Uxbridge, Regiona-.
Municipality of Durham;
(c) Gordon: and Valerie Pi:ll,ey are to pay all legal and survey costs and If
a
approval of the Land Division Committee for the Regional Municipality of Durham,
(d) Completion of this sale will be suib"ect to any Plannina Act approvals that may
b
required for the severance. Any additional planning approvals which Gordon an]
Valerie Pilley may desire, or the municipality requires, will be at the expense of
Gordon and: Valerie Pilley;
(e) Gordon and Valerie Pilley will construct a fence at their expense on the new property
line within six months of' completion date-,
(f) 'Title to the subject property will be in the same names as the adjacent property
ownedby Gordon and, Valerie Pilley so thatthe properties merge on closing;
MM=* I's 0
TMT the sale be subject to the approval of the i1linister of
accordance with Section 21 (2) of the Conservation Authorities Act C.2i7 as amended;
THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete
the transaction at the earliest possible date;
AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA ofals be directed to take whatever action
may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of any necessary approvals
and the signing and execution of any documents.
CARRIED
49
rr # L CITY O ! A
Request for Permanent Easements for Two Existing Stormwater
Management Pond Outfalls
MovedDon River Watershed, City of Vaughan, CFN 46026. Receipt of a reques)
from the City of Vaughan to provide permanent easements for two
existing stormwater management pond ouitfalls, north of Rutherford
Road, west of Bathurst Street, Don River watershed,, City of Vaughan.
(Executive Res. #Bi 13 7111)
David Barrow
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Lub�
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request
from the City of Vaughan to provide permanent easements for two existing stormwater
management pond outfalls, north of Rutherford Road,i, west of Bathurst Street, Don River
watershed, it Vaughan,
instance;AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out ir-
Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the City of Vaughan in
this
THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT permanent
easements total +r
hectares (0.48 acres), more or less, be granted to the City of Vaughan for two existing
stormwateir
management poSII: outlets, ar d land being P ar of Block Registered P •
granting65M-3917City of Vaughan, designatedas Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 6511-33101,
THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.,00, plus all legal, survey and other costs ts
be paid by the City of Vaughan;
THAT,the City of Vaughan 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
of
T?iAT said easements be subject to approval of the iflinister of
accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act,, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter
•
signingAND FURTHER THAT authorized T'RCA officials be directed to take whatever action may
be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the
and • of anyN4 •
MW
RES.#A1 MEADOWCLIFFE DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Contracts RSD1 1-61 and RSD1 1-62. Award of Tenders RSD1 1-61 and
RSD1 1-62 for the supply and delivery of approximately 13,000 tonnes of
cobble stoneapproximatelyiii tonnesi of 4-6
armou,r stone.
Moved(Executive Res. #B 138111)
David Barrow
Seconded rr Lindsay
THAT Contract RSD1 1-61 for the supply and delivery of approximately 13,000 tonnes of
75mm-200mm cobble stone to the Meadowc1liffe Drive Erosion Controll Project, in the City
of Toronto, be awarded to Glenn Windrem Trucking for a total unit price of $28.75 pe
to,n�ne and a total cost not to exceed $373,750.00, plus HST, it being the lowest bid
meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff cost estimates and
` •
AND FURTHER THAT Contract RSD11 1 -62 for the supply and delivery of approximately
5,000 tonnes of 4-6 tonne arimour stone to the Meadowc1liffe Drive Erosioin Control
Project, On the City of Toronto, be awarded to i -C. Rock Limulted for a total unit price of
$43.50 per: tonne and a total cost not to exceed $217,5OiO.00, plus HSTiti being the lowes
bid meeting TRCA staff cost estimates and specifications. CARRIEDI
RES.#A1 BLUFFER'S PARK DREDGING PROJECT, TENDER RSD1 1-47
Award of Tender RSD1 1-47 for maintenance dredging of the entrance
channel at Bluffer's Park, City of Toronto.
(Executive Res. #B 139111)
MovedDavid Barrow
Seconded
THAT Tender RSD1 1-47 for dredging of the Bluffer's Park Entrance Channel be awarde,
to Galcon Marmine Limited for a total cost not to exceed $185,815-00, plus HST; i
THAT staff be authorized to spend the project contingency amount of $46,500.00, if
available, icomplete additional dredging /the limit911 available funding II $280,000.0
from of N
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 w • ` signing • execution documents.
RES.#A1 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Professional Access and Integration Enhancement and Mentoring to
Placement Programs. The Professional Access and Integration
Enhancement and Mentoring to Placement audited financial statements
and management letters for the period April 1 : 2010 to March, 31 2011
are present 'ed for Authority approval.
(Executive Res. #B 140111)
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded byN. Gloria Lindsay Luby
THAT the Professional Access, and Integration Enhancement (PAIE) and Mentoring to
Placement (M2P) audited financial statements and management letters, as presented, b
approved, signed by the Chair and Secretary -Treasurer of Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA), in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship and
Immigration Bridging Projects -1 Project Audit Guidelines. CARRIE]
RES.#A! MIMICO WATERFRONT LINEAR PARK
Floriri Village Investments Inc., CFN 3244,0. Settlement of compensation
for rights expropriated for the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Project
Phase 2.
(Executive Res. #Bi 14
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
RES.,#A200,111 - CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY BUSINESS HOURS
Approval of annual floater days during the Christmas holiday period.
(Executive Res. #B 142111)
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
0"I UM aTk 1
A I W*E
Nil ino 1V F #Njjffei�-901
i
AND FURTHER THAT the administrative offices and Black Creek Pioneer Village be
closeN during the December 25 to January 1 timeframe.
CARRIED
mw.�
10 1 1 111 iiiiiij
IN IN I
0 Is] III I I n k
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
THAT Section 11 items EX8.1 & EX8.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/11
held on August 5, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
Section 11 Items EX8.1 - EX8i.3, Inclusive
CANADA GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL GREATER TORONTO CHAPTER
(Executive Res. #B 119111)
51 DEER VALLEY DRIVE EMERGENCY EROSION', CONTROL MAINTENANCE PROJECT
(Executive Res. #B 120111)
RES.#A202/11 - SECTION 11 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
Moved by,-, Lois Griffin
Seconded by: Richard Whiteheaii
TAAT Section 11 item EX8.3 - Wild Water Kingdom, contained in Executive Committee
Minutes #7/11, held on August 5, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
ffiikqM���q � ri��,11 � iii I I I ill 11 � IT& ,�i*YL
Moved by.: Michael Di Biast
Seconded by: Laurie Bruce
THAT Section 11 items EX8.1 - EX8.4,, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes
#8/11, held on Septeimbier 9, 2011 , be received.
CARRIED
Section 11 Items EX8.1 - EX8.4, Inclusive
COiATSWORTH CUT DREDGING PROJECT
(Executive Res. #B 143111)
MEADOWCLIFFE DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJEC
(Executive Res. #B, 144111)
BANKING PROPOSAL
(Executive Res. #B 145111)
ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY
(Executive Res. #B 146111)
me
;&I
Moved by: Michael Di Biast.
Seconded by: Maria Augimen
THAT Section IV items AUTH8.1.1 & AUTH8.1.2 in regard to Watershed e
Minutes, be received.
CARRIED
Section IV Items AUTH8.1.1 & AUTH8.1.2
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #7/11, held on July 11 2011
Minutes of Extra Meeting and Site Visit held on August 17, 201
ETOBICOKE-MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION
Minutes of Meeting #2/11, held on May 26, 2011
RES.#A205/11 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
Moved by: Chin,, Lee
Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti
THAT Section IVI"tem EX9.1 - Enerlife Consulting Inc. Agreement, containedin Executive
E
Committee Minutes, #7/111 , held on August 5, 2011 , be received.
CARRIED
RES.#A206/11 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
Moved by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
Seconded by: Chris, Fonseca
THAT Section IV items EX9.1 & EX91.2, contained On Executive Committee Minutes #8/11,
held on September 9, 2011 , be received.
CARRIED
PUBLIC RECORD
(Executive Res. #B 14 7/11)
LOWEST BID NOT ACCEPTED
(Executive Resi. #B, 148111)
M
lir I ! III, 1 1114,
Ili
U1 �i 11101 L I a] 96dkll
Moved by: Linda Pabst
Seconded by: Chin Lee
i
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX1 0.1 - EX1 .88, inclusive, contaiined in Executi�fflive
Committee Minutes #7/11, held on August 5,2011, be received.
CARRIED
Iiiiii'll 1 11 �
Moved by: Chin Lee
Seconded by: Dave Ryan
THAT Ontarl"o Regulation 166/061tems EX10.1 - EX1.128,1*nclusi've, contal"ned 1"n Executoivei
Committee Minutes, #8/11 , held on September 9, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1 Ow.51 a.m.,, on Friday, September 30,i 20111.
Gem Lynn O'Connor
Chair
Im
•
Brian, Denney
Secretary-Treasur!er
4L%k
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #9/11
October 28, 2011
The Authority Meeting #9/11, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village,
on Friday, October 28, 2011. The Vice Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order
at 9:50 a.m.
=1 44 4 L, k I
Paul Ainslie
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Maria Augimeri
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Vice Chair
David Barrow
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Ben Cachola
9:55 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Bob Callahan
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Ronald Chopowicl
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Vincent Crisanti
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Glenn De Baeremael r
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Michael Di Biase
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Chris Fonseca
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Jack Heath
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Chin Lee
9:55 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Mike Mattos
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Linda Pabst
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
John Parker
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Anthony Perruzza
10:30 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Dave Ryan
9:55 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
John Sprovieri
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Cynthia Thorburn
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Jim Tovey
9:50 a.m.
11:50 a.m.
Member
Colleen Jordan
Member
Mujeeb Khan
Member
Gloria Lindsay Lu by
Member
Glenn Mason
Member
Peter Milczyn
Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Chair
Gino Rosati
Member
Richard Whitehead
Member
RES. 09/11 - APPOINTMENTS TO TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION
AUTHORITY
City of Toronto. Notification by the Secretary -Treasurer of City of Toronto
appointees to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaer
Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti
THAT the notification from the Secretary -Treasurer that the following individuals
representing the City of Toronto are duly appointed and entitled to sit as Members of this
Authority for the 2011 meeting year be received:
9 Ben Cachola
9 Ronald Chopowick
9 Mujeeb Khan
9 Mike Mattos
9 Cynthia Thorburn;
THAT Bryan Bertie, Laurie Bruce, Gay Cowbourn e, Lois Griffin and Pamela Gough be
thanked for their years of service to TRCA;
AND FURTHER THAT election for the two vacant City of Toronto positions on the
Executive Committee be conducted at Authority Meeting #10/11, scheduled to be held on
November 25, 2011.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On October 25, 20111 City of Toronto Council appointed Ben Cachola, Ronald Chopowick�,
Mujeeb Khan, Mike Mattos and Cynthia Thr urn to TELA for a term of office starting on
October 28, 2011 and ending on December 31, 2012, renewable without further recruitment for
a term ending on November 30, 2014, and until successors are appointed, and continuing until
the next TFC A meeting after.
At Authority Meeting #1/11, held on January 28, 2011, the Executive Committee was elected for
a term ending at Annual Meeting #1/13. As a result in the change of membership as approved
by the City on October 25, 2011, there are two vacancies on the Executive Committee. Since
TFC A received official notification of the new appointees on October 27th, there is insufficient
time to orient the new members to TFC A and the opportunities available to all City of Toronto
members to fill these two vacant positions. As a result, staff recommend that these two
positions rem ai n vacant for Executive Co m m ittee Meeting #10/11 a sch ed u led to be held on
to m be r 4 7 2011 , and that elections take place at A uth o rity Meetin g #11 /11, sch ed u led to be
held on N ove m be r 257 2011 to fill the two vacant positions.
Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
Emails: kstranIps @trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
Emil: kstranks@trca.on.ca
Date: October 27, 2011
r4re—rd I
nell
RES. #A21 0/11 - MINUTES
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT t h "Brut s of M tin #8/11, h eld on September 30, 2011 , be approved.
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A lette r dated October 27, 2011 from Joe Vaccaro, Pr side nt (Acting), B I LD, ire regard to
item BAAB7.3 - Planning and Permit Administration Cost Recovery.
(b) A letter dated October 27 7 2011 from Councillor Peter Milczyn, City of Toronto, in regard
to item TH7.2 -Cion Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project
Environmental Assessment.
RE `. #A21 1 /11 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received;
RES. 212, - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Jim Tovey
THAT above -noted correspondence (b) be received;
CARRIED
CARRIED
CmIlRESPONDENCE (A)
11 IF
fid/I
llll
IF
CUING A F
d
October 27, 2011
Chair O'Coxinor a,ild nie-rubern, of'flae TRC -AA Board
TOTOTAO and Reg ion C' onrei-vabon ALAI ity
5 Sho-relumi Diive
Ontanio
M31N 1341
RE: 1.00%, Cos''t RecoveIry for Phui.nuig, Perntftfing a I AssRsu'lliet'a Fee
for,201.2-1201.3
T]"ie B-Ludding Indus try and Land Development Assioc 1"'altion ("Bl"ILD) "i's in, rec e�i , pt,of t1le TRCA,,s:tAY
re ortI 100,0N�C-I,',bat Recuvr for Plai er, iiii,Ig, and 'I A Q1 Q6.0 I
am sisessment Fee
P
Schedule ust -�, Adi0
g, -nientz. for 2012-2013 (the propossal and w, e offfier the folloix-111"g c� iunaen,ts for
yourrClvj,ew and coiulderation atthe Octoibex 28""AN.Lithority Boer Mee'ting.
the leiisdeci I ,,1 11 1 of this bo.-ixd to move-toffill cost recovery byJanuary
Cll 21' lelisr,.s the ine " UP. M1111I 31103 We atso believe that
2012 anti. our iT-tdu,,,sti-y iTinowray 1 1 n of di", djec is ton,
grovth mus p, i., We acialoviedWI tLie difficul:ty� of this uzk to move tomrards f,,ull
1
rect -Over-ya,Il d. h,1 'Ity of fig., to reflect tial"Is cl."ka"i-i le, re�Iingj h.,
x
e em g, . -enlv=
i "I It has., taken flie fiill two, year's Ito conhis''work..,
gTo,,-Lip,o,-tiOcto,be���r5 d,, and October 1 V+'I
to pres&nt il",lis, proplIO'S.-il toinduz;,tiN' representatives, and unfominnate,17y, I, 'were unable to, coii-tplete,
our chacussions in advaxicle. of Itlu'L bcaxd, itne-etingid.
on tlie,&e schedule itself , BILD renIs conceimed this proposal
z,'taf 'in
Based on today's piroces"S di scuasiion wi. th,, TRCA 11,'BILD looks, forw, ard. to cont' -um
ou,r
cons, A tafion 1ATI di TRCA s,taff'au We�, V,--CTk t0get]"Iff t'01, exillatlCe the "",,o,-Lmtabi'tI'l"ty and
transparency ixith, t1niss, proposal. We al,s,o, appreciavte th�,at TR,C-.',,A,,,, staff1h,,,av, e, coninu tted, Ito -A, dI of
Noveniber I 5,d, for tIUS, ineeth, an,d we acimowledge that there, is an opportunity to inalm
2
r-cfizI.crits ��to thim � ropl
osal W, u ch Li
CO-ld, be tmbiccl at t.11,11c Nm
ovc.1ber 13"1" Audlairl ty Do-ard., 1"I'llecting..
,P
As discussed'Im"'th TRIC -A nztaff today, we TRCA, staff in anyadditional
de to,, add oer-t.-tinty to, flieflinal ro sal, a TY
ail -d tralm,ng that iliey can prOvi P PC and, we. would be li�if
be, of',azs is-Itt-trice in thirs, re-gard,.
"we trust that you Wl"I I talze t1iese cominents mito conslidena,tion ,.ind we, look, forward, �to ou,r
con'tinued, If you'liave any queshom. or concemm,,s, plea.,se don't hezi,II "to, contact t1ie
unden,,,zipmed.,
Pill ,I%
'3"ncelrelry,
� i),
o -
P
Cc.. BrianDxeiut Clitie divipti, H 0
1111)"If", ,ffiffcer,
TR,, C714
Director? TRI"C;, ,41,1L
Paula
I r BILD
,triel',le Ctil""t?, ,Wut I
V, rp
B,IL.D,,,, tnimnu, ftichxdir�g,, o,fth e,,,, B,, =,,,/,TRC4, JTIkrkit�g, Groupt
0
07•
CORRESPONDENCE (B)
Peter
, / �1 MRAIC
T6,ronto, OCato ill "� - � � ,517ore,, Ward 51
Chdiff I' l'I l l lJ Ii i MdUbgUlffelft CrAllrudit-le."
TolChair end Members ut the Authurily Mta.etl,Tjq
untortunatoy I mist send my regrets as I aM Unable to attend this oath" RSA
I . qch elded' fo r r "'1 20 1'.
aan llem on th.,
Don Mbutb Naturalization Protect'l'on Project
Enviroinniental Assessment.
This e [sconsistent withl, the requests rnadai by, City Curi ilr arld tyle tvrrTi
of reierence of t ngiw'fl Fnvironmr ontal ! r align with the
previa,us comrnAtments, de by Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation.
etler Milczyn
Wird 5, Etoblicoke Lakeshore
Turvulu Ci'(y K,dll, a'W, Ug 100 Outjeil kue' vL, crAu,a Onliiiriu M5H 2
um,w 'I ii lj rJI l N K('( F T 6-13 0F4116-392-4127
•
SECTION I- ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. 13/11 - GREATER TORONTO AREA AGRICULTURAL ACTION COMMITTEE
Food and Farming Action Plan 2021 and Memorandum of
Understanding. Overview of the Food and Farming Action Plan 2012
prepared by the Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee and
the signing of a new Memorandum of Understanding between the
Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee and Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: Chin Lee
THAT the presentation on the Food and Framing Action Plan 2021 by Janet Horner,
Coordinator, Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee (GTA A ) be received;
THAT the Memorandum of Understanding with the Greater Toronto Area Agricultural
Action Committee dated March, 2007, be renewed on terms and conditions satisfactory to
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority JRCA);
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TIC A officials be directed to take whatever action may
be required to renew the Memorandum of Understanding with the Greater Toronto Area
Agricultural Action Committee including the signing and execution of any documents.
CARRIED
� :Yil to] F21 101 Ki W j mm
The Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Com mitt is a m ulti-stal l umbrella
organization Involving the regional municipalities of Halton, Peel, York and Durham and the four
Greater Toronto Area Federations of Agriculture (Halton, Peel, York and Durham), TRCA, the
City of Toronto, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Rural Affairs, Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada, Toronto Food Policy Council as well as
representatives from the food retail, food processing and food industry sectors.
The implementation of the Greenbelt Act in 2005 was the catalyst that brought many of the
parties involved in food and farming in the Golden Horseshoe together. They became aware of
their common interests and recognized that by working together, they had the potential to:
0 support economic viability for all components of the food and farming cluster;
0 better protect the agricultural land base;
0 build better regional connections throughout the food and farming value chain; and
0 reduce regulatory barriers to enable the cluster to thrive.
In response to this opportunity, in August 2009, the Vineland Research and Innovation Centre,
in cooperation with the GTA AAC, the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, Greater Toronto
Countryside Mayors Alliance, the Region of Niagara and the City of Hamilton, met to discuss
the issues related to food and farming in the Golden Horseshoe.
•
A
/As the discussion progressed, it became apparent that everyone present was addressing
similar challenges, investing in similar projects across the Golden He and worl ing to
support components of the food and farming cluster. With the enactment of the Greenbelt Plan
and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the timing was opportune to act. The
GTA AAC, Region of Niagara, City of Hamilton and Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation joined
forces, secured funding, consulted with stal holders, government agencies and industry
representatives and collaborated to create an action plan to support food and farming across
the Golden Horseshoe and in the Holland Marsh.
The Food and Farming Action Flan 2021 fo r the Go Iden Horseshoe provides a blueprint fo r
supporting and growing a thriving, integrated food and farming sector in the Golden
Horseshoe. It responds to the common challenges and opportunities the area shares. These
challenges and opportunities arise from the large concentration of population, growth
pressures, juxtaposition of agricultural and urban land uses, myriad of regulations and
overlapping agencies, and cluster of food and farming enterprises located within it. The plan
focuses on enhancing competitiveness, promoting sustainability and removing barriers that
stand in the way of achieving these goals.
The Action Plan focuses specifically on actions that support food and farming businesses in the
Golden Horseshoe. To assess which actions should be included in the plan, a Steering
Committee used three fundamental tests:
0 Is the action addressing a Golden Horseshoe specific issue?
0 Will the action male a real difference to the future of food and farming in the Golden
Horseshoe?
0 Is the action realistic and therefore achievable?
The Action Plan focuses on five opportunities to achieve its vision.
A. GROW THE CLUSTER - Grow the Golden Horseshoe cluster so it becomes the leading
food and farming cluster in the world, renowned for healthy and safe products.
B. LINK FOOD, FARMING AND HEALTH - Educate current and future consumers about the
importance of locally sourced food and farming products for enhancing their health and
well-being.
C. FOSTER INNOVATION - Encourage and support innovation to enhance the
competitiveness and sustainability of the Golden Horseshoe food and farming cluster.
D. ENABLE THE CLUSTER - Align policy tools and their appreciation to enable food and
farming businesses to be increasingly competitive and profitable.
E. CULTIVATE NEW APPROACHES - Pilot new approaches to support food and farming
in the Golden Horseshoe.
The Action PI n covers a ten year period from 2011 to 2021. This timeline was chosen in
response to election timetables at the municipal and provincial levels, census cycles and to
incorporate the scheduled review of the Greenbelt Plan in 2015. A ten year time frame allows
sufficient time to achieve the longer term goals, and is of manageable duration when asl ing
partners for commitments.
•
TFC A has been assisting the GTA AAC by acting as trustee of funds held for GTA ASC
purposes and to provide accounting and other support services. The GTA ASC is not a legal
entity and TFC A acts for the GTA ASC in signing contracts and agreements. TRC 's
purchasing policies are followed by the GTA ,QAC. TFCC, is also a voting member on the
committee.
The memorandum of understanding between the GTA AAC and TFC A has expired and needs
to be renewed as soon as possible. Staff from both agencies will meet in the near future to
make any necessary revisions to the "IOU.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding ($209,260 plus HST) for the Food and Farming Action Plan 2021 is being provided by
the federal Ministry of Agriculture. At Authority Meeting #2/10, held on March 26, 2010
Resolution #A34/'10 approved this contract.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TFC A staff and the Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee will complete the work
to renew the March, 2007 Memorandum of Understanding based on terms and conditions
satisfactory to TC A and GTA C.
Report prepared by: Gary W'ilkins, extension 5211
Emails: gwill ins @trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Janet Horner, Coordinator, GTA AAC
Emails: j n t whitfi ldf rms. m
Date: October 28, 2011
RES.#A214/11 - DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS FLOOD
PROTECTION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
City of Toronto has requested a review of the Port Lands revitalization
including the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection
Project Environmental Assessment (DMNP EA).
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaek�er
Seconded by: Jim Tovey
WHEREAS the City of Toronto has requested City of Toronto staff, in conjunction with
Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation {TVIIFCC), and Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA} with input from the Toronto Port Lands Development
Corporation (TPLC) to seek ways to accelerate the redevelopment of the Toronto
Portlands;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TFCC A staff be directed to participate in the
review of the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project
Environmental Assessment preferred and other alternatives, and the implementation
strategy, with the intent to clarify the economic value that will be generated by the careful
redevelopment of the area and to make the project as attractive as possible for private
sector investment while upholding the goal and objectives as approved by the Minister of
the Environment as stated within the EA Terms of Reference (June 2006);
THAT TIC A staff be directed, in conjunction with TWRC, to notify the Province of Ontario
of the addition of the City of Toronto as a co -proponent to the Don Mouth Naturalization
and Port Lands Flood Protection Project EA;
THAT TFC A staff be directed to ensure TRC 's interest in the Port Lands including
Tommy Thompson Park, the linkage from Lake Ontario Park to Ashbridge's Bay Park, and
other elements of Lake Ontario Park be suitably addressed within the context of the
acceleration of the revitalization of the Port Lands;
THAT TIC A staff report back to the Authority on the outcomes of this review, adjustments
to the preferred alternative for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood
Protection Project EA or other actions, and any implications for flood plain management
and naturalization and/or other matters based on the findings of the review and business
plans, and that this reporting back be coordinated with the reports to City Council and
the TWRC Board;
AND FURTHER THAT the authorized officials be directed to take the necessary actions
including executions of documents and funding instruments.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/10, held on May 21, 2010, Resolution #A74/10 was approved, in part,
as follows:
THAT'the Authority supports the concept design for the preferred alternative as Spec] " fied
,in the Individual Environmental Assessment for the DonMouth Naturalization and'Port
Lands Flood Protection Project (DMNP EA), subject to endorsement by Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) and Toronto City Council,%..
...THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to complete
2nd submit the DMNP EA to the Ontario Ministry ofEnvironment 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 ofToronto and other
applicable stakeholders regarding the required componentsfor flood protection on
privately owned lands identified in the DMNP
P 0 0
,,fill
THAT staff be directed to explore mechanisms such as a Memorandum of Understanding
with TWRC outlining TRCA's continued' involvement andfunding as the responsible
...uthority,for ensuring that the function, and terms and conditions of the DMNP EA, are
maintained beyond the approvals stage for the DMNP
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,-
T?�AT'staff be directed to seek inputfrom the Province of Ontario in developing thes
policies and to keep the City of Toronto and TWRC appraised of the development of
these policies,, and to report back to the Authority,- I
THAT staff be directed to pursue o portunities, in conunction with TWRC to adopt the
p 7 1
Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project, such as a "Projectil
under the Conservation Authorities Act, R. S. 0. 19901, as amended,-
A111D F#RTtITER T?'AT 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.,
Over the past 16 months following this resolution, TFC A staff in conjunction with TWRC and the
City of Toronto has:
0 finalized and submitted the EA to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in December of
2010;
0 worked with TWRC, Ministry staff and City staff to address comments and concerns
raised by TPLC, Toronto Port Authority (TPA), Lafarge and Redpath Sugar;
0 made minor amendments to the DMNP EA based on comments received and
res u bm itted the .mended EA to the EA branch of MO E o n April , 2011.
It became clear to TFC A and TWRC that due to a number of factors including the desire of the
Mayor's office to accelerate the revitalization of the Port Lands (Attachment 1), interest from
developers in the Port Lands including lands required for the DMNP, and the collective need to
develop a viable business plan for revitalizing the Port Lands, that the City was re-evaluating its
position on the Lower Don Lands and DMNP EA. TFCC A and TWRC were asked in August 2011
to request a further pause or time-out in the government review to enable the City of Toronto to
re-evaluate its preferred direction for the Port Lands This request was granted until January 13,
2012 by MOE staff. A full chronological summary of activities undertaken since May 2010 has
been provided in Attachment 2 titled "DMNP EA Chronology May 2010 to October 2011 ".
City of Toronto Council on September 21 and 22, 2011, adopted, in part, resolution EX9.6:
1. City Council endorse the protocol for the revitalization of the Port Lands substantially in
the form attached as Attachment 2 to the September, 2 1 7 20 11 report from the City
Manager [EX9.6a] and authorize the City Manager to execute the protocol on behalf'of
the City (September 21, 2011 - supplementary report from the City Manager on the
Toronto Port Lands Revitalization Opportunities (EX,9.6a) (
hW. _IrlWww.,torot7tO.,call'egdocslm,mi'SI201 1'1'cclbgrd'IbacLgroLil7dfile-41080.od�f)
•
2. City Council request the City Manager to report as soon aspossible and no later than the
January 3, 2012 Executive Committee meeting, on the anticipated costs of completing
the review of the Port Lands for 2012 and beyond and also include Waterfront Toronto's
costing of the Don Mouth Environmental Assessment Refined is of Alternatives,
including flood protection, soil remediation, infrastructure improvements and other
matters related to the cost of implementation.
3. City Council request the City Manager to prepare and submit a report to the Executive
Committee within six to eight months on the business ani implementation plan and
related progress to date.
The protocol referenced in the Council report under #1 identifies that the City of Toronto will
become a co -proponent on the C EA with TFC A and TWRC, and recognizes that the
review of the plans for the Port Lands will be a significant undertalin g that requires the
cooperation and collaboration of the City of Toronto, TWRC, TPLC and TRCA."
The protocol incorporates two distinct pieces of work as being it, to the review of the Port
Lands: a further review of the DMNP EA; and the completion of an economic analysis along
with a business and implementation plan for the entire Port Lands area, and if necessary,
incorporates a review of the planning framework to assess whether any changes will be
required.
TRCA, the City and TWRC as co -proponents, with input from TPLC will undertake a
re-e�amin ation of the DMNP EA. The DMNP EA review will be informed by costing and
economic analysis from the business and implementation plan for the Port Lands. This analysis
will use the existing adopted plans for the Lower Don Lands (Council endorsed/acceptance of
Lower Don Lands Framework. Plan, Don River Mouth EA Preferred Option, Lower Don Lands
Infrastructure EA, West Keating Precinct Infrastructure EA, Council adopted Official Plan
amendments 388 and 389 and the West Keating Precinct Plan Zoning By-law amendment) as a
reference point for th e econ om is an alys is.
TWRC will lead and coordinate all public consultation for the review of the DMNP EA, and Lower
Don Lands plan to ensure that public consultation is provided at a standard consistent with the
EA Terms of Reference and consistent with the standard and ctation in the Designated
Waterfront Area. Public consultation shall consider formats that were previously utilized
(facilitation, working groups, subcommittees, etc.) and others as available. TWRC will
collaborate with the City and TRC A in carrying out the consultation.
TWRC in cooperation with the City will develop a business plan for the Port Lands with input
from TPLC. This plan will be peer reviewed by an independent third party. The analysis will
include a review of the development model, financial incentives and tools that could be used for
the development of the Port Lands (Tax Incentive Financing, Development Charges, etc.),
financing mechanisms (public and private) that are designed to off -set the cost to the City of
infrastructure requirements, a review of other development models (i.e. making land available
through RFI RFP processes etc); and other mechanisms for minimizing the City's obligation to
fund the development of the Port Lands.
A
/As the City and TWRC work towards the completion of the Port Lands business and
implementation plan, the City will undertake, using a coordinated approach, a review of the Port
Lands planning framework. to assess whether any changes will be necessary.
The protocol establishes that the City, TWRC and TFC A will establish an Executive Steering
Committee to guide the review, with input from TPLC. The protocol specifically identifies the
role of TFC A as being a co -proponent of the EA with the City and TWRC and that TFC A will
work. with the City and TWRC through the re-examination of the EA and provide expertise and
information throughout.
Brian Denney, as Chief Administrative Officer of TRCA, John Livey, Toronto Deputy City
Manager, and John Campbell, Chief Executive Officer for TWRC have formed the core of the
Executive Committee with appropriate staff support. Work has begun to develop the scope of
work, costing, the initial re-evaluation of the DMNP EA and the development of a public
consultation plan.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The City of Toronto and TWRC have directed TFC A and our consultant led by AECOM to
develop a scope of work and budget to develop a framework for the review of the DMNP EA
and to participate in the development of the Port Lands economic analysis, and Business and
Implementation Plan.
Funding will be provided for the above work by TWRC through existing funds remaining in the
DMNP EA and/or other appropriate instruments.
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: September 08, 2011
Attachments: 2
Attachment 1 - Map ofth Port Lands
Attachment 2
D M N P EA Ch ro no logy M ay 2010 to Octo be r2011:
May ,5a 2010, the Board of Directors at TWRC endorsed the Don Mouth Naturalization
and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment (DMNP EA) as part
of their comprehensive planning package for the Lower Don Lands.
0
July 61 718, 2010, To ro nto City Council adopted Fo Inti o n EX45.15, wh ich identified
Council support for the Lower Don Lands Framework Plan, including the DMNP EA, and
directed TFC A and TWRC to submit the DMNP EA to the Ministry of Environment for
approval. This Resolution also directed TWRC to the Waterfront Project Director as
Business and Implementation Plan for the Lower Don Lands with priority for Phase 1
(the Don Mouth), and for TFC A to work with the Chief Planner to obtain planning
approvals to ensure the protection of the proposed corridors for the new on River
Mouth.
0
August 25, 26, 2712010, Torant o City Cou nci I adopted Reso I utio n TE36.19 which
approved the draft amendment of the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Central
Waterf ront Seco ndary PI, n th ro ugh 0 PA 388 fo r the Lower Don Lands, wh ich in effect,
reflected TWRC's Lower Don Lands Framework Plan, including the new river mouth
alignment defined through the DMNP EA, and protected those lands from development
that were required for the proposed Don River Mouth.
0 August 27, TFC A met with Toronto Port Authority (TPA) to discuss concerns regarding
near final draft of DMNP EA as it related to port operations, including Lafarge operations
at Polson Quay.
0 September to December, TFC A and TWRC revised final draft of DMNP EA to address
concerns raised by TPA.
0 Decemiser 17 7 2010, TFC A sub itted DM N P EA to the Min istry of Environm ent "1OE
for approval.
0 February 11 1 2011, end of mandated public and stakeholder review period of the DMNP
EA. A detailed summary of comments and how they were addressed is provided in the
attached Disposition Table for Comments on Final EA Report -FINAL -04.08.1 1-MOE
EAAB.pdf. In summary, at the end of the review period:
0 4 letters of concern were submitted to MOE from Toronto Port Lands Company
(TPLC), TPA, Lafarge and Redpath Sugar. The letter from TPLC was
subsequently retracted 2 weeks later.
0 6 letters of support were submitted to BIDE from Ed Freeman, West Don Lands
Committee, Task Force to Bring Back the Don, Don Watershed Regeneration
Council, Dalton Shipway, and Madeleine McDowell;
0 Comments from the following provincial agencies were received: BIDE EAAB,
ITE Toronto District/Waterfront Coordinator, MME Noise and Air Quality Unit,
MME Water and Wastewater, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora District, and
Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. All concerns raised by provincial agencies were
addressed in the Am e nded EA for th e DM N P by aril 11, 2011.
0 Comments from the following other agencies were received: Transport Canada
and Hydro One. No substantive changes were required based on these
comments.
February 22, 2011, TRCA and TWRC submitted a request to MME for a time-out to
address issues raised by TPA, Lafarge and Redpath. MOE's regulated timelines to
resolve issues an d res u bm it to MO E was March 18 7 2011. The tim e -out sought a delay
until April 8, 2011.
March 3, 2011 , Letter s u bm itted by the M i n istry of M u n ici pal Affairs and H o using
outlined the Province's support for the City's OPA 388, subject to approval of the DMNP
EA, and resolution of outstanding appeals to the OMB.
March 11, 20011, TRCA and TWRC submitted a second request to M for a time-out
to provide additional time to address issues raised by TPA, Lafarge and Redpath. The
new res u bm iss io n dead lin e was April 26, 2011.
February 11 to April 8, TRCA and TWRC corresponded and met with TPA, Lafarge and
Redpath Sugar on numerous occasions to try and resolve concerns raised.
April 8, 2011, TRCA resubmitted the Amended DMNP EA to MOE for their review. The
attached Disposition Table summarized how we proposed to address their concerns.
May 30, 2011 -BIDE had requested the following information from the City:
0 Clarification on land use designations under Official Plans and zoning.
0 Lafarge is raising the question about whether they are a permitted use (this is not
a ministry interpretation) and also indicating part of their property is designed
open space which seems to be Linder the .water plan as well as designated silos
as a historic resource - hence limitedredevelopment potential which is not what
they were told in your meetings.
0 TPA is wondering what the uses are permitted adjacent the dock walls and how
they can be reserved for commercial shipping when there may be adjacent
residential land uses which are not compatible or consistent, resulting in
inadvertently affecting dock wall usage.
0 Although these issues are outside of what EA controls - they are issues which are
not answeredby the responses ,provided and may have an impact on decision
making.
0 City staff had drafted a response to these issues, but withheld release to MOE'
when it was apparent that the Mayors Office and TPLC may have had another
,plan for the Port Lands area.
,erne 1 2011 - M OE informed TRCA that the D irector of EAAB extended MO E's deadline
for review to August 19 7 2011 in order to acco m m odate com m ents from the G rowth
Secretariat. As such, it was anticipated that the MOE Senior Project Coordinator would
have until Sept. 16, 2011 to complete the ITE Review of the Amended DMNP EA.
July 20, 2011 - TRCA staff and AECOM Project Manager met with TPLC and City Staff to
discuss new direction for Port Lands coming out of Mayor's office. Concerns about
deadlines. Letter submitted to TWRC July 20th outlining transfer of lead agency from
TWRC to TPLC.
August st 17 7 2011 -Cir ct r of MME granted TRCA and TWRC's third req u est for a
time-out to enable the City of Toronto to further re-evaluate their preferred direction for
the Port Lands. Ext ention granted until January 13,2012.
City Council on September 21 and 22, 2011, adopted Resolution EX9.6 as follows:
1. City Council endorse the protocol for the revitalization of the Port Lands
substantially in the form attached as Attachment 2 to the report (September 21,
2011) from the City Manager [EX9.6a] and authorize the City Manager to execute
the protocol on behalf of the City.
2. City Council request the City Manager to report as soon as possible and later
than the January 3, 2012 Executive Committee meeting, on the anticipated costs
of completing the review of the Port Lands for 20 12 and beyond and also include
Waterfront Toronto's costing of the Don Mouth Environmental Assessment
Refined List of Alternatives, including flood protection, soil remediation,
infrastructure improvements and other mattersrelated to the cost of
implementation.
3. City Council request the City Manager to prepare and submit a report to the
Executive Committee within six to eight months on the business and
implementation plan and related progress to date.
4. City Council request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to
report to the Executive Committee on October 3, 2011, on any actions required to
ensure that development to the north of the Keating Channel i's not delayed by the
actions set out in the report (August 22, 201'1) from the Citi.
-
City Executive Com m ittee o n October 3a 2011 , adopted Fo I ution EX 11. 20 as fo I lows:
1. City Council direct that staff continue with the previous Council direction to
resolve appeals at the Ontario Municipal Board as they apply to the Keating
Channel Precinct West and' other land's north of the Keating Channel.
RES. 15/11 - ONTARIO REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE CONSORTIUM
Endorsement of Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium (ORCCC)
Strategy and approval of draft Terms of Reference and proposed
membership for the ORCCC Advisory Board.
Moved by: John Sprovieri
Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti
WHEREAS "Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change: TIC A Action Plan for The Living
Cityll released in 2008 identifies the establishment of a regional climate partnership to
foster academic, private sector and government collaboration to accelerate climate
change research and action;
AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and York University
established the Climate Consortium for Research Action and Integration (CC -RAI) in 2009
to facilitate the development of a pan -Ontario collaboration to enhance climate science
and research services for our partner municipalities, Ontario public service and private
sector end-users;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the "Ontario Regional Climate Change
Consortium Strategy: Adapting to a Changing Climate, be endorsed;
THAT the draft Terms of Reference and proposed membership for the Ontario Regional
Climate Change Consortium (ORCCC} Advisory Board be approved;
THAT authorized TFCC A officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to
execute agreements and to facilitate implementation of ORCCC partnerships and priority
projects;
AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to appropriate partners and
stakeholders as appropriate.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Following the approval of "Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change: TRC, Action Plan for The
Living City" by the Authority in April 2008, York University and TFC A formed a partnership to
support research and action on climate change. Building on the strengths of both
organizations, the CC -RAI was formed to actively engage a range of stakeholders around these
issues. Since Fru ary 2010, CC- RAI has been involved i n furt ring the deve lo pm e nt of a
pan -Ontario initiative that began as the Ontario Regional Climate Modelling (RCM) Ad Hoc
Committee (herein referred to as the Ad Hoc Committee). The Ad Hoc Committee was chaired
by Dr. Gordon McBean from the University of Western Ontario (recently, nominated as the first
Canadian President elect of the International Council for Science) and included representation
from 12 universities, as well as a range of private and public sector organizations. Through an
iterative, consensus building, consultation process, representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee
have supported the development of the "Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium Strategy:
Adapting to a Changing Climate " (I i n k fa r fu I I re po rt
http: //www. cl i m atecon so rti u m.ca/201 1 /07/20/o ntario- reg ion al-cl i m ate -change -co ns o rtiu m -strate.
. Hard copies of the Strategy will be available at the meeting).
Mel
The Strategy outlines an approach to developing and enhancing capacity within Ontario to
deliver cutting-edge climate research and modelling expertise to a wide array of end-users.
Recognizing that not one organization or university has the capacity to provide the wide variety
of information, data and expertise required - a collaborative approach to action took hold. The
Strategy outlines an approach to mobilizing existing research around climate change in Ontario
with an aim to strengthen opportunities for new research.
The Strategy calls for the establishment of an Ontario Regional Climate Consortium Advisory
Board, a central secretariat and sector -specific nodes with enhanced climate modelling,
research and collaboration capabilities. Considering the successful coordination of the
development of ORCCC Strategy, TRCA and York University have been asked to continue the
coordination of ORCCC acting as the central secretariat. Since the completion of the Strategy
several organizations have agreed to participate on the Advisory Board. A draft Terms of
Reference for the Advisory Board (Attachment 1) and proposed membership list are attached
below (Attachment 2).
The Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium (ORCCC)
ORCCC represents a new model for networked, pan -provincial, inter -institutional excellence in
science and research focused on providing end-users with targeted information, analysis and
services they need to address the risks, uncertainties and extremes of climate change in the
province. It is anticipated that scientists from all of Ontario's universities as well as many
ministries, municipalities, NGOs and industries will be actively engaged with ORCCC, providing
a wide range of expertise.
ORCCC will be a one -window resource to help decision makers formulate strategic,
coordinated and scientifically -informed responses to climate adaptation. ORCCC will deliver
climate services to public and private end users through:
Climate Modelling & Analysis I Enabling a consistent,, science -based approach to
planning
Filling a major gap for standardized, regionally -specific climate intelligence by serving as
the lead vehicle for monitoring and adapting the latest global climate change science into
consistent climate parameters, methodologies and impact assessments on strategic
sectors that are key to the economic development, social well-being, and health of Ontario
residents and eco -systems.
Research Integration & Mobilization I Streamlining climate change research and action
Providing a unique platform for streamlining coordination among Ontario's climate change
assets. Key deliverables will include a province -wide climate research network and meta
database, in addition to collaborative forums and sector worl ing groups to facilitate
effective collaboration between researchers, science policy experts, and end-users.
End -User Services I Translating climate data into actionable intelligence
Translating climate data into actionable intelligence by providing policy makers and private
and nonprofit organizations with access to a resource for effective adaptation responses.
ORCCC will play a critical role in maintaining dialogue between the science community and
end-users to enable informed information exchange and possibilities for collaborative
planning.
Service Agent Support I Supporting intermediary users through authoritative tools
Serving as a source for reliable, authoritative climate modelling support by developing
standardized, peer-reviewed methodologies and/or tools designed for intermediary users
(i.e. professional services firms).
Regional Context and Alignment with Existing Initiatives
Environment Canada: Environment Canada (EC) is committed to ensuring that its global
and regional climate model outputs and scenarios are available to all users. To this affect,
EC has formal and informal arrangements with groups like OURANOS (Quebec's
Consortium on Regional Climatology and Adaptation to Climate Change) and PCIC (Pacific
Climate Impacts Consortium), to facilitate the use of EC information by regional climate
modelling consortia. EC is willing to support ORCCC with similar arrangements.
Ministry of the Environment: The ORCCC Strategy has been developed in consideration
of the 'Adapting to Climate Change in Ontario.- Towards the Design and Implementation of a
Strategy and Action Plan' prepared by the Expert Panel Report on Climate Adaptation in
November 2009. The Strategy also provides a purpose-built response to a number of the
recommendations and actions identified in the government's response to the Expert Panel
report, 'Climate Ready.- Ontario's Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan 2011-2014'. Under
their Climate Change Monitoring and Modelling Program, the ministry has been providing
support (through grants) to universities to carry out high-resolution dynamic/combined
downscaling during the past several years. ORCCC will build on the data produced through
the Ministry of the Environment's (MOE ) previous worl , will serve the Ontario public service
and will seek support from MME as appropriate.
Conservation Ontario: The ORCCC Strategy complements Conservation Ontario's
Strategic Plan Goal to be the "trusted science brokers for healthy Great Lakes and climate
change resilience". Conservation Ontario has participated in the development of the
Strategy and will provide guidance to the future work of ORCCC. Other conservation
authorities (CA)will be invited to participate as appropriate. While no formal process is in
place, TFC A has informally agreed to represent the GTA -wide CA's based upon
discussions through the GTA flood group.
Municipalities: TRC 's regional municipalities are xpected to represent a significant
segment of the end-users in need of locally -focused climate information, analysis and
services. Given their broad range of responsibilities, ORCCC continues to work alongside
various municipalities including the Region of Yorl , Region of Peel and the City of Toronto,
in order to define the range of products, services and information they require to address
adaptation planning now and into the future. While initial work may focus on the GTA, it is
anticipated that ORCCC will expand to provide services throughout the province.
ORCCC is positioned to deliver on the priorities set out in the Region of Peel Climate
Change Strategy released in 2011 and will also aim to serve the needs of York and Durham
regions as their climate change initiatives progress.
•
City of Toronto and CivicAction recently launched the Toronto Region Action Group on
Extreme Weather with about 50 major organizations representing the management of
hundreds of billions of built assets across the Toronto region. ORCCC has been positioned
as a key service provider to this major end-user group in the Greater Toronto Area.
Work Completed to Date
0 A one -day Climate Science Workshop (February 5, 2010) hosted by TFC A and York
University, which engaged more than 135 participants from academia and public and
private sectors.
0 Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee (convened in October 2010) representing 12
universities, all levels of government, Conservation Ontario, NGOs and the private sector
including: Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO); Carleton University; City of
Toronto; Conservation Ontario; Environment Canada; Insurance Bureau of Canada;
Lakehead University; McMaster University; OCAD University; Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources; Ontario Ministry of the Environment; Ontario Power Generation; Queen's
University; Quentin Chiotti (ACER); Region of Peel; Ryerson University; TRCA; University
of Guelph; University of Toronto: University of Waterloo; University of Western Ontario;
University of Windsor; and York University.
0 Several steering committees consisting of scientists, researchers, policy and decisions
makers that have identified needs for climate research/analysis in Ontario, as well as the
need of potential intermediary and end-users through a series of scoping papers.
0 Completion of ORCCC Strategy, Advisory Board Terms of Reference and confirmation
of participation from all levels of government, private sector and universities.
0 A user needs assessment workshop hosted by Ontario College of Arts and Design
University in May 2011.
0 Relationship building with Quebec and Pacific Climate Change Consortiums.
0 Natural Resource Canada RCan) funding to develop water adaptation best practices
and guidance.
DETA]ILS OF WORK. TO BE DONE
Key Future Priorities
0 Establishment of an advisory board and central secretariat.
0 Establishment of three university nodes with enhanced modeling and research
capabilities suited to end users needs. These will be Water, Agriculture and Forestry,
Health and Air Quality.
0 Standardized climate parameters and methodologies for Ontario public service and
municipalities to equip them with precise information in order to address uncertainty,
including information on local/regional drivers such as altered hydrology due to
urbanization, impacts of great lakes micro -climate etc. Region of Peel funding is
available to develop projections for the Region to support the implementation of Peel
Climate Strategy.
0 Web -based infrastructure/platform to enable province -wide collaboration with access to
data, tools and targeted research.
0 A meta -database of previous, ongoing and new climate research linked to provincial
and federal government sites.
0 Private sector partnerships to undertake specific projects i.e. Business Risk
Management Approaches, etc. Initiate pilot project with Civic tic and City of Toronto's
Extreme Weather Group on extreme weather affecting electrical power continuity.
UILG•
Lw��j
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The work leading to the development of the ORCCC Strategy has leveraged considerable
in-kind contributions and collaborative efforts by participating partners. Cash contribution was
provided by York U n ive rs ity in 2010 and 2011, York Region in 2010 and Region of Peel climate
change funding in 2010 and 2011 (account 120-88).
The Consortium will operate on a sustainable funding basis by drawing on a rig base of
funding that shifts increasingly towards user fees over time. In the short term, the ORCCC will
more heavily leverage on core funding from government sources and grants, with an objective
to amplify fee-for-service and project -based revenue streams as service offerings solidify in the
near term. Of significance, ORCCC will leverage efficiencies across its membership by drawing
upon considerable in -1 in computing and staff contributions from founding members to
establish and maintain operations.
Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
Ensile: csharma@trca.on.ca
For information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
Emails: csharma@trca.on.ca
Date: September 16, 2011
Attachments: 2
Attachment 1
Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium Advisory Board
Draft Terms of Reference (TOFF) 2012-2013
This document sets out the Terms of Reference for the Ontario Regional Climate Change
Consortium Advisory Board and provides an overview of the background of this initiative, its
purpose, membership, governance structure, and funding model.
F"I
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and York University jointly hosted the
"Climate Science Workshop.- The State of'Regional Climate Modelling in Ontario" on February 5,
2010, which was atte nd ed by more th an 135 participants representing thirteen universities;
federal, provincial, and municipal governments; conservation authorities; and the private sector.
The workshop called for the creation of a 'Inew approach to partnership" through a committee
that would identify a means to harness provincial climate expertise and resources, and to
cultivate connections between the research community and these stakeholders in order to
address provincial climate change issues.
From September 2010 to March 2011 , representatives of twe Iv e universities, al I levels of
government, NGOs, conservation authorities, and the private sector met regularly to develop a
proposal and business strategy for a Regional Climate Modelling Partnership. In the spring of
2011, the Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium (ORCCC) Strategy was completed and
planning began to operationalize the Consortium.
***Additional details can befound in the Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium
(O'CCC ) Strategy, which can be found online at-
http://'www.climateconsortium.ca/201 1 /07/20/o ntario- region al-cl i m ate -change -co nso rtiu
m-strategLNL
2.1 Mission
To equip public and private sector decision -makers with high-quality, regionally -specific climate
intelligence to empower them to effectively assess and manage climate risks as well as invest in
adaptation measures.
2.2 Mandate
The Consortium will deliver the following four primary services:
Climate Modelling and Analysis: Take the lead for monitoring and adapting current
climate science into climate parameters, methodologies and impact assessments for
key sectors in Ontario.
9 Research Integration and Mobilization: Provide a pan -provincial climate research
network and meta -database and use forums and working groups to facilitate
collaboration between researchers, policy experts and end-users.
End User Climate Services: Translate climate data into actionable intelligence by
providing public and private sector end users with a resource for posing specific
questions and receiving sector -specific information to assist in adaptation.
9 Service Agent Support: Provide authoritative climate modelling support to
professionals serving public and private sector decision mars.
3.0 Governance Structure, Roles and Responsibilities
ORCCC will be managed at the strategic level by an advisory board, a science committee and
three sector nodes - water resources, agriculture and forestry, and health and air quality. The
nodes will lead sector specific projects and service those sector climate needs with climate
mod I li n g research and an, lys is. In addition, a central "S ecretariat" (Yo rk U I TFC A) will provide
coordination and logistical support among members and work closely with the sector nodes on
projects. For instance, the secretariat will provide meeting coordination, facilitation,
administrative support and communication.
The Advisory Board will provide advice and strategic direction to Consortium staff. The
Advisory Board will seek to develop strategic partnerships with public/private sector partners
and help generate resources to support Consortium projects.
The Advisory Board will be made up of a maximum of 25 members. They may include
participating universities, federal, provincial and municipal government representatives,
Conservation Ontario, as well as sector specific stal holders and industry representatives, for
example, Engineers Canada, etc.
Term: The advisory board will hold a two year term with an option for renewal for another year.
The board will be staggered to ensure a level of continuity and institutional memory is retained.
3. 1.1 Advisory Board Chair and Vice Chair
The Chair and the Vice Chair will be elected by members of the advisory board
for the two years. Dr. Gordon McBean has agreed to continue in his role as chair
of ORCCC. The Chair and the Vice Chair will have the following responsibilities:
being the primary spof spersons for ORCCC at public and official functions;
presiding over Committee meetings, setting the agenda and generally ensuring
the effectiveness of meetings; and
ensuring that the nomination and appointment of Committee members occurs
through an effective process and in a timely manner.
3.2 Reporting Relationship
An annual report on its activities will be provided to all member organizations. Procurement and
financial reporting will follow the established policies of TRCA, York University or the key
partner institutions receiving the funding.
3.3 Science Committee
The Science Committee will provide technical advice on climate science, modelling and
research priorities. Assist with peer review of methodologies and analysis to address questions
from stakeholders, including issues like uncertainty, and scientific validity.
The science committee will be made up of lead scientists from Ontario universities, Provincial
and Federal scientist and representatives of the Consortium nodes. Other individuals
recognized for their work in specialized fields will also be invited to participate. A mechanism
will also be developing to seekinput and expert guidance and advice from other consortia (e.g.
PICS, Ouranos).
FAIL
4 '1 : I
Representatives from universities that host a sector/issue specific node will be represented on
the advisory board and asked to provide relevant issue specific guidance and expertise in
support of projects focused on such issues, i.e., Water. Nodes may be co -hosted by
universities with particular expertise in a given subject area. Sector nodes will lead Consortium
research and modelling projects in coordination with the Central Secretariat.
3.,5 Central Secretariat
Th e Committee, its Ch ir and Vice Ch ir will be s u pported by a secretariat led by Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority and York. University. The secretariat will provide facilitation,
project and program development and implementation, research and policy analysis,
administrative support, financial management and communications. The secretariat will be
responsible for coordinating interaction with the nodes and facilitating collaboration on
projects.
1 0 a -
4.1 General Overview
A, variety of funding sources will support the Consortium, with the composition shifting between
sources in the short to long term. The Consortium hopes to secure funding from government
sources with additional support provided by the private sector. Over time the Consortium aims
to support its activities through a fee for service model with a decreasing reliance on core,
public sector funding.
Attachment 2
Ontario Regional Climate Consortium Advisory Board Membership
ADVISO,RY BOARD - Potential List
A19,ency Representactive, Corn, nients [StatUS
Environm,enit Canada Cho lafl'es A. Lin, Dlr�edu,r Gmeed ],Atmius,"I ii=i rm
ed
Science and T'echnol'ogy, Directorate
Environment Canada Michael Goffin., Ontario Region Director Conlf irm, ed
Strategic Integ"rat'llon and Partner'shilp
MOE Kath]ere n 0-Neil, Ma n age, r-1, Sltrate,gic Cun/l,irmed
Policy Branch,
Go,vt - (4), S,eniolir Staff T'131111)
MMAH/MNR/Healt'l,i/A,gri
Firiance, Sector JulisjardinsChartered Accountant Condirmed
Finance Sector Roya I Bank In process,
U Western Ontario Dr. Gord McBean Conli rmed
(CHAIR),
Tib` B,r] an D,e,.nney, CAO Confirmed
(HOS,T)l
York UniversJIV Robert Hache, Vice PresidenAll Ree,,,SeMarc h Contfirmed
(HOST) and Innovation
(Replacing Stan Shvaps,on)
U. Rep Nodes (3) Letter of Request
UniversityRegis, (7) Coinfirmedmbr IIpairfiiiipatedon In III Arocess
the Adviso,'rv' Committee.
S-orne Universities may appoint reps to
th,e Science Committee
Blair Feltmate (Un"versity of Waterlofo)
C&A, Pres'"dent, Bonnie Rose ("Rep,,r,es.e,.r,,,,i�'ta�t,ive) Conli'med
I I p
Private 5,ector Rep Chair, CivEc AIIII[ance & Toronto Region Eva L (propas.ed)
Arta n G ro up o n Extre n -n,,, e Wem t e� r
Resitience,
Federation of Canadia,,;,i
Municipalities F in n
Canadian i Institute
Plat,tiinersl' (C[P)
Canadian Electricity
Association
Devin CaLllfleyl Clirnate Change
inribng Mun,,J viii pi'aty Pee, l
Ir-
To6ron
Ing. uli iiing Engineer's of
Ontario
Ca n
First n
Greet Lakes,
Barry,,Steinberg, ClIviiielf ExSLI, t ii ff icer
Ibe,/r,t Tremdblayf Director
T'B,,C
T'
C rmed
Gird rimed
Con1 i rm ed
TBD
T'
Conservation ontarib Don s ;, Getigerall Managern, i rm ed
RES.#A21 6/11 - YONGE-YORK MILLS FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL MAJOR
MAINTENANCE
Approval to undertake major maintenance to Yonge-York Mills Flood
Control Channel in the City of Toronto.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Chin Lee
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to proceed
with major maintenance of the Yonge-York Mills Flood Control Channel in the City of
Toronto.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Yonge-York Mills Flood Control Channel was constructed by TFC A in 1968 along the West
Don River between Yonge Street at York Mills Road, and the Rosedale Golf Club to protect the
community known as Hoggs Hollow from the hazards of flooding and erosion.
Along its a imately 1.75 I ilometre stretch of the West Don, the channel has three distinct
reaches (Attachment 1):
9 Reach 1 is approximately 375 metres (m) long and consists of a fully lined concrete
channel from Yonge Street to approximately 140 m downstream, and concrete/rip rap lined
channel for the remaining 235 m to Mill Street;
9 Reach 2 is approximately 175 m long from Mill Street to Donino Avenue, and consists of a
fully lined concrete channel;
9 Reach 3 is approximately 1,200 m long and consists of a gabion lined channel from Donino
Avenue to the northern boundary of the Rosedale Golf Club.
In January 2009, TRCA retained Stantec to complete a hydraulic assessment and maintenance
study of the Yonge-York Mills Flood Control Channel. The purpose of the study was to
confirm/establish an existing conditions model of the flood control channel, and to recommend
a maintenance strategy to ensure that adequate conveyance capacity through the channel is
maintained to protect the surrounding residential community.
RATIONALE
The results of the Stantec study indicate that sediment and vegetation accumulation in the
channel has adversely impacted conveyance capacity, increasing fl lines on private
property. To minimize this risk Stantec recommended that all sediment, vegetation and
debris/'obstructions within the limits of the channel be removed. Additional maintenance
recommendations included the repair of extensive cracking and shifted concrete panels, and
the replacement of eroded backfill and failed sections of concrete to restore structural integrity.
As the protection of life and property from the hazards of flooding and erosion is a key mandate
of TRCA, and maintaining channel capacity is essential to protect the numerous houses
constructed immediately adjacent to the channel, staff recommend carrying out the
recommended maintenance immediately upon the receipt of the necessary approvals to the
limit of available funding.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BECO TE
Given the extensive length of the flood control channel and limited funding, implementation of
the maintenance works will be undertal n on a priority basis as funding permits.
• Phase 1 - removal of sediment and vegetation from the limits of the gabion lined portion of
the channel (Reach 3). Material will be moved mechanically from the limits of the channel
and will be disposed of offsite.
9 Phase 2 - removal of sediment and vegetation from the remaining sections of the channel
(Reaches 1 and 2) in order to restore conveyance capacity to as close to original condition
as possible, and to confirm the type and extent of concrete repairs previously identified by
Stantec. As in Phase 1, all material will be disposed of offsite.
9 Phase 3 - repair of concrete in Reaches 1 and 2.
Phew 1 is anticipated to c m en ce in Decem be r 2011 pending the receipt of al I approvals and
is expected to be completed by March 31, 2012. Phases 2 and 3 will be scheduled in 2012 -
2 13 as funding permits.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Phase 1 is estimated at $720,000 including taxs, project administration and a contingency of
10%. Funding is available from 2011-12 City of Toronto erosion capital in account 107-12, plus
a grant in the amount of $250,000 from Ministry of Natural Resources' Water and Erosion
Control Infrastructure (WECI) Program, 2011-2012.
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: October 11, 2011
Attachments: 1
Attachment 1
RES. #A217/11 - MIMICO WATERFRONT LINEAR PARK (PHASE 2)
Contract RSCA 1-85. Award of contract RSCA 1-85 for the construction of
three pedestrian boardwalks.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
III by: Chin Lee
THAT Contract RSD11-85 for the construction of three pedestrian boardwalks, at the
Mimi co Waterfront Linear Park Project (Phase 2), be awarded to The Ontario Construction
Company Limited for the total cost not to exceed $406,279.00, plus a contingency amount
of $40,000.00 to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TIC A staff cost
estimates and 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.
[6000114
BACKGROUND
The Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Project (Phase 2) is located between Superior Avenue and
Humber Bay West Park along the north shore of Lake Ontario, in the City of Toronto. Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) authorized TRC A to assume a leadership role in
the planning, design and implementation for the construction of the Mimico Waterfront Linear
Park Project which includes, three pedestrian boardwalks supported on steel piles, structural
framework, railings and decking. The boardwalks will be key features of the waterfront park
project linking pedestrian trails and providing viewing opportunities for park users.
RATIONALE
Contract RSD1 1-85 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo
http://'www.biddingo.com/} on September 29, 2011.
As a result of the advertisement, requests for tender packages were sent to the following twelve
suppliers:
0 Somerville Construction;
0 Tanenbaum Landscape & Design Ltd.;
0 Taylor Wakefield General Contractors;
0 Clearwater Structures Inc.;
0 Hobden Construction;
0 McPherson -Andrews Contracting Limited;
0 The Ontario Construction Company Limited;
0 Iron Bridge Fabrication Inc.;
0 MTM Landscaping Contractors Inc;
0 The Beach Gardener:
0 Serve Construction Ltd.; and
0 Resource Industrial Group.
P -4"I
LISP
TIS e Tender 0 pe ning Com m ittee opened the tenders ori Friday, Octobe r 14, 2011 with the
following results:
Contract RS 11- ;
Construction of Three Pedestrian awl s
BI C DERS
TOTAL
(Flus HST)
The Ontario Construction Company
$4061279.00
McPherson -Andrews Contracting Limit l
$4201483.00
Hobden Construction
$4341465.50
Tanenbaum Landscape Contractors Ltd.
$5121610.32
Taylor Wakefield General Contractors
$5241805.01
Clearwater Structures Inc.
$5941025.00
The Beach Gardener
$6121914.77
Restoration Services staff reviewed th kid received from The Ontario Construction Company
Limited against its own cost estimate and has determined that the bid l i of reasonable valga
and also areata the requirements as outlined in Contract RS 11-85.
Based on the bids received a staff r oom mend that Contract RS D1 be awarded to The
Ontario Construction Company Limited for the total cost not to exceed $406,279.00, plus a
contingency amount of $40,000.00 to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it
being the lowest bid that meets TRCA staff cost estimates and specifications.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds are available within account #205-90 from TWRC.
Fart prepared by: James Dickie, 416-392-9702
Em it : jdickie@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Mark Preston, 416-392-9722
Emails: m r ton tro . n.o
Date: October 17, 2011
F E; . 218, 11 - MEADOWCUFFE DRIVE EROSION ONTR L PROJECT
Contract RS 11-83. Award of Tender RS 11-83 for the supply and
delivery of approx�imately 10,000 tonnes of 5mm-2mm cobble stone.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Chin Lee
Ago
THAT Contract RSD11- 3 for the supply and delivery of approximately 10,000 tonnes of
755 -2 cobble stone to the Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project, in the City
of Toronto, be awarded to Glenn Win drem Trucking for a total unit price of $29.75 per
tonne and a total cost not to exceed $297,500.00, plus a contingency amount of
$30,000.00 to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA) staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff cost estimates and 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.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project is located along a portion of the Lake Ontario
shoreline at the base of the Scarborough Bluffs west of Bellamy Ravine, in the City of Toronto.
The purpose of the project is to provide long-term shoreline protection to reduce the impacts of
wave energy, stabilize slopes, enhance natural processes and protect the residential properties
on the top of the slope. As a consequence, risk to public safety and infrastructure will be
reduced, passive recreational opportunities will be increased, and aquatic and terrestrial habitat
conditions as well as aesthetics will be improved.
The preferred option determined through the Class Environmental Assessment process is a
shoreline treatment consisting of a cobble stone beach retained by four headlands, and an
earth berm at the east end of the shoreline. The 75mm-200mm cobble stone will be used in the
construction of the beach cells.
RATIONALE
Tender RSD1 1-83 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo
http:/'/www.biddingo.com/} on September 21, 2011.
As a result of the advertisement, requests for tender packages were sent to the following eight
(8) suppliers:
0 Bot Aggregates Ltd.;
0 CDR Young's Aggregates Inc.;
0 Dufferin Aggregates;
0 Fowler Construction Co. Ltd.;
0 Glenn Windrem Trucking;
0 J.C. Rock Ltd.;
0 Lafarge North America Inc.; and
0 Nelson Aggregates Co.;
The Tender Opening Committee opened tenders on Friday, September 30, 2011 with the
following results:
Quotation RSD11- 3
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 10,000 Tonnes
of 75mm-200mm Cobble Stone
Suppliers
Total Unit Cost
TOTAL VALUE OF
{per tonne)
CONTRACT
(Plus HST)
Glenn Windrem Trucking
$29.75
$2971500.00
Fowler Construction Co. Ltd.
$29.85
$2981500.00
Based on the bids received, staff recommends that Glen n'Windrem Trucking be awarded
Contract RSD1 1-83 for the supply and delivery of approximately 10,000 tonnes of
75m m -200m m cobble store for th e unit cost of $29.75 per tonn e and a total am ou nt not to
exceed $297,500.00, plus a contingency amount of $30,000.00 to be expended as authorized
by TFC A staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TFC A staff cost estimates and
specifications.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds are available within account #1 5- 1 fro m the Toronto Erosion Capital Eu g t.
Report prepared by: James Dickie, 416-392-9702
Evils: jilitr.n.ca
For Information contact: Joe Delle Fave, 416-392-9724
Emails: j ll f ° tr . n.ca
Date: October 04, 2011
Attachments: 1
MW
Attachment 1
H
W
0
Ira
J
H
Z
0
c.i
z
0
CA0
or
w
w
o�
0
W
LL
LL
J
0
d
W
MW
RES. #A219/11 - FINANCIAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Award of Contract. Recommends award of contract for the replacement
of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority financial information
systems.
Moved by: Vincent Crisanti
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
THAT confidential item AUTH7.7 - Financial Information Systems, be approved.
CARRIED
RES. #A220/11 - ASIAN CARP
Supporting Initiatives to Address the Threat. Support for the Great Lakes
Commission and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative to
evaluate options that ecologically separate the Mississippi River and
Great Lakes watersheds to prevent the transfer of aquatic invasive
species, especially Asian carp, via the Chicago Area Waterway System.
Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Chin Lee
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) objectives for Healthy
Rivers and Shorelines and Regional Biodiversity are supported by fisheries management
plans that strongly recommend actions to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic
invasive species;
AND WHEREAS the Asian carp are aquatic invasive species that pose a serious threat to
the biodiversity and nearshore habitat structure of Lake Ontario and potentially the lower
reaches of relatively large river systems within the TFC A jurisdiction, such as the Humber
and Rouge rivers and Duffin s Creek;
AND WHEREAS TFC A resolved at Authority Meeting #4/11, held on April 29, 2011 to
endorse comments contained in the letter on the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
Inter -basin Feasibility Study (GLMRIS), dated March 31, 2011, sent by Great Lakes United
(GL U) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prevent the spread of Asian carp between
the Great Lakes and Mississippi;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TFC A endorse the initiative by the Great Lakes
Commission (GLC) and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative GL `LCI titled
Envisioning a Chicago Area Waterway System for the 21 st Century to evaluate options
for the ecological separation of the Mississippi River and Great Lakes watersheds to
prevent the transfer of aquatic invasive species, especially Asian carp, via the Chicago
Area Waterway System (CAWS);
THAT staff send interim comments to the GLC and GLSLCI on their initiative Envisioning a
Chicago Area Waterway System for the 21 st Century as contained in this Authority report
dated October 26, 2011;
THAT staff request to receive, from GLC and GLSLCI, the detailed integration report and
concise summary report on the initiative Envisioning a Chicago Area Waterway System
for th 9 21st Century, attend any future p u b I ic meeting to discuss t hese reports, anal
provide comments;
AND FURTHER THAT staff attend future public meetings, workshops or similar events on
the general issue of preventing Asian carp introductions to the Great Lakes and report
back to the Authority with progress on this issue.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Through Authority Resolution #A76/1 1 at Authority Meeting #4/11, held on April 29, 2011 to
endorse comments made by Great Lakes United to improve the GLI "IRI initiative such that the
issue of preventing Asian carp from spreading into the Great Lakes via the CAWS was featured
more prominently, with an accelerated timeframe, and consultation meetings held in Canada,
TFC A staff has been monitoring the progress of GLIVIRIS and reviewing other published
material on the threat of Asian carp to the Great Lakes.
In early October, 2011, TFC A was informed by Conservation Ontario that a series of public
meetings and a webinar were being hosted by GLC and GLSLCI to discuss their initiative to
evaluate options that ecologically separated the Mississippi River and Great Lakes watersheds
to prevent the transfer of aquatic invasive species (AIS), especially Asian carp, via the CAWS.
The GLC is an interstate compact agency established under the state and U.S. federal law and
dedicated to promoting a strong economy, healthy environment and high quality of life for the
Great Lakes -St. Lawrence region and its residents. The GLC consists of governors' appointees,
state legislators and agency officials from its eight member states. Associate membership for
Ontario and Quebec was established through the signing of a Declaration of Partnership. The
GLC maintains a formal Observer program involving U.S. and Canadian federal agencies, tribal
authorities, lei -national agencies and other regional interests.
The GLSLCI is a U.S. and Canadian coalition of over 70 mayors and other local officials
representing over 13 million people that works actively with federal, state, tribal, first nation and
provincial governments and other stakeholders to advance the restoration and promotion of the
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin.
The GLC and GLSLCI are very concerned about an Asian carp invasion to the international
waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River via CAWS and believe that a permanent
solution is needed which must entail the ecological separation of the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River watersheds, beginning in the Chicago area. Such separation is being
proposed through use of physical barriers to prevent movement of aquatic invasive species, at
all life stages, via existing canals and waterways. If done correctly, ecological separation will be
accomplished in a manner that improves commercial transportation and ensures the flood
control, water quality, tourism and recreational benefits currently provided by the CAWS are
accommodated and enhanced.
P4�
Oj�
The GLC and GLSLCI believe it is imperative to accelerate the decision-mainn and
implementation timeframes regarding preventing the spread of AIS, specifically in the CAWS,
by advancing two strategic objectives:
0 evaluate the economic, technical and ecological feasibility of ecological separation by
illustrating options to achieve it, along with associated costs, impacts and potential benefits
of a re -engineered hydrologic system for the greater Chicago area; and
0 support and complement the work of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under their GLI' IRIS
by defining, assessing and vetting options for ecological separation.
Final products from this initiative are anticipated for release in January 2012 and include:
technical reports, detailed integration report and concise summary report.
RATIONALE
The term "Asian carp" refers to four different species of fish: bighead, black, grass and silver
carp. The bighead and silver carp are the species closest to invading the Great Lakes from the
Chicago area waterways. In 2005, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR)
introduced legislation mal ing it illegal to possess, sell or import live Asian carp. A risk
assessment study undertaken by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in 2009 concluded that
if Asian carp successfully colonized the Great Lakes there is a high probability they would
spread across the Great Lakes basin. The study stresses that such an invasion would have a
significant impact on the food web and trophic (community) structure of aquatic systems.
Furthermore, the Ontario government has stated that if Asian carp enters the Great Lakes there
will be serious adverse impacts on Ontario's recreational and commercial fisheries.
Environment Canada has made a similar assessment.
Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is progressing with its own study of managing the
threat posed by Asian carp (GLMRIS}, their study area is much broader than the CAWS, looks
at a -wider array of management options and thus requires a longer timeframe to complete.
With that in mind, in early 2010 new DNA monitoring techniques detected evidence of Asian
carp beyond the electrified barrier currently in place in the CAWS. In June 2010, a live Asian
carp was captured in Lake Calumet (a body of water within the CAWS above the electrified
barrier but separate from Lake Michigan). This data does not equate to survivorship and
subsequent establishment of Asian carp within the Great Lakes system but does underscore
the need to accelerate the implementation of a more effective and permanent barrier in the
CAWS.
The various fisheries management plans {FMP) written for watersheds within the TRCA
jurisdiction all recognize that aquatic invasive species disrupt the balance of native aquatic
communities and are considered one of the most serious threats to biodiversity. The most
recently completed FMP, the Rouge River Watershed Fisheries Management Plan (TRCA and
OMNRI 2010), recommends that priority emphasis should be placed on monitoring and
preventing the spread of invasive and exotic fish species. To date, there is no evidence that the
invasion of Asian carp species of concern have reached Lake Ontario or its tributaries but TRCA
monitoring crews are alerted to the risk and know to bring such species to the attention of
TRCA's partner agencies with mandates for fisheries management (i.e., OMNR and DFD}.
The Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has identified, as a first priority, the
protection of existing fish habitat with a focus on coastal wetlands and nearshore physical
habitat (e.g. reefs and spawning shoals). The RAP states that protecting these existing habitats
can be through the firm and effective enforcement of policies and guidelines, which would
include legislation that speaks to preventing invasive species introductions. A, secondary
priority of the RAP is to rehabilitate waterfront areas where habitat potential is very high (e.g.
Rouge Marshes and Toronto Island wetlands), areas that are vulnerable to destruction should
Asian carp enter the system. Over the recent decades, significant funding has been provided
through the RAP for extensive habitat rehabilitation along the Toronto waterfront with continued
opportunities for future work. In this context, failing to keep Asian carp out of Lake Ontario
could be a major setback to achieving RAP and TRCA priorities for fish habitat.
Based on initial information presented and discussed at a recent public meeting (October 25,
2011), the nature of interim comments on the GLC and GLS LCI initiative by TRCA staff are as
follows:
1. Support for the GLC and GLS LCI initiative as it seeks to accelerate permanent management
action in the highest risk area of Asian carp invasion to the Great Lakes.
2. Support for the strategic business -case approach this initiative is taking as it illustrates the
possibility of ecological separation works that can dovetail with major infrastructure works
needed to address existing deficiencies in flood control and water quality in the Chicago
area.
3. Identify information gaps in the presented material that are within the study scope and
should be discussed in the writing of the detailed integrated report.
4. Request that the final reports be clear on what the critical issues are beyond the scope of
this initiative and provide recommendations on how to address them, including: estimating
the biological time horizon left before introductions and establishment of Asian carp in Lak�e
Michigan may occur; legal aspects of changing hydrology in the CAWS; and detailing the
other pathways of invasion (e.g., human -assisted).
5. Request that the final reports clearly describe the next steps that need to happen and with
associated timelines.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff will write and send interim comments on the GLC and GLSLCI information
presented to date, request to receive and review the detailed integration and summary reports
and provide further comment. All comments will be shared with Conversation Ontario as input
to their compiled list of comments from conservation authorities.
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: October 26, 2011
mm
RES. #A221/11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Etobicoke CreekWatershed
Habitat for Humanity Brampton, CF 46437. Partial t inns from Habitat
for Humanity Brampton to facilitate the construction of three non-profit
dwelling units at 0 Hoskins Square, located north of Queen Street and
east of Dixie Road, in the City of Brampton, Etobicoke Creekwatershed.
(Executive Res. #B 156111)
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Chin Lee
THAT 0.006 hectares (0.01 acres), more or less, of vacant land, being Part of Block H,
Plan M-126, at 0 Hoskins Square, located north of Queen Street and east of Dixie Road,
City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, be purchased from Habitat for Humanity
Brampton;
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, proposed right-of-ways for
access and proposed easements for servicing;
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 TFCC A officials be directed to take the necessary action
to finalize the transaction including obtaining needed approvals and execution of
documentation.
wil-a-r-alwk
RES. #A222/11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed
1111303 Ont ri Inc., CFN 46436. Acq u is itio n of a cons rvation
easement located north of King -Vaughan Fonda west of Kipling Avenue,
City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of Yorl .
(Executive Res. #B 15 7111)
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Chin Lee
•
THAT a conservation easement for the protection of the environmental features and
functions containing 1.89 hectares (4.68 acres), more or less, consisting of an irregular
shaped parcel of land being Part of Lot 35, Concession 8 and designated as Part 1 on a
Draft Plan of Survey prepared by Land Survey Group, under their Plan No. LSG-0250-1,
City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located north of King -Vaughan Road, west
of Kipling Avenue, be purchased from 1111303 Ontario Inc.;
THAT the purchase price be $2.00;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) acquire the conservation
easement free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
THAT the firm 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 TFCC A officials be directed to take the necessary action
to finalize the transaction including obtaining needed approvals and execution of
documentation.
RES. 23/11 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY -OWNED LAND
East of Albion Road, south of Finch Avenue (Rear of 5 Attercliff Court),
City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area) , C FN 45885.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is in receipt of a request from
Mr. Luca Pasquali to consider a sale of a parcel of TRCA-owned land
located east of Albion Road, south of Finch Avenue (rear of 5 Attercliff
Court), City of Toronto {Etobicoke York Community Council Area),
Humber River watershed.
(Executive Res. #B 158111 & Executive Res. #B 159111)
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Chin Lee
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TFCC -owned land located east of
Albion Road, south of Finch Avenue (rear of 5 Attercliff Court), City of Toronto (Etobicoke
York Community Council Area), be retained for conservation purposes;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to work with the City of Toronto to address the tree
triming and maintenance issues on TFCC -owned land at the rear ofS, Attercliff Court as
soon as possible.
CARRIED
0
MW
RES. #A224/11 - FEDERAL FISHERIES ACT
Fish Habitat Management Agreement (Level 111) Renewal. Renewal of the
Level III agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, including a self
assessment process for internal projects, for a five year period.
(Executive Res. #,B 1601'11)
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Chin Lee
THAT the Fisheries Act - Fish Habitat Management Agreement (Level 111) with Fisheries
and Oceans Canada (DFO) be renewed for a period of five years, commencing January 1,
2012;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Ecology Division staff be
directed to continue to maintain a self assessment process to screen projects of other
TIC A divisions under the Fisheries Act, including a tracking and reporting system;
THAT staff be directed to continue the development of submission protocols in concert
with CFO to improve the efficiency of the review and approvals process for client groups;
THAT staff be directed to prepare proposals for funding of various research, policy or
evaluation tools to assist in the delivery of both the CFO as well as TFCC A mandates in the
waters of TFCC' s jurisdiction;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TIC A officials be directed to take such action as is
necessary to implement the agreement, including signing and execution of documents
and obtaining all necessary approvals.
CARRIED
RES. #A225/11 - PROPOSED BIOGAS FACILITY - TORONTO ZOO
Lease Agreement with ZooSe Biogas Co-operative Inc. for the
operation of a kogas facility at the Toronto Zoo, CFI 46438. Receipt of a
request from the Board of Management of the Toronto Zoo for approval
from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to enter into a lease with
ZooShare Biogas Co-operative Inc. for the operation of a biogas facility -
Toronto Zoo, Rouge River watershed.
(Executive Res. #B 16 1 /11 & Executive Res. #B1 62111)
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Chin Lee
WHEREAS the Board of Management of the Toronto Zoo (Toronto Zoo) manages certain
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) lands pursuant to an agreement
between TRCA, Toronto Zoo and the City of Toronto dated April 28,1978;
Well
C
WHEREAS TFCC A is in receipt of a request from the Toronto Zoo, for approval from TRCA,
to enter into a lease with the ZooShare Biogas Co-operative Inc. for the operation of a
biogas facility;
AHC HETES it is in the opinion of TIC, that it is in the best interest of TIC A in
furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to
enter into the subject lease in this instance;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT approval be granted to the Toronto Zoo, to
enter into a lease with ZooShare Biogas Co-operative Inc. of approximately 1.6 hectares
(4 acres) of TFCC A land being Part of Lot 4, Concession 3, City of Toronto, for the
operation of a biogas facility subject to the following conditions;
1) the initial term of the lease will be for 20 years, with up to two additional renewal
options of five years each subject to the concurrence of TFCC A to the renewals;
2) the lease be on terms and conditions satisfactory to TFCC A staff and solicitor;
3) any assignment of the lease be subject to TIC A approval;
4) any increase in capacity of the project beyond a 1 mW module be subject to TFCC,
approval;
THAT the said lease be subject to obtaining approval of the Minister of Natural Resources
in accordance with Section 21 (2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.27�
as amended, if required;
THAT authorized TFCC A officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the
transaction including obtaining needed approvals and execution of documentation;
AND FURTHER THAT The Rouge Park Alliance be so advised.
RES.#A226/11 - 2012 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL ESTIMATES AND OPERATING
BUDGET GUIDELINES
Recommends approval of 2012 preliminary capital estimates and
operating budget guidelines
(BudgetlAudit Res. #C,1,1
Moved by: Ronald Chopowick�
Seconded by: Dave Ryan
THAT the preliminary estimates for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA)
2012 - 2021 participating municipality capital budgets, as outlined in Attachment 1, be
approved for submission to the respective municipalities;
THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2012 operating budget make provision for a cost
of living adjustment of three per cent (3%) effective in April, 2012;
THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2012 operating budget include municipal levy
increases consistent with the guidelines determined by the respective participating
municipality;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to submit the 2012 preliminary estmates to the City
of Toronto, the regional municipalities of Peel, York and Durham, the Town of Mono and
the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio in accordance with their respective submission
schedules.
RES. #A227/11 - PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITY FUNDING
New Municipal Funding Arrangements Policy. Presents new funding
arran ge meats policy for co n s id eratio n by partici ting m u n ici palities.
(BudgetlAudit Res. #C 12111)
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT item BAAB7.2 - Participating Municipality Funding be referred to the Executive
Committee.
CARRIED
RES. #A228/11 - PLANNING AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATION COST RECOVERY
100% cost re ry for PI nn i n g, Pe rm itti ng and En it nme ntal
Assessment Fee Schedule - adjustments for 2012-2013.
(BudgetlAudit Res. #C 13111)
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has established
i
administration fees to provide service delivery for municpalities and the development
industry for the review of a wide range of applications requiring environmental planning
technical expertise and regulatory approvals;
AND WHEREAS TFCC A staff monitor the level of service demands for planning, ecology,
engineering, hydrogeology, geotechnical and compliance reviews and report on an
annual basis on the implications of cost recovery;
ow
AND WHEREAS the Authority has directed staff to report back with an assessment of full
cost recovery related to the service delivery for comprehensive planning and permitting
review operations;
AHC WHET EAS TIC 's assessment of service delivery adheres to the provincial Ministry
of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority
Fees, TRCA's Fee Policy Guideline 2009 and provides a range of services according to
TRC 's Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the cost recovery recommendations, inclusive
of the Proposed Fee Schedule for 2012 be endorsed, and that staff be instructed to
consult with the development industry, the Province of Ontario and TRC 's municipalities
prior to final approval as per the provincial and TIC A guidelines;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority as to the comments received
during the consultation process, and provide recommendations for approval of the final
form of schedules, effective January 1, 2012.
CARRIED
SECTION 11 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
RES.#A229/11 - SECTION 11 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
Moved by: Jim Ty
Seconded by: Bob Callahan
THAT Section I I items EX .1 - EX8.3, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #9/111
held on October 14, 20111 be received.
CARRIED
Section 11 Items EX8.1 - EX .3, Inclusive
TROUTBROOKE DRIVE SLOPE STABILIZATION PROJECT
(Executive es. 631'11)
MARINE RESEARCH VESSEL
(Executive Res. #B 164111)
NAMING OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ASSET
(Executive Res. # B 16 5111)
SECTION I'- ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES.#A230/11 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Moved by: Chris Fonseca
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT Section IV items TH8.1.1 - TH8.1.3 in regard to Watershed Committee
Minutes, be received.
CARRIED
Section IV Items TH8.1.1 - AUTH8.1.3
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #8/11, held on September 8, 2011
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #2/11, held on June 14, 2011
Minutes of Meeting #3/11, held on September 20, 2011
PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN STEERING COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting #2/11, held on May 19, 2011.
RES. #A231/11 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Jack Heath
THAT Section IV item EX9.1 - Risk Management Practices, contained in Executive
Committee Minutes #9/111 held on October 14, 20111 be received.
CARRIED
RES. #A232/11 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
Moved by: Michael Di Biast
Seconded by: David Barrow
THAT Section IV item EX9.2 - Lowest Bid Not Accepted, contained in Executive Committee
Minutes #9/11, held on October 14, 20111 be received.
CARRIED
Z I ril so] lei so] :ICAL WMA11 I rel L1
RES. #A233/11 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Glenn Di Bias,:
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX1 0.1 - EX1.1 17, inclusive, contained in Executive
Committee Minutes #9/111 held on October 14, 20111 be received.
CARRIED
RES. 34/11 - EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NEW BUSINESS
Moved by: Glenn De Baerernaeker
Seconded by: Jack Heath
THAT New Business item - Toronto Zoo, contained in Executive Committee Minutes
#9/111 held on October 14, 20111 be received.
CARRIED
TERMINATION
0H MOTI 0 N I th e rn ting te rm i nated at 11:50 a. rn., on Friday, October 28, 2011.
Maria Aug imeri
Vice Chair
ON
em
Brian Denney
Secretary -Treasurer
kk,
01FTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #10/11
November 25, 2011
The Authority Meeting #10/11, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village,
on Friday, November 25, 2011. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to
order at 9:49 a.m.
PRESENT
Maria Augimeri
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Vice Chair
David Barrow
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Ben Cachola
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Ronald Chopowick
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Vincent Crisanti
9:49 a.m.
11:10 a.m.
Member
Glenn De Baeremaeker
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Michael Di Biase
9:52 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Jack Heath
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Colleen Jordan
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Mujeeb Khan
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Chin Lee
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Gloria Lindsay Luby
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Glenn Mason
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Mike Mattos
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Chair
Linda Pabst
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
John Parker
9:56 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Anthony Perruzza
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
John Sprovieri
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Cynthia Thorburn
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Jim Tovey
9:49 a.m.
12:01 p.m.
Member
Richard Whitehead
9:49 a.m.
11:22 a.m.
Member
ABSENT
Paul Ainslie
Member
Bob Callahan
Member
Chris Fonseca
Member
Peter Milczyn
Member
Gino Rosati
Member
Dave Ryan
Member
626
RES.#A235/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
MINUTES
Maria Augimeri
Vincent Crisanti
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #9/11, held on October 28, 2011, be approved.
CARRIED
CITY OF TORONTO REPRESENTATIVES ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Mike Mattos was nominated by Maria Augimeri.
Ben Cachola was nominated by Maria Augimeri.
RES.#A236/11 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS
Moved by: Vincent Crisanti
Seconded by: David Barrow
THAT nominations for the City of Toronto representatives on the Executive Committee be
closed.
CARRIED
Mike Mattos and Ben Cachola were declared elected by acclamation as City of Toronto
representatives on the Executive Committee, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/13.
DELEGATIONS
(a) A delegation by Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, in regard to item AUTH8.2 -
Wetland Restoration on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -Owned Lands.
RES.#A237/11 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Jim Tovey
THAT above -noted delegation (a) be received.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Barb Imrie, President, Albion Hills Community Farm in regard to the
Albion Hills Community Farm.
627
RES.#A238/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
PRESENTATIONS
Richard Whitehead
David Barrow
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be received.
CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#A239/11 - BRUCE'S MILL CONSERVATION AREA MASTER PLAN
Recommends approval of the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area Master
Plan.
Moved by: Glenn De Baermaeker
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area Master Plan, dated October 21, 2011, be
approved;
THAT the Master Plan be circulated to the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffvi lie and the
Regional Municipality of York requesting endorsement of the Plan;
THAT the Master Plan be distributed to all relevant stakeholders;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the Authority on implementation of the Master Plan at
a future meeting.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Bruce's Mill Conservation Area (BMCA) occupies 108 hectares in the Rouge River watershed,
within the Town of Whitch urch-StouffviIle. The property is on the southern edge of the Oak
Ridges Moraine and boasts a diverse ecosystem that includes Bruce Creek, a tributary of the
Rouge River, a number of high-quality wetlands and extensive forests, including almost nine
hectares of interior forest. In addition to providing valuable habitat to wetland and forest
species alike, BMCA has the potential to be a prime tourist destination for local and regional
visitors to enjoy nature -based recreation opportunities.
The Bruce's Mill Conservation Area Master Plan was initiated by Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) in 2004. At Authority Meeting #6/04, held on June 25, 2004,
Resolution #A180/04 was approved as follows:
THAT staff be directed to develop a master plan for Bruce's Mill Conservation Area;
• •
THAT an Advisory Committee be established, which would include one member each
from the Rouge Park staff and the Rouge Park Alliance, interested community groups,
business representatives, community residents, agency staff, municipal staff and local
and regional councillors to assist with the development of the master plan and to
facilitate the opportunity for public input,
AND FURTHER THAT the final master plan be brought to the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority for approval.
RATIONALE
The Bruce's Mill Conservation Area Master Plan was generated to protect, conserve and restore
the valuable ecological features and functions of the site, while guiding the current and
potential future public uses of the area. It is intended to provide a vision of what is possible at
BMCA, and inspire partners and supporters to help TRCA achieve that vision.
The Master Plan lays out a series of management recommendations and actions that seek to
protect the natural heritage system while also providing for enjoyable recreational opportunities
for the local community and residents of Stouffville, Markham and Richmond Hill.
Copies of the complete Draft Bruce's Mill Conservation Area Master Plan will be made available
at the Authority meeting.
Plan Process and Consultation
The master planning process occurred in several phases that consisted, among other actions,
of compiling background materials and research; conducting extensive public consultation;
developing a vision, goal and objectives; developing management recommendations; and
developing trail and public use plans. The master plan itself includes a description and
evaluation of the property based on relevant plans and policies, existing resource inventories
and environmental conditions, site limitations and opportunities. Additionally, the plan identifies
specific management zones for the site that 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. Finally, detailed plans for trails and public use are presented.
Experience has shown that residents and community groups are concerned with the impact of
land use change on the remaining natural landscapes within the Greater Toronto Area. At the
same time, some user groups, businesses and municipalities have expressed a growing
interest in a variety of uses for public lands, including nature -based recreation, ecological
restoration and community stewardship. The provision of public uses on TRCA-owned land
must consider economic factors and the recreational needs of the community, as well as
ensure the natural landscape is protected and properly managed. The objective of the master
planning process is to develop a plan for the BMCA property that protects its natural
environment while exploring its potential for nature -based recreation.
The planning process was undertaken in three phases. Phase one included the establishment
of technical and advisory committees. Phase two included project start-up and the completion
of the background report. Phase three included the development of the master plan document,
including property management zones, identification of existing habitat restoration priorities,
and identification of recreational opportunities, including the development of a trail plan.
For the BMCA Master Plan, TRCA established a Public Advisory Committee. The Public
Advisory Committee was made up of representatives from the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Town of Markham, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, Whitchurch-Stouffville
Chamber of Commerce, Whitch urch-StouffviIle Museum, Rouge Park Alliance, Community
Safety Village of York Region, Meadowbrook Golf & Country Club, Bruce's Mill Driving Range,
Whitchurch Highlands Public School, Whitchurch-Stouffville Soccer Club, Oak Ridges Trail
Association, Whitchurch-Stouffville Environmental Advisory Committee, Rotary Club of
Stouffville and YMCA. The committee was provided with a terms of reference document that
was used to guide their contributions throughout the development of the Master Plan. The
advisory committee worked with TRCA staff to finalize the project terms of reference, establish
the vision, goals and objectives, determine the management zones and management
recommendations, and develop the trail and public use plans. The committee also provided
technical input and assisted with the public consultation program for the master plan.
The public consultation program included:
• meetings with interested organizations and groups in the community;
• information sessions, newsletters, questionnaires and mailings to the community to
identify a broad range of potential needs and opportunities for the site;
• public meetings to present the background information, plan vision, proposed
management zones, concept plans, trail plan, public use plan and management
recommendations.
Vision, Themes and Principles
The vision and values of the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area Master Plan have been integrated
with those of TRCA and the Rouge River watershed. The visions, goals and objectives of the
following plans and strategies were reviewed and incorporated as part of the process for
developing master plan for BMCA;
• The Living City vision and objectives;
• TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy;
• Rouge River Watershed Plan: Towards a Healthy and Sustainable Future (2007);
• Rouge North Management Plan (Rouge Park, 2001).
Vision and Values
Working within a watershed framework, the vision for the master plan reflects the essence of
conservation planning values and sets a definite direction for the future of BMCA. The vision of
BMCA is as follows:
Through dynamic partnerships and community involvement, Bruce's Mill will enhance its
significant natural areas and unique cultural heritage resources to provide the best
opportunities for nature appreciation, education and outdoor recreational enjoyment. In
addition, public health and safety will be integrated in harmony with all park programs,
ensuring the natural and cultural values of the park are protected and will flourish.
The primary focus of the vision is to protect the natural features of the park while providing
opportunities for appropriate recreation. It also highlights the importance of community
involvement and partnerships, which are vital to the success of BMCA.
Concept Themes
To compliment the vision for BMCA, concept themes were developed to guide the Master Plan.
These themes help to better focus the plan on identifying and enhancing existing strengths of
the property, while also considering opportunities for growth.
The concept themes for BMCA include the following:
Active Lifestyles
The provision of active lifestyle opportunities is an important function of BMCA, and the
master plan seeks to enhance existing recreational features and experiences, while also
considering the implementation of new opportunities. Promoting active lifestyles is an
important value to TRCA and it's municipal partners, and the master plan for BMCA
seeks to appeal to a diverse audience of users through a range of recreational features
and experiences.
Canadian Heritage
Heritage appreciation is an important part of BMCA, and a number of significant
heritage features and opportunities currently exist on the property, particularly the Mill
structure and its role in Ontario's industrial heritage. There exists great potential for the
enhancement of these existing heritage features, and the master plan for BMCA seeks
to create a unique visitor experience by integrating the celebration and interpretation of
these feature under a theme of Canadian Heritage that will extend throughout the park.
Management Recommendations
Management recommendations provide actions to achieve the vision and values. The key
management recommendations include the following:
Natural Heritage
• Regular monitoring of flora, fauna and the overall condition of the ecosystems of BMCA.
• Increase the natural cover in BMCA by restoring the north half of the agricultural fields
as well as allowing natural succession in the secondary restoration areas.
• Create a nature reserve area with limited public use in the central area of BMCA to
protect and enhance the interior forest habitats.
Cultural Heritage
• Integrate the heritage buildings into all aspects of the park management and
development, such as trails, public uses, education and signage.
• Implement urgent repair and restoration activities required to stabilize the Mill building
and Mill Attendant's house.
• Initiate a public consultation process to develop an adaptive re -use plan for the Mill
building.
Stewardship and Outreach
• Develop a stewardship group to provide implementation support at BMCA.
Public use and Recreation
• Removal of the driving range and development of an active lifestyle recreation area in
the north-east corner of the property, with potential for enhancement through fill
placement.
631
• Creation of level turf play fields in south-west corner of the property, with potential for
enhancement through fill placement.
• Installation of a skills development area, including a ropes course.
• Development of a new aquatic facility, including a splash pad.
• Construction of a second entrance and driveway off of Warden Avenue.
• Enhancement of trail network and implementation of a trail plan
Recent Initiatives
In 2010, TRCA received $10,000 through the TD Friends of the Environment Fund. This funding
was dedicated to boardwalk and bridge construction improvements to the existing trail network
at BMCA.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The successful implementation of the Master Plan for BMCA will require the efforts of TRCA and
its partners.
TRCA will take the following actions:
• publish and distribute the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area Master Plan to the Town of
Whitch urch-StouffviIle, Regional Municipality of York, and relevant stakeholders and seek
further consultation as necessary;
• request that the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and the Regional Municipality of York
include the Master Plan in their respective jurisdiction's planning and land use policies
and practices for the area;
• develop a detailed recreation plan for the north-east field;
• seek out funding and grant opportunities for the implementation of urgent repairs and
restoration work to heritage structures on site;
• seek out potential partnerships for an adaptive re -use of the Mill building;
• establish a stewardship committee with appropriate representation from stakeholder
groups to assist with the implementation of the Master Plan;
• report to the Authority on implementation of the Master Plan at future meetings.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total cost to implement the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area Master Plan is estimated at
$2,817,000 over ten years. A summarized implementation budget for the master plan is shown
on Table 1. These are preliminary estimates subject to discussion with the potential funding
partners and refinement of project requirements. The ten-year time frame may also need to
change.
632
Table 1
CATEGORY
I COST ($)
Park Entrance and Main Road
F 74,500
North East Field
110,000
Workshop and Operations Building
32,500
Skills Development Area
40,000
Heritage Structures
220,000
Aquatic Area
1,543,500
West Fields
227,000
New Warden Avenue Entrance
195,500
Trails
194,000
General Improvements
180,000
TOTAL
2,817,000
Staff will be approaching the Town of Whitch urch-StouffviIle, the Regional Municipality of York,
local community groups and other interested stakeholders to share in the cost of Plan
implementation over the next ten years. Also, a portion of any revenues generated on site
through fill placement enhancements will be directed back into implementation of the Bruce's
Mill Conservation Area Master Plan.
Report prepared by: Steven Joudrey, extension 5573
Emails: sjoudrey@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Mike Bender, extension 5287
Emails: mbender@trca.on.ca
Date: November 11, 2011
Attachment 2
633
Attachment 1
Ali
634
A
4t
MOO
Ali
634
Attachment 2
635
RES.#A240/11 - WETLAND RESTORATION ON TORONTO AND REGION
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY -OWNED LANDS
Guiding Principles. Wetland Restoration Guiding Principles for wetland
restoration projects on TRCA-owned lands including the Rouge Park.
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Jim Tovey
THAT item AUTH8.2 - Wetland Restoration on Toronto an Region Conservation
Authority -Owned Lands be deferred to Authority Meeting #12/11, scheduled to be held on
January 27, 2012.
CARRIED
RES.#A241/11 - URBAN FOREST STUDIES UPDATE
Update of Peel, York and Pickering studies managed by Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority and endorsement of finalized Peel Region
Urban Forest Strategy.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
THAT the Peel Region Urban Forest Strategy be endorsed;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to continue
their involvement in urban forest work as a member of the Peel Region Urban Forest
Working Group;
THAT staff be authorized to participate in urban forest related opportunities and initiatives
locally and beyond to share experience and expertise;
THAT staff pursue support from urban forest study partners for the development of a
compilation report of urban forest studies conducted to date in the Toronto region
(specifically York, Peel, Toronto, Ajax and Pickering);
THAT staff continue to provide support to municipalities that are developing emerald ash
borer (EAB) management strategies;
THAT Peel Region be so advised of this support;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on progress on completing and
implementing the urban forest strategies.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The urban forest by definition is a dynamic system that includes all trees, shrubs and
understory plants, as well as the soils that sustain them, ranging from individual street trees to
wooded areas, on both public and private lands.
636
One of the recommendations in the TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (2007),
was to undertake urban forest studies and develop strategies for urban forest management
across the TRCA jurisdiction. At that time, TRCA staff canvassed municipalities and others to
identify urban forest initiatives within TRCA's watersheds. Through this exercise staff found that
a number of municipalities were either planning, or already had funding, to conduct studies
within their own jurisdictions.
TRCA staff took advantage of the coinciding studies by initiating an informal collaborative
between the various municipal and conservation authority project managers, as well as
academic and community stakeholders. The primary objective of this collaborative was to
ensure that the result of the studies could be standardized across the GTA in order to facilitate
comparisons between municipalities; the development of complementary strategies; and
ultimately the creation of a comprehensive regional report.
The objectives of the urban forest studies are:
1) To quantify the existing distribution, structure (composition, condition, etc.) and function
(carbon sequestration, air pollution removal, etc.) of the urban forest.
The collaborative selected the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service
methodology for data collection and its suite of analytical tools, known as i -Tree Eco (including
the Urban Forest Effects or UFORE model). Using data collected on the ground combined with
local weather, pollution and hydrological data, i -Tree provides information on the forest's health
and its capacity to contribute to better air quality, water management, reductions in energy
costs, amongst other calculations. Air photography and satellite imagery are used to determine
the forest cover and distribution.
2) To provide a baseline for future monitoring.
Recommendations are made in the studies for planning management and monitoring cycles.
All sample plots are set up in a manner that allows revisiting their exact location and thus
permits long-term monitoring. It is foreseen that the technologies for data analysis and remote
sensing will also be replicable and compatible in the long-term.
3) To outline the preliminary actions needed to enhance the capacity of the urban forest to
provide essential ecosystem services.
The study findings are used as the basis for urban forest management plans and policies
related to designing healthy and sustainable communities. TRCA staff undertakes a stakeholder
consultation process to build a constituency around the recommendations that would be put
forward in the reports and to increase the momentum and potential for their successful
implementation. The objective includes managing crisis situations such as the current threat of
emerald ash borer to ash tree species (Fraxinus) in all of TRCA's watersheds but also
recognizes the need for long-term, ongoing management for resilience and sustainability.
637
Since 2008, TRCA has managed urban forest studies for the Region of Peel (including cities of
Mississauga and Brampton, and Town of Caledon), Town of Ajax, Region of York (including
City of Vaughan, and towns of Markham and Richmond Hill) and City of Pickering, as well as
sitting on the City of Toronto's steering committee for their urban forest study in 2009. Technical
working groups were set up for each study that included staff from TRCA and from each
municipality. Credit Valley Conservation staff participated on the Technical Working Group for
the Peel studies. Central Lake Ontario and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authorities joined
in the consultation for the Ajax, Pickering and York Region studies respectively.
2011 Updates
Town of Ajax Study
• The Town of Ajax Urban Forest Study Report was completed in 2010.
• That report was used in the development of the Town of Ajax Urban Forest Management
Plan, which was fully endorsed by Council in Spring 2011. Ajax is currently moving forward
on implementing its first five-year increment, including operating and capital works.
Peel Region Studies
• The Region of Peel study was completed this year. The Urban Forest Study Technical
Reports for each of the municipalities of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon as well as the
Peel Region Urban Forest Strategy (executive summary in Attachment 1) were submitted in
June.
• Peel Council endorsed the Strategy in October. The staff report highlighted the next steps,
including the recommendations to form an Urban Forest Working Group to work toward
achieving the Strategy vision, to develop regional and area municipal urban forest targets,
and to develop and implement area municipal urban forest management plans. Council
endorsed two amendments, to develop a strategy for the management of EAB and to
contact growers to ask them not to sell ash species.
City of Pickering Study
• The Pickering Urban Forest Study Report was circulated to stakeholders in September and
a stakeholders workshop was held in October of this year to engage stakeholders for input.
• The Report is projected to be finalized by year end and to be presented to Pickering
Council in early 2012.
York Region Studies
• In May of this year, an information session was held for senior management from York
Region, the City of Vaughan and the towns of Markham, Richmond Hill and Aurora. The
purpose was to ensure that senior municipal staff be informed of the purpose of the urban
forest studies and of implications for inter -departmental and inter -agency collaboration and
funding. Much interest was expressed in being involved as the project develops.
• The technical reports for Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill and a summary report for
York Region have been drafted. A stakeholders workshop will be held prior to submission of
all reports in early 2012.
•
• •
RATIONALE
Urban Forest Initiatives
Cities, locally and worldwide, are recognizing more fully the benefits of the urban forest to the
health and well-being of human communities. TRCA's work with urban forests and ecosystem
services has positioned TRCA to either lead or participate in initiatives and programs that are
helping to effect that change. Continuing to bring urban forest expertise to such initiatives as
Green Infrastructure Ontario, Clean Air Partnership projects and many others, will be a
substantial contribution to achieving The Living City objectives. Staff has been presenting the
results of these studies at various conferences and TRCA's expertise is being sought from
many agencies and municipalities.
Peel Urban Forest Strategy Implementation
The urban forest studies conducted in this partnership prepare the way for informed, detailed
planning and management of the urban forest in the region. TRCA staff is intimate with the
subject, having managed, through the Technical Working Group, all aspects of the project from
work planning to study design, data collection, analysis, technical writing, developing
recommendations, technical review and stakeholder consultation. Staff also recognizes the
importance of the urban forest to achieving the objectives of the Peel Climate Change Strategy,
watershed plans and stormwater management.
In addition, TRCA is also developing a climate change risk assessment framework for natural
systems and applying it to the urban forest. The results will help to guide best practices for
adapting urban forest management to climate change, including appropriate species selection
and placement.
Staff expertise in urban forestry, the experience gained through the development of the urban
forest strategies, and the climate change assessment tools position TRCA to be an important
contributor to the effective implementation of the Peel Strategy.
Compilation report of urban forest studies
The urban forest studies are very progressive and the partners involved in this collaborative
effort are responsible for the largest study of its kind worldwide, bringing together nine area
municipalities, three regional municipalities and two conservation authorities. Together, these
studies have the potential to increase the profile of the urban forest issues to communicate and
leverage human and financial resources to achieve urban forest targets.
A compilation report would be a tool for:
1. engaging the federal and provincial governments about the need to fill some important
gaps in urban forest research (targets, pests), governance (policies) and funding (plan
implementation, pest management);
2. providing ideas for corporations and organizations on how to best contribute to
environmental and community sustainability in the Greater Toronto Area; and
3. taking a coordinated approach among municipalities in addressing issues such as the EAB,
especially where economies of scale are evident;
Emerald Ash Borer
The Ajax, Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon urban forest technical reports prepared by
TRCA each proposed the development of invasive species strategies. The draft study reports
undertaken in Markham, Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Pickering contain the same direction.
•
The presence of EAB in particular has rapidly become a high priority issue requiring specific
action. TRCA staff is discussing with municipal staff how to address the issue in different parts
of TRCA's watersheds. It is important to have a comprehensive plan that addresses all ash
trees, from those in larger rural woodlands to urban street trees. All ash trees provide benefits
to our shared watersheds and communities; their location in the landscape (in headwaters, on
streets, in schoolyards, etc.) simply determines the kind of benefits they provide for people.
CAs and municipalities provide a complementary role in ash and EAB management. TRCA has
a role to play in managing the issue on TRCA lands, in promoting stewardship on private lands,
and in contributing supporting expertise and advice to municipalities as they develop and
implement their own EAB strategies.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff will participate in several aspects of the Peel Urban Forest Strategy Implementation
including the development of:
• the Peel Urban Forest Working Group;
• urban forest targets;
• detailed management plans;
• sustainable development policies and standards;
• monitoring programs and applied research;
• funding securement;
• outreach and education programs.
Urban Forest Studies Compilation
TRCA staff will pursue support for the compilation report by developing a preliminary business
case for the report and, based on that, contacting stakeholders for their support. It is intended
that the compilation report will provide a GTA -wide a summary of the state and function of the
urban forest and recommendations made in studies from across municipalities; and identify a
consultation process for approaching governments and organizations for ongoing and strategic
support for the urban forest.
Emerald Ash Borer
TRCA will continue its long term forest management to help ensure ecological diversity and
resiliency to all threats to Toronto region forests, including that of EAB. TRCA is developing an
EAB management strategy. This strategy will be used to inform management of TRCA lands as
well as other aspects of TRCA's work impacted by EAB including plan input and review, habitat
restoration and education/stewardship. A communication will be brought to the Authority early
in the new year by the TRCA Forest Health Working Group to outline this strategy.
Staff will continue to stay well informed of the evolving science and management techniques of
EAB and share this expertise with partner municipalities as they develop and implement their
own plans. TRCA staff will maintain an ongoing dialogue with partner municipalities on EAB
issues and coordinated response plans and public education.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the participation in urban forest initiatives, in the implementation of the Peel
Strategy, and in the initial steps of the compilation report will be derived from the Terrestrial
Natural Heritage account supported by the capital contributions from the City of Toronto and
regions of Peel, York and Durham.
Funding for the EAB strategy development will be shared between the Terrestrial Natural
Heritage and Forestry Program accounts in TRCA's operating budget.
Report prepared by: Lionel Normand, extension 5327
Emails: Inormand@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Lionel Normand, extension 5327
Emails: Inormand@trca.on.ca
Date: August 26, 2011
Attachments: 1
641
Attachment 1 - Peel Region Urban Forest Strategy
Intrioductilan
The Peell IRe,gion ]Urban forest Strategy has been prepared in partnershpp by the Toronto and iRegion
Conservation Authority (IRC j, the Region of Peel, Credit Valley Conservation (CV,C), City of Wssissauga,
City of Brampton and Town of Caledon. I'hese partners have provided funding, as well as expertise and
direction through their invo[vement pn a technical workhig group, 'The Peen Re&n Urban Forest
Strategy has been developed in part firorn the outcorries ref as stakeholder COr)SdtatiOrl workshop held in
November 2010. The workshop was, central to buildrig re&nal consenSLIS and gapning a broad
corrimtrnent to the implementation of theStrategy.
The Urban forest in Peel inClUdes all trees, shrubs and understory plants,, as well as the sails thft Sustain
there, located on PLIbliC and p6vate property. the pUrpose of the Strategy is to provide the framework
and strategic direction for the protection and enhancerrierit of the Urban forest, as rILItUral
infrastirLACtUre. The Strategy presents the vision, goals and actions required to guide and engage
hidiOduals and orgainizations in Urban forest management, and to ult4nately cont6bUtC to as healMer,
more sustainable Peel Region,
Veyetadon Resource.&.sessment
The rCSLfltS of the UrbElrl forest studies conducted in the MUnicipakties of IMississauga, Branipton and
Caledon have heen SUrriniarized here at a regional scales rhese studies Utflized the i""gree software SUite
of to6s, Dffered by the United States Department of AgricuftUre (USDA) forest Service. "rhe reSLiltS Of
these studies are presented in detafli in the TecWcall Reports provlded for each area MUnicipakty.
111121111
2111
Mill,
..........................
a Biraimptom
4 5% of PeO kegron's iuirpman canopy cover is
Cainopy Cover
a Calledon East29',6,
located on resrdcntrap property, residents
* o 11 to n � 17 '
BMra
are therefore the im ost iintluential stewards
* Nliss�ssauga: 15')6,
of urban forest,
* Nliss�Essauga: 0, 78
're,,ro, �s a posAive r6lafionship betwopri Ileaf.
Leaf Area Density
a Biraimptom 0,54
airea density and the volurne of benefits
(m2/ rn2)
a Calledon East2.7
providind to residents �rnoro, leaves moro,
0 Bolton O's
benefits,
Over 70 percent of aIll trees rneasiurcAdare
Environmentall,sociai and econornic beinefits
Tree Size
smaIll (Iless than 15 cin an stem diameter).
increase with tree !s,ilze.
Species
Maple and ash species dominate the uirba. n
Greater speciir:5 clrversaty Mill decrease the
forest; a niurnlbcAr of Pxobc kwasive p1lant
Hsk of �arge sca�e foiPst �oss ki the event of
Compositlion
speciesarcA aiso carni -non,
&soaso, and pest outbipalks.
I PEEL REE]ION URBAN FORIESI SIRAFEGY
642
Resource Mar7age,rnent Approach
The existing policy framework that governs the urban forest is largely created and applied a, t the Area
IMLjni6pal scale, SUpporting pok6es and prograrns, partiCUafly through Natural Heritage Systems
management, art, Iproviiclecf by Conservation AUthorities and the Re&n of Peel. Recognizing that Ilkarge,,
rnatUre trees are underrepresented in the urlban forest, additior4l policy tools are needed to ensure
that trees are protected and Irnaaintaaiinech so that each tree willl grow to reach nlatLlrity and provide
greater benefits to the community.
The federal government its involved narrowly in Urban forest management thIl'OUgh the Ireg,Uantion and
irrianagement of invasive insect pests (e.g. Aslan Ilonghcauned beetle).AfthOUgh provincial land use and
planningg
polky strongly influences the health arid &st6butlon of the urban forest iln Peel Repp
pon, the
provinc4l governinnent is not yet actively inv6vecl in urban forest management arid does not provide
0
clear 6rection to municipafties, f r Urban forest conservation. By taking, as leadership role in the
irrianagement of this resource, the upper levels of government have the opportUnity to bUdd healtNer,
strongercornMUnities,
Comm�rfity Framework Assessment
An ef-fectrve approach to urban forest stewardship must inclUde programs that target both Students, raas
the fUtUre stewards of thus resOUrce, and adults,, raas the p6mary land owners and managers. StUdents
across the region currently have muftiple opportunities to become engaged iin broad conservation
initiatives through the existing, CUrriCUIUnidbasecl programs in schools.However, as specific fOCUs on
Urban forest conservation has not yet been developed.
Assistance to residents for tree selection, plantnng and irnainteriance on pi6vate property is a notaUle gap
in the OUtre,aCh and stewardsNp currently offered across the re&n. Thus, an backyard tree planting
program, SUch as that offered by LEAF in City of Toronto arid York Region, has the potential to iincrease
tree cover arid ra,ssociraated benefits -across Peel.
643
III rilylial I=II
A greater nUrniber of rnatwc trees 7and
7buildknr�,,
Eneirgysav�ngs of over �2,5 millhon a L'�
Einiergy Savings
to resOcints through stiading in suimrn,, a d
P Iro' per tree JDIZIci',�rnent airOUll d rcs�dcnt4l
'nt'�
acting as wind brealks hn Mntcir.
wid Drovide even greater energy
"'t"
savings,
19,000 tonnes of carban scclucstered and
"I"he w1ban forest playsan important ralle in
Cairb�on
4100,000 tonnes of carbon stored all 11 UAll ly D'y
both local and gbIXIII dir nate chainge
Urban trees in Peell Region,
rnitiFation and adaptation,
890 tonnfas, of ahr polkition rernoved aininually
The urban torCISt lDroOdoas hurnan licalth
PoIllutlion
by luirlDcIrl trees in Reel Rcgion; total rcimoval
bencfitsand health care savings by rediucing,
vakic is appiroxiiniately $9,5 niflIlion,
Iloca€ ailr D011111.1ti011,
Resource Mar7age,rnent Approach
The existing policy framework that governs the urban forest is largely created and applied a, t the Area
IMLjni6pal scale, SUpporting pok6es and prograrns, partiCUafly through Natural Heritage Systems
management, art, Iproviiclecf by Conservation AUthorities and the Re&n of Peel. Recognizing that Ilkarge,,
rnatUre trees are underrepresented in the urlban forest, additior4l policy tools are needed to ensure
that trees are protected and Irnaaintaaiinech so that each tree willl grow to reach nlatLlrity and provide
greater benefits to the community.
The federal government its involved narrowly in Urban forest management thIl'OUgh the Ireg,Uantion and
irrianagement of invasive insect pests (e.g. Aslan Ilonghcauned beetle).AfthOUgh provincial land use and
planningg
polky strongly influences the health arid &st6butlon of the urban forest iln Peel Repp
pon, the
provinc4l governinnent is not yet actively inv6vecl in urban forest management arid does not provide
0
clear 6rection to municipafties, f r Urban forest conservation. By taking, as leadership role in the
irrianagement of this resource, the upper levels of government have the opportUnity to bUdd healtNer,
strongercornMUnities,
Comm�rfity Framework Assessment
An ef-fectrve approach to urban forest stewardship must inclUde programs that target both Students, raas
the fUtUre stewards of thus resOUrce, and adults,, raas the p6mary land owners and managers. StUdents
across the region currently have muftiple opportunities to become engaged iin broad conservation
initiatives through the existing, CUrriCUIUnidbasecl programs in schools.However, as specific fOCUs on
Urban forest conservation has not yet been developed.
Assistance to residents for tree selection, plantnng and irnainteriance on pi6vate property is a notaUle gap
in the OUtre,aCh and stewardsNp currently offered across the re&n. Thus, an backyard tree planting
program, SUch as that offered by LEAF in City of Toronto arid York Region, has the potential to iincrease
tree cover arid ra,ssociraated benefits -across Peel.
643
Peel Region's Urban Farest Tomorrow
The strategic v'Ision describes the future urban forest that rnanaEers and partners in Peell Region are
sthving to achieve. Six principles have been developed to guide all partners in achieving this vision.
Strategic, Vision
Our vKon is for a heafthy and resilkent urban forest that (provides diverse and sustained benefits to, all
and is grown from a shared cornmitnient by all rnember's of the cDDIIMIJnnty to the stewardship and care
of this vitall infrastructure.
Guiding Principles
PIRINCIPLE 1 ,A sustainable urbain forest promotes
quality of life, human health and Iloragevity.
PRINCIPLE I, Residents of Feel IRegioin are the most
in,iportarit and influential stewards of the Urbaul forest.
PIRINCIPLE I All residents should have the opportunity
and rneans to benefit equaHly from the ecosystem
services provided Iby the urban forest.
PIRINCIPLE C Improved COMMUniCation aind coorcEnated
actlon will reSLOt in a more informed, streamHnecl, and
effective a pi p ir o a c h to, urban f o, re st ni a n ag e rn e int.
PIRINCIPLE 5'The urban forest, as natural infrastructure,
reqUnres long,terr'n, stable funding.
PIRINCIPLE 6MLMrCrPLII Governments should(lead Iby
example.
Strategic Goals and'Actions
Photo Crifft: ToTonto and Region ConservatIon Authodty
Eight strategrc goals have- been established in the Strategy to facilitate a coordinated and consistent
regioinall approach to sustainable urban forest rnanagernent. I'he strategic go -ails and associated zictk)ns
are presented in the follow�g table as an abbrevnated sumirnary. The complete strate& firarnework,
including lead roles, partners, and time frarnes, is prese-rented in Part 2 of the, Strategy.
C=n-limillimilm.
'''' 11111111111
a., Dc.,velop and lead an Interagency Urban 1Forest Workiling GrOLLID that MIR bitidd
Goall I- facilitate
partnerships and coardinate
actlionacross Peel Reglion
factisand consistency across departments avid agen6i2s,
ID. Llevelop aVIVIL131 work plans for OIF% PWIDOSE-1 of achieving, the goals OLIthined in
the. 'Strategy,
c, Conduct a comprehonsi1w review of the Strategy at TIgUlar five year interval .
Goall 2: Develop uirlban
forest targets
a, Develop I',_gional and area InUnv6p,31 Urban forest targets.
Goall 3- Develop and
implement uirbaiin forest
,Emient Plans that
a. I)evL4ol) and firnplernent comprehensive Urhal1u iForest Manag
tLifly addresses the operational actions and resOUirces requhred to achieve a
healthy and resilient urban forest,
management plains
,Emient I'llans at T(-IFLI lar five year intervals,
bp, Revaew and Iapdatc Manag
a, Integrate the strate& goak Wefltified IIn the Strategyand targets, once
defined, into Regional avid Area Munv6pa11 Officiall IPllal s to recog
,nize the
Goall A. Create a
compirelhensive urban forest
policy framework
conthblltiOrl of thisurban forest to Recall CILIallity Of U12,
b, Into ' grate. the leafs idcntilfied hn the. Strategy, as we-111 as targ(-,t!s and dircctions
from Urban ForestVianagernent pWis 4vfips
ito IDUIDNC, inativ.
c, Oev� -,Ilop new rIlUnicipaktandairds and gLIiCh2IIiInoS fOlSUstaiinablIE-, streetscapp
and SUID605ion design,
a, LnCOUrage the Association of IMunuclpallitoes of Ontario (AMIO) and the
Federafion of Canadian MUllidpallitioS �IFCMI) to approach piio0ncW and
Gmaul 5: Ga ii n forima 11 suip poirt
from Upper, ]levels of
goveimmient for sustalinable
management of the urbain
forestas natural)
t ed c ra I agm n ck., s to ID i, ovi d e st ro n g,,P. r S LI 1) IDo rt a n d direction to r lurlaan forest
poNdes, prograrns and hiidatJves,
ID, En(,;agi2 ProO
the ncial avid Federll Go
avernmPints to proOft
dp ffldinM7 fOl' Urban
forest , research and dcvelopiment,
c- En(,;agi2 the ProOncial Goveriniment toprovide policy dirpcfion withki the
Planniing Act as mjll as [,',UidanCP to SUIDIDOrt a 11(-Ialthy Urban forest for the full
infrastructure
range et rcosystern services it provides to the. commumity,
a. Monitor thestrUCture, distrfl)IUfiGII alld fUlIcbon of the urbafl torest using the
niethods and parameters applied fin the baseflne. asscssnients condUcted hi
2008 tor each area nILlimicillpallity in Pcel Region,
ID, Report on StatL,IS avid trends publicailly Ili order bLIHM and retain public support
for UrINIn forest conservation,
c- Idenfify chficall resparch quesfions and Morniafion FaIDS that MUst be
Goall 16. Implement effective
monitoding and research
addressed in order to manage the. Urban to est cftcctively and i,-nvtigat(, the
pirogra ims
thl'PatS alld III'-nlDaCtS to thus , 'PSOUrce,
d., ldentffy potcnt4l rcsoarch partners and explore new mcans of bUddiing
connec6ons air ong researchers, practifioners and coml-nUllity mpnibers.
Q. Idenfify nLw b2chniques and technologves throtirh on g61ns.7 -ni-niunvcabon
. coi
wroth local, natJoinall and international research facHkties and protessionall
org,anilzations Mth an urban forest mandate,
a, Develop a IXISiness case- tor the Urbain forest as naturall hifrastruCtUre tee secure-
Goad 7- Secure 11,ongAerm
tunchig and support from gill Invels of governnicrit,
ID, Research tundfng opporturiffies and partn,srships,
funding for uirbain forest
management
c- Develop an incenfivc, prograrn fo,# tme p1lantfing.and estabhshnicmt on private
propl"�rtv'
645
a Conduct a detailed as sesmnent Of Opj)0l'UHliUe:5 tO e I] h a kce urbal fo I est
SteWardSllmp thrOLJRJl pUbkC DUtreach 1prop
,rarns.
b IFacphitate trainfinr,, education and larotressponall development tor alll IDUID111C SeCtol'
staff.
Goall 8. Provide c. Identify and puirSM-1 0jDjD0rtLliniUes to buHcl and expand partnerships wtll
compirelheinsive training, bUSill,25S Owners and hidlLlStl'y membicrs for the puirpose, of hicreasli1r, treecover
educatlion,aind support for and drnprovhng tree heafth un the cramimerciA W and �ndijstrareas of Reel
residents aind members of dIdentify and purSUP. OPI)OrtILAIMitics t,o work mth Landscape Ontario to pincreasc
awairciness arnoinp, miI of th".1 h0l'tkUltUrall and landscapkip undLlStry ot
the pulblil,c and pirivatesectoir thrrat5, trends and new research tlr turban forrstry,
12Engaf,112 11105plitalS, LiNversltipcs and coll1leges in [3,1 fin Urban torest
mainagement.
t. Work colllaboratJvely with School Boards to mucase, tirce cover on school
(qr0LllTdS.
RES.#A242/11 - 2012 FEE SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
PROGRAMMING
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2012 Fee Schedule for Public
Facilities and Programming.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
THAT the 2012 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming be accepted and
become effective upon Board approval.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Each year staff conducts a review of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming to determine any changes. This year staff
proposes no changes to be made and will adopt the Fee Schedule from 2011 as is.
RATIONALE
Staff has closely evaluated pricing structures of programs and offerings similar in operations to
TRCA across the GTA. Admission fees have been compared to other GTA attractions,
educational centres and conservation areas such as the ROM, the AGO, Ontario Science
Centre, Conservation Halton, Credit Valley Conservation and others. It has been determined
that TRCA fees remain competitive and should remain as current in 2012. In lieu of increasing
fees, strategies for "value -add" packaging and incentives will be implemented to increase
attendance therefore increasing revenue.
Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Pool
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 timelines 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;...
647
Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Admission Fee Comparison
• The total cost for an Adult to access the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Aquatic Facility
is $11.25
• The total cost for a Senior to access the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Aquatic Facility
is $10.25
• The total cost for a Child to access the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Aquatic Facility is
$4.75
In anticipation of the pools being open in 2011 the general admission and pool admission fees
were increased last year.
Below is a comparison of public swimming admission fees for some of our municipal partners.
There are no facility admission fees associated.
Pool Admission Fee Comparison
Municipality
2009
2010
2011
Proposed
2012
General Admission - Adult
$5.00
$5.50
$6.50
$6.50
General Admission - Senior
$4.00
$4.25
$5.50
$5.50
General Admission - Child
$0
$0
$0
$0
Pool Admission
$3.50
$3.75
$4.75
$4.75
• The total cost for an Adult to access the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Aquatic Facility
is $11.25
• The total cost for a Senior to access the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Aquatic Facility
is $10.25
• The total cost for a Child to access the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Aquatic Facility is
$4.75
In anticipation of the pools being open in 2011 the general admission and pool admission fees
were increased last year.
Below is a comparison of public swimming admission fees for some of our municipal partners.
There are no facility admission fees associated.
Pool Admission Fee Comparison
Municipality
Child and/or Youth
Admission
Adult Admission
City of Oshawa
$2.45
$3.80
City of Pickering
$2.23
$3.22
City of Ajax
$2.25
$4.05
City of Toronto
$1.00
$2.00
City of Brampton
$2.00
$2.15
City of Vaughan
$2.25
$4.22
Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Income Statement Comparison
REVENUE
2007-2009 Budget 2010-2011 Budget
(3 Year Average) (2 Year Average)*
2012 Projected
Budget
Total Revenue
$443,124 $99,712
$610,000
Total Expenditures
$434,622 $152,209
$473,000
NET
$8,501 ($52,497)
$137,000
*Pool closed 2010 and 2011
Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Annual Projected 7 Year Income Statement
•
2012
Year 2 Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Gross Revenue
$610,000
$646,600 $685,396
$726,520
$770,111
$816,318
$865,297
Gross
Expenditure
$473,000
$487,190 $501,806
$516,860
$532,366
$548,337
$564,787
Net Income
$137,000
$159,410 $183,590
$209,660
$237,745
$267,981
$300,510
Pay Back to
Reserve
75,000
$100,000 $125,000
$150,000
$175,000
$175,000
$200,000
•
Staff is expecting a net revenue of $137,000 in 2012 with a minimum of $75,000 going towards
TRCA reserves to pay back for the construction of the 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.
Report prepared by: Amanda Perricone, extension 5252
Emails: aperricone@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672
Emails: dedwards@trca.on.ca
Date: November 8, 2011
RES.#A243/11 - PLANNING AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATION COST RECOVERY.
Report on the consultation process and comments related to TRCA's
100% cost recovery for Planning, Permitting and Environmental
Assessment Fee Schedule - adjustments for 2012-2013.
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: David Barrow
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has established a new fee
schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment for 2012-2013,
incorporating a model of moving to 100% cost recovery through fee-for-service charges;
AND WHEREAS TRCA staff has consulted with BILD (Building Industry and Land
Development Association), through a working group, the provincial Conservation
Authority Liaison Committee (CALC), and TRCA's municipal partners, and have reported
back to the Authority on consultations to date;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the cost recovery recommendations inclusive
of the Proposed Fee Schedule for 2012-2013 be approved, and the fee schedule be
implemented as of January 2, 2012 with requested refinements of guidelines as requested
by BILD and CALC;
THAT TRCA and BILD prepare a fact sheet communication for the building industry
outlining the intent of the new fee schedule and clarifying the value of fee changes for
service delivery improvements;
THAT TRCA staff continue to address issues related to financial transparency, staff
training requirements, service delivery on plan review and performance standards with a
future BILD TRCA working group, Conservation Ontario and the provincial CALC, with
periodic reporting to the Authority on an as needed basis;
•
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA Environmental Assessment (EA) staff be directed to continue
to liaise with municipal works and infrastructure departments to refine service delivery
needs and cost recovery for permits and EA fast -tracked review requirements.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #9/11, held on October 28, 2011, Resolution #A228/11 was approved as
follows:
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 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
technical expertise and regulatory approvals;
AND WHEREAS TRCA staff monitor the level of service demands for planning, ecology,
engineering, hydrogeology, geotechnical and compliance reviews and report on an
annual basis on the implications of cost recovery;
AND WHEREAS the Authority has directed staff to report back with an assessment of full
cost recovery related to the service delivery for comprehensive planning and permitting
review operations;
AND WHEREAS TRCA's assessment of service delivery adheres to the provincial Ministry
of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority
Fees, TRCA's Fee Policy Guideline 2009 and provides a range of services according to
TRCA's Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the cost recovery recommendations, inclusive
of the Proposed Fee Schedule for 2012 be endorsed, and that staff be instructed to
consult with the development industry, the Province of Ontario and TRCA's municipalities
prior to final approval as per the provincial and TRCA guidelines;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority as to the comments received
during the consultation process, and provide recommendations for approval of the final
form of schedules, effective January 1, 2012.
TRCA staff issued a draft report for the 2012-2013 cost recovery proposal early in September
for consultation with BILD, Conservation Ontario, the provincial Conservation Authority Liaison
Committee, and engineering departments of TRCA's municipal partners. Through September,
October and November TRCA has conducted three working sessions with BILD
representatives, several meetings with Conservation Ontario, and one working session with the
provincial CALC Committee. TRCA has made comprehensive presentations to all parties on
issues within TRCA's report related to trends in workload and service delivery demand,
planning, permitting and environmental assessment file volume and complexity, shifts in level of
service, streamlining needs for plan review and plan submissions, and an overview of the
methodology used to calculate 100% cost recovery through TRCA's fee charges and budgeting
process. Further work has also been presented to BILD on case studies for planning
application and site permitting examples and these efforts will be presented in December to the
provincial CALC working group.
These working sessions have gone a long way to introduce the urgent need for moving
towards full cost recovery in TRCA's fee charges and for working with the building industry,
municipalities and Province of Ontario on issues of streamlining of efforts to deal with complex
technical requirements of file applications, as well as, the many layers of legislative
requirements that need to be addressed for diverse applications across the jurisdiction. As
CALC is developing guidelines for conservation authorities across the Province on fee
administration, it is most timely that TRCA be involved to provide input into the fee development
methodology for urban and redeveloping jurisdictions within the Toronto region.
BILD's response to TRCA's fee administration report and to supporting work sessions is in their
correspondence of November 17th, 2011 (Attachment 1). BILD's position is that any increase
in application fees should be commensurate with an equal level of service. BILD wants TRCA to
continue to work with them on the following issues as detailed in their letter:
• Transparency - a full disclosure of all financial modeling information;
• Training - continued training of staff on issues of plan screening (for advisory and
pre -consultation purposes) and execution of the fee schedule;
• Timeframes - maximum timeframes for review and re -submissions;
• clarification of definitions for application categories;
• reformatting of TRCA's fee schedule guidelines to provide more clarity for the
application of fees;
• provide benchmarking (performance standards) with annual review;
• TRCA/BILD Working Group to meet quarterly to discuss the progression of these work
components.
TRCA will work to address these requirements with on-going liaison with BILD, and in
consultation with CALC. It certainly was the intent of the changes to the fee schedule and
revenue generation to improve service delivery in Planning and Development, however, an
"equal" level of improvement may be difficult to project. TRCA staff is continuing to search out
areas of service delivery improvements, but these efforts need to be addressed with TRCA's
municipal partners as well. The importance of an improved pre -consultation process for
planning applications with TRCA's municipal partners and applicants, and internally for
construction permits will be essential for streamlining and improved processing.
TRCA will, as requested, complete a fact sheet communication for the building industry
outlining the intent of the new fee schedule and clarifying the value of fee changes for service
delivery improvements.
TRCA has also informed municipal engineering departments about the changes to the
Environmental Assessment Review fee schedule and is consulting on the implications to
current workloads, budgets and service level agreements. Fee arrangements and service
agreements will be tailored to each municipality and their specific service needs. Timeline
pressures for fast -tracking approvals will be addressed through consultation.
651
TRCA staff recommends approval of the current fee schedule proposal for 2012-13, subject to
minor changes to formatting, guidelines and areas of clarification which will be made in
consultation with CALC and BILD, for implementation January 2, 2012.
Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
Emails: cwoodland@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
Emails: cwoodland@trca.on.ca
Date: November 22, 2011
Attachments: 1
652
Attachment 1
113 ' "Iri if, I I � I �w' ( vir
D "" i('4 1 A""w" lw'�
Noveniber 17, 2011
Ms. Carolyn Woodland
Toronto and Region Conrervatlon Autlionty
5 Shorehain Drive
Downsview, Ontario
WN 134
RE!! 100%, Cost Recovery for Planning, Perinitting and Environmental Assessment Fee
Schedule -Adjustments for 2012-2 13
Dear Ms. Woodland,
Thank you for your conni-lued commitnient to, our working group discussions on the proposed fee
review. As a, follow-up to our No�,,reiiibe.r'15�'consultation meeting Care oiYer the folloiving
conirrients for your re-,iew and consideration at the November 25'� Authority Board ineeting.
In pmaciple., BILE) firinly believes that any increase in application fees, should be commensurate
ixith in equal level of senrice. In liglit of this, we recommend that the fortlicoming staff report
inchidea requirement to work xith the industry on the following action itenis, and f-Lirther that
stab be directed to report back to the board periodically on the progress nuide with the industry on
these matters (hi, mn2iticulm aidet):
L Transparency
AS youare aware, oTar working group (in conjunction with our consultant, IDI Group) has
spent a significantanicurit of tinie tlying, to understand the inethodology for diese fees.
Even now, we reinain uncertain of the financial inputs and calculation-, that have led to du -S
fee schedule. In Pinular fee revuea,w, with our Regional and Municipal partners, BILD
receives Full disclosure on all financial modeling inforniation.We would auggert that thn
information be prepared for onr continned consultation, and in an effort to establish
transparency for rhin fee review. This reqnestxill alma , support future fee review
consultation, by ensuring that we are not repeating the proceas of first understanding your
naethodolclgical approach.
2. Training (Internally and Externally)
As we heard in our inecting, over past few years there has been as significant turnover of
TEC. staff In light of des occurrerice, we belleve that screening application re-trainiqg
inay be beneficial for all parties. As the priniary sources of Suidarice to an applicant in the
development application review process we would also suggest re-training for general
policy standards and the iiit,-.rp,reta,tiorvi�iiiplenientition of this fee schedule.
3. Thuefraines for Planning, Permitting & Environmental Assessment Review
We believed that tiniefraines for Planning', Pei riiitting& Envizonniental Assessment
Re"ne-w aliould align or be inkeepingwith the Pkmrxir�gqzict requireinenta, for em-imale, ire
would generally expecta riiardniurai turn -around tinie of 30 days to review an application
and less than 30 days for an application ie-oubinisplon. We. heard at our ineeting, the
653
liniitations of TRCA being circulated a file late by the municipality and we will support
strengthening their responsibilities to you through the :ALC meeting...
4. Definitions
The current set of definitiono does notallow for anapplicant to determine the fee category
they fill into Oninor, major, standard, CoMplex) mithont having a preconmiltation meeting
oraconceptdevelo ment property inquiry (which hazn aassociated fee vxrithTR.C:Astaff
p
We strongly suggest that clarityand additional language be added to the current list of
definitions, which would generally allow ann applicant to deterinine which category, they fill
into. especially in due diligence stage of the developmentP rocess.
5. Formatting
As- discussed at our meeting, BILL would suggest that the mores section of the fee schedule
be directly embedded in the category uponwhich it is applicable to. We would also suggest
that the appeal mechanisin and dfhiiricnis be included at the begimmning of this fee schedule.
6. Benclimarldng 1perforiiiance ineasures)
In an effort to maintain an efficient level of service standard., BILL would also like to
ensure that perfonnance measures are iniplemented N7,ith this prograna. These perforniance
ineazures would involveadherence to timelinines and other matters. We would suggest an
annual review of these Measures, in order to incorporate any derived cliangess into an
updated fee schedule. This Information would also support the discussions at the
Conservation Authority Lialson Committee and future BILD TRCA wor-lang group
discusmons.
T Consultation
Throughout the pastcouple inontlis.we have met on several occasions and we have found
these ineeting to be very beneficial in understanding the constraints that the Authority has
and in turn theconntraints that our members (leap with on a regular basis. We would
strum ip,lyi-ecoiiinieiidc-ontinuedcoiisult.,ttioiiiiianis efYorttocoiiipletethe riletliodo,local
91
discusImlon. We would also suggest that the TRCAy"BILD worldrig Frolip meet On a
quarterly annual basis to discuss, upcoming policy refoinic, planning for trainingand
performance standards set-up/outcomes.
We greatly appreciate the factnsheet that you have preparedand provided to our working group (to
be latercircubted to, our membership at large). Wewould suggest that the Imckyrmind, nVesayid
respcmsibdities and tferids eau sovice deht,er demmid sections of the factsheet be reduced significantly and
that the tahje added seri,hces secthm take the primai-y attention of the reader. We thank you for the
oppor-tunity to, comment in this regard. We trust that yours will take these comments into
considerationand we look foi7vard to our continued consultation. If you have any question.- or
conclems., please don't hesitate tocontact the undersigned.
Sincerely.,
Damelle Chin MCEP RPP
Municipal Government Advisor
CC- Debmahldwr6pi! DkNem-, Dbrr, TRC4
Ruda Tenum, Eice Prezident, Palwy & QmymmenePdaweu, BILD
BILDITIRC4 Mm*mg C;nmp
654
RES.#A244/11 - EVERGREEN AT THE BRICK WORKS LEASE AGREEMENT
Extension of Loan Guarantee. Recommends extension of the loan
guarantee provisions of the lease agreement with Evergreen and the City
of Toronto for development and operation of the Don Valley Brick Works.
(Executive Res. #B 182/11)
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT the Lease Agreement with Evergreen and the City of Toronto for the development
and operation of the Don Valley Brick Works and the Capital Loan Guarantee with
Evergreen, the City of Toronto and the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) be amended to
extend the term of the current joint and several loan guarantee of $7.5 million (inclusive of
all interest, costs and charges) in respect of the Brick Works project by 18 months, from
its current expiration date of December 31, 2014, to expiration on the earlier of June 30,
2016, or the date of termination or payout of Evergreen's project construction financing
with RBC ("the financing");
THAT Evergreen be required to reduce the outstanding financing with RBC to $4.81
million by December 31, 2013, and to $1.0 million by December 31, 2014;
THAT the loan guarantee extension be subject to confirmation of approval by the City of
Toronto;
THAT all amending and extension agreements, and all other agreements and
undertakings, be on terms and conditions satisfactory to Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff and solicitor;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any and all actions
necessary to implement the amending agreement and Capital Loan Guarantee extension,
including obtaining needed approvals and signing and execution of documents.
CARRIED
RES.#A245/11 - MEETING SCHEDULE 2012-2013
To provide a schedule of meetings for the forthcoming Authority year,
beginning February 24, 2012 and ending February 29, 2013.
(Executive Res. #B 183/11)
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT the Schedule of Meetings 2012-2013, dated October 27, 2011, be approved;
THAT the Executive Committee be designated the powers of the Authority during the
month of August, 2012, as defined in Section 2.10 of the Rules of Conduct;
655
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.#A246/11 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT Section II items EX8.1 & EX8.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #10/11,
held on November 4, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
Section II Items EX8.1 & EX8.2
REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LAND
(Executive Res. #6184/11)
SEPTIC SYSTEM INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE. Policies regarding inspection and
maintenance of septic systems in Ontario.
(Executive Res. #6185/11)
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES.#A247/11 - IN THE NEWS
Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities and
news stories from July - October, 2011.
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT the summary of media coverage and Good News Stories from July - October, 2011
be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
As per Authority direction during 2006, a consolidated report covering highlights of Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities and news coverage for the preceding few
months is provided to the Authority every few months. The stories for July to October, 2011 are
as follows:
656
Healthv Rivers and Shorelines
th
Water News - Toronto Star's July 10 story, "Lake of HOPE; Leslie Scrivener finds six vibrant
reasons for optimism about the future of Lake Ontario, once thought to be dying",
highlights some of the Lake's ecological success stories. TRCA was interviewed for
the story.
Restoration - TRCA staff successfully negotiated $250,000 in compensation funds to offset
future impacts of constructing new bridge abutments in the Humber River. The
bridge expansion is required to facilitate the expansion in the Metrolinx Go
Georgetown South system. Three new rail tracks are required to meet high ridership
demand between Union Station, Pearson International Airport, and the communities
of Georgetown and Milton. The Humber Bay Marshes Project is considered a
signature project of TRCA and the Ministry of Natural Resources. It will provide
habitat for aquatic and amphibian estuarine species, and ties directly to the goals
and objectives of the Humber Watershed Strategy and the Lake Ontario Shoreline
Management Plan. With the funding secured, construction of the Humber Bay
Marshes project will begin this fall and carry -on through 2012.
• In September 12th Scarborough Mirror story, "A dip in Scarborough Beaches
provides cool family fun", mentions TRCA's work on the Rouge River to improve the
water quality which has helped swimming conditions at Scarborough beaches.
Education and Stewardship - TRCA and CVC staff held a successful workshop with
potential academic collaborators on a new research study examining the
hydrological effects of urbanization on natural features (water balance for wetlands,
woodlands and watercourses). There were substantial synergies between our
research objectives and the research experience and knowledge of the academics
in attendance. There was also much enthusiasm for collaboration and interest in the
topic. Strong partnerships will likely be forged as a result. There is also interest by
Ducks Unlimited, Conservation Ontario and Environment Canada, as this was a
priority research area they have identified. Some of these organizations may be in a
position to provide project funding. TRCA and CVC staff will be presenting the study
initiative to these groups.
• TRCA received $250,000 from Natural Resources Canada to develop national water
adaptation best practices and guidance document.
• McCutcheon Foundation contributed a second $20,000 to The McCutcheon
Environmental Weeks at Claremont.
• 66 people attended an erosion and sediment control workshop resulting in revenue
of $12,000.
• Inside Toronto's September 23rd story "Learn more about water at event in
Kingston -Galloway neighbourhood" encourages residents to learn more about water
- "where it comes from, what you can do to protect and conserve it and how it is
celebrated by various cultures", at a free event on September 24th, in Scarborough's
Kingston -Galloway neighbourhood. The afternoon of activities was presented by
University of Toronto Scarborough, TRCA and the Live Green Toronto Animation
Program.
• North York Mirror's August 12th story "Go with the flow at rain water workshop"
discusses how homeowners looking for practical ways to manage and benefit from
rainwater flow were invited to attend a workshop on August 23rd at Victoria Village
Library. The workshop was lead by Chris Denich, a water resource engineer and low
impact development specialist at Aquafor Beech Ltd., on behalf of TRCA and Live
Green Toronto.
657
Celebrations and Events - Representatives from Six Nations, Mississauga of the New Credit
and Huron-Wendat attended the unveiling of historical plaques in Etienne Brule Park
(Toronto) acknowledging the First Nations history in the Humber watershed. This
was part of The Shared Path/Le Sentier Partage project.
• The Heritage Sub -Committee of the Humber Watershed Alliance received Heritage
Canada's National Achievement Award for their work to protect, restore and
celebrate local heritage resources.
• In Vaughan Citizen's September 13th story "Vaughan protects oldest woodlot in
city" the reporter writes about the partnership between York Region and TRCA to
open Baker's Woods at a grand opening celebration.
• On September 22nd, the Brampton Guardian publishes story "Creek cleanup
Saturday". The story includes information about three Great Canadian Shoreline
cleanups organized by TRCA in Brampton, with cleanups also happening in other
communities across the country.
Infrastructure - Heritage bridge inventory is completed for the Humber River watershed.
• Watercourse crossing signs for the Don and Rouge watersheds were delivered to
Markham and York Region at the end of July and will be installed on local and
regional roads across the Town this summer.
Development Planning - Great Lakes Sustainability Fund (GLSF) is providing TRCA with
$10,000 to develop a research study that will support stormwater management
criteria to ensure that the hydrology of natural features (wetlands, woodlands, and
watercourses) is protected following urbanization. GLSF has indicated that
multi-year funding may be available to support this collaboration between TRCA,
Credit Valley Conservation and a number of other research collaborators. The study
will ultimately ensure that water balance (i.e. directing the same amount of water) to
natural features is maintained by employing appropriate pre -development analyses,
modelling and post -development mitigation measures.
• Toronto's major dailies mention TRCA in articles covering proposed plans for the
waterfront. Stories mention the environmental assessment, has been in the works
since 2003.
• September 23rd Scarborough Mirror story "Auto wrecker feeling pressure from
environmental group", discusses the Rouge Park Alliances disapproval over
Standard Auto's settlement over clean up. As part of the settlement Standard Auto
agreed to put in place "risk management measures to mitigate the likelihood of this
type of environmental event occurring again" and to keep the ministry, TRCA and the
Alliance informed regularly of its progress.
Regional Biodiversity
Conservation Lands - Acquired 103 hectares (254 acres) known as the Bolton Camp from
Hi -Lands Bolton. The property is located north of King Road on the east side of
Bolton. More details about the future use of the property to come.
• Brampton Guardian's July 25th story "Trail too intrusive: Critics" is about how a plan
to continue an urban -style multi -use trail through the northern part of Claireville
Conservation Area is being opposed by some residents and a university professor.
• •
• The Globe and Mail's October 1 st story "Brick by Brick tells the tale of a landmark; A
new documentary traces the Evergreen Brick Works from its industrial early days to
its eco -friendly present-day incarnation". The article mentions the site is actually
owned by TRCA which leases the buildings to Evergreen under a long-term contract
for $1 a year. The land falls under the TRCA's jurisdiction since it is designated an
ecological area, partly because it is in a flood zone among the ravine lands.
Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants and Wildlife - Monarch butterflies, a species of concern
nationally, is visiting milkweed plants throughout the jurisdiction.
• Collaboration between technical staff at TRCA and the Town of Richmond Hill
confirmed, through fieldwork in July, that fish passage in a tributary of the Upper
East Don river has been achieved as a result of Richmond Hill's rehabilitation of
Pioneer Pond. Previous to the rehabilitation, there was no passage for fish due to
the on-line stormwater pond. A new channel has been built that by-passes Pioneer
Pond and provides upstream passage for the small -bodied fish species that
commonly occupy this river system.
• TRCA staff has found redside dace (an endangered species) in a new location in the
east branch of Carruthers Creek. Previous records were limited to small areas of the
upper west branches of the watershed that will be affected by construction of a new
highway. This find provides some new hope for the resiliency of the population
within the watershed.
• Staff biologists found two occurrences of Hairy St. Johnswort, which are thought to
be the first North American records of this plant species. Staff will be looking to
publish these findings in an upcoming scientific journal.
• This fall, an adult female myrtle warbler was recaptured at Tommy Thompson Park.
This tiny warbler, which winters in the southern US, was originally banded at Point
Pelee Bird Observatory in 2006.
• In partnership with Credit Valley Conservation, Region of Peel and the municipalities
of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon, TRCA completed the Peel Region Urban
Forest Strategy. This strategy characterizes the structure and function of the
existing urban forest and provides goals and actions to guide individuals and
organizations in stewardship and management. The Strategy has been endorsed by
Peel Council.
• The Durham Business Times story "Ajax roundup a mild goose chase" on July 1 st is
about an annual goose roundup in a neighborhood park on Frenchman's Bay
conducted by TRCA. The goal of the roundup, which takes place from Ajax to
Mississauga in the second half of June, is to relocate the bothersome birds. Each
year between 1,500 and 2,000 feathered foes make the long drive by 18 -wheeler to
wetlands outside the GTA.
• The Londoner's story on July 7th, "Homeowners, hikers & explorers beware!!" lists
TRCA as a resource for information on hogweed, an invasive plant species.
• July 17th story in Toronto Star, "Dam! Beavers dig downtown Toronto; Big -toothed
mammals pick Queens Quay condo corridor as home", includes a quote from a
TRCA representative who says it is a good news story that we are seeing wildlife in
the harbor. It looks like, since TRCA started working on the waterfront, there are
many more opportunities for them to find habitat.
• In the Globe and Mail's August 20th article, "WEIRD WEATHER / BUGGING THE
ANIMAL KINGDOM"; the rise of the mosquito population possibly because of the
effects of global warming and unpredictable weather patterns is investigated. TRCA
ecologist was interviewed for the story.
• Toronto Star's September 26th story "Poisonous parsnips lurk along city trails; Signs
warning of danger posted near Humber" is about being aware of the dangers of wild
parsnip (an invasive non native species) when using trails along the Humber River.
• Brampton Guardian's October 31st story "Region targets ash borer" is about how
Peel Region Council is endorsing a new urban forest strategy that will, in part, aim to
curb infestations of the emerald ash borer. Terrestrial ecologist with TRCA told
councillors recently that these little critters, a non-native species that feeds on ash
trees, poses one of the biggest threats to Peel's urban forest.
Research and Innovation - Three years of redside dace research, in collaboration with the
University of Toronto, and support from MNR, has resulted in a publication in the
journal Aquatic Conservation, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, to be released
early in 2012 with TRCA listed as second author. The article presents TRCA's
methods and results for establishing population estimates of this endangered
minnow in several watersheds across the TRCA jurisdiction. The redside dace and
its habitat are protected under the provincial Endangered Species Act which affords
a level of management and recovery actions such that the species should remain
and hopefully increase its distribution and abundance in TRCA's watersheds though
the coming years of growth and land use change. Knowing what the populations of
redside dace are today is critical to being able to evaluate the management success
in the future.
Restoration - On July 19th, Mimico residents gathered with politicians, Toronto Waterfront
Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) and TRCA to celebrate the start of construction
on phase two of Mimico Waterfront Park, providing a significant revitalization
opportunity to this waterfront community. Mimico Waterfront Park was the focus of a
story in the Etobicoke Guardian article on September 10th - "Phase two of waterfront
park breaks ground".
• In partnership with the City of Mississauga, TRCA completed construction of 1 km
trail connection along the Etobicoke Creek Valley between Dixie Road and Courtney
Park Drive.
• In the Scarborough Mirror's July 7th story "Plan to pave Chine Meadow path draws
residents' ire" includes mention that the extension of the waterfront trail from Port
Union to Rouge Beach, one which makes it possible to walk alongside Lake Ontario
from the Bellamy Ravine to Rouge Park, should be open next July. TRCA
spokesperson mentions it will remain fenced for landscaping this year. Article also
mentions that an erosion -control project east of Bellamy Ravine under the
Meadowcliffe Drive bluffs is on schedule to be substantially complete by the end of
next year. It will create 600 metres of shoreline public access west from the foot of
the ravine, but will not reach the beach at Bluffer's Park.
• Inside Toronto story on September 1st "Construction will close parts of Glen Stewart
Ravine" is about how Glen Stewart Ravine, is set to undergo a series of upgrades in
the next few months through restoration work handled by TRCA on behalf of the City
of Toronto. The story lists upgrades including the installation of new wooden bridges
and staircases, trail resurfacing, slope stabilization work, new site furnishings, signs
and fencing and overall site restoration. A boardwalk will also be built to increase
user safety and protect the ravine's natural features.
• "History runs Deep in the Humber River" ran on September 13th in the Globe and
Mail, discussing the Carrying Place Trail. It also mentioned TRCA's role in the
Humber Valley and its acquisition of 9,000 hectares in the area that "laid the
groundwork for a new era in the life of Toronto's rivers".
• October 19th Pickering News Advertiser story "Pickering council gives up on
controversial waterfront property" discusses plans to demolish a former residence
on Pickering's western spit. The home was purchased jointly by Pickering and TRCA
in 1999. The property was purchased in an attempt to complete acquisition of the
western spit in order to preserve the environmentally sensitive heritage lands located
there.
Infrastructure - Restoration Services formed a partnership with York Region's Environmental
Services group for Infrastructure Hazard Monitoring. TRCA staff will be monitoring
over 300 water/wastewater erosion monitoring locations to prioritize erosion control
and stream rehabilitation works on behalf of York Region. TRCA is also expanding
its Stream Erosion and Infrastructure Database to include York Region infrastructure
and will be providing York Region with web -based access to the database in the fall
of 2011 as part of this anticipated long-term partnership. The goal is to identify
overlapping priorities to reduce duplication of effort and realize efficiencies, and to
identify opportunities for in -the -ground partnership projects.
• Secured an additional $100,000 from Onni Corporation for the Lower Mimico Trail
System. First link of the trail should open this spring.
Education and Stewardship - The Quinte EMC newspaper August 11th story, "The monarch
butterfly is a great teacher" is about how teachers from across the Kawartha Pine
Ridge District School Board region along with conservation authority environmental
and outdoors instructors attended a workshop to help incorporate the butterfly into
their curriculum. Includes quote from TRCA representative. Monarch Teacher
Network of Canada (MTN of C) completed their seventh and final Monarch
workshop of the season in Saint John, New Brunswick, August 25-26. There was
great media coverage with CBC NEWS, Global News, News 95.7 Radio (Halifax),
and local papers. This year, just under 150 participants attended workshops across
Canada. Next summer, MTN of C is planning ten workshops across Canada, and
has already confirmed support from The W. Garfield Weston Foundation. TRCA
administers and coordinates this national program with funding from The W. Garfield
Weston Foundation.
• TRCA Stewardship received $73,500 over three years from EcoAction for the
Don -Highland Pollinator Plants Restoration Project. It will include planting pollinator
plant meadows with students and volunteers. Sites include the Salvation Army
lands and Morningside Park.
• Scarborough Mirror story "Community gardens at places of worship focus of
workshop" on October 14th, writes about how faith groups in Toronto are an
untapped resource that could help reverse a world-wide decline in honeybees and
other pollinators. It mentions TRCA is working with a Scarborough church to
establish a community garden there, and hopes this weekend to inspire members of
other faith groups to create similar projects.
• In the Toronto Star October 21 st story "Eco -gardener follows natural route; Native
plants need less water and fertilizer to thrive", greener gardening is discussed and
includes a quote from a TRCA representative about native species in garden
centres.
Celebrations and Events - Beach Riverdale Mirror on August 26th includes story "Butterfly
festival takes flight Saturday at Leslie Spit" about the Tommy Thompson Park
Butterfly festival.
661
• In the Scarborough Mirror on October 14th, the story "Follow the fish this Sunday"
helped to promote the two hour walk and witnessing of salmon migration through
Morningside Park, hosted by TRCA and the Toronto Field Naturalists to get more
people interested in helping to restore the creek.
Development Planning - TRCA is closer to connecting the Lower Mimico Pedestrian Trail to
the waterfront. Staff recently secured approximately $170,000 from the Times Group
for this project and has received a development application for the last
privately -owned lot along the Park Lawn Road stretch. TRCA will therefore soon
secure public ownership of all of the lands required for this project to go ahead.
• In the National Post September 12th story "Stargazing site's fate goes to OMB;
Entering mediation; Owner eyes observatory site for development" discusses the
plans for the David Dunlap Observatory. The report mentioned that TRCA, which
helped the town assess the site's natural heritage value, says some level of
development could be feasible. But according to a TRCA representative: "It's a
question of how development should occur.... We would like to see the majority of
the natural heritage system protected in situ."
Human Interest - TRCA was the first conservation authority to have a member of staff
certified under the Society for Freshwater Science (formerly the North American
Benthological Society) for family level benthic invertebrate identification. This
certification will allow TRCA to maintain "family level" as our standard for benthic
sample identification and to improve the overall quality of samples collected through
our aquatic monitoring programs.
Sustainable Communities
Conservation Lands - TRCA is mentioned in several stories regarding the Toronto city
manager's recommendation to transfer Toronto Urban Farm to TRCA.
Research and Innovation - Toronto Star's August 12th story "Solarhenge puts panel
promises to the test" reports how Ontario has its own modern-day Stonehenge at
the Kortright Centre for Conservation in Woodbridge. The report talks about solar
modules found at Kortright. The Kortright Centre calls the area PVPV, and it aims to
become the country's premier facility for testing and showcasing made -in -Canada
solar technologies. The story includes a quote from a TRCA representative.
Education and Stewardship - On July 29, 2001, TRCA announced that Marisa Mancuso and
Paul Gay, of Brampton's County Court SNAP neighbourhood, are the recipients of a
free Green Home Makeover. The family will receive a complete green home
renovation that will include a high -efficiency HVAC system, insulation and
weatherization, energy efficient appliances, Energy Star windows and doors, low
flow toilets, rain barrels, permeable driveway, water efficient landscaping for the front
yard and other innovative green technologies and products. The Makeover will
showcase all aspects of a green lifestyle and demonstrate how homeowners can
adapt any one of the green retrofit improvements in their own homes. The project
will also show how green renovations can generate significant savings for years to
come and also improve home comfort. The construction will occur during August
and September, and the home will be unveiled at a ribbon -cutting celebration. This
home was selected based on an evaluation of 10 applications received from the
neighbourhood. News of the Green Home Makeover was published in The
Brampton News, Daily Commercial News, Flower City Mom and Homes Gone Green
website.
662
• TRCA received applications from 22 Lake Wilcox SNAP homeowners keen to be
selected for one of two Front Yard Makeovers. These demonstrations will showcase
eco -landscaping options that will contribute to water conservation, runoff reduction
and greater uptake among neighbours. The successful applicants will be selected
in summer with landscaping installations taking place over fall 2011.
• An article on SNAP program was featured in the summer issue of Sustainable
Builder Magazine.
• Peel Environmental Weeks program, delivered by Watershed on Wheels and Albion
Hill Field Centre staff, is piloting a new data collection process that will track
transportation, food and water usage by participating classes. This program,
supported through Peel Climate Change Mitigation funding, will give 14 classes of
students from the Region of Peel the opportunity to participate this school year.
• 50 people attended a permeable pavement workshop, which resulted in revenues of
$5,000.
Development Planning - Working in partnership with Peel, Toronto, Mississauga and
Brampton, TRCA utilized $35,000 in funding from the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities to complete the Pearson Eco -Business Zone Policy Toolkit, which
provides land use policy tools to promote a harmonized approach to green business
around Toronto Pearson.
• In Scarborough Mirror's August 18th story "Centennial College proposing
condominium residences for Guild Inn", Centennial College, after finding out its plan
for a boutique hotel cannot save Scarborough's historic Guild Inn, is proposing
something else that could: condominium residences. Because developers cannot
make a long-term sub -lease of the land work for condos, the report suggests that
TRCA would have to sell the parcel in the centre of its 88 -acre Guild Park.
Celebrations and Events - On Saturday, August 6th, the County Court Festival (part of the
SNAP project) attracted 125 people. Over 100 low flow shower heads were
distributed, over 50 high efficiency toilets were purchased at a great discount and
lots of people learned about the Green Home Makeover project and had input to the
draft Action Plan. Our private sector sponsors/donors for the Green Home
Makeover, including Reliance Home Comfort, Sears Canada, Green Saver, Water
Matrix, Hydro One Brampton and CMHC, participated in this event, which helped
give them profile in the community.
• McVean Farm in the Claireville Conservation Area hosted public open house to
promote its diverse urban agricultural products.
• Brampton Guardian's August 24th story "Celebrate the harvest at McVean Farm"
reports on how 200 people are expected to turn up at the Brampton incubator farm
to help celebrate a season's worth of sweat and toil. The McVean Incubator Farm
project is a partnership between TRCA and FarmStart. The program provides
prospective farmers access to land, equipment, infrastructure and mentorship
during the first five years of their farm business start-up. 200 people did attend the
harvest table dinner. FarmStart and their 20 on-site organic farmers provided the
food for the feast.
• The Albion Hills Community Farm was officially opened. Three hundred and fifty
guests enjoyed local food, agricultural tours and children's activities.
• In Caledon Enterprise September 1st story "Harvest time hits Caledon this month",
the writer says she is excited about the grand opening of the Albion Hills Community
Farm and mentions it receives support from TRCA.
663
• The North York Mirror's September 29th story "Enjoy the harvest at Jane and Finch
festival" is about the end -of -season harvest celebration at the Toronto Urban Farm
that includes a barbecue, free farm fresh produce, farm tours, face painting,
pumpkin carving and garden workshops. Five hundred people from the Jane -Finch
neighbourhood attended. The Toronto Urban Farm is a partnership between the
City of Toronto and TRCA. The farm sits on about eight acres of TRCA-owned land
near the southeast corner of Jane Street and Steeles Avenue at Black Creek Pioneer
Village.
• TRCA was awarded a World Green Building Council Chairman's Award for
significant contributions to the global green building movement.
• In the Toronto Star's September 10th story "Urban lumberjacks heading for Toronto"
information about Greenbuild is provided. The article mentions that the conference
program features long lists of educational sessions, a massive trade show and tours
to various LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) buildings in the
GTA, including the Archetype Sustainable House at The Living City Campus at
Kortright Centre, Evergreen at the Brick Works, Tridel's Republic condo project, the
Southbrook and Stratus wineries in Niagara Region, and many other examples of
sustainable design and building.
• Mississauga News' July 17th story "Businesses go green" reports on a group of
businesses working together to "green" their bottom line by creating an
internationally recognized 'eco -business zone' around Pearson International Airport.
An interactive workshop called Getting Results From Lean And Green 101 was
hosted on September 8th. 200 people attended Partners in Project Green (PPG)
and Bullfrog Power's Sustainability from the Inside Out Networking Event that
included panelists Coca-Cola, Sims Recycling and Nissan, all of which shared their
sustainability program and how it impacts their supply chain.
• Brampton Guardian's July 17th story "New facility makes a splash" reports on how
government officials recently held an official ceremony to mark completion of the
Heart Lake Conservation Area's new swimming pool and water recreation facility.
Partnerships - PPG has launched a partnership with the Emery Village Business
Improvement Area to roll-out eco -business programming to companies in this area
of Toronto. This brings another 2,100 potential business clients into the PPG
network.
• PPG, Durham Sustain Ability and the Region of Durham have confirmed support
from all of the utilities operating in the region to roll-out a Durham version of PPG in
early 2012.
• In Richmond Hill Liberal's August 5th story "Oak Ridges centre on schedule", the
Oak Ridges residents will get a new community centre, the town's largest and most
eco -friendly facility of its kind. A partnership has been established with TRCA to
provide an ecological education centre within the building. Town and TRCA nature
trails will lead to the education centre, where you can learn more about the land you
have just walked across.
Human Interest - In The Toronto Sun's August 31th story "Residents seek to break wind
; No turbines on the lake" reports on how a storm is brewing at City Hall over
Toronto Hydro's $1 -million wind measuring efforts in Lake Ontario. The report
mentions that TRCA voted in favour of a moratorium on off -shore wind turbines and
concerns about the technology being deployed across the Lake.
• Metroland Publication's August 2nd story "Alderville residents explore archeological
sites" discusses a First Nation Archaeological Liaison Training program. The
trainees worked on three archeological sites, including one close to home in
Plainville, a site on Jacob Island, north of Peterborough and sites with the TRCA
jurisdiction. The story includes a quote from a TRCA representative.
• In The Globe and Mail's story on July 16th "Growing and preserving: a natural fit; As
local -food movements grow, national and provincial parks are letting small-scale
urban farmers use their land" the global food reporter writes how national and
provincial parks bordering Canada's most populous cities are making an innovative
addition to the list of activities allowed on protected land: farming. The story includes
a quote from a TRCA representative.
Business Excellence
Education and Stewardship - TRCA Archaeology Unit, in partnership with the APA
(Association for Professional Archaeologist) and The Williams Treaty First Nations,
was instrumental in training the 2011 class of First Nations liaisons. Eight trainees
have graduated in a ceremony that took place at the Alderville First Nations
Community on July 27th.
Research and Innovation - Google is actively collecting "StreetView" images of many TRCA
parks this summer including; Glen Haffy, Bathurst Glen, Heart Lake, Boyd, Indian
Line/Claireville, Bruce's Mill, Glen Rouge and Petticoat Creek. In July 21st National
Post story "Google's cars come to aid of street view bikes" mentions how Google
street view captured photos of areas unreachable by car including Black Creek
Pioneer Village.
• Trails data has been updated for TRCA properties across the jurisdiction using
highly accurate GPS technology and airphoto interpretation.
Infrastructure - Construction has commenced on the Tommy Thompson Park infrastructure
project. A Staff Booth, Environmental Shelter and Ecological Research Station
valued at $2.3 million will represent the first significant investment of infrastructure
into Toronto's only "Urban Wilderness Park". This will enable more people to
experience Tommy Thompson Park and ensure its globally significant ecological
resources are protected.
Celebrations and Events - On August 18, 2011, TRCA's Mentoring to Placement Program
staff presented at the Mentorpalooza conference and recognition event. This
community event, hosted by Skills for Change, recognizes and celebrates mentoring
in the GTA for its successes in driving economic prosperity and social inclusion.
Program staff shared their experiences and lessons learned from piloting our own
mentoring program. Five other organizations throughout the GTA shared their
program with conference attendees, followed by a panel discussion.
• TRCA participated as part of Doors Open Vaughan at both the Kortright Centre for
Conservation and the Restoration Services Centre on the weekend of October
1 st/2nd. More than 50 visitors were welcomed at TRCA's LEED Platinum Restoration
Services Centre to explore sustainable architecture and learn about our archaeology
and cultural heritage programs.
• In September, Black Creek Pioneer Village received media coverage on the Pioneer
Festival via North York Mirror, CP 24, Snap North York and Toronto.com.
665
• Scarborough Mirror's September 30th story "Bethune Collegiate walks to a green
BEAT" is about an environmental club at the collegiate institute that held a
community event organized in conjunction with Live Green Toronto. It featured a
range of environmental organizations, including the Toronto Zoo, TRCA, Rouge Park
and the Toronto Environmental Alliance, as well as smaller groups such as the
Friends of the Rouge Watershed and the Toronto Chinese for Ecological Living.
• Brampton Guardian's story on October 26th "Event focuses on environment" is
about this year's keynote speaker at the Charles Sauriol Environmental Dinner -
Michael Smith.
• In October Black Creek Pioneer Village publicity campaign included stories on
Howling Hootenanny and All Hallow's Eve that appeared on CP24, Fairchild TV and
InsideToronto.com.
Financial Capacity - The Conservation Foundation hosted a number of corporate events in
July. Folks really enjoyed getting their hands dirty.
• June was the highest on-line sales of floodplain mapping since contracting with First
Base Solutions in spring 2010. We totalled over $1,000 of which TRCA received
almost $700.
• Received $12,400 from the Toronto Field Naturalists for Kortright School Field Trip
Bus Grant Program.
• Through some great work with Summer Interactive Learning summer camps, Black
Creek Pioneer Village has increased its summer attendance by approximately 1,200
more students in July and August. These camps are operated in Peel and York
regions. Another 500 from SchoolHouse Playcare Centres also had a great time at
the Village. The Village looks forward to working more with these groups in the
future.
• This spring, Black Creek Pioneer Village received a grant from Human Resources
and Skills Development Canada to upgrade the accessibility of the Visitors Centre.
As a result of this grant, seven more doors were outfitted with automatic door
openers, making the Visitors Centre much more user-friendly for young, old and
anyone with mobility difficulties.
• TTC advised they will continue the service agreement with TRCA for next year for
review and approvals of subway works.
• The Green Home Makeover, part of County Court Sustainable Neighbourhood
Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP), has been selected to participate in Shell's
FuellingChangeT" program and will receive $10,000 for marketing and
implementation. The Makeover will be profiled on the FuellingChange website with
the opportunity to receive more funding based on voting by Shell customers and the
public.
Human Interest - For the second year in a row we entered a TRCA club team in the 24 hour
mountain bike relay race at Albion Hills. We managed 19th out of 53 while beating
two teams from Golder and Associates and 2 teams from Pinchin Environmental.
• • •
• David Lawrie, an aquatic biologist in the TRCA Ecology Division and founder of the
outreach group Citizen Scientist, is being honoured at the 2011 State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) for his organization's outstanding contributions in
environmental protection through stewardship and outreach activities within the
Rouge River watershed. The award is titled 2011 SOLEC Success Story Honoree
and will be presented to David by the U.S. Consul General in Toronto and the
Canadian Consul General in Buffalo. This is a bi-national award that is well
deserved by David. His dedication and knowledge is equally applied to his work at
TRCA; all his colleagues wish him the very best and congratulations.
• 75 media stories were found through an FP Infomart search for stories that included
mention of TRCA from July to October. This does not include community event
listings, broadcast hits or online stories.
• In July, North York Mirror features story "Turning a Page at Black Creek Pioneer
Village" about the new Timeless Tales themed activities held at the Village in the
summer. Examiner.com also writes about the program in the article "Story weekend
at Black Creek Pioneer Village".
• Black Creek Pioneer Village received publicity for its One Mile Beer project,
including a feature story in the Toronto Star, Metro Morning, North York Mirror,
Fairchild TV and several beer blogs.
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: November 8, 2011
RES.#A248/11 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT Section IV items AUTH9.2.1 & AUTH9.2.2 in regard to Watershed Committee
Minutes, be received.
Section IV Items AUTH9.2.1 & AUTH9.2.2
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #9/11, held on October 13, 2011
ETOBICOKE-MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION
Minutes of Meeting #3/11, held on Setpember 15, 2011.
667
RES.#A249/11 - GLEN ROUGE CAMPGROUND
Receipt of the Glen Rouge Campground 2011 operating season report.
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT the report summarizing the Glen Rouge Campground 2011 operating season be
received.
CARRIED
ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
RES.#A250/11 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
Moved by: Richard Whitehead
Seconded by: Glenn Mason
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.1 - EX10.57, with the exception of EX10.12 -
220 Greyabbey Trail, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #10/11, held on
November 4, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
RES.#A251 /11 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Jim Tovey
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 item EX10.12 - 220 Greyabbey Trail, contained in
Executive Committee Minutes #10/11, held on November 4, 2011, be deferred to the
Executive Committee.
CARRIED
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:01 p.m., on Friday, November 25, 2011.
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Chair
• • •
Brian Denney
Secretary -Treasurer
khk
01FTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #11/11
January 6, 2012
The Authority Meeting #11/11, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village,
on Friday, January 6, 2012. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at
9:36 a.m.
PRESENT
Maria Augimeri
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Vice Chair
Ben Cachola
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Bob Callahan
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Ronald Chopowick
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Vincent Crisanti
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Glenn De Baeremaeker
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Michael Di Biase
9:45 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Chris Fonseca
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Colleen Jordan
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Mujeeb Khan
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Chin Lee
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Gloria Lindsay Luby
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Glenn Mason
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Mike Mattos
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Chair
Linda Pabst
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
John Parker
9:43 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Anthony Perruzza
10:03 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Dave Ryan
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
John Sprovieri
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Cynthia Thorburn
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Jim Tovey
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
Richard Whitehead
9:36 a.m.
11:14 a.m.
Member
ABSENT
Paul Ainslie
Member
David Barrow
Member
Jack Heath
Member
Peter Milczyn
Member
Gino Rosati
Member
•
RES.#A252/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
MINUTES
Ronald Chopowick
Linda Pabst
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #10/11, held on November 25, 2011, be approved.
CARRIED
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Linda Pabst declared a conflict of interest in regard to item EX7.1 - 2015 Pan/Parapan American
Games and the Caledon Equestrian Park as she assists with an event held at the equestrian
park and a family member is involved in organizing another event at the facility.
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Gord MacPherson, Senior Manager, Restoration and Environmental
Monitoring Projects in regard to item AUTH8.1 - Habitat Restoration Projects.
RES.#A253/11 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Bob Callahan
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be received.
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A letter dated December 15, 2011 from Don Pearson, General Manager, Conservation
Ontario to Leo Tasca, Manager, Ministry of Energy, in regard to Feed -In Tariff Program
Two -Year Review.
RES.#A254/11 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Jim Tovey
THAT the request of Conservation Ontario to the Ministry of Energy for conservation
authorities to be eligible for the microFIT program be endorsed by Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority;
AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario and the Ministry of Energy be so advised.
CARRIED
671
CORRESPONDENCE AUTH(A)
Decernbeir 15, 2011
Leo Tasca
Manager.,Winistry of Energy,
Renewables and Eineirgy Efficiieinicy
88O BaiyStreet
Torointo, ON WA 221
Dear (~Jllir. Tasica:
RE: Feed -lin, Tariff Program Two -Year Review
This letter is, Ibeing SIdbrinjitted on Ilaehallf of Ontado's 36 Conseirvatii0inj Authorilties. Conservation Ontario is the
network of Ointaric's Conservation Authoriflies which are cominnunjity-lbased watershed management agencies
clediicated to conserving, irestoiniumg and managiiing Ontairi'10's, naturall resources on a watershed basis., Ninety
percent of Untario's popWation lives iin a wateirshield manaiged bya Conservation Authority.
Conservation Dntairiio welcoirnies this opportunity to provide cornii-nients on Ontario's Feedl-lin Tariff Program.
Conservafloin Authoidties support the green energyagenida and renewable energy jprojiects iin geneir&I,-and
recogniize the need for such a mitigation strategy in response to climate chainge. This letter Will focus
specilficalHly oin the Eligilble Partilcilpainit Schedule for the micrdFIT program.
On Apr 11 4, 2011 the Manager of Policy and INanning from Conservatilon Ontario sent the attached Iletteirto the
Co -Chairs of the irniciroFIT Program Adiviscry Panel outliiiniing the bushiess case for the relinstatement of
Conservation Authorities as elitible 1pairti'ci'pants in the Ipirogram. It wars the hope thait Conservation Authorities
coWdl be included iinj the Schedule dii the Pan6l's periodiic review of eligible participants. Siince that time,
another Conservation Authority has had their application fiDr a m1croFIT piroject rejlecte,d due to the i
IPaiirticipaint Scheddle.
At theiiir December 5, 2011 mleeting, Conservation Ontario CojuncH provided the, folHowing res6luition:
THAT the attached letter re.: "Updating microFlT Eligible Participant Schedule to, include
Conservation Authorities" and dared Aprif,4, 2011 be endorsedfor resubmissions to the
Ministry of Energy inresponse to the "Feed -in Tariff Program Two -Year Review", -
AND that this be circulated to the Conservation Authorities fear their endorsement.
I I Hiox, 11, 120 Ha,vvio,vv, I lailkmry `,l rviiymilloi�l )Iriiu tui 1C)
G1751 Irl lilt
rVWIio Ira
672
Conservation Authoidties a 1ppe air to dlearly meet the lntent of the E I ig,lble Participant SchecluIe and Naive the
potential to Ibe important alllies in the province's Green Energy Agenda. Many of the 1pirevi'lous Conservation
Authoirilty, projects that w1eire approved unidleir the rnicroHT pirograrn have been used as educafional
ojppiortuiniitiesl- in 2010., 4,400 schools and over 470.,010,0 students participated iii environmental education
programs ruin by Conservation Authorities.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our recluest for rei'nstaitement of Conservation AuthoriVes as
eligiblie participaints M Ontairl'o's, rinilcroFIT program. IIf you have any questions regarding this Metter or irequiiire
additiona] details, p1lease give me a call at 905-895-0716, ext 231 or IBannie Fax at extension 223.,
Sincerely,
IDan Pearson
General Manager
c.c. CAOs, N11 Conservation Authoirifties,
I attachment
673
in
Conservation
0 NTA R 10,
Ms. Pearl ling
Co-Chalir miciroFIT Program Advisory Panel
Director, Renewable Energy Facifitatilon Branch
Ministry of Energy
77 GrenviHe Street., 9'h IFloor
Toronto, ON MSS 11133
Ms. Patricia ILlightburn,
c/o Co Chair miciroFIT Program Advisory Panel
Ontario Power Authority,
Suite 1600, 120, Adelaide Street West,
Toronto, ON
M51-1 IT1
April 4, 2011
IRE: Updating microlFITEllgible Participant Schedule to inclucle Conservation Authorities
IDeaii Ms. 1111% drid Ms. Ligh0bur m:
Conservation Ontario is the inetwork of Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities (CAs). Conservation Authorities
are community-based watershed management agencies dedicated to conserving, restoring and managing
Ontario's natural resources oin aI watershed basis. Ninety percent of Ontario's population lives in a watershed
rn ana geld by aI CA,
It has come to theattention of Conservation �Ointario that CAs are not currently included in the EligibIle
Rairticipaint SchedUle for Ontario Plower Authority's miciroFIT program despite the fact that they have been
considered eligible lin the past fir micro1FIT programs. This letter outlines the case for inclusion of CAS in the
Eligible Participant Schedule and a Iresponse would Ibe, appreciated at the earliest opportunity.
It is our understanding that the Schedule is subject to review and updating and that this program is focused
pirimairfly on non-commerc4l applicants, A review of the current Eligible Participant Schedule shows that
Conservation Authorities halve similar characteristics to those that are indicated as elligible and the foflowing
examp1es highfight these sirnilarRies. Under the "Projects i'n youlr neighbourhood section",, local) schools,
community centres, and non-profit organizations arelincluded. CAs aire non-profit organizations whose
purpose, is to serve, their watershed community. Mlainy CAs have ro,blust education Programs which serve local
schools and Boards, complement the Ontario curricUlum, and operate outdoor education facilities. CAs have a
tradition of showcarsing their green energy Iprograrrrs for educational) purposes. The Elligible Participant
Schedule adsol includes miunicipailities. CAs are created at the request of municipaifities, the majority of their
funding comes from their municipal Partners and CAs are governed by representatives from those
I' 1") Hoo", I I L�"'10Hl'rLrvivv� Pl,111 ll,rliay l'l)vv'mi"nI'Iki'-J ")Iikvii';[ I M, IVV�;
""�V I �" � ax, ��J F) �51 � n'll"1111 ca
1( r9 9'.(10fsei"nN'Th"), !','l
674
nm u nicipafifties. IRegi'steiried charities such as faith -based grolulps, are also efligibi1e pairdicipants; imainy Cis are also
registered charities.,
lCased on the current list of 61igi1)Ie participants and the above referenced si'mi'lla ritiles., CAsappear to meet the
(intent o f the E I iig 1 lb I le Part c I 1pa int S,c In e d u I e fair ir 0 PA's m I circ IF 11 T I roig ra rn a n cl, can b e h a I f of oi u ir m ern be ir CAs, ilt is
respectfuUly requested that they be consIldeired ehgible undeir this program.
Coinservaflon Ontairib acknowledges that the IPPA is currenfly consHering the iimplementation of ai njew FIT
program for commercial aggriegaUons which is proposed tic) be open to all types of appi1icants. We WoUld
suigges,t however that C.As are a bettleir "fit" under the, non-comirnercial IElliigible Pairticiipant Schedule due, to
their similairities, with otheir approved institutions. Moreover.,, there is coincerin that the appification costs
associated with the new Commercial piirograiim may be overly punitive, considering that CAs, are non-profit
organizations, and imany of whorn acre registered charities.
Thank you in advance for your consiMerationand a re -sponse woulld be appreciated at the i opportunity.
If you have any questibins regarding this letter or require additional) detaills, Iplease give me a cafll at 905-895-
0716 extension 223 or Leslie Rich at extension 228.
Sincerely,,
Boinini'le IFox
Manager, Poficy and I'llanning
675
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#A255/11 - HUMBER RIVER MARSHES
Ministry of Natural Resources Class Environmental Assessment Project.
Support for the 'Lower Humber River Wetland Complex Class
Environmental Assessment'.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Chris Fonseca
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) support, in principle, the 'Lower
Humber River Wetland Complex Class Environmental Assessment;
AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and Ontario Streams be so
advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Lower Humber River Marshes are a provincially significant wetland complex located
approximately half a kilometre upstream of the mouth of the Humber River in the City of
Toronto. The wetland complex is classified as provincially significant due to its historical
importance in juvenile warm water game fish production and the many locally and provincially
significant species that may be found there. The lands within the Lower Humber River Marshes
are owned by TRCA and the City of Toronto and managed by the City of Toronto.
The Lower Humber River Marshes Wetland Complex is one of the few remaining coastal
wetlands in the Toronto area. Studies have shown that wetlands are pivotal in maintaining the
hydrological functions within a watershed. Wetlands control and store run-off, aid in flood
control, affect groundwater recharge/discharge, improve water quality through filtration and
provide shoreline protection and erosion control. Additionally, wetlands are known to provide
critical habitat for numerous natural heritage resources including fish, birds, reptiles,
amphibians, mammals and insects.
TRCA staff, in conjunction with MNR, Ontario Streams, Environment Canada, and the City of
Toronto, participated in a working group that produced an environmental study report (ESR) for
the Lower Humber River Marshes as part of the Category C Project Evaluation and Consultation
Process as outlined in "A Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and
Facility Development Projects". The Environmental Assessment (EA) was initiated by Ontario
Streams and, although TRCA does not require an EA to perform restoration works on TRCA
lands, this EA facilitates the restoration activities necessary to restore the Humber River
Marshes. The EA affects both TRCA lands and adjacent lands therefore MNR has requested
that TRCA support the EA, in principle.
The study area covered in the EA consisted of the wetland cells, the adjacent section of the
Humber River and the parklands spanning from the mouth of the river at Lake Ontario north to
Dundas Street West. The study area is consistent with the current and future plans, and the
interests, of TRCA and the City of Toronto. The preferred alternative for restoration in the Lower
Humber River Marshes Wetland Complex was developed with public and agency input. The
preferred alternative involves, among other activities, the combination of:
676
• restoring the wetland cells through environmentally passive techniques that blend with the
existing natural characteristics of the area (for example, the restoration of levees in locations
in which they were historically present and planting them with native wetland vegetation);
• restoration planting and reforestation;
• removing and managing invasive species;
• habitat restoration for native fish species;
• adding habitat structures for amphibian reproduction;
• adding nesting beds for turtles;
• adding nesting structures for birds;
• introducing native species to the study area.
TRCA plans to restore the lower two wetland lagoons in 2012 and 2013. With the intent to
improve water quality and restore habitat for fish, and other wildlife.
RATIONALE
TRCA representatives on the Lower Humber River Wetland Complex Working Group ensured
that the recommendations of the EA are consistent with the objectives of TRCA. TRCA will
undertake all of the large scale restoration components of the EA and will secure all requisite
permits and approvals. TRCA previously secured funding through the Great Lakes
Sustainability Fund to produce detailed design drawings for the restoration of the two
southernmost wetlands (Wetland # 1 and Wetland # 3). The detailed designs outlined the
construction of three separate berms which will isolate these two wetlands from the effects of
the Humber River and from common carp (a detrimental, invasive fish species). The detailed
designs also included the installation of a fish passage structure in two of the berms to allow
native fish species to enter each wetland and make use of important spawning and nursery
habitat.
The isolation and restoration of the two most southern wetlands in the Lower Humber River
Wetland Complex will restore approximately 8.4 hectares of coastal wetland. TRCA's
Restoration Services Division is a leader in habitat restoration and employs a science based,
adaptive management approach to wetland restoration. TRCA's Restoration Services has a long
history of restoring degraded coastal wetlands such as those found within the Lower Humber
River Wetland Complex. The most recent example of which is the successful restoration
undertaken in Duff ins Marsh. The restoration of a large (approximately 17 hectares) wetland in
Duff ins Marsh is very similar to the restoration proposed for the Lower Humber River Marshes.
Similarly to the restoration proposed in the Humber Marshes, the restoration of the wetland in
Duff ins Marsh included the installation of a carp barrier which allowed for the establishment of
aquatic vegetation that provides excellent habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife.
The restoration of wetlands in the Lower Humber River Marshes Wetland Complex will assist
the Toronto Remedial Action Plan in delisting Toronto as an Area of Concern, is aligned with the
objectives of the Humber River Fisheries Management Plan and will help meet the targets set in
the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy and report cards.
677
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the restoration of the Humber River Marshes has been secured from successful
grants to the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund ($88,000 and an additional $50,000 anticipated in
2012 - 2013) and from funding designated for compensatory habitat from Metrolinx for the
Georgetown South Service Expansion - Union Pearson Rail Link ($250,000).
Report prepared by: Meg St John, extension 5628
Email: mstjohn@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
Email: gmacpherson@trca.on.ca
Date: October 14, 2011
Attachments: 2
• •
Attachment 2
RES.#A256/11 - ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE REGIONAL
MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL
Installation of New Sign for Claireville Conservation Area. Humber River
Watershed. Recommends entering into an encroachment agreement for
a twenty year term with the Regional Municipality of Peel to permit a new
sign for the north entrance to Claireville Conservation Area to encroach
upon a portion of the widened limits of Queen Street East (Regional Road
7), City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Chris Fonseca
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into an encroachment
agreement with the Regional Municipality of Peel for the installation of a new sign for the
north entrance to Claireville Conservation Area, said land being Part of Lot 5, Concession
9 ND, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel;
THAT the term of the encroachment agreement be twenty years with a mutual right to
terminate upon sixty days notice;
THAT TRCA be responsible only for the payment of the Registration Fee and no other
payments to the Region;
THAT other terms and conditions of the agreement be satisfactory to TRCA staff and
solicitor;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to
implement the agreement including obtaining needed approvals and the signing and
execution of documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
As part of the updating of signage at the north entrance to Claireville Conservation Area, which
will be installed on property owned by the Regional Municipality of Peel (i.e. on the widened
Queen Street East road allowance), Region of Peel staff requires that TRCA enter into an
encroachment agreement prior to the issuance of a permit for the installation of the sign.
A plan illustrating the location of the subject sign is attached.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for costs related to the agreement including the Registration Fee ($71.30), will be
charged to the Claireville Programs / Infrastructure Account.
Report prepared by: George Leja, extension 5342
Emails: gleja@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: George Leja, extension 5342 or Mike Ferning, extension 5223
Emails: gleja@trca.on.ca or mfenning@trca.on.ca
Date: December 13, 2011
Attachments: 1
Attachment 1
RES.#A257/11 - MARY LAKE ESTATES INC.
Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Authorization for party status and to
appear before the Ontario Municipal Board on referrals related to a Draft
Plan of Subdivision application and a Zoning By-law Amendment
application to permit the development of a proposed plan of subdivision
on a 24.92 hectare (61.5 acre) parcel of land located west of Keele Street
and south of the 15th Sideroad, described as Part of Lot 10, Concession
4 in the Township of King, Regional Municipality of York.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Chris Fonseca
THAT staff be directed to request party status before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)
and to appear on behalf of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in an
appeal of a Draft Plan of Subdivision application and a Zoning By-law Amendment
application on a parcel of land located west of Keele Street and south of the 15th
Sideroad, described as Part of Lot 10, Concession 4 in the Township of King, Regional
Municipality of York (File Nos. 19T -10K01 and Z-2010-16);
THAT the OMB be advised that TRCA has outstanding issues relating to the Draft Plan of
Subdivision application and Zoning By-law Amendment application;
THAT staff be directed to work cooperatively with TRCA's municipal partner and the
appellant to ensure that the requirements of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management
Program (VSCMP) and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) are met;
THAT staff be authorized to retain legal counsel to pursue this appeal before the OMB, if
required;
AND FURTHER THAT the OMB and all parties and participants to the hearing be so
advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Description of the Applications
The proponent submitted applications to amend the Zoning By-law and for Draft Plan of
Subdivision to permit the development of a proposed plan of subdivision consisting of 100
single detached lots and multiple blocks for public open space, private open space,
environmental protection, environmental/open space buffer, stormwater management, park
space and private residential uses.
The subject lands are currently designated Low Density Residential 6 and Environmental
Protection in the King City Community Plan.
The applications were appealed to the OMB by the proponent based on the Township of King's
failure to render a decision on the proposed Plan of Subdivision and its neglect to enact the
proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, pursuant to the Planning Act.
The applications were initially circulated to TRCA on March 25, 2011. TRCA staff submitted
written comments on the applications to the Township of King and the proponent on May 4,
2011. These comments were provided based on staff's review of the applications and our
previous involvement in the King City North-West Study Area `D' Functional Servicing /
Development Area Study (FS/DAS). TRCA staff had been extensively involved in the review of
the King City North-West FS/DAS and most of TRCA's issues on the subject site had been
addressed through this larger planning exercise for future development within the north-west
quadrant of King City.
Description of the Area
The Mary Lake Estates Inc. property is approximately 24.92 hectares (61.5 acres) in total area
and is located on the west side of Keele Street, south of the 15th Sideroad, in the north-west
quadrant of King City, in the Township of King. There is an existing estate residential
subdivision to the south and west, the Mary Lake Augustinian Monastery and St. Thomas of
Villanova College to the north, and agricultural lands to the east.
The entire property is located within a designated "Settlement Area" according to the provincial
government's Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP). The proponent has been
working with TRCA and Township staff to ensure this proposal conforms to the provisions of the
ORMCP, which includes the identification and protection of the Key Natural Heritage Features
and Key Hydrologic Features on the property. This work was provided as part of the King City
North-West FS/DAS, which is the background document for these site-specific Draft Plan of
Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.
Through this background work, several natural features were identified on and adjacent to the
site. These include two well -vegetated tributaries of the East Humber River, woodlands and
several Provincially Significant Wetlands. These features generally run north -south through the
site in two well-defined corridors. The remaining portions of the site have historically been used
for agricultural purposes. There is an existing home on the central portion of the site.
The watercourses and wetlands on and adjacent to the property are regulated by TRCA
pursuant to the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and
Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulation 166/06). A permit is required from TRCA for
works within the Regulated Area.
RATIONALE
The Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications were referred to the
OMB by the proponent primarily to resolve density and urban form issues.
TRCA's issues have been moving toward resolution for some time. Based on staff review of the
proponent's latest submission, there are only three outstanding issues relating to the Draft Plan
of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications submitted by Mary Lake Estates
Inc. These three issues should be relatively straight forward to resolve.
(1) Development Limits in the South-east Corner of the Site
While the proponent has demonstrated that floodlines do not significantly affect development
limits adjacent to the western tributary, it appears that the floodlines of the eastern tributary will
affect adjacent development limits in the south-east corner of the site. As such, the proponent
must confirm that the topographic mapping used to develop those floodlines meets TRCA
standards for flood plain mapping and flood hazard delineation. Staff outlined the steps
needed to make the mapping acceptable to TRCA in an email dated April 27, 2010 and letter
dated May 4, 2011. At this time, this comment remains outstanding and needs to be addressed
so that the limits of development on the property can be finalized.
(2) Location of the Eastern Stormwater Management Block
The most eastern of the three Stormwater Management Blocks extends up to the limits of the
adjacent Environmental Protection Block. The limit of this Stormwater Management Block
needs to be adjusted to provide a 10 metre (33 foot) buffer to the Environmental Protection
Block, consistent with the buffer provided between Environmental Protection Blocks and
Stormwater Management Blocks elsewhere in the draft plan and other developments in the
King City Community Plan area.
(3) Clarity and Labeling of the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Schedule to the Draft Zoning
By-law Amendment
TRCA's remaining comments on the Draft Plan of Subdivision application and Zoning By-law
Amendment application relate to the clarity and labeling of the draft plan and schedules. For
example, there is no zoning label shown on the western natural features/hazards/buffers and
stormwater management blocks on Schedule `1' of the Draft By-law. TRCA staff recommended
that these areas be placed in an EP Environmental Protection Zone consistent with the eastern
features/hazards and stormwater management blocks. These changes should be made to the
materials for accuracy.
In light of these issues, TRCA staff is requesting the authorization of the Authority to secure
party status in this matter at the OMB Prehearing Conference scheduled for January 9, 2012.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff will continue to work with the proponent and the Township of King to find an
amenable resolution to this matter in order to avoid a hearing. Staff has already contacted both
the Township Planning Department and the proponent in this regard. Given the nature of the
outstanding comments and our working relationship with the Township and the proponent thus
far, it is expected that the outstanding comments of TRCA can be addressed prior to the
hearing.
Should a resolution not be reached between the parties, TRCA staff is also requesting the
authorization of the Authority to attend the OMB hearing to ensure that TRCA interests are
protected and addressed. Staff will retain legal counsel for the hearing should it be deemed
necessary. Should legal counsel be retained, staff will coordinate with the other parties to
ensure TRCA's presence at the hearing is shortened and legal costs are minimized.
Report prepared by: Coreena Smith, extension 5269
Email: csmith@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Coreena Smith, extension 5269
Email: csmith@trca.on.ca
Date: December 15, 2011
Attachments: 2
• • •
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
CJ
.1 gala p
a.Mh
IL
'! -�
RES.#A258/11 - ONTARIO ECOCENTRES PROGRAM
Update on the Ontario EcoCentres Certification Program.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Chris Fonseca
THAT Black Creek Pioneer Village, the Kortright Centre for Conservation, Albion Hills
Field Centre, Claremont Field Centre and Lake St. George Field Centre be recognized for
their achievement of Ontario EcoCentres Certification during the pilot year of 2011;
AND FURTHER THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) recognize the
contributions of the founding partners in the development of the Ontario EcoCentres
program.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Ontario EcoCentres program was designed to assist education centres develop
sustainable operating models utilizing a series of comprehensive certification guidelines. These
education centres, including environmental/outdoor education centres, zoos museums, and
other learning centres, serve the student population of Ontario through field trips and
out -of -class excursions. By joining the Ontario EcoCentres program, participating centres are
able to demonstrate sustainable operating practices while establishing a framework to reduce
their carbon emissions.
Working in collaboration with eight founding partners, TRCA has led the development of the
Ontario EcoCentres program. The contributing partners consist of the following education
organizations:
• Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;
• Conservation Halton;
• Downsview Park;
• Humber Arboretum and Centre for Urban Ecology;
• Peel District School Board;
• Royal Botanical Gardens;
• Toronto Zoo;
• York Region District School Board;
• Education Alliance for a Sustainable Ontario.
Building on the success of the Ontario EcoSchools program, which engages schools and
school boards, Ontario EcoCentres has been tailored to the unique needs of the education
centres that serve Ontario's formal education system. The Ontario EcoCentres program has
been structured around 10 specific guidelines, each focused on improving the overall
sustainability of the centre. In order to become certified, applying centres are required to, at
minimum, meet the specific criteria outlined in the first three areas. The 10 Ontario EcoCentres
components consist of:
1. Teamwork and Professional Development;
2. Occupancy Behaviour and Resources Conservation: Energy, Water and Waste;
3. Curriculum and Programming;
4. Environmental Quality and Human Health;
5. Procurement;
6. Biodiversity and Sustainable Sites;
7. Infrastructure Renewal and New Construction;
8. Transportation and Fleet Services;
9. Social Equity;
10. Carbon Neutrality.
In addition to the Program Guide contained with the Certification Toolkit, the Ontario
EcoCentres program also provides professional development and networking opportunities for
staff from participating centres, as well as the sharing of best practices and resources through
the Ontario EcoCentres website.
In the pilot year 2011, fourteen education centres from seven of the partner organizations
registered an interest in certifying as an Ontario EcoCentre. Thirteen applications were received
by the deadline October 31, 2011, with applications reviewed and verified through site audits
conducted by an independent assessor. Certification results are as follows:
• Platinum Certification: Centre for Urban Ecology at Humber Arboretum
• Gold Certification: Toronto Zoo
• Silver Certification: Lake St. George Field Centre
• Bronze Certification: Albion Hills Field Centre, Claremont Field Centre, Kortright Centre for
Conservation, Black Creek Pioneer Village, Crawford Lake Education Centre, Mountsberg
Education Centre, Downsview Park, G. W. Finlayson Field Centre, Jack Smythe Field
Centre, Old Britannia School House.
Moving forward, the partnering organizations have committed to the development of an online
application system that will facilitate the certification process and incorporate a carbon footprint
calculator to establish baseline greenhouse emissions for each facility. Program growth in year
two is expected to see an additional 15 facilities initiate the Ontario EcoCentres program,
thereby increasing the impact and reach of this program.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Beginning in 2012, each participating facility will be required to pay a $500 registration fee to
cover costs associated with maintaining the online certification service and the site assessment
costs. On behalf of the partner organizations, TRCA will manage these funds and the
associated expenditures in accordance with approved purchasing policies.
Additional funding to support the continued administration and expansion of the Ontario
EcoCentres program is being sought through grant applications. The Living City Foundation is
participating in this process and the partner organizations are providing resources and in-kind
services as needed.
Report prepared by: Darryl Gray, 416-791-0327
Emails: dgray@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Darryl Gray, 416-791-0327
Emails: dgray@trca.on.ca
Date: December 14, 2011
•
RES.#A259/11 - DON VALLEY BRICK WORKS QUARRY GARDEN ENTRANCE
FEATURE AND MID -POINT ACCESS TRAIL
City of Toronto. Extension of Contract RSD11-49. Authorization to
increase the approved Contract RSD11-49 necessitated by site
conditions and engineering design changes not included in the original
contract, in support of the Don Valley Brick Works Quarry Garden
Entrance Feature, in the City of Toronto.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Chris Fonseca
THAT Contract RSD11-49 awarded to Hobden Construction Co Ltd. (HCCL) for the
construction of the Don Valley Brick Works (DVB) Quarry Garden Entrance Feature and
Mid -Point Access Trail in the City of Toronto, be increased to include the revised
foundation design and associated works not covered in the existing contract, by
$134,993.75, for a total value of $551,250.25 plus HST;
AND FURTHER THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be
authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of ten percent (10%) of the
total cost of the revised contract as a contingency allowance, if deemed necessary.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #7/11, held on July 29, 2011, Resolution #A157/11 was approved, in part,
as follows:
THAT the contract for the supply and installation of the Don Valley Brick Works (DVB)
Quarry Garden entrance feature and mid -point access trail be awarded to Hobden
Construction Co. Ltd. at a cost not to exceed $416,256.50, plus HST, it being the lowest
bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;
The original contract included two components:
2 2
• PART A - construction of the entrance feature - a 155 m wood and 130m steel deck, stairs
and railings with concrete, limestone and granite elements and associated grading and
landscape finishing;
• PART B - construction of a 2.5 m wide asphalt surfaced mid -point trail connection, linking
the DVB Quarry Garden with the Toronto Belt Line trail.
Work commenced in September 2011 and to date, Part B is substantially complete with minor
deficiencies and final asphalt paving remaining to be implemented in spring 2012 once site and
appropriate weather conditions allow.
As the contract had been awarded on a design -build basis, subsequent geotechnical
investigation revealed subsurface soil conditions to be worse than anticipated and unable to
support the conventional spread footing design included within the tender drawing package. As
such the structural consultant Quinn Dressel Ltd. was required to provide an alternative footing
design for a caisson footing consistent with the findings and recommendations of Coffey
Geotechnics soils report. Further investigations revealed the proximity of important
underground water and sanitary services supplying the Evergreen Brick Works that would be
significantly impacted by a caisson installation. In consultation with the contractor and
structural engineer, two other alternative foundation designs were proposed including pipe
piles and helical piers. The contractor was requested to submit pricing for the three alternative
footing designs.
RATIONALE
HCCL returned pricing for the alternative footing options as follows:
caissons - $215,212.50
helical piers - $134,993.75
pipe piles - $109,806.25
All prices exclude HST.
The most expensive footing option proved to be caissons and the least expensive driven pipe
piles. Pipe piles carried the added risk of damaging nearby buildings/structures by impact
vibrations transmitted through the ground potentially resulting in structural movement and
cracking of walls. Given the proximity of older buildings at the Brick Works site and on the
advice of a geotechnical engineer in consultation with City of Toronto staff, driven pipe piles
were excluded as an option due to the level of risk and uncertainty of cost that could be
incurred for monitoring and mitigation measures.
While not the least expensive option, helical piers are recommended as the most appropriate
alternative to address the project design and site constraints. Helical piers will meet the
specified structural loading requirements and can be installed without associated potential
vibration and noise impacts.
Therefore, staff recommends the contract with HCCL be extended by the amount of
$134,993.75, plus HST, in order to implement the preferred foundation solution and complete
the work in a timely fashion.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
City staff has been advised of the results of the increased contract cost and is in agreement to
proceed with helical piers to complete the entrance feature portion of the project. The increased
expenses are fully recoverable from the City of Toronto.
All expenditures that pertain to this contract will be assigned to the Don Valley Brick Works
Enhancements project budget account 117-66.
•
Extending the contract will expedite completion of the project. The recommended contractor
having bid successfully for the original project is best positioned to continue the work. There
would be legal implications to re -tender the entire project.
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: December 21, 2011
RES.#A260/11 - 2015 PAN/PARAPAN AMERICAN GAMES AND THE CALEDON
EQUESTRIAN PARK
CFN 24276. Entering into a lease with the Town of Caledon and
Equestrian Management Group (EMG) to extend the term of the existing
lease with EMG to continue the use of the Caledon Equestrian Park in
Palgrave by EMG for an equestrian facility and to use the facility for the
2015 Pan/Parapan American Games.
(Executive Res. #B 198/11)
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) entered into a
management agreement with the Town of Caledon for the use of TRCA lands in Palgrave
for park and recreational purposes on December 29, 1979;
AND WHEREAS the Town of Caledon and TRCA entered into an agreement for a 17 year
term, commencing September 1, 1997, with the Equestrian Management Group Inc.
(EMG) for use of the subject TRCA lands for an equestrian facility;
AND WHEREAS the subject TRCA lands together with the adjacent EMG lands are known
as the Caledon Equestrian Park (CEP);
AND WHEREAS TRCA is in receipt of a request from the Town of Caledon, for approval
from TRCA, to enter into a 40 year lease with EMG to continue the use of the subject
TRCA lands by EMG for an equestrian facility and to use the facility for the 2015
Pan/Parapan American Games;
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
enter into the subject lease in this instance;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT approval be granted to enter into a lease with
the Town of Caledon and EMG for use of the subject TRCA lands owned and leased on
the following basis;
1) That the TRCA lands to be included in the lease contain 14.25 hectares (35.22 acres)
being Part of the west half of Lot 27, Concession 7 and designated as Part 1 on Plan
43R-4076, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel ;
2) That TRCA purchase for the nominal consideration of $2.00 approximately 2.4
hectares (6 acres) of land from EMG, said lands are described as Part of east half of
Lot 27, Concession 7, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel and these land
will be included in the lease with EMG;
3) That the Town of Caledon and TRCA lease from EMG approximately 22.5 hectares
(55.6 acres), being part of the east half of Lot 27, Concession 7, Town of Caledon,
Regional Municipality of Peel and that these lands be sublet to EMG for use as part of
the Caledon Equestrian Park;
4) That the term of the lease be 40 years;
THAT the said lease of the approximately 16.6 hectares (41 acres) be subject to obtaining
approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the
Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.27, as amended;
THAT, subject to confirmation of the federal/provincial cost sharing equal to 56% of the
project, TRCA enter into a contribution agreement with the Town of Caledon and EMG for
TRCA's portion being one third of the 44% non-federal/provincial capital contribution to
the CEP;
THAT the lease and contribution agreements be subject to any other terms and conditions
as may be required by TRCA staff and solicitor;
THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the
lease and contribution agreements including obtaining needed approvals and signing and
execution of documentation;
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Caledon and EMG be so advised.
CARRIED
RES.#A261 /11 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed
Dino Faion, CFN 46548. Acquisition of a conservation easement located
on the east side of Kipling Avenue, south of Gate House Court
(Woodbridge), City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York.
(Executive Res. #B 199/11)
Moved by: Linda Pabst
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
THAT a conservation easement for the protection of the environmental features and
functions containing 0.03 hectares (0.07 acres), more or less, consisting of an irregular
shaped parcel of land being Part of Lot 10, Concession 8 and designated as Part 1 on
Plan 65R-33030, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located east side of
Kipling Avenue, south of Gate House Court (Woodbridge), be purchased from Dino Faion;
THAT the purchase price be $2.00;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) acquire the conservation
easement free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
THAT the firm 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 the necessary
action to finalize the transaction including obtaining needed approvals and execution of
documentation.
CARRIED
RES.#A262/11 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LAND
North of Mayfield Road, west of Kennedy Road, Town of Caledon, CFN
44145. Recommends that a parcel of TRCA-owned land about 4.5 acres
(1.8 hectares) located north of Mayfield Road, west of Kennedy Road,
Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, Etobicoke Creek
watershed be retained for conservation purposes.
(Executive Res. #6200/11)
Moved by: Linda Pabst
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) land located north of
Mayfield Road west of Kennedy Road, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, be
retained for conservation purposes.
CARRIED
RES.#A263/11 - PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITY FUNDING
New Municipal Funding Arrangements Policy. Recommends a new
funding arrangements policy for Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority and its participating municipalities.
(Executive Res. #B201111 & Res. #6202/11)
Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Linda Pabst
THAT the new Participating Municipality Funding Arrangements Policy dated November
22, 2011 be approved as the basis for allocating the annual operating levy amongst
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) participating municipalities, for the
2012 fiscal year;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to proceed with further negotiations with the
participating municipalities and report back in 2012.
CARRIED
RES.#A264/11 - SEPTIC SYSTEM INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
Policies regarding inspection and maintenance of septic systems in
Ontario.
(Executive Res. #6203/11 & Res. #6204/11)
Moved by: Linda Pabst
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
WHEREAS further additional information regarding septic inspection and maintenance
programs in Ontario and elsewhere was requested by the Executive Committee in May,
2011;
AND WHEREAS some municipalities in Ontario have developed policies for the inspection
and maintenance of septic systems in their jurisdictions;
AND WHEREAS the CTC Source Water Protection Committee has developed draft
policies for the inspection and maintenance of septic systems in wellhead protection
areas;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA) staff be directed to consider the inspection and maintenance programs
mentioned in the staff report in regard to Septic System Inspection and Maintenance
dated October 14, 2011 as they consider their comments on the draft Source Water
Protection Plan policies for septic systems;
AND FURTHER THAT the CTC Source Protection Committee, TRCA's municipal partners
and the other 35 conservation authorities be so advised.
CARRIED
e
• •
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES.#A265/11 - HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECTS
Five Year Update. Five year update on Habitat Restoration Projects
completed under the Restoration and Environmental Monitoring section
of the Restoration Services Division.
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Bob Callahan
THAT the Habitat Restoration Projects Five Year Update be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Restoration Services staff in the Restoration and Environmental Monitoring Projects (REM)
section of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has developed and delivered a
variety of habitat restoration projects throughout TRCAs jurisdiction. These projects have
focused on: improving natural cover; improving riparian areas; restoring wetlands; stream
restoration using natural channel design principles; and enhancing essential wildlife habitat.
These projects, originally called habitat implementation plans (HIPs), are now part of TRCAs
overall watershed based restoration opportunities plans (ROPs).
At Authority Meeting #7/07, held on September 28, 2007, Resolution #A206/07 was approved,
in part, as follows:
AND FURTHER THAT staff report annually to the Authority on the progress of the
implementation of the HIP's.
The natural ecological function of TRCAs watersheds have been severely altered as a result of
urbanization, agricultural development and climate change. The TRCA jurisdiction has
experienced significant habitat loss, soil degradation, altered hydrology, topography changes,
and loss of native vegetation. This impairs the ecological function of the Toronto region and
results in water quantity and quality concerns, increased erosion and sedimentation,
proliferation of invasive species, and a loss of natural habitat and native species. The REM
section has planned and implemented many projects that have enhanced natural ecosystem
functions, improved biodiversity of native species, and improved the health of TRCAs
watersheds by strategically restoring critical habitats. This report to the Authority is a five year
synopsis of our habitat restoration projects and the progress to date under the Habitat
Implementation Plans and Restoration Opportunities Plans.
•
Restoration Planning
An integral part of all TRCA watershed plans is the significance and importance of forest/natural
cover, wetlands, riparian habitat, and healthy functioning stream and shoreline areas. To
facilitate the delineation of restoration implementation opportunities the REM staff has
developed a biophysical GIS analysis which identifies ecologically and hydrologically
appropriate restoration projects. This analysis helps staff identify priority riparian and wetland
restoration areas on a watershed basis. Staff also conduct field based reconnaissance of
potential restoration sites to verify the habitat potential and ground truth the GIS analysis. This
planning and field reconnaissance are used to develop two major implementation planning
products: habitat implementation plans and restoration opportunity plans. To date, this
analysis has been conducted in all of the watersheds within TRCA's jurisdiction. The main
product of this planning effort is an inventory of potential restoration sites which allows us to
determine the significance of restoration projects on a watershed and sub catchment basis. It
has also been informative during large scale restoration planning in the Rouge Park, Transport
Canada Lands (Duff ins Creek) and TRCA conservation lands.
Since 2007 the following implementation and opportunity plans have been developed and
implemented:
Habitat Implementation Plans
• Duff ins and Carruthers Habitat Implementation Plan (2007);
• Don River Habitat Implementation Plan(2007);
• Waterfront Habitat Implementation Plan (2007);
• Transport Canada Pickering Lands Agricultural Plan (2007);
• Transport Canada Pickering Lands Habitat Implementation Plan (2007);
• Little Rouge Corridor Restoration Opportunities Assessment (Draft) (2008);
• Bob Hunter Park Habitat Restoration Recommendations and 1 (2008-2010);
• Markham East Lands Restoration Assessment (Draft) (2010);
• Highland Creek Watershed Habitat Implementation Plan (Draft) (2011);
• Updates to the existing Humber and Etobicoke-Mimico Habitat Implementation Plan
(2007-11).
Restoration ODDortunities Plans
• Duff ins Watershed Restoration Opportunities Plan (2008);
• Petticoat Watershed Restoration Opportunities Plan (2008);
• Humber River Restoration Opportunities Plan (2009);
• Transport Canada Pickering Lands Restoration Opportunities Plan (2010);
• Assessments of Culverts, Instream Structures, and Barriers on the Pickering Lands (2010);
• Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Restoration Opportunities Plan (2010);
• Brock Lands Restoration Plan (2011).
Collectively these implementation plans create a strategic catalog of prioritized restoration
opportunities focused on implementing wetland, riparian, forest habitat and stream
improvement projects on a watershed basis. These plans provide a mechanism by which the
targets of the watershed strategies, fisheries management plans, Terrestrial Natural Heritage
System Strategy and species recovery plans are implemented. The plans are also used to
identify compensation measures, or direct external partners to priority restoration areas.
Additionally, the plans enable TRCA and partners to more effectively forecast, and target,
opportunities to develop multi year implementation programs and strategies.
Wetlands
Wetlands have been identified as a critical ecosystem component and recent studies have
documented the fact that a large percentage of historical wetlands have been lost within TRCA's
watersheds. TRCA's efforts are focused on restoring these lost wetlands and the associated
habitat functions. The wetland projects: restore the hydrology of the landscape by augmenting
base flow conditions; attenuate peak river flows; and provide significant fish and wildlife habitat.
In the past five years staff has restored over 100 hectares of wetlands throughout TRCA's
jurisdiction.
Riparian
Research into the health and integrity of rivers and their associated fish communities has
pointed to the critical importance of riparian habitat. Staff's restoration efforts are focused on
improving both the riparian habitat associated with flowing streams and the drainage areas and
intermittent streams that supply permanent watercourses. Riparian drainage areas typically
suffer from altered hydrology and are often the location of agricultural drainage tiles. Simple
hydrologic remediation in riparian areas results in saturated soils and improved planting
success, and promotes an abundance of wildlife. Riparian areas that have a good cover of
shrubs and trees provide improved downstream water quality by reducing thermal impacts and
reducing downstream erosion and turbidity. Over the past five years staff has restored over 115
hectares of riparian habitat.
Natural Cover
Over the past five years, staff has increased the natural cover within TRCA's jurisdiction by over
100 hectares. This includes tree cover, meadow habitat, and successional thickets on public
and private lands. Natural cover restoration utilizes a combination of tree and shrub planting,
seeding, site preparation and invasive species control to help foster natural succession, and
promote the rapid establishment of functional vegetation communities. The establishment of
natural cover has dramatically increased the amount of wildlife utilization at many of TRCA's
restoration projects. Over the past five years staff has planted over 400,000 tress and shrubs in
total at all of TRCA's projects sites.
Stream Restoration
The REM section has had a tremendous amount of success restoring structural integrity to
highly degraded sections of TRCA's urban streams. Urban watercourses often suffer from
altered flow regimes, increased erosion and lack of instream habitat. Natural channel projects
are designed to restore stream sections to a more natural state by providing habitat diversity,
improved streambank stability and greater biological function. The restoration plans for these
projects are created with the long-term evolution of the stream corridor and terrestrial and
aquatic habitat targets in mind and are driven by the need for varied aquatic and terrestrial
habitats. Using geomorphological assessments these designs are developed to provide for
fish passage, protect existing infrastructure and enhance the channel's form and function with
logical connections to both up and downstream reaches. Staff has restored over 4.5 kilometres
of stream habitat since 2007.
•
r4re-T-01
Shoreline Restoration
Healthy functional shorelines are critical to promote self-sustaining aquatic and terrestrial
communities. The goals of shoreline restoration efforts over the last five years have focused on
improving emergent vegetation, increasing the structural complexity of near shore habitats,
increasing areas of primary production, and promoting the natural establishment of native plant
and animal communities. Shoreline environments are important transitional habitats that link the
terrestrial and aquatic environments. The areas are also popular public destinations and
sustainable public access is vital to the success of the restored shoreline. Since 2007 staff has
restored more than 4.5 kilometres of shoreline in Lake Ontario and various inland lakes in the
TRCA jurisdiction.
Essential Habitats
Fish and wildlife habitat is included in all of REM's habitat restoration projects. Many wildlife
species rely on specific habitat features for various portions of their life cycles and staff
intentionally create these critical habitats by providing features and conditions that are required
by fish and wildlife species during their reproduction, rearing, overwintering, staging and
migrating activities. These targeted habitats are planned in connection with the overall
restoration projects to ensure that the project not only improves the ecological function of the
landscape, but also provides essential habitats for species at all their life stages. Often these
habitats are new or experimental and TRCA has been at the forefront of designing, testing and
implementing unique essential habitat. Many of the techniques that were pioneered by TRCA
are now being used by other agencies. Listed below are some of the various essential habitat
components TRCA has utilized since 2007.
Birds
• nesting boxes (owls, American kestrels, wood ducks, tree swallows, eastern bluebirds,
purple martins);
• red -necked grebe nesting platforms;
• black tern nesting platforms;
• raptor perching poles;
• chimney swift towers;
• bank Swallow habitat creation;
• shorebird wetland creation;
• common tern nesting platforms and islands.
Herpetiles
• snake hibernacula and basking areas;
• turtle nesting and basking areas;
• amphibian reproductive habitat and downed woody debris for cover.
Fish
• spawning channels and shoals;
• stream enhancements and natural channel design;
• fish cribs and log tangles for cover and foraging opportunities;
• fish gate/fish way installation (i.e., limit common carp access while providing access for
native species).
Mammals
• bat roosting boxes;
• squirrel nesting boxes;
• habitat piles for small mammals;
• downed woody debris for cover and den sites.
Insects
• planting host species for certain butterfly caterpillars.
Project Partnerships
The REM section works with a variety of partners and partner groups. The nature of each
partnership is unique to the specific project, watershed, region or program, and is rooted in
mutual goals and objectives. Partners have included: volunteer groups; all three levels of
government; NGOs; stakeholder groups; academic organizations; private landowners; and
private businesses.
The following is a list of some of the partners and partner groups the REM group has worked
with over the past five years:
FPclPral
• Transport Canada
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada
• Natural Resources Canada
• Environment Canada
• Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation
• Toronto Port Authority
Provincial
• Ministry of Transportation
• Ministry of Natural Resources
• Ontario Power Generation
Municipal
• regional and local municipalities
• Rouge Park Alliance
• conservation authorities
NGOs/ Not for Profit
• Friends of the Rouge Watershed
• 10000 Trees for the Rouge
• Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
• Ontario Streams
• Nature Conservancy of Canada
• Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation
• Trout Unlimited
• Ducks Unlimited
• The Toronto Zoo
Academic
• Seneca College
• Sir Sanford Fleming College
• University of Toronto
Private
• Goreway Powerstation (Sithe Global)
• golf courses
• private landowners
Compensation Restoration Planning
REM's implementation plans have become vital components in determining and identifying
compensatory restoration opportunities. This process has been successful both in providing
major investments for TRCA on our property and a new non-traditional source of funding for
habitat restoration projects. Over the past five years many compensation projects have been
identified and implemented. Below is a list of all the completed, and upcoming, compensation
projects:
701
Completed: Claireville Stormwater Pond Invar Woodlot Removal Compensation; Toy Ave
Wetland Compensation; Sithe -Global Goreway Station Stream & Wetland Restoration; 16th
Ave. Environmental Initiatives - York Trunk Sewer; Toronto Islands Habitat Bank.
Upcoming: MTO 407 Expansion - Redside Dace Compensation; MTO 407 Expansion - Habitat
Compensation; Black Creek Valley Land Compensation; McVean Drive Widening; Brown's
Corner; Countryside Dr Watermain Installation Compensation; Ravencroft Planting
Compensation; Fernbrook SWM Pond Compensation (Etobicoke Crk Regen); Metrolinx for
Humber Bay Marsh; Beckett Farm Woodlot Compensation; Marigold Creek Compensation;
Toronto Waterfront Habitat Bank.
Implementation Achievements
The following table summarizes the main restoration implementation deliverables for the REM
section for the last five years. The table is not a complete list of restoration actions and does
not include the other sections of the Restoration Services Division.
Table 1: Habitat Restoration Implementation totals for the Restoration and Environmental
Monitoring Section 2007 to 2011.
Watershed
Wetland
Creation &
Enhancement
(ha)
Riparian
Plantings
(ha)
Natural Cover
Restoration
(ha)
Stream
Restored
(m)
Shoreline
Restored
(m)
Total Trees
(#)
Etobicoke-Mimico
9
12
0
1460
280
26315
Humber
47
50
33
2150
1880
272209
Don
5
3
4
0
0
13780
Rouge
23
10
60
0
0
51770
Duff ins -Carruthers
8
37
6
1046
200
28203
Waterfront
12
4
7
0
2300
10095
All Watersheds Total:
104
116
110
4656
4660
402372
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Total funding for the REM section is provided from both traditional and non-traditional sources.
The traditional sources originate through the capital budget process from City of Toronto,
region of Peel, York and Durham. However, habitat restoration projects are also supported
from a variety of non-traditional sources and partners. TRCA staff has been successful in
pursuing non-traditional funding sources with outside agencies that share TRCA's common
interest in habitat restoration. These agencies contribute to both the planning and
implementation of habitat restoration projects. The chart below breaks down the funding of the
REM section. Since 2007 the restoration budget has doubled however the increase has been
realized from both traditional and non-traditional sources. On average, over the past five years,
60% of the REM section budget has come from non-traditional sources. These non-traditional
sources include partnerships with private and government agencies, grants and contract
agreements.
702
Funding Type
Year
2007
2011
Traditional Municipal Funding
$1,200,000
$2,700,000
Non-traditional Funding
$1,950,000
$3,500,000
Total Funding
$3,150,000
$6,200,000
Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
Ralph Toninger extension 5366
Emails: gmacpherson@trca.on.ca, rtoninger@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 524
Emails: gmacpherson@trca.on.ca
Date: December 13, 2011
RES.#A266/11 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Chris Fonseca
THAT Section IV Items AUTH8.2.1 - AUTH8.2.3 in regard to Watershed Committee
Minutes, be received.
CARRIED
Section IV Items AUTH8.2.1 - AUTH8.2.3
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #11/11, held on November 10, 2011
ETOBICOKE-MIMICO WATERSHEDS COALITION
Minutes of Meeting #3/11, held on September 15, 2011
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE MINUTES
Minutes of Meeting #2/11, held on May 13, 2011
Minutes of Meeting #3/11, held on June 17, 2011
Minutes of Meeting #4/11, held on September 16, 2011
ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
RES.#A267/11 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
Moved by: Bob Callahan
Seconded by: Dave Ryan
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.1 - EX10.70, contained in Executive
Committee Minutes #11/11, held on December 2, 2011, be received.
CARRIED
703
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:14 a.m., on Friday, January 6, 2012.
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Chair
/ks
Brian Denney
Secretary -Treasurer
khk
01FTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #12/11
January 27, 2012
The Authority Meeting #12/11, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village,
on Friday, January 27, 2012. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order
at 9:45 a.m.
PRESENT
Paul Ainslie
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Maria Augimeri
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Vice Chair
David Barrow
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Ben Cachola
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Bob Callahan
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Ronald Chopowick
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Vincent Crisanti
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Glenn De Baeremaeker
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Michael Di Biase
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Chris Fonseca
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Jack Heath
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Colleen Jordan
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Gloria Lindsay Luby
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Glenn Mason
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Mike Mattos
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Chair
Linda Pabst
9:48 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Gino Rosati
10:05 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
John Sprovieri
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
Cynthia Thorburn
9:45 a.m.
11:38 a.m.
Member
ABSENT
Mujeeb Khan
Member
Chin Lee
Member
Peter Milczyn
Member
John Parker
Member
Anthony Perruzza
Member
Dave Ryan
Member
Jim Tovey
Member
Richard Whitehead
Member
705
RES.#A268/11 -
Moved by:
Seconded by
MINUTES
Vincent Crisanti
Chris Fonseca
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #11/11, held on January 6, 2011, be approved.
CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
(a) A delegation by Mr. Jim Robb, General Manager, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, in
regard to item AUTH7.4 - Wetland Restoration on Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority -Owned Land.
RES.#A269/11 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Ben Cachola
THAT above -noted delegation (a) be received.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Mike Fenning, Senior Manager, Conservation Lands and Property
Services, TRCA, in regard to Land Acquisition.
RES.#A270/11 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be received.
CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#A271/11 - FOREST HEALTH AND EMERALD ASH BORER
Annual Update and Proposed Management Approach. An update on the
status of significant or new forest health pests for 2011 within the TRCA
jurisdiction, and proposed management approach to address the threat
posed by the emerald ash borer to ash trees within the TRCA jurisdiction.
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owns and manages
numerous forests and conservation areas and is engaged in several forest management
initiatives on both private lands and TRCA-owned lands;
AND WHEREAS emerald ash borer is an invasive insect species that poses a serious
threat to all ash trees within the TRCA jurisdiction, affecting forest biodiversity, public
safety and TRCA operations;
AND WHEREAS TRCA has the ability and responsibility to lessen the impact from forest
pests and invasive species including emerald ash borer by developing effective
management approaches;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff continue to work with all levels of
government to monitor trends and conditions of current forest insect and invasive plant
populations and to formulate appropriate strategies to manage or eliminate those threats;
THAT staff act to integrate an appropriate emerald ash borer management approach into
all relevant TRCA actions and initiatives;
THAT staff continue to engage with TRCA's partners in the coordinated and effective
management of emerald ash borer, including providing expertise and advice to TRCA's
municipal partners as they develop and implement their own emerald ash borer
management plans;
AND FURTHER THAT the forest health working group continue to report back annually to
the Authority regarding issues and threats, including emerald ash borer, their
implications and recommended responses.
AMENDMENT
RES.#A272/11
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick
THAT the following be inserted after the main motion:
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report back to the Executive Committee on a proposal to
engage its member municipalities along with the provincial and federal governments,
Association of Municipalities of Ontario and Federation of Canadian Municipalities in a
coordinated plan to deal with the emerald ash borer infestation.
THE AMENDMENT WAS
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS
707
CARRIED
CARRIED
THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owns and manages
numerous forests and conservation areas and is engaged in several forest management
initiatives on both private lands and TRCA-owned lands;
AND WHEREAS emerald ash borer is an invasive insect species that poses a serious
threat to all ash trees within the TRCA jurisdiction, affecting forest biodiversity, public
safety and TRCA operations;
AND WHEREAS TRCA has the ability and responsibility to lessen the impact from forest
pests and invasive species including emerald ash borer by developing effective
management approaches;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff continue to work with all levels of
government to monitor trends and conditions of current forest insect and invasive plant
populations and to formulate appropriate strategies to manage or eliminate those threats;
THAT staff act to integrate an appropriate emerald ash borer management approach into
all relevant TRCA actions and initiatives;
THAT staff continue to engage with TRCA's partners in the coordinated and effective
management of emerald ash borer, including providing expertise and advice to TRCA's
municipal partners as they develop and implement their own emerald ash borer
management plans;
THAT the forest health working group continue to report back annually to the Authority
regarding issues and threats, including emerald ash borer, their implications and
recommended responses;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report back to the Executive Committee on a proposal to
engage its member municipalities along with the provincial and federal governments,
Association of Municipalities of Ontario and Federation of Canadian Municipalities in a
coordinated plan to deal with the emerald ash borer infestation.
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/11, held on April 29, 2011, Resolution #A70/11 was approved as
follows:
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to work with all
levels of government to monitor trends and conditions of current forest insect and
invasive plant populations and to formulate appropriate strategies to manage or eliminate
those threats;
AND FURTHER THAT the forest health working group continue to report back annually to
the Authority regarding issues and threats, their implications and recommended
responses.
•
The TRCA Forest Health Working Group was established in January 2010 to coordinate and
monitor forest health issues and to facilitate coordination and improve efficiencies between
internal departments and programs. The Forest Health Working Group provides this report to
address two main issues. The first is to provide a summary of the 2011 Silvicultural Forest
Health Report outlining the status of significant or new forest health pests for 2011. The second
is to outline the TRCA management approach required to address emerald ash borer, the most
significant forest pest facing southern Ontario. This report fulfills the request made to staff from
the Authority to report on emerald ash borer and potential management implications. This
report is timely as action is needed in the very near future to help address emerald ash borer.
2011 Silvicultural Forest Health Report
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) with the assistance of the Canadian Forest
Service (CFS) and local agencies, monitor across Ontario potentially harmful forest pest
populations and forest damage caused by pest outbreaks and abiotic causes. In some aspects,
2011 was a relatively "quiet year" when it comes to many of the cyclical forest health
disturbances in Ontario and the TRCA jurisdiction. Within TRCA watersheds, gypsy moth
populations and defoliation are at low levels; no significant forest tent caterpillar defoliation was
noted; and precipitation levels and extreme weather events did not cause any concern of note.
Our forests continue to face some very significant threats with the emerald ash borer currently
presenting the greatest concern.
Asian Long -horned Beetle (ALHB)
Monitoring and sampling efforts within the ALHB regulated area in Toronto and Vaughan did
not detect any new infested trees in 2011. No new finds have occurred since December 2007
and if ongoing systematic monitoring of the area does not detect any more beetles before
2013, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) will be able to declare ALHB as eradicated
from the regulated zone. Although this "eradication" of the current ALHB infestation in the
Toronto area may be considered a great success story, as noted in the recent report on
Biodiversity for the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, the current efforts in the eastern
United States have not had the same results. The potential for future infestations from either
the United States or abroad continues to threaten our forests. Only through increased efforts to
maintain or improve forest biodiversity will these potentially devastating effects be minimized.
Beech Bark Disease
Beech bark disease is caused by a complex involving a non-native scale insect and associated
non-native fungus. The disease causes significant mortality or defects in beech trees. It is
believed that it was introduced to North America in Nova Scotia in the late 1800's. While the
scale has been present in Ontario since the 1960's, the expanded distribution in Ontario and
increased effects of the disease in the past couple of decades has resulted in increased
concern and monitoring efforts. The scale and disease are found throughout TRCA's
watersheds, however healthy beech are still present and the long term prognosis is not clear.
Beech nuts are an important source of food for a wide variety of wildlife.
Thousand Canker Disease of Walnut
Thousand Canker Disease of Walnut has not been detected in Ontario, however this is a
disease of concern due to detections over the past couple of years in the eastern United States.
This disease, like beech bark disease, is caused by an association of an insect and fungus.
This disease complex was only recognized in 2008 although it has been determined that the
disease was killing trees in the western U.S. as far back as 2001. Recent detections in
Tennessee, Virginia and Pennsylvania raise concerns for southern Ontario. CFIA is completing
a Pest Risk Assessment and draft Import Requirements and Regulations in response to this
potential threat.
Emerald Ash Borer
Emerald ash borer is the most significant forest pest threatening southern Ontario forests at this
time. The remainder of this board report provides background on emerald ash borer and
outlines a recommended management approach to address this threat.
Proposed Emerald Ash Borer Management Approach
Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) is an invasive insect species introduced from
eastern Asia that attacks and kills all native North American ash trees (Fraxinus spp.). Emerald
ash borer (EAB) was first detected in Detroit, Michigan in July 2002. In August of 2002, CFIA
confirmed the presence of EAB in Windsor, Ontario. It has since spread throughout southern
Ontario and Quebec despite the efforts of Canadian and U.S. agencies to contain the
infestation. The beetle can disperse naturally through flight; however, the large scale spread of
EAB has been facilitated by the transport of firewood, nursery stock and other ash products
throughout Ontario. EAB belongs to a group of wood -boring beetles commonly found in Asia.
Adults are dark green, 10 mm in length, and 3 mm wide. The larvae feed just beneath the bark
of the tree and disrupt the transport of water and nutrients. Once signs and symptoms of
infestation have developed the tree is usually in serious decline. In areas with established
populations, trees can be mass attacked and killed in as little as two growing seasons. Once
dead, ash trees tend to fall quite quickly, often within two years, compared to other tree
species. CFIA is the principle agency responsible for the regulation of EAB in Canada. CFIA has
established regulated areas from which the movement of specific materials, including any ash
material and all firewood, is prohibited. Attachment 1 is a map of the regulated areas within
Canada.
Ash trees are very common in southern Ontario both in rural and urban settings.
Consequently, the presence of EAB in TRCA's jurisdiction has serious economic and
environmental implications, including tree removal costs, public safety hazards and a loss of
ecosystem services. Complete eradication of EAB has been deemed impossible, but advances
in detection and treatment may help to lessen the devastating impact that will likely be
observed in the next 5 to 10 years. The bio -insecticide TreeAzinT"(Azadirachtin) has been
approved under emergency provisions in Canada. TreeAzinT" is injected into the base of an
individual tree once every two years; this treatment has been shown to effectively kill EAB
larvae. To maintain tree health, injections must be repeated until either the infestation has
subsided or an effective biological control agent has become established. Researchers from
academic institutions and government agencies are actively studying biological control agents
for EAB and are working to develop a "biocontrol" program.
710
The most effective EAB management approach is to ensure a diverse and robust forest system
that is resilient to the inevitable pest and disease outbreaks and other stressors associated with
a forest system located within a human dominated landscape. It is important to place any
proposed management actions regarding EAB in this context and not lose sight of longer term
forest management objectives. TRCA has a long and active history in the effective protection,
restoration and management of the forest system within its jurisdiction. Some of these initiatives
are listed below:
• sustainable forest management;
• stewardship and forestry outreach programs;
• habitat restoration planning and implantation;
• conservation land planning;
• plan input and review;
• forest monitoring and surveys;
• land securement;
• strategic natural heritage system and forest planning;
• mapping and data management;
• knowledge transfer between and among partners.
The activities described above, as well as the human resources and expertise of staff have
placed TRCA in an excellent position to help address the current threat that EAB poses. TRCA
will continue to engage in active and effective forest health management for the purpose of
protecting and enhancing a diverse, robust and ultimately resilient forest system. Any additional
actions specific to EAB management must recognize and complement these long term
management goals.
Most ash trees on TRCA lands are located within natural forests and therefore may not require
additional management. However, there will be circumstances where EAB specific actions
should be taken to help minimize both the long term ecological and economic implications.
Additional management will be required to address hazards from dead ash trees, and to
maintain important ecosystem services and functions such as aesthetics, recreation and
important wildlife habitat.
Through the development and implementation of TRCA forest health initiatives, staff has
developed strong and effective working relationships with municipal staff and other partner
organizations involved in forest management. These partnerships provide an excellent
perspective on the collective efforts regarding EAB management within and surrounding
TRCA's jurisdiction. In determining the best management approach for EAB, staff looked to
TRCA's partners to ensure we have considered all possible approaches and that the TRCA
approach is consistent and complementary. Attachment 2 provides a table summarizing the
EAB management approaches of partner municipalities and neighbouring conservation
authorities.
The management approach outlined below is complementary to the management plans being
developed by TRCA's partner municipalities while at the same time recognizing the unique
TRCA context and our established long term forest health goals.
711
1. Detection and Risk Assessment
a. Increased ground surveys (branch sampling) to detect the presence of EAB in areas
closest to known infestations.
b. Identify high value, heritage ash trees for treatment (this process will be guided by a
set of criteria for the selection of candidate trees).
c. Identify high risk trees that pose public safety hazards.
2. Communications and Public Outreach
a. Public education and interpretive program building on existing materials and
resources for private landowners.
b. Maintain key messaging regarding EAB management in cooperation with municipal,
regional, provincial and federal partners.
3. Insecticide Treatment
a. Option to preserve TRCA high value or heritage ash trees using insecticide
injections where appropriate.
b. Tree protection program involving insecticide injections for the ash seed trees
required by the TRCA nursery to ensure the future availability of locally adapted and
grown ash.
4. Forest Management, Tree Planting and Habitat Restoration
a. Partial seedling replacement program using non -ash species within forest settings
where adequate regeneration and species diversity has been affected by the loss of
ash seedlings.
b. Tree planting program to address high value areas where significant numbers of
TRCA owned ash trees will be lost.
c. Increased private land planting efforts to offset loss of ash trees.
d. Moratorium on TRCA ash planting on TRCA and private properties to minimize the
potential duration of the EAB infestation.
e. Development of planting prescriptions utilizing appropriately diverse multiple
species selections to compensate for the loss of ash trees.
f. Increase TRCA nursery production of alternative species to possibly replace the
ecological gap created by the loss of ash trees.
5. Monitoring and Evaluation
a. Ongoing monitoring of actions outlined in management plan.
b. Continued dialogue with researchers, municipal partners and government agencies
to ensure new adaptive strategies are applied as they emerge.
RATIONALE
Emerald ash borer poses a very serious threat to forest health in southern Ontario. TRCA has
the responsibility to assess this threat in the context of TRCA's current forest management
initiatives and determine what additional management action may be warranted.
712
Balancing short term operational costs and limitations against longer term management
implications and the desire to maintain ecosystem services can be challenging. It is now widely
agreed by forestry experts that the proactive management of this threat will minimize financial
losses and enable land managers to amortize costs over a longer period of time. TRCA's
approach recognizes the need for more intensive management in strategic situations such as
hazard tree removal, the maintenance of high value heritage trees and the protection of a local
ash seed source while at the same time recognizing the adaptive capacity of natural forests.
TRCA's management approach will ensure that forest regeneration and succession will not be
restricted such that long-term forest health is threatened. In turn, this approach will minimize
the loss of ecosystem services as a consequence of EAB; many of these services provide direct
financial benefits to TRCA (e.g. recreational opportunities) and residents of the GTA (e.g.
stormwater management, erosion control and air pollution removal).
Staff is confident in the management approach outlined in this report. It is based on the best
available science, utilizes the most effective approaches to management and duly considers
the specific TRCA context.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA has taken significant steps toward an effective plan for the management of EAB. In order
to ensure effective implementation a management plan will be finalized that helps to relate and
incorporate the identified management approach into existing forest health initiatives
undertaken by TRCA. This will include communicating with each TRCA section and working
with them to devise an approach for implementation.
Due to the urgency of this threat, immediate action is required in early 2012 in order to
effectively mitigate risk and ensure that high value trees are treated prior to full infestation. The
actions proposed for immediate undertaking are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1: Immediate management actions for 2012
Action
Tim4fine
1. Characterize the extent of ash trees within the jurisdiction:
a. Complete a GIS analysis to determine the extent of ash trees located on
February 2012
TRCA properties and throughout the jurisdiction.
2. Identify priority areas for potential hazard tree removal:
a. Use information from Action 1 along with recreational information such as
trail locations and use to determine possible priority for hazard tree
February -
management.
November
b. Conduct ground surveys to confirm priority locations for hazard tree
2012
management.
c. Continue to collect ash tree information through regular monitoring and
survey initiatives.
713
Action,
Timeline
3. Determine the location of high value ash trees for treatment:
a. Develop a set of criteria to be used to identify potential high value ash
trees.
February -
b. Complete a desktop spatial analysis based on information from Action 1
March
along with the established criteria to determine the general location of
2012
priority ash trees for treatment.
c. Conduct ground surveys to refine and confirm the location of high value
ash trees for treatment.
5. Finalize the EAB Management Plan:
a. Finalize the management plan in consultation with all relevant TRCA
March 2012
sections to identify staff and budget resources required to implement short
and long term actions.
6. Initiate a tree protection program:
a. This will include TreeAzinTM in for high value nursery trees as well as
April -May
2012
other priority trees as determined through Action 3.
7. Initiate communications strategy:
Concurrent
a. Incorporate EAB information into existing and new communication
with other
initiatives to inform the public of TRCA activities and best management
activities as
practices on private lands.
needed
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The management approach taken by TRCA balances the short term implications with the long
term financial implications and desire to protect the important ecosystem services ash trees
provide. The financial resources needed to implement the outlined management approach will
be significantly less than what most municipalities are faced with due to the relatively low
numbers of TRCA ash trees in public areas.
The early detection and proactive removal of hazard trees located on TRCA lands will require
dedicated staff time. This additional staff time as well as treatment costs for high value ash trees
is projected to be the most notable 2012 expense associated with the presence of EAB. Funds
to support staff time and additional resources for 2012 will come from re -allocating existing
funds within the approved 2012 budget.
A long-term financial commitment will also be required to protect forest health and ensure the
continued provision of ecosystem services. A detailed assessment of long term expenses
associated with the proposed management approach will be conducted during the
development of ensuing implementation plans and will be considered through the 2013 budget
process.
Report prepared by: Noah Gaetz, extension 5348, Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379,
Emails: ngaetz@trca.on.ca, thildebrand@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379
Emails: thildebrand@trca.on.ca
Date: December 02, 2011
Attachments: 2
714
Attachment 1
715
Attachment 2
716
49 44,
C
76
r,
7
V
5, P
si
�S
a
5
4,
LL
Q
r
U
15
CYIM
E
Ir
' - -�'
-R
F
4mirul
X",
4 1, —
C
co;
Cf —
E
rr2
LLJ
42
f
E
o B 9
50
JE
8
8
716
717
0.
E 9
46
71-1
z
17.9
8 g g
8 2
T-
u
717
RES.#A273/11 - CITY OF TORONTO PARKS PLAN
TRCA support and comments further to the development of the City of
Toronto's Parks Plan.
Moved by: Ronald Chopowick
Seconded by: Cynthia Thorburn
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)-owned lands in the City of
Toronto under management agreements constitute about half of Toronto's 8,400 hectares
of parkland;
AND WHEREAS the City of Toronto is currently preparing a strategic five-year plan to
guide acquisition, development, management and operation of Toronto's public parkland;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the comments on the City of Toronto Parks Plan
contained in this report dated January 16, 2012, be submitted to the City of Toronto;
THAT staff continue to work in partnership with City of Toronto staff to address common
goals of both agencies in the implementation of the Parks Plan;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto be so advised by the CAO's Office.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 2010, City of Toronto Council approved the development of a City-wide, multi-year Parks
Plan guided by the following principles:
1. Parks and Trails as City Infrastructure;
2. Equitable Access for All Residents;
3. Nature in the City;
4. Place Making;
5. Supporting a Diversity of Uses;
6. Community Engagement and Partnerships;
7. Environmental Goals and Practices.
The purpose of the Parks Plan is to guide decision-making in the acquisition, development,
management and operation of the public parkland system. The Plan does not focus on
recreation programs or services as they are considered as part of the Recreation Services Plan,
currently underway. The Council report outlined the principles, the planning approach, a
proposed work plan and timeline, including community and stakeholder engagement to
support the development of the Parks Plan. The report also outlined a draft Parks Classification
system that will be developed further as part of the Parks Plan.
Public and key stakeholder meetings were held between October and December, 2011. In
addition, City of Toronto invited the public to provide input via on-line survey, which was
available between October and December, 2011. As a partner with the City of Toronto, TRCA
staff attended a number of the public meetings to participate in the discussion.
718
RATIONALE
TRCA's role in the Toronto region is that of watershed and shoreline manager, regulator,
commenting agency, advisor, advocate, service provider and landowner. TRCA's mission is to
work with our partners to ensure that The Living City is built on a natural foundation of healthy
rivers and shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity, and sustainable communities. TRCA has
management agreements with the City of Toronto that describe the City's role to maintain TRCA
lands for parks, recreation and conservation purposes.
TRCA staff has reviewed the Parks Plan Overview, as presented at the public meetings held in
late 2011, and offer the following comments on the Guiding Principles and the Parks
Classification system.
Guiding Principles
1. Parks and Trails as City Infrastructure
The system of Parks and trails is part of a continuous city-wide green space system including
natural heritage system, open spaces and streetscapes.
TRCA works with City staff from several divisions in the development, restoration, remediation
and protection of the City-wide greenspace system. TRCA supports the trails system as shown
and notes that significant gaps need to be connected for an uninterrupted inter -regional trail
system, both north -south and east -west. For example, sections of trail are missing in the
Humber River, the East Don River and along the Scarborough waterfront.
TRCA has worked closely with the City in the acquisition of key valleyland components critical
to completion of linkages through the valley system. TRCA continues to support the acquisition
of these greenspace linkages and encourages the City to continue to allocate funding to
greenspace acquisition, particularly large parcels of land, as this contributes to the overall
liveability of the City.
TRCA recognizes the need to work closely with City staff and other agencies to realize the goal
of an inter -regional trail system, such as the Rouge Park Alliance's Draft Trails Master Plan and
Downsview Park development plans.
TRCA supports the provision of education opportunities in parks using social media, such as
QR codes, to replace signs.
Encroachments (unauthorized use of City property) exist throughout the City's park system, but
are especially prevalent in valley and ravine areas. TRCA encourages the City to continue to
enforce The Parkland Encroachment Policy and Procedures, By-law No. 782-2001 with respect
to unauthorized encroachment on City parklands.
2. Equitable Access for all Residents
Parks and trails must be accessible to all residents in all part of the City and must respond to the
needs of a diverse population regardless of age, level of ability, income or cultural background.
719
TRCA supports equitable access to parkland and park amenities and recognizes the need to
measure the amount and type of parkland available to residents as a tool in the prioritization of
parkland acquisition, development and management. The Plan should define accessibility with
respect to trail surfacing and access to trails with sensitive habitats.
The Parks Plan has identified the walking distance to City parks and a distribution of park space
by population. This distribution and accessibility needs to direct future acquisitions to minimize
inaccessible greenspace deserts, recognizing that access for every resident to every location is
not achievable. Some strategies to increase accessibility include removal of physical barriers,
prevention of unauthorized access, location of transit stops at park entrances, and proper water
access and navigation for personal water crafts
3. Nature in the City
Natural Heritage areas are an important component of the City's green space system and should
be protected and enhanced.
TRCA strongly supports the improved protection, expansion and maintenance of the natural
heritage system, particularly the City's goal to increase in the urban forest, which includes
natural areas as well as street and park trees, in all areas of the City. In addition to increasing
the urban forest, the Plan should also recognize the need to address pests, such as the
emerald ash borer, diseases and invasive species that threaten the natural heritage system.
The Parks Plan should reference the Natural Heritage System that the City has identified in its
Official Plan. Natural Heritage areas are protected through various policies and statutory
controls including the Official Plan, Zoning By-law, Private Tree Protection By-law, and the
Ravine and Natural Feature Protection By-law. Guidance documents produced by TRCA, such
as watershed plans, fisheries management plans and archaeological guidelines should be
considered.
The Plan should support the expansion of naturalized parks over manicured areas to the extent
possible. Recovery plans for at -risk species and monitoring and protection plans for
amphibians and reptiles should be developed. Strategies should be developed for adapting
and mitigating climate change impacts. Visitation to parks should be managed to prevent
over -use of park spaces.
The Plan should communicate the social, economic and environmental benefits of parks and
natural spaces. Access to parks and nature have shown to have the following health and
well-being benefits: reduce crime, foster psychological well-being; reduce stress; boost
immunity; enhance productivity; and promote healing in psychiatric and other patients.
4. Place Making
Quality must be emphasized in the planning, design and ongoing management of public parks.
The Toronto region has a number of significant natural features including the river valley
systems, the Iroquois Shoreline, the Scarborough Bluffs and the Toronto Islands. The Parks
Plan should recognize these significant features, as well as the Iroquois Shoreline, as a unique
feature to the Toronto region. Opportunities to celebrate and re-establish the sense of place
should be pursued.
720
Park renewal and reinvestment in major park amenities, especially the regional and city-wide
parks, is critical due to aging park infrastructure, years of `wear and tear', and changing park
user needs. The Plan should describe a framework for the investment and reinvestment in
major park amenities, including master plan updates (Marie Curtis Park) and new park
development (Port Union Waterfront Park).
Park management plans, especially for natural areas (i.e. Humber Bay Shores butterfly garden),
should be created to ensure parks operations reflect the management objectives. Park -specific
operations and maintenance plans should be created in partnership with TRCA for major park
amenities and priority properties including soon to be completed Mimico Waterfront Park.
5. Supporting a Diversity of Uses
Parks should be able to accommodate a variety of uses appropriate to their location and type.
TRCA recognizes that demographics and cultural diversity play an important role in determining
the existing and future parks and recreational needs of residents. The Parks Plan should
recognize human heritage as well as natural heritage. Themes could be identified to celebrate
the diversity of individual parks or river systems in the City, such as the Humber River as the
Canadian Heritage River or the Shared Path Historical Park in the lower Humber River.
The Plan should identify active and passive uses across the parks system, based on park type,
location and unique attributes, with the goal of providing `all season' park use where possible.
The Parks Plan should provide an inventory of park spaces that are suitable for urban
agriculture opportunities. Provision of local food sources contributes to a more sustainable city
region. It also provides many other social and health benefits. TRCA supports near urban
agriculture as a means of community building and reducing the City's dependency on the
international market. In future, climate change may increase the volatility of the global food
market, causing increases in price and even shortage of supply. Potential use of rooftops
gardens for greenspace enhancements and commercial greenhouses and the potential for
local food marketing initiatives is another area that the City could investigate further in
partnership with TRCA.
6. Community Engagement and Partnerships
Community involvement, through stewardship and volunteering should be encouraged to
complement existing city resources. Opportunities to engage community and business partners
to complement existing funding should be explored and implemented.
TRCA has over 50 years of experience in partnership arrangement, including all levels of
government, community groups, businesses and citizens at large. TRCA supports the
importance of community groups and their willingness to provide active service in the
development, restoration and stewardship of City parklands. TRCA uses community-based
volunteer task forces to guide the planning and implementation of projects ranging from
management plans to habitat creation projects. These task forces provide a forum and
empower all partners to make meaningful contributions to the planning and implementation of
parks projects.
721
The Plan should recognize the opportunities that intensification in city -building provides to
access new forms of funding for parks under management pressure. The Plan should identify
new forms of park design and management that will be more resilient to the intensity of use that
will result from a redeveloping city. The Plan should highlight the areas of the City where
neighbourhood change will be occurring through redevelopment, and creatively identify the
neighbourhood needs that could be negotiated through the future development and park
planning process.
TRCA supports the exploration of all possible funding sources and partnerships in the
development and maintenance of City park assets, including community investment and
maintenance for initiatives such as commemoratives.
7. Environmental Goals and Practices
Environmentally responsible practices and green initiatives must be incorporated into the
day-to-day planning, design, operation and maintenance of the city's system of parks and trails.
City parks and greenspace, as part of the natural heritage system, are valuable assets in
dealing with the changing climate, both from an adaptation and mitigation perspective.
Specifically, the City's greenspace system and parks contributes to reducing smog, saving
energy, offsetting the urban heat island effect and preventing flooding and run off during
extreme weather events. In future, climate change impacts will result in additional stresses on
the existing greenspace system and the need for more and varied park space. Strategic
investment in the planning, design and programming of parks and greenspace will be crucial to
address climate change issues.
The Parks Plan should be used as an opportunity to promote and showcase City of Toronto's
commitment to sustainability through in -the -ground demonstration projects. Planning and
design elements such as green development standards, green parking lot guidelines, as well
as others should be included in future park enhancement and retrofit projects. As a minimum,
sustainable design guidelines should be provided in future park implementation.
The Plan should contribute to the biodiversity of the natural heritage system through habitat
creation, prevention of overuse by park users, and consider the use of park carrying capacity in
management planning.
Parks Classification System
The Parks Plan provides a draft classification of parks into seven distinct types in two
categories: local serving, including parkettes, neighbourhood and community parks; and
regional/city-wide serving, including district, city-wide, destination parks and greenways.
The presentation materials did not provide the locations of the parks by type; rather it described
the distribution of the park type as a percentage of all parks in the City and as a percentage of
overall area of parkland. The description reveals that although regional/city-wide parks make up
only 20% of all park types in the City, they make up 75% of the overall area of parkland. These
regional/city-wide parks include such major parks as Humber Bay Park, Rouge Park, Toronto
Islands and High Park. This distribution of park types is significant in terms of management
planning and re -investment as these regional parks help define the City of Toronto's park
system not just to residents but visitors.
722
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
City of Toronto will be preparing a final Parks Plan report for Council approval in 2012. The Plan
will set goals and objectives to maintain and increase natural spaces within public parks and
trails, recommend ways of ensuring that the diverse needs of City residents are met, ensure
parks and trail are available and accessible to all residents, meet diverse outdoor leisure needs,
incorporate high quality design standards, describe strategies to engage the community and
build and maintain partnerships.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
TRCA and City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation division are partners in the
development and management of the public parklands. TRCA staff look forward to working with
Parks, Forestry and Recreation staff as well as City staff from other divisions in the
implementation of the Parks Plan.
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: January 16, 2012
RES.#A274/11 - LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT CONNECTION PROJECT
Direction to Proceed with Environmental Assessment in support of Credit
Valley Conservation.
Moved by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
WHEREAS at the November 24, 2011 Region of Peel Council Meeting, Res.#PW-E3 was
approved, authorizing a budget of $2.5 million (excluding applicable taxes) to be made
available to undertake a coordinated Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the use
of excavated fill from Capital Infrastructure Projects in the Region of Peel to create an
estimated 85 acres of waterfront parkland between Marie Curtis Park and Lakefront
Promenade in the City of Mississauga;
AND WHEREAS the Region of Peel will provide oversight of the coordinated EA, including
managing the finances under Capital Project 12-1509;
AND WHEREAS the City of Mississauga will take the lead in communications oversight
and public messaging given the wide -range of projects that are underway within the
Project Area (e.g., Inspiration Lakeview, District Energy, Hanlan Feedermain, Lakeview
Waterfront Connection Project, etc);
723
AND WHEREAS Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) will be leading the coordinated EA for
the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project, and take a lead role in overseeing
communications and public messaging related directly to Lakeview Waterfront
Connection Project, but will fully coordinate with the City of Mississauga;;
AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been asked to
provide Project Management and Technical Services on behalf of CVC as part of this joint
initiative with the Region of Peel and City of Mississauga;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be directed to enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to provide Project Management and Technical
Services for the coordinated EA for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project on behalf
of CVC, subject to all terms and conditions being finalized in a manner satisfactory to
TRCA staff and solicitors;
THAT TRCA be directed to assist CVC, the Region of Peel and City of Mississauga (as
required) in their joint negotiations with the Province of Ontario, Ontario Power
Generation, and other interested parties regarding land ownership, access, stockpiling,
operations and maintenance, and other parallel planning initiatives associated with the
coordinated EA;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take all necessary
actions as may be required, including the signing of documents, for the execution of the
MOU.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Region of Peel initiated a feasibility study with CVC, TRCA and the City of Mississauga in
mid -2011 to review the viability of utilizing fill excavated from various Public Works projects to
create a new waterfront connection in Mississauga between Marie Curtis Park in the east and
Lakefront Promenade in the west (herein referred to as the Lakeview Waterfront Connection
Study Area or Study Area).
Currently, the Study Area has isolated and degraded pockets of natural habitat with impaired
park linkages along the Lake Ontario waterfront. Past stone hooking activity and development
in the region have resulted in an 80% hardened shoreline and very little aquatic habitat. The
implementation of the Lakeview Waterfront Connection would transform the shoreline with the
creation of wetlands and natural greenspaces, in conjunction with the implementation of
nearshore features reminiscent of pre -development conditions. This would greatly improve
coastal, near -shore and terrestrial habitat in the Study Area.
Through extensive consultation with regulators, stakeholders and engaged members of the
public, a concept was developed to form the basis of the Feasibility Assessment for the
Lakeview Waterfront Connection (Attachment 1). This concept or vision includes trails and
public use areas that form important east -west and north -south connections. Beach activities,
passive recreation opportunities, and nature appreciation would all be highlights incorporated
into the design. Visitors could potentially swim, fish, canoe/kayak, bird watch, picnic or simply
enjoy the view of Lake Ontario from the Mississauga shoreline.
724
In addition, consultation during the Feasibility Assessment resulted in the development of three
broad objectives to help define whether such a concept was deemed "Feasible". These broad
objectives were to:
• Allow for the re-creation of coastal and terrestrial habitats;
• Improve public and ecological connectivity to and along the waterfront; and
• Allow for the sustainable reuse of generated fill
The purpose of the Feasibility Study was to define risks and to explore the costs and benefits of
the project in advance and to provide information for an environmental assessment to follow.
The Feasibility Study identified stakeholder requirements; specific planning and knowledge
gaps; baseline conditions; an idealized concept design; and implementation activities,
proposed schedules and cost estimates. The Feasibility Study considered site-specific
planning, and technical considerations, as well as surrounding local and regional initiatives to
maximize effectiveness.
The feasibility study has now been completed. The Feasibility Study concluded that such a
project would be beneficial by allowing the re-creation of coastal and terrestrial habitat, and
provide public waterfront access while connecting isolated parks along the waterfront. The
Feasibility Study also concluded that the proposal to reuse fill generated through various Public
Works projects to create a new waterfront park at the Lakeview site could result in cost savings
to the Region of Peel and City of Mississauga when compared with standard haulage and
tipping fees for dig and dump approaches. This conclusion was based on the assumption that
local landfill sites in the Milton and Brampton areas have reached capacity, and longer haulage
times to new landfill sites in the Barrie or Innisfil areas are required. The proposed Lakeview
Waterfront Connection Study Area would also result in substantially lower greenhouse gas
emissions (up to 10 times lower) and substantially lower miles of wear and tear on roadways
when compared to landfill sites outside of the Greater Toronto Area.
The Feasibility Study also identified a number of issues that contribute risk to the proposed
project which include, but may not be limited to the following:
• Construction phasing issues between the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project and
the proposed naturalization of Serson Creek in Inspiration Lakeview;
• The need to stockpile fill materials in advance of the EA approvals to maximize cost
savings to the Region and City;
• Unknown soil and groundwater quality of adjacent properties;
• Availability of certain key waterlots for the project;
• Long-term operations and maintenance costs for such a major park;
• Technical issues with proposing fill in the vicinity of major water and wastewater
infrastructure owned and operated by the Region;
• The potential impacts on water quality and circulation as it relates to the water filtration
plant intakes and the swimmability of beaches; and
• The availability of fill generated by the Region and City.
The Feasibility Study concluded that the Environmental Assessment will cost approximately
$2,500,000 (including costs for CVC, TRCA and the required consultant team) and that the
detailed design fees would cost approximately $1,000,000. Construction costs would range
between $35,000,000 and $41,000,000. These costs would likely be funded through tipping
fees, offset by cost savings from reduced trucking costs on capital projects.
725
Overall, the Feasibility Study determined that the risks are manageable and are typical of those
issues requiring consideration through the EA process. The Feasibility Study concluded that
the benefits of the proposed Project in terms of the potential habitat and public access
improvements, and the potential for sustainable reuse of locally generated fill outweigh the
identified risks.
Peel Region concurred with the findings of the Feasibility Study and on November 24, 2011, the
Council of Peel Region passed Res.#PW-E3, authorizing that a budget of $2.5 million
(excluding applicable taxes) be made available to undertake a coordinated Environmental
Assessment to evaluate the use of excavated fill from Capital Infrastructure Projects in the
Region of Peel to create an estimated 85 acres of waterfront parkland between Marie Curtis
Park and Lakefront Promenade in the City of Mississauga.
Peel Region will provide project and fiscal oversight and will be a proponent on the EA. The
City of Mississauga will provide a portfolio management role which includes a number of
activities underway that are directly and indirectly related to Inspiration Lakeview. The City will
also provide an oversight role regarding public messaging of all Inspiration Lakeview project
components. As the EA lead, CVC will act in a coordinating capacity for the public consultation
on the EA and also any related communications (e.g. media releases, etc); however, all
Lakeview Waterfront Connection EA communications initiatives will be fully coordinated through
the City. It is currently assumed that CVC will be a co -proponent on the EA with Peel Region.
TRCA will provide EA Project Management and Technical Services to CVC through the
auspices of a Memorandum of Understanding. TRCA will also retain and manage a
consultant team that is required to assist the EA team throughout the process.
As is required in all EAs, a full range of alternatives will be developed and evaluated through
detailed technical studies and extensive public consultation in order to determine a preferred
alternative. It is anticipated that the concept plan developed for the Feasibility Study will be
refined and expanded upon to create a broader range of concepts for consideration, which will
also be compared with the Do Nothing alternative. It is anticipated that a Community Liaison
Committee (CLC) will be formed in order to provide strategic public input and advice
throughout the EA process. Staff will seek Authority approval of the CLC's Terms of Reference
and proposed committee composition at either the January 27 or February 24, 2012 Authority
meetings.
Communications Plan
CVC and TRCA will continue to meet regularly with staff from the City of Mississauga and
Region of Peel, throughout the Environmental Assessment to ensure full coordination not only
with the Inspiration Lakeview initiative, but also other related initiatives (e.g. Lake Ontario
Integrated Shoreline Strategy; Natural Areas Systems Strategy, Waterfront Parks Strategy
Update; source water protection; Arsenal Lands Master Plan).
Further to the above, the City will provide an oversight role regarding public messaging of all
Inspiration Lakeview project components. As the EA lead, CVC will act in a coordinating
capacity for the public consultation on the EA and also any related communications (e.g. media
releases, etc); however, all Lakeview Waterfront Connection EA communications initiatives will
be fully coordinated through the City.
726
While specific dialogue with key agencies and landowners (e.g. Ontario Power Generation,
ministries of Natural Resources and Environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Mississaugas
of New Credit First Nation and Metis) has been undertaken as part of the Feasibility Study,
formal and comprehensive consultations with the broader public and other stakeholders will be
undertaken as part of the Environmental Assessment.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Region of Peel has authorized $2,500,000 be made available to undertake the coordinated
EA process. TRCA will work with CVC on a full cost recovery basis throughout the EA process.
Funds will flow through a series of 252 accounts to track TRCA staff and consultant costs for
the project.
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: November 14, 2011
Attachments: 1
727
Attachment 1
728
RES.#A275/11 - WETLAND RESTORATION ON TORONTO AND REGION
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY -OWNED LANDS
Guiding Principles. Wetland Restoration Guiding Principles for wetland
restoration projects on TRCA-owned lands including the Rouge Park.
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Ben Cachola
THAT the Wetland Restoration Guiding Principles be endorsed and used for wetland
implementation on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)-owned and
managed lands;
THAT the Wetland Restoration Guiding Principles be forwarded to the Rouge Park
Alliance for endorsement and implementation in Rouge Park;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA encourage the Rouge Park Alliance to continue its
renaturalization as outlined in the Rouge Park Heritage Plan.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #10/11, held on November 25, 2011, Resolution #A240/11 was approved
as follows:
THAT item AUTH8.2 - Wetland Restoration on Toronto an Region Conservation
Authority -Owned Lands be deferred to Authority Meeting #12/11, scheduled to be held
on January 27, 2012.
The deferral allowed staff to consult with the Friends of the Rouge Watershed (FRW) to discuss
the various attributes of the Wetland Restoration Guiding Principles and review their concerns
and questions. On December 6, 2011, Councillor De Baeremaeker hosted a meeting between
Rouge Park staff, TRCA staff and Friends of the Rouge Watershed to discuss the concerns and
issues with wetland restoration on TRCA lands. The meeting was productive and the included
three major results and direction.
• The TRCA wetland guiding principles for the most part remain unchanged and will be the
standard that NGO's will follow on TRCA lands. Again, the intent of these principles are not
prohibitive but are meant to ensure a common level of standards for all NGO's similar to
internal TRCA standards. FRW has agreed to respect these rules of engagement and the
conditions around working on and access to TRCA/Rouge Park properties.
• TRCA and Rouge Park agreed to work with FRW to delineate potential ecologically and
hydrologically correct wetland opportunities within the TRCA/Rouge Park properties TRCA
and Rouge Park will assist FRW with the detailed design and overall prescription for wetland
restoration. The intent is to detail and delineate a wetland restoration site that can be
independently managed on site by FRW, once final approval of detailed plans have been
approved. Staff has since meet with FRW and has conducted site visits to potential wetland
restoration projects. In addition, to assist in the development of detailed plans TRCA staff is
conducting topographic land surveys of these preliminary wetland restoration sites.
729
• TRCA and Rouge Park will share construction safety resources (TRCA safety policies and
construction site protocols) and provide training to NGO's to ensure TRCA's responsibilities
and liabilities under the Occupational Health and Safety Act are met. Staff has arranged for
a half day workshop for all NGO's to review and detail construction safety procedures and
protocols.
We also agreed that if there were any further issues that Councilor De Baeremaeker would
assist in conflict resolution.
TRCA is a leader in the TRCA jurisdiction in the field of wetland restoration and wetland design,
and is responsible for the construction and implementation of many wetland restoration
projects. Through TRCA's operational experience, staff has developed and follows a set of
wetland restoration principles that guide implementation. TRCA's wetland implementation
projects are always developed by ecological and hydrological site analysis, they conform to the
regulatory requirements of all relevant agencies and are implemented under the scrutiny of
workplace safety requirements. These principles are common to all wetland projects delivered
by staff on TRCA property. However, they have not been clearly articulated to non-government
agencies (NGO's) and other agencies and groups that may be interested in constructing
wetlands on TRCA lands. Endorsement of these principles will ensure that wetland restoration
projects conducted by NGO's on TRCA lands will conform to current standards and practices
employed by TRCA.
Within the TRCA jurisdiction, conservation based NGO's have implemented wetland creation
and restoration projects on TRCA-owned lands. Groups like the Ontario Federation of Anglers
and Hunters, Ducks Unlimited and Ontario Streams, as well as Rouge Park specific groups
such as The Friends of the Rouge Watershed and 10,000 Trees for the Rouge have constructed
or have expressed interest in implementing wetland projects. The guiding principles will be
applied to all NGO projects on TRCA land and will ensure wetland development follows current
and accepted practices of wetland restoration and is consistent with ecological principles and
science.
To assist wetland implementation in the Rouge Park, these guiding principles have been
refined in consultation with Rouge Park and TRCA staff, and were presented to the Rouge Park
Alliance Natural Heritage Committee. These principles support the direction outlined in the
Rouge Park Natural Heritage Committee documents: "Small Wetland Management and
Restoration in Rouge Park" and "Vernal Pool Restoration in Rouge Park". These guidelines
were passed by the Rouge Park Natural Heritage Committee at their June 9, 2009 meeting
where TRCA staff presented to the committee the need for proper wetland design, wetland
construction and outlined the responsibility the TRCA as landowners. The guidelines were once
again presented to the Rouge Park Natural Heritage Committee in November 2011.
The Rouge Park Alliance reviewed the guidelines and instructed their staff to consult with
NGOs, etc. for final preparation and re -submission to the Alliance for approval. Rouge Park
staff has circulated to Ontario Nature, Ministry of Natural Resources, Friends of the Rouge
Watershed, Toronto Zoo, Ontario Streams and 10,000 Trees for the Rouge Valley. NGO's have
predominantly expressed support for the guidelines and in a few cases, and have asked for
clarification of technical details related to implementation of some techniques. Staff is of the
opinion that these remaining issues would be resolved during site specific design.
730
The Wetland Restoration Guiding Principles provides a rationale for design decisions and
implementation of wetland projects on TRCA lands and in the Rouge Park. These principles
are not intended to provide detailed design guidelines or prescriptions for restoration of site
specific wetlands and all wetland projects must be consistent with landscape -level wetland
plans outlined in TRCA watershed restoration and Rouge Park plans. The wetlands referred to
in these principles include both permanent and temporary wetlands of all types, including
marshes, swamps and ephemeral wetlands.
The following guiding principles will ensure that wetland restoration projects on TRCA lands are
planned, designed, implemented and monitored scientifically, and with respect for community
values.
Guiding Principles:
Wetland Design
1) Wetland restoration projects will be constructed in locations consistent with those identified
in approved Watershed Restoration plans, Rouge Park plans, or other area -specific plans.
Site specific wetland projects that are not specifically referred to in plans but are consistent
with existing plans will be considered based on ecological merit and whether wetlands were
historically present on the proposed site.
2) Projects will focus on the restoration of previously existing wetlands and natural
hydrological patterns. Wetland restoration techniques should mimic, as closely as possible,
the natural processes of wetland formation that historically occurred on the landscape.
3) Creation of wetlands by excavation where there is no evidence that wetlands once existed
will be undertaken only in exceptional situations where there exists clear, specific wildlife
and ecological management reasons, as determined by TRCA staff, in collaboration with
Rouge Park Alliance and/or other agency staff where appropriate.
4) Conversion of one wetland type to another is to be avoided. For example, ephemeral
wetlands will not be converted to permanent wetlands. Exceptions might include
circumstances where restoration of natural hydrology (tile drain removal, etc.) allows more
permanent wetlands or where water is held on the land with very low -head dams along field
ditches or intermittent streams that mimic natural wetland creation processes. Exceptions
may also be made in cases where created wetlands are found not to be functioning as
intended and require adaptive management.
5) Location of wetlands, particularly small and ephemeral wetlands for which historical
locations may be difficult to determine, must be addressed within a larger, landscape -level
habitat context and have regard for restoring ecosystem integrity.
6) All wetland project proposals will include detailed designs including construction drawings,
planting plans, site plans, topographic surveys, etc. that account for regulatory
requirements, detail intended functions and consider the habitat needs of plants and
wildlife. Evaluation measures and a monitoring plan must be in place for all restored
wetlands to ensure that intended functions are being achieved.
731
7) All NGO's wetland projects require the review and approval of TRCA and other relevant
approval agencies, and will respect federal, provincial, municipal and TRCA regulations.
8) Hydrologic and soil assessments must be completed at each proposed wetland site to
ensure that basin soils are wetland appropriate and impermeable.
9) All restoration projects must ensure that no harm is done to existing natural systems, native
species, habitats and drainage patterns. in particular, no alteration of hydrology that
negatively affects existing swamps will be allowed, given that existing swamps are rare and
very sensitive to changes in hydrology. Wildlife shall not be moved between wetlands
except in the case of targeted reintroduction programs endorsed and permitted by all
relevant agencies.
10) All constructed improvements on TRCA lands, regardless of how they are funded, will be
owned by TRCA and their management will be the responsibility of the TRCA.
Construction Sites
1) All wetland management proposals that require use of heavy equipment for implementation
must provide detailed safety plan, construction logistics, site plans, including topographical
surveys approved by TRCA and all other required approval agencies.
2) All construction sites where heavy equipment is used must be supervised by an
experienced site supervisor approved by TRCA. (The Ontario Health and Safety legislation
requires employers, including those contracting for work, to ensure that `competent'
supervisors are appointed who are (in part) `qualified through knowledge, training and
experience').
3) All construction sites where heavy equipment is used will conform to the applicable TRCA
policies as well as any applicable federal, provincial and municipal regulations. This
includes having in place approved public, operator and employee safety practices, liability
and other insurance coverage appropriate for the work being done, WSIB certification and
such other legislative or regulatory requirements as may apply. It is the responsibility of the
project proponent / contractor to ensure compliance with all construction standards.
4) All people attending work sites will wear approved safety equipment and the site supervisor
shall be responsible for ensuring compliance.
RATIONALE
The Wetland Restoration Guiding Principles provide clear direction to groups that have a desire
to restore wetlands on TRCA lands. Wetland restoration can be an activity that has long lasting
impacts on TRCA property. These principles were developed to reduce risk and ensure
agencies conform to current and acceptable practices of wetland restoration. The principles
focus on the ecological and hydrological appropriateness of restoration projects, wetland
design standards and construction standards for implementation. These guidelines are not
prohibitive, they provide direction for NGO's to conform to a standard of wetland restoration
practices that are currently used by Restoration Services staff of the TRCA.
732
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Wetland Restoration Guiding Principles will be presented for endorsement to the Rouge
Park Alliance at the December 9, 2011 meeting. After TRCA and Rouge Park Alliance approval
our NGO project partners will be notified and the wetland restoration guiding principles be
applied to TRCA-owned and managed lands .
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: November 07, 2011
RES.#A276/11 - BOB HUNTER MEMORIAL PARK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
Award of Tender RSD11-119, Town of Markham. Award of contract to
supply and install two steel pedestrian bridges along the secondary trail
within Bob Hunter Memorial Park, as per the approved trails master plan.
Moved by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
THAT the contract for the supply and installation of two pedestrian bridges over the Little
Rouge Creek in Bob Hunter Memorial Park be awarded to Serve Construction Ltd. at a
cost not to exceed $493,540.00, plus HST, 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 officials be directed to take the action necessary to
implement the contract including obtaining any approvals and the signing and execution
of documents.
CARRIED
733
BACKGROUND
TRCA is working on behalf of the Region of York to implement the Bob Hunter Memorial Park
master plan, in accordance with the approved design and specifications outlined as part of the
York Region Southeast Collector project. The trail system is composed of a network of
multi -use, secondary and tertiary trails throughout the park, and include the need to cross the
Little Rouge Creek in two locations. The two pedestrian bridge crossings, both designed by
the Region of York's consultant Aecom, have been reviewed and approved by the TRCA
Planning and Development Division, Rouge Park and the Town of Markham. Since 2010,
TRCA staff has been installing the various trails as outlined in the approved construction
schedule, which by agreement is to be completed by the end of 2012. The installation of two
prefabricated Corten steel pedestrian bridges, the 42.25 metre North Bridge and the 31.70
metre Tanglewood Bridge, will connect and extend the existing path system in accordance with
the master plan.
RATIONALE
Request for Tenders were sent to the following nine contractors/suppliers, who were selected
based on their area of business expertise and past experience on TRCA projects:
• Dynex Construction Inc.;
• Hawkins Contracting Services;
• Hobden Construction Company Ltd.;
• McPherson -Andrews Contracting Ltd.;
• Rutherford Contracting Ltd.;
• Serve Construction Ltd.;
• Somerville Construction;
• Taylor Wakefield General Contractors Ltd.;
• The Ontario Construction Company Ltd.
The tender requested bids for the following work:
• removal of existing bridge and footings;
• installation of caisson pile footings, armour/gabion stone protection and associated
grading;
• supply, delivery and installation of two structural steel pedestrian foot bridges; and
• planting, restoration and trail connection.
Seven potential bidders attended the voluntary site inspection meeting held on January 4,
2012.
Six sealed tenders were received on or before bid closing at 12:00 pm on January 12, 2012.
Bids were opened at 9:00 am on January 13, 2012 by the Tender Opening Committee in
accordance with TRCA's procurement and tendering practices. The bid results are as follows:
734
COMPANY
BID
(plus HST)
Serve Construction
$493,540.00
Rutherford Contracting
$499,659.25
McPherson -Andrews Contracting Ltd
$577,136.00
Taylor Wakefield Contractors
$615,940.00
Dynex Construction
$617,394.00
Hawkins Contracting Services
$668,600.00
Hobden Construction Ltd
No Bid
Somerville Construction
No Bid
Ontario Construction Company
No Bid
TRCA staff evaluated all submissions based upon the following criteria:
• overall qualifications and relevant project experience;
• qualifications and experience of key project personnel;
• contractors understanding of the project requirements;
• strong commitment to meeting time lines and budget;
• references and reputation; and
• proposed costs.
Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to Serve Construction Ltd., it being the lowest
bid meeting TRCA specifications and requirements, and provided the best combination of value
and services.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
All expenditures that pertain to this contract will be assigned to the Bob Hunter Memorial Park
project budget account 111-78. These expenses are fully recoverable from the Region of York.
Report prepared by: Mark Lowe, extension 5388
Emails: mlowe@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Mark Lowe, extension 5388
Emails: mlowe@trca.on.ca
Date: January 13, 2012
RES.#A277/11 - SEATON HIKING TRAIL STAIRCASE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Contract CL11-01. Award of contract for the supply and construction of a
steel staircase.
Moved by: Gloria Lindsay Luby
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
735
THAT Contract CL11-01 for the supply and construction of a steel staircase be awarded to
Pine Valley Enterprises Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $238,840.00, plus HST, 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 as a contingency allowance, if deemed
necessary;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to
implement the contract including obtaining any approvals and the signing and execution
of documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Since June 2009, TRCA's Conservation Lands section has been completing trail improvements
along the Seaton Hiking Trail as part of the Seaton Hiking Trail and Natural Heritage
Improvement Project on behalf of Infrastructure Ontario (formerly known as Ontario Realty
Corporation).
The construction of a new steel staircase near the Forestream access point is a
recommendation listed under the Trail Improvement component of this project. The existing
timber stairs are not safe or easy to use, have experienced deterioration in a short period of
time because of poor construction, and are not a viable, long-term solution. A new staircase,
constructed on the same footprint as the existing stairs, will provide hikers a safer and easier
trip up and down the steep hillside. The new stair system will rise 76 feet (23 metres) in height,
and will consist of 120 stairs. The staircase's galvanized steel framework, railings and decking
will be supported on steel helical piles. Thirteen landings will provide ample resting points for
trail users while using the stairs. Six of the thirteen landings will have benches built-in to allow
users to sit and enjoy their natural surroundings. At the top of this steep climb, hikers are
rewarded with a thrilling vista overlooking the West Duff ins Creek and surrounding valleylands.
This staircase has the potential to become a key landmark of both the Seaton Hiking Trail and
the surrounding region.
It should be noted that the adjacent Seaton Community will begin to see residential
development in the very near future. With an influx of upwards of 70,000 people projected to
move into the community, the Seaton Hiking Trail will experience a significant increase in use.
To date, an extensive engineered design has been completed by Morrison Hershfield, and a
geotechnical survey of the proposed site has been completed by DBA Engineering Ltd.
RATIONALE
Contract CL11-01 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo on
December 8, 2011.
As a result of the advertisement, the following 13 companies attended the mandatory site visit
scheduled on December 13, 2011:
• CSL Group;
• Alpeza General Contracting Inc.;
• Silver Birch Contracting Ltd.;
736
• McPherson -Andrews Contracting Limited;
• Clearwater Structures Inc.;
• GMP Contracting;
• Tanenbaum Landscape and Design;
• Morosons Construction Ltd.;
• Pine Valley Enterprises Inc.;
• R -Chad General Contracting Inc.;
• Hawkins Contracting Services;
• Roof Tile Management;
• Rapid/GFI.
Eleven sealed tenders were received on or before closing at 4:OOpm on January 4, 2012.
The Tender Opening Committee opened qualified bids on January 6, 2012 with the following
results:
Contract CL11-01
Construction of Steel Staircase
BIDDERS
TOTAL
(Plus HST)
Pine Valley Enterprises Inc.
$238,840.00
R -Chad General Contracting Inc.
$306,800.00
Alpeza General Contracting Inc.
$334,300.00
Morosons Construction Ltd.
$346,115.00
Hawkins Contracting Services
$387,780.00
CSL Group
$420,820.00
McPherson -Andrews Contracting Limited
$425,582.00
Roof Tile Management
$438,000.00
Tanenbaum Landscape and Design
$465,048.75
GMP Contracting
$492,425.75
Silver Birch Contracting Ltd.
$496,800.00
Conservation Lands' staff reviewed the bids received and found that all submitted bids met all
requirements except for one submission. GMP Contracting did not include page 8 of the
tender package, but did include the required signature and seal of page 8 on page 1 of their
submitted bid package.
Staff reviewed the bid received from Pine Valley Enterprises Inc., completed reference checks
with regards to other projects they and their sub -contractors have completed, and has
determined that the bid is of reasonable value and meets the requirements as outlined in
Contract CL11-01.
Based on the bids received, staff recommends that Contract CL11-01 be awarded to Pine
Valley Enterprises Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $238,400.00, plus HST, it being the lowest
bid that meets TRCA staff cost estimates and specifications.
737
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds are available in account 109-54 from the Province of Ontario for the Seaton Improvement
Project, as well as account 109-06 from the Region of Durham for Durham watershed trails.
Report prepared by: Mark Burkholder, extension 5597
Emails: mburkholder@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Mark Burkholder, extension 5597
Emails: mburkholder@trca.on.ca
Date: December 15, 2011
RES.#A278/11 - SMART NET -ZERO ENERGY BUILDINGS RESEARCH NETWORK
Signing of Agreement to Participate in the Research Network
(Executive Res. #6218/11)
Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into the Smart Net -Zero
Energy Buildings Research Network Agreement (SNEBRN);
THAT the Agreement be on terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitor
as necessary;
THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the action necessary to implement the
Agreement including obtaining needed approvals and signing and execution of
documents;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Authority on an annual basis
on the progress of the research network.
CARRIED
SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
RES.#A279/11 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Glenn Mason
THAT Section II item EX8.1 - G. Ross Lord Dam Safety Review, contained in Executive
Committee Minutes #12/11, held on January 13, 2012, be received.
CARRIED
738
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES.#A280/11 - SUMMARY OF REQUESTS FOR QUOTATIONS AND REQUESTS FOR
PROPOSALS
July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Receipt of the 2011 end of year
summary of procurements approved by the Chief Administrative Officer
or his designate.
Moved by: Ben Cachola
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
THAT the summary of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) procurements
approved by the Chief Administrative Officer or his designate for the July 1, 2011 to
December 31, 2011 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:
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 summaries of Requests for Quotations and
Requests for Proposals from July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011, are found in Attachment 2.
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.
Attachment 1 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.
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 applicable taxes not recoverable by TRCA).
For the information of the members, staff undertook a review of purchases approved by the
Authority and Executive Committee in 2011 (including contingencies). The following is a
summary of purchases approved by the Authority and Executive Committee combined (Board)
and Chief Administrative Officer/designate in 2011. Attachment 2 is a summary of July to
December 2011 purchases rather than the full year as the details of the January to June 2011
purchases were received by the Authority in July.
739
Total 2011 Purchases of Minimum Value of $10,000
The total purchases for TRCA in 2011 of $10,000 or greater, approved by the Authority,
Executive Committee or Chief Administrative Officer/designate was approximately $21.6 million,
including contingencies, excluding HST, as indicated in the chart above.
Total purchases of less than $10,000 in value amounted to approximately $3.3 million.
Together these purchases make up approximately $24.9 million of TRCA's total expenditures
which fall under the provisions of TRCA's Purchasing Policy.
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 4, 2011
Attachments: 3
i
Board
(Plus HST)
CAO & Designates
(Plus HST)
Sole Source
$1,148,815
$877,814
Lowest Bid/Competitive
$13,833,649
$5,579,984
Not Lowest Bid
$0.
$136,444
TOTAL
$14,982,464
$6,594,242
GRAND TOTAL 2011
$21,576,706
The total purchases for TRCA in 2011 of $10,000 or greater, approved by the Authority,
Executive Committee or Chief Administrative Officer/designate was approximately $21.6 million,
including contingencies, excluding HST, as indicated in the chart above.
Total purchases of less than $10,000 in value amounted to approximately $3.3 million.
Together these purchases make up approximately $24.9 million of TRCA's total expenditures
which fall under the provisions of TRCA's Purchasing Policy.
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 4, 2011
Attachments: 3
i
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:
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'.
741
Attachment 2
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Lowest Bid (up to $100,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable
Requested/
Taxes
Complete Bids
Received
MARIE CURTIS PARK PROJECT
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 3,500
Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc.
45,500.00
5/4
Cubic Metres of Screened Topsoil
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,500
Franceschini Bros.
23,475.00
7/6
Tonnes of 19mm Limestone Crusher Run
Aggregates
Supply and Delivery of 600 Tonnes of Brick
Brock Aggregates Inc.
10,116.00
7/7
Sand
Paving Works
IPAC Paving Ltd.
53,495.00
+ 5,500.00 contingency
Supply and Delivery of 112 Tonnes of Brick
Brock Aggregates Inc.
1,888.32
Contract
Sand
Extension
Albion Hills, Indian Line & Glen Rouge
G4S
30,000.00
3/3
Campgrounds Security Services
2011-2012 Cleaning & Washroom Supplies for
Rally Distribution
45,000.00
4/4
Some TRCA Parks & Campgrounds
ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT
Three New Zero -Turn Mowers
1B.E. Larkin Equipment Limited
42,531.00
5/3
Confined Space & Fall Arrest Rescue
Canadian Safety Equipment
11,435.98
3/3
Equipment
BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE
Fertilizer Supply
Agrium Advanced
22,000.00
3/3
Technologies
KORTRIGHT CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION
Cable Conduit Supply & Installation
Parcor Construction Inc.
33,503.00
7/4
Contract Extension - Cable Conduit Supply &
Parcor Construction Inc.
25,500.00
Contract
Installation
Extension
Water Well and Hand Pump Installation for Two
Ontario Well Drilling Ltd.
17,270.00
5/2
34 Metre Wells
G. Ross Lord Dam Pedestrial Handrall & Gates
Roma Fence Limited
71,725.00
5/3
+ 10% contingency
Courtney Park Trail - Supply and Delivery of
Franceschini Bros.
22,680.00
14/5
Approximately 1,400 tonnes of 19mm Crusher
Aggregates
Run Limestone
Highland Creek at Burnview Crescent Project -
Pacific Paving Limited
7,360.00
7/3
Pathway Paving
+ 3,000 contingency
Humber Creek at Royal York Road/Valleyfield
Melrose Paving Company
10,329.50
7/3
Park Project - Pathway Paving
Limited
+ 3,000 contingency
742
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Lowest Bid (up to $100,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable Taxes
Requested/
Complete Bids
Received
Brookbanks Park - Pathway Paving
Pacific Paving Limited
8,950.00
7/3
2579 Concession 6, Uxbridge
Benedetto Plumbing Inc.
9,620.00
4/4
Exterior Scrape, Paint and Rotten Board
Replacement of Rental House
MEADOWCLIFFE DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Paving of the Construction Entrance Roadway
Melrose Paving Company
43,753.60
7/3
Limited
+ 3,000 contingency
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,000
Fowler Construction Company
29,550.00
10/2
Tonnes of 150mm-300mm Cobble Stone
Ltd.
+ 3,000 contingency
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,000
Glenn Windrem Trucking
49,000.00
10/1
Tonnes of 300mm-900mm Cobble Stone
+ 5,000 contingency
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 2,500
J.C. Rock
58,125.00
biddingo.com
Tonnes of 300mm-600mm Rip -rap Stone
+ 6,000 contingency
10/4
900M2 of HL8 Asphalt Paving of Construction
IPAC Paving Limited
17,100.00
3/3
Entrance Roadway
+5,000.00 contingency
TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
5,000 Units of Native Wildflowers & Grasses
Grow Wild
10,000.00
3/3
+ 10% contingency
Inspection and Testing Services, plus a 20%
Inspec-Sol Engineering
26,870.00
4/2
contingency
Solutions
+20% contingency
Embayment B Shoreline Enhancement - Supply
Glenn Windrem Trucking
24,875.00
& Delivery of 500 Tonnes of 800 to 1000mm
+10% contingency
Boulders
TORONTO LADIES GOLF CLUB SLOPE STABILIZATION
PROJECT
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 600
Lafarge North America Inc.
10,230.00
12/6
Tonnes of Granular A
+ 25% contingency
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 380
Lafarge North America Inc.
6,479.00
Contract
Tonnes of Granular A
Extension
Asphalt Paving Works & Installation of Concrete
Byron Contracting Limited
30,222.00
6/5
Curb
+5,000.00 contingency,
51 DEER VALLEY DRIVE EMERGENCY EROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE PROJECT
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 500
Nelson Aggregate Company
13,450.00
5/2
Tonnes of 150mm-300mm Gabion Stone
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,300
Glenn Windrem Trucking
60,450.00
5/1
Tonnes of 800mm-1000mm Boulders
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 3,000
James Dick Construction
53,100.00
5/2
Tonnes of Granular B
Limited
Garage Roof and Second Floor Window
B.W. Doucette Roofing and
20,289.18
5/3
Replacement for 1229 Bethesda Road (Swan
Restorations
Lake)
743
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Lowest Bid (up to $100,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable Taxes
Requested/
Complete Bids
Received
Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan
Keystone Interiors Inc.
$14,493.00
11 + BILD
- Renovation Project Manager/General
+ $5,000 contingency
Members / 2
Contractor for Green Home Makeover
WILKET CREEK PARK SITE 6/7 EMERGENCY WORKS PROJECT
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 500
Glen Windrem Trucking
22,400.00
10/3
Tonnes of 100mm-400mm Crushed Granite
Angular Stone
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 500
Glen Windrem Trucking
22,400.00
10/3
Tonnes of 400mm-1,OOOmm Crushed Granite
Angular Stone
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,800
Glen Windrem Trucking
80,640.00
10/3
Tonnes of 200mm-600mm Crushed Granite
Angular Stone
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,800
Glen Windrem Trucking
80,640.00
10/3
Tonnes of 600mm-1,300mm Crushed Granite
Angular Stone
Design of and Delivery of Supplies for Creek
ITT Water & Wastewater
31,998.80
4/4
Bypass System
+ 3,200.00 contingency
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 200
Glen Windrem Trucking
12,600.00
3/1
Tonnes of 3-5 Tonne Armourstone
+ 2,600.00 contingency
MIMICO WATERFRONT LINEAR PARK PROJECT
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 2,700
Nelson Aggregates
67,500.00
10/2
Tonnes of 300mm-600mm Rip -Rap Stone
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 240
J.C. Rock Limited
11,520.00
10/2
Tonnes of 3-5 Tonne Armour Stone
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 3,000
Nelson Aggregates
79,920.00
10/3
Tonnes of 225mm-450mm Rip -Rap Stone
+8,000 contingency
Bob Hunter Memorial Park - Contract Extension
Glenn Windrem Trucking
25,002.11
Contract
- Supply and Delivery of 19mm Crushed
Extension
Llimestone Aggregate for Approximately an
Additional 1,423 Tonnes
Sauriol Dinner AV & Event Service
Music 21
17,900.00
4/4
Requirements
Crothers Woods Sunvalley Trail - Contract
Nelson Aggregate
23,364.00
Contract
Extension for 19mm Crushed Limestone
Extension
Aggregate for Approximately an Additional
1,200 Tonnes
Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project
Glenn Windrem Trucking
20,985.02
Contract
(Phase 2) - Contract Extension for Supply and
Extension
Delivery of Approximately 479.11 Tonnes of 4 to
6 Tonne Armour Stone
Carnovale Property Livestock Exclusion
System Fencing Stalls &
10,789.90
3/3
Fencing
Equipment
+1,054.00 contingency
744
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Lowest Bid (up to $100,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable Taxes
Requested/
Complete Bids
Received
Milkman's Lane Trail Improvement Project
Landscape by Leedle
72,678.95
8/3
+10% contingency
Rouge Park - Septic System Replacement at
Smith Excavating, Grading &
20,500.00
4/1
7914 14th Avenue, Markham
Septic Services
Rental of Tub Grinder & Operator
Clear Green Forestry Products
12,850.00
2/2
Inc.
+1,300.00 contingency
East Point Park Trail Improvement Project -
Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc.
16,000.00
3/3
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 800
+1,600 contingency
Cubic Yards of Woodchip Material
Surveying Lands to be Acquired - Hi -Lands of
David Horwood Ltd.
7,890.00
Contract
Bolton Corporation
Extension
RENTAL PROPERTIES
Roof Replacement at 8136 Finch Avenue
Tony K. Aluminum
9,350.00
6/4
Roof & Eaves Replacement at 7864 14th
B.W. Doucette
9,070.00
4/3
Avenue
Exterior Painting & Replacement of Rotten
Frontier Group of Companies
13,000.00
5/3
Boards at 8327 Steeles Avenue
Inc.
TRCA Residential Rental Properties Chimney
MacKlam's Chimney Cleaning
16,630.00
4/2
Inspection & Cleaning
Exterior Painting & Replacement of Rotten
Frontier Group of Companies
11,000.00
5/3
Boards at 2661 Sideroad 16
Exterior Painting & Porch Repairs at 2899 6th
Nova Decor Construction Ltd.
15,300.00
5/3
Concession
Heating Service Contract for Rouge Park &
Therwood Heating & Cooling
19,845.00
9/2
TRCA Residential Rental Properties
Property Line Fencing Installation/Repair - 9
Peel Fence Systems Inc.
55,000.00
4/3
Properties in Peel Region
Boundary Fencing Upgrades in the East Duffins
Shiner's Fencing &
20,000.00
3/3
Headwaters
Construction LTD
The Living City Farm at Kortright and the Albion
Declote Greenhouse
33,655.37
3/3
Hills Community Farm Greenhouses
Manufacturing Limited
Head Office Washroom Upgrades
Brent Henderson Contracting
18,850.00
4/4
Office Equipment - Toners & Computer Storage
QRX Technology Group
13,000.00
5/5
Mediums
LAKEHURST REVETMENT MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROJECT
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 700
Glenn Windrem Trucking
32,900.00
10/2
Tonnes of 4-6 Tonne Armour Stone
+10% contingency
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 500
Glenn Windrem Trucking
14,450.00
10/4
Tonees of 300 mm - 600 mm Rip Rap
+10% contingency,
745
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Lowest Bid (up to $100,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable Taxes
Requested/
Complete Bids
Received
Snow Removal Services for BCPV and Head
Beaver Window & Awning
12,200.00
3/3
Office
Cleaners Inc.
+10% contingency
Yonge-York Mills (Reach 1) Channel Repair
Fowler Construction Company
11,515.00
10/3
Project - Supply and Delivery of 350 Tonnes of
Limited
+25% contingency
250mm-600mm Boulders
12707 11th Concession Demolition Project -
Ferro Canada Incorporated
14,910.00
5/3
Asbestos Abatement and Removal
+ 2,000.00 contingency
West Etobicoke Creek South of Britannia Road
Strada Aggregates Inc.
19,500.00
4/4
East Project - Supply and Delivery of 650
+1,950.00 contingency
Tonnes of 150-350mm Rip Rap Stone
MUD CREEK REACH 1 EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,400
J.C. Rock Limited
65,800.00
10/3
Tonnes of 2-4 Tonne Stackable Armour Stone
+6,580.00 contingency
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 520
Glenn Windrem Trucking
27,040.00
10/1
Tonnes of 700mm-900mm Boulders
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 400
Fowler Construction Company
12,080.00
10/2
Tonnes of 150mm-300mm Roundstone
Limited
PORTICO DRIVE MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROJECT
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 825
Glenn Windrem Trucking
22,275.00
10/3
Tonnes of 150mm-300mm Gabion Stone
+2,227.50 contingency
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 1,700
Glenn Windrem Trucking
77,775.00
10/2
Tonnes of Stackable 2-4 Tonne Armour Stone
+7,777.50 contingency
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 980
Fowler Construction Company
31,850.00
10/2
Tonnes of 300mm-600mm Boulders
Limited
+3,185.00 contingency
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 540
Fowler Construction Company
16,470.00
10/2
Tonnes of 150mm-300mm Boulders
Limited
+1,647.00 contingency
Supply and Delivery of Approximately 950
Glenn Windrem Trucking
25,650.00
10/3
Tonnes of 100mm-200mm Gabion Stone
+2,565.00 contingency,
TOTAL
2,340,938.88
746
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL
Competitive Bid (up to $100,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable
Requested/
Taxes
Complete Bids
Received
Green Home Makeover Filming and Video
Chalkboard Media
10,000.00
6/6
Production for the County Court SNAP
Safety Review of Albion Hills Dam
OEL-Hydrosys Inc.
46,644.00
3/3
Toronto and Region RAP Technical Review and
Cumming + Company
21,500.00
7/4
Update Public Consultation Facilitator
Robinson Creek/Rouge Watershed Aquatic
Parish Geomorphic
27,350.00
4/4
Restoration Project Consulting Services
Black Creek Pioneer Village Market Research
Foundations Research Inc.
20,000.00
26/6
Complete Detailed Design for Bank Stabilization
Greck and Associates Ltd.
9,685.00
4/4
and Bed Control Works Along Section of East
+ 1,950.00 contingency
Don River South of Finch Avenue East, City of
Toronto at a cost not to exceed $
Redway Road Trailhead Improvements
Landscaping by Leedle Ltd.
11,800.00
3/2
Duncan Woods Creek Slope Stability
Terraprobe Limited
11,470.00
4/3
Assessment
+ 1,150.00 contingency
Guildwood Parkway Slope Stability Review
Sarafinchin Associates Ltd.
20,311.20
4/3
+2,050.00 contigency
East Humber River at Langstaff Road
Geomorphic Solutions Ltd.
5,187.50
Contract
Emergency Works - Detailed Design of
Extension
Emergency Works
Slope Stability and Erosion Risk Assessment -
Terraproble Limited
16,200.00
4/2
Chorley Park Switchback Trail
+ 1,500.00 contingency
Point of Sale and Membership Management
AM/PM Service Ltd.
63,325.00
biddingo/5
Software
+5,376.50 contingency
Highland Watershed Neighbourhood Greening
The Planning Partnership
35,300.00
4/2
Concept Site Plan Project Consulting Services
+15% contingency
Etobicoke Creek Hydrology Update Consulting
MMM Group Limited
46,137.50
4/4
Services
+15% contingency
Humber River Wetland Complex Geotechnical
Coffey Geotechnics
11,180.00
5/4
Assessment and Report for Restoration
New Design and Construction Standards for
SRM Associates
28,070.00
4/1
Trail Bridges
TOTAL
408,402.33
747
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Lowest Bid Not Accepted (up to $25,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Number of
($)
Quotations
Plus Applicable
Requested/
Taxes
Complete Bids
Received
Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) Marketing
Warrens Waterless Printing
14,864.00
3/3
Materials Printing
Rouge Park Observation Deck Construction
Ontario Fency and Deck
35,932.00
7/3
Limited
Roof Replacement at 6461 Steeles Avenue
Meridian Construction Inc.
15,680.00
6/4
Monarch Teacher Network of Canada - English
Renaud Enterprise Inc.
24,163.65
15/7
to French Translation Services for Participant
Resources
TOTAL
90,639.65
•
REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
Sole Source (up to $50,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Sole Source
($)
Criteria
Plus Applicable
(Section 1.14
Taxes
of TRCA's
Purchasing
Policy)
Monitoring of 3 Evaporation Stations and
York University
17,699.12
5 & 6
Development of Associated Database
Monarch Teachers Network of Canada
Nature Conservancy of
13,386.00
5
Workshop Facilitation
Canada
Bruce's Mill Conservation Area Entrance Road
SNC Lavalin
23,780.00
5
Design
Troutbrooke Slope Stabilization Project
Terraprobe Limited
49,000.00
5
Construction Inspections & Monitoring
Post and Paddle Fencing Supply
Lanark Cedar
30,000.00
5
Petticoat Creek Conservation Area
Sturdy Power Lines Ltd.
13,000.00
4
2011 High Voltage Repair
BOB HUNTER MEMORIAL PARK
Hydro Service Line Relocation
PowerStream Inc.
35,000.00
5
+10% contingency
Hardened Paving Topcoat Test Section
Miller Paving Ltd.
15,000.00
5
+10% contingency
MEADOWCLIFFE DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Five Month Rental of Grizzly Screen
J.C. Rock Limited
17,500.00
1
Tour de Greenbelt Event Planning Services
Common Sense Events
20,000.00
5
Financial Information Systems Business Needs
Unit4 Business Software
30,000.00
5
Analysis
TRCA Website Map Search Software Module
Three Wise Men Inc.
40,000.00
3
Purchase of Timber Mat
Sturgeon Falls Brush Group
14,600.00
5
+10% contingency
TRAFx Trail Counters
TRAFx Research Ltd.
26,639.00
5
Aquatic Plans Propogation Materials
Acorus Restoration
46,930.00
3
Paper Purchases
Spicers
15,000.00
3
Hard Disk Based Back-up Solution
Amsdell Inc.
14,407.00
1 & 5
Emergency Water Line Repair Between Wild
Clearway Construction Inc.
34,944.20
4
Water Kingdom and Indian Line Campground
TOTAL
1 463,345.32
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL
Sole Source (up to $50,000)
Project/Product
Awarded Bidder
Cost Not to Exceed
Sole Source
($)
Criteria
Plus Applicable Taxes
Climate Consortium for Research and
EcoNexus
20,000.00
5
Integration Research Partnership Strategic
Support
Canada Goose Management Program
Thur & Sons Limited
12,050.00
5
Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project -
Shoreplan Engineering
32,300.00
5
Professional Engineering Services
Limited
+ 10% contingency
Yonge-York Mills Channel (Reach 3)
Andrews Infrastructure
22,600.00
5
Maintenance Project - Professional Engineering
+ 15% contingency
Services
TOTAL
93,570.00
750
RES.#A281/11 - IN THE NEWS
Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities and
news stories from November and December, 2011.
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THAT the summary of media coverage and Good News Stories from November and
December, 2011 be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
As per Authority direction during 2006, a consolidated report covering highlights of Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities and news coverage for the preceding few
months is provided to the Authority every few months. The stories for November and
December, 2011 areas follows:
Healthy Rivers and Shorelines
Water News - All three Assessment Report updates/amendments for the CTC Source
Protection Region were approved by the Ministry of the Environment.
• Etobicoke Guardian story "Humber Path honours First Nation's History" on
November 3rd was about the partnership between TRCA, City of Toronto and La
Societe d'histoire de Toronto to tell the important story of the Humber River.
Restoration - TRCA's role in the development of the Toronto Port Lands was included in
media stories about Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation's public
consultation meeting in December.
Education and Stewardship - Humber watershed staff was invited by the provincially -based
Social Housing Services Corporation to join their study tour of urban agricultural
enterprises in Cuba. TRCA will use lessons learned in local applications.
Celebrations and Events - Water Canada Magazine published information about the
December 5th Lake Ontario Evenings - Fish in the City event online.
Facilities and Infrastructure - Crossing The Humber - Humber River Heritage Bridge
Inventory was endorsed by all municipal advisory committees in the Humber
watershed.
Creek Restoration - TRCA received Class Environmental assessment approvals for the West
Etobicoke Creek South of Britannia Road East Erosion Control Project, located near
the Toronto International Airport, in the City of Mississauga. TRCA plans to begin
construction on December 14, 2011.
Human Interest - A partnership was formed on programming for Art and the Environment for
the Humber River with the McMichael Art Gallery.
Regional Biodiversity
Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants and Wildlife
• Least bittern, a marsh dependent bird, was found in the Reesor Road Wetland, a
newly restored wetland in Rouge Park.
• The birding world was all atwitter over a Smew in Whitby Harbour on December
26th. The bird has only been seen twice in Ontario.
751
Research and Innovation - The Infrastructure Hazard Monitoring Program report was
recently completed for York Region (Environmental Services). The program is
based on existing detailed monitoring and inspection systems currently in use at
TRCA, adapted to specifically address York Region's objectives. In addition, York
Region staff has access to TRCA's web -based database so that they can 1) review
our inspection data, and 2) complete follow-up inspections of high priority sites with
their own forces to assist them with capital budget planning for remedial works.
Monitoring is to continue in 2012, and they would like TRCA to manage the design
and implementation of repairs for at least two sites. The report also identified several
other potential large-scale partnership projects, and it demonstrates a clear
alignment of priorities and commitment to working collaboratively on stream
restoration and asset management. The work details will be submitted as a paper
cooperatively with York Region for the September 2012 Water Environment
Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) in New Orleans.
Facilities and Infrastructure
• Richmond Hill Council endorsed the Oak Ridges Corridor Park East lands
Management Plan and approved $420,000 in funding to the East lands trail
implementation work, starting in 2013.
• Town of Richmond Hill approved $600,000 budget for pedestrian trails, signs,
seating stones and observation platforms to be constructed in 2012 at the Oak
Ridges Corridor Park.
• Toronto Star coverage on speed bumps at Tommy Thompson Park on December 13
investigated concerns from cyclists and talked about why the speed bumps are
needed to protect wildlife at the Park. The article says "TRCA got it right" when
writing about the new speed bumps.
• The Scarborough Mirror published a story - "City's Partnership with college on Guild
Inn over". The story mentions that proposals for development at the Guild Inn will
need to go through TRCA who owns the park.
Education and Stewardship - Humber's first Lower Humber Watch Group was formed with
locally concerned Toronto residents for turtle and snake habitat protection in the
Lower Humber.
Celebrations and Events - November 26th Digital Journal story - "Toronto Zoo celebrates its
5th Adopt -A -Pond appreciation day", mentions TRCA as a participating partner in
this event.
Lake Ontario Waterfront - Peel Region received the Lakeview Waterfront Connection
Feasibility Study which was undertaken by Credit Valley Conservation and TRCA.
Peel Region directed CVC and TRCA to proceed with an Individual Environmental
Assessment for the project.
Sustainable Communities
Research and Innovation - Black Creek Historic Brewery made a 70 -litre batch of brown ale
from barley and hops grown on-site. Dubbed the 1 km beer", the barley was also
malted and roasted on-site without the use of electricity. The November 1 st edition
of the Toronto Star had a full page article about the 1 km beer and the fact that Black
Creek was the only brewery in North America to accomplish this.
752
• TRCA granted $614,500 through the Ministry of the Environment's 'Showcasing
Water Innovation' program to accelerate the transformation of water markets in
Greater Toronto Area residential and industrial/commercial/institutional (ICI)
communities towards widespread implementation of more sustainable technologies
and practices. Critical barriers to market transformation will be addressed through
sustainable technology demonstrations, effectiveness evaluations and knowledge
transfer programming delivered at a centrally located urban sustainability showcase
venue and real world demonstration sites in residential and ICI communities. These
demonstrations will involve leading edge stormwater, rainwater harvesting and water
conserving technologies and practices along with innovative partnership models
and delivery strategies for implementation. Effectiveness monitoring and
evaluations, both technical and financial, will be completed for each demonstration
to provide the critical information needed by potential buyers when considering
investment.
• On December 2, TRCA officially launched the Photovoltaic Verification Program at
Kortright. It is the first program in Canada to measure Ontario made module energy
yield performance. The story was picked up with InvestinYork.ca, Electrical Iine.com,
Municipal infonet.com, Solar Thermal Magazine, feedthegrid.com, MRO Magazine
and Online News Today.
Education and Stewardship
• The Climate Consortium for Research Action and Integration (CC -RAI), a TRCA, York
University partnership, hosted Roger Street, the Technical Director of the UK Climate
Impact Program. CC -RAI hosted the event which brought together partners from the
private and public sector including members of the WeatherWise Partnership hosted
by the City of Toronto's Environment Office and Civic Action.
• CC -RAI hosted a graduate student climate research symposium with students from
across the provinces, from York University, the University of Toronto, the University
of Waterloo, and Brock University, among others.
• SNAP article on how to integrate infrastructure renewal with community needs was
featured in this winter's issue of Environmental Science & Engineering Magazine.
• On December 8th, TRCA issued an announcement regarding the Town Hall
Challenge Report. The Town Hall Challenge demonstrates leadership through better
building performance and highlights Ontario's top 15 most energy efficient city and
town halls. The media announcement was picked up by Municipal Information
Network News, Yahoo!, Canadian Property Magazine, Digital Journal, Pickering
News Advertiser, The Daily Gleaner and Novae Res Urbis. Pending stories are
expected in Building Magazine and Municipal World.
Facilities and Infrastructure
• Thirteen EcoCentres across Ontario were certified in a TRCA led partnership
certification program tailored to education centres. All five TRCA education centres
were certified.
• In November, Our Greener York, a Rogers Cable TV program, did a segment about
The Living City Farm at Kortright.
Human Interest - Goldhawk Live's November 12th show on CPAC, discussed near urban
agriculture. A TRCA spokesperson did a phone-in interview during the panel
discussion to talk about some of TRCA's work in this area.
753
Business Excellence
Facilities and Infrastructure
• The W. Garfield Weston Foundation granted $220,000 to upgrade the entrance
feature at the Weston Family Quarry Garden at Evergreen Brick Works. This
contribution is being matched by Toronto Parks.
• At Black Creek Pioneer Village, by dint of hard work, Curatorial staff opened the
Laskay Emporium to the public for the Christmas season. The interior of the general
store has been returned to its 19th century appearance and delighted visitors during
the Christmas season.
Celebrations and Events
• The 18th Annual Charles Sauriol Environmental Dinner with keynote speaker chef
Michael Smith was the tremendous success. The 650 attendees helped us net
about $150,000. The dinner received coverage in Exchange Morning Post, Snap
Brampton, EdibleCity.ca, Brampton Guardian, TheGreenPages. ca,
Chef MichaelSmith.com, BlogTO, RacetoReduce.com and Local Magazine.
• Christmas at Black Creek Pioneer Village was publicized via 130 different online
event calendars with various websites.
Financial Capacity
• The W. Garfield Weston Foundation approved the roll out of TRCA's Weston Family
Environmental Leaders for Tomorrow Program across Ontario. Funding is to
support educational opportunities for 4,500 students in 12 Ontario cities over three
years.
• The filming business has been brisk at Black Creek Pioneer Village this year.
Revenues from filming historical pieces, science fiction and drama have just topped
$100,000. Interest is already being shown for filming ventures next year.
• Some generous contributions from board members brought The Living City
Foundation's year to a rousing close.
• Vaughan Citizen story - "Kortright Centre Faces Closure" on December 2nd,
highlights a discussion at York Region Finance Committee about how a commitment
of funds is needed from York Region for Kortright Centre's Visitor Centre. York
Region recently agreed to provide additional funding for retrofit projects.
Human Interest - TRCA continues to spread the word about its initiatives. More than 65
news announcements regarding TRCA work were distributed to media in 2011
resulting in 288 media hits (major print or TV coverage only). Black Creek Pioneer
Village events were publicized at many online event sites throughout 2011 and
received major coverage in the Toronto Star, CityTV, Global News. In all BCPV had
more than 330 media hits (includes print and online coverage, TV, and online event
listings).
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: January 20, 2011
754
RES.#A282/11 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THAT Section IV items AUTH8.3.1 and AUTH8.3.2 in regard to Watershed Committee
Minutes, be received.
Section IV Items AUTH8.3.1 and AUTH8.3.2 CARRIED
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #11/11, held on December 8, 2011
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #4/11, held on December 6, 2011
RES.#A283/11 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti
THAT Section IV item EX9.1 - Participating Municipality Funding, contained in Executive
Committee Minutes #12/11, held on January 13, 2012, be received.
CARRIED
RES.#A284/11 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: Chris Fonseca
THAT Section IV item EX9.2 - Toronto Zoo, contained in Executive Committee Minutes
#12/11, held on January 13, 2012, be received.
CARRIED
RES.#A285/11 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
Moved by: Linda Pabst
Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THAT Section IV items EX9.3 and EX9.4, contained in Executive Committee Minutes
#12/11, held on January 13, 2012, be received.
CARRIED
755
Section IV Items EX9.3 & EX9.4
HAZARD TREES
(Executive Res. #6222/11)
LOWEST BID NOT ACCEPTED
(Executive Res. #6223/11)
ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
RES.#A286/11 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.1 - EX10.53, inclusive, contained in Executive
Committee Minutes #12/11, held on January 13, 2012, be received.
CARRIED
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:38 a.m., on Friday, January 27, 2012.
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Chair
/ks
756
Brian Denney
Secretary -Treasurer